Althouse and Moore; Jews and Polanski and bankers
I noticed an interesting and controversial discussion at Ann Althouse’s blog in response to a post involving the abominable Michael Moore’s latest movie, the anti-capitalism screed about which Ann writes:
in attacking the banking system, Moore presented quite a parade of Jewish names and faces. He never says the word “Jewish,” but I think the anti-Semitic theme is there. We receive long lectures about how capitalism is inconsistent with Christianity, followed a heavy-handed array of ”” it’s up to you to see that they are ”” Jewish villains.
Am I wrong to see Moore as an anti-Semite? I don’t know, but the movie worked as anti-Semitic propaganda. I had to struggle to fight off the idea the movie seemed to want to plant in my head.
In response, a commenter named “Florida” wrote the following [I’ve corrected spelling errors in the quote to make for ease of reading]:
“Am I wrong to see Moore as an anti-Semite?”
Is mere criticism of Jews anti-Semitic?
Let me ask the question this way: Is your criticism of Barack Obama racist?
Just a few days ago, a parade of Jews came out in force behind the proposition that the rapist of a 13-year-old girl should be let free. Led by Harvey Weinstein, hundreds of Jews signed a petition demanding that Polanski be set free.
Some of these Jews argued that the rape wasn’t really rape because it wasn’t “rape rape” whatever the fuck that meant. [sic: Whoopi Goldberg might have a Jewish last name, but she sure isn’t Jewish]
I noticed a lot of Goldbergs, Applebaums, Cohens and Weinsteins leading the parade of support for Roman Polanski. Lots of Jews … certainly not all of his supporters are Jews, but they are certainly prominent. Should they not be named?
Should we not take note that they are Jews?
Deserved criticism, or anti-Semitism?…
But I will say this, Ann: Criticizing Jews is not anti-Semitic any more than you criticizing black people is racist.
You can’t have it both ways, Ann.
It is apparent that criticizing a Jewish person or criticizing a black person is not anti-Semitic or racist on the face of it, unless of course the criticism is couched in racist terms. But criticizing Jews as a group or black people as a group is a bit more suspect, although certainly not automatically evidence of any bias. But it can be, depending on what form the criticism takes and whether it is based on valid points.
For example—although I’ve not read the entire petition in Polanski’s defense—let’s say for the sake of argument that “Florida” is indeed correct, and that a lot of Jewish names are featured on it. But remember that Jews are way overrepresented in many professions, and one of them happens to be acting and production in Hollywood. Since it is logical to imagine that Polanki’s most vehement defenders would be drawn mostly from those professions, the real question would be: are there more Jews on the petition than their percentage in the fields in question?
I haven’t a clue what the answer is, but that would be the only relevant statistic. And if the answer is “no,” then pointing out that there are a lot of Jews there without questioning whether they are overrepresented or even perhaps underrepresented could (and probably would) be racism, either intended or merely apparent.
The same is true of the original impetus for Althouse’s post about Moore and those nasty capitalists: is Moore singling out Jews for more than their fair share of criticism in light of their actual percentage of representation in his dread enemy capitalism, or not?
Jews happen to be prominent far beyond their actual numbers in the world (which are miniscule) in a number of ways. For example, there are more Jews in medicine than should be the case if you look at their percentage of the population—way more. This observation would only be seen as possibly anti-Semitic if it were part of a screed against medicine itself; otherwise it’s either neutral or even laudatory, depending on what you think of the medical profession. Likewise, if a person noticed that there were a great number of Jews on a list of doctors convicted of malpractice (surely a negative thing), it would mean nothing unless the percentage of Jews on that list was significantly greater than their representation in the profession as a whole.
What is true of Jews is true of any group that is overrepresented in any endeavor compared to their percentage in the general population. For example, let’s take the issue of using steroids in a sport such as baseball. There might be a great many blacks accused or convicted of doing this (I don’t know whether there are, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that there are). But in order to know whether blacks are more likely to use steroids, you’d have to know what the percentage of blacks in the field was, because there could appear to be a great many blacks on the list of those abusing the drugs and yet black people could actually be underrepresented in comparison to their rather large presence in the sport.
Likewise, most (actually, all) of the Catholic priests who abused children were Catholic. That may seem like an obvious and even absurd statement to make—of course they were. And the Catholic Church was derelict in its duty to protect the victimized children as it bent over backwards for many years to protect the priests at their expense. But if a person were to use this example to say something special about Catholicism vs. other religions, or Catholic priests vs. other clergy in terms of abuse, the correct statistic to note would be the percentage of Catholic priests abusing children vs. the total number of Catholic priests, to compare this to the same statistic for clergy of other denominations, and then to compare and contrast how those religions dealt with the problem during the same era.
Years ago, I saw a similar discussion, to which was added the observation that Jews, given their peculiar history, ought to be MORE sensitive to whatever it was, which I have forgotten. Thus, their disproportionate representation was cause for question.
IOW, participation in exact proportion to their representation in the population would be questionable.
It’s sort of like asking where the feminists are regarding Clinton’s harassment of Broaderick, or with regard to Katie Rouse and her rape, or the Polanski affair.
Proportional showing up is cause for question. They ALL should be up in arms. That they’re not….
Richard Aubrey: Feminists are people from a varitey of ethnic and religious backgrounds, united by their espousal of a certain philosophy, and their actions and causes should be congruent with it.
Jews, on the other hand, are people like any others, and their religion contains very similar guides for morality that other religions espouse. Jews should not be held to a higher standard than others, and if they are, that is a kind of bigotry in and of itself.
As for the persecution Jews have suffered, this is neither an excuse for bad behavior (as similar histories have sometimes has been used by other groups to explain their rage and/or their failures) nor a reason to hold Jews to better behavior. That also would itself be another form of hidden bigotry, much different than the case with feminists.
As for the idea of Jews as a “chosen people”—this refers to the Jewish belief that God chose the Jews to deliver the message of monotheism to the world. In addition, religious Jews believe they need to follow more rules for that reason than other people do—but this is a religious choice and belief of those particular Jews, not a higher standard to which the world should hold all Jews.
In addition, I didn’t write about the following in my post, because I thought it was too tangential—but I deeply suspect that many and even perhaps most of the Jews in question signing the petition or featured in Moore’s movie are not observant Jews, and if they are it is a very mild form of observance. Secular Jews are still regarded by the world as Jews, even if they are Jews only ethnically—but why would they be expected to adhere to some higher level of morality?
You are generally spot on. The proportion is the important item. If Moore is over-representing the Jews among those he accuses, then there is bias there. Florida almost has a point but misses that crucial element. It is Hollywood which disproportionately supports Polanski, not Jews. Those Hollywood folks happen to be Jewish, but that is incidental in this case. (There might be some topics where it is germane, such as portrayal of other groups.) We do not, for example, see petitions by rabbis or Jewish groups to let Polanski off – situations where they were commenting as Jews, rather than as movie people.
Racism can be subtly done, as is possibly the case with Moore. The data is suggestive, calling for more attention, but not definitive.
neo.
I agree, for the most part, until the characters in question begin using their identity as some sort of qualification for something.
The discussion I mentioned did include assertions that presumng Jews should think a certain way due to their history might be bigoted.
By the way, for Jews to remember the history of the Jews as a people is not the same as being observant or not. My guess is the observant and the secular suffered more or less equally.
Shrinkwrap has started a series of posts on George Gilder’s new book, The Israel Test.
Gilder and Shrink point out that Jews are way, way over-represented when it comes to contributions to science and culture, and all humanity benefits.
It’s true.
Make that ShrinkWrapped not Shrinkwrap.
Richard Aubrey: secular and observant Jews suffered more or less equally. But they did not draw the same conclusions from their suffering, nor did they deal with it the same way.
Neo is right in her observation that most of the Jewish signatories are secular. This is no trivial point. The higher standard expected of Jews worldwide (and the “Jew among the nations”, the state of Israel) stems from the secularization of the Jewish message.
Are Jews to have an exemplary role among the human nations? The religious view, surprisingly to many now, says no. Jewish behavior should be exemplary toward one another – they are to behave to one another in a way far above how members of any another nation behave to one another. As for Jewish interactions with their non-Jewish neighbors, the religious view is that it should be kept to a minimum. Isolationism, in other words. That sounds counterintuitive, especially today with the message of “Citizens Of The World” seeping into all venues of discourse; but HaShem is wiser than us humans, and He has decreed that an exemplary role could be played only within the bounds of a single nation. That is because the human inclination toward evil (which He designed in us; see Genesis 8:21), hard enough to overcome anyways, is simply unmanageable beyond the level of the single nation.
I know of the many Jews who featured prominently in the Russian Revolution. I do not delude myself that there would be fewer anti-Semites if those Jews had never participated in the Bolshevik scheme, for Jews have been just as readily blamed for capitalism as for communism, but it saddens me on the more internal level, because the Jewish ideal isn’t about Jews spreading any sort of “gospel”, but instead consists in doing HaShem’s will, which includes exemplary behavior toward one another and an isolationist attitude toward other nations.
Jews for the Russian Revolution, Jews for Polanski, Jews for “Justice” for “Palestine”, all sides of the same coin, the obliviousness of far too many Jews to the real ideals and goals of Judaism. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” etc. (Hosea 4:6)
Kosher Warrior said : ” because the Jewish ideal isn’t about Jews spreading any sort of “gospel”,…”
I wonder who the Jewish Prophet Isaiah was talking about when he said : “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” ? (Isaiah 42: 6-7)(NIV translation)
Is he speaking of the “servant…the chosen one…who will bring justice to the nations” of verse 1 of that same chapter or to the whole Jewish people?
jon baker,
There are two answers:
1) Isaiah (remember, the words of the prophets are reportings of what HaShem said to them). Isaiah’s message that humanity can gain peace by serving HaShem is what makes him (Isaiah) the light unto the nations.
2) The Jewish nation, not by being active missionaries to the other nations in any way, but by serving as proof that HaShem rules the world. Put it another way: by looking at what is happening to the Jewish nation, whether good or evil, people realize that HaShem is the Lord.
Sorry, neo, I have to part paths with you. Florida raised a valid question: to what extent did ethnic allegiance motivate Polanski’s supporters? Before answering, consider: to what extent did ethnic allegiance motivate OJ’s supporters?
Perfectly valid question, even if an uncomfortable one for Jews.
We do not, for example, see petitions by rabbis or Jewish groups to let Polanski off – situations where they were commenting as Jews, rather than as movie people.
Sorry, no sale. Where were the petitions by black ministers or black groups to let OJ off?
Commenting as Jews, rather than as movie people? So were OJ’s supporters commenting as, e.g., welfare recipients or basketball aficionados instead of as blacks? Please.
How about the possibility that being movie people trumps all moral training, whether Jewish or otherwise?
Jews are no more resistant to the process than anyone else.
It’s an alternative hypothesis, but a bit disingenuous because it posits Hollywood Jews as passive victims imbibing of a malignant culture. Who created the ethos of the movie industry in the first place?
Compare that argument to the closely related one that blacks are disproportionately involved in crime. Who created and perpetuates their culture?
Sorry, but apologists for various sacred demographic cows are going to get pretty short shrift from me.
Sorry, that should have read:
Compare that argument to the closely related one that blacks are disproportionately involved in crime because of their culture.
Occam’s Beard, are you saying the movie industry is an exclusively Jewish creation?
Nope, not entirely, but largely, yes, of course. Does anyone dispute that?
KosherWarrior, I will agree with you that it certainly seems the Jewish nation was supposed to be somewhat isolationist. This “Citizens of the World” thing is an attack on the very sovereighnty of individual, westernized nations. I feel there are people out there, both Jewish and Gentile, who would just love to dissolve indivial nations, consolidate the remains into larger and larger units so that that they can rule the resulting heap of humanity….I think this is clearly happening with the EU. The way they pushed the sneaky Lisbon Treaty after the voters rejected the more honestly open Constitutional ratification ….
But back to “servant…the chosen one…who will bring justice to the nations” in Isaiah.
Was Isaiah speaking of himself also when he said (?) : “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep , have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many , and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53 : 5-12 (NIV)
Occam’s Beard,
Just curious about that assertion, though I don’t have enough information to give a verdict on it.
jon baker,
First of all, as I said, prophets don’t speak their own message, they deliver HaShem’s message in their own words. (Except for Moses, who delivered HaShem’s message in HaShem’s words, the Torah.)
The “Slave of HaShem” of which Isaiah 53 talks is the Jewish nation. That’s the orthodox Jewish interpretation of the chapter. The original text says “He was wounded”, not “He was pierced” (see JPS translation), by the way. I know Isaiah 53 features as a prominent Christian proof-text, but Judaism does not believe the Messiah has yet arrived, much less that he will rise from the dead. The Died-And-Risen God-Man Messiah narrative is unknown in Judaism, while it can be found in quite a few pre-Christian non-Jewish religions.
Just curious about that assertion, though I don’t have enough information to give a verdict on it.
Wonder no more: How Jewish is Hollywood?. The Hollywood movie industry was founded by Jews from Eastern Europe, who by chance originally lived within a few hundred miles of each other.
Kosher Warrior
Which time that the Jewish nation was conquered or destroyed did they “… bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” ? Which time that the Jewish nation was being either tested or punished did they become the ” …righteous servant will justify many ” ?
In Egypt before Moses? The Babylonians? That Greek Antiochus who offered a pig in the Temple? The Romans? etc. Which one was the Jewish nation bearing the “iniquities” of the World?
OK, Occam’s Beard. And now for the million-dollar (while the dollar still has value) question:
And your point is?
jon baker,
From the time the Jews became a nation, meaning, after receiving the Torah at Mt. Sinai.
And your point is?
I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling upscreen:
I see you use the trendy spelling “minIscule,” which I guess you must have picked up when you were a liberal. Now that you are a conservative, how about switching to the traditional “minUscule”?
Occam’s Beard,
I do not reject that theory outright; but Jews don’t in our day and age have such a strong group allegiance like, say, blacks (95%+ vote for Obama, IIRC). If Jewish ethnic solidarity were the factor here, then it’s strange that factor doesn’t come into play in the American Jews’ concerning Israel. Obama’s approval in Israel plummeted to less than 4% because of his pro-PaleStinker leanings, while his approval rating among American Jews didn’t get a single dent. So much for Jewish ethnic solidarity.
Are you open to another theory, or is it a foregone conclusion with you that it’s all about the collective allegiance?
Occam.
The question of who started the amoral Hollywood culture is different from who is later influenced by it.
The early tycoons are gone.
We’re talking about the current bunch.
Hollywood’s culture apparently can ruin practically anybody, independent of who started it.
Although that, too, is an interesting question.
Neo. Observant Jews suffered. Secular Jews suffered. Hell, even conversos suffered. I can’t imagine what different views they might have, except if some scholar told the most observant ones that This Is In The Plan.
It is, of course, a matter of faith instead of empirical fact that suffering makes people in general more sensitive to suffering. The Balkans is an example of peoples who, however they suffer on odd days, are more than happy to commit atrocities against others on even days. Sans qualms, apparently.
You’re characterizing any support of blacks for Obama as being racially motivated, while on the same sort of facts dismissing the same conclusion regarding Jews. Perhaps all the blacks carefully studied Obama’s platform, and decided it was in the best interests of the nation. How dare anyone think they voted for him because of ethnic allegiance? Or supported OJ for the same reason? It’s exactly the same. When people of an ethnic group are strongly behind a member of that ethnic group, the question of the role of ethnicity in that support is perfectly germane. Agreed?
So you’re saying that if Polanski were named Seamus O’Heaney he’d get this outpouring of support? Seriously?
Let’s transfer this one to the black context as well. Some blacks are black nationalists, some are assimilationists, some favor the designated hitter rule, some don’t. How exactly does their position on an unrelated issue bear on their views on OJ, or Obama?
Sure. I said that Florida raised a valid question. I stand by that. Are you open to another theory, or is it a foregone conclusion with you that it has nothing to do with collective allegiance? The data are consistent with both hypotheses. QED.
Occam’s Beard: the question is only valid if, as I wrote, Jews are represented on the petition in larger percentages than they are represented in the fields of acting and movie production and directing. I have no idea whether they are, nor do you. But without looking into that issue, the question is invalid, or at least potentially invalid, as well as misleading.
As for support of black people for Obama, that’s a bit easier, although still not as easy as one might think at first glance. 95% support for Obama seems like a cut and dried case of support because of his race, but it turns out that black people almost always support the Democratic candidate very strongly. Somewhere on this blog I offered some statistics on this (I don’t have time to look it up now), and I seem to recall that blacks supported Kerry something like 88%, and Gore similarly (something in the high 80s). So the overwhelming black support for Obama seems to probably be at least somewhat due to racial identification, but only slightly.
Kosher Warrior,
thanks for the link.
So you are saying that every time in Isaiah 53 it says “he” it is referering to Israel? So this would mean that where it says, from your translation, ” All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.”…… it would mean you are saying that the iniquity of the Gentile nations have been carried by Israel? That Israel “bore the sin ” of the Gentile nations?
Under Mosaic law a sacrificial lamb had to be spotless? You are aware of this right? by the interpretation you give, you are saying that Israel “had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” – since you are saying this verse refers to Israel after Sinai.
The same Israel that Isaiah in the beginnning of his book said about “Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly; they have forsaken the LORD, they have contemned the Holy One of Israel, they are turned away backward. ” (ISAIAH 1:4)
We’re talking about the current bunch.
Sure. But who hired them, and why? Did they drop from the sky? Were they found under cabbage leaves? Chosen by lottery? Drafted, perhaps? Put this point in context. The question of who started the amoral
HollywoodAmerican Nazi Party culture is different from who is later influenced by it. Does that argument make for you? It doesn’t for me.Read Joel Stein’s column, linked above. Hollywood today is every bit as heavily Jewish as it was at its founding. That’s OK, but don’t credit Jews’ accomplishments on one hand, and then try to weasel out of a reckoning of Jews’ failings on the other. Intellectual honesty demands an honest reckoning of both. There’s good and bad in every group, including Jews. You may not like it, but there it is.
Occam’s Beard,
I’d be totally with you on your theory, except for one thing holding me back (and it’s not the desire to give a defense of the Jewish people, though of course I desire that): the fact that I know Jews in our time have a diluted collective consciousness in comparison to a lot of other groups.
If it’s the truth that Hollywood is dominated by Jews and that those Jews voiced support for Polanski because he’s a fellow Jew, then it’s the truth and I can’t do anything about it (on the intellectual arena). But I am skeptical that it’s the truth, for the reason I mentioned above. And I think Polanski would be just as well-supported if his name were Seamus O’Heaney, because the Hollywood and other leftist types have a penchant for supporting them. As demonstrated by Whoopi Goldberg’s (black, non-Jewish) rush to Polanski’s defense.
Again, the reason I find it more plausible that ethnic solidarity played a role in the black support for Obama than it did in the case of Jews and Polanski, is that black ethnic solidarity and group consciousness are well-known to be strong. Which, again, is not the case for Jews today. As Alan Dershowitz once remarked about all those famous Jewish scientists and inventors of modern times, they only just happened to be Jews; they were far apart in location, and most of them had little connection to their Jewishness, let alone to the Jewish religion. Only in Israel does Jewish group consciousness play a decisive role in people’s affairs, which goes some way in explaining the disparity in Obama’s approval rating between American and Israel Jews.
jon baker,
The Jewish nation sins aplenty, but repentance cleanses one from his sins, and if a Jew has been contrite and ready to turn away from his sins on the Day of Atonement, then on the following day he can rejoice that he is now in a state of spotlessness. This is so even now that there is no Temple and no sacrifices. Even in the days of the Temple, remission of blood was only one of many ways to wash one’s sins away. And even in the days of the Temple, sacrifice without contrition was absolutely worthless.
With respect, no it isn’t. Let’s generate some intellectual honesty here. It’s a perfectly valid question: to what extent is support of an individual of a given ethnicity by people of the same ethnicity a function of ethnic allegiance? Blacks support a black, Jews support a Jew. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Put it in another context: in a criminal trial, would it be OK to have relatives of the prosecution or defense on the jury? Why, or why not?
Straw man. What office was OJ running for? C’mon, neo. You can do better than this. The data to hand comport equally well with either hypothesis. Therefore we have no basis for dismissing either hypothesis out of hand, regardless of which one we would like to be true.
Wow. Just wow.
I’ve gone charitably along with this discussion for far longer than anyone else who has been challenged with near-conspiratorial allegations about his ethnicity would think it worthy to go. “I’m open to the possibility” and “if it’s the truth then it’s the truth” have been my constant refrain. All in all, my striving for intellectual honesty has been proved to be beyond doubt.
Now, after all that, here you go saying, “Let’s generate some intellectual honesty here”. Not the slightest shred of credit you give me, after all the credit I gave you, well beyond what you actually deserve (considering your near-conspiratorial train of thought.)
I get the idea. And since I’m a Jew, not a Christian, as Jon Baker (who, in contrast to you, has been gracious all along) knows, so I don’t turn the other cheek, all I have to say is:
Go to hell.
At ease, KosherWarrior. I was addressing neo’s argument, not yours.
The truth value of the proposition is a different matter entirely from Florida’s point, which was that is a perfectly valid question to raise.
Why ever did she change her name from Caryn Elaine Johnson? From Wikipedia /a> (I know, and I agree):
The point is, there is a case to answer.
Why is Jonathan Pollard in prison today?
And speaking of Alan Dershowitz:
The bottom line, which is obviously unpalatable: Florida’s point cannot be dismissed out of hand. Emotional attachment can override moral considerations. Human failing, generally.
Kosher Warrior:
Enjoying the conversation.
how can you say that the Jewish nation has born the sins of the Gentiles?
Did not the prophet Isaiah speak of the Lord that ” I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43: 11)
“Near-conspiratorial allegations?” You mean like those you leveled at the blacks, i.e., that they supported OJ and Obama on a racial basis? Or are Jews better able to resist that temptation than blacks? I’m saying that Florida’s point, that groups tend to identify with their members, is not risible on its face. Quite the contrary.
Where is the Reset Button for this thread?
What question are we trying to answer?
The question I, at least, am addressing is whether it is valid to ask: to what extent is support of an individual of a given ethnicity by people of the same ethnicity a function of ethnic allegiance?
I maintain the answer is “yes.”
Occam’s Beard: It seems to me you are misunderstanding what I’m saying. The question of whether a certain group of supporters are doing so because of similar ethnicity can only be valid if there is some evidence of increased support from that particular ethnicity. This is the whole point of my post, and it’s true no matter what the group is: blacks, Jews, Catholics, whatever.
If the number of Jewish names on the Polanski support lists are fewer than would be expected from the percentage of Jews in the groups that are featured (in this case, people in the movies), then there’s no point in speculating that there’s some special reason (such as group affinity) for Jews to support him.
I personally have no problem with the idea that Jews (or members of any other group) would be more inclined to support one of their own, so it’s not a question of what I would like to be true. It’s a question of math and logic. The point is not whether members of a group might be inclined to support their own. The point is whether this explains a particular phenomenon, such as support for Polanski by Jews or support for Obama by blacks.
The question of whether a certain group of supporters are doing so because of similar ethnicity can only be valid if there is some evidence of increased support from that particular ethnicity.
I understand the point; I just don’t think it’s relevant.
The question of whether a certain group of supporters are doing so because of similar ethnicity can only be valid if there is some evidence of increased support from that particular ethnicity.
I understand the point; I just don’t think it’s relevant.
Sorry, damned touch pad.
I don’t think the point is relevant for the following reason. You’re addressing the increase in support; I’m talking about the motivation for such support as may exist.
Let’s put some (hypothetical) numbers to the point. Suppose 50% of, say, Swedish-Americans (apologies to Swedish-Americans) support Polanski because they see no problem with nailing 13 year olds in the keister. Suppose 10% of American Jews support Polanski because he’s a Jew, too. The former group provides support based on conviction, the latter on ethnic identification. When the ethnicities of perpetrators and supporters coincide, the extent to which that identity is responsible for the support is valid.
Occam’s Beard: I guess that’s why your name is “Occam’s Beard” rather than “Occam’s Razor” :-).
Jon Baker:
“how can you say that the Jewish nation has born the sins of the Gentiles?”
Really simple — there’s the Selucid Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, pogroms, expulsions, Hitler, Stalin, the Palestinians, and a host of others.
As to Isaiah, reading verse 13 to the end of Chapter 52 and continuing with Chapter 53, it seems to me fairly clear that the prophet is speaking about Job, which I believe is an allegory about the Jewish people. YMMV.
You might want to look at John Hobbins blog:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/
on the importance of reading the Bible in Hebrew.
Occam’s Beard:
Yes, if the perp had been Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, James Cameron, John Travolta, Tom Cruise, or any other non-Jewish Hollywood A-lister, the Hollywood crowd would have said and done exactly the same thing.
I suggest you read Norman Podhoretz’s new book, _Why are Jews Liberals?_ , in which he explains that liberalism, not Judaism, is the religion of many, if not most, ethnically Jewish people, particularly the elites, today.
America is a nation of laws. Did Polanski break the law? We all know what he did was despicable and depraved. Yes, Polanski broke the law. He was 44 at the time, the girl with stars in her eyes was 13 at the time. They should not have been alone together in the first place, and Polanski should have known better. That would be regardless of ethnicity or religion. So I don’t care what any group thinks.
As a dad of two beautiful daughters, had he done this to one of them, I’d have ripped his head off and crapped in it. But then, there is a lot of Scots – Irish blood flowing through my veins.
What was the question, anyway?
Missing from the discussion of Jewish cultural influence is the 1SD higher IQ advantage of Ashkenazi Jews. Huge.
As anyone who hangs around with a lot of smart people knows, not only is g-factor not correlated with ethical behavior, it can provide a pretty good defense against it. Smart people think they can work these things out for themselves. Regarding Jews in specific, as KosherWarrior notes, paying attention to what is actually taught would have been a help.
jb and KW – you are both currently giving stock answers. That’s a fair start for a conversation, as 90+% of the people one usually runs into aren’t aware of even the stock answers in that debate. You’ve each established that you know something beyond the usual vague hand-waving.
This `Florida’ person (at the Althouse blog) is the only person engaging in the bigotry he accuses Ann of.
After all, at the outset he acknowledges that Althouse criticizes Pres. Obama. By then end, however, he’s playing fast-and-loose with the facts, and saying she’s `criticizing black people.’
No. She’s criticized the person who is president, and who happens to be black.
`Florida’, on the other hand, is lumping the `Jews’ who signed the petition with all Jews in general.
Here are two links to two copies of the indefensible petition supporting Polanski:
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/free-polanski-petition.html
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=13432#more-13432
In reading the names listed, I don’t particularly find the Jewish names to stand out any more than those of other ethnicities. There are some Jewish names, to be sure, as would have been expected due to the strong Jewish presence in the performing arts, but they aren’t particularly prominent in the list moreso than names from other ethnic groups.
Roman Polanski himself , it should be noted, was only partly Jewish, and not a follower of Judaism.
In any case, I think a key factor in whether some statement or observation is “anti-Semitic” or “racist” or “ethnocentric” is whether it was stated with an intent to disparage or create resentment and antagonism toward that ethnic or racial group. Although I have not seen the Michael Moore film, it would not surprise me if it was made with that type of intent.
I think that, in adition to the intent of the statement regarding race or ethnicity, a second important question is whether the statement is actually true . Sometimes, in this politically correct society, people have became unwilling to acknowledge the difficult truths of ethnic differences, and have instead opted to believe that people are exactly the same, nothwithstanding evidence to the contrary.
I think that overall observations about differences in ethnic groups is perfectly legitimate, as I believe that such differences do exist. This is not contradictory to the idea that people are “created equal” and “endowed with the same inalienable rights,” as I believe this to be the case too. But “equal” doesnt mean “exactly the same.” I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask and to research why certain phenomena (for example, alcoholism) exist in certain ethnic groups, and not others. Or why certain ethnic groups are drawn to certain professions.
A few corrections, and added emphases, to my prior posting:
But “equal” doesnt necessarily mean “ exactly the same in every way .” I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask and to research why certain phenomena (for example, alcoholism) exist more frequently in certain ethnic groups, moreso than others. Or why individuals from certain ethnic groups are drawn to certain professions.
To address the original question that Althouse raises, it would be a good start to focus on the first thing she mentions — Moore makes religion, specifically Christianity, a central part of his argument against capitalism. Moore introduces religion.
Then Ann says that lot of Jewish bankers are identified as the bad guys. This is the point where percentage representation becomes an issue. Do the Jews protrayed by Moore constitute a much higher percentage of his bankers than they do among the banking leaders he might have chosen from.
It is important to remember that Ann doesn’t introduce religion to the discussion. Moore does.
Let me clarify. I’m not talking about Moore, or Althouse, or anything else that Florida said or didn’t say. I’m not familiar with any of those matters, and am not commenting on them. I am commenting strictly and solely on the point Florida (rather crudely) raised: to what extent does support for Polanski derive from ethnic allegiance? Specifically, to what extent do Jews support Polanski because he’s Jewish?
It’s a perfectly valid question to raise. Jews may not like it, but the question is valid.
Consider two cases. The first is OJ’s. Blacks supported OJ, and they cheered when he was acquitted, shouting “We won!” Did the brothers all hit the library to brush up on DNA profiling, and, based on their analysis of the restriction length polymorphisms calculate a different probability of a chance match than the forensic lab, decide to throw their support behind OJ?
No. Of course not. He’s black, they’re black, blacks see themselves as an embattled minority that has to stick together to defend one of their own. Tribal allegiance, straight up.
Now consider Jonathan Pollard’s case. Pollard has been the recipient of considerable support. Whence did it derive? Largely (although not exclusively) from Jews, of course. As Chief Rabbi Metzger said when asking President Bush to pardon Pollard:
Did those millions all study Pollard’s case, and decide a miscarriage of justice had been performed?
No. Of course not. He’s Jewish, he was trying to help Israel, the Jewish homeland, they’re Jewish, and Jews see themselves as an embattled minority that has to stick together to defend one of their own.
Help me find the difference from the OJ case. Tribal allegiance coming and going, in both cases. Jews are not immune to its siren call. No one is.
Now consider Polanski’s case. A third heinous crime, with an outpouring of support from Jews, for a Jew. How can anyone dispute the validity of questioning the role played in such support by ethnic allegiance? Seriously? It’s a perfectly valid question to raise.
I’ll go further. I would presume that ethnic allegiance would explain the data in each case above in the absence of some contrary evidence. It’s the simplest explanation for the data. The law makes the same presumption: it’s why juries have to have mixed ethnicities.
The irony here is that Jews in this discussion are vigorously defending other Jews, whom they’ve never met, against allegations of ethnic allegiance.
JL, well put. I was going to say similar things, but not so well.
Occam’s Beard: this is getting a bit tiresome. I’m beginning to believe you haven’t really read what I’ve written.
But I will point out that one cannot explain “data” that doesn’t exist. The relevant data here would be whether Jews are overrepresented in the set of Polanski supporters. If they are not (and if they even might be under represented), then it’s not a valid question in that case because there’s no such data to “explain.” You might just as well try to explain why more Jews don’t support Polanski—if that’s what the data shows.
If Jews are overrepresented in the group of Polanski supporters, then it’s a valid question.
“Florida” didn’t even consider the actual data—just based his/her question on some personal perception of a lot of Jewish names on the list. Never asked whether they were more Jewish names or fewer than would be expected in a group composed mainly of movie people But in fact, as this commenter points out, there actually don’t seem to be a whole lot of Jewish names on the list.
Florida is right. The numbers are striking.
Neo is right that they could represent the culture of a business sector than an ethnic/religious group.
Did anyone tell us what the pro-Polanski numbers are right across the ethnic/religious group?
Assistant Village Idiot noted:
“We do not, for example, see petitions by rabbis or Jewish groups to let Polanski off…”
Neo, we’re talking at cross purposes, and frankly I think you’re defining away the problem. You’re talking about representation of Polanski supporters in comparison with the relevant population. I’m talking about not the proportion but the motivation of Polanski’s Jewish supporters, regardless of what proportion they constitute of his supporters.
Your argument is equivalent to saying that we could only conclude that blacks supported OJ on racial grounds if we had data showing that they were overrepresented in the set of such supporters, and then defining the relevant population as inner city LA. Replace “blacks” with “Jews”, “OJ” with “Polanski,” and “inner city LA” with “Hollywood” and we have precisely your argument, it seems to me. If you disagree, please tell me how the two differ, because I don’t see it. (Note that one can get any conclusion one wants from such an argument merely by judicious choice of reference population; for example, choosing the population of the U.S., the members of a synagogue, or a Nation of Islam chapter would provide three very different outcomes.)
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that exactly one Jew supported Polanski, out of 100,000 in Hollywood. It is not unreasonable to ask whether ethnic allegiance played a role in that decision.
Consider a less emotive case. Suppose Polanski belonged to an Elks Lodge, and several members from his Elks Lodge signed the petition. It would be reasonable to ask whether their decision was motivated by the merits of the case, or by personal affinity, wouldn’t it? How is that different?
It’s the reason corporations often have rules against nepotism: to avoid the conundrum of disentangling judgments based on merit, from those based on personal affinity.
I notice that no one has addressed my point about OJ and Pollard. Please do so. On its face, the three cases have a lot in common. Tribal allegiance is strong across all groups, and that includes Jews (unless you think that they’re better than, say, blacks, or that black support for OJ was not racially based). The very touchiness of Jews to this issue in this discussion proves the point. They leap to the defense of Hollywood Jews to whom they are connected only by ethnicity to defend those Jews against the suggestion that they might have leapt to the defense of another Jew because of common ethnicity. The irony is staggering.
Those disputing my contentions need to ask themselves this question: were you this passionate about statistics and demographic analysis regarding support for OJ? Were you pointing out that OJ wasn’t a “practicing” black (i.e., that he wasn’t involved with any black groups), and that therefore blacks must not be supporting for racial reasons? Or were you willing to entertain the question of tribal allegiance then with an equanimity that is escaping you now? And, if so, why?
Occam’s Beard: you seem to continually misunderstand my point. I hereby officially give up on trying to explain it to you.
neo, you took the words right out of my mouth! /g
I understand: no group likes to be criticized, or to have imputed to it something that that group takes as criticism. The group’s reaction to that imputation has no bearing on the imputation’s merit, however.
I note that no one, even now, has addressed my point regarding OJ and Pollard. The latter, in particular, clearly exemplifies the operation of ethnic allegiance among Jews. How can one possibly dismiss out of hand the possibility of the same phenomenon operating here?
Occam.
You seem to have the argument pretty well defined.
Unless one asserts that the blacks who supported OJ were studying the bejasus out of the evidence.
Crap. What is it with this thing?
And the supporters of Pollard saying things which sound like, “as Jews….”, instead of “as historians of espionage trials and sentencing….”
My point, as it relates to OJ, would be “did blacks support OJ out of proportion to their percentage of the population, or even of the liberal population?” If answer is “yes,” then the question of whether they did so because of their racial affiliation with OJ becomes a valid one (although it doesn’t answer the question). If they didn’t support him more than other populations do, what’s the point of the question?
Likewise with Jews and Pollard. Do Jews support him disproportionately? If they do, then it’s a valid question. If not, then not.
Boy, am I sick of explaining this over and over. But it’s like potato chips—
The group’s reaction to that imputation has no bearing on the imputation’s merit, however.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Hollywood and secular Jews are not the same as pro-Israeli groups.
The latter, in particular, clearly exemplifies the operation of ethnic allegiance among Jews. How can one possibly dismiss out of hand the possibility of the same phenomenon operating here?
Tribal group identities are created through specific conditioning. What the black slaves and plantation house servants have been conditioned with relates directly to their skin color.
What Hollywood and secular Jews have been conditioned with, to make them defend Polansky, has nothing to do with Judaism or Israel or the Jewish people. THe identity matrix is composed of class, wealth, and particular elitist talents.
For one notable comparison, black culture is superior and that’s why they demand that whites do right. Whites have to do right by blacks, like Gates and Duke Lacrosse race baiters. But blacks don’t have to do right by whites, since it is the concept of Original Sin, which is related to black homophobia, which is related to their obedience to Jesus and the Christian God.
I easily dismiss it out of hand. The reaction of a Jew to Palestine, in an attitude designed to placate Palestinians at the expense of Israelis, would be indoctrination using Jewish identities and connections. As it preys upon the Jewish need to see themselves as peaceful and productive members, that are also Godly.
There’s no prep work that I can see that would lead a Jew to defend a Hollywood rapist. There’s nothing in the Jewish identity matrix, secular or religious, Israeli or American, that would front load this kind of political organization.
There are elements, however, in Hollywood culture that would do so.
Tribal identites and the defense of the group is not an artificial expression. Since it isn’t natural, but constructed, it can be influenced, destroyed, or modified.
Neo, I understand what you’re saying: that until and unless one demonstrates a statistically significant disproportion of support from a given group, then it is not valid to ask why members of that group offered their support. I understand your point, I just don’t accept it.
Suppose the only 12 blacks who supported OJ were members of his jury. Regardless of what the other 30+ million blacks thought about the case, it would still be valid to question whether those 12 acquitted OJ on the grounds of racial affinity because the (meager) data to hand — a black man acquitted by an all-black jury — comports equally well with either of two hypotheses: 1) the jury legitimately thought the evidence insufficient for conviction, or 2) they were unwilling to convict a member of their own group. Either hypothesis explains the data perfectly well. On these facts, as presented, we would have no basis to rule out either hypothesis.
That is my point.
Occam’s Beard: and my point is, why bother? Who cares if a few people hold an opinion that’s at least partly based on racial identification? Big deal. It stands to reason that some do, but what difference does it make, unless it’s a phenomenon that makes a difference in terms of numbers or trends?
Your argument is equivalent to saying that we could only conclude that blacks supported OJ on racial grounds if we had data showing that they were overrepresented in the set of such supporters, and then defining the relevant population as inner city LA.
I know you can see a bell curve. When that curve is front loaded or back loaded disproportionately in comparison to other curves for other groups, then you can statistically infer that something is abnormal.
It’s not about concluding or not. It’s about preliminary statistical analysis of abnormal trends and population representations.
Using the inductive logic path, the preliminary is the prerequisite. If 10 birds are observed on one day, and half of them are black and half white, and when you compare it against another tree in another place and time, and they also have 10 birds that are observed to be half and half, then you have a statistical mean or average that is consistent across a population. The requirement for saying that there is a bias or artificial imbalance would first require a statistical outlier somewhere. One tree with 9 black and 1 white, for example, of birds.
I don’t use inductive logic on this issue, however. I prefer deductive.
You can create as many hypothesis as you wish given any data set. Will that necessarily prove anything though? No.
Suppose
Science is not about supposing what is true after making up a specific data set.
You have to decide, in the epistemology sense, whether you are going to use deductive or inductive logic here. Are you going to produce a scientific methodology that claims something is true, which then seeks to find out if there is any evidence to justify the hypothesis? Or are you going to ‘suppose’ something is true and then act as if it is to see what happens?
Neo has presented one specific methodology which can be repeated whether the population is black or Jewish or anything else. Only the same methodology can challenge her specific statistical inference and analytical methodology.
If you try to mix inductive and deductive logic together, to make them both true about the same thing, it’s not going to work. Both are ways of finding out the truth or testing for it, but they should be kept separated, if only for reasons of simplicity.
So if members of a group are not identical in every respect, that can’t be identical in one respect? Were all the Allies during WWII homogeneous in viewpoint in every respect? For that matter, black Baptists are not the same as Nation of Islam members, and yet both supported OJ. Your point?
What identity matrix led to support for Pollard?
What is in the black identity matrix that led them to support a black murderer?
Simplest explanation for OJ and Pollard: tribal allegiance. Possible mechanism for Jews to support Polanski — same thing.
Why are people finding this so distasteful and hard to accept? We’re going through some elaborate intellectual contortions and gymnastics to avoid even entertaining the notion that Jews might be subject, even in principle, to natural human emotions. It’s not that great a failing. Really, it isn’t. Would you expect a parent to support his child? Of course. How is that different, except quantitatively? Loyalty to family, extended family, and group is in the genes of the human race. It’s why treason is considered the arch crime.
Put it another way: if you were going to be tried for the murder of, say, a Muslim, would you want a jury composed entirely of American Muslims? Why, or why not?
Occam.
Or for the murder of a Jew…?
I almost always agree with neo, but she’s missing the point. The Jewish supporters of Pollard were not writing as historians of espionage trials and sentencing.
Richard, thank you.
Exactly. That’s my point. We agree. This has been what I’ve been arguing all along. Say the words: every group of humans on the planet, including Jews, are prone to feeling sympathy to people that they identify with. How strong that identification is depends on its nature, of course, and on the issue. So when Jews support a Jew, it is a valid question to ask what role that identification plays in their support. If it’s in a dispute within a synagogue, presumably ethnic allegiance plays no role. If it’s in a dispute with Muslims, it’s likely to play a major role. In between is likely to be …in between.
First, the magnitude and significance of the phenomenon is a different question entirely from whether or not the phenomenon exists. Up to this point, my assorted interlocutors have, in defiance of all logic, implicitly denied not just the existence of the phenomenon, but even the possibility of its existence. Now we’re all agreed: the phenomenon not only might exist, it almost certainly does exist.
Now we can address the next question: how strong is the phenomenon? I don’t know. We have no data addressing this issue. That doesn’t mean we can dismiss it, as some would urge us to do, because we have no proof of its magnitude. Ethnic allegiance might play no role; then again, it might be the only motivation. Most probably, it’s somewhere in between.
But its role in generating support is a valid question that cannot be blown off out of hand.
This has been my point all along, at the risk of covering myself with stink.
Occam B,
what are you trying to prove so laboriously – that Jews who support Polanski in this sordid affaire are doing it out of tribal allegiance? You don’t need to make such a big “iconoclastic” deal out of it – Neo already said that tribal allegiance is a neutral and natural thing, and that most likely, SOME of the Jewish supporters were acting out of this precise reason.
But if you suggest (as you seem to do) that ALL of the supporting Jews acted out of tribal allegiances, you have to prove it. And you can’t prove by comparisons to Jewish reactions to other issues – principle of precedent does not work in opinions as it works in jurisprudence. You can’t prove it also because you can’t know their reasons – you have no data to support it, simply – nobody questioned them. Not only you didn’t ask the supporters about their motives, you have no means to judge the sincerity of those theoretical answers.
Neo proposes a useful method for evaluation of group participation – statistically sound impersonal unemotional method that should be employed before engaging in any speculation. But you reject it – I’m afraid exactly because speculation is more dear to you. And then you accuse people who disagree with your unfounded speculation in intellectual dishonesty and (inevitably, I’m sorry to say) – in tribal defensiveness. I’ll repeat after KW: WOW.
Let me tell you this: I’ve been reading reactions to Polanski’s story for a week now; I’ve probably seen a hundred blog posts, participated in ten discussions with few hundreds of people, most of them – Jewish, who live in various countries, of various political persuasion and different degrees of religiosity. Out of those who wanted the charges dropped and, expressed a few reasons I can list here. None (NONE) said that they want Polanski to be set free because of him being a fellow Jew.
The reasons I’ve seen are
– P. has been punished enough by his long self-inflicted exile
– the victim doesn’t have any more claims and wants to drop the case
-the girl was a slut (variation: I’ve seen girls like her/I’ve been a girl like her – they know what they do at that age)
– it’s not Polanski’s fault, the mother of the victim is more guilty – why nobody tries her?
-one person stated that he’s against retribution in principle
– Polanski had suffered in his childhood (variation: was distraught by the tragic murder of his wife 9 years ago), he’s not right in the head
– Polanski is a genius creative person, society should grant immunity from conventional morals to people like him.
Etc.
Not once, I repeat, there was raised a voice in P’ support simply out of tribal sympathy.
You might say my data is nothing but a collection of anecdotes. True. But you don’t have even that to base your accusations on.
Also, it is incorrect (and yes, I would say intellectually dishonest) to equate support of Polanski with support of Pollard. You said you yourself – ” If it’s in a dispute with Muslims, it’s likely to play a major role. ” Meaning – if there is a goal consolidating all members of the group, if there is a common denominator in their motivations – then they are act in solidarity. In the case of Pollard there was such goal- “for the good of Israel, for the defense, safety and security of Israel”. What common denominator you suggest could have Jews who defend Polanski? Are they all rapists? They all condone molestation of non-Jewish girls? They all…I don’t know what – my imagination fails me. Pray tell – what is it you’re trying to say all these Jews have in common with Polanski, what mutual goal or trait?
Really, I’m tired of antisemitic leanings of so called “conservatives” .
For those who just tuned in, neo only acceded to the tribal allegiance point a few hours ago, after almost 24 hours of debate. I only made a big deal of out of it by refusing to cave in to social pressure here and by pointing out the failure of others to address my substantive point, which I’ll repeat: consideration of the role played by ethnic allegiance is a perfectly valid question.
Straw man alert. I won’t waste my time addressing this.
Argument from authority. Ditto.
Anecdotal evidence. Ditto.
What did OJ’s supporters say? “He didn’t do it, he wasn’t there, besides the bitch had it coming, cops framed him, DNA evidence is unreliable, it was four Colombians, it was the one-armed man, …”
Surely no one of normal intelligence would expect anyone to state this in so many words.
Straw man alert.
Your intellect is not doing so well either.
So if Arab Muslims in Detroit demonstrated in support of Mohammed Achmed Mohammed after his conviction for the murder of a Jew, you’d naturally presume that they’d read the police report and trial transcript with an open mind, and only after doing so had grave and well-founded doubts arisen in their minds about the safety of the conviction? It would not cross your mind to wonder to what extent they supported him because he was a fellow Muslim? Please. Because that’s what your asking us to believe.
Consider the case of the black guy dragged behind the pickup truck by several white guys. If a white man were to say that the white guys probably didn’t realize the black guy had a rope around him when they drove off, that maybe he’d accidentally become tangled in the rope, that they hadn’t meant it, that they’d had tough childhoods, and that maybe the black guy had insulated them, what thoughts would cross your mind? Seriously. I want to know.
Occam’s Beard: You say that I “only acceded to the tribal allegiance point a few hours ago, after almost 24 hours of debate.” But in fact I have not changed my opinion one iota—I never said that some people might not be acting from some sort of tribal allegiance. I never argued that point at all. My point was that whether a few people might form their opinions on the basis of that sort of thing is irrelevant. I certainly never said it wasn’t possible; I just didn’t consider it worth “acceding to” or “not acceding to” because in my opinion the disagreement was never about that.
Once again let me state that the issue is irrelevant unless it explains a phenomenon that has some meaning because there are significant numbers involved. And unless you have those numbers, it isn’t worth talking about unless you want to do some sort of case study of a particular person—which was never the issue here.
You’re explictly presuming that only a few people formed their opinions on a tribal allegiance basis. I have no idea how many did, and how many didn’t. But, pace Tatyana (T: this is a debating position – please do not attribute it to me as my viewpoint), let me assert arguendo that every single Jew who signed that petition did that strictly and solely because of ethnic allegiance to the culprit.
Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong, or accept that the role of ethnic allegiance is unclear, but cannot be dismissed out of hand on these facts – which has been my point all along.
The data – meager as they are – admit of more than one interpretation. You may not like some of those interpretations. You may find some of them hateful. That’s OK. But it doesn’t bear on the merit of the interpretation, and without more, that doesn’t invalidate them.
Occam: You do not seem to understand my point, which is that unless a person first demonstrates that there are numbers to be reckoned with, the question is irrelevant. And now I am officially finished with this discussion with you. We are going around in circles.
What should have been the point of this thread? Althouse suspected anti-Semitism in Moore’s depiction of Wall Street villains. At some level, this wouldn’t be a surprise, as the Left has become increasingly overtly anti-Semitic.
At another level, there is something of a puzzle here, in that this anti-Semitism doesn’t alienate large numbers of Jews. Moore probably understood that he could trade on anti-Semitic stereotypes without getting called on it. I suspect that propaganda of this type helps remind Jews that they are vulnerable; from this perspective, the Left is offering an ideological protection racket: condemn the capitalist, and we won’t tell everyone what a greedy capitalist you are.
The opportunity to spark an anti-Semitism outburst from someone like “Florida” (who positions himself as a “conservative,” but who might be a provacateur) is just a bonus, as it reinforces the Left’s story about who the real anti-Semites are.
And pace Occam’s Beard, Florida’s comment smells anti-Semitic in context. There are reasonable questions to ask about affiliation, but not this way: Florida raised the questions as a way to smear Jews as a group.
Caught between Left and “Right,” KosherWarrior, Tatyana, and others could be forgiven for feeling suspicious and defensive.
From an anthropological perspective, advocating “social democracy” offers protection from the Evil Eye. Moore just made sure that everyone understands the power of the Evil Eye.
You do not seem to understand my point, which is that unless a person first demonstrates that there are numbers to be reckoned with, the question is irrelevant.
Please point me to the post where you demonstrated that there were numbers to be reckoned with re OJ.
Face it, and admit it. Some of us are having trouble divorcing reason from emotion. Make that: some of us are finding it impossible to divorce reason from emotion.
wrt OJ. Unless the black support for OJ had the same numbers as the population at large, something other than scrupulous interest in evidence was going on.
Black support for OJ was considerably in excess of that of the population at large.
Occam B: I’m not asking you (let along plural you) to believe anything. And I’m not going to get engaged in your hypothetical scenarios – you already demonstrated how you will respect my written word: with dismissal. What would be the point?
In your stubborn repetition of the same 1 1/2 thoughts you can’t even pay attention to the argument.
I said:
“You might say my data is nothing but a collection of anecdotes. True. But you don’t have even that to base your accusations on.”
You replied with
“Anecdotal evidence. Ditto. [won’t waste time addressing]”
I said:
“Not only you didn’t ask the supporters about their motives, you have no means to judge the sincerity of those theoretical answers.’
You replied with
” [quote]Not once, I repeat, there was raised a voice in P’ support simply out of tribal sympathy.
Surely no one of normal intelligence would expect anyone to state this in so many words.”
You said exactly what I have anticipated you will. And then assert that my intellect failed me. Ah, if only. I’d prefer not to see through the sophistry.
And you know what? You are absolutely right. We Jews are constantly winking to each other. We defend our own no matter what they do. There is a conspiracy. And also Rays of Death. WHich will be send from the heart of Israel aiming at your beard. Any second now.
Ciao!
Tatyana.
Occam is making the assertion that loyalty due to ethnic identity is not always expressed. Instead, other issues are presented as if relevant.
I’d go further and say that ethnic loyalty may not even be conscious, but would skew objective thinking about the subject–the evidence in the case of OJ.
WRT Hollywood and Polanski, I’d suggest the tribe is Hollywood, not Jews. That Hollywood has, or is said to have, a disproportionate number of Jews in positions of influence is probably not related. On the other hand, loyalty on the basis of two tribes instead of one can be additionally motivating.
Actually, a review of the names on that petition (see my above post) does indeed seem to imply a certain “national prejudice”/tribalism among a certain ethnic group, but that group isnt the Jews. ( Je ne sais quoi that ethnic group could be. Check the les petition and take a guess.)
Richard Aubrey:
On the other hand, loyalty on the basis of two tribes instead of one can be additionally motivating.
Then how will you explain all the numerousJewish opponents of those “pro-Polanski” opinions I listed in my original comment (including me, KW and Neo herself)?
I could give you links (but they are mostly in Russian -just say you want them, and I will) – to 20-30 blogposts each with 3 and 4 pages of incessant arguing against Polanski’s release. Did all these people forgot their tribal responsibilities? Quite a few are in “creative” professions – did they forget their professional solidarity duties, too?
Why is it so hard to believe that people have conscience and act and judge out of their ethical sense first, and all other associations – afterwards?
Tatyana.
I believe people act as their consciences dictate, for the most part.
Problem is, not all consciences are the same.
Some put ethnic loyalty higher, some lower.
You can explain the role of conscience wrt Pollard, I suppose, without referring to ethnic loyalty? Are all identifiable ethnic groups supporting him to the same proportion? If not, why not?
Are the Hollywood tribe acting wrt their consciences? Maybe they are, which is to say, Hollywooders can do no wrong, unless they do, in which case…Hollywooders can do no wrong is their actual, conscience-based decision.
Richard, when you answer my questions, I’ll answer yours. [I asked first!]
Not all consciences are the same, true. In addition to that, we as ethnic group (I refer to Jews) are notorious for being opinionated people. There is much truth in the saying “2 Jews=3 political parties”. If we are to stray from purely scientific method, suggested by Neo, and just be common sense and life experience, I’d say Jews are less likely than any other ethnic group, to be of the same opinion on any subject – as long as it doesn’t concern our survival. And even then there are always dissidents and opposition.
Tatyana.
I was asking the question rhetorically. I wanted you to know that the Pollard question is not unknown to others.
The only answer your position allows was unlikely to shed much light or support your position. Nevertheless, I thought it useful that you know what the thing looks like from the outside and I couched that as a question.
My guess is you can’t afford to address it, which is another reason to couch it as a question.
Richard, Pollard and his case is irrelevant to my argument which you chose not to notice. That’s why I didn’t engage it. Not because I “can’t afford” to do it.
Looks like Pollard’s case is for some reason your pet peeve. And you try to turn any argument towards it. Well, I’m not interested.
Tatyana.
Well, I guess if you’re not interested, you’re not interested. Doesn’t preclude others from being interested and drawing conclusions.
So…no Pollard.
How about OJ?
How about answering my questions first, Richard?
What for? They’re nonsense. “wink” That presumes a group which thinks alike can’t act alike without coordination. When coordination, not being necessary, can’t be shown to exist–it not being necessary–the actual phenomenon is implicitly not happening. That’s, um, fourth-grade thinking.
Let’s take a look at another case.
The CBC is unanimously backing Charlie Rangel.
If we don’t presume ethnic solidarity, we have other options.
They think stealing is cool.
They don’t understand arithmetic.
They think Charlie will award them with a place at the trough if they give him a pass.
Any other possibilties?
It presumes nothing of the sort, wink or no wink.
I’m done talking to you.
Tatyana.
So? Do the questions go away? Is your insistence on not talking about them going to make them magically disappear from others’ attention?
No, I’ll rephrase that (pity, this blog settings don’t allow for editing one’s comments):
Richard, if I’m such a “fourth-grade thinking” Lilliput, why you continue trying to argue with me? what does it make you? Or is it the pleasure of erecting an army of strawmen and then proceeding to knocking them down? Go ahead, please yourself – just don’t put my name on these creations of your “superior” mind.
You and Occam B really suit each other – maybe you should go together in some Bavarian pub and foam in the mouth about mobs of inferior Jews that you victoriously destroyed.
Richard, do you seriously think I will be giving you the benefit of my time and goodwill after you insulted my intelligence here?
You really are thick.
Tatyana.
I don’t particularly care about your time.
I’m pointing out that your passing on the question does not make it go away.
You don’t have to have anything to do with it any more in any aspect of your life. But you did seem concerned about it at one time.
Problem is, other people are going to be asking, or thinking about, the same questions.
So far, other than pretending I was talking about some kind of conspiracy (wink), you’ve had nothing.
Somebody ought to come up with something.
Tatyana, you had a point, but you have gotten way out of line. It is one thing to be sensitive, and for that I can make allowances, but talk of Bavarian beer halls can only be offensive.
Richard, if I understand your point, you are saying that people in general are prone to make excuses for those with whom they affiliate. The more sources of affiliation, the greater the propensity to make excuses. Jews, being people like other people, have this characteristic as well. You are arguing, therefore, that Jews are normal people without any inherent group characteristics of goodness or badness. This is diametrically opposed to both classic anti-Semitic positions (which is built around a narrative of Jewish exceptionalism) and to the kind of specific slurs that Florida made.
I think you will have to wait for a very long time before you get any acknowledgment of any of this from Tatyana. Having said that, I don’t think it serves much purpose to make your point in the context of discussing anti-Semitic propaganda from Moore and a diatribe from Florida. You won’t be heard.
s/b “”are built”
“Before answering, consider: to what extent did ethnic allegiance motivate OJ’s supporters?
Perfectly valid question, even if an uncomfortable one for Jews.”
No, it’s not. No one seems to have looked at the full petition. Most of its signatories are not even Jewish. In fact, a majority seem to be of the pretentious European non-Jewish filmmaker type. Why don’t you go single them out on some blog?
BTW, as for Michael Moore’s movie, he spends time praising Jonas Salk (who was Jewish) and Socialist politician Bernie Sanders (also Jewish). Some people may also be under the incorrect impression that Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson are Jewish, when in fact neither one is.
Oblio, “out of line”? Didn’t know there is a “line”, and you are the line keeper.
You are not to “make allowances” to me, or call me “offensive” – after all the insulting language I had endured on this thread. You bet I will be offensive – in response to all the insinuations I had to read here.
Your efforts of watering down and re-phrasing Richard A’s anti-Semitic attack so it appears harmless are not unnoticed, but they are useless with me. Go dupe someone else.
Omitted: forgot to include Occam B in the Richard Aubrey’s company.
All the above concerns both.