The Miracle, at 60


Barbara Branden

Recommended Posts

...To call a Muslim an Arab is actually flattering to him, not a term of bigotry....

I think it's pretty well-known that Iranians don't like to be called Arabs. Not because it's a term of bigotry, just because it's incorrect. According to Wikipedia, only 3% of Iranians are Arab; 51% are Persians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Laure,

I don't know where it's well known. Where I used to live in Brazil, it was not well known at all. And I knew many Iranian immigrants and descendents.

Maybe it is different in other parts of the world. I usually see Westerners make an issue out of this in the news, hardly ever an Iranian.

If it gets territorial, I can imagine calling an Iranian an Iraqi would be offensive, or something like that, but I don't believe this would be the case as regards anything dealing with the Islamic culture.

I believe this is one case of transposing alien values on another culture. We all do it, too, because what we are is what we know best.

I do agree that an Iranian might correct a foreigner on this because of being correct (as you said). I can imagine him getting upset if the person refuses to adopt the correction. He might interpret that as a form of bigotry against him in answer to his request. I don't see him imagining that any bigotry between Arabs and Persions is involved.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

You just did something that I used to do. I want to give you some information so you can look at it in a different light. You took a broad principle that works for most things and applied it to an area you (seemingly) know very little about, and then based a severe moral judgment on that principle alone.

When dealing with the Islamic culture, generally racial, cultural and political boundaries are much more blurred than they are in other cultures. They are so for a reason. For instance, Barbara's use of the word "Arab" just now offended you, but I have no doubt at all—none—that it would not offend an Iranian, which is the biggest and bitterest rival (Shiite) in Islam to the Saudi Arabian version (Sunni). I know this because I lived within the Islamic culture for 5 years in Brazil. I was on the periphery, I admit, but I was still close enough to observe things like this.

In fact, there is a funny term the Arabs use for Arabs in Brazil: Turk.

Now why do you think this is so?

Look to the Qur'an. Within Islam, only the Arabian version is the valid one. All other translations are considered mere descriptions. Also, the two holy places in Islam are Mecca and Medina, both in Saudi Arabia. One of the five pillars of Islam is to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. No other country has a holy place in it.

An idea that is present in the Qur'an, which both fundamentalists and enemies of Islam harp on to an exaggerated degree, is for Muslims to establish one nation on earth under Islam.

These conditions apply to all Muslims everywhere. To call a Muslim an Arab is actually flattering to him, not a term of bigotry.

Back to why Brazilian Arabs call Arabs "Turks," the reason is the Ottoman empire, which ruled practically all Islamic countires before WWI. And it ruled them for a very long time.

So if you look at a Jew facing Nazi-based anti-Semitism (which is the kind, say, with Hamas), then hear that same Jew talk about Arabs, you are dealing with two different animals. They are as different as night and day.

Let's be clear. A Jewish bigot is a bigot, regardless of anything else, but a Jew using the word "Arab" for identification purposes is not. Just like an Arab (or Muslim or whatever you want to call the members of the Islamic nation) saying the word Jew is not a bigot, but saying "Jewish swine," like you see on Palestinean TV daily, is a bigot.

Knowledge is power, my friend. Use it wisely when you judge.

Michael

You've got it all wrong. What I was objecting to was the use of 'Arab enemies' when 'enemies' would suffice. I was not objecting to the term 'Arab' at all. She deliberately adds an ethnic adjective to the term 'enemies' as if the ethnicity somehow contributes to the term.

In this context saying "Jewish swine" as you put it, or "Arab enemies" as Barbara did is exactly the same. It's a bigoted remark, period.

Whether she admits it or not, what she did was ask us to weigh Jewish behaviour vs "Arab enemy' behaviour to make a point that Arab enemies (not just enemies but ARAB enemies) are swine - or more precisely how so much better (Good qua good) Jews are in comparison.

Let's be honest now, that's just as bigoted as Wolf, just more subtle...

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

What enemies surround Israel that are not Arab (in the sense I described above)? Israel happens to have had German enemies and others who are non-Arab.

You are stretching the word here to include a meaning that is not present in the usage.

Also, Barbara is not a bigot. I object strongly to your characterization of her as such. I will only let it stand this once because I am aware how the image her exclusive reliance on strongly pro-Zionist sources comes across, but not anything in your arguments.

I will delete anything else like that.

Please stick to the ideas.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Barbara is not a bigot.

Michael

Ok fine.

But is this a bigoted remark?:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good."

Can someone who truly believes this, as written, not be racist? I ask you.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the paragraph again, groc the intent, then tell me again I'm wrong on this.

Grock...

(There, I grocked it.)

You're wrong on this.

:)

(You are wrong, too.)

But is this a bigoted remark?:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good."

Can someone who truly believes this, as written, not be racist? I ask you.

No it isn't racist.

I believe this statement would have read: "But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its German enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good," if Israel had been set up in Germany. You could almost make that statement in light of WWII.

If someone constantly attacks you from the same group and you identify that group, you are not being racist. You are being racist if you claim that all members of that group are attackers and haters (and cannot be otherwise), though.

Here is the basic logic. They are called Arab enemies because:

1. They are Arabs,

2. They are there,

3. Nobody else is.

4. There are lots of enemies there.

5. Other enemies exist.

If this is not clear, I give up and let's let the matter be.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the paragraph again, groc the intent, then tell me again I'm wrong on this.

Grock...

(There, I grocked it.)

You're wrong on this.

:)

(You are wrong, too.)

But is this a bigoted remark?:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good."

Can someone who truly believes this, as written, not be racist? I ask you.

No it isn't racist.

I believe this statement would have read: "But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its German enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good," if Israel had been set up in Germany. You could almost make that statement in light of WWII.

If someone constantly attacks you from the same group and you identify that group, you are not being racist. You are being racist if you claim that all members of that group are attackers and haters (and cannot be otherwise), though.

Here is the basic logic. They are called Arab enemies because:

1. They are Arabs,

2. They are there,

3. Nobody else is.

4. There are lots of enemies there.

5. Other enemies exist.

If this is not clear, I give up and let's let the matter be.

Michael

How is there not a contradiction (or two) in there? Really now. I honestly don't think you believe this.

"are being racist if you claim that all members of that group are attackers and haters "

No. You know this isn't correct. One is racist if one believes that the racial component of the group distinction contributes to their status as enemies.

I do not believe that you have such poor understanding of what racism is. I smell a rat here. Something just doesn't add up.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Bob.

Please define racism as you understand it.

And please try to hold on to that chip on your shoulder that demands that someone agree with you or be evil. That's what I object to in some ortho-Objectivists and it is not becoming in you.

I will not allow intimidation to become part of the rhetorical fare of this discussion forum. The rat you smell is gnawing on that chip.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara: "But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies..."

Bob: "I think this is highly offensive, and I'm not Arab. I respectfully suggest she reflect on why she had to include the word 'Arab' in that context.... She deliberately adds an ethnic adjective to the term 'enemies' as if the ethnicity somehow contributes to the term. In this context saying 'Jewish swine' as you [Michael] put it, or 'Arab enemies' as Barbara did is exactly the same. It's a bigoted remark, period."

I appreciate -- and agree with -- what Brant and Michael have said explaining my use of the word "Arab." In simplest terms, I used the word "Arab" because those are the enemies of Israel we were discussing, not its other enemies. (See your post #18.) This does not seem very complicated to me. Period.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm "pro-Jew" and not "anti-Arab." I'm pro-Arab;

--Brant

I humbly suggest that that is simply not possible - a contradiction.

And until we realize this is a contradiction, racism will flourish unabated.

Bob

When I say I'm "pro-Jew" I'm not saying I'm pro-a-Jew-who-murders. When I say I'm pro-Arab I'm not saying I'm pro-an-Arab-who-murders. I am saying I minimally don't hold it against any human being just because he is one or the other. It's the essential humanity of each I am "pro."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm "pro-Jew" and not "anti-Arab." I'm pro-Arab;

--Brant

I humbly suggest that that is simply not possible - a contradiction.

And until we realize this is a contradiction, racism will flourish unabated.

Bob

I am saying I minimally don't hold it against any human being just because he is one or the other.

--Brant

Right! Now we're getting somewhere!

The only thing you should add, I think, is the corollary that you cannot hold someone in higher esteem because he is one or the other. Or in other words, you cannot be PRO - [insert race here] and not be racist.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Bob.

Please define racism as you understand it.

Michael

Any prejudice, positive OR negative, that is based all or in part on the genetic or cultural heritage of a person. Or in other words, drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not).

It ain't that tough.

For example.

1) West africans are the fastest runners. (98 of the world's top 100 sprinters have west afican blood). (fact)

2) Joe is west african, therefore he must be fast. (racist)

Do I really have to explain this?

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rat you smell is gnawing on that chip.

Michael

Well, perhaps Michael, but I'm really sensitive to folks that claim they're not racist, but somehow cannot stop making racist remarks.

And to be more clear, as soon as somebody is avidly PRO - [insert race here] it's only a matter of time before the more familiar racism leaks out more overtly. Happens every time. One just has to agitate a little and out it pops, right on cue.

Most people don't realize that being Pro - [insert race here] defines one as inescapably racist. It is one and the same. Look at the Nazi's. As soon as the aryans become the ideal, every one else is just different levels of genetic garbage.

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For crying out loud! Why the hell is it so easy to see that being pro-White is racist, but being pro-something else is just bloody fine? Just because there might be a minority/majority situation changes nothing! Pro-Jew is JUST as racist as being pro-White. It is EXACTLY THE FRIGGIN' SAME THING!

What frustrates me is that until we wake the hell up and face this, racism rocks on.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm "pro-Jew" and not "anti-Arab." I'm pro-Arab;

--Brant

I humbly suggest that that is simply not possible - a contradiction.

And until we realize this is a contradiction, racism will flourish unabated.

Bob

I am saying I minimally don't hold it against any human being just because he is one or the other.

--Brant

Right! Now we're getting somewhere!

The only thing you should add, I think, is the corollary that you cannot hold someone in higher esteem because he is one or the other. Or in other words, you cannot be PRO - [insert race here] and not be racist.

Well, I have a much greater cultural affinity for Jews than Arabs, but there is some culture that is Jewish I do not like, at least for its insularity. It's very uneven. I can say the same about WASPs, of which I am one. I like another culture--or aspects of it--that gives me a broader, positive idea of who I am, potentially at least, as a human being. I will tend to hold a Jew in higher esteem than any other including WASPs if that's all I know right off the bat as a default start. That doesn't last long. For instance, I can't stand willfull stupidity and many Jews combine that with brains usually expressed as liberal, collectivist, socialist. The more obviously obnoxious is greatly self-limiting. The evil to dangerous is reflected in The New York Times, historical champion of communism-coverup Stalin mass-murdering and Castro in Cuba. The NYT is America's truly traitor newspaper and it is controlled and owned by the Sulzbergers. It's in big trouble financially because of declining ad revs and I hope to see it shrivel up and die in my own lifetime, its hdqs bldg bulldozed and the land turned into a park so I can go there and dance. But the hatred and contempt I feel for that paper, which I read for decades, is not hatred for Jews, even its owners. I don't think Walter Duranty was Jewish. Was Herb Matthews?

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Bob.

Please define racism as you understand it.

Michael

Any prejudice, positive OR negative, that is based all or in part on the genetic or cultural heritage of a person. Or in other words, drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not).

It ain't that tough.

For example.

1) West africans are the fastest runners. (98 of the world's top 100 sprinters have west afican blood). (fact)

2) Joe is west african, therefore he must be fast. (racist)

Do I really have to explain this?

Bob

But Bob, Barbara didn't make a #2-type statement, did she? She never said, Ahmed is an Arab, therefore he must be unfairly against Israel. And Brant didn't make a #2-type statement. He never said, Ira is a Jew, therefore I like him better than Ahmed (or whatever). I think both of them are making #1-type statements. Arabs oppose Israel's existence (doesn't mean they all do). Not sure what Brant's view of Jews is, but it could be something like, "Jews are fun-loving and place a heavy emphasis on intellectual pursuits." (doesn't mean this applies to every Jewish individual) It is very difficult for human beings not to create stereotypes of different categories of people. Sometimes they're accurate, sometimes not, sometimes they're based on our own limited experience with that category of people. I agree that drawing a conclusion about any individual based on his racial characteristics is always racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bob, Barbara didn't make a #2-type statement, did she? She never said, Ahmed is an Arab, therefore he must be unfairly against Israel.

You're right, she said "Arab enemies" - no difference when in context IMHO. Now, she contends that 'Arab' merely distinguishes between Israel's other middle east enemies. like ah... er...uh... the 'other' ones.

Now let's look at what she did say (either first hand or by quotation - which we have to assume she agrees with).

"the world should recognize the enormous gifts the Jewish state has given the world."

"Israel has created a legal system that is the envy of the world"

"No other nation with such high standards of morality"

"no nation in the world has contributed more per capita to the general welfare of the people of this planet than Israel."

and...

"In many fields Israel is so far ahead of the pack that other countries have no chance of catching up."

And so on ad nauseum, but then this:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good.""

So, not only are the Israelis the best in the world at just about everything, the Arabs are so evil that, even acknowledging that Israelis have made mistakes, the Israelis are the very models of goodness compared to the Arab enemies.

And Brant didn't make a #2-type statement.

Oh really?

Brant:

"I will tend to hold a Jew in higher esteem than any other including WASPs if that's all I know right off the bat as a default start."

Ahem....

So, now let me go back and summarize what Barbara's argument boils down to:

1.) Jews = greatness.

2.) Arabs totally suck.

No, no racism there, none at all.

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... OK, Bob, you win this round. Although I don't think it is necessarily racist to view present-day Jewish culture as superior to present-day Arab culture. But I can see where you're coming from -- if you replace "white" for "Jewish" and "black" for "Arab", the nasty tone of a statement like this becomes more obvious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... OK, Bob, you win this round. Although I don't think it is necessarily racist to view present-day Jewish culture as superior to present-day Arab culture. But I can see where you're coming from -- if you replace "white" for "Jewish" and "black" for "Arab", the nasty tone of a statement like this becomes more obvious to me.

Well Laure,

It's not about winning at all. It's just a topic I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about. I used to be angry (well annoyed at least) in my youth about why I couldn't have a "white" club, when there was a "Chinese" club meeting going on every week. Of course, I know now I was wrong and the idea of a "White" club is offensive. But so is the Chinese club for the same reasons. It seems I grew up and saw the light, but few others "get it".

Jews have had a tough history, to say the least. As a non-violent example, many clubs (like country clubs) historically don't (and maybe still don't) allow Jews to be members - just as an example. This sickens me. Now, Jews go ahead and set up the ultimate club (a country) and refuse to allow non-Jews to join. (I know there are Arab Israelis, but try to immigrate there as a non-Jew and see what happens.) They escape the discrimination only to do exactly the same thing. This sickens me even more.

Touting the greatness of Israel, or any other racial group, is just the 'pretty' side of something very ugly at its core. It's my contention that it's about time we faced it, and not give these folks a pass because they're all "nice and positive".

Barbara quoted Dershowitz at the beginning and I guess that set me off because I think that this guy is a total, complete scumbag.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon back,Wolf; we're all racists here, now, except Bob, altho I'm beginning to wonder if he is racist for racists. :mellow: A Jew in college once all but called me a Nazi. If he only knew! I've met many obnoxious Jews, but I never let that color my attitude toward Jews I liked. I thought that would have been racist. I love the way Jews generally celebrate and encourage education, inteligence, efficacy and achievement. I never knew this was racism on my part. I've never given any Jew 10 cents just for being Jewish, though. When I said "default start" it was only a start, not a start/stop. I had an Arab roommate in college. I wasn't crazy about him. I did like him a lot more than the Jew who thought I was a Nazi because my political views at the time were similar to Barry Goldwater's! I'll never forget his arrogant condescending leering/snearing. It's a hateful memory for me, but that is for him, not other Jews.

Bob, I really feel that you quote me in a way that somewhat changes what I said and meant because you keep cutting up my sentences to find the bits and parts you can use. This has happened twice so far on this thread.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Let's take the issues according to priority. To start with, rules of engagement. Without such rules, no rational engagement is possible.

Do I really have to explain this?

The answer is yes. You do have to explain it. Questioning that is akin to stating that you do not want to establish rules of engagement.

You are making some serious accusations and defining one's terms is the standard procedure in a philosophical debate. If you wish to continue the debate on a rational level, it is a good idea to adhere to such rules of engagement. They exist for a reason. You are not dealing with children in kindergarten here, but highly intelligent intellectuals. Learn to respect that.

Now, about your definition of racism.

Any prejudice, positive OR negative, that is based all or in part on the genetic or cultural heritage of a person. Or in other words, drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not).

I am not satisfied with this definition on several levels, but I will discuss two. The first is not being clear on what you mean by prejudice. If you mean evaluation, that is one thing. If you mean a synonym for racism, this is what is called a circular definition. For example:

A racist is someone prejudiced about race.

Someone prejudiced about race is a racist.

That's not much of a definition. You didn't go to that extent, but your meaning is vague, so I would be interested in understanding what you mean by prejudiced.

Let's look deeper. Here's an example. I would vastly prefer to be surrounded by white people in, say, a cooperative environment in Sweden than black people in a jungle tribe in Africa. Is that prejudice in your meaning? My preference is real and I know it is rational. I am relatively safe and I can exercise my mind among the Swedes. There is enormous produced wealth there. As to the tribe—I probably would get along with the tribe members, but I would be limited mentally, there would be no technological goodies and they might cook me and eat me if they are a tribe of cannibals.

Black and white are merely part of an entire context and I see no reason to omit that detail. There is no particular reason to include it either, other than to help with a visual image. If you said jungle tribe in Africa, the ones I know of are made up exclusively of black people. And Sweden is predominantly white to an exaggerated degree compared to other countries.

On thinking about it, there is one situation where there is an excellent reason to mention these colors: when someone tries to censor your manner of speech by attributing an incorrect intention to you. In order to make a point that your freedom of speech is not under the control of such a person, you make a special point of mentioning these details. This will show the person the exact limits of his control and set boundaries.

I certainly will not change my preference for white corporate Swedes over black African jungle tribe members because someone accuses me of being a racist for having it. He would need to convince my reason, not cow me by intimidation and false attribution of my motives.

On the positive side, if you mean by the term "prejudice" judging a person's mental potential or moral character by his genes, then we are on the same page. But I do not get that from your usage.

Now the second point. Another part of your definition rings all kinds of warning bells in my head: "drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not)."

A conclusion? Any conclusion whatsoever?

For instance, a black person has a darker skin pigment than a white person does. Observing that and saying it is racism?

You are going to have to do much better than that if you want to convince me of the validity of your definition. Noticing skin pigment and keeping a group of people enslaved based on skin pigment is not a difference of degree, but one of kind. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to explain the difference between degree and kind right now if you have doubts. Maybe in a future post.

But frankly, I think your definition of racism lops off the head of human beings and lowers man to a barnyard animal where it becomes a sin to notice the differences between chickens and cows, or more precisely between dairy cows and other types of cattle. Even in your example, you left out the mind:

For example.

1) West africans are the fastest runners. (98 of the world's top 100 sprinters have west afican blood). (fact)

2) Joe is west african, therefore he must be fast. (racist)

I would even start in this example to ask what you mean by "West Africans." Do you mean white West Africans in that statistic? Or only black ones? There are certainly white people living in West Africa. Are they not West Africans too?

Why leave out the racial detail in this case? On reading about it, there actually does seem to be some kind of genetic cause and effect. It has been measured in athletic contests. That detail is not due to where somebody lives, but a biological component. Yet you present the non-essential geographical component as the essential one and almost dare anyone to talk about the fundamental biological one.

If one were to take those statistics seriously, and I believe they should be (depending on the source) since they are based on observed and recorded measurements, then your second statement needs a qualification. If you claim that Joe must be fast as a fact, you are making a statement about something you did not observe. You are making it up. Your syllogism is flawed at the major premise level. It would look like the following:

P1: West Africans are the fastest runners

P2: Joe is West African

Conclusion: Therefore Joe is fast

It is unclear if your major premise means most West Africans are the fastest runners, or all West Africans are the fastest runners. If you are talking only about West Africans who have entered athletic contests, you are certainly not talking about all of them. Thus the premise is flawed for the conclusion (Joe might be a member outside of the "some" that was not stated).

If you claim that it is highly probable that Joe is fast, you are using inductive reasoning. You are looking at a category, seeing a member of that category and presuming that he most likely shares the distinctive characteristics of most of the other members.

The discipline of forming categories is called concept formation. Concepts in Objectivism are open-ended precisely because new observations might turn up exceptions. They often do. Man would have to be omnipotent to know all the cases in a category and he is not that. He is limited to his five senses (or however many there are when you include perception of gravity, etc.). But the exceptions do not invalidate the observed differences and similarities of all the other members.

Here are some definitions I gleaned off the Internet for racism. They come from different sources. I don't have all day, so you can see them here if your are interested:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

. . .

1. hostile or oppressive behaviour towards people because they belong to a different race

2. the belief that some races are innately superior to others because of hereditary characteristics

. . .

1. a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's race is superior and has the right to control others.

2. a belief in a policy of enforcing the asserted right of control.

I should point out to you that there is a difference between bigotry and racism. Race is biological and bigotry is the wider concept that can include culture or other aspects. Racism is one form of bigotry, so it is an error to use the term racism for matters of culture. Look it up. Precision is important in hot-button issues.

Ayn Rand wrote an essay entitled "Racism" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Here are the opening paragraphs. I strongly urge you to get your hands on it and read the whole thing if you have not done so.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

This conversation is far from over. We really need to arrive at common ground on the meaning of racism before slinging that term around in public on a philosophy forum. After defining our terms, then we can get into what Barbara meant or not and what you understood or not.

So far, I am not convinced of your argument. And the issue starts with what you mean. It seems very subjective at this point, meaning it would apply to one case because you say so because you feel like it, but not another similar case because you say so and because you feel like it, with a little reasoning thrown in for show. You call it "getting it." I don't use that standard (from anyone) in my thinking. I value precision.

So we start by defining our terms. Then this impression goes away.

Incidentally, don't think that all is roses between Barbara and me on this. You should see some of our emails. They get quite painful for both of us. But despite all of our disagreements, I can assure you she is not a bigot and her support of Israel does not stem from bigotry. If it did, she would not strongly object to Bob Kolker clamoring to kill Muslim babies and Islamo-genocide in general as the good (his signature is "don't fuck with the Jews"), ARI wanting to nuke Iran at the outset and bomb Muslim schools on principle to defend Israel, or even her benevolent analysis of the morality of a child brought up in an Islamist terrorist mind-control environment and suffering great loss (see "Objectivism and Rage" for this last). There is plenty more of the same where that came from, too. She has stated in writing that Objectivist bigots are the lepers of Objectivism.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, you defired racism as follows: "Any prejudice, positive OR negative, that is based all or in part on the genetic or cultural heritage of a person. Or in other words, drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not)."

I said nothing about any individual Jew; I was discussing the nation of Israel. I said nothimg about any indivdual Arab. I was discussing Arab nations. I said nothing about any genetic or cultural heritage; I was discussimg present day facts about nations.

Nor were my remarks racist accordimg to the followimg definitions:

Dictionary.com: "Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

Oxford English Dictionary:"Racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races."

Ayn Rand: "It [racism] is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

You wrote: "So, now let me go back and summarize what Barbara's argument boils down to:

1.) Jews = greatness.

2.) Arabs totally suck."

This is your fantasy, it has nothing to do with any statement I made or quoted.

You wrote: "Jews go ahead and set up the ultimate club (a country) and refuse to allow non-Jews to join."

This is sheer nonsense, As of 1999, approximately 80% of Israeli citizens were Jewish (a majority of them secular). Approximately 16 percent were Muslims, 2 percent Christians, and 1.5 percent Druze, or other faiths, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs.

You wrote: "Barbara quoted Dershowitz at the beginning and I guess that set me off because I think that this guy is a total, complete scumbag."

Are you a racist about liberals? I don't like much of what I know abut Dershowitx, but that does not blind me to statements of his that are true -- or to statements by anyone else that are true.

Example: the Jewish Virtual Library, known for its strong pro-Israel stand, states:

"The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs and they are subject to various forms of discrimination. It is not clear that whatever discrepancies exist in the treatment of various communities in Israeli society are based on religion per se. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis are, in fact, free to practice their religions.

"The Government does not provide Israeli Arabs, who constitute 20 percent of the population, with the same quality of education, housing, employment opportunities, and social services as Jews. In addition, government spending and financial support are proportionally far lower in predominantly non-Jewish areas than in Jewish areas."

These are regrettable facts about Israel, which I most emphatically do not condone. But since I do not believe that "Jews =greatness," I recognize that they are true.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now