On Aug 21, 2005, at 7:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/20/2005 10:30:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then this is a big difference between you and me. While you've been
going on and on about subtle anti-semitism, you probably haven't felt
its effects, yet you've been suggesting that I don't understand
oppression.
I never implied that you do not know about oppression.
Well, perhaps; it depends, I suppose, on how one looks at things.
Over the years I've come across some truly bizarre claims from GLBT
people about -ismic thinking. Probably one of the strangest was the
allegation that the Disney movie _The Lion King_ was homophobic. I
found the charge baffling then and still do; as near as I can tell, it
was because the character "Scar" was somewhat effete, and there were
gays who believed this cast homosexuality in a negative light --
completely overlooking the relationship between "Timon" and "Pumbaa"
(the meerkat/warthog buddies) and most especially how willing they were
to adopt an orphan runaway.
(But even THAT would be a stretch … I mean casting T & P as being gay.
It's like the Bert/Ernie thing from "Sesame Street". No deliberate
allusion to a sexualized relationship has ever been made, so really the
whole premise is just silly. Of course, in the former instance, it's
obvious that Timon would be the top, just as Bert is likely an S/M
queen. ;)
This has made me believe that it's possible for any group to interpret
various things in various ways (which is hardly a revelation), and even
to have variety within members of that group in terms of how they
perceive possible slights.
There are, of course, always cases wherein bigoted thinking is obvious,
and there are plenty of cases wherein bigotry does not exist -- but
there's also a vast nebulous area that doesn't lend itself to easy
interpretation. It's really a question, in such cases, of individual
judgment calls. A little like the part of baseball that makes the game
so contentious: The "strike zone" is nebulously defined, and a close
call will *always* spark controversy and is nearly *never* capable of
being objectively determined.
However, the issue I have with your contentions (to the extent they
refer to me) is that you seem to be suggesting I have insensitivity to
subtle bigotries as suffered by a particular group, which (to me)
translates to a suggestion that I'm insensitive to bigotry and
oppression in general. I don't believe that's the case. I'd have to be
a member of an unoppressed majority for that to be a feasible charge,
at least to my mind, and as I've stated, I am not such a fortunate
person.
And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment
call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective
evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests
we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone.
If there were objective reality to the claim that the "neo-con"
movement was originally comprised largely or exclusively of Jewish
people, then a case *could be* made that the label, used in certain
situations, would be evidence of an ism. But there'd have to be a few
things in place for this to be a valid charge, in my estimation:
1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or
now;
2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a broader
Jewish conspiracy;
3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably
be charged with an ism.
Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not
verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of a
person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of
background, declarations of position made historically, and so on.
Were the source of the allegations someone like Pat Robertson -- who's
absolutely a bigot -- then I would have little doubt that the intent
was to do harm to Jewish people. But Sheehan doesn't have a public
record of making bigoted statements, so it's harder to convince me that
she had harmful intentions in the things she might or might not have
said.
I don't believe I'm being insensitive to isms by suggesting the above;
I believe I'm following a train of thought that requires some evidence
standards to be met before I'm willing to attach a label of bigotry to
someone. Experience has shown me this is the preferable tack to choose.
I submit that it is you who don't understand oppression. You haven't,
by your admission, experienced it; I've lived with it every day of my
life. I have seen people like me die from it. People I have known have
killed themselves because of it. I live in a nation trying to make it
impossible and illegal for my people to marry. And you?
Here is where we part company. I think I do understrand oppression.
Even
though I haven't experienced my people have in the past and may again.
I feel
fear and anger because of this and by the way I think it makes me more
empathic
with individuals who are suffering from active oppression now. Jews
are not
immune to criticism because they have been oppressed. Individuals and
groups who
act poorly need to be critcized regardless of their place in society,.
Not
blamed; criticized.
So would you concede that it's your background in Judaic culture which
helps you be more sensitive to oppression in other groups? And would
you further concede the *possibility* that someone in a different
oppressed group might be just as sensitive to Jewish plight? Finally,
would you consider it plausible that what we're actually having here is
a difference of *judgment* in an issue which, like a "strike zone", is
vaguely defined at the edges, and which therefore disallows the
probability of an objective decision being made?
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
