thanks for your thoughts. i don't agree. --- On Wed, 2/18/09, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: From: Rob Myers <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] boycotts etc To: [email protected], "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 9:23 AM
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM, mark cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll never understand why any criticism of Israel is automatically taken as > racism by some. I'll never understand why some racists think they can shut down debate by saying this." The project is not (simply) criticism of Israel, it is extending to Jews elsewhere through its choice of target. My objection to the project is not automatic, it is based on that fact. > I have Jewish friends who don't like the apartheid happening > in Palestine any more than I do. I have some Jewish friends who do not like the ghettoisation of Israel any more than I do. > I don't see that the problems that you > point out concerning racist attitudes around the world have anything to do > with the discussion of Israel's policy in Palestine. When that "discussion" consists of anti-semitic canards and that "discussion" has no other subject and that "discussion" asks only for agreement, it is not unreasonable to want to peek behind the curtain. > As far as corporate > sponsored art the call didn't state that it had anything to do with making > accusations toward Jews controlling the art market. Jewish domination of the media is an old anti-semitic canard. The gallery was chosen specifically because it was owned by a Jewish media owner. > Perhaps they want to > make a connection between media bias toward Israel's policy in Palestine I have seen claims of bias the other way. I think it depends who one wishes the reports to be biased in favour of. > and > to see if that bias extends beyond the popular culture of news media to fine > art culture. This is a peculiar point at which to start investigating general "bias" in the media, and given that it is a specific claim of "bias" it is unlikely to apply more generally. > To demonstrate that there is bias in the media and government > and art institutions is not to be racist. To choose a particular individual for this critique as a political act because of their race is to be racist. To choose to undertake this critique as a political act against a racial group is racist. The project may not be intentionally racist, but it could not have done better at collecting anti-semitic memes if it was a BNP front. I had to decide whether it was a Sokal-style hoax before commenting on it. > I abhor U.S. foriegn policy. Doesn't everyone? And for the record I oppose(d) Operation Cast Lead. > We > have military bases in over a hundred countries and our commanders (and vast > majority of army) are Christian. Some brave atheist American soldiers are tackling this. > Seemingly, with this logic - I must be a > Christian hater because I criticize U.S. foreign policy and recognize media > bias toward supporting this policy. But the Christianity of US Army officers is not a link in the chain of reasoning that leads to you opposing US foreign policy. Bloomberg's Jewishness is a causal factor in this call for a boycott. The logic is different. You are not discriminating on the basis of religion or race. - Rob.
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
