Still would like to know what you think of the real racists, as opposed to your purely fictitious racist, who does nothing but rant like a nut job on street corners, and consequently has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, which is a function of power, a mechanism of property.
-----Original Message----- >From: "David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sep 12, 2007 12:45 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ethnic nationalism > >Michael Perelman writes: > >>> I have to say that I am disappointed by David's behavior here. He is >>> usually an >>> intelligent libertarian, whom I enjoy and respect. I don't think that >>> people >>> getting bullied by loosing their jobs or having their publishers coerced >>> into >>> withdrawing materials. >>> >>> You used the example of powerless minorities defending themselves, but the >>> Israel >>> lobby is hardly powerless. Can you imagine if Middle Easterners demanded >>> comparable >>> power. > >I apologize to you Michael. I try and behave myself. In my defense, my >serious points are getting lost in transalation. > >Responses to Devine, Oncu, Raghu, Sartesian: > >Jim Devine writes: > >>>As far as I can tell, you interpret people as being crybabies if they either > >>>1) disagree with your opinions (or, alternatively, with only your >opinions on Israel), or > >>>2) follow deviation from from the official Party Line on Israel by >actually daring to defend themselves against the shit-storm of >criticism that such deviance evokes -- rather than surrendering to the >Alan Dershowitzes of the world. > >Absolutely not. The crybabies are people like Carter and Mearsheimer and Walt >who complain how you can't criticize Israel in the United States, but are >really complaining that you can't criticize Israel in the US without receiving >criticism back. I am making a very specific point, so don't misinterpet it. >I will give you one example. Here is the NY Times article on the controversy >of Mearsheimer and Walt's book tour: >http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/16/3220/. If you read the >article, what was the controversy? Some Jewish organizations refused to >invite the authors to pitch the books or worse, insisted that the >presentations be balanced by an opposing view. Crybabies. > >Jim Devine writes further: >>>How do you know what's reasonable for me to assume? You may share the >>>so-called "libertarian" opinions on Thalidomide sketched above, but it >is wrong for me to assume that you do. > >No, it would not be wrong to do so. If I were to accept the libertarian >label, it would be reasonable for you to make judgments and assumptions. You >are a Lefty. Is it unreasonable for me to assume that you think Fidel Casto >is more admirable than George Bush? That health-care should be guaranteed by >the government and/or provided through a single-payer system? Give me enough >time, I could make dozens of predictions about your views and be right on just >about every one. And you could probably do the same about me. We both have >quirks, but on balance, we would both be pretty accurate about the other. > >Sabri Oncu references the Ottoman Empire. My post referenced "democratic" >multi-ethinic states as generally failures and the US as the exception. >Successful multi-ethnic states are almost always empires, monarchies, etc., >for reasons we can discuss if you wish. Modern India is a very interesting >example, miraculous in many ways. However, even Modern India was born in the >midst of the Pakistan/India split, so it is hard to say how successful India >would be as a democracy if the split had not occurred. On a related note, >Raghu references Bosnia, which I think supports my point -- Bosnia was >successully multi-ethnic as long everybody was ruled by an outsider (Ottomans, >Communist Party). Bosnia exploded when democracy became a reality. > >Sartesian writes: > >>>Now David, nobody objects to criticism-- its censorship, suppression, >>>financial retaliation, deliberate distortion, that are the issues. I would >>>think such a true believer in the the true belief of individual freedom >>>would be sensitive to those issues. Well, maybe I don't think that. > >I am sensitive to all of that. I also think that most Israel critics who >complain about their inability to criticize are really saying that want to >criticize without receiving criticism back. See above response to Devine. >Disagree if you wish. > >Sartesian writes further: > >"As for the Nazi analogy-- when a state practices collective punishment in >response to acts of resistance-- when it enforces deprivation and immiseration >on another people because of their claims to property from which they've been >expelled-- well if the foo shits wear it-- those are things Nazi's practiced. > >Hey, Prof. Devine, still think my reading was unreasonable? > >David Shemano
