Hi Jean-Marc,

Jean-Marc Perreault wrote:
> 
>       I really wanted to stay out of this one, but it
> seems I'm missing a piece of information, and I would
> really like to find it.

What you are missing is history. TIPS is indeed a wonderful forum for an
exchange of ideas related to teaching and psychology. I truly value the
professional relationships that I have developed over the years as a
result of this forum. Some of these relationships have resulted in joint
publication and convention/conference presentations over the years. You
would be hard pressed to find a better group of individuals.

However, TIPS is a forum that like other groups has a history.  The
poster in question has a history of offensive posts which have been
responded to over the years.  He makes posts simply to bait people and
we usually ignore the posts.  Sometimes the posts are humorous and
occasionally challenging. However, not all fit into those categories and
after time someone usually snaps and takes the bait.  On the surface and
in isolation, none of the posts appear highly offensive but the pattern
over time tells another story.  As I wrote in a similar discussion in
1999 (not that any of this ceased from there to here!) just in regards
to anti-Semitism. I had also raised a similar objection in October of
1998. 


**************

First, here is the original post to which I responded as I found it
offensive.  This is followed by someone's questioning of my comments and
my reply.

The original post:

This issue came up while discussing prejudice in Social Psychology. Even
though Israel allowed for the Black Jews to relocate to Israel from
Ethiopia,there was a story that the blood donated by the black jews were
put in a separate blood banks and were discarded because Israel did not
want to mix the Ethiopian blood with those of the other immigrants.
Could this be viewed as a form of ethnic cleansing?

> Michael's posts are outrageous. They are often provocative,
> superficial, tasteless, insensitive, misinformed, ignorant, silly, and

> dumb. Linda Woolf thinks they're also anti-Semitic. But are they?


Well, let's see.  (Note that I simply did a quick 15 minute search using
a couple of key terms so I have probably missed some posts):

A post that ask whether Jewish professors tend to adopt texts written by
Jews is perhaps silly.

A post that criticizes university administration for sending out memos
that only announce up-coming Jewish religious Holy Days and not Moslem
is an accurate criticism (although worrisome in light of a later post -
see below).

To ask "did CP Snow write that he thought that the Jews had an
intellectual superiority?" (not in the context of any other discussion
or thought) is confusing.

A post (dated mid -1997) concerning the Ethiopian blood situation and
putting it in a list of atrocities such as the U.S./Canadian Internment
of the Japanese, the use of women as sex slaves in Korea, and slavery is provocative.

Referring to the mention of Jewish text authors in class as the "Jewish
factor" is ??????

To state that the Jewish faith requires women to be submissive to their
husbands is misinformed.

Asking why Hitler did not like Freud is dumb.

To state without further data or explanation in response to a post
concerning the effect of the Bible vs. pornography on violent behavior,
" The Israeli grab of Palestinian land and subsequent aggresions.", is provocative.

To argue that behavioral scientists are complacent to injustice and then
ask "BTW,was not Wolpe of Jewish descent?" and mention no other
behavioral scientists is provocative and raises questions.

To make the statement "Seems like 'damn if you do,damn if you don't.'"
in response to upset on the part of Jewish survivors to the canonization
of Edith Stein seems insensitive.

To make the statement, "Try defying the administration by NOT (emphasis
mine) allowing Jewish students to do make-up work on account of Jewish
Holydays." is worrisome.

To state that the ancient Hebrews practiced incest and could this be the
basis for Freud's Oedipal theories is misinformed and the idea has roots
in religious anti-Semitism.

To equate the Ethiopian blood issue of several years past with ethnic
cleansing is offensive particularly in the light of the Holocaust.

To raise the claim of fear of "blood mixing" and the words "allowed" to
relocate is totally misinformed and erroneous.  The motivations become
worrisome as the topic had been raised previously on TIPS.

Raising the belief that Jews see themselves as the chosen people and
that they use this belief as the basis for oppression is grounded in an
anti-Semitic tradition that dates back through the centuries.  Of
course, Henry Ford helped to promote it in the U.S. with his publication
of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

One could probably argue that each of these is just silly, misinformed
or highly provocative.  I question just how misinformed Michael can be
due to his religious background as a monk.  Either his education
concerning Old Testament was very poor or his instructors were teaching
anti-Semitic ideas.  As there has been great strides in the past fifty
years in Jewish-Catholic relations, I tend to dismiss the later.  As
Michael appears to be educated and has demonstrated that education
concerning religious concepts on other topics, I tend to dismiss the former.

In total, the posts and Michael's knowledge raise questions about his
motivation.  This is the only group for which Michael Sylvester cites
negatively on a relatively frequent basis.  Yes, Michael has made a
couple of posts concerning homosexuals and a couple of posts concerning
"dwarfs" (including "dwarf tossing").    He also has made some Jewish
jokes which in this case also includes Jewish mother jokes.  But for no
other group do we see a consistent pattern of negativity and baiting.


***************

Back to the present - I'm sure another 15 search of the archives could
create another list of comments but this should give you as sense as to
why individuals responded negatively.

Often the poster in question puts "a student asked me in class today" in
front of his posts. My sense is that this is simply to deflect questions
about motivation.  First, I don't think students are as misinformed or
as confused as this individual's students are alleged to be.  Second, my
sense is that most professors already know how to address such
misinformation if genuinely asked in  class.

Warm regards,

Linda

   
-- 
Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D.
Book Review Editor, H-Genocide
Associate Professor - Psychology 
Coordinator - Holocaust & Genocide Studies,
Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights
Webster University
470 East Lockwood
St. Louis, MO  63119

Main Webpage:  http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/  
mailto:woolflm@;webster.edu

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's (and woman's) best friend. . . . 
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." 
                  -             Groucho Marx

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to