Hi Tipsters,
Michael Sylvester wrote:
> I am not anti-semitic.I know better not to associate alleged
> policies of a political and government organization as representing
> the consensus of the masses. I bring up the issue of Eurocentrcism
> periodically for discussion purposes.Does that mean that I am anti-
> European? Hell no!As a matter of fact my ability to compare and contrast
> systems makes me the quintessential divergent thinker.
I based my statement concerning the appearance of anti-Semitism on your repeated
posts to TIPS that date back over a year-and-a-half (the length of time that I
have participated on this list). Additionally, I based my statement on the fact
that the vast majority of your posts do not concern themselves with policies of
the Israeli government or political parties. Rather, your statements and
questions have been based on negative stereotypes of Jews.
Additionally, the decision concerning the use of the new Israeli's blood was not
made by a government or political group. Rather, it was made by a non-profit
medical association, the Israeli National Red Cross - the Magen David Adom
(founded in 1930).
The consistent use of misinformation based on stereotype and prejudice is not a
sign of effective critical or divergent thinking skills.
> I never said that Israel was responsible cleansing. I was speculating
> on whether a policy of blood discrimination could be viewed as an
> "ethnic policy" agenda,just as there is talk of "ethnic purity"
> as in the Japanese negative attitude about international marriages
You are correct - you did not say that Israel was responsible for cleansing.
Rather, you asked if the blood policy could "be viewed as a form of ethnic
cleansing?" Thus, you did not state but rather you insinuated. And, I find
this insinuation offensive.
To equate eugenic/genocidal policies with policies designed to protect the blood
supply (as you did in your previous post) is outrageous.
In regards to ethnicity, the Ethiopian Jews are considered Jews so intermarriage
in not a problem.
Now some additional clarification concerning the use blood donation issue of the
newly arrived emigrants from Ethiopia. There were several reasons for the
policy as it was defined at the time. First, Ethiopia (like many African
nations) has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of infection for other
communicable diseases (which would serve to exclude an individual from blood
donation). Second, as the Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to safety over the
course of 3 days, there was not enough time to conduct HIV tests on all of the
new immigrants. In hindsight, this was probably a mistake. Additionally, the
new immigrants were not provided information concerning the mechanisms by which
HIV is spread. Finally, research has demonstrated (e.g. McFarland, W., Mvere,
D., & Katzenstein, D., 1997) a significant risk factor for HIV seropositivity
associated with being a new donor from several African nations. Thus, the
decision was made to exclude new Israeli Jews from Ethiopia from blood donation.
Much of what became an issue several years ago can also be traced to a poorly
thought-out decision made by Magen David Adom. Individuals involved in the
decision did not want to offend the newly arrived Ethiopian Jews. Thus, it was
decided that immigration status would not be used as an up-front exclusion
criteria. Rather, the Ethiopian Jews were led to believe that their donation
was accepted but the blood was be secretly disposed of. As with most bad
decisions (either governmental or associated with some other agency), the truth
leaked out. This, of course, resulted in an outpouring of anger and hurt on the
part of the new Israelis. Thus, what Magen David Adom has sought to avoid was
only magnified.
It should be noted that due to the passage of time since immigration and
improved HIV screening techniques, this blood donation policy has been changed.
> > Now to clear up some misinformation that appears in Michael's post.
>
> Why should your information be more credible than mine?
Perhaps, because I actually provide information as opposed to brief snippets of
stereotype and prejudicially based statements/questions.
>
> Well,Well!
> HIV is rampant in Ethiopia
> They are from Ethiopia
> Hence they may have HIV
>
> It is this type of reasoning that leads to prejudicial thinking.
We are dealing with a life-threatening virus for which there is not cure. This
virus does not care about your race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. It is
not subject to "prejudicial thinking". As HIV is best transmitted by blood, I
imagine that policies related to "at-risk" groups will continue to be used as a
means to protect the blood supply.
B'Shalom,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
