I HAD HOPED TO STEER CLEAR OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
OFTEN PEOPLE DO NOT READ MICHAEL'S POST AS CAREFULLY AS THEY SHOULD BEFORE
THEY RESPOND. Sometimes he seems to put a different (perhaps
nonEurocentric?) spin on a topic that at first is jarring but after I think
about it for awhile makes a good point. Often when someone flames him and
he clarifies what he had actually intended, it turns out to be an excellent
question or point. Sometimes he is off the wall but his attempts to draw
connections among seemingly disparate concepts are usually refreshing.
Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, et al struck out alot more times than they cleared
the fences but we remember the home runs.
In the current fracas, I did not think he initially endorsed the idea that
Israelis were keeping the bloodlines pure. He related that a student had
said this in class. He did not say how he responded to the student. I
interpreted this to be background for the qustion "If such a thing were to
occur, would you consider it an example of ethnic cleansing?" Maybe I am
being naive in this assumption, but I think before making the assumption
that this was malicious, it would have been wise to seek a clarification.
Perhaps we should all remember the fundamental attribution error before
assigning internal motives to less than perfect postings or people will need
to spend hours editng before they feel comfortable putting something before
the group.
Michael Quanty
Psychology Professor
CBMTS Project Director
Thomas Nelson Community College
P.O. Box 9407
Hampton, Virginia 23670
Voice: 757.825.3500
Fax: 757.825.3807
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Klatsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 3:06 PM
To: TIPS
Subject: RE: Michael Sylvester, an appreciation (sort-of)
Paul
How do you distinguish between a statement that is offensive to a particular
ethnic or religious group and one that is racist or anti-Semitic?
As I said in my reply to Stephen, it is our responsibility to point out when
people are being offensive in a public forum. Yes they have the right to
say what they want but it does not mean we have to accept it. If enough
pressure is placed on the offensive person, maybe they will think before
they make those comments.
Gary
Gary J. Klatsky
Department of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oswego State University (SUNY)
http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
Oswego, NY 13126 Voice: (315) 341
3474
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Paul Brandon
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 1:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Michael Sylvester, an appreciation (sort-of)
Stephen--
I agree with your points.
I've stayed out of this discussion because I would not be comfortable on
either side.
As you say, much of what Michael S says is offensive, but this does not by
itself make it antisemitic.
As a Jew, his statements bother me, and I'm glad that Linda W has answered
them.
As a civil libertarian (card carrying member of the ACLU, etc) I feel that
he has the right to make them.
Ultimately, defending the general right to make offensive (to some)
statements protects the rights of all of us. Thius, I feel, is the bottom
line.
.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
