Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm as pro-Israel as any one here and I have never heard the "allegiance elsewhere" as a thing. I give a pass on something she might not have realized. I do think there are some real haters in the new crop of congress, just not this one statement.

I’ve heard it before. It’s an argument that Jews’ first loyalty isn’t to the US.

These bigots clearly don’t know any US Jews.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, that is not a fair summary of the point. The point is the Jewish people have been targeted for a lot of nasty stuff explicitly because they are alleged to have allegiance to a foreign power. Given that, the argument goes, let's avoid alluding to split allegiances when we're talking about policy toward Israel.

I see a distinction between "I don't owe allegiance" and "all Jews owe allegiance" but I get how concerned Jewish people think it's thin.

And to be clear, I don't have any sympathy at all of the other two groups griping on this.



Interpret all you want, but she tweeted "AIPAC," as clarification, so you're interpreting it wrong.

Omar was simply citing a fact. If a powerful lobbying group has allegiances to a foreign country, it has split loyalties.

She did not say Jews have split loyalties. That was a characterization of what she said. An unfair one looking for a justification to call her a bigot.

And let’s be clear, it’s all but inescapable that people are assuming her motives and bias because she’s a Muslim. Why give her a benefit of the doubt when we can play identity politics with her!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure I agree, but that's not what I was talking about.

This is what I was talking about:



But I hadn't focused on the details, and now that I have read Paul Waldman's column, from which the above is taken, I am going to change my tune and agree with you when you say that Omar is wrongly in the barrel. Waldman says it better than I could, so read him.



I think people are attacking her because they disagree with her on Israel policy, not to signal moral superiority. Waldman:

That article is perfect.

But on your last line, I think there is also a more broad psychological malfunction in society at work. We’re in a moral/social panic. There is an obsession with victims, grievance, and retribution at the moment. Much of it is warranted, but much of it is not. Much of it is people seeking to exert power through moral and social judgment. Omar is a victim of her own party’s strategy, true. But also of right wingers seeking to repay left wing tactics of the past few years, where social and mainstream media mobs would kneejerk to “Racist!” or “Sexist!” or “Bigot!” when given the thinnest of justification to do so.

It goes back to the 90s, to Newt using any mean necessary to destroy the Clintons. But now it’s left the political arena and the general public has a taste for it. It’s an impulse to elevate one’s self and destroy others not unlike the rage informing the Terror. Robespierres of Main Street, squabbling among themselves, armed with smartphones and Twitter, enabled by a compliant Fourth Estate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I mean, I'm not well placed to be especially sensitive to anti-jewish stuff, but the first thing that "dual allegiance" conjures to my are mind anti-Catholic tropes used against Kennedy, referring to the Vatican.

I was a baby, but I'm sure wonk can confirm- I think the Kennedy/Vatican thing was a new piece of hate- namely a Catholic will listen to what the Pope wants above what the country needs. I'm not aware there was a history of such hate.

On the other hand it seems with the new stuff, she isn't being hit for saying we shouldn't be loyal to Israel. She is being hit for the thought that Jews have always been accused of such misplaced loyalty, and that is what she is playing into. It seems clear to me that she was talking about people in politics not being beholden to allegiance to Israel, not that we can't trust Jews for that reason.

That said she should get the fuck up to speed and clean up her shit. (And this sock right here think she is an anti-semite so know- I got my eyes on her)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was a baby, but I'm sure wonk can confirm- I think the Kennedy/Vatican thing was a new piece of hate- namely a Catholic will listen to what the Pope wants above what the country needs. I'm not aware there was a history of such hate.

People said the same thing about Al Smith in 1928.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Lots of good stuff here (says the long-time fan of Delong, but he seems to be having a moment).

[Hank Chinaski]

So the FB meme hating on Green Book? Essentially it is asking what if Anne
Frank was instead told from the stand point of the guy who hid them.

I have not seen the movies it won over. But think Green Book can't be the best? Still:

A movie from the standpoint of the guy who hid Anne Frank would be a valid story. I really don't get this controversy. Green Book was very flawed, and the lack of detail about the doctor (what is with the throne etc.) is a real question/weakness. If you want to say it shouldn't have won, fine. But from what I see, pushing the Italian guy to the front seems a valid choice. Wouldn't a movie from the doctor's perspective have to focus on how he despises the poorly spoken/educated? Would that have been better? A white guy drove this asshole around the south? I don't know the "actual story" hinted at in the meme. Something about how the reality was left out. Any idea what was left out of that actual story?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So the FB meme hating on Green Book? Essentially it is asking what if Anne
Frank was instead told from the stand point of the guy who hid them.

I have not seen the movies it won over. But think Green Book can't be the best? Still:

A movie from the standpoint of the guy who hid Anne Frank would be a valid story. I really don't get this controversy. Green Book was very flawed, and the lack of detail about the doctor (what is with the throne etc.) is a real question/weakness. If you want to say it shouldn't have won, fine. But from what I see, pushing the Italian guy to the front seems a valid choice. Wouldn't a movie from the doctor's perspective have to focus on how he despises the poorly spoken/educated? Would that have been better? A white guy drove this asshole around the south? I don't know the "actual story" hinted at in your meme. Something about how the reality was left out. Any idea what was left out of that actual story?

As a movie, I thought it was a nice bit of fluff. As a piece of history, I thought it was a mediocre piece of fluff, but then, most movies are. As a political statement, it's somewhere between "guess who is coming to dinner" and Bernie Sander's civil rights policy, and either way kind of 50 years behind the time. Still, I'm more upset by the stereotypes of Disney than the sort of retro-white-liberal vibe of Green Book (not that what I think is particularly relevant, but there it is).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As a movie, I thought it was a nice bit of fluff. As a piece of history, I thought it was a mediocre piece of fluff, but then, most movies are. As a political statement, it's somewhere between "guess who is coming to dinner" and Bernie Sander's civil rights policy, and either way kind of 50 years behind the time. Still, I'm more upset by the stereotypes of Disney than the sort of retro-white-liberal vibe of Green Book (not that what I think is particularly relevant, but there it is).

I dunno, I see it as a story of two people in alien surroundings. A movie for the multiplex isn’t needing to meet too many of the tests you throw out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was a baby, but I'm sure wonk can confirm- I think the Kennedy/Vatican thing was a new piece of hate- namely a Catholic will listen to what the Pope wants above what the country needs. I'm not aware there was a history of such hate.

On the other hand it seems with the new stuff, she isn't being hit for saying we shouldn't be loyal to Israel. She is being hit for the thought that Jews have always been accused of such misplaced loyalty, and that is what she is playing into. It seems clear to me that she was talking about people in politics not being beholden to allegiance to Israel, not that we can't trust Jews for that reason.

That said she should get the fuck up to speed and clean up her shit. (And this sock right here think she is an anti-semite so know- I got my eyes on her)

I think she does need to raise her sensitivity and awareness on these issues, and avoid falling into the tropes and stereotypes, just as she would resent those who apply tropes and stereotypes about Muslims to her.

At the same time, I'm more concerned than ever about the path Israel is going down these days, and that there is a deep affinity between the racists of the Israeli right and the racists of the Christian right in the US that should get more attention, and that the increasingly partisan shape of organizations like AIPAC needs to be seen as a problem. And it is almost impossible to discuss those issues in the US without being charged with antisemitism; it is easier to talk with my Israeli friends about the racism of Netanyahu and his supporters than it is just about anyone in the US.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think she does need to raise her sensitivity and awareness on these issues, and avoid falling into the tropes and stereotypes, just as she would resent those who apply tropes and stereotypes about Muslims to her.

At the same time, I'm more concerned than ever about the path Israel is going down these days, and that there is a deep affinity between the racists of the Israeli right and the racists of the Christian right in the US that should get more attention, and that the increasingly partisan shape of organizations like AIPAC needs to be seen as a problem. And it is almost impossible to discuss those issues in the US without being charged with antisemitism; it is easier to talk with my Israeli friends about the racism of Netanyahu and his supporters than it is just about anyone in the US.

The latest GOP talking point seems to be that she is unfit to serve on the Foreign Relations committee and get intelligence briefings. Presumably because she has suspect loyalties...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I dunno, I see it as a story of two people in alien surroundings. A movie for the multiplex isn’t needing to meet too many of the tests you throw out.

The Academy seemed to think it was a movie about the white guy, with the black guy as a supporting actor.

I didn't see it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think she does need to raise her sensitivity and awareness on these issues, and avoid falling into the tropes and stereotypes, just as she would resent those who apply tropes and stereotypes about Muslims to her.

When you are being attacked in bad faith, raising your own sensitivity to try to avoid being attacked is not going to help.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Academy seemed to think it was a movie about the white guy, with the black guy as a supporting actor.

I didn't see it.

I'd ask if I'm on ignore other than you're replying to what I wrote.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When you are being attacked in bad faith, raising your own sensitivity to try to avoid being attacked is not going to help.

When there is a mixture of good faith concern about intended or unintended connotations of your words and bad faith opportunistic attacks, raising your sensitivity level may avoid the former and better allow you to take the moral high ground against the latter. I mean, you're not going to change this guy's opinion -

https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/s...09389392498688

- but you may give him less ammunition.