Epinoia

JD, I'm just sittin' here thinking that ya gotta know the answer to this already, and maybe I'm looking stupid by answering a figure of speech or something. But what the hell, you did ask: Obviously not ALL the merchants were Jewish. It's like saying not ALL the green-grocers on the Upper West Side in the mid-'80s were Korean. Actually, a lot of Koreans were doing other things, namely running stores in black neighborhoods in Queens that they'd bought from Jewish shopkeepers who wanted to retire. When it became mostly Koreans selling the schlock along Jackson Street or wherever, conflicts were described as between black residents and Korean merchants. It was blacks, even though no doubt the neighborhood included some PR, some Dominicans, a few Chinese maybe even a few old Irish grandmothers. It was Koreans, even though it can't be ruled out that some bubbe somewhere still had her shop and the Dominicans were beginning to buy up the first of theirs. Look, JD: Everyone said "Jews" in the early '70s when they ran most of the schlock shops. A decade later they were pretty much saying "Koreans" because it was clear they'd pretty much taken over. A decade after that they'd say "Dominicans" as they took over after that. I'm not sure what it is anymore, but I am damn certain that no one in the city's tripping over themselves with qualifiers trying to account for every possible exception to the rule.

Damn, but this is like the little kid that keeps asking "but why?" "but why"? And this isn't a one-time thing, so what is up with that, JD? You don't have to tell me, but be honest with yourself here: Are you really reading the content of what I'm writing? Or is this more a game of let's find a tiny little point to argue about so you don't have to concede anything?

I just don't understand what the big deal is in just admitting that, hey, Jews fuck up every now and then and here's how. Blacks say it. Koreans say it. Dominicans say it. Whites say it at every frigging diversity conference I've ever gone to and maybe some were Jews, but then again, it was about "white," not "Jew." The context was clear. Muslims and Christians, too, admit their fuck-ups in detail. If Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam" and secularislam.org aren't full disclosures of how fucked that religion can be, I don't know what is. Pagels, Armstrong, Crossan--they all go into the shit Christianity has pulled. And get this: I've seen at least two of 'em say something like "as a Christian, I apologize" on PBS!

And, JD, I'd almost bet they all agree with you that But with them it's not an excuse to avoid admitting that "their people" fucked up and here's how, and with you I'm just not sure. In any case, thank God for all these people. Because if all the information available consisted of little pamphlets like "A is for Allah" and "Is there hope for someone like me?," I'd probably be wondering about a whole bunch more people and not in a good way. Armstrong, I think, said Jews are great in how they'll just get out there and argue out Judaism. Well maybe in Hebrew or on closed Web sites they do, but I've seen very little evidence of this.

Generally speaking, when only apologetics or propaganda are available, there's more suspicion about what isn't being said. When criticism fills in the blanks, understanding and tolerance result. Right now, the latter's happening on a wide-scale for everybody but Jews. It's not for lack of interest. I think people would be hugely interested in hearing from a Jewish equivalent to Armstrong or Manji. The closest thing is Rabbi Lerner and he's not even that close, but even so he still says he gets tons more hate mail from Jews pissed that he's making them look bad. Uh, if anyone's making Jews look bad, it ain't that rabbi. Anyway, I have to sign off for a bit here and it's looking like I've pretty much said what I set out to say...so I'll check back in a few. Happy New Year!

P.S. Whoops! I just saw this:
JD, Back when the trial happened, it was national news. Based on everything I know about your average little daily or triweekly (which isn't insubstantial), they'd be falling all over themselves to run a letter like that. And if it were a trend (more than 3 or 4 letters)? They'd probably call you up and try to interview you for a story.

At that point, I think it would have helped a lot. At this point, I didn't paste the url publicly for fear it'll inspire the kind of cyber-thuggery he talked about. There's a lot on his site now that's gonna make a lot of people mad. Plus as I said I never link to such sites in any case.

To answer your question directly, however: Yes, I think it is still possible to make a difference in a good way. My guess is that it'll be harder--and I mean a lot harder--to be effective. Beyond that, I can't say as I've never met or corresponded with the man. If I know anything about him, it's this: If you weren't wearing a kippa or black hat, and you and I went to his front porch and rang the bell, he'd almost surely think more of you than me soon as he looked through the window. That I can pretty much guarantee as a fact.

J-D

As I understand it, that is correct as a first-order approximation.

B'nai Brith sponsored the foundation of the Anti-Defamation League, but I think the ADL now functions autonomously. If you check the ADL website, you will see that it describes itself as the Anti-Defamation League, not as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, although I think the latter is at least historically correct.

(I'm not absolutely sure about these details.)

J-D

Epinoia, I've read that Dale Carnegie gave advice about using the names of people you speak to frequently because it induces positive feelings, or something like that. But I'm guessing that your reasons for frequent use of my name in your most recent post are different.

You think I'm like the little kid who keeps asking 'But why? But why?' What's wrong with that? If you don't want to answer, you don't have to: in fact, you haven't answered all the questions I've asked.

People do complain about my tendency to pedantry. I can assure you that it doesn't apply only to this subject. I also think that the potluck way you construct your arguments lays you open to this kind of response. I take issue with the points that seem to me to be worth taking issue with, and leave the rest alone. If it's not really relevant to your argument whether Lenin was a Jew, then: (a) why do you bother asserting it? (b) why, when the error is pointed out, do you not say, Oh, OK, I got that detail wrong, but it doesn't change the general position? Personally, I'm usually grateful to people who point out my errors of detail: it assists me to refine and clarify my views.

But what is your general position? You throw out such an assortment of both specific and generalised assertions that it's hard for me to tell. I really do read through your posts, but the more I read the more clarification I find myself in want of. That's another reason you elicit the sort of responses from me that you do.

Just for the record, I freely admit: Jews fuck up every now and then. You're right, it's no big deal. So why is it such a big deal to you to have it acknowledged?

Please note that this discussion is taking place on the Internet, with potential participants, and readers, all over the world. I, for example, as you can see if you look, am not in the USA. So, even if something was national news in the USA, that's not a reason to expect me to know about it. Similarly, even if 'everybody knows' in New York that Harlem merchants are mostly Jews, I'm not in New York! Besides, things which 'everybody knows' sometimes turn out not to be true. Finally, you've missed the point of my question. I wasn't only asking about the accuracy of statements, but making a point about the wisdom of making statements even if they are accurate. From Jesse Jackson's own point of view, to return to an example you raised earlier, did his use of the expression 'Hymietown' further or hinder progress towards his own goals? I think the answer has to be 'hinder'.

You say Do you mean that understanding and tolerance are on the increase all over the world, except for Jews? Do I need to point you to the contrary evidence? If not, what do you mean?

Thinking back over the whole course of this discussion, it seems to me that you have been compiling examples of behaviour by Jewish individuals, groups, or organisations which you evaluate negatively. Do you think that there is a deeper underlying pattern that accounts for these? If so, what do you think it is? If not, why do you compile the examples?