The Politics of Victimization

[Peter F]

Care to point to an example of that?

Certainly.

ScottSA:

I wish a few good ol' boys would wade into them with 2x4s and teach them what's what. Hell, I'd join the fun myself...

you would join the fun yourself.....would but won't. Instead you will whine and bleat.

[ScottSA]

Certainly.

ScottSA:

you would join the fun yourself.....would but won't. Instead you will whine and bleat.

It's beyond me how you characterize this as a "whine": "I wish a few good ol' boys would wade into them with 2x4s and teach them what's what. Hell, I'd join the fun myself..."

[Higgly]

It's beyond me how you characterize this as a "whine": "I wish a few good ol' boys would wade into them with 2x4s and teach them what's what. Hell, I'd join the fun myself..."

Folks, this is why we have laws.

[myata]

What has been missing in the Israeli/Palestinian situation is this great leadership. Arafat was no Ghandi. The Zionists had great leaders at the first Zionist conference, but were progressively derailed by guys like Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, Meier, Netenyahu and Sharon. Thanks to US intervention, undoubtably with the best intentions, the Israelis had overwhelming power. It was necessary because the Arabs had overwhelming numbers. But having intervened, the Americans could not bring things back to neutral. It got away from them and the Brits were nowhere to be seen.

Nobody has ever been able to develop a consensus about what the solution should look like in the Middle East, and that is the problem.

What has also been present is the fact of massive foreign immigration while the territory was "under the protection" of the British mandate. To the extent that significally changed ethnic composition of the region. That of course never happened in the India / Pakistan story. To consider this as just another ethnic conflict is to not tell the whole truth. BTW now we call this activity "ethnic cleansing" and it's considered a crime against humanity; but someone could always come up with a very rational reason why it had to be done that way.

To b.-c., yes sure there're similarities, but for once, it happened not 200-300 years ago but still in the memory of one generation; and secondly, here in the NA, there's at least recognition that injustice has happened and should be rectified. When the same comes about in Isreal, maybe there'll be time to seriosly think about a solution.

Edited September 24, 2007 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

To b.-c., yes sure there're similarities, but for once, it happened not 200-300 years ago but still in the memory of one generation; and secondly, here in the NA, there's at least recognition that injustice has happened and should be rectified. When the same comes about in Isreal, maybe there'll be time to seriosly think about a solution.

Similarities? Was it a different British or French or Spanish Empire 300 years ago? To hell with "recognition"....let the daily Six Nation rocket attacks begin at once! Then we shall see how much sympathy is left, eh?

South Africa laughed at Canada's righteous indignation at apartheid while still maintaining Residential Schools. Israel can laugh at Canada or the US too, having already conquered and killed their "PalestIndians".

[jbg]

What has been missing in the Israeli/Palestinian situation is this great leadership. Arafat was no Ghandi. The Zionists had great leaders at the first Zionist conference, but were progressively derailed by guys like Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, Meier, Netenyahu and Sharon. Thanks to US intervention, undoubtably with the best intentions, the Israelis had overwhelming power. It was necessary because the Arabs had overwhelming numbers. But having intervened, the Americans could not bring things back to neutral. It got away from them and the Brits were nowhere to be seen.

Nobody has ever been able to develop a consensus about what the solution should look like in the Middle East, and that is the problem.

Higgly, I have to give credit where credit is due. That is a good post, though ultimately we are unlikely to agree on the outcome.

I think that Clinton had engineered a vision of what the ME should look like, and Arafat walked away from it. I think the reason is that the Muslims perceive their numerical superiority to the Jews to be so overwhelming that they don't have to bargain, whereas even to Muslims, clearly, the Hindus were going nowhere and had to be dealt with. Also, my perception was that at that time, circa 1947, before Wahabism dominated the madrassas, Pakistan had a more relaxed, mellow Islam than prevailed near Islam's origins in the Saudi peninsula. Thus, Israeli leaders were faced with different realities.

Also, please don't put Ben Gurion into the same boat as Jabotinsky. And alo, Begin did hand back Sinai to Egypt upon Egypt's recognition of Israel.

[myata]

South Africa laughed at Canada's righteous indignation at apartheid while still maintaining Residential Schools. Israel can laugh at Canada or the US too, having already conquered and killed their "PalestIndians".

Which is certainly within their might if not right, but then, how does that reflect on their claims of being entirely innocent victims of attacks (while occupying most of other people's land and btw speaking of victimization)?

[bush_cheney2004]

Which is certainly within their might if not right, but then, how does that reflect on their claims of being entirely innocent victims of attacks (while occupying most of other people's land and btw speaking of victimization)?

Quite to the contrary, Israel specializes in not being the victim when it comes to land, occupied or otherwise. Nobody has the right to land, only the right to defend possession. The propaganda of victimhood is for a certain audience, foreign and domestic, and all part of the same game that ultimately serves and preserves power. Victimhood thrives in the quicksand of shifting "morality" and "fairness".

Never a victim be, because it dis-empowers far greater than any enemy.

[Black Dog]

Why don't the Jews play the victim card?

Er... they do. All the frickin' time, at least wrt Israel. I'm not simply talking abouty the (deserved) status as innocent victims of the Holocaust which led to the formation of Israel. The political discourse is rife with examples where Israel is portrayed as the victim in spite of the overwhelming superiority it enjoys over its enemies. Fer instance, everytime the hackneyed phrase "pushed into the sea" is used, chances are there's some serious wallowing going on.

[Peter F]

I agree.

Jbg said earlier

Is our request for military aid out of proportion to the stratagic value of a stable democracy in that vital, explosive part of the world

What would be the point of military aid unless there was a serious danger of being victimized by the surrounding states?

I know Jbg thinks playing the victim card is a disgusting thing. It isn't. It is a perfectly viable diplomatic, political, and morale raising tool. There is nothing wrong with claiming victimhood. It can actually be quite usefull.

See Pearl Harbour or War on Terrorism

Edited September 25, 2007 by Peter F

[jbg]

I agree.

Jbg said earlier

What would be the point of military aid unless there was a serious danger of being victimized by the surrounding states?

I know Jbg thinks playing the victim card is a disgusting thing. It isn't. It is a perfectly viable diplomatic, political, and morale raising tool. There is nothing wrong with claiming victimhood. It can actually be quite usefull.

See Pearl Harbour or War on Terrorism

What are you babbling talking about?

[myata]

OK, the consensus seems to be building on this thread that "politics of victimization" is a valuable and acceptable diplomatic mean to achieve certain ends, and few states, big and small, democratic or otherwise, can claim high moral ground with respect to using it. In particular, the instances cited in the OP as exhibiting such (high moral ground) do not appear to stand the test upon the closer consideration.

[jbg]

OK, the consensus seems to be building on this thread that "politics of victimization" is a valuable and acceptable diplomatic mean to achieve certain ends, and few states, big and small, democratic or otherwise, can claim high moral ground with respect to using it. In particular, the instances cited in the OP as exhibiting such (high moral ground) do not appear to stand the test upon the closer consideration.

And why not? The Jews played the "victim card" for a short time after the Holocaust, to be sure, since they were left destitute and largely dead. They went on to use the assistance given for a constructive purpose. Can the same be said of FN's, French Canadians or Palestinians?

[myata]

I guess you did not get it: the essential part of "politics of Victimization" involves claiming being a victim of (enter evil deed) when it suits one's needs denying it when it doesn't.

[Black Dog]

Yeah but you know what JB? I really don't care what it looks like I say. I'm fairly immune to the accusation of "bigotry" and "racism."

Racists usually are.

I grew up in a society in which it was rampant, and often well deserved, and it's more a source of amusement to me that people here are so preoccupied with avoiding something as silly as a charge of it.

Not sure how it can be a silly charge when you confess to it. Perhaps you mean the concept of racism is silly? That certainly can't be it sinc eyou're pretty up front about your racism.

Gawd, the Han Chinese are all over racism, as are the Japanese and just about every "nation," in the true sense of nation, that exists. So am I and so are you in many ways, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it.

Well, other than that it's a completely ignorant and unjustifiable stance, then yeah: there's nothing wrong with racism.

[ScottSA]

Racists usually are.

Not sure how it can be a silly charge when you confess to it. Perhaps you mean the concept of racism is silly? That certainly can't be it sinc eyou're pretty up front about your racism.

Well, other than that it's a completely ignorant and unjustifiable stance, then yeah: there's nothing wrong with racism.

I wish you could come up with a post worth responding to. I'm sure you think you're funny, or clever, or something, but it comes across as a little man trying to break a window with smurf balls. Stand up man. Shout "Racist Repent!" and threaten to report me to the Commission in Charge of Denying that Race Exists or whatever. Shout platitudes about harmony and Kumbaya! Act like you mean it. Don't just sit there nattering nitpicky insults at me under your breath. You can never be a Momo, because he's smart and witty, while you're dull and rather dense, but at least pick yourself up and act like you mean it! Or is standing up for yourself an assault on lefty sensibilities too?

[Black Dog]

I wish you could come up with a post worth responding to.

Yet you continue to respond. That’s either because my posts actually do warrant a response, or it’s because you’re so terribly insecure that you simply must get the last word in. Pick one: there is no third option.

I'm sure you think you're funny, or clever, or something, but it comes across as a little man trying to break a window with smurf balls.

What’s a “smurf” ball?

Stand up man. Shout "Racist Repent!" and threaten to report me to the Commission in Charge of Denying that Race Exists or whatever. Shout platitudes about harmony and Kumbaya! Act like you mean it. Don't just sit there nattering nitpicky insults at me under your breath. You can never be a Momo, because he's smart and witty, while you're dull and rather dense, but at least pick yourself up and act like you mean it! Or is standing up for yourself an assault on lefty sensibilities too?

Y’know, ScottSA, I don’t see much value in “standing up” on the internet. Like the old cliché says: talk is cheap. While you may think you’re accomplishing something by spending what appears to be your entire waking life in front of a computer whining about Muslims or other dark skinned folks, it’s what one does in the real world that counts. I guarantee you don’t have the balls to join the Klan or Stormfront or any of the other sad-sack groups of pudgy middle aged white dudes who feel the need to compensate for their own inadequacies by dressing up in period costume and making very public idiots of themselves. Thus your “career” as a web pundit, which allows you to dog-ear your thesaurus and indulge in masturbatory fantasies (the recent quote attributed to you wherein you aspired to joining in with a group of 2 x 4 swinging rednecks was a real knee-slapper) while avoiding the public stigma of being “That neo-nazi from up the street.” So there’s no need for me to get my dander up and turn into a caricature of a shrieking crusader for political correctness; that kind of effort is way out of proportion to your actual importance.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Charles Anthony
forum violation

[ScottSA]

Yet you continue to respond. That’s either because my posts actually do warrant a response, or it’s because you’re so terribly insecure that you simply must get the last word in. Pick one: there is no third option.

What’s a “smurf” ball?

Y’know, ScottSA, I don’t see much value in “standing up” on the internet. Like the old cliché says: talk is cheap. While you may think you’re accomplishing something by spending what appears to be your entire waking life in front of a computer whining about Muslims or other dark skinned folks, it’s what one does in the real world that counts. I guarantee you don’t have the balls to join the Klan or Stormfront or any of the other sad-sack groups of pudgy middle aged white dudes who feel the need to compensate for their own inadequacies by dressing up in period costume and making very public idiots of themselves. Thus your “career” as a web pundit, which allows you to dog-ear your thesaurus and indulge in masturbatory fantasies (the recent quote attributed to you wherein you aspired to joining in with a group of 2 x 4 swinging rednecks was a real knee-slapper) while avoiding the public stigma of being “That neo-nazi from up the street.” So there’s no need for me to get my dander up and turn into a caricature of a shrieking crusader for political correctness; that kind of effort is way out of proportion to your actual importance.

Judging from Charles' edit, you managed to work yourself into a high pitched squeak at least. Excellent start. Perhaps now you could work on a touch of actual content. You're kind of right that I won't join stormfront or the clan, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have much to do with the size of my testicles. I wonder why you immediately thought of the contents of my pants and immedietely brought up masturbation though? Do you get homoerotic fantasies when you think of neo-Nazis? Is that a leftist characteristic or particular to you? Anyway, to each his own. Toodles.

[Michael Hardner]

Scott - nobody has to shout that you're a racist or get all 'emotional' about it. We can just state it. If you think there's something bad about being a racist, then so be it. I understand that there are racists in the world, and it doesn't upset me.

If you can explain why you're not a racist, then go ahead. Otherwise, let's all move forward with the general understanding that you believe some races (religions, perhaps, or nationalities - you tell us) are inferior and not get in a kerfuffle over it.

The next step will be for you to accept that racism is not based on reason, but on the emotionality that you despise...

[Black Dog]

Judging from Charles' edit, you managed to work yourself into a high pitched squeak at least.

Nope. Just tossed in a cuss word and that's no indication of my emotional state; I use those like other people use commas.

MH: good points. ScottSA is a model of hypocrisy here. On the one hand he rejects the very concept of racism (calling it a tool for shutting down debate) yet at the same time embraces the term (in much the same way as more conventional public racists like to couch their beliefs in terms of racial pride rather than hatred of the Other). Is it any wonder that, when faced with the resulting cognitive dissonance, his carefully cultivated, high-falutin' pseudo-intellectual persona vanishes in a mist of spittle and outrage?

Edited September 29, 2007 by Black Dog

[jbg]

MH: good points. ScottSA is a model of hypocrisy here. On the one hand he rejects the very concept of racism (calling it a tool for shutting down debate) yet at the same time embraces the term (in much the same way as more conventional public racists like to couch their beliefs in terms of racial pride rather than hatred of the Other). Is it any wonder that, when faced with the resulting cognitive dissonance, his carefully cultivated, high-falutin' pseudo-intellectual persona vanishes in a mist of spittle and outrage?

More to the point, he doesn't address the fact that some people, such as myself, who left-leaning posters repeatedly accuse of being a conservative, such as myself, actually work shoulder to shoulder with minorities, towards the common ends of the business. I suspect he's disgusted by the idea of a racial minority in a supervisory position.

[Rue]

Let me see if I understand this correctely; you are saying it's abhorrent for someone to suggest that the Jews overplay the victim card, but it's just fine and dandy for you to accuse the people of New Orleans, the Palestinians, and the First Nation people of doing the same? Because fyi, I find the accusations you made in your post abhorrent.

On this one I must respectfully agree with you and everyone knows my faith. One can not illicit understanding for their feelings by negating the feeling of others.

In fact the point of the post was to play the victim card.

As a Jew I do not feel for a second the hippocracies extended towards me and my people in any way shape or form can be effectively criticized by trying to point the finger at others who suffer.

I just don't buy the thread JBG.

Judaism teaches us to heal the world (tikam olum) by reaching out and creating positive actions without expecting anything in return and without expecting any one to appreciate us. Jewish religion does not teach us to become woe is me I am being picked on its not fair weaklings.

It teaches us to transcend such self-indulgent behaviour and push ourselves. Your mistake JBG is expecting what you say to bring sympathy. All it does is incite anti-semitic feelings.

You want people to admire you for being Jewish? don't use such a sacred time of reflection where we are supposed to lament our limitations, to point out what you think are the limitations of others.

If people scapegoat us so? Are you not strong enough to stand and debate with decency?

A Jew does not point out another's weakness to gloat, only to share a common foible and laugh.

Time for you to go back to Isaac Bolshevic Singer, Eli Wiesel, Bernard Malamud, Ann Frank, to name but a few and ask yourself what has turned you into the very gentile you ridicule.

And believe me JBG I criticize myself for the exact same shortcomings as hard as I do you.

[moderateamericain]

On this one I must respectfully agree with you and everyone knows my faith. One can not illicit understanding for their feelings by negating the feeling of others.

In fact the point of the post was to play the victim card.

As a Jew I do not feel for a second the hippocracies extended towards me and my people in any way shape or form can be effectively criticized by trying to point the finger at others who suffer.

I just don't buy the thread JBG.

Judaism teaches us to heal the world (tikam olum) by reaching out and creating positive actions without expecting anything in return and without expecting any one to appreciate us. Jewish religion does not teach us to become woe is me I am being picked on its not fair weaklings.

It teaches us to transcend such self-indulgent behaviour and push ourselves. Your mistake JBG is expecting what you say to bring sympathy. All it does is incite anti-semitic feelings.

You want people to admire you for being Jewish? don't use such a sacred time of reflection where we are supposed to lament our limitations, to point out what you think are the limitations of others.

If people scapegoat us so? Are you not strong enough to stand and debate with decency?

A Jew does not point out another's weakness to gloat, only to share a common foible and laugh.

Time for you to go back to Isaac Bolshevic Singer, Eli Wiesel, Bernard Malamud, Ann Frank, to name but a few and ask yourself what has turned you into the very gentile you ridicule.

And believe me JBG I criticize myself for the exact same shortcomings as hard as I do you.

Thats a nice post In my opinion. To me it summarizes WHY jewish people, as a whole, have managed to survive and thrive.

I wanted to briefly touch on a subject that kept coming up through most of the post that were actually on the subject and not on ScottSA racial beliefs. Who does Israel belong to? I kept seeing people refer to the natives who were not consulted when modern day Israel/Palestine (if you prefer) was drawn up by the British. Let's be perfectly clear here. The land that is Palestine was traditionally a Jewish land. The fact that the Arab's and European's took it through out history does not change the fact that it belongs to the original Jewish people. Now I realize theres alot more to that then such a black and white interpetation. They definetly could have handled the situation better back in the later 40's early 50's. But if you look at the situation from the angle of 'OLD European colonies that have gone down the shitter' it could have been alot worse then it already has. (Rwanda, Belgium colony, Vietnam, French colony, etc.) The reality of the situation is the power vaccum left after world war one and two in the 2nd and 3rd world with the fall of the European empires created these situations. Today were are simply dealing with the consquences.

For god sakes guys leave the personal attacks at the door. ScottSA you need to learn to back off your rhetoric. I know you don't care about being racist, but it reflects poorly on the website. Your lucky to have not been banned for it to be honest. Another thing Scott you need to stop referring to everone as left or right. Thats far too of a generalization to make about someone. I am right leaning on certain things (Fiscal policy, International politcs) and left wing on social issues (abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage). What does that make me? Labeling people into groups and then making generalizations about them as a whole is fairly weak guy. Instead of postioning an agrument on why someone else is wrong, why dont you just post as to why your argument is right? You will get a better response for it.

Edited October 1, 2007 by moderateamericain

[Canadian Blue]

ScottSA's not a racist, he is just scared of people that don't look like him.

A true combination of bigotry, machismo, militarism, jingoism, and xenophobia, all from one certain poster. Either way I like how he talks about how all muslims are fascists yet seems to forget about the contribution of positive chistrianity in Germany. Either way it's a great joy to see that the people who spout off the most BS about Islamic fascists tend to be militaristic, xenophobic, nationalist, jingoist, and support genocide and torture as long as it's done on our side.

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetr...ge/protesta.htm

Edited October 1, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 22 2007, 05:35 PM)

Let me see if I understand this correctely; you are saying it's abhorrent for someone to suggest that the Jews overplay the victim card, but it's just fine and dandy for you to accuse the people of New Orleans, the Palestinians, and the First Nation people of doing the same? Because fyi, I find the accusations you made in your post abhorrent.

On this one I must respectfully agree with you and everyone knows my faith. One can not illicit understanding for their feelings by negating the feeling of others.

In fact the point of the post was to play the victim card.

........................

I agree with moderateamericain, Rue. Nice post.