A Matter Of Trust: Jews And Whites
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
People in many other societies are used to a world where the culture they are imposing themselves on assimilates to their differences, rather than the other way around. Here in the USA we (correctly) expect people to assimilate to us, if they want to be here. That's one of the biggest complaints against Mexican immigrants right now. They want to work in America... but they don't actually want to be American. They'd rather isolate themselves in their "little Mexico" neighborhoods, speak Spanish, and drape Mexican flags around themselves. Behaving in that way makes people less sympathetic to foreign nationals, not more.
This is the USA. We don't want to hear Mexican carnival music when we go outside and we don't want to see toddlers running around naked in the street like animals, as they do in Mexico. People are allowed to keep their culture, but they aren't entitled to shove it down everyone else's throats.
This is the USA. We don't want to hear Mexican carnival music when we go outside and we don't want to see toddlers running around naked in the street like animals, as they do in Mexico. People are allowed to keep their culture, but they aren't entitled to shove it down everyone else's throats.
People are allowed to keep their culture, but they aren't entitled to shove it down everyone else's throats.
No liberation at home?
No I am thinking of American troops in the Middle East.
But we digress, I would think that Americans who have exported their European language, customs and culture to the New World, would be the last people to tell other immigrants what they should worship, wear and speak.
But we digress, I would think that Americans who have exported their European language, customs and culture to the New World, would be the last people to tell other immigrants what they should worship, wear and speak.
Hehehe, most of the Jewish people I've met think I'm really really crazy for loving klezmer, but what can I say? It's fun to dance to!
<---------DORK!!!!!
I'm a big, goofy fan of both Jewish and German culture. There hasn't been a person from either culture I haven't liked. I love their music, I love their food, and they make really nice stuff. This doesn't account for individual differences, but I have nothing but positive things to say about them if we're making generalizations at all.
<---------DORK!!!!!
I'm a big, goofy fan of both Jewish and German culture. There hasn't been a person from either culture I haven't liked. I love their music, I love their food, and they make really nice stuff. This doesn't account for individual differences, but I have nothing but positive things to say about them if we're making generalizations at all.
ahh
whiteness or who constitutes a white is a sociocultural construct. in addition to that, it is also. primarily, a political one.
The history of Jews in the United States is one of racial change that provides useful insights on race in America. Prevailing classifications have sometimes assigned Jews to the white race and at other times have created an off-white racial designation for them. Those changes in racial assignment have shaped the ways American Jews of different eras have constructed their ethnoracial identities. Brodkin illustrates these changes through an analysis of her own family's multi-generational experience. She shows how Jews experience a kind of double vision that comes from racial middleness: on the one hand, marginality with regard to whiteness; on the other, whiteness and belonging with regard to blackness. (link)
-----------------
A colleague and I were doing a workshop on racism and we wanted to divide the gorup into a caucus of people of color and a caucus of white people, so that each group could have more in-depth discussion. Immediately some of the white people said, "But I’m not white (link)
When I travelled around India, wearing generally shorts and T-shirts and occasionally jeans and t-shirts people often looked at me like I was from another planet.
I get on the subway in New York and I see every goddam style of dress every day and no one seems to give a shit.
But then maybe my face is really otherworldly
and NYC is, of course, a subculture.
Thats because you are. How did people relate to you? Was it your clothes or was it you that was the novelty?
I don't know. But your questions raises the issue of one case anectdotal evidence leading to generalizations about whole cultures.
I've been to a wide variety of places in the world and the highest toleration for differences in dress I've found in cities, NYC being the winner.
That's my skewed, individual based on experience
generalization to counter yours.
It seemed I was most shocking when traveling in Muslim cultures outside of cities and in some places in Utah. My conclusion was they did not tolerate variation well. But I could have terrible body odor that people in other places were more discrete about noticing.
You mean objectively? (and no) I'm sure everyone who was ,or would be, shocked by your choices also felt, and perhaps even thought, their tastes were objective.
I mean skin can be covered by pants and look what is happening around that issue in Sudan. But no, I matched skin exposure %ages.
Oh, yes. I should have said: Corporate US and Corporate Germany. Especially for the men. Talk about oppressive social and financial pressure on what you wear. About as much individuality allowed as in most nunnaries.
Last edited:
Actually in 99.9999% of cases around USA there is no hue and cry in anyway about what people wear, eat, drink, or well anything they do legally. It's when they do stupid shit, like request to wear a Burqa in their driver license photo or try to impose Sharia laws on any part of the public without their consent that Americans get huffy.
Now I agree a person should have a right to wear whatever they want as long as it is decent. However Driving is a privilage not a right and if you want to drive you will have to bargain away a few of your desires. Given the restricted view of the Burqa it should not be allowed in driving period. Nor should it be allowed in anyform of ID. Why? Becuase we are trying to make sure you are who you say you are and a picture of a woman in Burqa does not help.
So to all you people out there bitch about how the US is bigoted. In no other nation do you get the same freedom of speach, freedom of religon, freedom from unwarranted searches and even freedom to defend yourself. These all cannot be taken away from you. However there is a cost. For your ID we need to nsee your face. In court we would like to see your face, We want you to respect the freedom of others, even your own kids. Can't do that? Then I guess freedom is not your thing.
Last edited:
In the eyes of the Marxists, yes. But that is only the position they adopt publically; in private, they are as conservative on matters concerning race as perhaps anybody else. This is why Marxism and Zionism - two largely Jewish-dominated movements seemingly on the opposite ends of the political spectrum - have so much overlap in terms of membership.
I have run across very similar accounts comparing different parts of the US - such as The Conversion of Cletus Xywanda in that book. Such accounts are common from Jews in the US, in particular for this thread, who meet different welcomes in different places. It's apparently common for Jews to find themselves welcomed much differently as individuals and families than as larger numbers, for one thing - which is something to keep in mind when collecting traveler's experiences.SAM said:
One of the differences possibly being the degree of actual threat involved - in Saudi Arabia you are no threat to local customs regardless, you are simply entertainment of a familiar kind, whereas in the US you are - by presumption you have the same ability to influence as anyone else, and there is no authority protecting the local community: that ability is significant.
In addition, in Saudi Arabia there is possibly (in some cases, going by your account and others I have heard) a presumption that you would find it difficult to blend in - that you are in the presence of people you would have trouble imitating or resembling. As in Japan. Hence the compliments when you succeed in some small way. Contrast with, say, the less welcoming zones of the US - the assumption being that the local mores are not beyond your abilities, or superior in some way that is difficult for you to adopt, and that with a little effort you could be as good at them as anyone else. So why aren't you?
Add in the insularity that is the flip side of the US big horizon - it's so big a place that if can be hard to recognize that it is just one place, that people in the middle of it are as far from the rest of the world as they are.
Ha!gustav said:
If the category of white is still expanding, so that now it includes even the Irish, who is going to be last in the boat?
Last edited:
pardon but i got an absolute kick out of this
Sociocultural and political constructions of human populations are arbitrary and unfounded by science. There is little relation between an 18th century polymath's conceptualization of race and the concept's actual scientific value and meaning. Relating to Jews and Whites, who are the focus of our discussion, many Jews have historically - and to the present times, continue to - espouse non-racial anthropological views, as popularized by their intellectual founder and pioneer, Franz Boas, a Jew. When you begin to undermine the concept of race in a population (in this case, Whites), that population's ethnocentrism lessens (deemphasizing ingroup/outgroup differences) and its ethnic consciousness follows suit (deemphasizing ingroup importance, obligations and allegiances). The population becomes less collectivistic and more individualistic, meaning it places less importance in working as a whole to allow for the upward social mobility of the entire group. It also deemphasizes importance of the outgroup, and weakens the spirit of intergroup competition. When an extremely collectivistic, conservative, and ethnically conscious group of people - such as Jews - find themselves in a setting with a native population who are strongly individualistic, they see many opportunities for the upward social mobility of their group as a whole. They also consider a deethnicized, non-homogeneous (racially, ethnically, culturally, and religiously) Gentile population to be less likely to form a national, cohesive anti-Semitic movement. It serves Jewish interests for native populations they live amongst (in this case, Whites) to be as liberal as possible concerning matters of race. In order for this to happen, the concept of race itself must be ridiculed and bastardized until it is no longer seen as a scientific construct, but instead a sociocultural or political construct. It is important to note that, due to their unique evolutionary history, Whites have evolved to have the lowest natural propensity for collectivism and the highest natural propensity for individualism, as witnessed in the fundamental layout of many of their cultural institutions; Jews, with a unique evolutionary history themselves, have evolved to have a natural propensity for collectivism and thus authoritarian cultural institutions to a degree unmatched by any other racial, ethnic, or religious group in the world.
This is exactly why many such intellectual movements intended to lower collectivism and ethnic consciousness amongst Whites have their basis in the undermining of race, and many of them have been engineered by Jews (who have the world's highest group IQ). Boasian anthropology was one example of such an intellectual movement; others include non-European immigration (which I detail below), Marxism, and so on. The hypocrisy is simple to understand, which I touched upon in a relatively old post of mine. I will quote the post in its entirety due to its absolute relevance:
"Maurice Samuel, an ardent Zionist of his time, wrote bitterly against the Immigration Act of 1924, which drastically reduced immigration to the United States and did not allow for Asian immigrants. Samuel argued that if the Jewish-Gentile conflict were to ever end, it would require the United States to allow immigration from all over the world to create a pluralistic, cosmopolitan society. He considered anti-Semitism to be prevalent in racially homogeneous and ethnically conscious societies, which he sought to counter through racially diverse immigration. The double standard, however, is that he himself was a prominent Zionist, which is a racialist and segregationist movement in and of itself. Other prominent Jews involved in the struggle against the Immigration Act of 1924 were Israel Zangwill (Zionist pioneer), Rabbi Steven Wise, Representatives Sabath and Dickstein, and plenty others, many of whom represented various Jewish committees. The Central Conference of American Rabbis also participated in the battle against restrictions on immigration to the United States.
And so the trend continued: Zionist intellectuals would propose lifting immigration restrictions in the United States, all the while supporting Israel's racialist and segregationist policies. Many prominent Jewish Americans, from the early twenties to nineteen sixty-five, were involved in anti-restrictionist activities. Fighting against the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, which sought to maintain America's ethnic and cultural composition, were the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the National Counsil of Jewish Women, the Anti-Defamation League, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Judge Simon Rifkind, Congressmen Celler, Javits, and Lehman, and so on.
In fact, Jews were the single most important ethnic group in the United States in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which removed the old quotas and restrictions and allowed for nearly two-hundred thousand immigrants every year, especially from non-European nations (the two-hundred thousand figure increased greatly in later years). In addition to Horace Kallen's titanic efforts to promote multiculturalism through immigration during the fifties and sixties were other prominent Jewish writers and activists such as Emanuel Celler (the man who proposed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965), Oscar Handlin, Melville Herskovits, Geoffrey Gorer, Samuel Lubell, David Riesman, Thorsten Sellin, Milton Konvitz, Richard Hofstadter, and Max Lerner. These Jewish activists, politicians, and critics, many of whom were Zionists, fought through three different eras - 1924, 1952, and 1965 - to remove immigration restrictions and quotas in the United States. These same Jewish activists, politicians, and critics did not advocate similar liberal policies amongst Jewish communities, especially in Israel. Their liberal outlook toward immigration in the United States did not carry over to Israel, as they supported racialist, far-right movements and policies in order to maintain the ethnic and cultural composition of Jews in Israel.
Today's neoconservatives, who descended from the largely Jewish, Trotskyist New York Intellectuals, support liberal immigration policies. Jewish neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz, Richard John Neuhas, Ben Wattenberg, Julian Simon, and many more, criticize restrictionist movements in the United States yet support such movements in Israel. This trend has continued unabated from the days when Israel was not yet established until today, where Israel as a state exists and Palestine does not.
So, the question becomes: Why would so many prominent Jews (many of whom were also Zionists) fight for liberal immigration in the United States yet advocate far-right, racialist policies in their own state?
The answer is simple. If the Jews were to advocate liberal immigration and multiculturalism in Israel, allowing Palestinians to become full citizens, their national identity would soon be eclipsed by immigrants. Jews would lose their power sphere in Israel, and their cultural, economic, and religious prominence would be dwarfed by rapidly changing demographics.
The reason why Jews have (and continue to) supported liberal, unrestricted immigration to the United States is due to their belief that they are only safe in foreign lands which are multiracial and multicultural. In A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman notes:
'American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse gay rights and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called social issues.'
In order to ensure anti-Semitism does not take root in a nation, or to at least tame it, Jews consider the spreading of pluralism and cosmopolitanism of utmost importance. As anti-Semitic movements throughout history have occurred in nationalistic, racially homogeneous and cohesive populations, many Jews have fought for unrestricted immigration in order to defeat homogeneity. Even through the 1970s, Stephen D. Isaacs noted in Jews and American Politics that hypersensitivity and insecurity toward anti-Semitism was prevalent amongst many high-profile American Jews, almost all of whom believed a Holocaust in America was 'not a matter of if, but when'. Isaacs credited an irrational fear of anti-Semitism for disproportionate Jewish involvement in politics, a trend largely responsible for the anti-restrictionist victory of 1965.
Did the promotion of multiculturalism through liberal immigration in America serve White interests, or Jewish interests? If the promotion of multiculturalism is such an enriching and improving tenet of society, why wouldn't the predominately Ashkenazi Jews, who are the most intelligent ethnic group on Earth, advocate such liberal policies in their own far-right, racialist state? Ultimately, this issue is a conflict of interests, as all conflicts tend to be. My proposition is that the promotion of multiculturalism has not been of interest to the White European-derived peoples of the United States, just as it would not be of interest to Israeli Jews. Therefore, it is silly to expect Israeli Jews to accept liberal multiculturalism and immigration, as it would not be in their best interests as a racial, ethnic, and religious group. Mind you, they have the highest group IQ in the world, so they certainly don't need my convincing."
Within the confines of a single nation, a highly collectivistic group of people have a better chance at improving their political and economic standing as a whole than a deethnicized, individualistic people who do not see importance in the differences between themselves and their competitor outgroups. If you look a little deeper, you can see from here the inherent flaws in Marxism, and the logic behind Jews who identify as both Marxist and Zionist, two movements which are polar opposite politically and intellectually.
Last edited:
excellent read
however the central premise here appears to be.....
..safety in an ethnically diverse nation.
why would israel, if modeled as an ethnically diverse nation, be an exception to the earlier rule? if they can flourish under those conditions in america, why not israel?
what factors peculiar to the middle eastern setting require the jews to construct a different framework for survival over there?
facts on the ground? misconceptions? fallacious reasoning? mythology?
however the central premise here appears to be.....
..safety in an ethnically diverse nation.
why would israel, if modeled as an ethnically diverse nation, be an exception to the earlier rule? if they can flourish under those conditions in america, why not israel?
what factors peculiar to the middle eastern setting require the jews to construct a different framework for survival over there?
facts on the ground? misconceptions? fallacious reasoning? mythology?
Last edited: