Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?

Yes!Well, sort-of.  This an issue that as the lone-Jew in an Anthropology class, I’ve run into a little to often for comfort.  After thinking on it for some time, I do think there are legitimate critiques one could make of Israel, or any nation.  However, simply being anti-Zionist out of a feeling of compassion for Palestinians is the form I most often run into on campus.  Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with compassion for your fellow human-beings, but it does set quite a few people up for massive over-simplification and double-standards of the situation. If, for example, you claim Israel is an apartheid nation then you are absolutely a Jew-hating-bastard. Period.  You may as well go to your nearest Temple, yell KIKE and see what happens.  The fact is, this is not a legitimate criticism.  There are some 1 million Arab Muslims living within Israel, serving within its military, represented in the Knesset, and allowed to freely practice their religion.  Government services are extended to them at the same rate as any Israeli Jew.  Here’s another way to look at it:

Historian Bernard Lewis argues that the new antisemitism represents the third, or ideological, wave of antisemitism, the first two waves being religious and racial antisemitism.^[33]

Lewis defines antisemitism as a special case of prejudice, hatred, or persecution directed against people who are in some way different from the rest. According to Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of cosmic evil. He writes that what he calls the first wave of antisemitism arose with the advent of Christianity because of the Jews' rejection of Jesus as Messiah. The second wave, racial anti-Semitism, emerged in Spain when large numbers of Jews were forcibly converted, and doubts about the sincerity of the converts led to ideas about the importance of "la limpieza de sangre", purity of blood.^[33]

He associates the third wave with the Arabs, and writes that it arose only in part because of the establishment of the State of Israel. Until the 19th century, Muslims had regarded Jews with what Lewis calls "amused, tolerant superiority" — they were seen as physically weak, cowardly, and unmilitary — and although Jews living in Muslim countries were not treated as equals, they were shown a certain amount of respect. The Western form of antisemitism — what Lewis calls "the cosmic, satanic version of Jew hatred" — arrived in the Middle East in several stages, beginning with Christian missionaries in the 19th century, and continued to grow slowly into the 20th century, up to the establishment of the Third Reich. He writes that it increased because of the humiliation of the Israeli military victories of 1948 and 1967.^[33] (See 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Six Day War.)

Into this mix entered the United Nations. Lewis argues that the United Nations' handling of the 1948 refugee situation convinced the Arab world that discrimination against Jews was acceptable. When the ancient Jewish community in East Jerusalem was evicted and its monuments desecrated or destroyed, they were offered no help. Similarly, when Jewish refugees fled or were driven out of Arab countries, no help was offered, but elaborate arrangements were made for Arabs who fled or were driven out of the area that became Israel. All the Arab governments involved in the conflict announced that they would not admit Israelis of any religion into their territories, and that they would not give visas to Jews, no matter which country they were citizens of. Lewis argues that the failure of the United Nations to protest sent a clear message to the Arab world.

He writes that this third wave of antisemitism has in common with the first wave that Jews are able to be part of it. With religious antisemitism, Jews were able to distance themselves from Judaism, and Lewis writes that some even reached high rank within the church and the Inquisition. With racial antisemitism, this was not possible, but with the new, ideological, antisemitism, Jews are once again able to join the critics. The new antisemitism also allows non-Jews, he argues, to criticize or attack Jews without feeling overshadowed by the crimes of the Nazis.^[33]

Choke on big thick throbbing opinion

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/23/pentagons-dont-ask-survey-soldiers-in-afghanistan-just-not/

Ok, so soldiers are being surveyed about what exactly they think about gays openly serving in the military. Ok, how kind of them to ask. Aren't we forgetting however that this is the MILITARY? I don't recall any surveys prior to desegregating the military, much less a Q&A session.

Is it possible the pentagon has too much funding, to support pointless surveys?

Yes.

I mean at the end of the day if you come across a particularly ignorant jar head that busts the jaw of a queer-o-sexual; wouldn't it make more sense to point the finger of non-unit-cohesion at the jar head rather than the gay? I mean, its fairly doubtful that a Jewish solider would be blamed for destroying unit cohesion simply for being Jewish (unless of course its the German army during that whole you-know-what-ocaust).

While democracy is excellent, as it allows me to dis-empower those who annoy me (ahem), at certain points absolutes have to be set. Equality is a nice absolute to start with. There will always be one group of people that isn't too keen on another group. Now, give them a vote on said group's rights and we've got a quandary. There's an abundance of examples in history...apartheid era South Africa, Rwanda in the 90s, Serbs and Bosnians, the entirety of colonialism. Soo, no, choke on my opinion -- equality for equality's sake, or we can all go back to owning slaves.

Besides, who doesn't like a man in uniform?

TiMER

I'm not usually too keen on movie reviews, but this little known gem struck me. A paranoid society relies on an implanted timer to countdown the moments until you meet your soul-mate. Plus, if you're a fan of Emma Caulfield, this film does her justice as the lead role.

Now, as romantic comedies roll, it does have its sappy parts -- but all the comedy and mindless sex pretty much makes up for it

For the deeper thinkers out there, the movie's main component (ahem, the timer) lends itself to some definite over-analysis. Questions of determinism, fate and free will are all up for grabs

Plus its fun to see who gets boned first.

Enjoy!

And so, after a long hiatus....

I still have more complaining/shmoozing/nonsensical drivel to blather on about, but after a failed relationship, new apartment, and among other things a new laptop, I plan on actually posting....semi-regularly. Enjoy, bloggersphere.
Up coming topics:
boots
tasty foods
dogs
clones
douchebags
starcraft :D
among various other random topics

The religious-right hits a new low: History of the Homo

In a recent web-surfing adventure, I found a hilarious site attempting to give a nice completely biased view of the history of homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, GLBT advocacy sites also worry me a bit in terms of their various interpretations of history, however focusonthefamily.org and it's various mirror site such as the one I'm about to introduce you to, are so very egregious in their interpretation of the facts as to make scholars everywhere spin their collective heads.

Here goes:
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w32homosexuality.htm

The text of the site appears here in red my response appears in italics.
Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1973 when sodomy advocates and lesbian organizations lobbied for de-listing. Report on other turning points towards the acceptance of homosexuality from ancient to modern times across cultures.

It is true that the APA amended the Diagnositic and Statistical Manual in 1973 removing homosexuality as a mental disorder. "Sodomy advocates" as Nosotro (the author) calls them is hardly an appropriate monkier for civil rights advocates. "Sodomy" after all has several meanings, "masturbation" among them.
It should also be noted that popular right-wing notion that the APA was just responding to partisan politics is, bluntly, wrong. The APA based its majority decision on a general trend occuring at the time, moving away from psycho-analysis's dominance. Not to mention that homosexuality's original inclusion in the DSM was value-laden, and didn't rest on evidence; try as the might, a link between psychopathy and homosexuality could not be established.
One must also make note that given the general attitude of the time, the APA was not bowing to pressure from "sodomy advocates", as the pressure to ignore the lack of evidence and uphold the status-quo was much greater then any "advocate" simply bringing the APA's attention to a flaw in scholarship.

Has homosexual behavior always been wrong or does it depend on culture, time, and place? Many people believe, under the banner of ‘tolerance’, that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry with the same benefits, privileges, and acceptance that straight people receive. In the promotion of homosexuality, advocates imply that the life style has been accepted for centuries before the Puritans. How have homosexuals been accepted throughout history? Is today's Christian mainstream all so different from the stream of world history in the response to homosexuality? Why have past societies been uncomfortable with homosexuality?

One must immediately notice this article's thesis: has homosexuality always been wrong..? Biased and partisan "scholarship" does nothing to advance knowledge, it just reinforces notions of a specific society in a specific time period. In essence, it simply buttresses a position which can't be based purely on fact, most likely because said position is not actually supported by fact. A better thesis, and historical question would be: "How have same-sex interactions been viewed by cultures through the ages?" The last question that rounds out this paragraph is perhaps the most laughable. The author assumes that all past societies, including non-western cultures, have been "uncomfortable" with homosexuality. The author assumes, a very dangerous thing to do in historical research, that his own attitudes, and the societal norms which mold them are the same norms which dictated comfort-level in past societies, regardless of how they defined comfort, or their position on our modern conception of homosexuality.

Modern Jews are seen as accepting of homosexuality, however, their history and their laws, which are kept now only by the devout, show plainly that all historical Jewish cultures forbid homosexuality. During the Renaissance in Europe was when accepted homosexuality began to take root. More so in Italy, but nevertheless throughout the “enlightened” continent people began to preach homosexuality as just another thing that people sometimes do, like painting or traveling to England. This is also the period in which numerous and stringent laws began to be placed on “buggery”, “sodomy”, and other-worded things of that nature. From this point, the controversy over homosexuality ever so slowly gathered momentum until it became what it is today.

Here, the author blatantly states that reform and reconstructionists Jews are not devout (who as movements, have supported gay-rights), nor any jew that does not believe the author's interpretation of Judaism. This is perhaps on the verge of anti-semitism.

In stylistic terms, claiming the non-devoutness of jews as fact, without any support and ignoring context in history, is akin to holocaust denial. The same sort of methods are used. Many a synagogue-going-reform-Jew would vehemently deny any lack of religious devotion. Perhaps a better question the author should be concerning himself with is what has changed in Jewish thought? The author posits that the change in western (and Jewish) thought in regards to homosexuality all began with that insidious Renaissance. Let us remember that the Renaissance is a period when essentially medieval Europeans experienced a return to classicism in the arts, culture, and thinking. Yet, illogically, the author goes on later in his "article" to state that homosexuality was largely either absent or frowned upon by classical western cultures. Apparently, the critical thinker is left to believe that homosexuality's supposedly "warm reception" in the modern world began in the Renaissance, without any continuity of causes...it just "appeared".

The Egyptian Book of the Dead (Papyrus of Ani), in the Negative Confession, equates homosexuality with sin in a sort of Old Testament list of wrongs and sins that the speaker has not committed. A small portion of the list reads, “Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men. Hail, Her-f-ha-f, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to weep.10” The Assyrian Laws of c. 1450-1250 B.C. contain the tidbit, “If a man has lain with his male friend and a charge is brought and proved against him, the same thing shall be done to him and he shall be made a eunuch.11”

In this paragraph, the author attempts to use the Papyrus of Ani as evidence that the ancient Egyptians despised homosexuality with the same amount of scorn the author does. Unfortunately for him, this certainly does not add up. The Papyrus of Ani is filled with hymns to Osiris, Isis and other deities, and with spells to assist the Necromancer and the deceased. The Papyrus of Ani, and other works like it, is a scroll which has been placed in a coffin or burial chamber; in other words, a book of the dead. Unlike the Bible, The Book of the Dead does not set forth religious tenets and was not considered by the ancient Egyptians to be the product of divine revelation, which allowed the content of the book of the dead to change over time. The things mentioned in the "Negative confession" portion of the Papyrus are not sins. In context of the Papyrus, the "Negative Confessions" portion is just where the deceased was to assert his innocence to the gods. It was the completion of this religious procedure that the Papyrus outlines that showed piety to the gods in Egyptian Religion, not that fact that the deceased was or was not honest when "confessing". Interestingly, when one actually reads the Papyrus, they read "..O He Who Sees What Has Been Brought, who comes forth from Panopolis,I have not ejaculated. " Obviously, given the importance of child-rearing in ancient Egypt, both the author and the deceased for whom this Papyrus was produced almost certainly ejaculated at some point. Even more interestingly, "..I have not lain with men" does NOT appear in any modern translation of the text. Apparently, the author must now invent information.

The author may actually seem to have a point in regards to assyrian law. However Assyrian law was largely an edition of Hammurabi's code, which said nothing pertaining to homosexuality. Additionally, the specific law the author does cite, is a law pertaining to RAPE. That is, it is listed under a section dealing conduct toward married women and rape. It must be remembered that in this part of the world in this time period, women were considered property. To rape another man was akin to making him property. However, sex with a temple-prostitute, male or female, was considered just being neighborly. The author, once again, takes facts out of historical context (this time, ancient near-eastern attitudes towards sex) and not only assumes (again) that they were similar to his own, but does it to push his own agenda. In other words, he's suppressing evidence.

Greece is the example many homosexuals turn to in their search for acceptance in ancient societies, yet their sources are vague, citing things like obscure vase art and a new interpretation of classic stories12.

This is perhaps the best example of what extremes the author will go too to prove his point, without getting into the messy business of actual scholarship. Archaeologists routinely draw information from "obscure" sources like vase art, along with every other physical artifact and remain left behind by cultures. Indeed, the actual written sources, by ancient Greeks themselves, mention what today we would term as "homosexual" (Read the works of Sappho), legitimate historians and anthropologists have written whole library sections on the subject. It is interesting however, how the author side-steps the entire issue of same-sex relations in the ancient Hellenistic world by branding every single primary source which indicates it as false. This is what is known as a "double standard fallacy" in which the author uses the a physical artifact such as the Papyrus of Ani to back up his claim (even though it doesn't) while dismissing the whole body of evidence from the greek-world.

Stick around for Part deux of "The religious-right hits a new low: History of the Homo", where we take a deep look at other claims of the author, and reasons as to what motivates his "research".

Ecolinguistics, continued.

As I do love refuting the diatribe of pseudo-intellectuals, I just had to post this little gem.

Here's a copy of the original article in red italics: (download this article here).

Language & Ecology Online Journal (2004) available from http:// www.ecoling.net/journal.html
[updated version Dec 2006]
Masculinity, health and ecological destruction
by Arran Stibbe
One important way that language is connected to ecology is through the discursive construction of gender. As ecofeminists such as Diamond and Orenstein (1990) and Adams (1993) show, there is a high correlation between patriarchal social structures and ecological destruction, and social structures are created, partially, through language. Discourses which play roles in constructing images of masculinity and femininity are all around, but for this article I will concentrate on one example: an instance of a particular discourse of masculinity which has been called ‘hegemonic masculinity’. In Stibbe (2004), I analysed the construction of hegemonic masculinity in the discourse of Men’s Health magazine, drawing out implications for the emerging concept of health. There other important implications, however, in terms of ecology, and this current article looks at discourse of Men’s Health magazine in terms of its ecological implications.
The covers of the magazine, seen by far more people than those who actually buy it, display a black and white picture of an 'ideal' man, and a series of short statements in various font sizes. The majority of these statements use the conventional syntax of lifestyle magazines to set up various goals for readers, such as being thin or being a great heterosexual lover (Lose your belly! Gold medal sex etc). These are treated as something which is obviously desirable, but they may be implicated more in creating desires than responding to already existing desires. For instance, men may not have realised before that it was desirable to ‘Add 2 inches to your chest!’.
Good health is strongly correlated to ecological sustainability: a diet consisting of local produced, varied, organic fruits and vegetables is as good for biodiversity and the land as it is for health, as is avoiding canned and processed food and walking instead of taking the car. However, rather than goals which simultaneous promote health and ecological sustainability, the main goal that the magazine sets up for readers is the achievement of a huge, muscular body. Clearly this goal is related to images of power and masculinity rather than health. The following are just some of the statements from the cover of the magazine:
l SOLID MUSCLE! l BIGGER BICEPS l BUILD THIS BODY [with arrow pointing at a huge torso] l A HARD BODY l gain muscle l FIND YOUR ABS! l ADD 2 inches to your chest l HARD MUSCLES FAST! l PACK ON MUSCLE! (Men's Health 06/2000 - 09/2001 covers)
Achievement of a huge, muscular body demands the wasteful consumption of large amounts of food, and the magazine recommends one kind of food over all others:
 meat has big advantages over all other foods: It packs muscle-building protein… (Men's Health 2000: December:166)
 Meat is loaded with the protein needed to build new muscle (Men's Health 2000:December:166)
 The muscle stoker [recipe]…eat this meal and you’ll grow your biceps…That’s because the protein in the beef [1lb top London broil] helps to build new muscle tissue (Men's Health 2000:July/August:87)
 make your meat beef and you’ll also get testosterone-boosting amino acids. Testosterone helps you lift more weight and build more muscle. (Men's Health 2000: November, p84)
The cause and effect relationship between been eating meat and growing muscle is clearly expressed in the expression 'muscle-building protein', as if the protein itself will grow muscle without any effort on the part of the person eating it. Likewise, 'protein' is the agent of the verb 'build' in 'protein...helps to build new muscle', rather than the reader. In 'eat this meal and you'll grow your biceps', the reader is the agent of 'grow', but the only activity that the sentence suggests is 'eat this meal'.
Despite the associated risks of heart disease and prostate cancer Men's Health is recommending the consumption of large amounts of red meat, in order to achieve the goal of a muscular body. And meat, when produced in intensive units using chemically treated grains, genetic modification and growth hormones, is one of the most inefficient and ecologically destructive ways of producing food (Turner 1999).
This pattern of connections is repeated in relation to convenience food. In accordance with to the masculinist overtones throughout the magazine, cooking is assigned to women (Fiddes 1991:158). If men must cook, then they should do it the masculine way - with convenience foods. The association of masculinity with convenience food is accomplished through a memorable rhyme:
 A Man, A Plan, A Can: All you need is a can-opener (or a wife) (Men's Health 2000:June:96).
or a simple equation:
 You + a can opener = 12 manly meals (Men's Health June 2000, contents)
or the following imperative:
 Nuke your gut. The TV dinner diet. Three minutes to a leaner waist. These dinners aren’t just easy to make, they’re a fast way to lose weight…low in calories and incredibly tasty. Fill your freezer with these 13 meals… (Men's Health:December:133)
In terms of the environment, of course, convenience foods take a heavy toll in terms of packaging materials, processing, and refrigeration. By encouraging men to grow huge bodies on a diet of meat and convenience food, Men's Health magazine appears to be using language to establish artificial goals which celebrate hegemonic masculinity and male power, and lead to ecologically destructive behaviour. And if men find that a diet of frozen pizza and canned food does not lead to the hugely muscular and lean body of the cover model, then they can always buy one of the huge SUV cars which are heavily advertised in the magazine as a substitute.
The images in the magazine of huge muscular men and the constant implication that this is the ideal shape for a man have the potential to lead to body dissatisfaction. Body dissatisfaction, in turn, could lead to following the dietary recommendations of the magazine to consume large amounts of meat and convenience food, or to compensate for the lack of ideal physique through purchase of the range of luxury consumer items offered by the magazine. In this way, social constructions of gender - masculinity in this case - have the potential to encourage behaviours which damage ecosystems.


Now let’s look at some things wrong with this sadly illogical article, namely, that it simply refuses to acknowledge the bigger picture.

Whether a man is gay or straight, the very reason they read Men’s Health and try to attain a muscled physique and know-how in the bedroom is TO ATTRACT POTENTIAL MATES. There’s a simple logic behind this: the majority of the aforementioned traits are found to be attractive among potential mates, thusly, if one doesn’t posses these traits they may be passed over in favor of someone else. And yes, it’s a two-way street ladies, most straight men don’t find fat women attractive. Indeed, no matter one’s sexual orientation, the vast majority of people don’t find the un-fit attractive due to our collective biological imperative to breed. This is because the physically un-fit are seen as possessing traits which preferably wouldn’t be passed on to offspring (this can also be seen as an inability to care for offspring). Contrary to what radical feminists would have us believe, we are bound by biology in very real ways - our perceptions included.

So, that said, let’s go a bit more indepth with this.

1. How are patriarchal social structures defined? How is environmental destruction defined? Would not an ecofeminist have a bias in linking the two into a positive correlation? Are their research methods really unbiased?
2. Desirable traits, such as big biceps, are actually linked to better health. Admittedly, this link is open, and often culturally defined. However, this feminist assumes, like so many feminist, that what's physically preferable is dictated solely by a "boy's club" of men - and completely ignores the actual interplay that occurs.
3. Maintaining a “well-built” muscular body DOES NOT equal the wasteful consumption of a large amount of food. It requires a careful and varied diet. Maintaining such a physique doesn’t require one to consume a large amount of food, it’s absurd to assume so.
4. While a single article in the 2000 issue of Men’s Health encourages the eating of red meat - the vast majority of its online edition encourages the eating of fish (usually broiled) along with a balanced diet and regular exercise. It really seems as if the author was digging with this one, and the fact that Arran Stibbe didn’t include the information in an honest context means I place the author in same academic category as white supremacists who disregard information outside their worldview and “pick and choose” facts without looking at their outside context. For example, holocaust deniers “pick and choose” the fact that Hitler issued a “no liquidation order”, but completely disregard the historical context.

5. The "easy" food preparation diatribe Stibbe drawls on about doesn't have a root cause in men dominating women, it's root cause is laziness, a trait both genders share. Being able to simply pop something in a microwave rather then break out pots and pans appeals to the lazy side in all of us. Also, I seriously doubt Men's Health recommends chowing down on a frozen pizza, most likely they mean "Lean Cuisine".

If you really want a clean sustainable world where everyone shops at an organic foods store and we treat each other as equals, then stop being such a pompous ass.

You femi-nazi. : )