Dialogue on Discrimination

Another discussion brought to you from [b:97d531afe9]the Mailing List[/b:97d531afe9], with delay because the only time this evening I could have posted it earlier was the time when terrypratchettbooks.org was down, probably buried under a snowbank.
I know the
[quote:97d531afe9][b:97d531afe9]Name:[/b:97d531afe9]

[quote:97d531afe9]text text[/quote:97d531afe9]
[/quote:97d531afe9]looks a bit weird, but I know, right now, no other way to make it clearly readable without re-inventing html.



[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]
Anyone else hear about Michael Jackson's 'Anti-Semetic' phone call tape? It would have been funny, if it wasn't so sad.
[/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]i don't watch the news anymore. i heard they arrested some muslim convert student in the states for saying he wanted to kill bush... but that was the last bit of news i've heard in weeks
[/quote:97d531afe9]
[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]looking back over roman's email a second time, i sped-read and the P from phone somehow transposed itself into 'anti-semetic', yielding 'antiseptic'
[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]I think that student actually had a plan for the assassination, man.

As for Michael, a tape was run on ABC News (i think, don't quote me on this) in which he was talking to his secretary about "those Jews... sucking my blood... they buy fancy cars and expensive houses on my expense", or something like that. Everyone's calling him an anti-semite now, and the anti-defamatation league even said that he showed he was such before, by using the words "jew me, sue me" and "kike" in a song of his.

Michael's no anti-semite though. He and Uri Geller are best mates, and that phone call was just Michael bitching about his lawyers.

But trust the media to turn it into a sensation. Michael Jackson is just too good a target to pass up, it would seem.
[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]*shrug* romano, your logic is a bit... illogical.

you can be highly prejudiced against a group and still be friends with members of that group. i've known any number of racist southerners who were just one step away from burning crosses on lawns, and that one step is usually the fact that their one of their best friends happens to be black.

that sort of internal conflict isn't remotely rare. it is, in fact, symptomatic of a racist society or ideology slowly emerging out of the dark ages. 'those jews' may well refer to a specific grouping of jews, eg, in this case, jackson's attourneys, but it isn't any less racist than 'those jews' being said by a nazi minister for gasseous showers.

depends on how tightly you want to define racism, though. you yourself are an extremely racist fellow by some ways of looking at it.

jackson's a jehovah's witness. they're... a bit .... what's the word... *mental*. they're a nice enough lot, most of the time, but they're not known for tollerating other faiths, even other sects of christianity. worse than the catholics in that respect.

i dunno... i miss the cathars. utterly whack ideology along side some fundamental truths common to almost every religious movement and philosophical path to enlightenment, more persecuted than the jews, and now completely forgotten about. just another dualistic bump on the single carriageway transport system of faith.

and zoranastrianism. man, between the christians and the muslims, that one never stood a chance, and yet it SHOULD have. it so bloody well should have. but i've degenerated into theology when i was discussing ethnicity.

the two do have common ground. look at mecca... even if i could speak arabic and were a practicing muslim, i'd still have a devil of a time getting into that city and wouldn't be accepted when i did. institutionalized racial and theological supremacy as a matter of doctrine.

it never lasts. sooner or later the counter-balance, resentment from those who're excluded, forces things to a point. crusades every two hundred years seems to suffice.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]Clay, Jackson was having a private conversation with his secretary.
His reference to "those Jews" was a reference to a group both of them knew privately. The group reference comes very easily to the tongue, and I don't see anything racist in it. He wasn't referring to Jews in general, but to a particular group.

As for religious tolerance, Michael's crazy without any regard to his faith. As for Catholics, I like the rumbles that are coming out of the Vatican these days.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]*sigh*

that wasn't my point roman. my point was that it IS possible to take the phrase 'those jews' as racist regardless of ANY context. i'm not saying jackson was being racist. i'm not saying he wasn't. you're the one who's brought up the fact that he was accused AND the one who's been defending him for it.

i'm saying, apropos of that, that refering to anyone by their ethnic identity, particularly a group of anyones by their ethnic identity, is racist to some people.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]And I say that it's not any more racist than saying "those communists". I can understand some people taking that as racist, but I just don't.

Due to your mention of his faith I thought your point was that he's ikely to be a racist, is all.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]
... romano, are you using communists as an example to show that there is utterly no connection to racism, or were you arguing that it's no less discriminatory that non-race based catagorizations?

also, read your neitzche. labels negate.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]No connection to racism. "those Communists in Pasliament", for example, would have been a valid way to begin a negative comment on the Israeli Communist Party.

Yes, labels negate, but I wouldn't call the usage of labels such a bad thing unless they are generalistic labels. Certainy not bad enough for a media frenzy.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]
i'm *not* talking about the media frenzy. i don't know anything about it, and have no evidence, other than your word for it, that it exists.

now:

'those jews' is generalistic. 'those jews, marty finkelmyer, arty wernstein, and moses q. jew' is not generalistic. 'those jews, right there, that i am pointing at right now' is also not generalistic. 'those jews', without suitable context, is generalistic.

any label negates to some degree. even a name has some impact on a person, but it's generally accepted that it's an essential label. your name is who and what you are, and vice versa. however, "those kids over there" or worse yet "those children" is a very dismissive and insulting statement to a group of "teenagers" who might find that "no good punks" was a badge of honor, despite it still denying them, as a group, of the individuality of the constituent members of said group.

a whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts, or even distinct from the sum of its parts, if you label and identify the sum rather than the parts.

still with me?

this has NOTHING TO DO WITH MICHAEL JACKSON.

you can go back and reread it with that in mind, if necessary.

now, 'those communists' is a generalistic label that blankets the individual members of the party and denies them any individuality or personality beyond that which you mentally associate with "communists" *in general*.

'those communists' is not a 'racist' statement because 'communism' is not a race.

'those jews' is a 'racist' statement because 'jew' is a recognized and accepted ethnic race.

overly generalized statements negate the individual.

negating the individual is to look at the group stereotypes inherent in the generalization

thus, is a prejudicial view for an entire group

and if the generalized statement centers on ethnic rather than ideologic views, it can be racist.

not 'it IS' racist, because context matters

but it CAN be.

and this still doesn't have anything to do with michael jackson directly, but can still be applied there because with a subtle change of context, or lack of frame of reference (same thing, really), it might be a racist statement, and it might just be him griping about his lawyers, and either way,

were he to wish to avoid 'racist' implications,

he could have said 'those lawyers' rather than 'those jews', and instead invoked an entirely different set of stereotypes and social prejudices.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]I'm not arguing about the generalized version nort being racist. I agree that it can be, as you should have inferred by now.

As for Jackson, he was
A. Having a private conversation with a person who exactly which Jews he was talking about and
B. Having a private conversation, which means expecting him to cover his arse for a possible revealment of said conversation is silly.

The media hype wasn't too big, and I doubt it'll go on beyond the airing of the tape on the news (done), and some angry comments by the Anti-Defamatation League(done), but it's still annoying.
[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Garner : [/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]relying on your audience to infer is a faulty method of debate. clear communication requires that you be explicit not implicit.

as for jackson... point A is fairly valid. that provides the context that can define the interpretation of 'those jews'. i believe you'll find that almost any anti-defamation league, be it black, brown, red, yellow, or hook nosed, would find that identifying people by their ethnicity is a negative thing (and, from personal experience, i've found that almost any such mentality often identifies THEMSELVES by ethnicity with no compunction whatsoever, but hypocracy is humanity, and vice versa.), and my point stands that 'those lawyers' would have been free from racism or risks of racist implications. but this ties into point B...

it doesn't matter if you're on camera or not. if you're going to make sure not to use the term 'kike' in public but have no problem using it in private, this doesn't mean you're not anti-semetic, it just means you're a coward about it. if you naturally refer to people who happen to be jews as 'those jews', you're showing how your mind works.

they occupy a special place in your brain that is reserved for 'jews'. it is not the same place for 'non-jews'. this is segregation and i think therefore automatically racist in some way shape or form. it might be jew supremacist, like you, or it might be anti-semetic, like an anti-semite. and there's variations within those broad catagories. jessie jackson and louis ferakhan (however its spelled) are not the same sort of anti-semites, though both have made anti-semetic comments in their careers. [/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]Clay, let me give an example regarding B.

The word negro never got the negative meaning in Russia as it did in the US. A Russian would be very likely to use that word, both in public and in private, as others would use the word 'black'. This doesn't mean that he has a special nasty place for black people in his head, just that he doesn't consider the word the way you do. *but*, if said Russian knew that Americans thought differently about this word, he would probably use a more accepted word in public, when talking to Americans, on talk shows, news etc etc.[/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]doesn't wash, romano.

jackson's not a russian. he is (or at least was) a black american, fully aware of the sensitivities of racial issues in the states. you can't grow up black and NOT be aware of it.

in the states, you KNOW that thinking of people as 'those jews' or 'those blacks' is a dangerous way of thinking. people don't stand for it. if you think that way at home, you likely think that way at heart.

and that's where it matters.

it's the difference between saying "those lawyers" and "those jews"

where's the emphasis? WHY bring up their ethnicity *at all*? so what if it's in a private conversation. it's not "we must gas you in the showers" racism, it's just... 'you may LOOK human, but you're not one of US' racism.[/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]That doesn't wash with me, man. Jackson's a mental retard, with a myriad of psychological problems and one of the shittiest childhoods that one can have. Saying that Jackson sees what everyone around him sees is a problematic statement.

As for his comment, again, what I'm trying to say is that when he said "Those Jews' he just meant "Those Jewish lawyers", or even more accurately, "Those Jewish lawyers of mine". The difference between public statements and private and self-related statements *does* matter.[/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]the advantage to america's obsession with political correctness is that it DOES illuminate some aspects of human psychology.

tell me why you would say 'those jewish lawyers' instead of 'those lawyers'. jewish becomes an explicative adjective. replacable with 'damn' or 'bastard'

not replacable with a more descriptive subclause such as 'those lawyers [from Stein, Stein, and Rothchild]'

if you look at a person and see a jew instead, then there's a segregation that *is* racist. you may not think it's a big deal, most of the world may not see it as a big deal, but it IS racism. denying that is a bit foolish.

as for jackson... he's a fanatical member of an anti-semetic organization. balance of odds says that he's reconditioned to dislike em, but that really aint what i'm lookin at right now. [/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Roman K[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]Clay, I've been doing some reading. Jackson is a *former* Witness. He disassociated himself from it shortly after releasing Thriller, and claimed that the faith was nothing but a source of sorrow in his life. He appears to have been drawn recently into the also contoversal Nation of Islam by his brother Jermaine, recently being two years ago. More recently, as in the past few months, he Michael cut all connections with the Nation of Islam (he used them as security, probably at his brother's request).

Lookin' good to me so far, man. Naive though the guy may be, he gets out of the cacky in the end.

Now, Jackson looking at his lawyers according to a larger group they are members of... meh. It's like nationality, man. Call it racist if you will, but this is not a big deal at all.[/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]
neverminding that the nation of islam is MILITANTLY anti-jewish... neverminding that jackson CANNOT be both 'mentally retarded' and also clever enough to get himself out of the cacky...

you are absolutely right, it's like nationality. and last i was made aware, it was also wrong to discriminate against someone based on their nationality. lets take your case specificly:

you apply for a job in america, and you're told they don't hire israelies. at this point, does it MATTER if they're discriminating against you because of your faith, your race, or your nationality? (and lets face it, in the case of israelies, they can often be assumed to be synonymous)

i'd say that it matters that you were being discriminated against.

or, conversely, in favor of. i don't believe the jews are a superior race. i would object to the thought that someone was being hired for a job on the grounds that they're jewish.

if jackson hired his lawyers because jews make better solicitors, or if jackson said 'those jews' instead of 'my lawyers' because he doesn't like jews, either way it's not right.

and i don't see that there is a convincing arguement for it to be any neutral motivation. if it were neutral, then jackson would never have said 'those jews' in the first place, and instead have said 'lawyers' or whatever.[/quote:97d531afe9]


[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]Clay, his brother is a part of the organization. He probably only hired them as security because his brother nagged and nagged, and Michael, being a blind and naive person (child mentality, Clay), consented. Eventually, after some of his advisors pointed out just how fucked up the organization is(it probably took him time to get it. Child mentality again), he fired them, and didn't look back for a second.

Discrimination wasn't involved, and isn't involved, Clay. Thought-patterns are. Associating someone to some kind of parent-group, without actually reflecting on the parent group, is done on an everyday basis. Jackson said "Those Jews" because he's lawyers are JEWS. Try to spin-off some sort of pre-hiring thought process out of the words, and you're just getting sidetracked into speculation that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

If someone had, say, just one person of Russian descent, then his boss asking a co-worker, "Hey, how's that Russian fella, Alexey, doin'? He's been sick for a week now, and I'm worried," is okay, right? Because any possible negative aspects are overshadowed by the positive ones. A possible negative aspect doesn't mean that it exists in the particular case.[/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Garner:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]but roman, you were attributing jackson's decision to cease using the nation to his own ingenuity. if you leave it up to the audience to infer your meaning, you leave yourself open for this. write clearly.

discrimination is inherent to the case, roman. thought-patterns are not exempt or immune from it. prior to the civil rights movement of the late 50's and early 60's, it wasn't *policy* to discriminate against blacks, that's just how things WERE. 'i don't hate negros. they just aren't as good as us' isn't racist to someone who was brought up to believe that.

it is inherent to the human condition that we form tribes and identify with them. that doesn't mean that it's not discriminatory when you do so. let's take your russian example... 'hey, how is that new guy, alexey doin'?' is better than 'how's that russian fella' because it does not identify alexey with any other group or culture than himself. it treats people as individuals rather than as part of some larger tribe which may carry preconceived notions.

to use a drasticly different example, you can't say "People defecate. that's just how life works." to justify why there's piles of waste in the streets or on the floor in your home. Yes, people have to poo, but you can poo in a toilet and flush it out to sea so your immediate environment is healthier, or you could even process it into compost and use it to fertilize crops if you were so inclined, thus improving your immediate environment AND gaining a positive aspect from an unavoidable manky aspect to the human condition.

likewise, you can't say "people discriminate based on ethnic and cultural differences between them to form tribes. that's just how life works" and leave it at that. admittedly, the tribal instinct is a survival mechanism for us, but it leads to problems. tribe vs. tribe, nation vs. nation. as has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history, one of the fastest ways to unite various tribes together is to present a common enemy. i don't think you could reasonably call this a 'good thing'. "if you all work with me, we can wipe out the jews" must always be suspect, and is probably always a bad thing, no matter if you replace jews with "commies" or "terrorists" or whatever. first it requires the dehumanization of the common enemy, and secondly as i said, this is a common tactic in empire building.

was the nato/warsaw pact stand off a good thing? was the cold war? no, but it was human nature and based on the same tribal distinction behaviors that you're saying aren't discriminatory or at least aren't a bad thing if they are.

anyway, i realize this is going into dangerous waters, but i'm going to have to let it drift.

there's communication issues here that i haven't got the time to surmount, and they're not all on my doorstep.

for example, 'pre-hiring thought processes'... romano, when I said that discrimination is still a bad thing if it's in someone's favor, i was not saying "Michael Jackson probably hired those guys because they were jewish, and he uses the term as one of awe and praise". What I was saying was "If you single someone out for any reason because of their ethnic, ideological, cultural, or other tribal affiliation, you are intellectually discriminating. If your behaviors or attitudes towards them are different than they would be towards anyone else, then you have engaged in bona fide discriminatory behavior. It could be 'racist', it could be 'bigoted', it could be 'religious' discrimination or 'sexist' discrimination. All of them are bad."

How you managed to construe it that I was saying jackson probably hired them on the grounds that they were jewish is beyond me. I know I'm not a brilliant communicator, but i'm not THAT bad.

Anyway, I'm not even sure where things took this turn, but I'll back peddal a bit and stick to some absolutes rather than abstract illustrations.

When Michael Jackson refered to a group of people by a term applied to members of an ethnic collective division, his demonstrated thought process was discriminatory. It is not, in the grand scheme of things, a 'big deal', but those who find such behavor to be 'racist' have a valid claim for it.

Jackson was discriminating, positive or negative, based on someone's race. There was no reason why it was necessary to do so. Therefore, he could have done it differently. But he didn't. This is because his thought-patterns automatically discriminate between 'jews' and 'other people'. I don't see this as a healthy thing. I can recognize why a Jewish Anti-Defamation League would have serrious problems with it. [/quote:97d531afe9]

[b:97d531afe9]Roman K:[/b:97d531afe9]
[quote:97d531afe9]First, I didn't say that you said that Michael hired his lawyers due to them being Jewish. I was trying to say, probably badly, that you were using unrelated hypothesis and 'what-if' style of arguments.

As for grouping people... What would have been the difference if he said "those lawyers"? Would it have meant that he has a bias against lawyers in general? Them being Jewish is a fact. Them being lawyers is another fact. He could have said "those suit-wearers" for that matter. He was just using a descreptive word that applied to that *group* of *individuals*.

Funny, isn't it? First, if the law firm he went to was just Jewish owned, then they were broadcasting their Jewish group identity. Second, true individualism is impossible. A family is as good a group as a faith or a race. Me-everyone else is also a group division, as is me+my-friends and everyone else. Erase groups and you lose too much for it to be worth it, along with the bad things.[/quote:97d531afe9]

As lazy as a wet handbag full of flour.

I totally agree with Garner on this, though if I'd known the conversation was going around and around in circles I wouldn't have read the whole thing.