[WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism

[Christopher Mahan]

--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:

 
> First, Chris, I never claimed that you don't know what you are
> talking 
> about.  Also, although it isn't always easy to tell from an e-mail,
> I 
> believe I am pretty calm (pulse and bp seem about normal).

Never said you had. calm is good.
 
> But I do think you misunderstand me, and WHEELER.  WHEELER was not
> arguing 
> that some Jews were communists (indeed, many were), nor was he
> arguing that 
> some of the people who established and ran Soviet prison camps were
> Jewish 
> (certainly, some were).  He wasn't arguing these things, because
> these 
> issues are not relevant to the article under discussion.  He was
> neither 
> responding to anyone's argument that "no Jews were communists" nor
> was he 
> suggesting that the fact that some Jews were communists (or, some 
> communists were Jews) should be included in the article.  He made
> his 
> assertions solely in the context of a personal attack against
> AndyL.

Ah, ok. In context, it makes more sense.

> More importantly, he did not (as you suggest) claim that some Jews
> were 
> communists, or some communists were Jews, or that communists
> persecuted 
> Christians (I wouldn't take issue with any of these claims, and
> certainly 
> don't think any of them are anti-Semitic).

> Rather, he identified
> Jews with 
> communists, thus repeating a Nazi slur.  He singled out "Jewish"
> communists 
> as guilty for destroying the Russian Orthodox Church.

If his aim was to offend, then it's ok.
An example:
If I said: "Bush is an asshole". Does it offend? If my purpose is to
offend, I'm going to use an offensive term. I would not rephrase it
as "I disagree with Bush policies".

> This is
> offensive 
> for two reasons: first, for a very long time it is the Orthodox
> Russian 
> Church who persecuted Jews and promoted anti-Semitism; secondly,
> after the 
> Revolution the Communist Party as a whole was involved in
> persecuting the 
> Church.  Why single out Jews?  It is such singling out that is 
> offensive.  He also referred to "Jewish concentration camps," which
> I take 
> to be anti-Semitic.  I have no objection to calling the gulags 
> concentration camps; I do object to calling them "Jewish"
> concentration 
> camps as if "Jews" in general are responsible.  This is offensive
> on its face.

Which means he was effective in his communication.

> If you still have trouble understanding the difference between 
> anti-Semitism and a reasonable assertion of facts, let me try an 
> analogy.  Some Nazis were brought up in the Catholic Church.  Yet
> it would 
> be misleading and offensive for me to talk of "Catholic Nazis who 
> persecuted Jews" (because non-Catholic Nazi's also persecuted Jews,
> and 
> there were Catholics who helped Jews), or to talk of "Catholic 
> concentration camps."  Yes, there is a complex relationship between
> the 
> Catholic Church and the Nazis, as there is a complex relationship
> between 
> the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Jews.  But to talk
> of 
> "Catholic concentration camps" is just as offensive as talking
> about 
> "Jewish concentration camps."

I hear you. 

> Perhaps you have never suffered from hate-speech, or are simply
> insensitive 
> to the matter, Chris.

I'm french and american living in america. So yes, I am fairly
insensitive to hate speech. Did I mention my wife is japanese? 

> You certainly have a right to disagree with
> me and 
> even to say this message is unconstructive.

Ok.

> But trust me, I am
> calm, I 
> have thought about this, and I believe it is constructive.  What
> WHEELER 
> wrote is not just a violation of wikicivility, it is an example of
> hate 
> speech.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Take it up with your
State's Attorney General.

> It served and serves absolutely no purpose at wikipedia,
> except to 
> use this space as a vehicle for expressing hate speech.

I'm not sure that it does not serve a purpose. I tend to think that
viewed from different angles, everything serves a purpose.  It may
even be contructive, in some unexpected ways.

> I am
> against that.

Your right.


In general, though, nobody every said building a free and
international encyclopedia was going to be easy.



=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail