Posts
How Not To Criticize Nelson Mandela (Or Anyone At All)
By Daniel Koffler / June 11, 2008
Christopher Hitchens wants to know why Nelson Mandela hasn't denounced Robert Mugabe, and insists that "[b]y his silence about what is happening in Zimbabwe, Mandela is making himself complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation, as well as the strangulation of an important African democracy." The most generous interpretation of this sentence is that Hitchens doesn't know what 'complicit' means.
The thing is, Mandela has denounced Mugabe. He has described Mugabe as a
paradigm example of African "'tyrants' who cling to power…'who have made enormous wealth, leaders who once commanded liberation armies.' They had come to 'despise the very people who put them in power' and 'think it is their privilege to be there for eternity.'" For good measure, Mandela added that "'we have to be ruthless in denouncing such leaders.'"
That denunciation of Mugabe came a year into Mandela's retirement from politics, when he was already eighty-two years old, at the height of a political, agricultural, and financial crisis in Zimbabwe. It made no difference in Zimbabwe whatsoever. So Hitchens' notion that "the smallest word" from Mandela would make a "huge difference" is patent nonsense. His complaint amounts to accusing Mandela of being culpable for "the pillage and murder of an entire nation" because he hasn't denounced Mugabe frequently or recently enough to satisfy Christopher Hitchens, regardless of the negligible practical effect of such a denunciation. Which is a distinctly less compelling indictment.
Incidentally, Hitchens' failure to give an answer to his own question isn't for lack of having received one. George Bizos told Hitchens that Mandela is "a very old man" whose "doctors have advised him to avoid anything stressful." Well, that just won't do it for Hitchens, who insinuates that Bizos—the heroic human rights activist and counselor to the defendants in the Rivonia trial as well as (more recently) to Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai—is prevaricating to cover up for Mandela's "squalid compromise."
It can't be that Bizos is stating the simple truth that Mandela is a frail ninety-year-old man whose body has been wrecked by decades of abuse and malnutrition and who lives in constant pain. It can't be that finally after all these years, his mind is beginning to show signs of what happens to a human mind after enduring for so long: Just before the Rugby World Cup final between South Africa and England last year, Mandela mistakenly called his beloved Springboks 'the All Blacks,' the nickname of their arch-nemesis New Zealand. That's not a minor lapse. It would be like a passionate fan of the Red Sox inexplicably calling them 'the Yankees,' at least if his support of the Red Sox were a profound symbol of his nation's post-apartheid reconciliation with which everyone from his country is intimately familiar.
South African blogger Michael Trapido puts things more politely than I can: "Madiba, of all people, has merited his greatness and earned his rest. While we would all love to see him as much as we can, exerting pressure will only shorten his time with us and be of benefit to nobody." Less politely, Hitchens believes Mandela owes it to Hitchens to give himself a coronary episode. Otherwise he's a squalid moral compromiser with Zimbabwean blood on his hands.
Next week in Slate: Christopher Hitchens explains that Martin Luther King's silence on genocide in Darfur proves that the once great man has descended into the squalor of moral relativism.
POST A COMMENT
"damend smugness"
Here, download Firefox
http://www.mozilla.org/
It has a built in spell check mechanism in the browser.
Anyway, I've seen plenty of people (including myself) demonstrate clearly that you're being a jackass. You've responded by being more of a jackass, and just straight obfuscation. The truth is, while Daniel is recognizably on the left, he's being logical and fair, while you're just an obvious ideological hack willing to embrace the most tawdry prejudices to advance a non-existent argument.
As for the issue of how many people care that Daniel is leaving, let's see how many people care when you leave.
Jeffrey, if I type "teh" instead of "the," or (what happens fairly regularly) I edit a sentence and leave in an extra word from an older version, or make a dyslexic hash of "constitution" (the keys seem to get sticky on me every time I try to type that), that would be a typo. If, on the other hand, I make consistent and repeated phonetically reasonable misspellings, like adding superfluous "m"'s to "tomorrow," dropping the first "r" in "February," or adding an "a" to "experience," there's a good chance it's not a typo, but rather, I just don't know how to spell the word. I don't think you knew how to spell the word.
But let's put that aside. How about, while you're answering Ismail, you go into a bit more detail about the divine retribution against me that you're praying for? Deal?
Jeff-
It's not a matter of "being more clear", it's a matter of uttering an untruth. I'm a stickler about this sort of thing because, as you know, serious critics of Israel are always facing the charge of anti-Semitism, which works well for those who wish to sully the motives of robust critics of Israel. When you say that I attack Jews, this is not a lack of clarity on your part-it's just false. The fact is, I've never attacked Jews, for the simple reason that anti-Semitism is ethically, intellectually and politically a massively senseless set of beliefs. So I think that "I should be more clear" doesn't have quite the same ring as "I was mistaken", which I'd vastly prefer.
As to changing the subject, I plead not guilty. It's true that naftali would often question me about matters two or three times removed from the issue at hand, which I would ignore. I did this because a favorite debating trick of mischievous types like our vanished naftali is to introduce just such extraneous matters so as get the conversation off course. I recall arguing with him about something-perhaps the criminal assassination of the yeshiva students several months ago-when he demanded to know my opinion about the treatment of Palestinians by Jordan or some such unrelated matter.
On 7/3, you said,
"Ismail, I will not answer anymore of your "satire" until you answer the question I last asked you. What will happen to the Israelis if they lay down their arms today?"
Today, you say,
"And excuse me, The question you fail to answer is from your contention that Israel is the block to peace and your call for a one state solution in a previous topic. You have still failed to answer the question."
Am I misunderstanding you?
I do indeed believe that Israel bears complete responsibility for the mess in historic Palestine, and that all the inhabitants of that region ought to live in one secular state. If your question about Israel "laying down its arms today" refers to those beliefs of mine, then again I say that I've never suggested such a thing. If a single state is to come to pass, both Israelis and Palestinians would need to have assurances that they would be protected from regressive elements on both sides and mechanisms would need to be put into place to give substance to those assurances.
As to why I think that Israel is the bad actor, that's an enormous question that requires more than a blog comment. But for starters, occupation is illegal, settling one's citizens on occupied land is illegal, displacing indigenes is illegal-shall I go on?
I will never convince you that Israel's the bad guy, so we should stick to more definite and circumscribed particulars, where there's at least a chance of speaking a common language.
But first, you really need to be more definite about retracting your baseless accusation. And it would be even better if you were to reflect on why you would even make such a statement in the absence of any evidence to support it. How does that tendency-to attack critics of Israel as "attackers of Jews"-affect your overall judgements about these issues?
I'll bet that the politics of Palestine don't enjoy an elevated position on your list of favorites, but until I have reason to believe otherwise, I wouldn't accuse you of anti-Arab sentiments on that account. This allows me to regard your beliefs with some dispassion, without getting as defensive as I might if I were convinced that you were a bigot. Similarly, once you convince yourself that I "attack Jews", you will, like most of us, constrict what's possible and foreclose all sorts of opportunities for understanding. Not liking or agreeing-just seeing the picture that I mean to paint, not the one you're imagining.
I should be more clear, you are right. You attack Israel, Israelis and Zionists. You are disrespectful to many of the same people that Koffler is, you refuse to answer questions posed to you, and you try to change the subject when you are called out on it. Just look to any debate you had with Naftali (where is he anyway?) And excuse me, The question you fail to answer is from your contention that Israel is the block to peace and your call for a one state solution in a previous topic. You have still failed to answer the question.
I hope this answer suits you, because I do have regard for the truth.
Jeff says,
"Daniel smears his opponents to avoid answering any questions (he, for the record has not answered my repeated questions, instead simply writing thatI am a racist)"
yet when I ask him to support his accusation that I "attack Jews" or retract it, he sleazes out by asking me an irrelevant question (which asked me to explain something I never suggested).
Jeff, it's very simple. No more changing the subject, no more misdirection, no more sleazoid tactics of any kind. Just do what anyone who professes the principles you claim would do. Just support your charge or withdraw it.
So here we stand. Jeff, you made a serious accusation against me. Source it or retract and apologize. Or, by your silence, acknowledge that you are a scurrilous Mccarthyesque crank with no regard whatsoever for truth.
I hope you choke on your damend smugness. Yes, I corrected my typo. A more fair person would ignore obvious typos, as I have done for both of you through not just this series of posts, but in past topics. Petty schmucks. I could go on refuting your smears, but in the end it does not matter. Daniel smears his opponents to avoid answering any questions (he, for the record has not answered my repeated questions, instead simply writing thatI am a racist) He gets away with it because of sycophants like Otro Dave that adore Koffler so much. I wonder why there are not more well wishers for young Daniel? It seems I am not the only one put off by his schtick.
Yeah, I saw the "experiance" version and was wondering whether I was more appalled at the spelling, grammar, or passive-aggressive tone. Then I realized I didn't have to choose! This guy is like a bespectacled racist train wreck.
Jeffrey, I pray you'll learn to spell "experience" and wish you best of luck rehabilitating the memory of apartheid.
UPDATE: Oh Jeffrey, you sly dog. For the record, folks, it was "experiance." Multiple times. Now see if you can clean up the experience-an-experience locution.
I believe you to be a liar. You smear me yet again, I say good riddance now that I see you are leaving Jewcy. I pray that you will always experience a just experience from life.
Nope, good try anon, love the effort, but you'll notice I was extremely careful always to mention rather than use the n-word (you know the difference between use and mention, yes?), in an effort to get Jeffrey to say something cogent about it and about racism — an effort in which I failed, though not because of any fault of mine in this case.
Just to be clear, you believe that incurring dislike from a number of persons >1 "speaks volumes"? I think it speaks volumes that you believe that.
reading this for a week, I believe that Jeffrey has indeed been mistreated. I have never seen such a twisting of words unfairly. True Jeffrey could have been more adept at avoiding the issue, it seems that Daniel is less than honest in his dealings with not just Jeffrey and from the messages left in hos departing post, it seems Jeffrey is not alone in his obvious dislike of Daniel, which I think speaks volumes. And btw Daniel, it does seem that you are the one that uses the n-word and not anyone else here. Just going by the posts here. I do not know Jeffrey, but after searching his posts here it does not seems as if he is a racist. For what it is worth.
Jeffy, my name was up the previous post too. As I said, when you miss something, avoid calling attention to it later.
Actually, I don't like Vidal much. I agree with you that his work is overrated. Oops, what were you saying about talking without knowing someone? However, I don't pick my authors out on a basis of whether I have a political axe to grind, as you so clearly do. Sure, most of my favorites are lefties, but that's just a consequence of few conservatives being able to write a compelling story, or for that matter string together words better than a shit-throwing ape.
As for Koffler, I'm sure he's wrong sometimes. Just not here. I even have to agree with Ismail that he's bullying you, but then, so am I. What can I say? Sometimes it's just too easy and fun. I almost feel like I'm holding a short-bus kid's hat and making him jump for it. Speaking of Ismail, too, it's amusing to watch you call him an antisemite while parroting white supremacist propaganda. Yep, no irony there! (If you really don't get theirony, do yourself a favor and don't mention it two posts later).
This is still happening?
Not that I expect this to change anything for N-word-lover Jeffrey, but Nelson Mandela has in fact spoken out against Mugabe as recently as last week. Contra N-word-lover Jeffrey, the real world does not function like those delightful 80s camp horror flicks in which the monster disappears when his name is pronounced backwards, and Mugabe remains in power. Also, Jeffrey continues to love the N-word and hate learning.
As I suspected. You're happy to utter falsehoods, and when challenged, to change the subject rather than show the simple integrity required to defend your calumny or retract it.
But I'll extend myself a little more in the vanishing hope that you'll act like a mensch.
Your question is a fatuous one. I never suggested that Israel "lay down its arms today". It would be nice if Israel ceased its aggression, lifted its siege upon an occupied population, etc. But I don't know a soul who suggests that Israel transform itself into a nation of pacifists overnight and forego defensive capability.
There. One less place for you to hide. Now, it's your turn. Defend your ridiculous accusation or retract it. This shouldn't be hard. If you demur, if you choose some further misdirection or subject-change, I will assume that you realize your error but don't have the decency to admit this.
Simple choice: source your baseless accusation or withdraw it.
Or admit, by refusing this simple and sensible request, that you're an utter scoundrel.
Actually, forget about doing the right thing for ethical reasons, to which I suspect you are a stranger. Do it out of self-interest. The more you bandy accusations of anti-Semitism about, the less potent the accusation is; you cheapen it by distributing it so freely. If you want the accusation to retain its strength and power to inform, don't be so profligate in its use. Especially when the accusation is a total and utter fabrication.
I will not answer anymore of your "satire" until you answer the question I last asked you. What will happen to the Israelis if they lay down their arms today?
One more thing- here's you on this thread 'way back on June 13:
"Can you not disagree with someone without imparting nefarious motives on them?"
You mean "imputing nefarious motives to them", not "imparting nefarious motives on them", but otherwise you're right. How could you have forgotten your own advice in less than a month?
Again, source your slanderous lie or withdraw it. This way, we'll see how serious you are about observing the niceties of civilized discourse you're always yelling at others to adopt.
"He attacks Jews and Israelis…"
Please explain. By "he attacks Jews", you must mean that I've attacked a Jew for being a Jew. Otherwise, your accusation is trivial. That is, I've attacked Dershowitz. Dersh is Jewish. Ergo, I've attacked a Jew. But this couldn't be what you mean, otherwise you'd be guilty of the same (see Koffler, Daniel).
So you must mean that I attack Jews in the anti-Semitic sense-just by virtue of their being Jews. This, of course, is false. If you are as concerned with the high road as you claim to be, please provide evidence that I've "attacked Jews" (which you will be unable to do, since I haven't and don't) or else apologize for making a false and reckless charge.
We have enough actual stuff to disagree about without inventing slanders.
I never said I do not read your beloved Vidal because of his politics. His writing is quite boring and overrated. Try to read Irving, or anything Mailer wrote after The Executioner's Song (which sucked in comparison to the Naked and the Damned) You seem to just swallow whatever derision Koffler throws without knowing a damned thing about me , so suck it.
Jeffrey, let me give you a few tips on how to comport yourself in arguments to at least give the reader an impression that you're on equal footing. First, if someone threw out some obvious sarcasm that went over your head, just let it lie on the field behind you and avoid calling attention to it. Don't posture like an intellectual while deriding "the ivory tower", especially after admitting you won't read authors whose politics you disagree with. Don't perpetually wax indignant and throw out ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual arguments. Don't overuse your favorite phrases (yours seem to be 'bad faith'/'good faith'), and avoid racial pot stirring. And for the love of god, don't blame others for shortcomings like "[bringing] out the worst" in you. For all the revulsion your earlier reactionary Boer-isms evoked in me, I'm the first to admit that I and only I am responsible for the words I am typing to you. Consider this helpful advice. The best way to heed it would be to stop clawing at the last word, recognize that you're way out of your depth, and go home.
You are a superior ass, but you are not my superior in anything else. Daniel is a young idiot that was also a vicious SOB. He will do well in the Ivory tower. Excuse me if I could discern no satire from your remarks, you try to play the same stupid gotcha game as Koffler and it only works if you are smart enough to pull it off. I answered your questions in good-faith, but I realize that was my mistake. As for Ismail, he is a smart fool. He attacks Jews and Israelis, second only to the Thors bloke and the rest of you seem impressed. He refuses to answer honest questions, like yourself and Koffler and rather muddies up the comments to derail conversation. The only knowledge I can gain from you is how to be a bad-faith, smug ass. I will pass. It seems this board brings out the worst in me, and that is wrong. Yet, Koffler got his wish, leftist Mugabee is in office and Mandela did not speak out.
Um, I was mocking your examples of "liberals" you like by choosing an uber liberal as my "favorite conservative". You should read some satire sometime so you can understand basic written irony. Start simple, then work your way up to those horrible lefty writers you despise so much. A quick tip though; Swift is not actually suggesting that the English should eat Irish children, though with your hard on for colonialism I'm not sure you would have cared anyway.
As for the condescending tone, I do you a favor by condescending to talk to you. As you talk to your intellectual betters (me, Daniel, Ismail, Rain Man) you may gain some knowledge, or at least a sense of why the word "nigger" is offensive.
And who said I didn't like Zell? I find him incredibly entertaining. When he wistfully mentioned challenging Chris Matthews to a duel I just about lost my shit.
Until you define what you mean by liberal, I see no point in going further. Plus, I doubt you very much can find a bunch of people that no squat about Rhodesia, Burma, Indo-China, Siam or an other Colonial system.
I can name you 5. Instances of Zell's liberalism. 1. State paid college 2. wants to import drugs from Canada 3. Wanted government to supply drugs to seniors 4. Against any reforms to Social security 5. And in Georgia was in the pocket of Enviromentalists.
Now, you dislike Zell and you chose a harden Socialist like Nader as an example of Liberal, so you discount most of the Democrat party. That makes you an extremist, not me.
As for you condescending tone, you are an ass.
I knew this guy was a blowhard when he started with the "Rhodesia" idiocy. I was interviewing and observing some white supremacists a few years ago and amazingly, "Rhodesia" was still a rallying point for them. One guy even bragged to me that he'd fought as a mercenary there; while it seemed like a spurious claim, it was something that gave the guy a lot of currency in those circles. Of course, I'm sure it says nothing about lil Jeffy's worldview.
" As a life long Georgian, I can assure you that Zell is quite liberal on many issues."
Give five specific examples. By the way, my favorite conservative is Ralph Nader.
Your are a vile little prick, aren't you? I fell for your trap, because if I would have answered that yes it was a racist term, you would use the same definition I did to prove that I do not know the difference between racism and prejudice. You lack good-faith and it shows any time you debate anyone on this site. So, why do you not answer my questions? I do answer yours and you have shown yourself to be a knee-jerk anti-western ninny, just the sort one expects to encounter from the Ivy league. Your on going unwillingness to answer questions posed to you is fast becoming tiring. I am not a racist, but you are clearly not interested in truth or fairness. As for Zell Miller, I doubt you know a damn thing about the man. As a life long Georgian, I can assure you that Zell is quite liberal on many issues. It is just that there is no room in the Democrat party for Scoop Jackson Democrats. That means he may not be a Democrat, but do you and your toadies define liberalism as the Democrat party? Do you not know the difference? If you do not know the difference, than why does Jewcy employ you to write about politics? Is it just your unending lust for Obama? Before I asked about why you feel the need to smear and lie about those that differ with you, you respond by smearing and lying about me. Well.\, why do you not answer my questions? Is it that you fear a little self-knowledge?
Well he wouldn't be our Jeffrey if he weren't still kicking and screaming. Zell Miller is a good liberal! I love it: one can be strenuously illiberal and still satisfy Jeffrey's definition of "liberal." And to think I was the least bit surprised by Jeffrey's tragicomic inability to recognize the racism involved in his own desperate, illiterate, ahistorical effort to redefine "racism" so that it excludes any opinion anyone has ever held of black people.
Knock, knock, Jeffrey. "What is racism?" and "what makes x racist?" are philosophical questions. Posing them to anyone is an act of respect — though whether one extends respect because it is earned, or because doing so is likely to lead to amusing results, is a separate matter. It's not my fault you don't have enough respect for yourself to avoid airing your ugly racial anxieties before the whole internet. Something has to be false to be a smear (I think, though maybe there could be Gettier-smears, but that's another story); but in any event, the truths you take to be smears are your own handiwork.
Let me take one further opportunity that you spend the time it takes to read both the things you write and the things you write in response to. Do I agree 100% with the cited stuff from Megan McArdle? No, I don't. But as it happens, her opinions deserve serious consideration.
The floor is still open, Jeffrey. What is racism? If something is racist, what makes it so? If, as you concede, calling black people "n-g-ers" is an instance of prejudice, what, if not racial distinctions, are the basis of that prejudice? And in using that word as an epithet for black people, in what way does one prejudge black people? Is the prejudiced assumption that black people are just super? Or is it something else? Think, Jeffrey, think. This isn't very hard. Except for racists. I promise. You can solve it if you can add 2 and 2.
You prove my point. You cannot engage in a good-faith conversation. I named liberals as you asked, and you sniffed at the list and refused that they are liberals. I ask for your definition and you sneer and run. Well, whatever it takes.
No. If you don't know at this point, forget it. Daniel has already drank your milkshake.
So you determine who is a liberal? You call me close-minded…Hitchens is definitely a man of the left. Hentoff is a first amendment scholar and social critic, Paglia is an ardent lesbian-feminist, Leiberman is a confirmed liberal except that he supports the war. Sam Nunn is of course liberal, and may be an Obama administration official. I cannot see how you act in good faith if that is your response. How about somemore – Joe Biden is not always horrid, Herb Kohl is fine at times. So if this list is not acceptable, please provide a list of approved leftists by you and we can go from there. Or why do you not share YOUR DEFINITION of liberal so that I may respond.
I asked for LIBERALS, Jeff. And, the only liberal you did name, Hentoff, is not a writer of literature or philosopher, he's a journalist.
If you consider Hitchens and Zell freaking Miller (who spoke at the republican convention, just like holy joe might) liberals, we have nothing to talk about.
“anonymous”, I can name several. Christopher Hitchens comes straight to mind, since this post was me defending a liberal… Also, Joe Leiberman, Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Cathy Cox ex-state Secretary of Georgia, Nat Hentoff, Camilla Paglia, I could go on, but what is the point? I have my opinions, but that does not mean I vilify you for yours…
I was making fun of the fact that something is obviously only "good" if YOU agree with it! Now THAT's closed-minded!
Now, if you could name a liberal that you didn't agree with but IS "good", you might prove me wrong.
You may subscribe to the theory that an intellectual must be a close-minded boor, but I do not. Intellectuals used to be comfortable with the exchange of ideas, instead you seem to insist that it is a closed-minded shop where everyone agrees with what ever tripe young Daniel puts forward. If you want to believe that an intellectual is just some philosophy quoting myrmidon, so be it.
Just to be clear: "true intellectualism" = "Jeffie likes"; "smarmy elitist" = Jeffie NOT like.
You see, I
suspected that when Koffler asked his question that there was a high probability
that it was a set-up. He does not value a good-faith give and take, rather he
smears, attacks and acts like an utter ass. As I asked many times, why is this
so? He gets back up from the likes of “anonymous”, “phantom” and Ismail. It takes no genius to see that there were
beneficial aspects to Colonialism, as unpopular as that may sound to a
generation brought up by teachers and professors imparting a nasty anti-western
attitude. As true with other debates, when young Koffler is presented with an
opposing thought he lashes out either personally, or he pushes the debate to a
parlor game of Freshman Philosophy 101, using the same boorish techniques one
finds in the dorms by the dateless fellows.
I must say
that on Jewcy, it is Koffler’s pieces that descend into these games. For the
most part, other authors seem to debate in good-faith, something Koffler could
learn from. As given his age, one expects that he will learn that the silly
gotcha game he plays will grow tiring for many and that people will simply
drift away from engaging him, I know I am less likely to even read his drivel
in the future, why bother if at the bottom of it is an unwillingness to allow
for disagreement.
As for his
assertion that I am against education and intellectuals, he could not be more
incorrect. I value true intellectualism and not the smarmy elitist strains that
at the core end up being vapidly empty. I do not value the writings of Gore
Vidal, he is deemed great by a series of liberals that confer that status on
various fellow travelers. Writers of his ilk are not truly read by masses nor
are they truly enjoyed for the most. Now, you might find some that do enjoy his
novels, but they would be a tiny minority. Unlike past great writers that were
actually read, Trollope, Dickens, Hemingway, or Twain are still read decades
and centuries after their death. Vidal is not even read today let alone will he
be read in the future. This very fact is used by Koffler and his accolades to
point to my anti-intellectualism, when it simply shows that I do not subscribe
to their pseudo-intellectualism. Real intellectualism appreciates thoughtful
critiques and honest airing of disbelieve, and not the knee-jerk assery that
Koffler continues to demonstrate.
So I repeat my question, why do you feel the need to smear and belittle anyone that entertains a differing opinion than yourself? Is that need no indicitive of an actual insecurity on your part, or is it just the manifestation of your youth and inexperience?
That's a little more responsive, let's go with it. Words are empty vessels until meaning is put into them. How does the word "nigger" connote superiority? Does anything else go into it being a racist term?
Daniel is of course correct that the cited paragraph is a world-class jaw-dropper (my vote for Sentence of the Year goes to, "The cause of his lack of literary criticism is due to the absolute dearth of people refusing to read his unctuous ramblings" ), but such risible excretions are not uncommon among the uninformed and incurious. Why bother responding when serious opponents exist?
Jeffrey proudly proclaims his (peculiarly American) disdain for learning and erudition. Why pretend that he'll respond to arguments that depend upon both?
There's no question in my mind that Jeffrey's thinking is both unrelated to actual fact and formally undernourished, and I'm certainly not suggesting a cordial agreement to disagree. It's just that the poor fellow is so outclassed that continuing his torment seems a little sadistic.
My guess is that there are folks out there who share Jeffrey's political inclinations but who've mastered the rudiments of logic and who share the reality-based community's attitude towards rules of evidence, etc. Better to have serious argument with them.
The questions Daniel's asking are basically philosophical ones (e.g., "what makes term x a racist term" can't be answered with reference to science, anthropology, etc), and I don't think Jeffrey's getting this.
Gnats and sledgehammers, in my opinion.
All due respect, I see no reason for Daniel to back down here. Jeffrey's responses, which are ignorant at best and race-baiting at worst, aren't something Daniel should feel obliged to just smile and agree to shake hands about.
Also, Roth is one of the greatest writers of our or any era, anyone who's never read Our Gang has missed out on the premiere political satire of the late 20th century.
Um…Ismail, are you saying you don't want to know what Jeffrey has to say about well, everything? He's like Karl Pilkington (only hateful) — maybe his gimmick will stop being funny one day, but it's showing no signs of losing steam.
Here's a sample of the mind-o'-Jeffrey:
I will admit that I have always found Gore Vidal to be a loathsome Jerk. His newest interview
has done the job of proving him to be a first class idiot and a-hole.
There are far too many of his ilk about that the left worships for no
apparent reason. The cause of his lack of literary criticism is due to
the absolute dearth of people refusing to read his unctuous ramblings.
I have never seen the purpose of Vidal, Irving, Mailer or Chomsky. I
never have tried to read Roth. It seems that his peers were enough to
turn me off of idiot intellectuals and their incomprehensible dreck.
Wow, just, wow. I mean, don't you just have to stand up and applaud this?
Screw that, Ismail, this is just starting to get interesting. Aren't you curious about the other "nuanced" views Jeffrey holds? Here are a few topics I'd like to see Jeffrey get his Funyon-stained mitts on:
* Jim Crow — c'mon, was it really so bad?
* Women's suffrage — why must we suffer it?
* Public flogging of lesbians — an idea whose time has come?
Although, I have to pause and say something nice about Jeffrey, which that he seems to have good taste in music (based on what I saw on his blog, scoffery.com).
And please tell me how someone can be "overeducated"? What bad thing happens when one learns too much?
Decades and decades of student loan payments?
Guys, guys. Enough.
I bow to no one in my head-over-heels infatuation with vitriol and sarcasm (highly underrated and wrongly vilified qualities), but even I am feeling a little queasy over your swordfight.
Daniel, you're tormenting poor Jeffrey and bullying doesn't look good on anyone. Jeffrey, fer chrissake, let it go. When you find yourself equivocating about the awfulness of "nigger", you've lost. And please tell me how someone can be "overeducated"? What bad thing happens when one learns too much?
OK, everyone, move along. Nothing to see here. Go on home.
PS-First one of you guys who says, "Yeah, but he started it!" gets detention.
Cry me a fucking river, Jeffrey. Outing yourself as a racist is nobody's fault but your own. I may have handed you the shovel but nobody made you dig.
Fuck off. You are dragging down Jewcy and its readers.
I told you by definition that it was prejudice and not racist.
Illiterate nonsense. Prejudice and racism are inextricably linked, not exclusive. Your own fucking definition of racism, which is preposterously ahistorical and narrow, is the belief in one's racial superiority. Your own definition of "nigger" is that it indicates the inferiority of dark-skinned people. QED, shit-for-brains. Put down the Cheetos for a sec, meditate on it, and you'll figure it out eventually. I think. Well, maybe not. Quick, Jeffrey, if I have four Snickers bars, and you eat three of them, how many Snickers bars do I have left? If you spend 4 days straight in a chair playing World of Warcraft, how many consecutive minutes have you spent in that chair? If p then q, p, therefore ______? (Fill in the blank.)
So no, Jeffrey, you do not read what you write. It's possible that your eyes pass over the letters in succession, but reading involves translating strings of visual symbols into linguistic expressions and connecting them into meaningful sentences according to syntactic rules, and you either lack the basic capacity to do so, or else you are not even so much as looking at what you write. And though you may be a racist buffoon, you happen also to be staggeringly entertaining, so I implore you to write down every thought that pops into that grey matter of yours.
I'll start you off. Please explain what the terms "darkey," "coon," "spade," "sambo," and "mandingo" mean to you, Jeffrey, and in particular, whether each one is racist or prejudiced (since the one excludes the other, right?).
I do read my posts, and I stand by my claim that you are an over-educated idiot. No where does it say racist. When you narrow the field, as you do. I told you by definition that it was prejudice and not racist. I offer you the damned definitions and you still play these silly ass word games. You are like an effing idiot in wonderland. Your inability to ever disagree in good-faith is off-putting to say the least. btw, you brought up the term, not me. You change the subject because you lack the grace to answer any questions honestly posed to you. Daniel refrain from calling me a racist.
Now answer my question.
Do you read your own citations, Jeffrey? Can you?
1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and
Offensive.
a. a black person.
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and
Offensive. a person of any race or origin
regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
My emphases.
Definition of disparage: /d??spær
?d?/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-spar-ij] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
synonyms: 1. ridicule, discredit, mock, demean, denounce, derogate.
The term "nigger," Jeffrey, is offensive because it dehumanizes black people and indicates that they are inferior to whites. That is, it is offensive because it is racist. Just as racism is perfectly compatible with prejudice, and there are no non-prejudiced racists. QED.
Know something else, Jeffrey? There's a name for somebody with a hard-on for white minority rule in Africa who thinks that the single most vile racist slur in the English language is "ill-advised" and "offensive" but not racist. That name is "racist."
You are an idiot. Here is a definition:
nigger- The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its
degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has
been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War.
Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and
are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.
Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral
or familiar way. Definition 3 is not normally considered disparaging—as in “The
Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle's The
Commitments—but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.
–noun
1.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and
Offensive.
a.
a black person.
b.
a member of any dark-skinned people.
2.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and
Offensive. a person of any race or origin
regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks;
a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
[Origin: 1640–50; < F nègre
].
< Sp negro black
racist -a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among
the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually
involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule
others.
prejudice –
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or
without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or
unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a
hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
ass clown- Daniel Koffler.
Now answer my question.
So, Jeffrey, you believe that calling black people "niggers" does not connote (n.b.: "denote" is the wrong word) that they are inferior to white people. Is that right? Please explain your thoughts about the meaning of the term "nigger," not "negative names" in general. Thx.
I answered your question on the 15th , "Calling any ethnic group a negative name is not racist unless it
denotes the belief of superiority. It is disrespectful and ill-advised
but not racist by the definitional standard. Is that what you are
looking for?" You, as most ill-educated idiots do not seem to know the difference between racism and prejudice. Your stunning ignorance is on show. All YOU have to do is read and not distort or smear. So Daniel, answer the question I asked you earlier, why can you not disagree with someone in good will without lying distortions, I notice that you have done it to David Kelsey, Michael Weiss, Naftali, myself and others. Why?
Why hasn't Christopher Hitchens condemned Jimmy Carter, where under his administration began the funding , recruiting and collaboration with Muslim extremists just so that the Soviet Union would to go through its own "Vietnam."
Millions of Afghans were killed and the country's infrastructure was devastated. The defeat of the Russians facilitated the breakup of the Soviet Union. This made the United States the number one super power in the world, but the U.S. did nothing to help reconstruct Afghanistan.
Why hasn't Christopher Hitchens condemned the United States, Britain, and their allies who, while going around preaching human rights and democracy, engage in regime change and support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?
Why hasn't Christopher Hitchens condemned the current U.S. administration for not doing an honest and complete investigation of 9/11? More money was spent investigating Monica Lewinsky's semen stained dress than was spent on investigating 9/11.
Good response Jeffrey, you got me.
Also, Wessel, you see what's going on here? You're clearly sensitive to context, so again, think about the difference between what the old flag and related symbols can mean to an Afrikaner — a mix of complicated sentiments, even if on balance its connotations are negative — versus what they mean to an American non-Afrikaner with no connection to the continent except a romantic fantasy about white minority rule and a desire to be a Rhodie. What would you make of a fellow Afrikaner, especially one who had never even set foot on American soil, suddenly flying the flag of the Confederacy and writing paeans to Jefferson Davis? (I might have suggested such a person write in drawl.) And that's our pal Jeffrey, here, with the places reversed.
Repeating: Incidentally, I offered you ample opportunity to explain your claim
that calling black people "niggers" is "not racist," an opportunity you
have steadfastly declined.
Your words, Jeffrey: "I said that it ['nigger'] is not a racist word"
Thoughts, Jeffrey? Care to explain?
you slander, lie and distort so much that you are a joke. You bring this whole website in to disrepute. Your willful distortions are so out of line. Your constant abuse of decency and fairplay is the most conclusive proof that you are not to be taken seriously. I cannot think of a reason Jewcy employs you. Your only discernible talents seems to be Obama love and the willingness to lie and smear anyone that holds a differing opinion than yourself. You are the epitome of jackassery.
Hang on, we do know how the Smith regime dealt with epidemics — they started them!
More Megan McArdle on Friend-of-Jeffrey Ian Smith and Jeffrey's beloved colonialism:
So why am I defending colonialism? As I said earlier, I'm not; the fact
that most Zimbabweans might have been better off under Smith doesn't
mean that they didn't deserve to be even better off under a government
that didn't think blacks were not quite human. [uh, one too many negatives there]…
Mugabe is not Africa. He is Robert Mugabe. He is not automatically
better than the loathesome Ian Smith merely by virtue of being black,
any more than his blackness is the problem with his government…
I think that the assumption that any black leader was definitionally
better than the Smith government is part of what enabled Mugabe. I
don't mean on the part of Zimbabweans–you can hardly blame the
subjects of a colonial regime for wanting one of their own in charge…This is a way of infantilizing Africa–acting as if Mugabe is really
the best they're capable of. Nearly every government in Africa is
better than Mugabe's. We should have expected better.[my emphases]
See Jeffrey? That's what nuance actually looks like.
Incidentally, I offered you ample opportunity to explain your claim that calling black people "niggers" is "not racist," an opportunity you have steadfastly declined. Please, let's hear more.
You are an idiot. You put words into my mouth that you know are false. You are by far the biggest bigot I know and a disgusting little twerp. You cannot write a single post without smearing someone and your abuse of me is less than warranted, other than the fact that you are total hack and a prick. So live in your fantasy world where you get to determine the beliefs of others, as the set of beliefs you ascribe to me are utterly false, but launching falsehoods is never beneath you is it?
I apologize if anyone covered this, but the thread was giving me a headache, but…
Isn't Mandela involved with The Elders along with Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson and the like? So he is ok with the stress of leading that group, but he can't speak out against the tyranny of Mugabe? Or even the burning of African immigrants in his own nation?
Well, Megan McArdle (another libertarian for Obama!) is one of my favorite bloggers, so I'd find it enormously disappointing that she agrees with you, Jeffrey, that calling black people "niggers" can be impractical but is intrinsically a-ok. Oh wait, you mean that she's a wannabe-Rhodie like you? Let's see, here's what Megan says:
Yesterday, when I pointed out that ordinary Zimbabweans were probably
better off under Ian Smith than they now are under Mugabe, I received
the horrified accusation that I was defending Rhodesia's racist regime.
Hardly; a baby is better off having its throat cut than being burned to
death, but this is not a good reason to kill babies.
We shouldn't have to choose between racism and riots, and I deny that these are the only two possible equilibria. [emphases mine]
So let's see, Megan clearly sees that the Smith regime was a horrific apparatus of official, legally codified racism — you know, that thing you don't believe exists except in black churches — and compares the racist Smith regime to a baby "having its throat cut." See also her description in the post title of the racist Smith regime as an "incredibly awful evil."
Now, as for the question about whether the quality of life is worse for ordinary Zimbabweans under the monster Mugabe than the racist Smith, that's a difficult, complicated question — a question about which Megan concedes she is not certain (hence her use of "probably"). Certainly, on many of the important metrics for such things, like standard of living, life expectancy, etc., the last decade (though not the first decade) of Zimbabwean independence has been worse for the average Zimbabwean than the last decade of official racism. By the same token, though, some considerable proportion of the discrepancy is the result of HIV/AIDS, and the suggestion that Smith would have dealt humanely with an epidemic among the captive black population of his rogue state is farcical. (Would he have handled it better than Mugabe? Who knows, what a question.) It's also not clear whether and how much worse things are now for the median Zimbabwean than they were in 1979.
Do you understand why African-Americans are offended by the Confederate
flag and songs lionizing dixie? This isn't hard. Flying the old flag
isn't just insensitive. There's only one reason to do it.
Of course I do understand that. But your a philosophy student right? So stop being so… reductive, that's the polite word, narrow minded could also be used. There is not one reason why somebody would do it. Life just ain't that simple and people are rather complex things. Ons size fits all condemnations is best left to populists and not intellectuals.
The old flag is a flag of bigots and of people like Van Zyl Slabbert who saluted it. Slabbert wont be seen dead near it today because of what it represents to black South Africans.
History is a fickle thing, elements of this flag could easily have been included in a new one during negotiations, and it would have been redeemed (Like with Die Stem). By the way, Verwoerd disliked it, and wanted the Union Jack and Boer Republics's flags removed from it.
I have a photo from when I was 18 in 1990, posing with a gay friend of mine, and a young black boy, with the Old flag, all giving the thumbs up. Then I considered myself a 'verligte' Nationalist, like my father.
Although my allegincies would soon change to the ANC at university, I recognise that for me at that time the flag was not bigotry incarnate. I was proud of it in some ways. A rare African constitutional democracy with a sound economy and industrial base that needed to be broadened to include all South Africans was my (blinkered) thinking then. And I was not alone.
Piero Gliesjes, the lefty Italian historian that has done some sterling research into Cuban involvement in the Angolan war (and proved how decisive their intervention was) has met Pik Botha on several occasions. He would describe Botha and PW Botha as many things, but pointedly remarks that they were not racists. There was a real warm relationship between PW and Savimbi he says.
The point is that apartheid was a form of institutonalised racism similar to what existed in the States till the 50's, but it also stood on another leg. Afrikaner existential angst – survival in Africa. One dimensional analysis does not do this justice.
I think its grossly insensitive to use the old flag today, but I wont condemn people with the racist tag, before I know more about them.
I wrote on the subject of racism an Afrikaners here by the way.
http://mhambi.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-afrikaners-planets-worst-racists.html
(By the way, isn't there a naming controversy in the community —
i.e., some want to call themselves by a name derived from the name of
the language instead of "Afrikaners," because of the latter's
connotations?)
There is a naming controvercy amongst a small group who want to be called Boers, because its supposedly anti-colonial. Read more about it in the comments on this post if your interested.
http://mhambi.blogspot.com/2008/03/afrikaner-vs-cuban-irony-of-cuito.html
Afrikaner is a great name IMO though because it simply means 'African'.
Wow, Megan McCardle seems to agree with me. It seems Daniel cannot handle a nuanced approach if it interferes with his knee-jerk leftism. Pity he does not seem to grasp this.
You are a horse's ass. I have no love for apartheid, I am not, like you, an unthinking leftist Jew that pretends to be a thoughtful libertarian. You are a one of a dime a dozen Philosophy majors that went to an over-respected school. You lack even a fraction of understanding about flying the Flag and you lack even the hint of understanding Colonialism, other than it offends some people, and we must not offend people unless they are Southerners, White Africans, Christians or any other group Daniel Koffler sees as beneath him. You are the one that runs to racist when you cannot carry on a civil exchange. You are an embarrassment to Jewcy and do not even compare to the fine writers and thinkers here like Michael Weiss, Tamar Fox, Helen Jupiter and Izzy. Your shilling for Obama was inane in itself, but your constant smearing of people is grating.
Um, well here is where I draw the line. I am aware that the old flag represented more than just the Afrikaners. I am aware Die Stem is older than formal apartheid, and also, since I hear the new anthem every time the Springboks play, I am aware that 4 lines from Die Stem are in the new anthem.
Do you understand why African-Americans are offended by the Confederate flag and songs lionizing dixie? This isn't hard. Flying the old flag isn't just insensitive. There's only one reason to do it. And by the way, if our friend Jeffrey were a white African, I could almost understand (if not excuse) his insistence on being a Rhodie, but he isn't, he's an American with a fetish for the apartheid era. That's why I suggested he write in Afrikaans. But you're right, that was insensitive to Afrikaans-speakers and I should have found another way to make my point. (By the way, isn't there a naming controversy in the community — i.e., some want to call themselves by a name derived from the name of the language instead of "Afrikaners," because of the latter's connotations?)
And of course, there is another side of the story, namely, Afrikaner identity wasn't forged simply out of anti-black racism, but out of the the culture of the Cape, the mutual experiences of surviving the Voortrek and resisting British rule, and much else besides.
'However, if somebody in South Africa (or Namibia and maybe Zimbabwe)
wanted to do absolutely everything he could to be an obnoxious racist
prat to black people, the package of things he'd be likely to do would
be unfurling the old orange-white-blue tricolor of the RSA, belting out
Die Stem, and insisting on speaking in Afrikaans in a context in which it doesn't make any sense'
I think if you wanted to be an obnoxious racist prat there are a number of other things you could do first and foremost, like being a racist prat. The old flag is insensitive yes, but that flag represents Afrikaans and English white South Africa not just Afrikaners. Die Stem, predates formal apartheid and if you were not aware, is still a part of the anthem, and if you listened to the ANC Polokwane conference you would have heard no reservations, they belted it out.
I take your word for it that you did not mean it, but we're a bit tired of this seemingly instinctive and deeply unreflective racism, often from people that should be anything but unreflective.
I don't really see how you can read your comments any other way than being crudely racist. Think about it. And please stop.
Uh wow, Jesus, no that's not what I was implying. I was having a little fun with Jeffrey here. Of course not all Afrikaners are racist. Huge numbers are anything but. However, if somebody in South Africa (or Namibia and maybe Zimbabwe) wanted to do absolutely everything he could to be an obnoxious racist prat to black people, the package of things he'd be likely to do would be unfurling the old orange-white-blue tricolor of the RSA, belting out Die Stem, and insisting on speaking in Afrikaans in a context in which it doesn't make any sense, like a comments thread populated by non-speakers (though I wonder how much I could follow with the German I know; spoken Afrikaans is extremely tough for me, but I can do alright with Dutch so seeing the words in writing might help).
Hi Daniel, just noticed something.
What's with you brazenly insisting that this chap write his messages in Afrikaans? Are you implying hat all Afrikaners are racist by birth? Is that not surpreme arrogant prejudice and your not even trying to hide it.
Or did I miss something? Please explain.
I agree with your post.
Just one remark, you say that Mandela suffered from malnutrition. I doubt it. His incarceration was tough, no doubt, but The Robben Island prison generation of ANC leaders have far outlived the average life expectancy of South Africans and other Africans. Their nutrition seems to have been top notch.
Jesus Christ, my mouth is on the floor. I read what you wrote to be an instance of the standard idea that calling black people "n—–" (happier?) is a way of asserting that their value is less than your own, which is what makes it racist. You were going the decidedly different route of denying that "n—–" is a racist term. Hmm. Let's explore that.
What makes "n—–" a negative term? What makes it disrespectful and ill-advised to call a black person "n—–"? If one calls a black person "n—–," what is one thereby asserting? What reasons would someone (who is non-black) have for calling a black person "n—–"?
Read my post again. I said that it is not a racist word, but an ill-advised word. Answer ,y questions. Why do you feel the need to constantly tear down your fellow man? Why do you always put the worst spin on any opposing viewpoint from your own sheltered viewpoints?
Calling any ethnic group a negative name is not racist unless it denotes the belief of superiority. It is disrespectful and ill-advised but not racist by the definitional standard. Is that what you are looking for?
Again. Jeffrey. This is not a leading question. Presumably you agree with me that calling black people "niggers" is racist, otherwise you wouldn't have said so. Ok. Why is calling black people "niggers" racist? I am asking you to explain your own view, that's all. Can you?
you are tedious. I do not call blacks by any name other than blacks or African-Americans. It seems that you want to harp on this, but it is your prejudice and not mine. I cannot see why you are kept at Jewcy since you are not a free-thinker, but a rather unserious little tyrant. I ask you again:
"Will coddling aged leftist terror masters and their flunkies help
Africa or prolong the continent's misery? Stop worrying about their
feelings and fight evil, Tikkun olam is not just a commie magazine, it
is something we should do."
You can stop with the racist stuff now, again you come off as the prick -not me.
One more time Jeffrey. We're discussing your theory of race relations. You have said that you don't call black people "niggers" because that would be racist. Therefore you must have some explanation of why calling black people "niggers" is racist. What is it?
I have purposely ignored your stunningly hypocritical piece about war on Mugabe. I thought the glaring idiocy of arguing for one war while whining to end the current war should go without comment. As for your other little bit of hokum, I refuse to dignify your slander of me by discussing your asinine theories on race relations. Why do you not answer any of the questions posed to you?
Again, you are back to using racism as the fascist tool to stop debate.
why is that? Can you not converse as a thinking adult on this issues,
or is your inherent leftism not allowing these thoughts to exist in
your mind?
Why do you see Mugabe as a legitimate head of a legitimate country?
What is your adoring love of tyranny? How many Che posters and t-shirts
do you own?
Zero (0) Che posters and t-shirts. My adoring love of tyranny.
We'll get to the definition of "fascism" later. I'll ask again. Why is it wrong to call a black person a "nigger"? Forget everything else. Consider this an academic exercise. Can you explain what makes calling a black person a "nigger" wrong?
you are the only one that is bring up racism. Is it your mental crutch. Do you not see anything that I am writing? Why do you see Mugabe as a legitimate head of a legitimate country? What is your adoring love of tyranny? How many Che posters and t-shirts do you own?
Again, you are back to using racism as the fascist tool to stop debate. why is that? Can you not converse as a thinking adult on this issues, or is your inherent leftism not allowing these thoughts to exist in your mind?
Know what? Let's make this really, really simple. Why is it wrong to call a black person a "nigger"? The answer is not, "because it's racist." That's begging the question. Why is it racist? Take as much space as you feel you need to answer.
I do not recognize the legitimacy of Mugabe's government nor is Zimbabwe any different from Rhodesia except the races are reversed. The White minority of Zimbabwe have NO RIGHTS. The government has been a dictatorship for decades and the people are now starving and being murdered. You can call the place whatever, It is a left-made hell-hole of human misery. I find it slightly irritating that you are worried about their feelings while I am worried about their lives and lot in that life. Does it truly matter what we call a failed state? If it makes YOU feel in better I will cease to use Rhodesia, yet will that make the people any safer, more peaceful or less hungry? Will coddling aged leftist terror masters and their flunkies help Africa or prolong the continent's misery? Stop worrying about their feelings and fight evil, Tikkun olam is not just a commie magazine, it is something we should do.
You may ask, why call it Rhodesia…what does it matter what one calls it?
It matters because the name of the country is "Zimbabwe," because calling it "Rhodesia" generally is shorthand for a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of an independent state in which Africans have equal rights as well as a desire for a return to white minority rule, because the Ian Smith regime you're so fond of was a proxy of apartheid South Africa, because the name "Rhodesia" is a symbol of the worst of colonial injustice this side of the Belgian Congo, calling Zimbabwe "Rhodesia" is deeply offensive to Zimbabweans.
Also, don't play stupid. You don't call a country by something other than its name just randomly. You originally said you insist on calling Zimbabwe by a name other than its own to piss off leftists. Now you lay out what I'm guessing you believe is your nuanced understanding of colonialism, but the fact of the matter is that there is no reason, apart from the ignorance I've disabused you of in case it was sincere, to continue saying "Rhodesia" except to offend and hurt people of African descent, and possibly to endorse the re-establishment of apartheid.
If you believe using certain names for black people is wrong, can you explain why you think so?
Same reason BBC calls Mynmar, Burma what is the country but lines drawn by Colonial powers but now ruled by tyrants. The arguments against colonialism can very well be used against current African states. These are not countries in anyway a westerner would recognize. Tribal unity is paramount to any nationalism for most of Africa. Their problems are ignored for the most part. Simpletons want to either throw money at the problem or troops, but none of the audacity to say that what is needed for peace and advancement is Western styled governments and educations. Poverty and hunger are historic norms, we just are supposed to feel guilty about it because of our education and media. When Rhodesia existed, as with many of the colonies, the people had better lives and a future. Now they have poverty, genocide and famine. There may be an answer for the problem, but it is not more money and inconclusive wars. As I said before you started shouting racist, I have a more nuanced view of colonialism. You may ask, why call it Rhodesia…what does it matter what one calls it? It is a tragic farce of a place and the inability of supposedly good people to even name the tyrants is itself a moral crime. Mandela has no problem bashing Bush andt he west, but it is to stressful to call out Mugabe? Hitch is right and when you trash Hitch for that what are YOU saying, but that heroes of the left can never be challenged? It seems you spend a lot of time tearing down people. I noticed today you are trashing Michael Medved, can you not disagree with someone without the rancor? Can you not disagree with someone without imparting nefarious motives on them?
I'm sincerely and profoundly interested in why somebody would insist on calling Zimbabwe "Rhodesia." I assume you know that Zimbabweans find that to be a hurtful and offensive provocation. Do you not know that? You say you do it to rankle leftists. There are lots of ways of rankling leftists. Presumably you don't do all of them. Why that one?
and if you were a fair and decent person you would know that. You lack of decency is apparent from the way you treat those that disagree with you. You fancy yourself a thinker, but in the months you have been active at Jewcy you have betrayed yourself. You resort to name calling awful fast, you do it when you can no continued in your tortured logic. I have seen you do it to me, Naftali, David Kelsey, Michael Weiss, these are just off the top of my head. So keep calling me racist, it just cements the idea that you are a fool, well-educated, but a fool none the less.
You insist on calling Zimbabwe "Rhodesia."
Because I am not a racist
Right. That's begging the question, isn't it.
No. Because I am not a racist, Daniel. yet I relish that you are so intellectually left that you feel compelled to not spell out the word. What surprises me is that you feel that you are something superior, yet at the end of the day you are just another over-educated leftist that hides behind the term "libertarianism". You cannot even have a civil debate without impugning either your subject or whoever takes issue with your aspersions. I understand that people have differences of opinion and I leave it at that – kinda like a libertarian one might say.
Now, you are being dishonest to imply I am a racist. Yet, I am not surprised by that based on your history here at Jewcy. You libel and slander at will, that is your game. Yet your willingness to resort to the fascism of political correctness to win a debate. You and your fellow mates on the left try to stifle others by tarring them with racist, sexists, homophobe, etc. Well good luck, it looks worse for you than me.
Calling black people "n——" rankles leftists too. Do you do that, Jeffrey? If not, why not?
I know nothing about you other than you suffer from muddled thought. Ian Smith did say that, yet when it happened he went on in opposition. Heated rhetoric at heated times, as an Obama worshipper you might want to embrace the notion of being able to change as the situation does since Obama flips to the beat, as they say. As for my craziness, if not agreeing with the idiocies of Daniel and yourself qualify as crazy, than you can call me that. I do not think you are crazy, I think you are simply crushing on an Ivy leaguer and hoping he will take you out for ice cream.
Smith said he wouldn't accept black-majority rule in his lifetime or even the lifetime of his children Nothing remotely racist about it, that there's just some genuine patriotism.
And Jeffrey, you totally nailed it: I have a huge gay crush on Daniel. My agreeing with him in your little spats has nothing to do with the fact that he's generally very sensible and you're crazier than a shithouse rat. Were in not for Daniel's irresistable man-charm, I'd be right there with you, Jeffrey, nodding emphatically to your sage and nuanced expositions on colonialism.
You, of course miss much do to wanting to twist my words. I am defending Hitch from Daniel. I do not see Mandela as anything special. His anti-western leanings and support for terror states does not endear him to me. The left venerates this man as a moral authority, Hitch questions why such a moral authority finds it uneasy and stressful to denounce Mugabe by name and Daniel faults Hitch for daring to question Mandela. Now you question my defense of Hitch.
As for your sad and tired views on Ian Smith, I do not venerate the man. I also do not despise him. He was not racist as you claim, and he proved it time and again. Yet he believed in his country and was against change. After he was ousted he continued to work in opposition and did not flee the country as so many others did after he lost power. Even most of his opposition saw him as an honest patriot, but that is most likely verbotten talk in the Ivy leagues. I am almost amazed by your constant suck-up to Daniel, is there something you wish to declare?
And again, I do not hesitate to lump Mandela with Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan and any other moral idiot.
The whole Rhodesia thing isn't really having the desired effect, Jeffrey. I don't find it particulrly rankling, but that fact that you venerate Ian Smith while denouncing Mandela as a commie terroristit is incredibly revealing of the dark ooze that passes for your soul.
There's one thing, though, that I'm still having trouble getting my head around. Given your (bizarre) take on Mandela, why on earth would you care what he has to say about Mugabee? Hitch's position at least makes some sense: he thinks that Mandela is a moral titan who therefore has an obligation to denounce Mugabee in the strongest terms. Daniel's made a cogent case for why Hitch is all wet. But shouldn't you be arguing that Hitch shouldn't even be preoccupied with what an Evil-Commie-Terror-Master-Terrorist thinks?
mostly do to rankle you leftists. I find it odd that you decide to always trash people that try to do good, I find your moral compass bewildering…It is ssomething to be a self-hating Jew, but when you decide to attack Hitchens for demanding someone be stronger against genocide and tyranny, it looks like you are siding with the evil. It is just the divergent ways we see the world.
Kinda going full circle, but Mandela obviously did denounce Mugabe in as strong terms as you could want him to, I don't see why you care at all because you think Mandela is a commie terrorist, and Ian Smith was a monstrous racist who, rather than give Africans equal rights, unilaterally declared independence from the UK, making his country an international pariah subject to severe economic sanctions which wrecked it financially, destabilized it politically, led to civil war and paved the way for the rise of Mugabe. If not for his apartheid rebellion the country would have wound up at least as well as Zambia — i.e., much, much better than it did. Quite a piece of work.
Also, Mugabe did not replace Smith as head of Rhodesia. Smith's apartheid regime was put down through negotiation, he was forced into the junior position in the biracial government of the new Republic of Zimbabwe Rhodesia headed by Abel Muzorewa; under the Lancaster agreement, Zimbabwe Rhodesia reverted to British control as the Dependency of Southern Rhodesia which swiftly became independent as the Republic of Zimbabwe led by Robert Mugabe.
Just to be clear, you're insisting on calling Zimbabwe "Rhodesia"? To stick it to the darkeys, or some other reason?
Mugabe replaced Ian Smith as head of Rhodesia, a colony of the UK. Is not that difficult. Mugabe is a tyrant and Mandela should say so. Hitch is correct about this.
Jeffrey: There you have it. One either worships Obama or is against him. There are no other possibilities. I'm not going to reply further to any other comments about Obama btw. Going completely off-topic to discuss Obama is a token of obsession, but not on my part.
Why do you keep saying "Rhodesia"? Shouldn't that be "Belgian Congo" or are you talking about the other one?
Ismail and Thors are one and the same. This guy? is mentally unstable and has no other life but troll the internet and write lies about the JOOS! This guy or gal found an audience here because of the lack of real Jews on this site depsite it being called "Jewcy."
This sicko needs help on his/her obsession with the Jews and the belief that a Palestinian country and people actually exist. It's really a sad case of extreme psychosis.
So you no longer support Obama and we can be assured that the Obama fantasyl and is now closed?
If so, I will let you in on a little of my nuanced view of colonialism. I do not believe that it was as bad as the mess that has emerged after Colonialism departed. Some colonies were better than others and would have prospered if different choices were made. Kenya until recently was not that bad, Rhodesia became a hell-hole, as did Sudan, Algeria, and the Congo.It can be argued that the enterprise of colonies were foolhardy, but in many cases the areas were just as violent and poverty stricken as they are now.
Who brought up Obama? Also, try to pay closer attention (here too).
I want you to stop worshipping Obama.
I want to hear more of your nuanced views about colonialism.
caller of friends anti-Semite, defender of anti-Semites as friend. I am interested in your effed up world. Where Obama is a champion of libertarian principles, John Hagee is an anti-Semtie, where Obama understands the Jewish hearts more than Joe Leiberman…Tutu has referred to Israel as an apartheid state. He has famously given many Marxist reasons for Muslims to hate Jews…Still we have ventured far from you believing that evil should not be named or your attacking others that seek to name evil. Mandela is soft on these issues, Mugabe is a Lunatic and despot. Hitch is correct and you are wrong.
I read only Daniel's piece and took from the tone that Hitch dislikes Mandela, if you are right (I still have not read the piece) than Daniel's post is even less worthy than I first imagined.
We're returning to a problem nearly as familar as your Memento-esqe memory: your inability to read. How could any sentient person, with even a minimal command of the English language, come away from Hitch's article thinkging that he does not have a "hero-affinity" for Mandela?
He says that Mandela is "perhaps only one person in the world who symbolizes" the spirit of "international standards for human rights, … [and the] need for internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man." He says that the perceived failing of Mandela to denounce Mugabee "bruises [his] soul." He urges the "old lion [to] summon one last powerful growl."
Read, Jeffrey, read!
I am starting to think you are as bad as that Thors fellow…You need to realize that some of us Jews like being Jews and are not as conflicted as some of the editors here.
No-name, If you are not able to see the idiocy of attacking Hitch because he does not share your hero-affinity for a terrorist beloved by the left, than I am sorry for you. Daniel attacks Hitch for having the audacity to question Nelson Mandela, someone that must be in the pantheon with Obama .Since we are unable to question your heroes, please print a list so we know who is deemed above reproach.
Some fine denunciatin' of Mugabe by Desmond Tutu here. I'm sure it's a feint to get people off his back for anti-Semitism.
Fine, Memento-guy, I'll revise my statement accordingly (and fix some pesky typos while I'm at it):
* * *
Time for the tattoo needle again, Memento-guy. If you can remember all the way
eback to the beginning of the thread, you were the one who argued that Mandela is viewed as a figure of such enormously moral authority that he is obligated to denouce Mugabee (by name, of course)–notwithstanding his previous denunciation, failing health, and possible loss of mental faculties.I know things get confusing when your memory reboots. But
ymy advicesis that you just sit on the sidelines and suss things out for awhile rather than diving back into the fray with whatever batshit-crazy thing occurs to you first.* * *
Gee, you're right, Jeffrey. That changes everything.
By the way, I remain anonymous for one simple reason: it seems to drive you even deeper into the squalid pit of insanity.
Oh, no! You're telling me that Mandela is friends with Tutu-the-antisemite and (gasp) Jimmy Carter?
That does it. Back to prison with the monster!
BTW, Jeffrey, unless you're indifferent to the consequences of the semantic variant of Gresham's Law, please resist cheapening the accusation of anti-Semitism by scattering it about so freely.
Do you have a particle of evidence that Tutu is an anti-Semite? Of course you don't. So stop it.
I said that the world confers the moral authority upon him, no where did it say that I THOUGHT of him as such, I do not.
Plus, you obviously spend a lot of time here, are you really so lazy you cannot create a user name? Really!
Time for the tattoo needle again, Memento-guy. If you can remember all the we back to the beginning of the thread, you were the one who argued that Mandela is a figure of such enormously moral authority that he is obligated to denouce Mugabee (by name, of course)–notwithstanding his previous denunciation, failing health, and possible loss of mental faculties.
I know things get confusing when your memory reboots. By my advices is that you just sit on the sidelines and suss things out for awhile rather than diving back into the fray with whatever batshit-crazy thing occurs to you first.
If you insist, than I will demand you delete my posts.
You are the one that is calling him a hero. A terror master, supporter of Libyian terror leaders does not get much respect from me. Does not mean I support apartheid, far from it. I just have a more nuanced appreciation for some forms of colonialism.It is people like you that invest so much moral capital in murderers and terrorists and wonder why no one does anything about the Sudan and Darfur. If anyone did, you would fault them too.
For good measure, here's the UK terrorist group list. Let me know when you find the ANC. But I'm going to insist you write all future comments in Afrikaans.
List here. You'll notice the African National Congress (ANC) is not on the list (hint: it has formed the government of a US ally for 14 years now).
Here's what you're confused about. Due to bureaucratic errors, some individual members were not scrubbed from the terror watch list with the rest of the ANC. That's why Condoleeza Rice said:
This is a country with which we now have excellent relations, South
Africa, but it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter that I still have
to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa,
not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela.
Link.
But whatever Jeffrey, just exterminate the brutes, am I right?
(Not only am I aware that Mandela was imprisoned at Robben Island
all those years, I am further aware that his imprisonment was an
injustice that helped unify the world against the apartheid regime.)
Are you saying that Mandela was not in prison for 28 years and that he lead a peaceful quiet organization?
And just stop for a moment and think, Jeffrey. The ANC is the ruling party in South Africa. We have ongoing diplomatic relations with South Africa. Does what you're saying about the ANC make any sense at all?
I am glad you know the South African Anthem, yet does that mean you show solidarity with terror groups against regimes you despise? Or do you think Ian Smith was the bad guy and Mugabee a worthy replacement? Does Mandela's support and friendship with the Libyan dictator not trouble you. What about his deep friendship with Tutu, the anti-Semite, or Jimmy Carter?
Here is the current list. Please tell me where you find the ANC.
The United States State department for one.
There is a bill to remove them from the terror list, but as of now they are on it.
Where is the ANC still listed as a terror group? I can only imagine that it's on the little ledger you keep stuffed under your mattress, because you can't possibly be talking about the State Department's list.
I know, I know. Altogether now:
Uit die blou van onse hemel, uit die diepte van ons see,
Oor ons ewige gebergtes waar die kranse antwoord gee.
Deur ons ver-verlate vlaktes met die kreun van ossewa -
Ruis die stem van ons geliefde, van ons land Suid-Afrika.
Mandela formed an armed faction and off-shoot of the ANC and led many attacks that left many civilians dead. He was tried and convicted, but leftists love "martyrs". BTW, The ANC is still listed as a terror group.
the terror master Mandela, former head of the terror group ANC
Jeffrey's messages brought to you by the Zuidafrikaner Broederbond
Okey-dokey…Mugabee's reign of tyranny will end if he's called out (by name, of course) by a western-world-trashing communist terror-master. It all makes sense now.
Are you talking about the terror master Mandela, former head of the terror group ANC? Are you talking about the same man that trashes the western world and still embraces communism?
You have a lot to learn about morality before you question my moral universe.
Ok, Jeffrey, you and Hitch have me convinced: Mandela is a pussy and an appeaser and a sell-out.
And you, brave Jeffrey, are one of courageous few–the mighty warrior princes–who dare to utter the name "Mugabee" with only a half-eaten bag of Funyuns (and a few thousand miles) standing between you and the tyrant.
Give me a fuggin' break. Think about the twisted moral universe you occupy: one where you think it's OK for an insect like yourself to pass judgment on a moral titan like Mandela simply because he didn't jump through whatever imaginary hoops you and Hitch dream up.
"Rhodesia"? Honestly now, "Rhodesia"?
Daniel, are you short?
ignoring the names of tyrants does nothing either. Unless you are not as worried about tyrants as you claim. Look, the Left loved and some still love Mugabe. He has destroyed Rhodesia single handily. When he was put in office it was warned what would occur, so this is no surprise. What is a surprise is the lack of people willing to take a stand and publicly name Mugabe as the tyrant that he is, and Mandela as a moral authority has the duty to do just that. Countless others risked everything to help Mandela and South Africa become the hole that it is now, maybe they would like to make amends and try to save Rhodesia once again.
Oops, that should be: "Saying the name 'Mugabee' wouldn't have transformed the entire enterprise."
Oh gawd, Jeffrey.
For Mandela to say the name of people he is calling out would be very helpful for those working against a tyrant like Mugabe . . . .
Seriously, what's the mechanism here? Even though Mandela made crystal clear that he was referring to Mugabbe, his denunciation did fuck-all. Saying the name "Mugabee" would've transformed the entire enterprise. Mugabee isn't Beetlejuice or Mxyplyzyk; saying his name doesn't have magical properties.
You cannot even dream to believe that Hitchens does not understand what he writes. He is one of the most articulate writers of our day. He is wrong about a lot, but maybe not so much about this. For Mandela to say the name of people he is calling out would be very helpful for those working against a tyrant like Mugabe, although I have many problems with Mandela myself, the world sees himself as a sort of Moral Authority. If people like Mandela keep quiet, it is a tacit support for tyranny. It takes nothing to put your name on movements, Mandela could do this and not "be stressed". Yet I ask if it is too stressful to say a tyrant's name than why does he give speeches alluding to tyrants?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!