Comments on: Old Hatred In New Words?

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:43:34 +0000

“Well it cannot or should not be illegal for someone to argue for the dismantling of a state”

Strawman. Nobody here is saying that it is. Some of us are objecting to this argument being used as a smokescreen for posting hysterical antisemitic lies.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:41:47 +0000

“And along come people who actually are racist. If you want to see the difference just read near oxfordian”

Rich, coming from a dumb antisemitic tosser with nil reading comprehension.

By: modernity

modernity — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:00:57 +0000

I doubt even the SNP would rant on about “English” rule of the media, “English” control of US politics, “English” manipulation of the world or even that the “English” shout ‘anglophobia” when these points are raised…

By: field

field — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:33:27 +0000

Well it cannot or should not be illegal for someone to argue for the dismantling of a state. Plenty of people think the old USSR needed dismantling. The SNP want to dismantle the UK. Equally the legitimacy of states is often called into question on ethnic or group identity grounds e.g. I’ve read people say that many of the Gulf states are illegitimate involving Sunni Emirs ruling over Shia populations.

By: johng

johng — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:56:35 +0000

And along come people who actually are racist. If you want to see the difference just read near oxfordian.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:49:39 +0000

Maven, 4 September 2008, 1:40 pm:

Spot on.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:45:36 +0000

“Perhaps another term should be used, other than racism, because such institutional racism is so far away from the hatred and overt prejudice which is generally associated with racism”

I can’t see any difference whatsoever.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:44:03 +0000

“Your “wiccan” example may be analogous in the abstract, but in the real world, it’s absurd”

Calling it ‘absurd’ without offering a shred of an argument as to what the difference may be, simply proves that there is no difference.

“as is not accepting palestinians as a people, given their unique historical experience (which sets them apart from the Syrians, etc.)”

There is no such ‘unique historical experience’, neither language, nor religion, nor distinct history, nor distinct institutions, nor a distinct culture, nor a distinct ethnicity. If you want to buy this myth, then I can’t stop you. But you are the victim of a scam.

By: modernity

modernity — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:38:26 +0000

Metta,

The SWP are hardly revolutionaries, a leadership stuffed with public school nobodies and third rate ex-students who are good at Freshers week, but not much else when it comes to real politics (viz. dealing with Galloway).

Another indicators of that is their response to the legal opinions on the proposed Boycott of Israeli academics: they did nothing.

if the SWP and its hangers on had the courage of their own convictions, that such a boycott was not discriminatory, then they would have fought tooth and nail for this Boycott, irrespective of the consequences, but they don’t.

If they truly believed what they argued, then they should test it, argue on the front page of Socialist Worker that boycotting Israeli academics is not discriminatory.

They should use their considerable muscle within the higher echelons of UCU to ignore the legal advice.

They should force the issue, but they won’t.

Not because they’ve suddenly understood employment legislation or the race relations act, but because they are essentially political cowards and incredibly conservative in their attitudes.

Sure they’ll shout and bitch a lot, but when it comes down to doing things, their innate middle-class conservativism kicks in.

So you won’t see any real display of the SWP’s supposed political courage or convictions, they’ll just whine on blogs instead, it is easier.

By: johng

johng — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:17:45 +0000

But it clearly just ISN’T institutionalized racism. Thats the point. Its a nonsense. On this Martin Shaw is entirely correct in my view. And its why he’s now being attacked in the most absurd way in the comments section on Engage, accused both of softness on anti-semitism and being accused of stepping outside his area of competance, as well as not having any competance at all. Deeply unpleasent in every possible way. But in any case this takes us very far away from discussions of anti-semitism, which clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with discussion of the pros and cons of the boycott.