Israel Considering Saudi Peace Plan

[Coyote]

You're making an unfounded assumption-- that everyone is always seeking the goal of creating a clique to keep others out. Not everyone is seeking to create cliques. Some are, yes, but it seems to be that you find it utterly impossible for three or more people who share common interests to get together without some sort of sinister motive.

: a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons ; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/clique

I know what the fuck a clique is. How does a definition of the word "clique" address what I said-- that people aren't necessarily seeking to create cliques, much less a racial clique? The way you word it, it seems to imply that any time you have more than "a certain number" of people together, it is automatically an exclusive, racial clique. You're reading a lot into my point about "a bunch of people with common interests".

The term "clique" means it is EXCLUSIVE BY DEFINITION and the examples I have used over and over and over again have been laid out in terms that "if others wanted to join there'd be no problem". Quite trying to frame my words.

Here is my point. If you have a group that is composed entirely of one ethicity, there is segregation being involved somehow. In any society that is reasonably plural you will have a variety of ethnic groups. Not all the people of each ethnic group will be the same and some from each ethnic group will have common interests.

Example. You have a place that is a third white, a third asian and the rest black and hispanic. If you make a fire fighter club for kids you'd expect that the club would roughly reflect that mixture if it had enough members.

Yes. Technically speaking, according to statistics, in any random American sample group there should be (I believe) 12% Blacks, 16% Hispanics, 10% Asian, and so on. But that's also assuming that all the racial group in America are divided equally with population base among every square inch of soil across the country. It doesn't take into account that Atlanta happens to be 60% Black, or that Boise is 90% White. If I form a Mountain Biking club here in Boise, and open the doors for everyone to join, I can almost guarantee that I'll get an almost exclusively white membership. By your reckoning, that automatically means that we are all purposefully creating a White Supremacist Mountain Biking club and making an effort to exclude Blacks from our group. But it's a reflection of demographics, not purpose.

If there's a Bike club in Boise that would welcome anyone regardless of color, but it just so happens that only whites live there (and there's no "nudge-nudge wink-wink" involved), what's the problem? Now you can say that "because whites live there, it means there's some sort of glass wall of society/culture/whatnot keeping Blacks out". If that is what you think, I'd say burden of proof is on you. A case can be made that our ancestors were probably racist (and you'd pretty much be spot on, I think) but that may not necessarily hold true for the modern descendants.

Which is how clubs where I live. Club I went to today had about 7 members- 5 asian, 2 white, one female (it was a boardgames).

By your own rules, as I am reading them, females are clearly under-represented in your club, ergo, you are all sexist pigs. You clearly formed a boardgames club because you knew women, statistically, aren't as interested in boardgames as men, so you are using "boardgames" as a cover to carry out your patriarchal subjugation of the female gender.

I didn't say that the racism has to be inside- for the black community, I am implying that a large amount is from outside. The existance of a "pure community" shows that there is racism. It doesn't say who is responsible. That is the job of land values.

So it's not race, really, it's class and economics-- cleverly disguised as race, because it conveniently lines up that most of the lower economic classes in the USA also happen to be the two largest non-white ethnic groups (Blacks and Latinos). While other minorities-- Asians and Jews, for example-- tend to be on the higher end of the economic scale. So th ereal problem is class. We may have more in common than I thought.

Whiteness refers to the color of your skin. Lesbian isn't a skin color. And it is a problem is a large portion of the population is nonwhite and all you have in the area is white. It implies discrimination or having an underclass.

"Lesbian" is definitely a minority, a strongly discouraged one in some circles (Christian Evangelicals for example), and in the case of Jews many of us are whiter than Casper. But we're not always considered entirely "white" whites, if you know what I mean.

As to an implied underclass or discrimination, most of our poor underclass in Boise is... dirt-poor whites and Hispanics. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist here, there definitely is racism in Boise, but I don't think there is any more racism here than anywhere else, statistically speaking. In fact, isn't there usually more racism in mixed societies, because there's another race to compare and contrast off of disfavorably? Ironically, Boise may actually be more tolerant overall, but only because in the absence of a "racial challenger" it is easier. I think the real problem is more related to class than race, overall.

"Chosen People" does indeed have sinister connotations in today's world, but I assure you the Jewish usage of the term pre-dates modern eugenicists' usage. It is supposed to mean a class of people who first accepted the word of the one true God and rejected polytheism, so they were "chosen" to be the priests and religious leaders to spread the word on Earth and to serve that role in the afterlife.

I knew that. That is what I meant. It STILL implies they consider themselves better than everyone else.

The Yeshiva (religious school) I learned at seemed of the impression that this meant we served in the afterlife, not ruled. It was a Modern Orthodox yeshiva in Beer-Sheva, not some hippie peace-flowers-John Lennon kibbutz, too.

... If there is no black people in a Indian organization, it isn't a sign of racism, but a sign of the lack of black people in the sub continent.

This is what I've been saying all along, or so I thought.

Of course, the US is mixed enough for this to not really apply. I believe the same holds true for Israel, no?

Israel is very mixed, and there are race problems there between Ashkenazim and Mizrachim, and now the Falash Mura (Etheiopians).

Cultural diversity and being able to celebrate other interesting ethnic interests is bad?

No, having each culture have its own area and defining itself by said culture is bad.[/quote]

Hence the disconnect, I think. If cultures are in their own areas because of forced exclusion based on race, it is bad. If cultures are in their own areas because that's where they grew up, and others would be welcomed if they chose, that's not. Yes, a lot of areas were homogeneous because of racism in the past, I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the mood of the people living there now. Humans develop culturally, and what used to be strange, alien, foreign and threatening now becomes interesting and welcome.

My point is that black culture is shorthand for ghetto culture and rap (correct me if I am wrong). It is a bit like calling red neck culture "white culture". The fact of the matter is that it is not black culture. It is just a convient name. My point was that "black culture" contains non-blacks.

It is an inaccurate moniker based on stereotypes, I mentioned that when I first dropped the phrase in the post. A lot of "cultural shorthands" are based on stereotypes; a lot of people seem to think I'm a McCain voter because I'm in Idaho and in the military. Just as there seems to be the idea that because I'm a Jew I support everything Israel does with complete and total blindness. But rather than get wrapped around the axle about it, I just be myself and don't worry about what they think.

I... actually do think it matters what the intent is/was. If the community is isolated for the purposes of racial segregation, it is wrong. If it is isolated by circumstance of demographics and geography, and there's no reason why another racial family couldn't move in and be accepted if they wished, I don't see a problem.

To be honest, my mind just slips and slides on this. Anyway, I don't complain about if it is one group- it just is a general sympton of segregation.

We can't do anything about past segregation, which is why many areas today are "predominantly white" or "predominantly black" or whatever. But we can change our attitudes and dispense with racism and segregation. However, just because we do that, doesn't mean that floods of other races are going to come into those ares overnight. Are you really going to hold today's non-racist child accountable for the racism his grandfather displayed when building his village? If that's the case, why bother to improve at all, ever?

[Coyote]

What I was pointing is that the Torah kind of does take the "crushen the untermenschen" track, particularly the Pentateuch, which are still regarded as holy by all Jews.

And for the sheer shake of being anal, the Jews had a warrior tradition for a damn long time, right from Moses if you believe the stories. The problem is that they also have a long history of being conquered by by whatever invading army happens to be blowing through there on the way to someplace more important. I mean, I can think of no less than three Jewish holidays that are celebrated by all Jews that are celebrations of Hebrew military battles (Hanukkah, Purim, and arguably Passover, though the last one is more celebrating slaughter done by God on their behalf rather an actual battle... but I've always found Passover kind of macabre).

Me, too, once I got into the meat & bones of the story. Really, look at those examples, though, and remember that each "victory" celebrated by the Jews had little to do with our military prowess and more to do with God (fate/fortune/karma/whatever) falling in our favor-- reinforcing the idea that "God must be looking out for us" in some way. The Judaism I learned is that God only promised to keep us alive, and not let us be wiped out, but made no promise about happiness, wealth, prosperity, or other living conditions. This is the frame of mind I'm coming from with this, so the idea that Jews are somehow supposed to be "promised by God to be superior lords and masters over all" seems to be quite a disconnect.

Do they take the "special" thing too far? Yes, a lot of them do. Are you under the impression that I like and support this? It seems to me you're getting really riled up about something that happened to you years ago as a kid, for which I'm sorry about it, but I had nothing to do with it and I'm not defending or condoning it. It can be hard for a young person, still forming ideas about the world, to be rejected so vehemently and under such arbitrary circumstances, but I do kinda wish you'd see me on my own merits rather than as a mouthpiece for this kind of behavior.

Cut the psychoanalysis, Coyote. I've been using those examples to show that my understanding of the issue is somewhat more than theoretical. However, you do seem to be defending it, under the aegis of them "celebrating cultural diversity".

I'm not necessarily trying to psychoanalyze you, since I am not a psychologist nor would I give you analysis over the internet if I was. But you came at with me a load of anecdotal evidence and quite literally dared me to explain or defend it. I can't and won't. I have no answer for you why you were treated that way, I can only say it doesn't square with what I learned or the Jews I hang out with now. And, like you, I have nought but anecdotal evidence to back that up.

Please understand that I am not trying to defend "mistreatment of others" as "cultural diversity". I believe I have said many times here to three or four different people that, essentially, having different cultures interact is good, IMO, so long as they do not undermine overall society. I feel that you're dragging up things that happened to you that are not ethically defensible to say that "all Jews" are like this. It is an argument I find surprising here because it seems to be ridden with negative stereotypes and a disregard for my evidence that would counter it.

]

Well, I for one tell people to STFU when I come across asinine attitudes like that, so I can at least assure you of that. I've actually studied the Arab-Israeli issue quite a bit and delved deep into studies of Islam and Islam's effects on the political realm in the Middle East and so I can see the points being made by the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side.

Somehow I doubt that you'd tell an Orthodox Jew to shut the fuck up if started spouting smack, particularly if he was a Hasid.

Oh, please, give me more credit than that. I would probably be more polite about it than to launch into some random Hasid with a verbal assault prefixed with 'shut the fuck up...' but I'd definitely start with a "hold on, now, let's not get like that. See it from this point of view--". If a person is a complete unrepentant asshole, then yes, Hasid or not, I'll tell him to STFU because believe me, from my point of view he's not doing me any favors by being a dick and getting me painted with the same brush. I don't want that reflecting on me, so yeah, if for no other reason than "self-defense" I'd tell him to watch what he says and quit being a cock.

Any bigotry is fucked up and assholes who forbid their kids from seeing, dating, or marrying Jews can go to hell in my book. However, I'm arguing that its actually a bit more systemic in Conservative and Orthodox Judaism than you seem to be willing to admit.

One thing to bear in mind is that most of the time I hung around Orthodox Jews was in Israel, so I'm getting a different "brand" of Orthodoxy there than we see in the USA; they may not be as "defensive" or prejudiced. The Conservative and Reform Jews I see mostly here in Boise just aren't that way at all, either. I run across more people that would be leery of their daughter dating a Jew than the other way around.

For example, let's continue with intermarriage. You can look this up, but most Conservative Jewish scholars, who are actually taking a more liberal track on the issue than it is presented halakhah, say that marriage between a Gentile and a Jew is no celebration of the community and while it should be accepted, it should ONLY happen if it seems likely that the spouse will convert to Judaism. Further, they should make sure to keep their faith high so to make sure the resultant kids are to be raised Jewish. Exactly how tolerant is that?

It's pretty fucked up, especially since marrying for the purpose of converting someone is supposed to be forbidden. I'm a part of a religion where there are many people doing asinine things for a variety of asinine motivations. I'm not intereste din defending those things; I try not to be involved in those things and correct those around me who are making erroneous or wrong-headed assumptions. It's all I can do.

I also feel that no matter what social circle I involved myself in, such as the Army, the Democratic Party, another religion, or a social movement, I'd find, lo and behold, that they too are full of various assholes and jerkoffs who do things for their own reasons. The US Army has a manual that says we're supposed to treat prisoners fairly, but we have some fuckheads who think torture is just fine and the leadership (currently) goes along with that. The Jews have a book that says you're supposed to be respectful of the 'stranger' and invite him in your house on Sabbath, but there are assholes backed by leadership that actively discriminate. I personally cannot change any of these things, and if I am going to search for social groups that are full of the uncorrupted I will die of loneliness before I meet my goal. I am a part of these groups but I don't and won't defend these actions, and when I run across individuals who support these ideas I try to talk them down from their position.

]

As for the Baal Teshuva movement, there is a concerted effort among Reform and Conservative Jews that I know of to get back some of what they cut loose as far as traditions and observances. Paying more attention to the dietary laws, for example...

Anyhow, to bring it to a circle here, the Baal Teshuva movement has a purpose (I know most people here will find it stupid and pointless, sure, but we're talking about a religion here, which by definition isn't supposed to make sense) but if someone is using it as a means to point out "racial superiority" then I'd call them on it, if I were you. If I were there hearing that nonsense, I would.

Come on, Baal Teshuva actually means "Return to Movement" in Hebrew, very specifically, Orthodoxy. It's always been an Orthodox outreach movement to try and get Jews who've fallen off the wagon, so to speak, back into practicing Jewish law. The problem is, of course, is that Jewish law has baked into it all the intolerance I've been talking about.

Yes, like I mentioned, re-integrating dietary laws and similar things, getting back to Jewish practices for Jews who've wandered off and are putting up Christmas trees (for the record, if anyone cares, I don't give a flying fuck about Jews putting up Christmas trees, in fact I think it is odd that Christians celebrate Norse-Roman winter solstice festivals as part of their religion, but hey, to each his own). Again, if people also choose the re-integrate the intolerant and prejudiced parts that's their stupid, poor choice. They're closing themselves off and it's their loss. If I could stop it, I would.

As for specific written rules not to eat at a Gentile's house I personally think that's just dickitude. They have those rules to keep Kosher, and they go to extremes to avoid a situation where they may encounter non-kosher food items. ...

From that rule about simple food preparation comes this asinine interpretation that becomes "never eat at a Gentile's house" even though that is insulting and will inevitably breed a sense of superiority among the Jewish kids or contempt for their Gentile neighbors. Again, they are wrong, because the word Gentile comes from the word for "stranger", and Jews are supposed to be respectful of the stranger and we are reminded that we, ourselves were strangers before. There are supposed to be rules of hospitality about "do not turn out the stranger from your house on the Sabbath" and stuff like that, which would imply that "strangers" (Gentiles) were welcome among Jews....

And yet it occurs and is out there than merely Orthodox Jews. My next door neighbors weren't Orthodox either, but when they moved to the neighborhood they declined my parents invitation to have dinner with us EXACTLY because what you describe above. However, Mike's got you on the point already, what you are calling "cultural diversity" comes out as "segregation". Bigots have ALWAYS had reasons to dislike people, no matter how asinine, and typically always play the "We don't HATE <insert group>, we just feel we outta stay separate from them."

But you're not reading what I've been saying all along-- that cultural differences are good, until they undermine the society overall. I've also said that groups clustering together isn't a problem as long as it is not done for racist/bigoted reasons and outsiders would be welcome dif they wanted. From my perspective here folks want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Some parts of Jewish culture are problematic, ergo, all Jewish culture must be bad/whitewashed away" (or any culture that had troublesome aspects). For another example, the FLDS church-- if they'd ditch their white-knuckled grip on child marriage, chances are people would probably leave them alone as just another odd church (Well, that and their polygamy, too).

[Big Phil]

Gil Hamilton - do you have any statistics or references for the claims you're making (Jews not marrying non-Jews, for example)? The handful of Jews that I know are all married to non-Jews, and I've never really encountered non-Orthodox Jews being insular (frankly, I've never really encountered Orthodox Jews, but then I don't live in New York or Israel...), so I'd be curious to see numbers about how much Jews isolate themselves from non-Jews.

[Samuel]

The term "clique" means it is EXCLUSIVE BY DEFINITION and the examples I have used over and over and over again have been laid out in terms that "if others wanted to join there'd be no problem". Quite trying to frame my words.

That is a bit like repaeting "if they aren't racist they aren't racist". Now, if I show they have exclusive ethnic requirements than they count as a clique and my critique applies. And I think someone did earlier on in the thread.

Yes. Technically speaking, according to statistics, in any random American sample group there should be (I believe) 12% Blacks, 16% Hispanics, 10% Asian, and so on. But that's also assuming that all the racial group in America are divided equally with population base among every square inch of soil across the country.

Example. You have a place that is a third...

I have repeatedly pointed out that the composition of groups depends on location. Stop strawmanning.

By your own rules, as I am reading them, females are clearly under-represented in your club, ergo, you are all sexist pigs. You clearly formed a boardgames club because you knew women, statistically, aren't as interested in boardgames as men, so you are using "boardgames" as a cover to carry out your patriarchal subjugation of the female gender.

Seven is small enough that individual members and chance screw the distrubution. Not to mention we are talking about ethnicities (that have negligable differances) rather than sex (which have noticable variation).

So it's not race, really, it's class and economics

Uh no, race is part of it. Hence the term socio-economic. The two are intertwined.

So th ereal problem is class. We may have more in common than I thought.

Not really. Class will always exist. It is a question of how much it is a label that adheres to people and how segregated people are by income. I fully expect rich people to monopolize the big houses. What is bad is when there is no mixing and people of differant income levels do not interact and start to identify with their class interests.

"Lesbian" is definitely a minority, a strongly discouraged one in some circles (Christian Evangelicals for example), and in the case of Jews many of us are whiter than Casper. But we're not always considered entirely "white" whites, if you know what I mean.

"point flies over Sam's head" I'll take your word for it. Still, it isn't like ethicity which is eminately visible.

As to an implied underclass or discrimination, most of our poor underclass in Boise is... dirt-poor whites and Hispanics.

This is a case of disproving the point with irrelevant examples. The thread was about... "glances back" the peace plan, followed by the problem of considering yourself exclusive. Other forms of exclusiveness are irrelevant for the topic.

The Yeshiva (religious school) I learned at seemed of the impression that this meant we served in the afterlife, not ruled.It was a Modern Orthodox yeshiva in Beer-Sheva, not some hippie peace-flowers-John Lennon kibbutz, too.

"Insert government is the servant of its people joke"

This is what I've been saying all along, or so I thought.

That is your responce to our strawmans. Of course, organizations cannot include members who don't exist However, Israel has Palestineans inside of it.

Israel is very mixed, and there are race problems there between Ashkenazim and Mizrachim, and now the Falash Mura (Etheiopians).

White, black and Slavs. However, this are all the in group (although they are still fighting). Exclusion generally refers to the out group... which is the Palestineans.

If cultures are in their own areas because that's where they grew up, and others would be welcomed if they chose, that's not.

That is still a bad idea. Why should a culture get an area reserved for itself? It is an idea and ideas do not have rights.

We can't do anything about past segregation, which is why many areas today are "predominantly white" or "predominantly black" or whatever. But we can change our attitudes and dispense with racism and segregation. However, just because we do that, doesn't mean that floods of other races are going to come into those ares overnight. Are you really going to hold today's non-racist child accountable for the racism his grandfather displayed when building his village? If that's the case, why bother to improve at all, ever?

Except they aren't changing... actually, I will have to look that up.

Me, too, once I got into the meat & bones of the story. Really, look at those examples, though, and remember that each "victory" celebrated by the Jews had little to do with our military prowess and more to do with God (fate/fortune/karma/whatever) falling in our favor-- reinforcing the idea that "God must be looking out for us" in some way. The Judaism I learned is that God only promised to keep us alive, and not let us be wiped out, but made no promise about happiness, wealth, prosperity, or other living conditions. This is the frame of mind I'm coming from with this, so the idea that Jews are somehow supposed to be "promised by God to be superior lords and masters over all" seems to be quite a disconnect.

Not the Earth. Just the Holy Land.

I'm not necessarily trying to psychoanalyze you, since I am not a psychologist nor would I give you analysis over the internet if I was.

And now, Sam failing to take a blatant hint.

You see, Coyote, the problem is that you are ignoring our statements. Nobody here minds if a group doesn't resemble a rainbow. However, if it is from said are that DOES than there is a problem. Most countries on Earth fall under that category actually. Except Japan... no, that isn't true. They have the Ainu, the extrapates, a couple other subgroups, etc.

But you're not reading what I've been saying all along-- that cultural differences are good, until they undermine the society overall.

No, it is ACCEPTABLE, until it undermines society. It is an individual good to have a variety of cultures (if only because it makes us have a variety of food) but it is neither good or bad. Until it cross that point it is irrelevant... unless it is illegal of course.

I've also said that groups clustering together isn't a problem as long as it is not done for racist/bigoted reasons and outsiders would be welcome dif they wanted.

I need to be better at debating before I can figure out how to take this sentance apart. It isn't quite a strawman...

"Some parts of Jewish culture are problematic, ergo, all Jewish culture must be bad/whitewashed away" (or any culture that had troublesome aspects). For another example, the FLDS church-- if they'd ditch their white-knuckled grip on child marriage, chances are people would probably leave them alone as just another odd church (Well, that and their polygamy, too).

I'm a rabid antitheist. Don't try to dig a deeper hole.

Gil Hamilton - do you have any statistics or references for the claims you're making (Jews not marrying non-Jews, for example)? The handful of Jews that I know are all married to non-Jews, and I've never really encountered non-Orthodox Jews being insular (frankly, I've never really encountered Orthodox Jews, but then I don't live in New York or Israel...), so I'd be curious to see numbers about how much Jews isolate themselves from non-Jews.

Going off immediate my family it is fifty-fifty marriage-wise. Most of the insularness is probably due to clustering together and knowing similar people.
Quick search and I got this:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ ... istics.htm

Okay, they are nuts. I think the stats are good and they match up to my family It is good to be average.

[Big Phil]

Going off immediate my family it is fifty-fifty marriage-wise. Most of the insularness is probably due to clustering together and knowing similar people.
Quick search and I got this:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ ... istics.htm

Okay, they are nuts. I think the stats are good and they match up to my family It is good to be average.

According to this data (which is 18 years old and I don't know much about how it was collected, but assuming it's accurate), more than half of Jews marry non-Jews, up to 52% (in 1985) from 10% in 1965. Assuming that trend was linear we'd expect that more than 92% of Jews are marrying non-Jews today

That doesn't say too much about the insularity of Jews; in any case, the real question is how do Jews compare to other groups in terms of insularity and isolation? How many Chinese marry non-Chinese? How many Evangelicals marry non-Evangelicals? How many blacks marry non-blacks?

[Coyote]

The term "clique" means it is EXCLUSIVE BY DEFINITION and the examples I have used over and over and over again have been laid out in terms that "if others wanted to join there'd be no problem". Quite trying to frame my words.

That is a bit like repaeting "if they aren't racist they aren't racist". Now, if I show they have exclusive ethnic requirements than they count as a clique and my critique applies. And I think someone did earlier on in the thread.

Correct-- if they are using exclusive ethnic requirements then yes, they are a racist clique. I'm not arguing about those guys; I'm arguing about groups that are not racist but, by dint of regional demographics, are unintentionally made up of one ethnic group.

And you pointed out at some point a group gets big enough that it will statistically happen to include other ethnicities, again, we have no argument there. I think you may have been looking at it more broadly than I; you may have been looking at something that went up to the nation or state level, whereas I was thinking at most in a typical suburban neighborhood level in a modest-sized city or town as the largest social bloc that could reasonably be mono-ethnic before raising eyebrows. Boise is what I'm basing my experiences on, and it is conceivable that there are whole suburban neighborhoods that are white simply due to population representation rather than purposeful intention to keep minorities out. But if you get to whole mono-ethnic city regions, outlying towns and counties, then yes, a mono-racial bloc would be very suspicious even in this state.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the composition of groups depends on location. Stop strawmanning.

Not strawmanning, misinterpreting your arguments which I found vague at times. I honestly thought that you were saying that all the ethnic groups in a country should be forcibly displaced to mix everyone up proportionally so that every single city, town, and block had an exact and "proper" reflection of the demographics of the country as a whole just so that us poor dumb backwater types can "prove" that we're "okay" or something. Like appeasing a Un-American Activities Commission or something like that.

By your own rules, as I am reading them, females are clearly under-represented in your club, ergo, you are all sexist pigs. You clearly formed a boardgames club because you knew women, statistically, aren't as interested in boardgames as men, so you are using "boardgames" as a cover to carry out your patriarchal subjugation of the female gender.

Seven is small enough that individual members and chance screw the distrubution. Not to mention we are talking about ethnicities (that have negligable differances) rather than sex (which have noticable variation).

I really threw that in just to tease you, but let's be honest here, females are 52% of the population and evenly distributed across the country, whereas ethnic minorities are a lesser percentage and tend to be conglomerated in various regions, so really by your rules you are in violation of fairness. But in my interaction with you, I am talking about any sort of discrimination, not just Jews or Israel or ethnic minorities.

Uh no, race is part of it. Hence the term socio-economic. The two are intertwined.

...Not really. Class will always exist. It is a question of how much it is a label that adheres to people and how segregated people are by income. I fully expect rich people to monopolize the big houses. What is bad is when there is no mixing and people of differant income levels do not interact and start to identify with their class interests.

But rich ethnic minorities can, will, and frequently do alienate themselves from their lower-class fellows. We're getting into the realm of political opinion formed by observation here, I think-- I believe that racism put some minorities in lower social classes, but now, years later, I feel that classist behavior keeps them there. I admit my reasoning may be flawed because I am not a sociologist nor have I done extensive studies; this is my opinion based on casual observations that ethnic minorities of any color that become "successful" (which in western society means "economically well-off") appear to be "included" more than those minorities who remain poor.

As to an implied underclass or discrimination, most of our poor underclass in Boise is... dirt-poor whites and Hispanics.

This is a case of disproving the point with irrelevant examples. The thread was about... "glances back" the peace plan, followed by the problem of considering yourself exclusive. Other forms of exclusiveness are irrelevant for the topic.

Well, that's what I thought too, but it seemed to have abruptly and yet smoothly become a sort of "what is racism" thread almost immediately, with few direct references to Israel although there were references to Jews in general. And since you seemed to be arguing that poor = ethnicity, and most poor people here are white, I was staying in what I thought was the same track you were on.

That is your responce to our strawmans. Of course, organizations cannot include members who don't exist However, Israel has Palestineans inside of it.

This is why I seem to end up going down a lot of cul-de-sacs with this. I'm following the streets signs, but they don't seem to lead anywhere. What are you saying here? You're not only admitting that you're strawmanning (which, incidentally, I didn't think you were that much, just a little overstating of extremes which I may have misread) but you're also saying that your wingmen are strawmanning (level with me; you're Joe Biden, aren't you? Seriously! Cool! But check with your dudes before saying something like that). You're also talking about imaginary social groups (I don't believe I was... ), and then you make a fantastically obvious statement about, um, Palestinians.

Israel is very mixed, and there are race problems there between Ashkenazim and Mizrachim, and now the Falash Mura (Etheiopians).

White, black and Slavs. However, this are all the in group (although they are still fighting). Exclusion generally refers to the out group... which is the Palestineans.

Well, let's check something before we continue-- are Palestinains by themselves an ethnic group, or is it a way to identify ethnically Arab people that belong to a geographical political region? Because I believe that ethnically they are Arabs.

If cultures are in their own areas because that's where they grew up, and others would be welcomed if they chose, that's not.

That is still a bad idea. Why should a culture get an area reserved for itself? It is an idea and ideas do not have rights.

Once again, you are reading into my statement. This is your biggest strawman of everything I am saying. I will type very slowly this time, watch carefully:

A culture should not get a place RESERVED for itself. People of different cultures will tend to collect because they share certain similarities and common interests-- language, dress, holidays, religions, practices, etc. I would apply this to all cultures, ideally. In my version of a perfect world there would be no "ethnic reservations".

And yes, that would apply to Israel, as well, since I would prefer to see a world where there wasn't much need for borders as we know except maybe as administrative districts for convenient bookkeeping at most. The problem is, we need humanity in general to grow up overall and do away with another facet of human nature, which is the tendency to feel threatened by different people and go and smash them. And again, I apply this evenly to Israel, the Arabs, the Russians, the Scandinavians, the Eskimos, etc.

Now, in this perfect world we should not be surprised if various cultures still end up conglomerating together because they like each other and share common interests, but I am of the opinion that communities can band together out of common interest without there being sinister (racist) overtones to it (A "community" or "culture" can, after all, be multi-ethnic). You don't seem to share this opinion; fine, since the "no borders, no war" state of being is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, there's no need to be confronted with putting my social experiment to the test. But I am not advocating racial division, especially not for racial division's sake any more than I am seriously saying that your boardgames club excludes women by intent.

We can't do anything about past segregation, which is why many areas today are "predominantly white" or "predominantly black" or whatever. But we can change our attitudes and dispense with racism and segregation. However, just because we do that, doesn't mean that floods of other races are going to come into those ares overnight.

Except they aren't changing... actually, I will have to look that up.

Well, actually, I gave a great example with Atlanta, Georgia, which IIRC was the capitol (or at least a major city) of the Confederate States of America, a virulently racist and segregated society, and the city remained that way up until a few years ago in living memory. That city is now predominantly Black.

I don't know why Black people don't move to Boise more; we somehow get a lot of Hispanics, Indians (as in India Indians, not Native Americans), and Asians. I assure you there is no secret master plan to arrange this. Remember, it takes two to tango: a community may invite people to come in, but those being invited have to want to go, and if they're not interested, they stay out, and I think it is unfair to chastise the inviting community for this (provided that their invitation is indeed on the level).

You see, Coyote, the problem is that you are ignoring our statements. Nobody here minds if a group doesn't resemble a rainbow.

To be honest, I wasn't so sure about that until I read this post of yours. Like I said, it really did seem to me that you felt that the ultimate goal was eventually seeing to it that every city block or ZIP code be integrated somehow to properly reflect national averages (to which I'd have to ask why stop there and start uprooting Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc for redistribution to reflect proper global averages, in which case I hope you enjoy learning Mandarin ).

I also thought that you weren't reading MY message, which was that I do NOT support racial discrimination or segregation; however, human nature being what it is we should not be surprised when like-minded communities tend to group together because they share common interests-- and that as long as racial/ethnic exclusion is not a part of this dynamic, I don't see it as a problem. The key point in that is the last part-- as long as people are together because of shared interests, and racial or ethnic considerations are not a part of that inclusion process.

However, if it is from said are that DOES than there is a problem. Most countries on Earth fall under that category actually. Except Japan... no, that isn't true. They have the Ainu, the extrapates, a couple other subgroups, etc.

I think I understand what you're saying here.. your sentence is a bit garbled... but, yeah-- like-minded people will tend to group together and race should not be a consideration.

But you're not reading what I've been saying all along-- that cultural differences are good, until they undermine the society overall.

No, it is ACCEPTABLE, until it undermines society. It is an individual good to have a variety of cultures (if only because it makes us have a variety of food) but it is neither good or bad. Until it cross that point it is irrelevant... unless it is illegal of course.

In this we are in agreement, really. Seeing it as "good" is a value judgement on my part. But I did mention that it is "good until it is bad" which admittedly does not set clear goals or definition.

"Some parts of Jewish culture are problematic, ergo, all Jewish culture must be bad/whitewashed away" (or any culture that had troublesome aspects). For another example, the FLDS church-- if they'd ditch their white-knuckled grip on child marriage, chances are people would probably leave them alone as just another odd church (Well, that and their polygamy, too).

I'm a rabid antitheist. Don't try to dig a deeper hole.

I'm sorry you hold prejudices, but given how religions in general tend to act throughout history I have come to understand this particular one. It is an area I respectfully disagree with the majority on this board; while most religions do create a lot of trouble I don't see them as the driving troublemaker of society in modern times so much as unchecked business interests consuming everything in sight. From my perspective, compared to them, modern religion is minor leagues. Religions time as the chief troublemakers in global society peaked in the Middle Ages; the current asininity of the Middle East is the last gasp of this trend. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict to me is more of a political-economic-real estate issue with religious framing more so than a straight-up, full-stop religious conflict. But again, this is my interpretation of the situation that I walked away from after living there for 4 years and studying the situation in a classroom environment, so my perceptions are just that-- my perceptions.

[Samuel]

Well, let's check something before we continue-- are Palestinains by themselves an ethnic group, or is it a way to identify ethnically Arab people that belong to a geographical political region? Because I believe that ethnically they are Arabs.

They are both. They are Arabs and another ethnicity.

And yes, that would apply to Israel, as well, since I would prefer to see a world where there wasn't much need for borders as we know except maybe as administrative districts for convenient bookkeeping at most. The problem is, we need humanity in general to grow up overall and do away with another facet of human nature, which is the tendency to feel threatened by different people and go and smash them. And again, I apply this evenly to Israel, the Arabs, the Russians, the Scandinavians, the Eskimos, etc.

Not really. The current problems we have aren't due to tribalism... except in Africa of course. And Israel. And internal situations in many countries. But most recent wars weren't fought just because the opponent was different.

Now, in this perfect world we should not be surprised if various cultures still end up conglomerating together because they like each other and share common interests,

Because that would require every member of their family sharing the same interests. Which is rare. What you will get is people centered in cities because they have access to all the different experiences... which we have now.

in which case I hope you enjoy learning Mandarin

The most widely spoken language on Earth is English

I think I understand what you're saying here.. your sentence is a bit garbled... but, yeah-- like-minded people will tend to group together and race should not be a consideration.

You missed it. Again. My point was that there is no place where there ISN'T ethnic diversity.

I'm sorry you hold prejudices, but given how religions in general tend to act throughout history I have come to understand this particular one. It is an area I respectfully disagree with the majority on this board; while most religions do create a lot of trouble I don't see them as the driving troublemaker of society in modern times so much as unchecked business interests consuming everything in sight.

Coyote, just later on the day you posted this you also complained the reason that the US was so right wing was because it was tied up with the Church. Are you seeing just a little bit of hypocrisy in your positions?

The businesses couldn't get away with their actions unless people let them and they are being backed by said churches.

From my perspective, compared to them, modern religion is minor leagues. Religions time as the chief troublemakers in global society peaked in the Middle Ages; the current asininity of the Middle East is the last gasp of this trend. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict to me is more of a political-economic-real estate issue with religious framing more so than a straight-up, full-stop religious conflict. But again, this is my interpretation of the situation that I walked away from after living there for 4 years and studying the situation in a classroom environment, so my perceptions are just that-- my perceptions.

No matter how small, a problem is still a problem.

[Big Phil]

Israel is a different issue from Jewish assimilation in other societies, so I'm looking for thoughts on the data Samuel provided about Jewish assimilation. Given the research data dug up, do you still (or did you ever) think that Jews in the US try to separate and isolate themselves? Do you think they do so more than other communities? Have you rethought your position, or do you think the research is flawed?

[Samuel]

Well, it was a random piece I got off google- literally the second hit. I'd have to look into it more to be honest- it hasn't been something big on my mind.

[Coyote]

The current problems we have aren't due to tribalism... except in Africa of course. And Israel. And internal situations in many countries. But most recent wars weren't fought just because the opponent was different.

Yugoslavia? Georgia/Ossetia/Russia? Uighurs in China; Hmong in Vietnam? There are, to be sure, political considerations in all these conflicts but many conflicts are indeed rooted in forms of tribalism. Even peaceful Canada had to make appeasement to the Nunavut peoples.

in which case I hope you enjoy learning Mandarin

The most widely spoken language on Earth is English

Well, the most widely-learned language. But the most widely native-spoke language is Mandarin... certainly we wouldn't want to force our culture on them..

I'm sorry you hold prejudices, but given how religions in general tend to act throughout history I have come to understand this particular one. It is an area I respectfully disagree with the majority on this board; while most religions do create a lot of trouble I don't see them as the driving troublemaker of society in modern times so much as unchecked business interests consuming everything in sight.

Coyote, just later on the day you posted this you also complained the reason that the US was so right wing was because it was tied up with the Church. Are you seeing just a little bit of hypocrisy in your positions?

Not at all. A little religion isn't the problem (from my point of view), it is when the religion is socially harmful (ie, preaches hate for example) and people allow it to totally color their perceptions of reality (such as Creationists) that I have a problem. But like I said, I am unusual here in that I do not automatically see religion these days as the biggest threat. Face it; as much as we talk about religion in government, compared to the way the Church literally ran everything in the Middle Ages, and belief in witchcraft was widespread by "learned men" and with a word a Pope could launch a thousand-year war, religions influence is not as great-- by comparison. From my perspective, the idea that all religion and everything in it is irredeemably bad is extreme and a black-white fallacy.

The businesses couldn't get away with their actions unless people let them and they are being backed by said churches.

This is paranoid. The major corporations are being run by an Illuminati of religions? More like the other way around-- or more realistically, modern religion is adopting business practices because they've learned that religion provides a commodity that can be marketed and sold at an awesome profit margin.

No matter how small, a problem is still a problem.

Triage. Don't put a band-aid on a paper cut while the leg is being gnawed by crocodiles. Religion has been losing influence over the years and will continue to do so (albeit more likely in Europe and Canada, unless the Republican Party continues to implode and ditch the Jeezus Freaks.

[Samuel]

Yugoslavia? Georgia/Ossetia/Russia? Uighurs in China; Hmong in Vietnam? There are, to be sure, political considerations in all these conflicts but many conflicts are indeed rooted in forms of tribalism. Even peaceful Canada had to make appeasement to the Nunavut peoples.

Except for Yugoslavia and Russia, those are internal situations.

Well, the most widely-learned language. But the most widely native-spoke language is Mandarin... certainly we wouldn't want to force our culture on them..

Actually, I am fine with a monolingual planet. Never understood why people were upset with languages disappearing.

Not at all. A little religion isn't the problem (from my point of view),

A little is when it has essentially no impact. In short, when it is a social club and not a religion.

it is when the religion is socially harmful (ie, preaches hate for example)

By default all religions do that to non-believers.

and people allow it to totally color their perceptions of reality (such as Creationists) that I have a problem.

By default all religions do that. It just isn't as noticable outside creationists.

But like I said, I am unusual here in that I do not automatically see religion these days as the biggest threat. Face it; as much as we talk about religion in government, compared to the way the Church literally ran everything in the Middle Ages, and belief in witchcraft was widespread by "learned men" and with a word a Pope could launch a thousand-year war, religions influence is not as great-- by comparison. From my perspective, the idea that all religion and everything in it is irredeemably bad is extreme and a black-white fallacy.

Religion is bad because it relies on faith. And faith is only needed when you can't use reason- or, in short it leads to you not seeing reality, but what you want to see.

I don't think religion is the biggest problem- that would belong to something that could destroy most of the life on the planet.

This is paranoid. The major corporations are being run by an Illuminati of religions? More like the other way around-- or more realistically, modern religion is adopting business practices because they've learned that religion provides a commodity that can be marketed and sold at an awesome profit margin.

"We should fully follow the policy on freedom of religious belief, implement the regulations on religious affairs, ... guide religious leaders and believers ... and make full use of their positive role in promoting social harmony," Jia Qinglin, the Communist Party's fourth-ranked leader, told a news conference.

The comments come as China grapples with increasing social cleavages emerging as the country develops at a breakneck pace and the gap between rich and poor grows wider.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... 3420080303

I think the Chinese Communist Party knows something you don't.

Triage. Don't put a band-aid on a paper cut while the leg is being gnawed by crocodiles. Religion has been losing influence over the years and will continue to do so (albeit more likely in Europe and Canada, unless the Republican Party continues to implode and ditch the Jeezus Freaks.

They said the same thing in the sixties "God is dead", "secularism is victorious", etc. Apparently, just letting things happen doesn't work- you have to put effort into changing the world.

[hongi]

Actually, I am fine with a monolingual planet. Never understood why people were upset with languages disappearing.

Cultures usually disappear along with them. That is a bad thing. For example, Maori was on the ropes a few decades ago in New Zealand, and if that had gone, the entire Maori culture would have followed. It would have been an enormous loss to New Zealand. I think everyone's pretty happy that Maori culture is still around.

[Coyote]

While there is certainly a degree of efficiency and convenience if having a world language for international cooperative projects, the idea that it must come at the expense of all other languages seems unfortunate to me. The prospect of a sort of squishy grey monoculture like the Federation does not strike me as a worthwhile goal.

[Samuel]

Why should the world become monoculture if everyone has a common tongue? The US, India, Nigeria and England all have English as their common language and all are very different. Aside from things like calligraphy and the classics, a culture is entirely detached from its language. The world could work fine with one language or one main language that everyone speaks.

Of course, someone is going to probably point out the short sighted nature of this in a moment.

[Coyote]

"We should fully follow the policy on freedom of religious belief, implement the regulations on religious affairs, ... guide religious leaders and believers ... and make full use of their positive role in promoting social harmony," Jia Qinglin, the Communist Party's fourth-ranked leader, told a news conference.

The comments come as China grapples with increasing social cleavages emerging as the country develops at a breakneck pace and the gap between rich and poor grows wider.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... 3420080303

I think the Chinese Communist Party knows something you don't.

The Chinese government knows that religion can be a useful opiate to the masses. That comes as no surprise to me at all. What seems odd to me is that you earlier implied, originally, that religions controlled global commerce somehow, and when I said that seemed like a paranoid proposition and that if anything, religions were turning into businesses instead... you come at me with a quote how one particular government has found a way to employ religion as a useful means of social organization.

It is neithe rnew, nor entirely relevant to the original context.

They said the same thing in the sixties "God is dead", "secularism is victorious", etc. Apparently, just letting things happen doesn't work- you have to put effort into changing the world.

The world is changing; the old insular ways are falling to the wayside (no one, even modern Literalists, really go out and stone their children to death in the public square for disobeying). Human societry changes slowly; you have to think in terms that are almost geological in scope. It was as recent as a couple hundred years ago that Europe was still under the sway of Kings that inheireted their positions and the Church still anointed them as leaders of men, and some communities were still burning witches. That had been the way of things for thousands of years.

The Enlightenment was a complete sea change in the way people applied thought, belief, and rationality -- a major earthquake, to maintain the "geological" analogy-- and as a result science has grown at an astonishing rate. As science grows, we learn more and fewer mysteries remain that need explaination with mysticism.

Does it mean that religion will eventually fade and become just another thread in the overall cultural weave of some societies? I don't know; maybe, maybe not, I make no predictions one way or another.

Why should the world become monoculture if everyone has a common tongue? The US, India, Nigeria and England all have English as their common language and all are very different. Aside from things like calligraphy and the classics, a culture is entirely detached from its language. The world could work fine with one language or one main language that everyone speaks.

Of course, someone is going to probably point out the short sighted nature of this in a moment.

Well, calligraphy, classical literature, poetry, and music are all firmly rooted in language, and while I agree that having a common learned tongue for multi-national projects is an excellent idea (English is the current favorite) I think something would be lost if it came at that cost. Remember, English is not the native language of India, Hindi is (with others as well) and I don't see a compelling case that English should pave over Hindi or Mandarin or Arabic as opposed to the other way around (a couple hundred years ago, French would have been the odds-on favorite). I'm not alone in this, there's a "McDonalds-ization" of culture some fear that would pave over everything that makes other cultures unique and interesting.

A lot of this really hinges on how much an individual might value difference for difference's sake. It is undeniable that a uniform language and even a uniform culture and value set would make the world an efficient place. But is "maximum efficiency" the only worthwhile goal?

This is really taking a down in the weeds philosophical bent, here, really.

[Samuel]

The Chinese government knows that religion can be a useful opiate to the masses. That comes as no surprise to me at all. What seems odd to me is that you earlier implied, originally, that religions controlled global commerce somehow, and when I said that seemed like a paranoid proposition and that if anything, religions were turning into businesses instead... you come at me with a quote how one particular government has found a way to employ religion as a useful means of social organization.

It is neither new, nor entirely relevant to the original context.

I responded with rolling eyes. That meant (again) you were missing my point. Here was the quote that kicked it off:

The businesses couldn't get away with their actions unless people let them and they are being backed by said churches.

Religion doesn't control global commerce. What I am saying is that religion is working with big business in the US to advance its goals.

The world is changing; the old insular ways are falling to the wayside (no one, even modern Literalists, really go out and stone their children to death in the public square for disobeying). Human society changes slowly; you have to think in terms that are almost geological in scope. It was as recent as a couple hundred years ago that Europe was still under the sway of Kings that inherited their positions and the Church still anointed them as leaders of men, and some communities were still burning witches. That had been the way of things for thousands of years.

The Enlightenment was a complete sea change in the way people applied thought, belief, and rationality -- a major earthquake, to maintain the "geological" analogy-- and as a result science has grown at an astonishing rate. As science grows, we learn more and fewer mysteries remain that need explanation with mysticism.

Does it mean that religion will eventually fade and become just another thread in the overall cultural weave of some societies? I don't know; maybe, maybe not, I make no predictions one way or another.

Science is the only progressive feature in human society. To assume anything else is is quite simply ridiculous. We have seen over the past decade the religious in the US trying to make their own bubble. Progress can be turned back.

As for not stoning to death... honor killings. I'd say they don't do stoning because they found more effective ways to kill people.

A lot of this really hinges on how much an individual might value difference for difference's sake. It is undeniable that a uniform language and even a uniform culture and value set would make the world an efficient place. But is "maximum efficiency" the only worthwhile goal?

It makes the world a more unified place if you can go anywhere and understand anyone. It won't prevent warfare or conflict, but it will encourage tourism. Not to mention the upside of efficiency is that people don't have to work as hard.

This is really taking a down in the weeds philosophical bent, here, really.

Not really. It is a question of what people value more- lingustical variety and all that entails, or efficiency and ease of communication.

[AniThyng]

Why should the world become monoculture if everyone has a common tongue? The US, India, Nigeria and England all have English as their common language and all are very different. Aside from things like calligraphy and the classics, a culture is entirely detached from its language. The world could work fine with one language or one main language that everyone speaks.

Of course, someone is going to probably point out the short sighted nature of this in a moment.

"a culture is entirely detached from its language" is a overly simplistic and false sentiment, and possibly is a severe indictment of why monolingualism is not necessarilly a good thing, assuming you are only able to speak English. It bears remembering that for India, you would be hard pressed to find a native who could only speak English, most would be at least bi or tri lingual, with English as the secondary tongue.

Furthermore, there are certain (culture-related) things that you simply cannot express properly without either glossing with a close english equivalent or using a loanword. (e.g. "I like eating sushi." "Feng Shui").

As another example, in Chinese culture, say, for naming, the actual symbolic <meaning> of the words that make up a name are still important, and you simply cannot do that without knowledge of the language - of course you can use a western name without caring one iota about the meaning of the name to supplement a chinese name (or drop it entirely), but I would argue that that is precisely the kind of cultural destruction that we ought to maybe avoid if we can help it. Unless you want to argue my "funny sounding" name is too much for your monolingual brain to process, I'm keeping my chinese name, thankyouverymuch.

[Samuel]

Well, we managed to get off topic. Do you guys want to start a new thread on language and leave this one for the Israel-palestine arguers?

my position is that you will get one tongue, for ease of usage if noting else and that people will preferably learn it. People might have two languages, but the fact of the matter is that requires identification with a trbial identity, which is bad. Most people will choose to simply go with one tongue. Of course, I am biased by the US, but from what I can see, retaining a second language over generations DOES require a feeling of seperation.

[Big Orange]

It seems perculiar that Judaism throughout it's later history has a talent for infuriating non-Jews, with anti-Semites being of any given race, non-Jewish religion, and national background (including modern non-Jewish Semites who are proven descendents or relatives of the ancient Hebrews such as the Palestinians and Samaritans, and to a lesser extent Syrians, Armenians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Kurds and Egyptians). But most modern anti-Semitism has little to do with actual religion, culture, and race, but to the popular perception that Jews are disproportionately wealthy, talented, and powerful well beyond their relatively small numbers (hence why The Learned Elders of Zion was such a big seller to many people of totally different ethnic and national backgrounds). It seems the Jews are hated by European bigots for being 'too brilliant' while Gypsies are hated for being 'too useless'. This could be comparable to East Asian immigrants and blacks in North America.

[AniThyng]

Well, we managed to get off topic. Do you guys want to start a new thread on language and leave this one for the Israel-palestine arguers?

my position is that you will get one tongue, for ease of usage if noting else and that people will preferably learn it. People might have two languages, but the fact of the matter is that requires identification with a trbial identity, which is bad. Most people will choose to simply go with one tongue. Of course, I am biased by the US, but from what I can see, retaining a second language over generations DOES require a feeling of seperation.

Well, I don't think anyone bit, but in any case, if it gets split, so be it - In any case, while I agree that exclusively using only 1 language that outsiders do not understand is definately negative, I think it is to the benefit of all if more people were multilingual rather then the converse - it's not *that* hard to be fluent in more then one language after all, many people who have the benefit of a multilingual environment manage it after all.