thank you, rob; i need not say another word because of yours
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:23:19 +0000
From: Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org>
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] boycotts etc
To: flawed...@yahoo.com, NetBehaviour for networked distributed
creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
Message-ID:
<7fa25200902180723p626d6861v65f70df879e2d...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM, mark cooley <flawed...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I'll never understand why any criticism of Israel is automatically
taken as
racism by some.
I'll never understand why some racists think they can shut down debate
by saying this."
The project is not (simply) criticism of Israel, it is extending to
Jews elsewhere through its choice of target.
My objection to the project is not automatic, it is based on that fact.
I have Jewish friends who don't like the apartheid happening
in Palestine any more than I do.
I have some Jewish friends who do not like the ghettoisation of Israel
any more than I do.
I don't see that the problems that you
point out concerning racist attitudes around the world have
anything to do
with the discussion of Israel's policy in Palestine.
When that "discussion" consists of anti-semitic canards and that
"discussion" has no other subject and that "discussion" asks only for
agreement, it is not unreasonable to want to peek behind the curtain.
As far as corporate
sponsored art the call didn't state that it had anything to do with
making
accusations toward Jews controlling the art market.
Jewish domination of the media is an old anti-semitic canard. The
gallery was chosen specifically because it was owned by a Jewish media
owner.
Perhaps they want to
make a connection between media bias toward Israel's policy in
Palestine
I have seen claims of bias the other way. I think it depends who one
wishes the reports to be biased in favour of.
and
to see if that bias extends beyond the popular culture of news
media to fine
art culture.
This is a peculiar point at which to start investigating general
"bias" in the media, and given that it is a specific claim of "bias"
it is unlikely to apply more generally.
To demonstrate that there is bias in the media and government
and art institutions is not to be racist.
To choose a particular individual for this critique as a political act
because of their race is to be racist.
To choose to undertake this critique as a political act against a
racial group is racist.
The project may not be intentionally racist, but it could not have
done better at collecting anti-semitic memes if it was a BNP front. I
had to decide whether it was a Sokal-style hoax before commenting on
it.
I abhor U.S. foriegn policy.
Doesn't everyone?
And for the record I oppose(d) Operation Cast Lead.
We
have military bases in over a hundred countries and our commanders
(and vast
majority of army) are Christian.
Some brave atheist American soldiers are tackling this.
Seemingly, with this logic - I must be a
Christian hater because I criticize U.S. foreign policy and
recognize media
bias toward supporting this policy.
But the Christianity of US Army officers is not a link in the chain of
reasoning that leads to you opposing US foreign policy.
Bloomberg's Jewishness is a causal factor in this call for a boycott.
The logic is different. You are not discriminating on the basis of
religion or race.
- Rob.
On Feb 19, 2009, at 4:00 AM, netbehaviour-requ...@netbehaviour.org
wrote:
http://digitalaardvarks.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
