Jim Devine writes: >> David Shemano writes: >> > If Switzerland can do it, so can the tribal cultures of the Middle East >> > and Arab and >> Muslim world. Pure ethnocentrism.< >> >> I don't understand David's use of language here. He seems to using the >> word "ethnocentrism" in a way that flies in the face of all >> conventional definitions. According to a web definition (and all other >> definitions I've heard),"ethnocentrism" refers to "belief in the >> superiority of one's own ethnic group" or something a lot like that. >> (see http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ethnocentrism) >> >> His reference ot "pure ethnocentrism" makes the most sense if he's >> describing his own point of view. That is, the epithet describes the >> view that while the Swiss (who are European) can pull off multi-ethnic >> democracy, other (tribal) cultures like the Israelis and Palestinians >> can't do it. After all, the Europeans (or at least the Swiss) are >> superior (from a European or North American ethocentric perspective). >> Or am I misrepresenting your perspective, David?
I am definitely not making a superiority argument. To the contrary. I just googled "ethnocentrism," and the first entry is Wikipedia, and the first sentence is: "Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. " That is closer than the idea I am trying to express. I think it is very American to believe that we can all get along, ethnicity is secondary, that if we all act with goodwill, we can be just like the Swiss. By pointing to the Swiss, who are incredibly unique even in Europe, never mind the rest of the world, you are failing to accept the Israeli Jews and Arabs on their own terms, their values and priorities, I think that is ethnocentric. >> But even that doesn't make sense, since neither the Israelis nor the >> Palestinians are "tribal" except in the absolutely weakest sense of >> the word.[*] In fact, to see them as "tribal" is ethnocentric if we >> use the definition I quoted above (presuming, of course, that we U.S. >> types aren't similarly "tribal"). >> >> To see the Palestinians as tribal but not the Israelis would be even >> worse, an assertion of out-and-out ethnic supremacy for the Israelis >> (assuming, of course, that "tribalism" is bad). Or maybe it's only the >> Israelis who are tribal, and not the Palestinians? I think they are both tribal in a way, for example, the average American is not. If we think of identity as an aggregation of individual, nuclear family, extended family, clan, community, class, nation, etc. Americans and Israeli Jews and Arabs are very different. Extended families and clans play much larger roles in in the Middle East than they do in US and Europe. Arabs are more tribal than the Israelis when it comes to extended family and clan, but Israeli Jews are tribal in the sense that being Jewish is an essential part of their identity. I truly am not judgmental about any of this in context. >> In any event, that's a distraction. If we start with (what seems to >> be) David's proposition that "the mostly European colonizers of a >> 'third world' area can never come to any kind of equitable and >> democratic settlement with the colonized population," then the case of >> South Africa is an important counter-example. Counter-examples are >> important to undermining _a priori_ preconceptions and biases, even if >> they don't predict the future. First of all, I never said that. And second. around half the Jews in Israel are descended from Arab countries, so "European colonization" is just factually inaccurate.. I just think the differences are too great. The European settlement of SA was part of the general European Industrial Age colonization motivated primarily be economic gain and opportunity. The Jewish settlement of Israel was primarily a refugeee population motivated by religious and ethnic persecution. The psychology of the two groups is materially different. Similarly, the Black SA tribes want to share in what the Whites have and have no objections to the Whites per se, while the Arabs view the Jews not just as an unwanted foreign influence, but an influence that is theologically unacceptable. That is a huge bridge that does not exist in SA. >> The Israeli state's monopolization of a lot of land in >> Israel/Palestine is part of its defense of class power -- and its >> expansion, the accumulation of economic/political power by one ethnic >> bloc at the expense of another. Part of this process is decentralized >> use of extra-judicial penalties to grab land or water rights from >> Palestinians and to keep Israelis from selling land to Palestinans. >> This is akin to the decentralized use of violence by the lords and >> nascent agricultural capitalists to chase the peasants off the land >> that was traditioinally "theirs" (under often-ambiguous pre-existing >> property rights). It's also akin to the decentralized use of violence >> by the U.S. settlers in the West against the indigenous population. >> >> On the issue of Palestinian punishment of other Palestinians for >> selling land to Israelis, I can see how it would happen, looking at it >> from the Palestinian perspective. it's like other fruitless (and >> disgusting) activities like suicide bombing. It seems like a fruitless >> -- self-defeating -- effort to stop the Israeli juggernaut. The libertarian critic of Israel would agree with what you write. Libertarians believe the real solution is to let Arabs buy land where they want and let Jews buy land where they want (including the West Bank), and then let the political chips fall where they may. Like I said, easier said than done. >> >> It's revealing that David wants Israel and the Palestinians to "treat >> property rights with respect" rather than treating _people_ with >> respect. This is the Lockean tradition, in which property rights >> (assumed to be "natural") trump human rights. By the way, the two are >> not the same: as economists know, standard capitalist property rights >> allow a lot of disrespect for human rights (e.g., poisoning our air >> and water). Would EPA rules against pollution count as treating >> property rights with disrespect? Property rights are human rights. This supposed conflict between the two is a figment of the imagination of the statists of left and right. >> I don't equate Israel with Judaism or with people of Jewish >> ethnicity.[****] There are lots of Jewish people who don't identify >> with Israel, while Israel seems to go far away from the humanistic >> priniciples associated with most religions (including Judaism) and >> seems to have abandoned all connection with the culture of >> Yiddishkeit. It was only after 1967 or so that Judaism or Jewish >> culture became associated with arrogance and a sense of entitlement >> (along with delusions of "existential threats") and then only in >> Israel and in Likudnik groups outside of Israel. To equate Israel with >> Judaism or Jewishness is like equating Mussolini with Italian >> ethnicity or language. You may not equate Israel with Judaism, but Israeli Jews and Arabs certainly do. Israeli Jews think of Israel as a "Jewish State" and like it that way, and Arabs think of Israel as a "Jewish State" and don't like it that way. Pre-WW2, Zionism was very controversial in the Jewish community, because Zionism challenged the idea that Jews could be incorporated as citizens into European countries while retaining their dignity and identify as Jews, and many European Jews were committed to becoming "Good Germans," etc.. The Zionists said that could never happen and Jews had to have their own state. After WW2, the anti-Zionists became analogues to the members of the America First Committee after Pearl Harbor. Israel is not like equating Mussolini with Italian ethnicity or language. Israel is like stating that Italy is the state for Italians, who are those peope that speak Italian and share Italian ethnicity. The fact that Italy may include as citizens those that do not have Italian ethnicity does not mean that Italy is not an Italian state. In the view of Israeli Jews (and most Jews worldwide) Israel is the state for Jews, who are those people that (1) are ethnically Jews, or (2) choose to be part of the Jewish tribe. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
