omw_68
3d ago
but it's qualitatively different from the Israeli law of return
Well the question I would ask is whether it's materially different for purposes of accusing the Netherlands of being "racist." Since you decline to define that term, your point is meaningless.
Certainly there are many countries out there which treat foreigners differently depending on the race/religion/ethnicity they belong to, either explicitly or in practice. For example, I was just reading that China permits ethnic Chinese people who have lived for generations in places like Manila, San Francisco, or Kuala Lumpur, to reside and work in China.
And by the way, I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with this type of "racism" on the part of various countries. I'm simply asking for a clear consistent definition. As opposed to a strategically ambiguous moving target.
I could nitpick and claim that considering previous citizenship of your parents irrespective of their particular ethnicity
From what I understand, China goes by ethnicity; Liberia goes by race; Poland goes by descent (so yes, in theory this means that if you are not ethnically Polish you might have a shot; in practice this means that you have to be either ethnically Polish or one of a small minority of Polish-descended Jews for whom records are available. But as has been pointed out, facially neutral laws can discriminate.)
Not a lot of Americans either with or without Polish ancestry want to emigrate to Poland
I am pretty confident that a LOT of people from the Arab world (and the rest of the Third World) would LOVE to immigrate to Poland, probably even more than to Israel.
Poland or Ireland are traditionally seen as countries from which people emigrated. By contrast, Israel has been heavily dependent on immigration since their law of return was passed.
Well, Jewish Israelis see Israel as a country from which their ancestors emigrated.
More importantly, none of this is relevant to your definition of "racism." You agree that all these countries are "racist."
If you want to argue over whether Israel's immigration policy is fair or just, fine. But that's a completely different question.
If you want to say that sometimes "racism" is okay or more excusable, fine.
But in that case, I would want clear criteria for deciding whether "racism" is more excusable and justifications for those criteria.
If your claim is that discrimination is more excusable for countries which were emigration countries in the 19th and 20th century, I would want justification for this criterion. Because to me it seems like a gerrymander criterion to me.
omw_68
3d ago
Of course I disagree, don't be obtuse. A law that says you can only mow your grass and wash your car on Saturdays applies equally to Jews and Christians, but you can easily guess who its authors wanted to target.
Actually it sounds like you do agree that the law applies to both Jews and Arabs alike. But you are claiming that the intent and the effect was to target Arabs. Which of course is not true at all. For example, if an Arab Israeli citizen marries an Arab from Dubai, as far as I know there's no problem at all with the spouse moving to Israel.
This, but without allegedly.
We can argue about whether that's unfair, but it doesn't change the (apparent) fact that Arab Israeli Citizens are perfectly free to live anywhere in Israel they want provided that (1) they actually buy or rent a residence; and (2) if it's a community which requires approval of a local committee, they get approval from that committee.
Anyway, to clarify, would you say that a country is "racist" if it fails to adequately redress alleged race-based wrongs which took place in the distant past?
Judging by the terms you use like "J&S", you are overwhelmingly likely to be an Israeli Jew.
No, and in fact I had never heard of the "Yashar" party before this thread. Nor had I heard of anyone named "Eisenkot." In any event, I would not have asked you for evidence to support your claim if I were not very skeptical.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear now that you decline to supply evidence that Yashar supports the (non-racist) policies you have identified.
I will grant you that it is a mixture of religious and ethnic discrimination (as you can lose your right if you or your grandparent converted to another religion), but this is not "disparate outcome racism" that the wokes like to whine about, but straightforward racial discrimination for the purpose of maintaining an ethnostate.
But any definition of racism which does not include treating two foreigners different purely because of their ethnic background will struggle to admit any cases of racism,
Well you are completely free to define "racism" any way you like for purposes of discussion; I am requesting a clear, consistent definition.
I take it that in your view, any country which engages in citizenship discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion is "racist" in your view?
I am asking this question because many countries (Ireland, Japan, Poland, Liberia, etc.) engage in this sort of discrimination and yet it's pretty unusual for me to witness accusations of racism against these countries. Which makes me suspect that "racism" is not the real objection to Israeli policy.
That being said, if you will agree that numerous countries in Europe, Asia, etc.. are "racist" by your definition, I will certainly concede that Israel is too.
By the way, if a country discriminates in the same way in terms of permitting residency, work authorization, etc. can we agree that this is also racist by your definition?
Edit: Actually looking over your post, I see that I hardly need to ask that question.
As an example, from what I understand, under Chinese law, an ethnic Chinese person whose family has lived in Manila, Mexico City, or San Francisco for generations would have a far easier time obtaining residency and a work permit in China than a non-Chinese. So in other words, China is apparently treating foreigners differently purely because of their ethnic background.
So the answer would seem to be "yes." Under your definition, China is racist; Japan is racist; Liberia is racist; etc.
Agreed?
omw_68
3d ago
Most (but not all) traditional cultures required parental permission for first marriage, but that is a world away from young people having no say and not being able to act on their preferences at all, particularly when it comes to the second marriage that typically happens in a woman's 20s (turns out hunter-gatherers have lots of 'divorce'). But even for the first marriage, vetoes, elopement, affairs, divorce and remarriage all allow people to express their mate choices. If our ancestral environment didn't involve individual mate choice, then we wouldn't have evolved (strong and specific) mate preferences.
I basically agree with this, although I have a pet theory which relates:
When a man in the West is attracted to a woman, he will often act nice to her, metaphorically carrying her books. Red pill types have observed that this is usually counterproductive, but I suspect that in past generations it was adaptive. Being nice to a girl would impress her parents, especially her father. And I think this is part of the reason why so many men have this seemingly maladaptive instinct.
omw_68
3d ago
Jim Crow laws were facially neutral too.
As a point of information, I don't think this is correct. For example, a quick search claims this as part of a 1926 Atlanta ordinance:
No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls.
Not facially neutral.
It didn't stop them being racist.
That may very well be, and I certainly don't deny that facially neutral rules can be discriminatory either in practice or by design (nor am I claiming that facially neutral Jim Crow laws didn't exist), but that brings us back to the problem of defining the word "racist." As Scott has pointed out, the word "racist" is strategically ambiguous. Bad actors would like to pivot back and forth between a broad definition (for tarring their enemies) and a narrow definition (to avoid having their allies similarly tarred). Or to use a gerrymandered definition for similar bad faith reasons.
The same is true of the national quotas in the 1924 Immigration Act in the US, or the "patriality" rules in the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts in the UK, if you think it is possible for an immigration law to be racist in the morally relevant sense.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about this. I am well aware that many countries (Israel, Ireland, Poland, Japan, etc.) are discriminatory in terms of who can become a citizen. Many many countries are discriminatory in terms of who can enter and live and work in the country. For example, in my country (the United States) citizens of the Marshall Islands can live and work in the United States without obtaining a visa.
Is this "racist"? I don't have a strong opinion, my main concern is consistency, more or less. When I see people accusing Israel of "racism" for having discriminatory citizenship rules and those people fail to speak up about, say, Japan, it strongly suggests that the criticism is not being made in good faith. That their true objection to Israel is something else. And the key to enforcing consistency is having a clear definition.
As alluded to above, Scott wrote a nice post a few years back about how the words like "racism" are strategically used by social justice types:
Social Justice And Words, Words, Words
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/
Don't be obtuse.
Whoa please tone it down. TIA.
Most Israeli citizens can marry a foreigner and live with their spouse in Israel. Some are not allowed to. Most Israeli citizens can live in any village. Some are not allowed to. In both cases these "some" are Israeli Arabs.
-
I'm pretty sure that if an Israeli Arab marries a non-Israeli from the United States, they can live with their spouse in Israel, same thing with an Israeli Jew. I'm pretty sure there is an exception if the proposed marriage partner is a non-Israeli from Gaza or J & S, but at the same time, I'm pretty sure that this exception applies to both Jews and Arabs alike. Do you disagree?
-
I'm pretty sure that any Israeli citizen can live in any village provided that (1) they buy or rent a residence there; and (2) in the case of communities where approval by a committee is required, the committee approves them. Do you disagree with this? Are you saying that some of these committees make discriminatory decisions? Or are you saying that it's "racist" that Arab citizens are not allowed to have real estate handed over to them in situations where that real estate was (allegedly) seized by the state 75 years ago as a the alleged result of their relatives abandoning it?
You are free to ask them yourself.
I don't have the burden of proof here. The claim being made is that the Yashar Party is "racist."
omw_68
3d ago
So the reason I said that Yashar pretends not to be racist is that they do pretty much commit to treating all Israeli citizens the same. The catch is that Israeli citizenship law is itself quite racist, in the sense that there is an explicit ethnic preference for matrilineally descended ethnic Jews regardless of national origin.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. And can we agree that under your definition, a political party is "racist" if (1) supports treating citizens equally (or supports treating citizens more favorably than non-citizens); and (2) it exists in a country which the citizenship laws give preferences to people of certain ethnic backgrounds?
omw_68
3d ago
Are you seriously disputing that the largest Jewish parties are Jewish supremacists?
I can't really agree or dispute such a claim unless I know how you are defining the term "supremacist."
And yet you decline to define what you mean by "racist" or "supremacist."
I suspect this is because there is no way to define these words in such a way as to be (1) broad enough to cover Israel (and/or the Yashar party); (2) narrow enough not to cover lots of entities which are not normally accused of being "racist" or "supremacist"; and (3) not obviously gerrymandered so as to apply only to Israel (or Israeli parties).
Certainly for Social Justice types in the US, the word "racist" is used in a strategically ambiguous way as Scott pointed out a few years back:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/
But in any event, I can't respond meaningfully to your question or your claim if you are unwilling to define your terms.
The Arabs had exceptionally high turnout because they want the government to actually bother to police Arab-majority areas
I'm skeptical of this claim, but I would rather not get sidetracked.
omw_68
3d ago
Well, Yashar is sufficiently progressive to suggest Israeli Arabs can serve in the IDF, so they get a point for that.
But they have never even suggested that either discriminatory policy I linked to should be overturned.
Seems to me you are goalpost-moving here.
The policy you point to does not appear to discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens; at a minimum you have not explained how it does. Nor have you shown any evidence that Yashar supports either policy.
I suspect that in this context, accusations of "racism" are fundamentally no different from accusations of "apartheid" and "genocide." In the sense that there is no way to define these words broadly enough to cover Israel (or leading parties in Israel); narrowly enough so that they don't cover lots of other situations which are not normally and widely condemned as "racist"; and not in a way that is obviously gerrymandered so as to apply only to Israel.
For example, lots of countries discriminate in terms of offering citizenship: Japan, Ireland, Poland, just to name a few.
omw_68
4d ago
especially when the data is polluted by political bias.
I think this is the key issue. When any research comes out from an institution which has been captured by the Left; and that research happens to support the Leftist narrative; and it contradicts my general observations and experience, I tend to go with my own observations and experience.
As far as age gap marriages go, my general observation is that as far back as I remember, they've always been pretty unusual. And they still seem pretty unusual. I'm talking about large age gaps, like 10 or 20+ years.
As far as same age marriages go, the data here seems to say that in the last 50 years, the average gap has gone from 3 years to 2.2 years. That's not really enough to be very noticeable.
At the same time, in my general experience, most women in their 20s are open to dating men 10, 20, or even 30 years old, provided that the man is otherwise attractive to them (which is kind of a big "if").
Anyway, my instinct is that recent technological changes (social media; easy availability of pornography; smartphone dating apps etc.) are the main drivers behind any recent changes in dating and mating patterns.
omw_68
4d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law
As a threshold issue, I looked at the articles you cited and saw no mention of the Yashar party. Moreover, I don't see how denying citizenship to a non-citizen discriminates against citizens, Jewish or non-Jewish.
Maybe summarize the policies in your own words?
omw_68
4d ago
In terms of long-term trends, MO Jews also have high birth rates (though not quite as high as Haredim) and are also benefitting from religious-Zionism motivated immigration of (mostly MO) diaspora Jews. The MO/RZ bloc is therefore growing about as fast as the Haredi bloc. The question is whether the MO/RZ bloc remains allied with the Haredim against secular Jews (which is what Netanyahu has built his career on), or whether they ally with the secular right to strengthen Israel by eliminating Haredi parasitism (which is what Bennet wants). If the Netanyahu coalition holds together, then I expect the most economically productive secular Ashkenazim to feel increasingly unwelcome until they start moving to America, while the Haredim eat Israel from the inside.
This seems to be a well thought out and reasonable analysis, my main objection is the same Yogi Berra problem I mentioned above.
omw_68
4d ago
What tweet by Yglesias?
I believe he is referring to this (alleged tweet) from a couple posts up:
My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity
omw_68
4d ago
I agree you can group books into archetypes; I'd push against that being unique to Asian women, though. E.g. you have the Jewish male author whose main character is always a sexually frustrated neurotic man, whose failings are an indictment of American civilization. Or the WASPy author who lives a bored, middle class existence punctuated with affairs, whose inability to keep it in his pants is (sigh) an indictment of American civilization.
I don't read enough literature to comment on this. I will say that among the creative original people I meet, it's pretty unusual for such people to be female and more unusual still for them to be Asian (Oriental).
omw_68
4d ago
Ethnic supremacist parties, like most of the Israeli mainstream, are pretty uncontroversially racist.
I would have to disagree with this, in the sense that the word "racist" is very ambiguous. (Of course it's not helping that you added another buzzword to the mix: "supremacist")
I take it that you decline to explicitly define what you mean by either word?
omw_68
4d ago
There are lots of Asian American female authors trying to get published, but who the industry chooses to publish, platform, and publicize is very much a reflection of the white women who comprise 70% of the industry and their preoccupations, not the demographic whose experiences are ostensibly being expressed.
Good point. There is also the problem of the perceived publishing filter which surely informs what ideas get turned into manuscripts and submitted.
That being said, based on all the Asian (Oriental) women I have met over the years, it's plausible to me that most of their literary efforts tend to fall into a handful of recognizable cliches.
omw_68
4d ago
meaning they are unable to absorb or subjugate their defeated enemies quickly.
I don't know how big of an advantage this really is. After all, Muslims conquered and absorbed pretty aggressively more than a thousand years ago and there is still massive intramural conflict within the Muslim world.
The permanent welfare handouts for the Haredi, though, is what really dims Israel's future. I expect the Ashkenazi to flee Israel in significant numbers to the US as soon as the Haredi obtain primary leadership within a governing coalition.
I think that by "Ashkenazi" you mean Ashkenazi who are either secular or religious but not ultra Orthodox. But anyway, yeah it seems like the ultra-Orthodox are on track to take control of Israeli democracy. Will that actually happen? That's the sort of straight-line type prediction (ok, straight line on a logarithmic graph) which is never quite as certain as it seems.
I remember back in the 70s it was widely believed that sooner or later Israeli Arabs would become a majority and get control of Israel's government.
omw_68
4d ago
Seems kind of a stretch to blame communism on 'the Jews'.
Here's the test I would propose:
If you are willing to give Jews credit for modern science, you get to blame the Jews for communism.
omw_68
4d ago
The space of possible outcomes post ASI is so unknowable that sometimes its better to just ignore it. Of course, that's like dividing infinity by infinity and saying it equals one. But without this simplification, how can these discussions even take place?
That's a good question. Because discussing culture war issues almost necessarily entails questions of trends and predictions. And the speed of technological development throws pretty much all of those trends and predictions into question. But yeah, it would be pretty boring to discuss nothing but AI all the time. So yeah, I see your point. Carry on.
omw_68
4d ago
"We should be free to discriminate against Israeli citizens that are not Jews"
Would you be able to identify 2 policies supported by the Yashar party which would discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens?
omw_68
4d ago
No matter how high you are setting the bar for what you consider "racist", I can assure you the Israeli right-wing is clearing it with ease.
Well how would you define the term?
omw_68
4d ago
What do people think the consequences of Jews leaving the Democratic party will be?
My best guess is that there isn't going to be a major shift any time soon. There have been reports for decades of Jews switching from Democrat to Republican and it's never really snowballed. I think that (1) Jews (and especially AIPAC) still have quite a lot of influence over the Democratic Party in the US; (2) the latest freakout over Israel will very likely die down in the next few years once progressives switch to the new Latest Thing; and (3) once that happens, the anti-Jewish elements in the Democratic Party will end up marginalized.
I think the other thing to keep in mind is that in the next few years, it is very likely, perhaps virtually certain, that there will be advances in technology which have major impacts on nearly all aspects of geopolitics. So that the question of Jewish Republicans is kind of pissing in the ocean.
omw_68
4d ago
In Israel, you can vote for the racist party (Likud), the extremely racist party (Religious Zionism), or the racism über alles party (Otzma Yehudit, literally "Jewish Power"). You can even vote for the pro-racism but anti-Netanyahu party (Together), or the pretending-not-to-be-racist party (Yashar).
I'm really curious how you are defining the word "racist." Mainly because in most circles (but not necessarily on this discussion board) the word is a major pejorative, one of the worst things a person can be accused of. And because it's also one of those social justice words like "apartheid" and "genocide" with strategically flexible definitions depending on who/whom.
For what it may be worth, I mentioned carrying books as a metaphor for all activities where the man does favors for the woman. In any event, I tend to disagree with your analysis. A man could easily spend all his waking hours doing favors for unrelated women in his community: Carrying things, lifting things, fixing things, and so on. It doesn't make sense that a man would be expected to do such a thing.
Also, your hypothesis doesn't explain why men today often have a strong (but counterproductive) instinctive urge to do nice things for women they find attractive.
More options
Context Copy link