| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
 Posted - 01/28/2007 : 06:53:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Because my other thread went wildly beyond the scope of the topic I brought up, I thought I'd try again with a new thread. Feel free to discuss racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and all the other evils of the world on the other thread, but on this thread, I would like to hear opinions on the addition of films with racist titles. There has not been a clear consensus yet.
I repeat - I think this is Benj's call.
If I were Benj, I'd add them all. |
 |
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 10:52:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
In rethinking this while offline, it occurred to me that people I have met from Trinidad have never referred to themselves as being from "Trinidad and Tobago". So I don't think I've offended Trinidadians. But I may have offended the Tobagons.
You've got this the wrong way round. Your review does not expicitly mention Tobago, so it is the Trinidadians who could be offended, but more likely the Jamaicans.
quote:
The review may be offensive to the Bobsled people. I'm surprised you haven't taken up this argument.
I agree that reviews should be accurate, but countries/species (an inaccuracy which often occurs) are much more serious than sporting equipment, for me. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/29/2007 10:55:12 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 10:54:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Not necessarily. The trend is moving quickly to use the term Native American instead of American Indian, much like the use of the word Eskimo has fallen into disfavor.
I just mentioned it as the dictionary specified that (illogically) it was O.K. Personally, I always use Native American.
See my other post about Eskimo. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 11:09:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I'm sorry, Salopian, but again, your estimation simply does not reflect the facts on the ground.
After 1948, the Palestinian territories were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. In 1967, Egypt started a war and Israel captured the territories. Since 1967, Israel has occupied the territories for diplomatic and security reasons too complicated to go into here, but since the 1990s, the Israelis have slowly ceded control over the territories to the Palestinian Authority. Only a biblical scholar would argue that the Palestinian territories have a Jewish character because they are part of the Land of Israel that God promised to Abraham, but a scholar would have to be mad to look at current international politics and conclude that the Palestinian territories are Jewish in character.
I didn't mean to suggest that the Jewish settlements in the occupied areas meant that the West Bank/Gaza Strip had anything like as Jewish a character as Israel. I just meant that one could interpret the reviews in question as not referring to those territories overall, but just certain parts of them. If there are (m)any whole villages in other countries that are Jewish, then this would counter this low-level validity. Regardless of whether control has been ceded, there were certainly still settlements within the last year or two, which is what is relevant. I also do not happen to know whether there are now none - please feel free to confirm this. My view is that reviews which become inaccurate should be removed, but others disagree.
More importantly, I think it is over-positive in the extreme to say that the territories were occupied for 'diplomacy' reasons, and the validity of the 'security' reasons is very shaky. Please note that I have no reason to be anything other than objective in this issue. I am making this point because your post above makes it clear that you identify with Israel to a fairly significant degree, thereby disproving your previous claim. While it is still theoretically possible that this is not the case for most American Jews, I was correct in my original judgment of your own position. |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 15:39:59
|
| Jumping straight to the last message after a long hiatus from this thread, it's clear to me that the second attempt to stay on-topic was just as successful as the first! |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 16:48:37
|
| Ah well. I think GHcool has still got everyone's answers, though. Given that, currently, Benj has to add all films, he will also be able to make his position clear should anyone submit any of the films in question. |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 18:02:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I'm sorry, Salopian, but again, your estimation simply does not reflect the facts on the ground.
After 1948, the Palestinian territories were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. In 1967, Egypt started a war and Israel captured the territories. Since 1967, Israel has occupied the territories for diplomatic and security reasons too complicated to go into here, but since the 1990s, the Israelis have slowly ceded control over the territories to the Palestinian Authority. Only a biblical scholar would argue that the Palestinian territories have a Jewish character because they are part of the Land of Israel that God promised to Abraham, but a scholar would have to be mad to look at current international politics and conclude that the Palestinian territories are Jewish in character.
I didn't mean to suggest that the Jewish settlements in the occupied areas meant that the West Bank/Gaza Strip had anything like as Jewish a character as Israel. I just meant that one could interpret the reviews in question as not referring to those territories overall, but just certain parts of them. If there are (m)any whole villages in other countries that are Jewish, then this would counter this low-level validity. Regardless of whether control has been ceded, there were certainly still settlements within the last year or two, which is what is relevant. I also do not happen to know whether there are now none - please feel free to confirm this. My view is that reviews which become inaccurate should be removed, but others disagree.
More importantly, I think it is over-positive in the extreme to say that the territories were occupied for 'diplomacy' reasons, and the validity of the 'security' reasons is very shaky. Please note that I have no reason to be anything other than objective in this issue. I am making this point because your post above makes it clear that you identify with Israel to a fairly significant degree, thereby disproving your previous claim. While it is still theoretically possible that this is not the case for most American Jews, I was correct in my original judgment of your own position.
The Jewish population of New York City and Los Angeles is more than double the Jewish population in the West Bank and Gaza. Does this mean NYC and LA could be referenced in reviews about Jews?
Also, you might want to do some research before challenging my claim that the occupation is presently vital to Israel's security. Its not shaky at all and as objective as you can get. Nobody, not even moderate Palestinians, denies this. Feel free to PM me if you would like me to prove it, but I don't think this thread is the proper place.
As I said earlier, I am not a "typical" American Jew with a passive support for Israel in principle. Because I have family there and because I visited it numerous times and am knowledgable about its history and culture, I am an exception to the rule. The fact that I strongly identify with the Israelis does not prove anything about American Jews in general. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 22:38:02
|
Being Jewish is not why I support Israel. I stand by Israel for the same reason the United States government does: because it is an island of civility floating upon a sea of barbarity and medievalism. There is no other country in that region that the United States and our allies can really trust, not even Saudi Arabia. Israel must be supported by the rest of the civilized world. Anything less and you might as well be cheering those lunatics in Iran.
But on some level, I also support Israel because I'm Jewish. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that I feel the need to defend Israel because I know anti-Semitism is without a doubt the only reason why most of the world doesn't. The UN (mostly the US and Western Europe) created the State of Israel because it seemed like the right thing to do after all those countries sat idly by and did nothing about the Holocaust. And most of Europe and the rest of the world has regretted it ever since, and has made that abundantly clear over the decades. This was never more obvious than this past summer when most of the world condemned Israel for defending itself against an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah. There is no other country on Earth that would EVER be condemned for using deadly force to destroy a hostile army that is murdering its civilian populace on a daily basis. If you sent your own children to school every morning not knowing if you'd ever see them alive again, you would DEMAND your government use whatever means was at its disposal to destroy your enemies. Israel is the only country in the entire world held to a different standard, and the usual excuse for this (when someone even bothers to provide one) is that it's because it's "about the Palestinians." Well, nobody seemed to care that Hezbollah (unlike Hamas) is not a Palestinian organization and they're not "fighting for their freedom" or anything like that. They are a proxy army funded and trained by Iran and their only goal is to kill as many Israelis and Jews as possible, and there's nothing they can be given - like their own state - that will ever stop them. Of course, the whole world knew all that, but that didn't stop them from condemning Israel anyway without even bothering to pay lip service to its right to defend itself. And as usual, France was leading the charge all the way. Typical...
But I should say I disagree with most of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. Or at least, I did until Hamas took over the Palestinian government without bothering to cease its terrorist activities. You want to be the government now? Great! Act like it, and do what's best for your people: firing rockets at Israel isn't it. Your side lost 60 years ago. It's time to take what you can get, because every day you keep fighting what's being offered is less and less. |
Edited by - Downtown on 01/31/2007 22:41:04 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 23:00:43
|
| I'd like to clarify something however, Downtown. It is not because you are Jewish that you identify with Israel; it is because you support an ally of the United States and because you believe in the right to self determination for all peoples including Jews. I am sure that if the tables were turned; that is, if there ever was an Israeli government based solely on ancient Jewish law and subjected women, homosexuals, and non-Jews to daily humiliation, that did not enjoy similar freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion enjoyed by the United States, that was not a democracy, etc. etc., I would expect you would be against the State of Israel. Despite being Jewish, perhaps because I am Jewish, I would be totally against such a state, but fortunately, my political/moral values and the values of the Israeli government are, for the most part, in sync. Unfortunately for Israel and the rest of the modern world, societies such as the one I described is the norm in the Middle East. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 01:36:58
|
Well it should be pointed out that the Palestinians are sometimes treated that way and that's sad. But that can't be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to attacks by non-Palestinian groups sponsored by rogue states dedicated to Israel's total destruction.
Anyway, it's a controversial position that many people don't share and I have to respect that. And I should stress that when I criticize states and governments it shouldn't be taken personally by individuals from those nations, just like I don't take it personally when people criticize the US of A. Hey I criticize it, too. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 02:48:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
This was never more obvious than this past summer when most of the world condemned Israel for defending itself against an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah.
I don't believe the condemnation was for Israel 'defending' itself. It was for the means used and for the perceived purpose of the 'defense'. What was achieved there? I don't know. Has the threat from Hizbollah been reduced? I doubt it. What was achieved was the killing of large numbers of people who were not Hizbollah killers, and the destruction of a big chunk of a city. And probably the alienation of plenty of neutral people who are now enemies of Israel.
Most of those who condemned Israel were consistent with their condemnation of the USA for it's response to 9/11. The same logic applies; the USA was attacked, 3000 were killed, and subsequently the USA has killed directly or indirectly 100 times that number of people, virtually all of whom had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever, and in the process created a dangerously unstable mess in the Middle East.
So put me on the list of critics of the Israeli and the USA govenments for their responses to a threat. It isn't anti-Semitism, I just don't believe that if someone kills my brother that I've got the right to respond by killing his brother and his cousin's children if I can't find the man responsible.quote:
There is no other country on Earth that would EVER be condemned for using deadly force to destroy a hostile army that is murdering its civilian populace on a daily basis.
I disagree. There are numerous cases when governments have been condemned for responding to terrorism with excessive military action and major civilian deaths. Eg, USA condemned for 9/11 response. Russia condemned for response to Chechen 'terrorists'. Britain condemned for excessive violence in Northern Ireland in a general response to attacks by the IRA in the UK. Etc.quote:
But I should say I disagree with most of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. Or at least, I did until Hamas took over the Palestinian government without bothering to cease its terrorist activities. You want to be the government now? Great! Act like it, and do what's best for your people: firing rockets at Israel isn't it. Your side lost 60 years ago. It's time to take what you can get, because every day you keep fighting what's being offered is less and less.
I tend to have opinions on most things  , but "achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace" ain't one of those things I've got a clue about, and I'm not sure anyone does. But I can't see any chance of peace as long as one side sees refugee camps for "the other side" as being a tenable long-term option, but principally while one side sees "wiping another country off the map" as being an achievable option let alone an acceptable one; not only is it evil, it's also denial of reality.  |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 02:53:40
|
Speaking of global controversies, I for one believe that Tobago is just riding Trinidad's coat tails, even if they have nothing to do with those Cuban bobsledders.
 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 03:02:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Well it should be pointed out that the Palestinians are sometimes treated that way and that's sad.
Another slight clarification:
It is not the Israelis that subject women, homosexuals, and non-Arabs to humiliation in the Palestinian territories. Nor is it Israel that denies the Palestinians freedom of speech and freedom of the press (if it did, Hamas probably couldn't exist). Furthermore, it was Israel (and America) that pressured the Palestinians into a democratic system.
The Palestinians have suffered terribly since 1948 (and perhaps before that), and Israel certainly continues to deserves some of the blame, but I'd like to make it clear that Israelis work very hard to limit the "feel" of the occupation to a minimum, while the Arab world continues to maximize that feel and that reality. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 03:23:46
|
Sean, although I disagree with you, I would never dream of calling you or what you wrote anti-Semitic.
As for the war this summer, I was in Israel at the time and monitored international reactions very closely. When the war started on July 12, the world was sympathetic to Israel because an attack from a nation is the same thing as an attack by a nation, and Israel was attacked repeatedly. It wasn't until roughly 2 weeks into the war that the world started criticizing Israel for what they called a disproportionate number of casualties.
This is comparable to 9/11 because the world supported the U.S.'s invasion of Afghanistan (at first). However, if you meant to compare the casus belli for the Israel-Hezbollah War with the casus belli for the Iraq War, then the comparison is unfair, especially now with the benefit of hindsight. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 03:45:45
|
When an army sets up weapons on your front lawn to attack your neighbors, it's not your neighbors that are responsible for what happens when they fire back. International law has established that armies that use civilians as human shields are the ones responsible for civilian casualties, not the opposing army that's defending itself, and only Israel is held to a different standard. You can criticize American foreign policy (quite easily, I might add), but only when those targets in Iraq and Afghanistan become missile launching pads for daily attacks on New York and Chicago can you compare it to Hezbollah's attack on Israel and the response.
Of course, the predictable and wrong reaction from the international community is precisely what Hezbollah and their backers in Iran wanted. With Israel was faced with the choice of simply being shot at (like during the first Gulf War) or causing serious collateral damage trying to knock out mobile rocket launchers in residential communities, it was a win/win situation for Iran. Either they kill lots of Israelis or they galvanize the world against Israel. And Iran had nothing to lose, because they're fighting a proxy war on Lebanese soil, not their own. And no matter what happens, it provides more cover for them to continue developing a nuclear weapon, which most of the world probably hypocritically hopes Israel will destroy for them just like they did the last time in Iraq (even countries Israel can't count on can still count on Israel to do their dirty work for them). Hmmm...I'd love to see a complete list of everywhere Iran got their knowledge and technology from.
Edit: I'm not going to post on this particular subject anymore but I'll keep reading the responses because I do find all opinions interesting including those contrary to mine. |
Edited by - Downtown on 02/01/2007 04:51:00 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Racist films (2nd try)
