This is the first I’ve heard of it, but here’s one of his infamous quotes:
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews.
I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”
His other quotes tend to be condemnation about specifically Israeli zionism and barbaric murder, but i don’t have context as to whether he’s referring to palestine or not. Some people might have more sympathy for these statements these days, but a lot of his other quotes have to do with Jews controlling money and media, less defensible prejudice.
“A stinker like Hitler” lmfao I mean yes Dahl is clearly prejudiced and that’s the understatement of the century re: Hitler but that was hysterical to read.
That ol’ rascal Hitler!
This is just British way of speaking.
“I’m in a spot of trouble”
“Off, that was a nasty business”
A lot of times the mild language is used for stuff that would get kicked off Liveleak for being too extreme
It’s not just the British, the Irish indulge in this too.
30-year civil war at the end of four centuries of sectarian violence: “The Troubles”.
The deadliest conflict in human history (WWII): “The Emergency”
It’s also just kind of a dated way of talking, I understand the context and all of that. Doesn’t make it any less funny to say out loud
In “The Ballad of Bill Hubbard,” Roger Waters plays a clip from a World War 1 veteran talking about some of his trauma from the war. He talks about finding a friend of his who’d been lying alone in a trench for days and nights with a probably-fatal wound, and then trying to get him out. How did the guy summarize his situation when the speaker first found him?
“Cor, hello Razz, I’m glad to see you. This is my second night here. I’m feeling bad.”
I understood some of that what is Liveleak?
An old video site known for having some stuff that was too extreme for YouTube (people dying or etc)
I completely agree, I did chuckle out loud in bewilderment when I read that wholly incommensurate epithet.
“A stinker like Hitler”.
Absurd.
Watch out for that rapscallion Mussolini! He’ll give you a real walloping!
“You be careful or you might run into that upstart Zodiac Killer!”
“Pol Pot, amirite? That li’l ragamuffin, huh? Such a character.”
It definitely stands out, maybe as our vernacular has shifted so far to hyperbole, that every statement is “slamming, blasting, annihilating”.
I could certainly see that
I was called into this thread to give my opinion as a bona fide and official Jew. I will say this about Roald Dahl- yes, he was an antisemite. But I still grew up with his books. Even my dad, who was incredibly sensitive to antisemitism and definitely knew about Dahl could not deny that he was an amazing writer both of children’s books and macabre adult fiction. I remember specifically that he gave me The Twits when I was a kid, while at my also very sensitive to antisemitism grandparents’ house. I don’t remember others he gave me, but I really enjoyed that one, so I remember it.
I don’t know, I guess we all have the occasional intentional blind spot for these things. Sometimes people are just so talented that you have to overlook their flaws. Of course, some flaws can’t be overlooked. I won’t watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won’t watch the work of a pedophile.
But Roald Dahl’s racism was one where didn’t actually do anything to hurt Jews. As the quote says, he wasn’t even pro-Hitler. So I can get past it due to his talent. He was not the real danger to my ancestors in his lifetime and he was not responsible for a genocide. On top of that, he didn’t extend his bigotry to any of his novels that I ever read.
You can’t say as much for H. G. Wells, who had a virulently antisemitic moment in War of the Worlds. It’s considered a classic these days. And what about beloved Charles Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist? I would bet that the character of Fagin caused a lot more issues with British Jews than anything Roald Dahl said or did considering that novel was and is so popular that 19 films based on it have been made, including one based on a hit Broadway musical.
Piece of shit rapist Roman Polanski made a straight remake as recently as 2005 (and that’s just weird because he’s Jewish). It did really well at the box office and got a lot of positive reviews.
Imagine if a book with a character that was a disgusting caricature of a black person in it who is also one of the villains of the book and they were still making movies about it within our lifetime.
Edit: Also re Oliver Twist, I hear that in the version Alec Guinness is in, he’s an especially antisemitic Fagin, but I’m going to choose to never watch it and pretend that isn’t true because that man was amazing. Never mind Star Wars, ever see Kind Hearts and Coronets? He plays 8 members of the same family- believably- including a woman.
Jonathan Pryce received a fair bit of criticism in the nineties for his “politically correct” (read, not explicitly antisemitic) portrayal of Fagin in the musical Oliver!. Listening back to the cast recording, it’s actually a revelation — Reviewing the Situation, which had always been played for antisemitic laughs, is suddenly revealed as an incredibly powerful song, brimming with pathos.
I don’t feel like Fagin is explicitly Jewish in that version. I only found out it was originally “Fagin the Jew” later in life. He’s kind of a loveable rogue with a London accent.
Edit: wrong version of the film, on second thoughts I think he might definitely be definitely supposed to be definitely Jewish in the Alec Guinness version.
I really don’t think that makes it much better.
Imagine if the original written version A Christmas Carol had a big, stupid, lazy black character that was also needlessly aggressive. And then they made a movie, but instead of “Big Black Buck” or whatever Dickens decided to name him, he was changed to “Buck” and was played by a white guy? I doubt people would say that was a story worth making a movie about at all if you’re going to have to erase the racism to make it work for a modern audience.
Well that would be Huckleberry Finn wouldn’t it, I’m not sure if there’s a film. Don’t get me started on The “Merchant” of Venice, either.
Apparently played by Serge Nubret in one version. That’s incredibly funny to me.
Absolutely not Huckleberry Finn. Jim has a terrible nickname, but the whole point is that Huck and Jim become the closest of friends and companions despite Jim being black. It is an *anti-*racist book.
Here’s Twain with his long-time friend John T. Lewis. He said of him, “I have not known an honester man nor a more respect-worthy one.” Lewis apparently inspired Jim in the novel.
Twain (or more properly Clemens) and Lewis grew up together going to the same church in Maryland, which had slaves but also a large free black population, and that church was an abolitionist church and had been since the late 18th century.
https://marktwainstudies.com/john-t-lewis-mark-twain-a-friendship/
But yes, definitely The Merchant of Venice. People think the “hath not a Jew eyes” speech makes up for the rest of the play. Gee, thanks for recognizing Jews as not some sort of other species from you. Very generous, Shakespeare.
I know, I know. I’m being facetious.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that. Anyway, I hope this might have helped someone else who hasn’t read Huckleberry Finn and only knows about Jim’s racist nickname.
This is the crux of a lot of the counter arguments to ‘cancel culture’. Don’t get me wrong, if you’re a racist shitbag, or a pedophile, you are a terribly flawed human, but that doesn’t detract from other merits in other areas in my opinion. This may seem like a cop out, or an excuse for shitty behavior, but in my view you can be ‘Flying Squid, the Nobel Laureate in physics and Racist Cocksniffer’. Humans are very complex beings: how can we fit them into black and white categories of good and bad?
I had an emotionally volatile childhood, devoid of positive influences that were beyond reproach. People I looked up to certainly had their flaws. I quickly learned to take the best out of what they had to offer, and be mindful of their faults. If we simply discarded people who were flawed we wouldn’t have many people around us. Similarly, think about how much music came out of the 60s. Now think about how shitty a lot of those artists were, morally. Does that make their music less beautiful? No, but it does add an overtone, I suppose.
Piece of shit rapist Roman Polanski made a straight remake as recently as 2005 (and that’s just weird because he’s Jewish).
Well - you kind of answered your own reservation there: He’s a piece of shit rapist. So I believe it’s safe to say his main character traits are probably not defined by the religion he was born into, which makes it not quite so weird to me, as I generally do not try to rationalize behavior of people who have otherwise proven a complete disconnect from ethical norms.
I won’t watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won’t watch the work of a pedophile.
I already had one Lemming absolutely lose their shit when I challenged them on this assumption, I hope you won’t be another one. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
You mean apart from the word of the person he molested, right?
Yes, I know, “she was coached.”
She was 7. I know I don’t have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.
The simple fact is that neither of us know for sure what, if anything, happened. That’s why I find it curious when people jump to the “he’s 100% guilty” point of view.
“During the investigation the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan and the allegation was probably coached or influenced by Mia Farrow. The New York Department of Social Services found “no credible evidence” to support the allegation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
It happened to me when I was 8 (not by Woody Allen). I can still remember every detail. It sticks with you
I’m sorry to hear that. Surely you can accept that everybody is different and that may not be the case for someone else?
I can. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume I know what everyone’s experience is, or to claim my experience is the single universal experience.
Surely you can accept that it is the case for some
Of course. I hope you’re in a good place now.
Why are you willing to believe this person’s claims? No experts have weighed in at all.
Blocking you now. Your approach to this discussion has been embarrassing.
She was 7. I know I don’t have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.
What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?
Maybe believe victims.
What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?
Like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.
Maybe believe victims.
Good grief, no. Take victims seriously, give them support, get their story, investigate, absolutely. Believe everything everybody says who identifies as a victim? That’s asinine.
Scroll up, you didn’t answer my question. You’re choosing to believe something based on what evidence? Please explain why you’re certain when the people who actually investigated these allegations are not.
Like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.
That is not an answer. What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7? Because, believe it or not, people remember traumatic things that happen to them at that age quite well. They spend years in therapy because of it.
There’s a difference between remembering something traumatic and remembering what happened at your birthday party.
Also, let’s say she isn’t “100% confident.” Let’s say she’s “70% confident.” Maybe still believe her.
The man literally made a movie, at age 44, where he’s fucking a high schooler.
Again, maybe believe her.
“On August 17, 1992, the Connecticut State Police announced that they were investigating the molestation allegation. In September the police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital. The main questions were whether Dylan was telling the truth and whether she was sexually abused. Frank Maco, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield district, declared in 1997 that he asked the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to evaluate whether Dylan would make a viable witness. The clinic’s professionals met with the police and Maco for preliminary information. Between September 18 and November 13 they conducted nine separate interviews with Dylan and her mother. On October 14 they interviewed Groteke, and between November 17 and January 7 they had three interviews with Allen. Finally, they met with Farrow to review the recording she had made of Dylan between August 5 and 6. Berge, the other nanny present on August 4, was also interviewed, as were the two psychotherapists treating the children, Coates and Nancy Schultz. The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic medical director, Dr. John M. Leventhal, signed the team’s report while Dylan was interviewed by the social workers. Completed in March 1993, the report concluded: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
You’re still refusing to answer a simple question. More to the point, what on earth gives you the confidence to pass judgement from a distance when your judgement is 100% at odds with experts who were directly involved in the case?
Again, maybe believe her.
You piss off the wrong person, they go to the police with a story that you committed a violent sexual assault against them. You didn’t.
By your logic, you’re a rapist.
See how stupid that is?
You would make a great witness to the a crime…I would love you if I was defending.
I don’t follow?
How about marrying your adopted child as soon as they are of legal age?
Neither of those things are true.
I much prefer this stance to shutting down the museum. They acknowledge the issue in a way that allows people to form opinions and act in a way they are comfortable with.
Definitely, this was the right move by the museum.
don’t have context as to whether he’s referring to palestine or not
In 1990, during an interview with The Independent, Dahl explained that his issue with Israel began when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. “they killed 22,000 civilians when they bombed Beirut. It was very much hushed up in the newspapers because they are primarily Jewish-owned. I’m certainly anti-Israeli and I’ve become antisemitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It’s the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren’t any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that’s why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel.”
I didn’t realize he was referring specifically to Lebanon. Thank you for that context.
I have that quote in another comment somewhere.
That’s what I was referencing when I was saying people can probably relate to his anti-israeli stance because of recent events.
He doesn’t need to be specifically referring Gaza when speaking about the large scale land theft and genocide of the Palestinian people perpetrated by the state of Israel. The region of Palestine was stolen, not just area that is Gaza.
Israel was created largely because powerful people in Europe wanted the Jewish people out of Europe. Its very foundations are antisemitic. These notions of a Jewish state in Palestine started to have widespread antisemitic support before WWII and immediately after WWI.
Dahl may have been the type of bigot to be antisemitic and against Zionism. They aren’t directly linked hand in hand.
“He doesn’t need to be specifically referring Gaza when speaking about the large scale land theft and genocide of the Palestinian people perpetrated by the state of Israel.”
I doubt he was.
“Dahl may have been the type of bigot to be antisemitic and against Zionism. They aren’t directly linked hand in hand.”
Yes, those views are precisely his stated prejudices in the above quotes.
He doesn’t seem to have linked those two instances directly or causally, each is a skewed reasoming for why he doesn’t like jews in general, within or without Israel.
Yeah I wrote that before you edited your post, you mentioned Gaza. All good in the hood my dude!
Gooot it, no sweat.
Didn’t want anyone else getting confused over gaza/Palestine, or me and Roald Dahl, haha.
deleted by creator
All for Jewish folks living with the folks that live there. Indeed the Jewish people never left. A state is not required for this. Genociding a people and stealing their homes, starving them, is not peaceful coexistence. The eugenics aspect of your argument is totally gross and hard to gloss over. DNA purity is a buck wild bigoted argument.
How do you square that up with the horrific persecution of the peoples who have lived in that land for the intermediary 2000 years?
So all the Jews in the US are gonna give their land back to the natives, right?
GTFO here with this dumb shit
A little blood and land…where have we heard that before? You’re just a plain old fascist.
When an interviewer asked Maurice Sendak (of Where the Wild Things Are fame) about Dahl, his response was memorable: “The cruelty in his books is off-putting. Scary guy. I know he’s very popular but what’s nice about this guy? He’s dead, that’s what’s nice about him.”
People are so much more professional back in the day.
If someone asked me about Bill Cosby, I would immediately go, “Yeah fuck that dude he drugged and raped women. All the good shit he did and he was a shitbag.”
Ha! Thank you, that’s amazing.
Great piece of history
Yep, he was a piece of shit in many ways.
The stories are still pretty great, though.
The stories are undeniably fantastic, how else was he a piece of shit?
Let me TIL something else about the guy.
deleted by creator
The reality is that most people are terrible people, especially when we look at them years later, once the dust has settled.
(Look into what Dr. Seuss did to his first wife)
I remember reading a similar “dark” article about seuss.
Cheated on her?
Yes, cheated on her while she had an incurable wasting disease and married her friend.
“Helen Geisel struggled for more than a decade with partial paralysis from Guillain-Barré syndrome. Depressed by her worsening symptoms and possibly by suspicions of her husband’s affair with a close friend who would become his second wife, Helen took her own life in October 1967 at the age of 69. “I am too old and enmeshed in everything you do and are, that I cannot conceive of life without you,” read her suicide note. “My going will leave quite a rumor, but you can say I was overworked and overwrought. Your reputation with your friends and fans will not be harmed.””
Let’s all try to be kinder.
I will.
Can you share the source?
He was a POS, much like Lovecraft and Rowling.
Someone else mentioned this, but didn’t follow up with any examples.
I am ready to TIL, how else was Roald Dahl a POS?
The racism maybe?
The racism definitely; that’s the topic of the original post actually, but there are a lot of oblique references to him being a bad person aside from his racism, but nobody has provided any examples yet.
Here is a list of controversial actions and statements attributed to Roald Dahl:
-
Made numerous anti-Semitic comments, including stating there were reasons for Hitler’s actions against Jews[1][4].
-
Expressed anti-Israel sentiments and admitted to becoming anti-Semitic[4].
-
Used racial and sexual stereotypes in his writing[3].
-
Included racist depictions of Oompa-Loompas as African pygmies in early versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory[4].
-
Incorporated themes of child abuse, neglect, racism, sexual innuendo, and fat-shaming in children’s books[4].
-
Used coarse language and drug references in works intended for children[4].
-
Originally described Matilda as a “devilish little hussy” before editors intervened[4].
-
Engaged in long-term adultery, having an affair with a friend of his wife[1].
-
Displayed a mean and unpleasant personality, earning the nickname “Roald the Rotten”[1].
-
Expressed chauvinistic attitudes, frequently portraying women negatively in his stories[1][3].
-
Showed a lack of remorse for his controversial statements and views[1][4].
Citations: [1] The dark side of Roald Dahl - BBC https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160912-the-dark-side-of-roald-dahl [2] The hundreds of changes made to Roald Dahl’s books to suit a new … https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1154tr5/the_hundreds_of_changes_made_to_roald_dahls_books/ [3] Roald Dahl revision controversy - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl_revision_controversy [4] What’s the Deal With… Roald Dahl? - Becandbooks https://becandbooks.com/whats-the-deal-with-roald-dahl/ [5] After family apology, 5 antisemitic Roald Dahl quotes - The Forward https://forward.com/fast-forward/349771/roald-dahls-family-has-apologized-for-his-jew-hatred-what-were-the-5-worst/
Now that I am fully informed, I have decided to continue being a huge fan of his work. Of the authors of delightful stories that I have enjoyed in my life, this is probably not even top 20 assholery.
Most of these are in the OP or other comments, thanks for putting them in one place.
-
deleted by creator
Thanks. I irresponsibly overlooked that.
Apparently he was a big ol’ troll.
“I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak.”[201] Amelia Foster, director of the Roald Dahl Museum in Great Missenden, says: “This is again an example of how Dahl refused to take anything seriously, even himself. He was very angry at the Israelis.”
“Dahl wanted to provoke, as he always provoked at dinner. His publisher was a Jew, his agent was a Jew… and he thought nothing but good things of them. He asked me to be his managing director, and I’m Jewish.”
And just as with countless trolls, low-tier comedians, etc., if someone is intentionally being a huge asshole, even if only for the lulz and “it’s just a prank bruh/did I trigger you?” of it all, they are still being a huge asshole.
True that
Not to condone it but it was the zeitgeist. There were so many so much worse from that period across all forms of media. His mildly toxic edginess is at least not hidden away.
I heard something like this on…Reddit? Maybe. A while ago. They said something akin to while Dahl was racist he didn’t let it encroach upon his writting like Lovecraft. I don’t really read Lovecraft (haven’t since a long, long time ago) but I do have a compillation of Dahl’s writings. And I liked them. Didn’t feel put off by them, outside of the fact that he can write some gross stuff. I am not sure what else to say on the subject other than it stinks.
I know lovecraft was racist in his personal writings, but I can’t recall any specific exams of it inside his fiction.
He wrote so many stories, I would guess it must have somewhere, but I don’t remember any and I’ve read almost all of lovecraft.
I should fill in the gaps with Lovecraft actually and finish the rest of it.
That’s great you got a collection of Roald Dahl, I’ve definitely read all of his books multiple times, they are great.
I don’t see evidence of racism inside Dahl’s works either, except for like the oompa loompa is coming from Africa, being African pygmies?
I know lovecraft was racist in his personal writings, but I can’t recall any specific exams of it inside his fiction.
The glaring example.“The Rats in The Walls” had a cat called “removed Man”.
And of course admins censor the N word. Jesus Christ this world we live in is fucking scuffed.
Ah, thanks, I’ll look at that
There’s quite a few less obvious examples in how he explains black people like animals. He also does the same with Asians. Dude was a man of the times lol
Leaving aside his poetry and his collaborative works, here are some other examples of racism in Lovecraft stories.
“The Rats in the Walls” features a cat named “N----- Man”
“The Horror at Red Hook” refers to a villain as “an Arab with a hatefully negroid mouth”
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward: “the wife [had] a very repulsive cast of countenance, probably due to a mixture of negro blood.”
Herbert West: Reanimator contains a particularly problematic bit of description:
The negro had been knocked out, and a moment’s examination shewed us that he would permanently remain so. He was a loathsome, gorilla-like thing, with abnormally long arms which I could not help calling fore legs, and a face that conjured up thoughts of unspeakable Congo secrets and tom-tom poundings under an eerie moon. The body must have looked even worse in life—but the world holds many ugly things.
Edit: this is entirely copy pasta
Mm, I believe it, I am was so into the eldritch descriptions I must have glossed over the racist shit, lovecraft country is what brought it to my attention originally.
And I haven’t read his does rice that show aired.
I didn’t realize it was based off a book, I want to read that, now
Lovecraft country was so good. Shame about majors.
I will argue though what I love about Lovecraft country is probably not what most people did.
I loved his books as a child. As an adult I read them to my kids and I’m strick by a lot of inappropriate language, normal for the time. Racism, fat shaming, child abuse.
Its problematic, and if I was black, I dont know that I’d be comfortable reading descriptions of oompa loompas to my child in a world full of racists. It made me wonder if I should not have read it to munchokd, who would not understand the stereotypes used, nor the allegory to slavery.
Yeah he was fun for his time but is painfully out dated now
I mean kinda, I had fun reading his adult stuff as an adult. But to each their own. Also this was a handful of years back. So I’ve got the jist of what I read but can’t give you a thorough play by play. But I will say as an individual who is a minority, of a minority, of a minority (the lazy way of saying I have some intersectionality going on here) that I don’t remember being outright terribly sad face offended. Which when that happens, I tend to put down whatever I am reading/doing/going to and never pick it back up.
People discriminate against each other for all kinds of stupid reasons. Yeah, the word racism gets used for groups that aren’t actually genetic in nature sometimes. Let’s not be pedantic about the terminology used to describe discrimination against groups that have been the victims of genocide though.
There is a word for that though, bigot. Racism is effectively a subclass of bigotry that is more specific. If we have a word for it already we should use that instead.
thank you, this is what i was getting at
Racists make this argument so often it’s tiresome, ‘Jewish isn’t a religion’ always comes from the same idiots who say ‘this person cant be trusted because they’re a Jew, look their great grandmother was Jewish!’
And ‘I’m not a racist, just a bigot!’ What’s even the point?
Oh and interesting side fact, bigot likely comes from the phrase ‘by god’ which was often used by religious hypocrites and became a byword for intensely religious hypocrites. It came into English during conflict between protestants and catholics - suggesting racism is a sub category of bigotry implies acceptance of the modern meaning derived through common use over time… which is what you’re trying to reject for the word antisemitism, kinda seems then that it’s not a honest approach you’re taking but have brought into logic from racists who are trying to find semantic cover for their hatred of a group of people based on traits they believe are biologically innate in that group.
I think bigots deserve the same level of disdain as racists and/or antisemites. If racist/racism has become a common and accepted terminology to describe people that hate based on a common trait other than race then I stand corrected. Sorry my attempt to clarify someone elses point has lead you to believe I hold hatred for any group based on their race, religion, or other inherited trait. And sorry if I walked into a talking point from racists, I tend not to interact with them online or offline.
If I hold hatred towards anyone it’s bigots and racists. What I’ll tell you I’ve witnessed is the racism against Ethiopian Jews by Israeli Jews when they fled to a country that was supposedly their promise land. So when trying to have an intelligent discussion about this topic I do think it’s fair to state bigots in Ethiopia forced people of their own race out of the country only for those that fled to go and face racists in a country that supoosedly shared their religious values. I hope this clarifies why I thought the distinction might be worthwhile. I understand language is ever evolving but I think there is a distinction between the origin of a word that is hundreds of years old verses what is still listed in most dictionaries. Again I’m not rejecting the strong presence of antisemitism throughout the world, I’m saying I see it as a subclass of bigotry the same as racism. Also again, whether I call someone an antisemite or a bigot I’ll hold the same level of disdain for them.
I can only out words on the internet and it up to you to believe them but I hope you understand I wasn’t coming from a place of any form of bigotry.
i mean i’m against all religions, but i’m not going to let anyone call me a racist because of that
Well if you say there is “a trait in a group of peoples’ character” then you should be called racist. This has nothing to do with being against religions.
so…if you condemn scientology, then you’re a racist?
It’s not about who you condemn, dude. It’s about what exactly you condemn them about. That really shouldnt be such a complicated concept.
it’s not complicated. “jewish” is not a race. simple
Sorry, I don’t get your reference.
Do you mean he’s not racist because Jewish isn’t a race?
In other quotes, he’s much more clear that he’s talking about Israeli people, like with zionism.
“I’m certainly anti-Israeli and I’ve become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It’s the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren’t any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that’s why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel.”
It definitely seems to depend on which aspect of Jewish or Israeli culture or stereotypes he has problems with.
For good reason of course, Jewish rights organizations talk about themselves as Jews rather than as Israelis.
Not exactly the funnest mud puddle to skip through.
deleted by creator
Secular Jews would likely disagree with that.
secular jews call themselves a race?
There’s plenty of non-religious people who identify as Jewish, yes.
There’s plenty of non-religious people who identify as Jewish, yes.
right. but the question was: according to secular jews, “Jewish” = “race”?
If not race, then what?
you can convert to judaism and literally become jewish, even though you weren’t born into a jewish family. setting aside all the shit going on in politics right now, you cannot “decide” to become a different race
“Jewish” can describe race, ethnicity, culture, nationality, religion, or any combination of the above, depending on who’s using the word and in what context.
ethnic group
I’ve seen another individual argue that it is in fact a race due to bloodlines running back to the source. I’ve gotta say I’ve got some of that fresh-squeezed jew-blood and even though I wasn’t really raised around any Jewish folk and clearly am not religiously Jewish I have been picked out by practicing individuals for having some of that blood in me. As well as others, who are like me and miserable mutts cast to roam the Earth forever being mystery meat =P!
Perhaps there’s levels to this though? I mean with the bigotry. I am not saying it’s all roses, cause it ain’t. But I am saying maybe when we get to the extreme that we want to wipe individuals from the Earth whomever they are (and whomever is thinking this) that’s when we really know we’re in the wrong. Then again I would cruxify all sex-offenders. So eh, who am I to speak? A nobody on this issue, but one last thing - I’ve got friends who are ethnically Jewish who absolutely do not see themselves as white. And yes, I know Jewish folk come in all shapes and sizes.
(p.s. - I refer my quantity of Jewishness as “jew” because I am lower-case ethnically but not even by Jewish standards (paternal) related to anything minuetly Jewish. Not because I am a raging anti-semite.)
deleted by creator
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/
The short answer is no — Jews are not a race.
deleted by creator
Funny hearing a Brit complain about another race’s lack of generosity towards others. Especially since he helped the colonialist Empire to win a war
Ha, “these buggered imperialists, old boy!” exclaimed Nigel, pulling taut his waistcoat.
Yeah, I hate Brits. They are so bigoted. /s
Read a history book
I’m Irish and have read many and am quite familiar with British imperialism, and racism. However further, bigotry doesn’t improve matters.
Read a psychology book. Or a game theory book. Or just try to be less angry.
So when you get colonized and fucked, you shouldn’t get mad, just take it and accept it? I mean that’s a hell of colonialist answer.
Would you? If Russia colonized you and killed half your family today would you just forgive and say to yourself that hitting back is only gonna breed more hate?
No, you take your country back with violent rebellion if needed, but ideally by peaceful means. However, given that Britain has not invaded any country in our lifetime, this doesn’t apply to us.
Yourbrussia example is relevant as that’s exactly what Ukraine is doing, with support from the UK, among others. Manynukrainian refugees are in Ireland. Mynparebts are hosting a family.
Hitting back is not the same as fostering deep seated prejudices against people who had nothing to do with past injustices your ancestors faced, even if they may have benefited from it, indirectly, through a more wealthy society.
Wow you’ve really brought into the racist mindset and amplified it to genuinely insane levels, I’m actually impressed!
Please tell me you think you’re left wing?
I’m not gonna explain why my indigenous ass doesn’t have the finest view of history’s biggest colonial power. By the way “Brit” isn’t a race
I’m indigenous too so that doesn’t win the argument by shocking me into the stunned silence you hoped.
Why should I think your current racist mindset is acceptable? And if you think racist mindsets are correct then what do you even have against the colonial era brits?
And of course brit isnt a race, are you one of these racists that tries to ignore the actual definition and common usage of the word racism to excuse your racist ideology?
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews.
Taken out of context, this is literally anti-semitism though, not racism. Thereby maybe not the best quote to underline the post title.
Antisemitism is racism lad
There are asian jews, black jews, white jews, etc. So, nah, you can’t just lump antisemitism into racism. That’s lazy and requires little nuance
But special racism for white people apparently.
No need for their own name of racism…that’s weird.
Does history not exist to you? You really can’t understand? Or do you say something so stupid because you think it serves some purpose?
It’s pretty anti-semitic in context too.
Do you mean you don’t find anti-Semitism a form of racism?
Do you mean you don’t find anti-Semitism a form of racism?
To be fair, that’s a difficult question because the forms of anti-semitism changed a lot over the course of recent and not-so-recent history.
By definition, semitic people are not just jewish people, and indeed, “semitic” describes an ethnicity, and by that, anti-semitism would also be racism.
However, many contemporary forms of anti-semitism are exclusively directed at jewish people, at which point they typically occur in people who are often also quite racist shitbags, but their anti-semitism in and of itself is not racist, because they direct their hatred at everything that is jewish, and for example the conspiracy theories surrounding jewish influence in the world have nothing to do with ethnicity, and all with religion.
As I learned it, one of the main historical factors contributing to this (and to anti-semitism) is that jewish people were not forbidden by religion from taking interest on money loans (from non-jews), whereas christians were. All the while in medieval times some other jobs were forbidden to them. So naturally there was an overrepresentation of jewish people in the emerging finance sector, and for the simple mind it is convenient to hate on people who you owe money to. And this form of anti-semitism I see as absolutely unrelated to racism.
PS: I intentionally write “jewish” and “christian” in lowercase because all religions suck donkey balls and while they can be tolerated, they deserve no special emphasis.
You’re overanalyzing racism.
Racism is prejudice toward an ethnic group.
Angry about money lenders - prejudiced against money lenders - not anti-semitic, not racist
Angry about money lenders - prejudiced against Jewish people - anti-semitic, racist
And I disagree that these are the only two options you can observe in society. You can very much observe anti-semitism that has nothing to do with perceived ethnicity. Especially because - as much as racists don’t like to admit that - the ethnicity of jewish people is very diverse.
Can you elaborate?
Racism isn’t about perceived ethnicity specifically, it’s about prejudice toward an ethnic group regardless of whether you can perceive the ethnicity accurately.
When someone racist toward Arabs discovers that someone they didn’t think was Arab is Arab, then demonstrates prejudice, obviously the perceived ethnicity doesn’t matter as much as the prejudice of the idea of being an error.
I don’t see the disconnect between anti-Semitism and perceived ethnicity, or how such a theoretical disconnect removes racism from anti-Semitism.
Honestly, I don’t think our viewpoints differ enough to waste our time on a discussion. The usefulness of debating nuances is a bit too academic in nature and better done over a beer or so. I like to make a distinction between anti-<insert religious group here> and racism in order to deface the blatant racism disguised as anti-<whatever religion>-ism.
E.g. 95% of the European citizens claiming they’re “not racist, but” (we call them but-Nazis) they have an issue with islamic traditions, are just stupid racists against brown people but don’t have the spine to admit that.
I can’t imagine how anti-(fill in the ethnicity) cannot be perceived as racism, so I assumed our perspectives on racism were diametrically opposed.
Thank you for “but-Nazis”, haha, I haven’t heard that term before and I’m definitely going to be propagating it in the wild.
And let’s not even get started about the disgusting mix of rightful criticism of the Israeli government with anti-semitism and racism. This topic is so emotionally charged, and gets “overcharged” each time a new sequence of Hamas-Israel mutual war crimes is started (whatever the name), and every time civilians suffer, and people nurture their hate. Mankind is so messed up.
