A quick thought on Vox Day’s "The Merits of Anti-Semitism," which set off a wave of let’s-point-at-the-bad-man in the usual quarters. (As well as a witty and insightful post from the Young Yglesias.)
I’m not going to leap on Vox with the rest. Vox is merely doing what he sometimes does, which is to find the most offensive and silly way to argue a point that, in other’s hands, could be made easily defensible.* His comment was foolish, but I don’t read it as anti-Semitic (or, at least, not intentionally so).
Update ———–
A lot of commentators view the foregoing as a defense of Vox, and want to prove that Vox is, indeed, anti-semitic. In fact, it’s not a defense of Vox (re-read it if you don’t get why) and I’m wholly disinterested in defending Vox’s statements (again, re-read it if you don’t get why). For more regarding why I’m not defending Vox, see CMDicely’s and my comments on the Yglesias post noted above.
End Update ———–
Now, stretching things a bit: the jump-on-Vox moment reminded me of a point that I meant to make a little while ago but, due to work and other constraints, never got around to.
We (meaning "people," myself included) can have a very childish view of racism, anti-Semitism, and the like. We always like to reduce things to bad words and unutterable thoughts — rather than look at context or intent. Worse, there a dangerous tendency to game charges of racism or sexism or anti-Semitism for maximum political effect. After all, a person with a childish concept of bigotry has a limited concept of bigotry, and it’s easy to whip such folks up into a frenzy because they don’t want to accidentally fall into the wrong camp.
I’m not merely talking about race-baiting, and I’m not doing a very untimely riff on the O.J. Simpson trial. I’m also not saying that it’s all intentional — childish notions can be both abused and self-abused. [That’s an unfortunate turn of phrase …] Nor am I suggesting that the left or liberals bear the most of the blame (as one might wrongly assume). Indeed, the most recent examples of gaming bigotry seem have occurred with folks who are to the right, or, at the least, among those who identify as non-lefties.
For instance, take the charge by some that the term "neoconservative" is crypto-code for "Jew," and that railing against neoconservatives in the Bush Administration is thinly disguised anti-Semitism. Clearly, some on the far Left seem to hate both neoconservatives and Jews. But this is hardly an excuse to conflate neoconservatism with Judaism — which, so far as I know, don’t share a theology. No, the excuse to conflate neoconservatism with Judaism is to shut up administration critics with counter-charges of anti-Semitism.
Now, sometimes the Bush Administration needs to be defended. And some terms deserve to be criticized. For instance, David Bernstein eventually made a good point as to why "Likudnik" is an unhelpful term (Bernstein’s first shotgun post on "Likudnik" committed the sin of which I here complain). We should take care to confront hidden bigotries and evils.
Still, a clear charge of bigotry should be reserved for a response to a clear expression of bigotry. Giving the benefit of the doubt should still most tongues. It’s the only way to keep the system honest — and make sure that our power is not diluted when actual evil comes calling.
Indeed, all this huffing and puffing by people eager to be at the front of the condemning line reminds me of, well, myself. Back in the days when my white ass was growing up in Indiana without Black people. (A gross overstatement, but you get my point.) When I felt that I had to impart to every person of color than I that I did, indeed, feel their pain and was on their side. Do you have any idea how much it demeans the Civil Rights movement to feel that I shouldn’t ask that no black beans be put on my burrito because it might be taken as some racist slur? Do you have any idea how much of an annoying, unaware f_ck I was?
Don’t be that f_ck.
(This may help to explain, incidentally, why I know the lyrics to virtually every Public Enemy song published prior to 1989.)
(For the record, I eventually came to love black beans.)
*The defensible nub of Vox’s original comment is that Germany’s Council of Jews was out of line in charging the Bishop of Köln with anti-Semitism for comparing abortion to the Holocaust (among other evils). See CMDicely’s early comments in this thread, which I adopt. (This is not to say that, given the history of, umm, Germany and the Holocaust, some out-of-line-i-ness is not understandable.)
Uh, I don’t know the guy. He may not be anti-semitic. But this is anti semitic:
So is this:
so are some of the sentiments in this post, and this post. Which starts to look like a pattern.
There are several fundamental logical distinctions between Day’s craziness about Jews and the ACLU, and Brooks’ stupid insinuations that criticizing neoconservatives is anti-semitic. Can’t you spot them? You’re a smart law-talking guy.
Sorry von. Walks like a duck, etc. “Goebbels-style propaganda?” are you seriously defending this?
The posts Katherine quotes are clearly anti-Semitic. (And you should take a look at some of the comments at the site).
Besides, he’s a historical idiot. Look at his posts. He wants to know how “medieval kings found it so easy to get the common people to hate the Jews in their midst.”
The answer is really pretty simple, and had nothing to do with Jewish leadership. It really wasn’t the kings so much, who often found Jews useful. The Catholic Church was the main source of medieval (and later) anti-Semitism. It’s pretty easy to get folks riled up at the Jews when they are told about decide, and ritual murder, by their religious leaders. Maybe that helps explain why many Jews feel more comfortable in secular societies, and are less than thrilled at the idea of a “Christian nation,” a notion that Day espouses.
I’m not saying that that sort of thing is happening today, just that there is a very substantial and disgraceful history of it that goes a long way toward answering Day’s question.
There are several fundamental logical distinctions between Day’s craziness about Jews and the ACLU, and Brooks’ stupid insinuations that criticizing neoconservatives is anti-semitic. Can’t you spot them? You’re a smart law-talking guy.
Well, sure there are. (And thanks for the compliment! I am indeed a “smart law-talking guy.”) But this is why I wrote “Now, stretching things a bit ….” before sequaying into my next discussion.
Moreover, I’m not defending Vox. I’m merely refusing to leap on him with the rest.
BTW, the statements that you cite are indeed (and, again, as I wrote above) “foolish,” “silly,” and “offensive.” The notion that Jews run the ACLU also verges on buying into the old anti-Semitic conspiracy myth. But Vox isn’t anti-Semitic in “the ordinary sense,” in that he hates/fears/vilifies/is against Jews as Jews.
Incidentally, I’m tempted to delete my non-defense of Day because it seems to be utterly distracting from my point. But, then, if I delete my non-defense of Day for fear that it’ll be perceived as a defense, I’ll have given into that which my post decries. Dilemmas, dilemmas.
Let’s make two hypothetical arguments.
A:
1) Neocons are bad.
2) Most neocons are Jewish.
3) Therefore Jews are bad.
(alternate version of 3: While of course I deplore persecuting all Jews for the neocons’ misdeeds, it does make it more likely and more understandable.)
B:
1) The ACLU is bad.
2) Most of the ACLU is Jewish.
3) Therefore Jews are bad.
(alternate version of 3: While of course I deplore persecuting all Jews for the ACLU’s misdeeds, it does make it more likely and more understandable.)
Most critics of neocons only make argument A1. Brooks says they are insinuating A2, and A3. I don’t buy this for a second. However, when someone argues A1 and makes a big point of A2, I do begin to wonder if they are insinuating A3.
Day explicitly makes arguments B1, B2, and B3.
Also, I believe B2 is empirically false*, and Day provides no evidence at all that it is true. It seems like he may be assuming that the ACLU is Jewish because he sees them as anti-Christian.
*I bet the ACLU is disproportionately Jewish, but I bet it’s even more disproportionately atheist, and I bet a majority of its members are not Jewish.
(I don’t actually know if a majority of the neocons are Jewish either–I can name exactly 5 off the top of my head and 3 are Jewish but that doesn’t seem like a very sound way of making the calculation.)
“I’m merely refusing to leap on him with the rest.”
Why? The rest are right.
anti-Semitism is a charge that gets thrown around way, way too often, particularly in regards to any criticism of Israeli domestic policy. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to apply the word. Vox’ comments are clearly anti-Semitic, and deserve to be valued as such. Whether Mr. Day is himself anti-Semitic, I don’t care.
But Vox isn’t anti-Semitic in “the ordinary sense,” in that he hates/fears/vilifies/is against Jews as Jews.
Umm, he says he understands, given the actions of the ADL, ACLU and Council of Jews, the appeal of persecuting Jews. How much further would he have to go in your opinion, before you could consider his writing to be anti-Semitic?
As for your statement, “some on the far Left seem to hate both neoconservatives and Jews”, could we get some contemporary examples from the US far Left? (Of the Jew hatred, I can find the ones about neoconservatives myself). As written, it seems like the average straw man newspaper story claiming without examples that “some critics say…”.
But Vox isn’t anti-Semitic in “the ordinary sense,” in that he hates/fears/vilifies/is against Jews as Jews.
You know this how? And what does it matter what his deepest feelings are, or what he claims they are? He’s writing anti-Semitic garbage. That makes him an anti-Semite.
Back in the days of Jim Crow lots of southerners would tell you they didn’t hate blacks or anything. They just didn’t like “outside agitators” coming in and “making trouble.” That was nonsense, and Day is doing the same thing, only his version of “outside agitators” is the ADL, or the ACLU or something.
It’s an identifiable strategy:
“Our nigras are fine. They sing and dance and pick up the garbage and don’t make trouble. It’s those northern nigras who cause the ruckus.”
“The Jews around here are fine people. But you can’t trust those New York Jews. They’re a bunch of Communists with funny accents.”
Right, vox.
Another point. As i was bored at work yesterday, I actually slogged through a large portion of the comment thread. VD reappears low in the thread asserting the “it was just a joke” defense.
maybe so. and maybe he should realize that a lot of people don’t particularly “get” that sense of humor. it sounds like a convenient way to dodge the heat.
feminism is bad; jews are easy to hate. how many more posts do we need before we can legitimately accuse this man of being a closed-minded bigot (or, at least, acting like one).
Francis
I’ll leap on him.
Bernard, what do you make of this?
On one level, it’s well-meaning, and attack on people who argue that Jews killed Jesus and an assurance to Jews that evangelicals have their back. On another it’s pretty offensive. He doesn’t see Jews as the enemy, but he does seem to see them as the 98-pound-weakling in the schoolyard, in need of Christian protection. And based on his other writings, like many offers of “protection”, this one comes with a price–or at least an expectation that the protectee will not get too uppity and join that awful ADL or ACLU or challenge the self-evident truth that America is a Christian nation.
Perhaps being Jewish I am over sensitve, but to my eyes he is writing some very ugly and blatantly anti-semetic stuff.
“But if those medieval Jewish leaders were anything like the idiots running the ADL, the ACLU and the Council of Jews, one can see where the idea of persecuting them would have held some appeal.”
I don’t think he is trying to say that viscious medievel pogroms against the jews were justified, but that is exactly what he wrote. He is also saying that violence is justified against any group that disagrees with his views.
The best quotes are in the comments sction as usual.
“I’m not anti-Jew in any sense. I’ve just learned to loathe their political leadership and marvel at their self-destructive tendencies.”
I’ll just take my self-destructive tendencies home and not bother commenting on that one.
Ok. Here’s my take. Regarding Prince Harry’s Nazi costume – he went to a dress party! What’s the big deal? Seriously, I am rather disquasted by how the media is blowing this whole thing up and yet real vile stuff coming out of Middle East doesn’t get any play.
bsr,
“I’m not anti-Jew in any sense. I’ve just learned to loathe their political leadership and marvel at their self-destructive tendencies.”
I don’t find the above to be anti-semetic…
I do Stan. He is generizing and projecting one specific behavior (self-destructive tendencies) to an entire group, the very definition of racism.
I deleted my statement that “[Vox is] no anti-Semite in the ordinary sense of the word.” Y’all convinced me I have no way of knowing such a thing. But I will say that I read Vox’s comments differently that some of y’all. (Which is not to say, as I’ve said, that they weren’t stupid.)
How have I missed this freak? He’s truly horrible.
Maybe much of what your post is prompting von, steering folks away from your point (and it was your update that prompted me to consider this) is you’re creating some first time readers of this arrogant, self-centered, priveleged little p*&$k.
I’d never understood how the medieval kings found it so easy to get the common people to hate the Jews in their midst.
This guy needs to read Diarmaid MacCulloch’s book “The Reformation: A History” where the author explains in exquisite detail how Jews were demonized purposely again and again as it served the desires of medieval Christian kings. One of their most charming methods was spreading the myth of ritual murder, especially of children, allegedly for their blood.
Von, the funny part is that I agree with his real point, which is that comparing the Holocaust to the current situation with Abortion is NOT anti-semitism. It is IMO a very flawed and dishonest comparison, but I can agree it’s not anti-semitic.
In the end I find his views in this article even more disgusting and dangerous than anti-semitism. What he is really saying is that violence and persecution against any group that disagrees with his views of the world is justified.
bsr,
I do Stan. He is generizing and projecting one specific behavior (self-destructive tendencies) to an entire group, the very definition of racism.
Eh? He’s generalizing (look at the voting patterns). Hardly anti semetism.
Sure Stan, he’s just generalizing, the same way someone might generalize by saying all black people are lazy.
BSR,
I am not sure what brought that analogy on (that’s between you and your conscience), but its more like generalizing blacks based on their voting patterns. Vast majority votes for Democrats.
I’m not making this a “defense of Vox” thread (at least not for me, but I my reading of Vox’s intent accords with Stan LS‘s. The execution is something different.
Katherine,
Well, it’s nice of him I suppose, but more than a little strange and, as you note, quite condescending. The “Chosen?”. Nose jobs? Christians have the “full armor,” while Jews have only some sort of promise, but not to worry? Hmm.
He doesn’t like the Japanese, and his knowledge of history, as least as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, is a bit off.
Further, I really don’t like people who park in handicapped spots. He’s lucky no one put a rock through his windshield.
. . . its more like generalizing blacks based on their voting patterns. Vast majority votes for Democrats.
Such behavior is only “self-destructive” if one assumes that blacks, or whomever, would be better served by voting for Republicans or other parties, which, er . . . assumes facts not in evidence.
In any case, Jews have managed to survive the Babylonians, the Romans, and for the last 2,000 years, everything that Vox Day and his band of mighty armored Christians have conspired to throw at them. Meanwhile, Christianity today comprises a zillion different denominations because everytime someone disagrees about some trivial silliness like infant baptism they start another sect. So tell me again who is more self-destructive?
(Me, I’m more worried that the Bishop said that Hitler and Stalin “let millions be destroyed.” Let them? Well, that’s one way of putting it, I suppose. Another way is to say they actively murdered millions of people.)
I can’t believe anyone reads this weirdo.
Phil,
Such behavior is only “self-destructive” if one assumes that blacks, or whomever, would be better served by voting for Republicans or other parties, which, er . . . assumes facts not in evidence.
Ofcourse, but he is not being anti semetic by holding that opinion, is he?
Bernard
He doesn’t like the Japanese, and his knowledge of history, as least as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, is a bit off.
I’m not sure why you make the first assertion, but I would point out that Vox really went after Malkin over some of her points made in her screed supporting the internment of Japanese-Americans. Vox is a provocateur as it has come to be realized in our media saturated world, which is, as von pointed out, making a defensible point in the most outrageous way possible and then slowly backing up. It is a sadly useful technique, (as is evidenced by a lot of way out libertarian writing) and if I had an access to everyone’s complete corpus of arguments, I’m sure that I could at least one example for each person (except me, I’ve never done this, nope, nope, never…)
Is it time to bring up Pope Pius XII? ’cause I don’t think we’re really having enough fun yet…
I suppose it depends on how you characterize it, Stan, and what other opinions of his it coincides with. If he characterizes it as “Jews are too dumb to vote for the people I think they should vote for,” then yeah, it’s pretty anti-Semitic.
lj,
In the post Katherine linked to he listed the Japanese as one group with no history of anti-Semitism, but went on to remark that they hate everyone. His evidence is the various meanings of “gaijin,” as foreigner and devil.
Seems like a pretty thin case that “they hate everybody” to me. What do you think?
Anarch,
Is it time to bring up Pope Pius XII?
Let’s not go there. I have other things I need to do in the next few days.
Actually Stan I was trying to give you an example of how applying a negative generalization to a group is always racism.
Vox didn’t take some poll or read some scientific study that convinced him that jews are “self destuctive”, he simply projects that stereotype to the entire group for daring to disagree with him about specific issues.
Phil Posted,
“I suppose it depends on how you characterize it, Stan, and what other opinions of his it coincides with. If he characterizes it as “Jews are too dumb to vote for the people I think they should vote for,” then yeah, it’s pretty anti-Semitic.”
Bingo, that is exactly the point of Vox’s post, and exactly why it’s anti-semetic. To say Most jews voted for John Kerry (I have no idea if that is true, it’s just an example) is not anti-semetic. To extrapolate from that and say most jews are therefore self-destructive is not only anti-semetic, it is using anti-semitism to try to make a crass political point.
In the post Katherine linked to he listed the Japanese as one group with no history of anti-Semitism, but went on to remark that they hate everyone.
That’s actually somewhat incorrect. I don’t remember the details, but there’s a well-documented strain of virulent Japanese racism towards both Jews and blacks — neither of which groups are found in any quantity in Japan — going back a little over a century. It may be a particular instantiation of the “they hate everybody” but I think that’s a cavalier rendering of the more-accurate saying that the Japanese regard their culture as innately superior* and were historically none too gentle with others.
Of course, there’s an additional element of sloppiness in most discussions of Asian racism which is that “racism” qua race is a fairly new concept. Prior to the 19th century, most Asian cultures were culturalist, regarding people whose manners, etiquette and language were different as inferior, rather than racist. It took the advent of European imperialism to essentialize this notion; thus, while a Tatar or Viet might have “become Chinese” in an earlier era, rising above his pathetic barbarian upringing, in post-colonial China they would have been regarded as innately barbarian and thus never able to “become Chinese”.
* I know. Who doesn’t?
the Japanese regard their culture as innately superior* […] * I know. Who doesn’t?
Ha. Do a Google Groups search for “Feudalist” or “Quonster”, particularly on soc.history.what-if. Hours and hours of entertainment.
Phil and BSR,
Not really. Its politics – everyone gets bitter. Blacks should vote for Democrats, cause Republicans are racists. Working class has to vote for the Democrats, cause Republicans are only looking out for the rich.. And when working class votes for Republicans, then they are “dumb” or “hicks” or whatever.
BSR,
To extrapolate from that and say most jews are therefore self-destructive is not only anti-semetic, it is using anti-semitism to try to make a crass political point.
Also, I don’t see how that is anti semetic.
von, I’ve probably asked this before, but what the heck; the more prominent parts of your posts are already getting whacked on:
What part of Indiana?
First, please understand I’m not defending his statement, yada yada yada.
But on to the statement ‘Japanese hate everyone’, I would note that Vox spent a year or two as an exchange student in Tokyo (he was an Asian studies major, I believe), and it stands as more evidence of the phenomenon in question, extreme statements at (or past) the outer limits of acceptability that mask a defensible point. But you were asking about the statement.
I strongly feel that hate/love are not opposites, but closely related emotions. Setting aside discussing what this statement means to Vox, the fact is that Japanese really do have a love/hate relationship with the West and with the US in particular. Anarch is precisely right when he this is
a cavalier rendering of the more-accurate saying that the Japanese regard their culture as innately superior* and were historically none too gentle with others.
Japanese sentiments of “innate superiority” are, like they are in a lot of people, expressions of an inferiority complex. {peers meaningfully over his glasses at an unspecified number of people}
The strain of virulent Japanese racism towards Jews has always been a concept without any real content, an idea that originated precisely in the absence of any knowledge of Jews except as seen through the lens of Western culture (which is probably a damning condemnation of Western culture, if you think about it. I mean someone pulls up and analyzes your culture and takes away anti-semitism and racism as the main concepts). Japanese accused of anti-semitism often pull up the example of Sugihara but that is simply the flashing of a get out of jailfree card rather than an actual attempt to understand what is going on. More enlightening is the sort of lurching cluelessness that typified the Japanese attempts to grapple with anti-semitism. My favorite example is the fact that, even has Japanese were ratcheting up anti semitic laws for the benefit of their Nazi allies, they were welcoming Jewish orchestra musicians (because for Japanese, Western classical music is in many ways the epitome of Western culture).
If you’d like more information, this survey is quite informative, with lots of references if you want to read up. Also, Goodman and Miyazawa have a book called _Jews in the Japanese mind_. Here is a review of it. Ironically, it was published the same year that the Aum sarin attacks occurred (1995), attacks which grew out of a philosophy that utilized a fair bit of anti-semitism. (incidentally, I like this link and the notion of ‘enabling discourse’. It also discusses the Lod airport massacre, which I didn’t know about)
This page is a repost of a Japanese professor’s discussion of some of the issues within Japan in 1997.
What part of Indiana?
The evil part. Which would be all of it. Not that I’m bitter about having driven the length of Indiana yesterday while coming home. Or that I despise them because they’re Big Ten rivals. Not at all. Not at all.
“Seems like a pretty thin case that “they hate everybody” to me. What do you think?”
Ask the Ainu.
The point is, it doesn’t matter whether the Japanese are culturally racist. Americans are provably culturally racist on average, but that doesn’t give me the right to a priori treat any particular American as racist nor does it give me the right to make broad pronouncements about what we ought to do with/about Americans.
Vox is one of those many thinkers who believes it’s intellectual to assign characteristics to peoples and cultures and other grand abstracts and go on about what we should do about it. That kind of thinking leads to dehumanization, as people start looking like the silly averages you made up for them and you don’t feel so bad about stomping abstracts into the ground. Then you start satisfying Godwin’s rule, if you see where I’m getting.
lj,
A very informative post! Thanks.
The point is, it doesn’t matter whether the Japanese are culturally racist.
Do you mean culturally racist or culturalist here? Or does it also not matter?
I mean racist in a culturally pervasive way. It also doesn’t matter. You can’t interact with ‘the Japanese’. You can only interact with individual Japanese.
In the post Katherine linked to he listed the Japanese as one group with no history of anti-Semitism, but went on to remark that they hate everyone. His evidence is the various meanings of “gaijin,” as foreigner and devil.
Talk about the epitome of silly. That’s like saying that Americans hate everyone because we use the word “alien” to refer to noncitizens. The kanji that make up the word “gaijin” literally mean “outside person”. The Japanese culturally make much of distinctions, of things and people being in their proper place and category; the distinction between one’s own group and the “other” is very strong.
But for a people who supposedly hate everyone, they’re second only to Americans in their propensity for embracing foreign loanwords, pop culture, ideas, tourism, and investment. It’s just that they do it on /their/ terms.
The Japanese are a very complex people. This man is a fool, and that’s without even touching on his borderline anti-Semitic nonsense. I can’t believe you’re gifting him with this much undeserved traffic.
I should add that the term “gaijin” can be employed as a fairly contemptuous epithet. The more polite term is “gaikokujin”, or “person from another country”. But you can extrapolate this kind of linguistic example for any given language and culture into a statement that doesn’t reflect the whole. It doesn’t stand on its own.
There is no evil part of Indiana, really. Matter of fact, it’s all evil.
I embrace them because they’re Big 10 rivals. Someone’s got to be the Homecoming opponent of choice. Used to be Northwestern, though.
I read it. It’s Anti-Semitic. It’s also dumb. He says abortion is genocide. He says Jews open themselves to Anti-Semitism by being pro-choice. That’s dumb on more than one level.
The Japanese are a very complex people.
Sometimes a bit too complex
LJ: Yikes.
“In the trendy Shibuya and Harajuku neighborhoods of Tokyo, for instance, teenagers and women in their thirties and forties have embraced what they call the “Lolita fashion.” Dressing up as little dolls in frilly dresses and lacy baby caps, hundreds of such girls and women parade along the sidewalks of Tokyo clutching teddy bears and wearing enormous ribbons in their hair.”
Just, yikes.
Von, first rule of holes is applicable here but the migration of the comments has been interesting.
hilzoy, yikes? oh for the days when Times Square was cutting edge.
“Yikes”? Really, I haven’t seen anything in modern Japanese culture that’s so different at the root from anything in America. Is the “Lolitacon” that different from American fixation with barely legal teens? Was the colonization of the Ainu that different from the genocide of Native Americans? It’s absurd to treat these as alien phenomena.
Err, Slarti? Didn’t I just say that?
Just giving it a DSOTM-esque tone, Anarch.
More directly, this. For those of you who are confused.
I haven’t seen anything in modern Japanese culture that’s so different at the root from anything in America.
Sumo wrestlers?
Unfortunately, the colonization of the Ainu didn’t really begin until the Japanese felt they had to imitate the West (and worried that Russia would take away Hokkaido and the Northern Islands) the Meiji law that dealt with the Ainu, (the Hokkaido Former Natives Protection Law (Hokkaido Kyudojin Hogo), was basically a direct translation of the Dawes Act, with other bits of American laws about schooling and assimilation thrown in.
Unfortunately, while it was the case that in the US, tribes were considered sovereign entities, which provided at least a tiny counterbalance of rights but in Japan, the Ainu had none.
As for ‘Lolicon’ (which is a shortened version of ‘Lolita complex’, not to be confused with ‘body-con’ or body conscious, a fashion style popular in the 80’s(sorry, no links, google that puppy yourselves and make sure no one is looking over your shoulders)), I’d only point out that though it usually carries a perjorative meaning in Japan, it can be used in the same context as ‘robbing the cradle’ used to be (is?). Thus, if you have a 30 year old dating an 18 year old, you might say that he suffers from a ‘lolicon’. This is not dismissing Iron Lungfish‘s point, but at some point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.
lj, I think maybe you should add the qualification “the colonization of the Ainu in the northern islands didn’t really begin …”, since the process of gradually pushing the Ainu north until they only occupied the northern islands started pretty much with the arrival of the Yamato race.
For those of you who are confused.
That’s me!
Big Ben
Very true, though how far the Ainu were down into Honshu and what happened to them is a big can of worms.
Though I haven’t read it, I googled up this review of Walker’s _The Conquest of Ainu Lands: Ecology and Culture in Japanese Expansion, 1590-1800_ The H-net lists are quite good for objective evaluations of historical events, and the interface lets you dip into them after everyone has had their piece. The debates about the dropping of the H-bomb prompted by Gar Alpovitz’ book _the Decision to use the Atomic bomb_ was fascinating. Highly recommended.
There are plenty of customs, in the US and out of it, that make me go ‘Yikes!’. Speaking as one of the world’s “women in their thirties and forties”, the idea of wandering around dressed in baby dresses and clutching a teddy bear as a fashion statement just got added to them. That’s all.
lj, I know there’s disagreement about the length and extent of the Ainu presence on Honshu. I have an Ainu friend with very strong opinions on it, but there’s no reason to take his word over the experts’.
Thanks for the fascinating links. You’ve just ensured that I won’t get any work done for the rest of the afternoon.
Yup, TtWD, I get it.
What part of Indiana?
Here’s the itinerary:
Born in Providence, RI (which is why you’ll see frequent references to east coast relatives — ’cause that’s where all of them are). Spent most growing up years in West Lafayette (home of Gene Keady), with a half-year-plus stint in Colchester, England. College in Bloomington (home of Bobby Knight). Law school in Chicago. First three-and-a-half years of practice in Chicago. Currently in Indianapolis — the Broad Ripple neighborhood, to be specific.
Ah…so you were raised in Boiler country and went Hoosier anyway? Well, IU’s probably got something resembling a prelaw curriculum. Two of my brothers attended IU, so there was an ongoing animosity there, for a while. Those were the Lee Corso days, though, which meant an inexorable slide toward the bottom of the conference.
A-ha! It all becomes clear. Thickburgers, you say? I bet you go for that ‘very special taste treat’ that is the Duane Purvis All-American.
Ah, old Tri-Chi. It’s possible that I ate there once or twice while dead sober, but the majority of my dining experiences came at about 2am, after some indeterminate amount of beer.
Forgot to ask: LJ, how do YOU know about Triple-X?
I worked with a guy from West Lafayette, who told me about the Duane Purvis. I really didn’t believe it. A hamburger with peanut butter? But hey, there’s a web page, it’s gotta be for real, right?
Ah…so you were raised in Boiler country and went Hoosier anyway?
Yes. I mean, I couldn’t make the decision based solely on my hatred of Knight. Academic standards had to come into play.*
*At the time, my father was the head of the department in which I planned to major — so I know of what I speak.
There are plenty of customs, in the US and out of it, that make me go ‘Yikes!’. Speaking as one of the world’s “women in their thirties and forties”, the idea of wandering around dressed in baby dresses and clutching a teddy bear as a fashion statement just got added to them. That’s all.
It’s rebellion/expression, is all. Like how they embraced punk. And probably a reflection of how stultified they feel in real life.
IJWTS that I take as an emetic people who can’t spell “anti-Semitic,” but feel qualified to opine on it.
Naturally, the degree of one’s ability to spell a word need not correlate well in either direction with one’s depth of knowledge of the history of the concept, but it doesn’t provide a suggestion of the existence of said depth.
But since I’m engaging in the sad practice of a “spelling flame,” I might as well round it out: pejorative. And pre-emptively for the next time: Gandhi.
Thanks.
Gary: One of the history professors here at UW [don’t remember his name, just that he does Continental history] insists that the word is properly spelled “antisemitic” on the grounds that there is no “Semitic” to be “anti-“. I have to say that, despite my education (in which the word was hyphenated as you’ve done above), I think he has a point.
Mr. Farber!
Welcome back!
Good point, Edward. Welcome back, Gary!
There’s a point there, Anarch, but since Wilhelm Marr coined it and spelled it that way, that would seem to be the more important point to me. (And, really, having a clue who Marr is is more important than any spelling question, as is having some reasonable familiarity with the history of anti-Semitism beyond, say, 500 words length, and before the 20th Century; maybe even having read a whole book or two, just on the subject, if we’re going really crazy.)
Edward, thanks, but it’s pretty much more of a drive-by at the moment, for reasons which should be clear to anyone who’s at least glanced through my blog lately (or read a bit more over the past three months).
To be sure, if people want to go back to “judenhass,” I’ve no problem; I simply figure that the founders of “The League of Anti-Semites” knew how to spell their organization, and it’s a tad late to be quibbling with them.
You have a blog, Gary? 😉
There’s a point there, Anarch, but since Wilhelm Marr coined it and spelled it that way, that would seem to be the more important point to me.
True, but Marr was, in addition to being a fruitcake, a lousy historian. [And linguist, although IIRC that’s not really his fault.] I have no problem with referring to the League of Anti-Semites in that spelling; the question is whether the “philosophy” — I use the term loosely — as a whole should be so dubbed.
Oh, and I’d be fine with “judenhass” too. It’s a hell of a lot more accurate and it sounds nastier to boot.
Added in proof: Hang on; wasn’t the original German “Antisemiten”? (Adjectival form: Antisemitische.) I just looked, and the hyphen is only in the English translation.
Gary, you’re being a bit of a nudge on whole capital-S thing, no? I mean, obviously, I got your back. I’m old fashioned in that kinda way. But if some poor ahistorical soul, such as Anarch’s UW professor, wants to get rid of the capital “s” on loosey-goosey living language grounds, is it really worth a flame war?
And welcome back!
“Gary, you’re being a bit of a nudge on whole capital-S thing, no?”
Not really. It’s the “semetic” that gets to me (and caused the rhyme with “emetic”). But I’ve said all I had to say regarding spelling; as I tried to indicate, it’s the impression I get from some that they don’t actually know a lot about the history of Judenhass beyond the notion that the Shoah happened, and that there’s a longer history of hating Jews of some sort, that is what bothers me, just as, oh, to bring up another piece of flamebait, the way some people know insufficient history as to be unaware they are wrong when they assert that the American Civil War “really wasn’t about slavery” bugs me, or the way any other strong suggestion that someone is discussing a rather important topic with little actual knowledge of the subject bugs me. It’s one of my many flaws, I’m afraid, and I do mean that.
It’s not the ignorance that bothers me; we are all barely a few steps above ignorant, and we all, when weighing what’s important to know, come out with closer to an insufficience than a surfeit. I say that of myself, at least. We all have more to learn, or, again, at least I do. It’s the (suggestion of) enthusiasm for expressing opinion flowing largely from ignorance that I need to be more tolerant of.
If someone can tell me about Wilhelm Marr, though, or give a hundred words on the history of the blood libel, or knows a tad about 1492 beyond Columbus, or a bit about the Babylonian Exodus, or somesuch, I’m not going to fuss about capitalization. And if they can’t, that’s fine; I just need to work on my improving my placidity when they discuss Jew-hatred, whatever word they want to use. This is just a subset of my needing to work on said lack of placidity whenever I get the feeling people are talking a lot without knowing what they’re talking about. It’s not like I’m claiming I’m fault-free when I so get bugged.
I’ve actually been to Indianapolis, by the way. It was on the way back from Chicago to East Lansing, Michigan, in 1977, to help a friend move. Yes.
If someone can tell me about Wilhelm Marr, though, or give a hundred words on the history of the blood libel, or knows a tad about 1492 beyond Columbus, or a bit about the Babylonian Exodus, or somesuch, I’m not going to fuss about capitalization.
About six years ago I could have written a twenty page paper on the subject, and nearly did. [Took a course on the Holocaust, of which the first quarter was on the historical origins and precursors of antisemitism.] The intervening five years of mathematics grad school, alas, have driven most of that knowledge out of ready access (and, truth be told, have rendered me almost illiterate). My apologies if I’ve caused offense in this manner.
I say that of myself, at least. We all have more to learn, or, again, at least I do.
The one truly great gift grad school has given to me is the complete, visceral awareness of just how full of shit I am. I’ve never been more keenly aware of my limitations, more exquisitely informed of my ignorance, than I have these past five years. So that’s something, I guess.
If someone can tell me about Wilhelm Marr, though, or give a hundred words on the history of the blood libel, or knows a tad about 1492 beyond Columbus, or a bit about the Babylonian Exodus, or somesuch, I’m not going to fuss about capitalization.
But you still will fuss about spelling?
You know, I felt precisely the same way about spelling in general, until someone (who I had in previous discussions given a lot of flak to about obviously not carefully making his point because he couldn’t even be bothered to spell things correctly) noted that he had a slight case of dyslexia. I would also note, having taught ME students ESL, because of the structure of their language (consonant matrix with vowel slots), they are typically weaker at getting the right vowels. So I think you ought to reconsider using the spelling of semitic as an indicator of how well you want to consider their arguments. (note this is not defending anyone’s argument, mind you)
The one truly great gift grad school has given to me is the complete, visceral awareness of just how full of shit I am.
I’d amend that to how full of shit everyone is. (or at least can be)
Anarch said: “My apologies if I’ve caused offense in this manner.”
No, not at all.
liberal japonicus said: “But you still will fuss about spelling?”
Sigh. No. Not what I said.
Sorry, just pointing out that spelling is not the best metric for judging the value of argumentation, which you’ve noted, but still suggest it is something indicative of depth. I still have problems spelling that S- word and I’ve read Hilberg cover to cover and been through everything Rubesnstein wrote pre 1985. But otherwise, ditto what Anarch said.
It’s not the ignorance that bothers me; we are all barely a few steps above ignorant, and we all, when weighing what’s important to know, come out with closer to an insufficience than a surfeit. I say that of myself, at least. We all have more to learn, or, again, at least I do. It’s the (suggestion of) enthusiasm for expressing opinion flowing largely from ignorance that I need to be more tolerant of.
Bravo. Well said.
If you have cause to travel through Indy again, drop a line. I’ll buy you a potable drink of your choosing. Or even a nonpotable “drink,” so long as it’s not melted gold or somesuch. (We lawyers are paid to worry about creative abuses, ya know.) And my wife would probably appreciate the opportunity to talk about how astrocytes express neuregulons (and the like) with someone who knows (1) what the heck that means and (2) can spell “neuregulon” and “astrocyte” (I’m pretty sure I have astrocyte right, but I’m equally (un)sure that I’ve switched/missed a letter in neuregulon).*
von
*She was going for a PhD in neuroscience, once, until she discovered that she hated the labwork.
And here I though a neuregulon was a government employee who makes regulations, and an astrocyte was someplace like Cape Canaveral.