There is a temptation in the commentary sphere to map everything onto American slavery, but it's just not always informative or accurate. Part of a larger trend to flatten everything into simple narrative structures, which is something you often avoid. But it lends an allure of false knowledge or righteousness where it doesn't exist. Jus…
There is a temptation in the commentary sphere to map everything onto American slavery, but it's just not always informative or accurate. Part of a larger trend to flatten everything into simple narrative structures, which is something you often avoid. But it lends an allure of false knowledge or righteousness where it doesn't exist. Just in the same way that "anti-woke" commentators like to view everything as some sort of flavor of Marxism. This isn't Nat Turner's slave rebellion.
"There is a temptation in the commentary sphere to map everything onto American slavery, but it's just not always informative or accurate."
Haha, I've written criticising this trend myself. Maybe I'm guilty of it here. But I'm not trying to claim there's a perfect equivalence between Hamas' attack and Turner's rebellion. I'm arguing that fear and/or oppression will almost always lead to extremism. That extremism rarely has the interests of the oppressed parties in mind. But failing to consider the sources of that extremism, and especially, collectivising people who aren't guilty of it, is a problem humanity has been struggling since long before Turner's days.
If you were white and living in Southampton County in 1831, it wouldn't have been nearly as clear who the good guys and bad guys were. You'd have been horrified by the slaughter of innocent people. Babies even. And worried that you might be next. You'd have become more distrustful of the other black people around you. You wouldn't have been even slightly predisposed to listen to Turner's justifications for his actions (the fact that he may well have been insane wouldn't have helped). And even if you disagreed with the militia's methods for preventing future rebellions, you'd be much more likely to support them than try to look at things from Turner's point of view.
I think the main objection to the comparison is the fact that we all know who the good guys and the bad guys were in the Antebellum south and that distinction is far less clear today in real time. As I've said many times, my condemnation for the attack is absolute. Just as my condemnation for Turner's attack is absolute. There is nothing, in my mind, that justifies the killing of innocent people. Especially children.
But at the same time as I condemn Hamas and Turner, I also condemn the Antebellum South and for Israel. Both of whom also regularly kill children in support of their aims. The horror of the attacks doesn't erase the horror of the oppression. And the horror of the oppression makes it extremely likely there will be future horrific attacks.
Yes, fair enough - I only mention it as I find you to be as intellectually honest a discussion partner as I've found online in all of these discussion platforms. The causal chain from oppression to extremism is, I think, not that simple - more dependent on cultural factors. e.g. who have been more oppressed than the women of the Middle East broadly speaking?There are no homicidal revolts against the men in those societies. Not asking for one, but questioning the validity of the general observation. The history of the world is writ in blood and oppression. At some point, the rehearsal of ancient ills should be informative and not performative (no shade on you; a general observation). I'm more interested in the arrow moving forward and the shared ideals and plans to get somewhere, for lack of a better term, "better". One thing left out of all of these discussions is the role of prescriptive programming from early childhood. It is no accident that even in the most progressive e.g. UN-run UNRWA schools, the PA textbooks with violent extremism are used and upheld. At some level these children are being conscripted into a worldview that is poisonous to their well-being.
"There are no homicidal revolts against the men in those societies. Not asking for one, but questioning the validity of the general observation."
Personally, I'd love to see one. I couldn't wish enough suffering on the Taliban or the "morality police" for example. But there are obvious reasons why violent uprisings aren't the method of choice for women being oppressed by men.
And even in cases that involve men vs men, the circumstances aren't usually dire enough that an armed uprising will feel like the best option The oppressed group is almost always, pretty much by definition, outmanned and outgunned. An uprising is almost always a suicide mission. So they'll tend towards legal or diplomatic means unless things are *really* bad. The civil rights movement is a good example of this. Segregation was terrible. But not quite, "let's slaughter the random women and children of our enemies" terrible.
But in Palestine's case, and in Turner's, it's hard to see what non-violent options they had. As Ami Ayalon put it, "you cannot deter someone who thinks he has nothing to lose." And neither the Palestinians nor the slaves have/had much to lose.
As always, the big fat caveat that my sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians doesn't mean I think Hamas was in any way justified. Even in the most desperate situations, there are basic standards of humanity. Hamas violated these standards. So did Turner. But the reasons why their compatriots don't condemn those violations as easily as we do from our positions of safety and freedom, are important.
As for indoctrination, there are two points to make.
First to borrow the slaves again, do you think there would have been much work required to conscript the slaves into a worldview where they hated white America? Don't you think the circumstances of their lives would have done that just fine? Indeed, the indoctrination required was to make the slaves docile and subservient so that their natural human desire to rebel against their oppression was beaten out of them.
And second, there is abundant evidence of the indoctrination Jewish children undergo in Israel and around the world. I've seen far more of that than I have indoctrination of Palestinians. Though obviously this could simply be that I've missed it and not that it's not there.
As history teaches us over and over again, the best medicine for prejudice is exposure and equality. The Israelis and Palestinians lack both of these. And it's yet another reason why peace and freedom as soon as possible is such an important goal.
Fair enough, although I think our views diverge in a few places, which is natural. Everyone is wrong and everyone is justified to one or another degree. War is a mess, and having a war where the leadership decided to abscond to another country to avoid the worst of it is another unusual circumstance on top of that. re: mutual exposure as a tonic for prejudice - yes, this has been my personal experience as well. Many friends of all sorts before I discovered how society chose to "racialize" me. However, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that both Israel and Palestine lack this - some 15-20% of arabic muslims living and working in Israel pre Oct 7th. In leadership roles in parliament, etc. As you know, trying to find the reciprocal situation in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc. I mean there are more jews in Kenya than Syria right now. Don't want to play the fact check game as we're both freely writing, but I think that's significant.
"As you know, trying to find the reciprocal situation in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc"
Yep, this is true. Partly because no Jew, or sane person in general, would choose to live in Gaza if they had other options. But also, yes, because choosing to live in Gaza as a Jew would be largely insane.
The settlers who live in the West Bank do so because they know the IDF have their backs and yet they still live in completely isolated communities where they don't see Palestinians unless they're fighting them or using them to build their houses.
From what I know of Israel, Arabs and Jews don't really mix that much. So while it's true that there's a higher proportion of Arabs in Israel than there are Jews in Gaza, I'm not sure how much it helps re: fighting prejudice/indictrination. Even if there were peace tomorrow, that's going to be a slow, painful process. Just as it has been in America.
You needed an article to extract this point of view? All of the hand-wringing misquotes of MLK during 2020 riots didn't cover that? It's more complex as I replied above - women oppressed for generations across the Middle East with no violence to show for it.
OK, another misunderstanding on the internet then. You have had a few opportunities to expound on "what you really meant". Absent that, all I have are your words. Have a great day.
There was nothing to expound on. My words were clear and concise. The Israelis are afraid of continued attacks, so they are excessive in their actions. The slave holders were afraid of more rebellions, so they were excessive in their actions. Steve's article in a nutshell. What is your issue? Do you think that the Israeli destruction of Gaza is not excessive?
There is a temptation in the commentary sphere to map everything onto American slavery, but it's just not always informative or accurate. Part of a larger trend to flatten everything into simple narrative structures, which is something you often avoid. But it lends an allure of false knowledge or righteousness where it doesn't exist. Just in the same way that "anti-woke" commentators like to view everything as some sort of flavor of Marxism. This isn't Nat Turner's slave rebellion.
"There is a temptation in the commentary sphere to map everything onto American slavery, but it's just not always informative or accurate."
Haha, I've written criticising this trend myself. Maybe I'm guilty of it here. But I'm not trying to claim there's a perfect equivalence between Hamas' attack and Turner's rebellion. I'm arguing that fear and/or oppression will almost always lead to extremism. That extremism rarely has the interests of the oppressed parties in mind. But failing to consider the sources of that extremism, and especially, collectivising people who aren't guilty of it, is a problem humanity has been struggling since long before Turner's days.
If you were white and living in Southampton County in 1831, it wouldn't have been nearly as clear who the good guys and bad guys were. You'd have been horrified by the slaughter of innocent people. Babies even. And worried that you might be next. You'd have become more distrustful of the other black people around you. You wouldn't have been even slightly predisposed to listen to Turner's justifications for his actions (the fact that he may well have been insane wouldn't have helped). And even if you disagreed with the militia's methods for preventing future rebellions, you'd be much more likely to support them than try to look at things from Turner's point of view.
I think the main objection to the comparison is the fact that we all know who the good guys and the bad guys were in the Antebellum south and that distinction is far less clear today in real time. As I've said many times, my condemnation for the attack is absolute. Just as my condemnation for Turner's attack is absolute. There is nothing, in my mind, that justifies the killing of innocent people. Especially children.
But at the same time as I condemn Hamas and Turner, I also condemn the Antebellum South and for Israel. Both of whom also regularly kill children in support of their aims. The horror of the attacks doesn't erase the horror of the oppression. And the horror of the oppression makes it extremely likely there will be future horrific attacks.
Hi Steve,
Yes, fair enough - I only mention it as I find you to be as intellectually honest a discussion partner as I've found online in all of these discussion platforms. The causal chain from oppression to extremism is, I think, not that simple - more dependent on cultural factors. e.g. who have been more oppressed than the women of the Middle East broadly speaking?There are no homicidal revolts against the men in those societies. Not asking for one, but questioning the validity of the general observation. The history of the world is writ in blood and oppression. At some point, the rehearsal of ancient ills should be informative and not performative (no shade on you; a general observation). I'm more interested in the arrow moving forward and the shared ideals and plans to get somewhere, for lack of a better term, "better". One thing left out of all of these discussions is the role of prescriptive programming from early childhood. It is no accident that even in the most progressive e.g. UN-run UNRWA schools, the PA textbooks with violent extremism are used and upheld. At some level these children are being conscripted into a worldview that is poisonous to their well-being.
"There are no homicidal revolts against the men in those societies. Not asking for one, but questioning the validity of the general observation."
Personally, I'd love to see one. I couldn't wish enough suffering on the Taliban or the "morality police" for example. But there are obvious reasons why violent uprisings aren't the method of choice for women being oppressed by men.
And even in cases that involve men vs men, the circumstances aren't usually dire enough that an armed uprising will feel like the best option The oppressed group is almost always, pretty much by definition, outmanned and outgunned. An uprising is almost always a suicide mission. So they'll tend towards legal or diplomatic means unless things are *really* bad. The civil rights movement is a good example of this. Segregation was terrible. But not quite, "let's slaughter the random women and children of our enemies" terrible.
But in Palestine's case, and in Turner's, it's hard to see what non-violent options they had. As Ami Ayalon put it, "you cannot deter someone who thinks he has nothing to lose." And neither the Palestinians nor the slaves have/had much to lose.
As always, the big fat caveat that my sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians doesn't mean I think Hamas was in any way justified. Even in the most desperate situations, there are basic standards of humanity. Hamas violated these standards. So did Turner. But the reasons why their compatriots don't condemn those violations as easily as we do from our positions of safety and freedom, are important.
As for indoctrination, there are two points to make.
First to borrow the slaves again, do you think there would have been much work required to conscript the slaves into a worldview where they hated white America? Don't you think the circumstances of their lives would have done that just fine? Indeed, the indoctrination required was to make the slaves docile and subservient so that their natural human desire to rebel against their oppression was beaten out of them.
And second, there is abundant evidence of the indoctrination Jewish children undergo in Israel and around the world. I've seen far more of that than I have indoctrination of Palestinians. Though obviously this could simply be that I've missed it and not that it's not there.
As history teaches us over and over again, the best medicine for prejudice is exposure and equality. The Israelis and Palestinians lack both of these. And it's yet another reason why peace and freedom as soon as possible is such an important goal.
Hi Steve,
Fair enough, although I think our views diverge in a few places, which is natural. Everyone is wrong and everyone is justified to one or another degree. War is a mess, and having a war where the leadership decided to abscond to another country to avoid the worst of it is another unusual circumstance on top of that. re: mutual exposure as a tonic for prejudice - yes, this has been my personal experience as well. Many friends of all sorts before I discovered how society chose to "racialize" me. However, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that both Israel and Palestine lack this - some 15-20% of arabic muslims living and working in Israel pre Oct 7th. In leadership roles in parliament, etc. As you know, trying to find the reciprocal situation in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc. I mean there are more jews in Kenya than Syria right now. Don't want to play the fact check game as we're both freely writing, but I think that's significant.
"As you know, trying to find the reciprocal situation in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc"
Yep, this is true. Partly because no Jew, or sane person in general, would choose to live in Gaza if they had other options. But also, yes, because choosing to live in Gaza as a Jew would be largely insane.
The settlers who live in the West Bank do so because they know the IDF have their backs and yet they still live in completely isolated communities where they don't see Palestinians unless they're fighting them or using them to build their houses.
From what I know of Israel, Arabs and Jews don't really mix that much. So while it's true that there's a higher proportion of Arabs in Israel than there are Jews in Gaza, I'm not sure how much it helps re: fighting prejudice/indictrination. Even if there were peace tomorrow, that's going to be a slow, painful process. Just as it has been in America.
Analogies are often not persuasive, but the action/reaction of violence in the two situations does have logical merit. Fear breeds excess.
You needed an article to extract this point of view? All of the hand-wringing misquotes of MLK during 2020 riots didn't cover that? It's more complex as I replied above - women oppressed for generations across the Middle East with no violence to show for it.
What's that got to do with anything that I wrote?
"fear breeds excess" = "a riot is the language of the unheard". etc. hope that helps.
Doesn't help at all. You're two quoted phrases are not equal and don't have anything to do with what I wrote.
OK, another misunderstanding on the internet then. You have had a few opportunities to expound on "what you really meant". Absent that, all I have are your words. Have a great day.
There was nothing to expound on. My words were clear and concise. The Israelis are afraid of continued attacks, so they are excessive in their actions. The slave holders were afraid of more rebellions, so they were excessive in their actions. Steve's article in a nutshell. What is your issue? Do you think that the Israeli destruction of Gaza is not excessive?