ANTISEMITISM ON CAMPUS & SCHOLARSHIP
Oxford students in 'bring a fit Jew' party row Rugby squad said to have worn Orthodox Jewish dress and been asked to carry bags of money to curry house party.
Rector Leora Jackson said Queen’s should be a place of education not discrimination.
“What happened to Rachel is not okay. This shouldn’t be a place where you walk out to your car and find that someone has smeared ‘Dirty Jew’ on it or where you’re walking down the street and someone yells a slur at you,” she said, adding that she herself has faced anti-Semitism on campus.
“I was at the QP and someone wasn’t finishing their beer and so I said ‘Are you going to finish your beer?’ and they said ‘No I just don’t want anymore.’ My response was ‘I just hate seeing things go to waste’ and the boy said ‘What are you, a Jew?’ I think that the fact that I was Jewish must have been immediately obvious because of the look on my face and my reaction.”
Going to three outstanding bookstores, the “Yale Bookstore” in New Haven, “Book Culture” in Manhattan and “Labyrinth Books,” also in the heart of Yale/New Haven, I have to conclude that Americans and scholars in America, just as much as Europeans, like anti-Jewish “scholars” such as NSDAP-party member Martin Heidegger, Nazi legal advisor Carl Schmitt, anti-Zionist philosophers or historians like Alain Badiou and Tony Judt, and linguist and left-wing radical anti-Zionist Noam Chomsky. In none of the above-mentioned bookstores is there even a category named “anti-Semitism” or “new anti-Semitism.”
Of course, you can find very good and important books like “Anti-Semitic Myths: A Historical and Contemporary Anthology,” by Marvin Perry and Frederick M. Schweitzer, or “Why We Watched: Europe, America and the Holocaust,” by Theodore S. Hamerow.
But how has one of the display tables been arranged at Labyrinth Books? Just like in Berlin or Londonistan: centrally placed, with the cover in a vertical position (and not horizontal like all the other, by definition less important books) is Walt/Mearscheimer’s “Israel Lobby”!
The core principle of secondary anti-Semitism is the refusal or rejection of remembrance of the unprecedented crime which Germans committed during the Second World War, namely the Shoah. This has a specific dimension in Germany which basically reflects the country's unique political culture.
The cruelest version of secondary anti-Semitism is Holocaust denial. Three categories of soft-core denial are proposed: distortion, universalization and projection of guilt/relativization/trivialization. People who generate such a soft-core denial do not often refer to the Holocaust as a lie or fabrication by Jews or their sympathizers. It is much more subtle. Disguising history by talking about history is the unstated aim.
Research on anti-Semitism must be vigilant in the coming years to develop new strategies to fight this new brand of Jew-hatred. Soft-core denial today is already at least as dangerous and widespread as Neonazi, Islamic or Iranian varieties: liberals, left-wingers, conservatives, clergy and scientists of all persuasions are using this form of post-Auschwitz anti-Semitism in good conscience.
ACJ call on McMillain to retract Zionism Chapter in Encylopedia Publisher apologizes but fails to retract.
Petra Marquardt-Bigman explains: The Warped Mirror: No Pretense of scholarship:
Both David Harris in his memo for Macmillan Reference USA and Ben in his blog post at Z Word make the important point that people consult an encyclopedia with the expectation to find reliable and unbiased information. Instead, Macmillan Reference USA decided to single out the Jewish form of nationalism and assign the entry to a writer who cannot even bring himself to refer to the Israeli government, but instead prefers the term"Zionist authorities".
As David Harris rightly noted:"[This is] the tell-tale language of someone who does not believe Israel has a right to exist. Ignatiev is completely at liberty to believe this. What is not acceptable is his imposition of this belief upon an encyclopedia entry which many readers believe to be objective."
Unfortunately, however, it is clear that the people in charge of the encyclopedia felt that it was entirely acceptable for the author they chose to write about Zionism to present Jewish nationalism in a completely negative light and deny Jews the right to self-determination in a state of their own.
Little wonder that one review posted on Amazon is entitled:"A Racist Encyclopedia of Race & Racism -- How Ironic!" I'm afraid, though, that calling it"ironic" is taking this incident far too lightly.
comments powered by Disqus