This could just be disinformation, but if true it explains a lot. Note that some of the worst anti-Semites in history, including Torquemada and Karl Marx, were of recent Jewish descent, and used anti-Semitism to ingratiate themselves with their non-Jewish constituencies.
Ha’aretz: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scathing attacks against Israel and his repeated denials of the Nazi Holocaust could be motivated by a desire to conceal his own Jewish roots, an Iran expert told The Daily Telegraph on Saturday.
The British newspaper examined the Iranian leader’s identity card which he displayed in public during his country’s elections in March 2008.
The ID card bears his family’s original surname, Sabourjian, which is a Jewish name that means cloth weaver, according to The Daily Telegraph.
 |
The Sabourjians have historically been concentrated in the same region of Iran where Ahmadinejad was born, according to the report.
Ahmadinejad’s identity papers indicate that his family changed its name and converted to Islam after he was born, the British newspaper said.
Iranian observers suggested that the president’s constant verbal assault against Israel and Jews may be an attempt to prove his loyalty to Shia Islam while making every effort to hide his Jewish past.
UPDATE: Here’s the original Telegraph story.
FURTHER UPDATE: Admittedly it’s possible that Torquemada, et al., were just sincere anti-Semites, despite their Jewish descent. But from medieval Spain until twenty-first century America (see War, Iraq), it’s been common for powerful persons of Jewish descent to be accused of using their power to further a secret Jewish agenda, whatever their expressed motives. One way of trying to preempt such criticism is to get a reputation as a vociferous critic of Jews.
To get into more controversial territory, it’s certainly interesting that many leftists of Jewish descent who have no other connection with Judaism or the Jewish community feel the need to be outspoken “Jewish” critics of Israel; the better to prove their leftist, universalist bona fides?
geokstr says:
If this proves to be true, and it gets some traction back in Iran, we should have a pool as to Mahmoud’s life expectancy. I’ll go with 45 seconds.
October 3, 2009, 2:40 pmChrisTS says:
Perhaps he could eliminate himself.
October 3, 2009, 2:55 pmerp says:
Sure proof method to find out.
October 3, 2009, 2:58 pmCornellian says:
Wow, I guess the Jews really are infiltrating the Iranian government at the highest levels . . .
October 3, 2009, 3:01 pmMark N. says:
While it would be hard to argue Marx as a philosemite, in the context of mid-19th-century political thought, he hardly seems particularly anti-Semitic. Wasn’t his “On the Jewish Question”, filled with negative stereotypes though it is, actually written as a rebuttal to much more anti-semitic works by Bruno Bauer?
October 3, 2009, 3:53 pmMitchell J. Freedman says:
Mark N. is absolutely correct. Marx was defending Jews in that too often seen as infamous essay. Might as well call Abe Lincoln one of the biggest racists of all time for his use of slurs against blacks while he was defending them too. But of course, David probably hates Lincoln too because Lincoln was one of those Whig “statists.”
Incidentally, Marx was, at least for awhile, good friends with a leading Jewish personality of the time, Moses Hess, who is known as both the “father” of modern Communism and…Zionism.
October 3, 2009, 4:13 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
So? Muslims have always welcomed conversions – indeed, they insist upon them. If the story is true, all it shows is that a formerly Jewish boy, now a Muslim, can make good in the Islamic world.
October 3, 2009, 4:41 pmSandy MacHoots says:
To put in a word for Torquemada, pretty much everyone in the 15th century Spanish nobility had some converso blood, and his position as nephew of the most prominent Cardinal in Spain (who apparently shared the same Jewish ancestor) suggests he didn’t need to worry about his social position. His record doesn’t show him treating Jews any differently than Muslims or the Arian Christian heretics who still abounded in Spain.
October 3, 2009, 5:19 pmDNJ says:
Marx didn’t like the Jewish religion, but then his views on religion in general were negative. But he didn’t have any objection to Jews as an ethnic groups: “On the Jewish Question” is just an attempt to persuade Jews to give up their religion.
October 3, 2009, 5:29 pmTNeloms says:
I don’t see why you need a special reason to explain why the leader of Iran is particularly anti-Semitic.
My preferred interpretation of this news is that this is the greatest Mossad operation ever.
October 3, 2009, 5:48 pmARCraig says:
To ask what seems (to me) like the obvious question: if Ahmadinejad was trying to hide this, why in the world would he be showing off his official papers that showed his former surname? I smell a hoax.
October 3, 2009, 5:54 pmSoronel Haetir says:
And I too would ask why would this matter even if true? Perhaps it is just another example of there being no fanatic like a convert.
October 3, 2009, 5:57 pmSkyler says:
This is all petty silliness. What does it matter that one man in Iran is genetically Jewish or not? It won’t change his opinions on anything. And even if it forces him from his position, there are plenty others that support him and those that don’t support him that hate the Jews in that country. It matters not a whit, and it’s just silly to make a big deal out of it.
October 3, 2009, 6:24 pmTosk59 says:
How could something like this be kept quiet? With all his internal opponents and the infighting among the ruling class, surely an opponent would have used this against him if true?
October 3, 2009, 6:33 pmbyomtov says:
Karl Marx was “one of the worst anti-Semites in history?”
Get a grip, Bernstein. Marx may well have been an anti-Semite, but he was hardly one of the worst.
October 3, 2009, 7:06 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Marx was one of the “worst” anti-Semites in terms of influence, as his anti-Jewish writings have influenced generations of the far left. His view of Judaism as a phony religion Jews as essentially being a phony “people” who are really just an economic class that will disappear when socialism takes over still influences the far left today, and is partially responsible for common far left vociferous anti-Zionism.
Marx:
“Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist. Money abases all the gods of mankind and changes them into commodities. Money is the self-sufficient value of all things. It has, therefore, deprived the whole world, both the human world and Nature, of their own proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man’s work and existence: this essence dominates him and he worships it. The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of the world.” Karl Marx, On the Jewish Questions, 1844.
It comforts me little that some of Marx’s interlocutors were even more anti-Semitic.
October 3, 2009, 7:26 pmsbron says:
Soros on steroids.
October 3, 2009, 7:53 pmEricPWJohnson says:
Interesting that there is indeed a large Jewish Community that is extremely influential in Iran, Iraq and even in Yemen. How those brave besiged people survive day to day in addition to flourishing and having some influence over governmental affairs is astonishing to say the least.
October 3, 2009, 8:07 pmDNJ says:
David,
Marx had nothing against people of Jewish ethnicity, as such (he was of course one of those people). “On the Jewish Question” argued that Jews should give up Judaism. It was not an attack on Jews, as an ethnicity, but on Judaism.
It is, I think, quite wrong to describe people who denounce the Jewish religion as anti-Semitic unless they are hostile to Jews as a people. It would hardly seem right to describe Richard Dawkins as an anti-Semite, despite his very negative views on Judaism (and all religion). FWIW, I share Dawkins’s dislike for both Judaism and religion in general – but I certainly don’t dislike the Jewish people, and would strongly object to being called an anti-Semite for my views on Judaism.
October 3, 2009, 8:07 pmEricPWJohnson says:
DNJ
Hey – you hide it well! Hate the religion that is the very essence of their strength and character but then say you don’t dislike them?
October 3, 2009, 8:14 pmMark N. says:
David Bernstein: Didn’t Marx view all religions as phony, and all peoples likewise? No doubt he thought that both Judaism and Jews would disappear as identifiable entities with the victory of Socialism, but he thought that of Christianity and Germans, too. One of the bedrocks of old-style Marxism was atheist internationalism, which is of course against all religions and all kinds of nationalism.
October 3, 2009, 8:21 pmDNJ says:
Well, considering the number of secular Jews (who have probably been even more successful, on the whole, than religious ones), the claim that Jews’ religion has been “the very essence of their strength and character” seems rather dubious to me.”
I see no reason why I shouldn’t judge Judaism on whether it is morally objectionable and epistemically unjustified (I think it is, on both counts). I judge Christianity, Platonism, utilitarianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Kantianism, atheism, agnostism and Islam by the same standards. I don’t think that there is any reason to treat Judaism in particular, or religion in general, differently from how I evaluate other systems of thought.
October 3, 2009, 8:22 pmDNJ says:
Exactly. I don’t think that can fairly be described an anti-Semitism, at least unless you want to use anti-Seminism as an evaluatively neutral term (which would be highly unusual), because I can’t see anything morally wrong with such a view.
October 3, 2009, 8:32 pmDNJ says:
The “brotherhood of all peoples as one” idea (including the Jews) isn’t exactly typical of anti-Semites.
October 3, 2009, 8:33 pmEricPWJohnson says:
DNJ
Astonishing is the very fact that you have no facts, yet seemingly give us information, unknown to most of the learned world such as being non-religious you will be more successful and that you find morally objectionable a religion that teaches and has founded the very “morals” that you finding objectionable.
Just sayin
October 3, 2009, 8:34 pmanonymous says:
Hmm.
I’m not so sure that “revealing” this information will be as helpful to the anti anti-Semitic base as DB might think. Wouldn’t a true hater/anti Semite just think:
All these troublemakers in the news seem to be of Jewish blood. Hitler might have had it right: it’s genetic, not religious. And there’s only one solution …
But if you see strategic advantage of labeling him as one of the tribe DB, (thinking of a potential internal revolt against him ?) I might just be missing it. If he is though, doesn’t G-d’s covenant with the Jews also apply to him then?
Can o worms best left unopened, it seems to me.
October 3, 2009, 9:23 pmanonymous says:
I also wondered DB, does your dislike of all things Olympic relate to Munich, or to not wanting to cheer on American athletes at the expense of other liked countries?
Your comments earlier had me wondering if your own well-discussed Jewishness plays a big role in your wanting to avoid any mention of the Olympics. (couldn’t you just turn off the tv, and put away the Sports section of the newspapers those weeks?)
It seemed out of proportion because even people who dislike sports usually can tolerate sitting with the family for the opening ceremonies, or watching the spectacular performances on the highlight reels.
If you want to explain further, I for one am curious.
October 3, 2009, 9:34 pmChrisTS says:
Ah. Well that explains it. It does not matter what Marx wrote or thought. All that matters is what some people [purportedly] took him to mean, or just what they took away from what they thought he wrote or meant.
Does it matter whether or not these others actually (a) read and (b) understood what Marx wrote? (Shades of ‘Make Them Read the Bills.’)
October 3, 2009, 9:53 pmJames N. Gibson says:
I guess this confirms it, Hitler’s anti-semitism is no longer viewed as a cover for his own ancestry. Otherwise that old story would have been brought up instead of Marx.
Truth is in all dictatorships you need to have a group that can be labeled as the source of all the rest of the people’s problems. An easy scapegoat who you can persecute to show your strength and possibly get money from to add to your power base. In short some group that is physically identifiable, can be blackmailed for money, and after a while either enslaved, or killed or both in order to make the lives of everyone else easier.
The Jews were an easy fit for the role of the bad people in Post World War 1 Germany given the wealth they still had after the war. Centuries before that Gypsies were persecuted in that they were easily distinguishable from the rest of the population. In the French revolution it was the aristocracy who were first stripped of there wealth and land and then killed as a show of the power of the new state. And after the aristocrats were dead others were denounced to follow as the State had to maintain a form of State terrorism to keep the people in-line. It only ended when the chief denouncer went too far and was himself denounced by the assembly.
October 3, 2009, 10:38 pmPyrrho says:
Interesting that DB is also a psychologist now, too.
October 3, 2009, 11:16 pmeyesay says:
David Bernstein wrote:
Uh, OK . . . and Jesus was one of the “worst” anti-Protestants in terms of influence, because of all of the Catholics who used his sayings to justify killing Protestants . . . and Jesus was one of the “worst” anti-Catholics in terms of influence, because of all of the Protestants who used his sayings to justify killing Catholics . . . and Jesus was one of the “worst” anti-Semites in terms of influence, because of all of the Christians who used his sayings to justify killing Jews . . . and Jesus was one of the “worst” anti-Muslims in terms of influence, because of all of the Christians who used his sayings to justify killing Muslims . . . thanks for clarifying how to be among the worst anti-anything . . .
October 3, 2009, 11:44 pmDNJ says:
I didn’t say that being non-religious would make you more successful; I don’t know whether or not that is true. What I was saying is that religious Jews, particularly the most religious ultra-Orthodox ones, have been (on the whole) less successful – in terms of wealth, power, education, and so on. Of course, this might not be a good thing – perhaps the secular Jews were greedy and misused power (I suspect, as with most things, some did and some didn’t).
I do find Judeo-Christian morality objectionable. I do not think imposing the death penalty for adultery or homosexual acts is justifiable. I also find the idea of sending people with different religious views to hell repugnant. And God really seems to like killing people and inciting ethnic cleansing.
October 4, 2009, 12:26 amanonymous says:
I do find Judeo-Christian morality objectionable. I do not think imposing the death penalty for adultery or homosexual acts is justifiable. I also find the idea of sending people with different religious views to hell repugnant. And God really seems to like killing people and inciting ethnic cleansing.
God? Man did that killing, not God, unless you’re still holding him accountable for that flood thing, and He’s changed since then. (remember the rainbow!)
Also, Judeo-Christian morals don’t teach the death penalty for homosexuals. Where did you get that one??
Finally, instead of thinking that “God sends non-believers to hell” try thinking: “If you don’t know God, you don’t know heaven.” Hell is what you make of it, and Jesus Christ’s saving power is available to ALL who accept that He died for man’s sins. Didn’t commit them, but paid the price to keep the door to heaven cracked, for all those sinners who choose the way. Including Jewish people, who forwhatever reason, might find something lacking in the Old Testament G-d and have trouble in their own mortal lives finding the way to His Love. (I’m thinking David Letterman say. Something is missing when you have the world, and still an internal unhappiness/emptiness.)
Find a Bible that has Jesus’ words in red, and then you’ll know what He said, and contrast that to how his followers over the years have acted wrongly in his name. Number one, in “forcing” Christianity on unbelievers. Still, He is accessible for all who choose to believe in His Saving Power.
At least it will give you a more mature view than “blaming God” for the world’s bad things, which most poeple get over when they leave childhood and adopt an adult outlook.
October 4, 2009, 4:16 amDavid Bernstein says:
You don’t think that saying that “money is the jealous God of Israel” is anti-semitic, that it’s just an attack on the Jewish religion? Given that this is a completely absurd summary of Judaism, and plays on hundreds of years of Christian anti-Semitism of Jews worshiping “Mammon”, I really don’t see how you can reach that conclusion. It’s true that it’s not racial anti-Semitism of the Nazi variety, but the sort of anti-Semitism that led to expulsions, pogroms, massacres, etc is quite bad enough. Would you say that Luther was not anti-Semitic because his hatred of Jews was based on their refusal to adopt his Christian precepts?
October 4, 2009, 4:56 amDavid Bernstein says:
Can your mind conceive of the possibility that I just have no interest in watching other people play games, or listening to commentary about it, period, and that the fact that I’m a libertarian might make the Olympics especially annoying, with the inane idea that an athlete somehow “represents” his countrymen?
October 4, 2009, 4:57 amArian says:
it is not unbelievable that jews have thier hands and influence on iranian government knowing the fact that they have thier influence on the US Gov and all over the world.
October 4, 2009, 5:08 ami think that everybody agrees that history can not be denied.
i have a question for everyone who reads this.
what is the need for abandoning denial of holocaust in Austria? this rule is for one historic event. what does that mean?
tony blair has said that the greatest event of the 20th century is creation of the israel government.
history has shown that countries can not be conqured and controlled for a long time but israel has come into existance from nothing but a string of lies. my apologies for the ones who got hurt during the world war 2 but jews were not the main victim of the war and to the extent said, the russians has suffered morethan any one else, 20M russian were killed during the war!!!
Arian says:
To: Every One,
October 4, 2009, 5:29 ami would like to comment ahmadenejad sayings:
he says that holocaust is a fake event, designed to create isreal!!
why Austria abandons denial of holocaust? no one denies history even modern history that alot of evidence does exis!!
who has suffered the most from world war 2, Jews or Russian?
no country can be conqured and controled for along time but israel has come into existence from nothing and it is a regional war and economic power, who can deny their control of iran or even US GOV?
Arian says:
any one likes to have their comments on what i have said or they can prove me wrong, they are welcome. search for arian comments i would be appreciated to have have your opinions on those things.
October 4, 2009, 5:32 amthanks,
Andrewt says:
I don’t think Ahmadinejad was born Jewish. The name sabourijian is a combination of Farsi and Armenian. The town he came from was not Jewish as Jews tend to live in big cities. This information is not new but the subversion of Iran is becoming more important to the CIA.
This is a brilliant tactic from the CIA to try to demonise and discredit mahmoud ad much as possible.in fact the rumours have been circulated by a political enemy of Mahmoud in Iran.
I can’t believe posters in this article have been so distracted from the truth by some bs article in a tabloid. Did u notice the expert in Iranian Jews had no name.
October 4, 2009, 5:35 amDavid Chesler says:
I first heard this in an email that circulated on January 28, 2009 with the subject “Early Purim Joke” and a link to http://www.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=24363&MenuID=822&ThreadID=1014019http://www.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=24363&MenuID=822&ThreadID=1014019
(article is in Hebrew.) The email said:
I don’t know why the story is getting legs now.
October 4, 2009, 6:40 amTech says:
All they have to go on is a name? Maybe they should get some proof before making wild accusations.
October 4, 2009, 6:43 amneurodoc says:
I have no trouble accepting that you have NO interest in watching other people play games, or listening to commentary about it. (Of course, it is easy enough not to watch or listen, unless you find yourself imprisoned and, knowing how strongly you dislike the Olympics, your captors pipe it all into your cell as a means of breaking your will to resist.) What I am surprised to learn, though, is that the ballyhoo surrounding the Olympics is offensive to you as a libertarian, and as such you are especially irritated by “the inane idea that an athlete somehow ‘represents’ his countrymen.” Your objections to the Olympics are principled ideologic ones? This isn’t some part of a libertarian credo, is it? Would you be happier if athletes competed not as representatives of their countries, but instead solely as individuals?
Do you have the same antipathy (it seems to go beyond simple lack of interest) toward the World Series and the Superbowl? No fondly recalled sports experiences when you were young?
FWIW, I am not all that interested in the Olympics myself, though I think something is gained through “feel good” experiences like the US hockey team’s victory over the Russians.
October 4, 2009, 6:44 amClay Harris says:
Why does this even matter? This is potentially the same kind of disinformation ( we have 2 assume that this is disinformation without any proof of the claim) that is frankly used by the Birthers, Deathers, whatever u call them, when they start their Obama/Hitler rants. The remarks says more about the persons making the claims than about the targets of the accusation. The facts are that: Jewish or not,Ahmadinejad uses anti-semitism as part of his “national policy” to build nuclear missiles, and threaten Iran’s neighbors (ostensibly Israel) to build on his shaky political popularity back home.
Iran’s extremist elements are propelled Ahmadinejad to his nation’s presidency, but using that same tack of paranoia and prejudice against him may only serve to portray as the victim of yet another “foreign-born conspiracy”….
The other facts are:
Countries in the Middle East are openly questioning and defying the unwritten , unspoken foreign policy that everyone in the Middle East knows to be true: the U.S. has allowed Israel to maintain its own nuclear missile stockpile as “self-defense” against its honestly hostile neighbors…Most defense analysts around the world have concluded that Israel, Iran, or any country in the Middle East could trigger a real nuclear holocaust with a nuclear first-strike of any of its neighbors ( missile, dirty bomb,etc)
Even the likelihood of Iran having two or three secret nuclear facilities would not reasonably give Ahmadinejad’s regime any more than 1 or 2 live atomic warheads ready for use. Israel is supposed to already have anywhere between 60 to 400 warheads , all of Teller-Ullam design, and in the megaton range of explosive power….so the real question is: does confronting an “existential threat” by a hostile neighbor justify any miltary action that could really set off World War 3?
October 4, 2009, 6:55 amneurodoc says:
Interesting that you think one must be a psychologist to make the sort of observations DB has made about antisemitism and antisemites. Do you disagree with the substance of those “psychological” comments of his, or do you admit to being incompetent to judge them, not being a psychologist yourself?
(BTW, are you one of those who thinks Professor Bernstein should only blog about the law? If so, why do bother to read his non-law posts, let alone comment on them.
October 4, 2009, 6:59 amJim Miller says:
Actually, Muslims have not always “always welcomed conversions”. In the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, many Muslims preferred that unbelievers pay tribute. (And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn tha some still feel that way.)
And there was some Arab chauvinism, too. I recall reading that some of the first non-Arab converts were assigned to Arab tribes.
October 4, 2009, 7:06 amKourosh says:
…Ahmadinejad isn’t the only covert from Judaism. THE most dangerous bloodthirsty psychopath, Habibollah Asgaroladi, the head of the Motalefeh party and his deputy Elias Eliasi are also newly Jewish converts to Islam…to say…they converted 35 years ago…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habibollah_Asgaroladi
October 4, 2009, 7:11 amKourosh says:
Iran’s Jews to vote for Ahmadinejad
1. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3729203,00.html
2. http://www.ynet.co.il/english/Ext/App/TalkBack/CdaViewOpenTalkBack/1,11382,L-3729203,00.html
3.http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=39a_1245420704
. if you Please put the following Phrase in Google search “All Iranian Jews voted for Ahmadinejad”
October 4, 2009, 7:24 amMitchell J. Freedman says:
I have to say to David, as he decided to add an update that says those who are Jewish and attack Israel are not involved in Jewish life:
I am a critic of certain significant Israeli government policies, starting with its treatment of Palestinians regarding water and land use, and the continued building of settlements. I also believe various Israeli leaders have shown and continue to show bad faith in their alleged interest in pursuing peace with Palestinians.
Yet, I have long been active in the ADL (starting in the 1980s) and have been a Men’s Club President at a synagogue we belonged to, and later president at the synagogue we currently belong to (We moved to San Diego from Ventura County in CA and hence the change in synagogues).
I find the argument a bit strange. It’s a variant of the argument that unless you’ve been in the military, you can’t criticize military actions–to which I retorted to such people, “So if you haven’t been on welfare, you can’t criticize welfare, right?” And to those who say we have to visit Israel to understand it, I retort, “Paul Robeson visited the Soviet Union loads of times, and he still managed to miss the gulags. How many Jews and Christian fundamentalists have visited Israel and gone through Palestinian checkpoints where the IDF mistook them for Palestinians and treated them…ahem…accordingly?”
Oh well. I’ll also continue to defend Karl Marx from 21st Century presentism regarding his anti-Semitism; the same way I defend Abe Lincoln from various people who call Lincoln a racist for the views he publicly and privately stated regarding people with African-American slaves.
October 4, 2009, 8:27 amanonymous says:
Can your mind conceive of the possibility that I just have no interest in watching other people play games, or listening to commentary about it, period,
Absolutely. Plenty like this. But those types generally don’t need to publicly pronouce their “dislike” so strongly. They just ignore it, and don’t mind so much that healthy competitions give pleasures to other countrymen. You did write: “Every four years, I have to hear far, far more about the Olympics than I care to. It’s even worse when the Olympics are held in the U.S.” like it’s a personal burden on you, or something.
And sorry, I just don’t buy that being a true libertarian means you can’t enjoy physical athletic excellence, watching different groups of people compete and take pride in their country’s support for their work and training.
Maybe you don’t like sports, but there’s nothing at all un-libertarian by believing that countries, and all mankind really, wins when they come together every 4 years to physically measure up in games of international competition.
Sounds(ed) more personal than that to me — particular to you, not all libertarians. Thanks for answering.
(Is it unlibertarian to watch other sports too, and “root” for a favorite?)
October 4, 2009, 8:29 amMitchell J. Freedman says:
I should add I stopped being involved in the ADL by the late 1990s as I started more active involvement in synagogues. I also finally had it with ADL’s inconsistency in promoting separation of church and state in America, but not really coming to grips with the fact of integration of “church” and state in Israel; its continued fealty to a Likud oriented policy for Israel (ADL is better however than AIPAC on this); and its hostility to affirmative action, which admittedly softened in this decade…
October 4, 2009, 8:30 ambyomtov says:
It comforts me little that some of Marx’s interlocutors were even more anti-Semitic.
So we have Marx’s interlocutors, the Nazis, the tsarists, the cossacks, some Popes, Martin Luther, lots of Spanish officials both before and after 1492, early 20th C. Polish politicians, etc., all of whom were more anti-Semitic than Marx. But he was “one of the worst?” Can you seriously blame all anti-Semitism you find on the left on Marx?
As for “far-left anti-Zionism,” I’m not sure what you are referring to. But, to use your phrase, can your mind conceive that some people, including many Jews, like David Freedman and I, have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, and that this is not a marker of anti-Semitism, or Marxism or anti-Zionism, but is rather a considered opinion?
October 4, 2009, 8:48 ameyesay says:
David Bernstein wrote
No, David, it’s not particularly interesting — it’s exactly what you would expect, just as we expect an American of Muslim who has little connection with Islam or the Islamic community to say, “I’m a Muslim, and I condemn those who misuse my faith to justify commiting acts of terror and murder.” And David, Jews who criticize Israel as Jews include political moderates, members and frequent attenders of synagogues, donors to their local federation, visitors to their local Jewish museum, attenders of Jewish film festivals, and many others who have significant connection with Judaism and the Jewish Community. Jewish critics of Israel are not mostly “leftists of Jewish descent who have no other connection with Judaism or the Jewish community.” In fact, there was plenty of Jewish criticism of proto-Israel going back to the time of Moses, if not earlier . . .
October 4, 2009, 9:22 amlida says:
Are you joking??
October 4, 2009, 9:23 amMy mum was Catholic is that means someone have right to insult me when I attend prayers with other muslims?
It just made me laugh . Rather I burst into laugh
israel is very weak . They must collect all and just return to their original countries.
The Chosen Ones Israelites belonged to ancient times and every muslim knows that Chosen ones are those who are most loyal to God Those who make their prayers ,pay for poor, defend oppressed and don’t fear no one beside Lord.
Actually I ‘ve attended prayers in which Ahmadinejad also took part.
People of the world , we pray to the Great Kind Lord in thousands every friday noon . Every jewish has right to turn to Islam and my mum was Catholic.
Cookie Monsta says:
“…Ahmadinejad isn’t the only covert from Judaism. THE most dangerous bloodthirsty psychopath, Habibollah Asgaroladi, the head of the Motalefeh party and his deputy Elias Eliasi are also newly Jewish converts to Islam…to say…they converted 35 years ago…”
So three of the wealthiest, most dangerous people in Iran are of Jewish descent? How does this bode for countering widespread anti-semitism in Iran?
I’d also be interested on DB’s take on Freud’s “Moses & Monotheism.” Were Freud’s criticisms of Judaism “anti-semitic”? And if so, was Freud’s motive in writing such criticism to ingratiate himself with his cool and popular anti-semitic peers?
October 4, 2009, 9:35 amDavid Bernstein says:
Would you be happier if athletes competed not as representatives of their countries, but instead solely as individuals?Absolutely.
I spent a huge amount of time following sports, talking about sports, caring about sports, etc., when I was young. I was an especially vociferous Mets fan. At some point as a young adult, I decided my time was far better spent worrying about my own life and my own achievements (or lack thereof) than worrying about what some well-paid strangers who wouldn’t give me the time of day if they saw me on the street, and who have no connection to the team’s “hometown” other than being paid to play in it did or didn’t do.
I wonder who actual gets more irrational dislike: atheists, or men who abstain from following sports? On this blog, it’s clearly the latter.
Oh, and by the way M.F., the fact that there are some active Jews who criticize Israel doesn’t have anything to do with my point that there are many individuals out there who don’t identify in any way as Jews except when they attack Israel/Zionism. Some of these are the same people who if you ask them if they are Jewish, they’ll say, “well, my parents were.” Fine, I don’t think anyone is obligated to identify as anything. But then suddenly when it’s time to attack Israel or Zionism, it’s, “As a Jew …”
October 4, 2009, 10:08 amMatt says:
I think the most interesting thing about this story is that a British newspaper printed it. To a layman like myself, that suggests one of two things:
a) The authors are confident that their article would stand up in a British libel trial (where the burden of proof is on the author, not the claimant).
b) The authors are confident that A-Jad couldn’t get his case heard in British court.
Which is it?
I don’t know much about the law, but to me this is the most interesting angle here. It’s a pity that the smart commenters and bloggers here are busy hunting for (dead) anti-semites rather than addressing it. I came here expecting an answer to this question. Can anyone give me one?
October 4, 2009, 10:43 amXenocles says:
Anonymous @4:16:
Oh really? Under Joshua’s leadership Israel utterly destroyed seven kingdoms:
“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.” (Joshua 10:40)
Still, I guess God didn’t actually do that killing. Of course under this standard Hitler is blameless since he probably didn’t actually kill anyone either.
He got it from Leviticus: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (20:13)
This is possibly a very commendable modern view of Heaven and Hell, but it is fundamentally at odds with Jesus’s own words. He routinely describes Hell as being everlasting and unquenchable fire. It’s hard to make endless torture anything else.
October 4, 2009, 11:21 amneurodoc says:
Completely OT, but…you said that some don’t get “the fact that I’m a libertarian might make the Olympics especially annoying, with the inane idea that an athlete somehow ‘represents’ his countrymen?” It is especially annoying to you as a libertarian that athletes compete in the Olympics as “representatives” of their respective countries? So Dems and Repubs and others of various political persuasions might buy into that “representative” stuff, but a true libertarian should be affronted by it?
You think that “men who abstain from following sports” get a lot of “irrational dislike”? Funny, I am largely unaware of what individuals/teams are up or down at any given time and have never felt any dislike, rational or irrational on account of it. Sometimes I may find it of interest to glance at what is doing in the sports world, just as I might glance at the entertainment world from time to time with about the same level of interest as the sports one, and occasionally that proves a bit of a social lubricant, but not a terribly consequential one.
About what does and doesn’t constitute antisemitism, including “money is the jealous God of Israel,” I am in agreement with you. But there are the Mitchell Freedmans, some of them even one time ADL supporters and former presidents of their synagogue brotherhoods, who first want to defend Marx against “21st Century presentism regarding his anti-Semitism,” who would prove up your point about their use of their Jewish “bona fides” to belabor Israel.
October 4, 2009, 11:33 amneurodoc says:
You imagine it to be libelous to suggest that someone’s family may have been converts from Judaism? And you think Amadinejad would go to court with a libel claim like David Irving did against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher? That would be great!
October 4, 2009, 11:39 amMatt says:
I imagine it damaging (and possibly untrue) , and isn’t that what libel laws are all about?
I know it’s a longshot hypothetical, but it would be hilarious.
October 4, 2009, 11:45 amKourosh says:
Israel President (Ex) is an Iranian and Israel Defence Minster (Ex) is an Iranian
October 4, 2009, 12:31 pmI am surprised a lot people are surprised that Amadinajed has a Jewish background. In Iran there is no religious hatred. People from all religions and backgrounds have been living for thousands of years as a family. Please do not mix politics with religion.
Israel President (Ex) is an Iranian:
Personal life Section:
Katsav was born in Yazd, Iran. His family brought him to Tehran when he was an infant; in June 1951, when he was 5, they emigrated to Israel. He remains fluent in Persian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Katsav
Israel Defence Minster (Ex) is an Iranian:
Biography Section:
Born in Tehran (although his parents came from Isfahan), Mofaz immigrated to Israel with his parents in 1957.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaul_Mofaz
Real reason why Chicago failed Olympics : Come on! :slashingtongue says:
[...] “Was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Born Jewish?” and related posts (volokh.com) [...]
October 4, 2009, 12:45 pmChrisTS says:
This thread is just all over the place.
For what it’s worth, I did not think DB’s post on the Olympics revealed much of anything about him or needed explanation. He doesn’t like the hoopla.
October 4, 2009, 12:59 pmanonymous says:
I decided my time was far better spent worrying about my own life and my own achievements (or lack thereof) than worrying about what some well-paid strangers who wouldn’t give me the time of day if they saw me on the street, and who have no connection to the team’s “hometown” other than being paid to play in it did or didn’t do.
I wonder who actual gets more irrational dislike: atheists, or men who abstain from following sports? On this blog, it’s clearly the latter.
Perhaps, as is common in your “analysis” here, you are simply misinterpreting and your conclusions are off?
Could it be that commenters on this blog have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with men who don’t follow sports. (like EV once mentioned of himself)
But they do have a problem with men who don’t follow sports, who snarkily presume superiority to those that do?
I’m sure at your age, in juggling your personal and professional lives, following sports had to go. And you deliberately chose to do so.
But why try to impose your value choices on others, or presume “dislike” just because somebody else values something more than you? Doesn’t sound too libertarian to me… and who cares what other people do or don’t? Why assume that we like you less because you don’t follow sports, instead of realizing we might not like you because obviously, you are a sports spob?
Acting as though the Olympics are the worst thing to happen and it’s so hard just to not listen or follow, and those who do have pride in their own country’s athletic acheivements are somehow … not libertarian, or wasting time.
And that you’re being “picked on” just because you’re a non-sports-following guy. Heh. You really ought to pick your crusades better DB. And now you got me wondering: were you snubbed by some arrogant athlete as a boy when asking for an autograph?
Because your dislike here seems way too personal just to be the typical “I like things other than sports”. Snark against those who do like the Olympics, and following local teams — where exactly does that come from, Sport?
worrying about what some well-paid strangers who wouldn’t give me the time of day if they saw me on the street, and who have no connection to the team’s “hometown” other than being paid to play in it did or didn’t do.
Smells like professional jealousy to me, like those athletes should be giving you — a law professor — the time of day, considering you are their intellectual better. And it doesn’t really work with amateur athletes who compete in the Olympics, plenty of whom don’t have attitude and WOULD give fans the time of day. (Generalizations: all athletes are well-paid, simply not true.)
Vancouver … February 12 to 28, 2010. Go Team!!
October 4, 2009, 1:05 pmAbe Bird says:
Is Ahmadinejad really Jewish? Not at all! His former name was “Streets’ cleaner” (Sabourjian) in the local dialect, a non-Jewish name, and not as false as being told to us.
October 4, 2009, 2:11 pmneurodoc says:
I know nothing about libel law in the UK other than that plaintiffs there enjoy a great advantage over those here because of who bears the burden of proof there. I am pretty confident, though, that things are not so otherwise different there that a plaintiff need only establish that what they object to is “damaging (and possibly untrue).” (“Damages” are the measure of injury in a tort case. When what is alleged is libel or slander, that is an injury to reputation, the issue is whether what was published was both defamatory and false. And in this country, though I don’t know about in the UK, when the plaintiff is a “public figure,” it may be necessary for them to show more than just “defamatory” and “false,” that it is that it was published
with actual knowledge of the falsity or perhaps reckless disregard for the truth, and that there was no privilege. When all can see that what has been said is based on “inference,” that might be a defense too, because it amounts to opinion as to what conclusions are to be drawn.
And the reason why “smart commenters and bloggers” are not addressing themselves to your musings about libel law here, is because there is no there there. On the other hand, discussion of antisemitism and anti-semites, both those now dead and those still living, is immediately relevant to a discussion of the political uses and motivations for claiming that someone is of Jewish origins.
October 4, 2009, 3:51 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I don’t really care if people watch sports or not, any more than I care whether, say, they collect beanie babies. But just as there are many people who presume that everyone is a “believer” and that there’s something wrong with you if you aren’t, there are many who think the same way about following the local sports team, caring whether the “national team” is winning at the Olympics or the World Cup, etc.
And Neuro, I suppose objections to the Olympics is not inherently unlibertarian except to the extent that the nation-state is inherently unlibertarian. But libertarians do tend to be individualists to some degree, and the idea that one should take pride in the accomplishments of a complete stranger who happens to have been born in the same country as you is contrary to the way libertarians tend to think. It’s also the same mentality politicians tend to rely on in pushing various collectivist endeavors, so it’s not surprising that libertarians who are immune to such appeals would also not find things like the Olympics compelling, except as a celebration of individual achievement.
October 4, 2009, 5:17 pmSandy MacHoots says:
The question is whether he had a particular animus against Jews, as opposed to, say, Muslims or Hussites or Calvinists or Catholics. Luther objected to the Jews as a people, and that it was simply not possible to convert them. That suggests he was an anti-Semite. But Torquemada, as I noted above, probably isn’t. He welcomed converting Jews as warmly as Muslims and heretics. He objected to the practice of any non-Catholic religion.
October 4, 2009, 6:43 pmanonymous says:
But just as there are many people who presume that everyone is a “believer” and that there’s something wrong with you if you aren’t, there are many who think the same way about following the local sports team, caring whether the “national team” is winning at the Olympics or the World Cup, etc.
Respectfully Professor, you might consider that perhaps you are prejudging many “believers” and the sports fans, many of whom could care less about the personal choices of others.
I’ve no doubt there are some zealous fans, of both religions and sports teams, who might belittle non-believers or those who don’t choose to follow sports.
Perhaps you’ve had the misfortune of meeting such people, and now carry a big chip on your shoulder — “I’ll belittle their beliefs, before they can criticize mine.”
But “many”? And making presumptions that “believers” hold the personal choices of others in lesser regard, whether it be religion or which team to root for? Simply not true.
Maybe rethink your prejudices, and don’t assume that the choices you make (sports watching wastes time; Christians all want to convert non-believers, libertarians can’t support the home team) are universal to others?
Your disrespect and that big old chip perhaps bring on some of the defensive “Go Team” responses in others who do enjoy displays of athletic excellence and the minor discomfort every two years, of hearing about the Olympic Games.
Personally, the reason I asked for further clarification on your Olympic dislike: I’ve never met anyone, non sports fan or not, who was “against” the family of nations coming together to compete honestly in physical pursuits, and share each other’s company in representing their home country. That’s why I asked about Munich — did you think it was a cheap ribbing?
If I may be allowed one prediction/hope to close out this issue: I hope you mellow a bit as you age, come to appreciate others who may be different from you, and realize there’s no need to think lesser — that one view is correct, and the other not. (I think your belittling comments, and trying to hang it on the libertarian thing, caught more than a few readers here by surprise.)
Besides, oftentimes, the opening ceremonies feature healthy young people from around the globe, fireworks, and carefully staged songs and entertainment. EXACTLY the thing, perhaps, that a young child might like to watch with her family — reading the parade of banners representing so many countries of the world.
You see, DB, sometimes it’s not just about us and our little small individual beliefs we hold and cling so tightly to.
Sometimes — and I indeed believe you often see these moments in things like the Olympic Games — it’s a very beautiful thing when people can come together and overcome their petty differences in pushing each other to excel. Please take care not to let that shoulder chip affect your eyesight, or your heart. People are counting on you to keep positive and see the beauty in all things, I am sure, and it would be a shame to let petty things hold you back from such joys in life.
I hope you find time in your busy schedule to reflect on my words, as I’ve listened to you and wondered what might be causing such sour attitude presentation from a man who has so obviously been blessed in life.
October 4, 2009, 7:01 pmRicardo says:
t’s certainly interesting that many leftists of Jewish descent who have no other connection with Judaism or the Jewish community feel the need to be outspoken “Jewish” critics of Israel; the better to prove their leftist, universalist bona fides?
For the same reason that there are black critics on the right of things like hip-hop music, inner city decay, single motherhood, etc. It removes the sting of being accused of being either a racist or anti-Semite for expressing these opinions. Given that Bernstein slyly mentions Jewish critics of Israel in the same post as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he can hardly wonder why some might interpret his words as a blanket accusation of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel and why some might want to derail that accusation by appealing to their Jewish ancestry.
October 4, 2009, 7:03 pmVader says:
Wow, David. I guess it shouldn’t surprise us that a thread like this has brought out so many nut-jobs.
I find it tremendously revealing that suggesting someone has Jewish ancestry should be described as an accusation or a libel.
October 4, 2009, 7:04 pmSandy MacHoots says:
First, I’d like some evidence that libertarians enjoy spectator sports less than others. Based on my experience, that seems wrong. Statistics?
Second, libertarians aren’t limited to celebrating “individual competition.” That sounds more Objectivist than Libertarian, since Libertarians celebrate voluntary cooperation. You mean Libertarians can’t play baseball, because it’s a team sport? I’d expect libertarians would object to being coerced to partcipate in or fund a sports competition, but why their philosophy would hinder them from enjoying it is beyond me.
Third, and more personally, I suspect (as others have noted) that the negative reactions you get from sports fans probably come from the way you express yourself, as you did in this post. I’ve never seen anybody get worked up when someone asked about the Patriots says, “I don’t follow football, sorry.” But they do get offended when somebody points out how silly spectator sports are and they they are far too busy and important to pay attention to them. Especially when egghead law professors already have a reputation of thinking pretty highly of themselves. It’s easy for a casual and perfectly innocent comment to be taken as an insult. What people hear isn’t always what the speaker said.
P.S. You really think that atheists and non-sports-fans get treated rougher in academia than Evangelical Christians? That’s not my experience.
October 4, 2009, 7:08 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No it’s more like this (real incident):
Much more recent, I got a few outraged emails from readers along the lines of HOW COULD YOU NOT CARE ABOUT THE OLYMPICS!!!!???? And one genius in this thread even suggested that I my unnatural lack of interest in the Olympics must have something to do with my Jewishness. Geez.
No, that’s completely absurd, and I didn’t say such a thing.
October 4, 2009, 7:33 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I’ll buy that, but there’s really no reason for an innocent, “I’m really not interested in ….” to be taken as including “and you’re a fool for being interested.” But again, it strikes me as very similar to a religious person asking, “hey, want to go to church with me,” receiving the answer “no, I’m an atheist, I’m not interested in going to church,” and the churchgoer in question feeling insulted, as if the mere existence of an atheist who is unapologetic (but not obnoxious) about his atheism is an insult.
October 4, 2009, 7:38 pmanonymous says:
Agreed with the above, had you indeed written “I’m really not interested in the Olympics.”
But you didn’t write that originally. You wrote,
And then when I inquired why so curmudgeonly on this topic, you wrote,
and from that jumped to,
and
C’mon now. I may be dumb, iyho, but I’m not stupid. Your condescesion there surely was meant to be insulting not innocuous, and is what makes me think that shoulder chip is going to get mighty mighty heavy one day if you don’t work to recognize and stifle it.
Thanks for responding though and not deleting. (that’s more O.K.’s style really though…) You’re not half bad as a blogger here, except for that presumed superiority that sometimes comes across in your responses. We really do like you well enough, friend, and of course, everybody has their grumpy moods before shaking out of it. Hope you have a good week, and they’re not talking too much tomorrow about the weekend’s scores where you’re at.
October 4, 2009, 9:22 pmChrisTS says:
To be fair to some, I think they were assuming that for an Iranian, holocaust-denying leader, to be ‘accused’ of Jewish ancestry would be regarded as an insult in Iran.
October 4, 2009, 9:23 pmanonymous says:
ps. A good majority of the out atheists I have met, and most of them are younger — in their 20s — I’ve noticed make it a point to not just mention they are atheists, but also feel the need to add something along the lines of, “I don’t believe in superstition or fairy tales” to intentionally set themselves apart from all those sincere believers.
Perhaps they have indeed had their own non-beliefs ridiculed, and only then switched from innocuous to insulting, but that’s no reason to automatically assume you have to put down the personal choices of others in order to make your own seem superior. (like your original claim that seemed to be “true libertarians can’t watch sports in good faith, or support a ‘home’ team.”)
October 4, 2009, 9:28 pmanonymous says:
To be fair to some, I think they were assuming that for an Iranian, holocaust-denying leader, to be ‘accused’ of Jewish ancestry would be regarded as an insult in Iran.
Shhh. Why be fair, when it’s so much easier to just play the victim and ascribe bad intent to honest questions and observations. It’s been a working strategy so far, afterall … freebie country and all.
Now if only we could deport those damn Cherokees sitting on our land!
October 4, 2009, 9:41 pmDNJ says:
Calling someone a Jew is not a defamatory statement, because it does not tend to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v. Stretch, per Lord Atkin).
October 4, 2009, 10:18 pmneurodoc says:
Professor Bernstein, how about “bifurcating” this thread, that is separating the “My Curmudgeonly Take on the Olympics” comments from the “Was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Born Jewish?” ones, moving the former to where they rightfully belong, that is the “My Curmudgeonly Take on the Olympics” thread you started a couple of days ago. anonymous took us OT with that out of place speculation as to the reasons for your dislike of the Olympics, which later turned needlessly personal.* I regret that I joined in, distracting from the original topic of antisemitism and its political uses, to ask my questions about how it was a matter of libertarian principles to bristle at the notion of individuals representing their individual countries in an international athletic competition. I’d be happy to go over to that earlier thread and suggest there some reasonable reasons to be critical of the state of affairs in sports, if we can get back to “Was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Born Jewish?” here.
*(Let it be noted that the needlessly and truly stupid actually started earlier with, “Interesting that DB is also a psychologist now, too.”)
October 4, 2009, 10:32 pmanonymous says:
Neurodoc,
How can the thread go “off topic” when the original blogger continued the conversation with quite a few responses? That’s not OT anymore, that’s an evolved thread.
Why do I suspect your calls to change the discussion after the fact by “bifurcating” and storing his words elsewhere are merely attempts to spin DB’s actual words here into something quite a bit more innocuous.
Don’t write it if you can’t handle other people honestly asking about it. Geez, it’s like you think we readers need to be “protected” from the revelations that come through honest, free speech.
Boy, I get the impression that some of you doctors and lawyers must live in bubbles, with your “underlings” never asking a question, or otherwise putting your own obvious superiority and “right” way of thinking into doubt.
That must be hard to respond non-defensively over the top then, when you are first confronted by someone who calls you on your exact words and is skeptical of your preferred characterization of your “innocuous” comments.
*Hit the delete button and BAIL out when confronted with people who honestly think differently than you, eh Doc?*
October 4, 2009, 11:13 pmneurodoc says:
You think I am “attempt(ing) to spin DB’s actual words here into something quite a bit more innocuous”? Since I don’t recognize any of DB’s actual words here, in particular those about the Olympics or sports in general, as other than “innocuous,” I can’t imagine how I would go about attempting it. I think some of DB’s words in the course of the OT jag are most uncharacteristically foolish, even stupid, regrettably so in my view, but what is other than “innocuous”? Athletes competing as representatives of their respective countries being an affront to the sensibilities of libertarians? Being the “disliked” on account of his disinterest in sports in a way similar to the scorn felt by atheists? What?
If there is anything I find objectionable in this, it is your gratuitous personalization of it.
October 4, 2009, 11:44 pmanonymous says:
You think I am “attempt(ing) to spin DB’s actual words here…? Since I don’t recognize any of DB’s actual words here, in particular those about the Olympics or sports in general, as other than “innocuous,” I can’t imagine how I would go about attempting it.
Well, perhaps Doc, one way would be to suggest that he selectively doctor the thread — the sudden need to bifurcate because it went OT according to you — intead of merely leaving it untouched.
That way, your “conclusion” above about not finding anything here that he’s written “innocuous” — and your earlier allegation that the thread was taken “off topic” by commenters rather than the conversation simply continuing in a different vein than you might prefer — would seem logical if people were unable to follow what was written, in the order it was written.
I wonder why you would have suggested that were it so clear that the words were “innocuous” (1:harmless 2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : inoffensive, insipid)
Words have power. Attitudes can be obvious to some, and easily dismissed by others. How about we agree to disagree, and let others draw their own conclusions about what they read?
If you’re secure in your conclusions that nothing written here was innoffensive to libertarians, sports fans, commenters or others — then you should be confident enough to let this thread stand untouched, instead of urging “bifurcation”.
Perhaps if you don’t want a thread to become “gratuitously personal” — and again I must quibble with your characterization as there was nothing gratuitous about my calling DB out on what he has written — you shouldn’t deliberately insult those commmenting in good faith and be surprised when they return your words in kind?
Eh “genius”?
Maybe we can learn how to discuss further issues of personal likes/dislike without unnecessarily insulting others or pretending that it’s the accepted libertarian perspective, and not something personal driving the responses.
But not if you feel the need to protect anyone from the awesome power of their own words, on display in black and white.
You see, if you make accusations like you’re being picked on more than atheists even! just because you’re a non-sports loving man, you really ought to have some way to back them up when people call you on them.
ps. I’m a lawyer too. And a voracious reader, and word lover. I stand by what I wrote above about too many insulated professional men perhaps never being questioned about their conclusions about others and assumptions of motive.
October 5, 2009, 4:46 amDavid Bernstein says:
See, here’s the thing: saying that following sports is a hobby just like collecting beanie babies is a hobby isn’t an insult. It’s only taken as an insult if the sports fan thinks that there is something inherently more natural/normal/interesting/whatever about following sports than about collecting beanie babies. Yet, in fact, isn’t this insulting/condescending to someone who collects beanie babies (or stamps, or Lladros, or coins, etc.) but doesn’t care a whit about sports? The fact that a sports fans’ reaction might very well be “how can you compare following sports with collecting beanie babies” is exactly the problem, to the hobby of following sports is somehow elevated over other pastimes. For example, I’ve been to social events in private homes where some of the guests turn on the t.v. and start watching “the game,” and proceed to sit there for three hours. I’m always amazed that such people get invited back (though admittedly, it seems to be relatives more than friends who do this; I suppose the relatives feel obligated to come even though they’d rather be home watching the game, and the hosts feel obligated to invite them even if they watch football the whole time).
As for me explaining why I don’t care for the Olympics, it’s rather ridiculous that one can’t express one’s own reasons for not enjoying spectator sports (only in response to critical comments) without people who follow sports feeling insulted, or even trying to find a psychological “trauma” to explain one’s deviancy.
And just to clarify, I don’t feel “disliked” as Neurodoc suggested because I don’t follow sports. In fact, it served me very well socially in various ways. But I was thinking about Ilya’s posts about atheists, and how people won’t vote for an atheist. Just as it’s difficult to imagine a presidential candidate admitting that he’s an atheist, it’s difficult to imagine one saying, “you know, I just don’t care about sports.” Even an obvious non-sports fan like former NY mayor Koch used to have to go through the motions when the Yankees were in the World Series.
And to take the analogy one step further, I once blogged about how I thought the Darwin car fish were clever, and got beaten up in the comments, because, you see, expressing one’s faith publicly, as by putting a fish on one’s car is perfectly normal/acceptable, but expressing one’s skepticism/atheism in exactly the same way is somehow rude/insulting. Same mentality, different context.
October 5, 2009, 5:50 amChrisTS says:
I have found this whole conversation about sports/non-sports baffling. I’ve given DB some criticism on various matters, but I do not see how this became an issue.
And, I like the Olympics and basketball, and have a few Beanie Babies, and think the Darwin-fish is clever. But no discussion of personal tastes warrants this degree of hostility.
October 5, 2009, 9:27 amanonymous says:
Sports have taught me that it’s no good to be passive aggressive. Somebody turns on the tv for sports at a party you are hosting? Simply turn it off and explain, “We’re not watching tv at this house today”. They’ll go elsewhere if the game is more important. And then you won’t be stewing in your juices later, assuming that all sports fans are considerably rude. (And don’t be afraid to offend even if it’s your social “better”: would you permit them to light up, if it was against house rules?)
The Beanie Baby collecting thing was meant as ridicule; not comparable to the lifelong lessons that sports can teach, especially to those who understandably will be leaders, and perhaps warriors (teamwork, strategy, gamesmanship, sportsmanship, skill building — and yes, many who follow spectator sports are also participants picking up tips). If you honestly think purchasing a stuffed animal (not that there is anything at all wrong with such a hobby) is a comparable example to what the sporting world teaches, then perhaps you should have chosen a comparable hobby, like woodworking.
Regarding your having been “beaten up” about the Darwin fish thing, well let’s just say your credibility is shot. If one young student expressing amazement about your school being in the Final Four constitutes your best example there, and you are throwing out comments like this: “I wonder who actual gets more irrational dislike: atheists, or men who abstain from following sports? On this blog, it’s clearly the latter.” with scant evidence,
then I suspect you feel easily “beaten up”.
And for the record, a secure atheist who is best qualified to lead the country could easily overcome that disadvantage, much as Kennedy did for the Catholics, if he is confident in his own skin.
I don’t think the Mayor Koch example of him having to pretend to be a sports fan is all that convincing, considering the more identity-hiding he felt the need to do about even more inherent personal characteristics. If you just are who you are, and are secure in outly being it, chances are you’ll be much more secure, much less passive aggressive, and there’s much less misinterpretation that others are somehow against you, and there’s that need to preemptively insult for protection of your delicate ego.)
And no, before you think that was a cheap shot, of course not all non-sports following men are closeted, but I’d venture someone secure enough not to pretend would be in a much better position that those masks Koch felt he had to wear. I can see where that would be especially annoying, much like if a person was unable to ask a party guest to turn off the tv and let that feeling of being disrespected cloud his views of all sports fans.
Also, if it’s not your party and the sports watching bothers you, YOU could leave the room if you find it so annoying. Or is it that you would prefer the watchers engage with you, and feel slighted?
Doesn’t take a genius to see that if you’re in control of the situations you put yourself into, then you’ll feel much less annoyed by those who choose differently than you, and thus won’t feel the need to respond with such hostility.
Again, there’s plenty of non-sports fans out there who don’t feel disliked, annoyed, or beaten up, or believe their masculinity is being threatened when others ask questions. I wonder why you seem to be having such a tough time of it.
October 5, 2009, 9:37 amDavid Bernstein says:
The t.v. in my living room only has a dvd player connected, so no one has ever watched a game while at a social event in my house, though once or twice I’ve been asked. I just responded that my t.v. isn’t connected, sorry.
October 5, 2009, 9:50 amguy in the veal calf office says:
To get into more controversial territory,
it’s certainly interesting[the author suspects] that many leftists of Jewish descent who have no other connection with Judaism or the Jewish community feel the need to be outspoken “Jewish” critics of Israel; the better to prove their leftist, universalist bona fides?Why would it be controversial to conclude a long post about Jewish apostates being the worst anti-semites by suggesting that liberal Jews with qualms about Israel’s actions are secretly anti-semitic?
October 5, 2009, 9:57 amBrian G. says:
You can sum up every one of Ahmadinejad’s speeches like this:
“The Holocaust never happened and we are going to finish what Hitler started.”
This revelation is delicious irony.
October 5, 2009, 12:45 pmChrisTS says:
anonymous:
It seems you have validated DB’s suggestion that you look down your nose at some hobbies (collecting things)and exalt others (watching sports). So, your being offended by his associating these hobbies was, in fact, a reflection of your own biases.
As for spectators picking up “teamwork, strategy, gamesmanship, sportsmanship, skill building”:
October 5, 2009, 12:59 pm1) the idea that people develop skills or virtues by watching others who use/have them needs a lot of defending; 2) the idea that watching national sports teams and athletes provides a seemless lesson in sportsmanship, in particular, is absurd.
Sandy MacHoots says:
Watching professionals play sports is excellent training, just as observing good advocacy makes people better advocates. When you’re teaching kids about the importance of working together, the role of a great NBA point guard is a terrific example — it’s easy to point out the critical but unmeasurable things that make the team win. If you believe that playing team sports is a good thing (as I must, since I coach kids’ basketball), then watching the best trained people play the game is valuable, because it teaches kids how to improve their games.
But you’re right that watching professional sports, including the Olympic games, doesn’t teach sportsmanship. At the professional level, players do anything necessary to win, whether within the rules or not. Watching John Stockton and Karl Malone can be a valuable teaching tool with respect to skill-building and teamwork, but a horrible example of sportsmanship, since both were unusually dirty players.
October 5, 2009, 4:00 pmneurodoc says:
Or to imagine one saying something like, “You know, I just don’t dogs.” That is for the rather obvious reason that one doesn’t get very far as a politician by making it clear to the electorate that their own core beliefs or values or personal likes and dislikes are different from those of others.
And kiss babies with gusto, applaud loudly less than excellent performances, profess to relish not so palatable ethnic food, etc., all as part of the job, because people expect it of elected officials.
This really is socially obtuse.
William Buckley was offended by a Yale sociology professor who got a kick out of telling his class that he would crossover from agnostic/ atheist to confirmed believer if laboratory testing ever confirmed the presence of hemoglobin in wine that had been consecrated as part of the Communion service. The professor’s remark might be seen by some as clever, so why should it be judged rude/insulting just because Buckley took offense?
Putting a fish on their car, is some people’s way of publicly professing their Christian faith. Taking that symbol of Christian faith and adding feet to imply evolution, won’t be seen by very many as a tribute to Darwin, nor as so much a proclamation of one’s skepticism/atheism as an open mocking of the religious faith of others. “Clever” in a snarky way perhaps, but clearly disrespectful of those for whom the fish is a religious symbol.
October 5, 2009, 10:04 pmneurodoc says:
{Didn’t save edit to the previous post…]
So no, I don’t see why the former (fish) should be viewed as other than “perfectly normal/acceptable,” nor why the latter (“Darwin’s fish”) should be viewed as other than “rude/insulting.” Not the “same mentality, different context,” whatever “same mentality, different context” is supposed to mean here.
October 5, 2009, 10:13 pmDavid Nieporent says:
If a person thought all black people should be enslaved, unless those black people underwent skin lightening treatments, would you argue he wasn’t a racist?
October 6, 2009, 10:16 ammarkm says:
There are other reasons than a general disdain for sports to dislike the Olympics in their present form:
1) The emphasis on the nationality of the athletes – is this a contest of great individuals, or between nations? It has often had serious consequences for the sports, too, when judges are biased towards athletes of their own nation.
2) The corruption in the IOC.
3) The subsidies that host cities must provide out of their tax money.
4) And most of all, the hypocritical and anti-capitalist interpretation of “amateur”. “Amateur” was originally a hidden class distinction – that is, gentlemen didn’t have to worry about some ditchdigger competing alongside them, since 12 hours a day of digging ditches left little time and energy for sports, and he was disqualified if he could quit that job because he was paid for sports. That’s changed, because now there is hardly anyone who doesn’t work for a living. So no one who has a shot at winning an Olympic event is truly an amateur anymore, that is someone who plays in his spare time and pays his own fees. “Amateur” has been redefined so that someone who is paid a government salary for athletics is an amateur, and someone who is paid by a non-profit to pursue athletics is an amateur, but someone who takes money from an (“evil”) corporation is excluded.
October 8, 2009, 7:29 ammarkm says:
David, what you don’t understand is that men bond by watching sports together. I’m as uninterested in football as you, but when I can travel across country to see my father, if he wants to watch football, we watch football.
October 8, 2009, 6:57 pm