Eric Muller (Is That Legal?) faults former governor and current Republican presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson for saying,
I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that.
Thompson "later apologized for the comments that had caused a stir in the audience, saying that he had meant it as a compliment, and had only wanted to highlight the 'accomplishments' of the Jewish religion": "'What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You've been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that.'"
Actually, while earning money in the private sector is part of the tradition of most religions and ethnicities that have survived and thrived, valuing the earning of money in the private sector is, to my knowledge, more an aspect of "Jewish tradition" than of at least some other traditions.
Judaism, for instance, lacks the sense that poverty is virtuous, long ostensibly (and sometimes actually) present in Christianity. Jewish culture has also historically lacked the condemnation of mere commerce -- as opposed to military success, political power, or land ownership -- as dirty and grubby, perhaps partly because Jews were so often excluded from the military, politics, and land ownership. I doubt, for instance, that Jewish culture has historically looked down on people who built their names by moneymaking the way that English upper-class culture (as memorialized in the Austens and Trollopes of the world) looked down on such people. (I should note that few cultures genuinely disapproved of the rich, but many cultures liked their rich to be Rich From Time Immemorial, and the actual making of riches was seen as vulgar.)
Recent Jewish culture has included some other ideological forces that have devalued commercial success, chiefly Socialism, even non-Socialist social-welfarism, and, in some measure, the exaltation of intellectual pursuits over commercial ones. Today in America, it may actually be that Protestants on average endorse commerce as a worthy way of life more than Jews do, largely because of the retreat of virtuous poverty as a value in American Protestant culture, the general demise of the contempt for new money (especially commercial money), and the increase of anti-commercial (or at least anti-commerce-as-a-way-of-life) sentiments among American Jews. Still, a kind commentator who is praising the Jewish commercial tradition might understandably downplay these anti-commerce forces, especially anti-commerce forces they find unworthy (because they're unduly anti-capitalistic).
So it's hard to see Thompson's comments as reflective either of actual anti-Semitism -- which is especially unlikely given that he was wooing a Jewish group -- or of the unreflective acceptance of pejorative or inaccurate anti-Semitic stereotypes. Thompson could have spoken more artfully, and he could have chosen to avoid this controversy by avoiding even accurate and friendly (but likely unnecessary) comments about Jews' respect for commerce. Perhaps he should have avoided the controversy, simply as a matter of sound politics. But I don't think it's sound to fault him for supposed prejudice, insensitivity, or even error in pointing out what many Jews are quite proud of.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but I think you are giving Thompson far too much credit. What are the odds that he actually knows the historical/sociological/religious stuff you reference? And what would this have to do with the "accomplishments of the Jewish religion?"
Jews used to go into business more when they had less education, and more discriminatory barriers to other fields. Nowadays, (to utilize my own stereotype), what percentage of Jewish mothers want her kid to be a businessperson, as opposed to a doctor, lawyer, accountant, or other "respectable profession"? Low, I suspect.
I'm reminding a bit of Joe Biden's infamous comments about Indian-Americans, which he similarly tried to spin as compliments about their hard work and entrepeneurship. Maybe Mel Gibson should have just said how much he admired the impressive accomplishments of the Jewish people in the war-starting arena.
I agree that it is unfair to criticize Thompson for his remarks.
I do think that intellectual achievement far outranks money-making in Jewish tradition. There used to be the notion that the wealthy man sought to have his daughter marry a great scholar, and expected to provide much of the financial support.
Still, there is no doubt that the power and wealth of great Jewish financiers - Rothschild is the archetype - in particular are a source of pride. This is in part due to their accomplishments, but I think also because of their role as advocates for the Jewish community.
Sheesh, Eugene, bigots are often unable to hide their bigotry even when they have every motive to conceal it. In part it's because they do not deem it to be wrong; they don't have the antennae to recognize it. And outside ideological racism, a lot of racism is the product of the unexamined social habits of a lifetime. Unexamined and therefore not recognized.
He didn't earn money when he was an elected official in Wisconsin? He didn't earn his pay check when he was a cabinet level official? I sure hope he returns the money we (speaking only as U.S. taxpayer, not a Wisconsin taxpayer) paid him.
I think what he meant was: "I am finally making more than 3 times the median family income in Wisonsin." or "I am finally making big time money, like a Jew."
Jewish culture apart from Christendom seems to have the same mix of emphases of other cultures, with those who are more comfortable with poverty in the pursuit of spirituality or art, and those who are singleminded about making a few dollars -- Essenes and Sadducees.
I know this is tangential, but does anyone know whether commercial ventures were highly valued in the Jewish tradition pre-Christianity? The sense I get from biblical tradition is that commerce was not highly respected while religious scholarship was. However, I'm seeing this primarily through the lens of the New Testament.
Anonymous Jim: I think, from context, that Thompson was saying "I am now making money in the private sector -- money beyond what one makes in Wisconsin state government service -- and I agree with Jewish tradition that this is an honorable way to make money."
While a candid discussion of the historical circumstances that have put Jews in a position of handling money could be interesting, as would a discussion of the cultural and religious tenets underpinning Jews' professional practices as such, unless it's absolutely clear that this is the project being undertaken with such remarks it would not seem to be overreacting - indeed, it would seem prudent - to take umbrage with such associations and guard against them being so cavalierly made.
(Of course, we twice elected a candidate who, as governor of Texas, mocked Karla Faye Tucker by assuming her character and whimpering, "Please don't kill me," so good judgment and the avoidance of cringe-worthy comments clearly isn't an essential requirement for the office.)
What a bizarre statement. Socialism is not a part of "Recent Jewish culture". Perhaps the parents, or grandparents of many socialists were Jewish, but you cannot be both a socialist and a Jew.
1) I think it's likely that Thompson does not dislike, let alone hate, Jews.
2) I think it's clear that Thompson was not intending to insult Jews. Rather, he was trying to be complimentary.
3) The statement itself about Jews and money is not inherently negative. However, it is problematic because it is a stereotype which is often twisted by those who do hate Jews in an extremely negative way.
There needs to be a word for "too readily accepting of a problematic stereotype" other than racist/anti-semite/bigot/etc.
This is a good example of a foolish comment about Jews thats not antisemitic. Thompson deserves a pass on this. I suppose the left (which has more than its share of antisemites these days) will pillory the poor guy.
I think you are giving his words one of the more favorable interpretations possible and I am giving it one of the less charitable interpretations. I have no way of knowing, I suppose. I hope you are right.
Friendly advice to American candidates trying to woo the Jewish vote
It was like a scene from the Borat movie. A man from a foreign land trying to connect with a tribe of people with whom he is unfamiliar. A wonderfully disastrous misconnection leading to misunderstanding leading to embracement.
The only problem is that both the man - former governor Tommy Thompson, and the tribe - activists gathering for the Washington convention of the Jewish Religious Action Center, were Americans. And that this man was claiming he was running for president of the United States. He came to woo, but left behind a crowd of sophisticated adults giggling like teenagers at his expense.
So, as friendly advice to this candidate (and all other candidates) here's my list of things not to do when trying to connect with the Jewish electorate:
1.
Telling Jewish activists that "making money is part of the Jewish tradition" is not a good idea. (Full quote: I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that).
2.
Apologizing is generally a good idea if you do happen to make such a gaffe, but before apologizing one needs to make sure the apology does not make the situation even worse.
Thompson apologized by saying that he only wanted to highlight the "accomplishments" of the Jewish religion. (Full quote: I just want to clarify something because I didn't in any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things. What I was referring to ladies and gentlemen is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You've been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that.)
3.
Saying again and again that you have Jewish friends - also not good. Jews don't like to be reminded constantly that people of other religions are self-conscious whenever they talk to someone who happens to be Jewish.
4.
Israel might be the Jewish state, but there are no Jewish bonds, only Israeli bonds. American Jews will not appreciate the misconception that everything Jewish is Israeli and vice versa.
5.
Jews in America are generally liberal, and those associated with RAC are even more so. Mentioning Israeli politicians whom one has met can be a good thing, but Benjamin Netanyahu might not be your best choice to name-drop.
6.
And the same can be said about American groups associated with Rabbi Meir Kahane. If you have had any contact with them, don't brag about it, not here.
7.
People will appreciate support for Israel if you convey the sense that you knows what you're talking about (Churchill was not a leader of the Israeli region).
8.
After the governor left people were kindly making excuses for him. He was trying to be nice; he was trying to connect; he doesn't understand our sensibilities. So here's one last piece of advice for him and his many friends: Get a good adviser to prepare you for such events.
Even those willing to forgive you for these foolish remarks will not forgive you for the unprofessional way you handled this public appearance. They will also not vote for you, but as a Republican your chances were slim anyway, so you probably shouldn't worry about it too much.
Shmuel Rosner from haaretz blog
That said, I think that the statement was more a "bad note" than an indication of prejudice. It was a bad note for three reasons. First, as noted above, praising Jews for being good at business ignores more powerful "Jewish traditions" to which today's Jews are more attached than any type of "business tradition." Second, what is one to make of the perceived need for the disclaimer, "I do not find anything wrong with that"? I think it shows his understanding that invoking Jews' historical participation in commerce carried the danger of invoking the "greedy Jew" stereotype, as it apparently did, for some, anyway. Yet the disclaimer is ambiguous. It might be that he sees nothing wrong with being the stereotype. Of course, this ambiguity could not be dealt with without going into a long discussion out of proportion to an aside. Third, there is a certain amount of "you people" flavor to the statement. A reasonable interpretation of the sentiment expressed could be "Hey, I'm finally earning some money, and, now I see the attraction of it for you people, and don't think there is anything wrong with that." Another interpretation could be that he is making a poor attempt at acceptance "I'm a businessman, so now I can identify with Jews." An idiotic proposition.
Ultimately, as I said, I don't find the remark particularly offensive or insensitive--merely dumb. What was the purpose of the remark? Whatever it was, I do not think it was successful. For example, for African-Americans athletics was historically a way to escape poverty and discrimination. But should a white speaker at the NAACP suggest that because he participates in sports, he is somehow sharing an African-American tradition? Not really a racist statement, but just a stupid idea that indicates a lack of understanding of his audience.
And while, as matter of demographics, Jews are well off, it is not because we value money for its own sake. It is because money follows (at least in the last century or so) as a natural consequence of what we do value most highly -- learning.
political correctness run amok
i don't have it in front of me, but the book Ethnic America (by Sowell) breaks down income by race, ethnicity, religion, etc.
guess what? jews, on average earn WAY above the mean. Episcopalians also earn more than Catholics. And Asians (specifically Japanese Americans) earn way more than whites or blacks.
but lord forbid somebody references that. it's a reality.
it's no more anti-semitic to reference that jews make (on average) more money than others, than it would be sexist to remark that, on average, bank robbers tend to be men.
i really wish i had that book in front of me, cause the #'s are pretty astounding.
to the American Jewish community. He is furthermore
not a viable candidate.
I think Jews should be far more concerned about presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (along with John McCain probably) who
have endorsed racial preferences. Preferences in college admissions and corporate hiring are
nothing more than the numerus clausus in disguise, and
pit ethnic/racial groups against each other. Such conflicts have led to disaster for Jews caught in the middle.
it's not JUST a learning thang (although jewish tradition DEFINITELY emphasizes learning/education, as does Japanese american tradition i might add).
Jews do earn more than gentiles in the USA. by a very significant amount, and it's not just education, it's the choice of fields that tend to make more money.
lawyers, doctors, etc. tend to be careers that require education AND make significant money, whereas getting a PhD in Semiotics or Poetry tends not to be. it's not just a choice of education, it's a choice of educational fields that tend to lead to higher income jobs.
frankly, i think that's to be commended highly.
and speaking personally, when my family gets together, it's like a Dr/Lawyer convention...
it's not just a money thang./ jews (like asian americans) tend to be disproportionately high achievers. iirc, about 25% of each freshman class at the ivy league colleges are jewish. that is an amazing stat.
who was hurt most by AA in california? despite the framing of the issue by racial preferences proponents, it was not "white males", but asian americans that had the most to lose, since they tended to be more overrepresented at the elite schools vs. whites, blacks, etc.
Actually this should read, Governor Thompson recognizes he got caught being an antisemitic and for this he is very apologetic. He further promised he would not use this derogatory remark unless he was at his KKK meeting or meeting with "macaca" Allen. This guy is a criminal like most of the Republic party candidates. Support death, destruction and war, vote RepubliCON.
I wonder, is it ever completely acceptable to refer to a widely held stereotype in order to compliment a group of people? I’m trying to think of some examples, but I’m not sure any can escape offence by someone.
How about: hot Latin lovers? Native Americans were the best scouts/trackers in the old west? Women’s superiority when it comes to intuition? Gay guys being good dressers?
These are the most inoffensive ones I could come up with off the top of my head, but maybe even these are unwise, even if said with the intention of being complimentary.
For the compliment to be tainted, does it have to be steeped in a negative, or at least widely negatively perceived history? For example, German precision would seem to be a safe compliment because it makes one think of their car making abilities, but referencing German efficiency brings less pleasant things to mind.
many stereotypes become stereotypes because IN THE AGGREGATE - they are true.
jews, on average, make far more money than gentiles, are better educated, etc. that's not even arguable. it's a statistical fact, and the difference is way beyond statistically significant.
it does not follow that you can thus assume when you meet jon, a jew, that HE is better educated than average, etc.
not a single white or asian male has ever broken 10 sec. in the 100meters. it has been done scores of times by west african origin black males. last i checked, 484 out of the top 500 100 meter sprint times were done by the same group (West African origin black males) but if somebody meets a black guy, it would be stereotypical to assume he's a fast sprinter, etc.
men are, on average, FAR stronger than women. but that does not mean that john is stronger than sally.
also note that comedians (another field dominated by jews) OFTEN comment on these types of things (jews and doctor/lawyer) etc. without any complaint.
it's just pretty frigging sad that people are so incredibly PC that they can't even reference these things.
a movie "white men can't jump" was never controversial or offensive. i bet if it was called "black men can't swim" it would have been.
the grateful dead had no problems with "that's right, the women are smarter", but if it had been reversed (and not meant to be ironic), it never would have flown.
i've read some essays by writers who want to attack the "model minority" **myth** when in fact - it's not a myth. japanese americans are FAR less likely to be 1) accused of homicide 2) accused of rape 3) have kids out of wedlock, etc.
but it's interesting how positive stereotypes applied to "oppressed class" or negative stereotypes applied to "oppressor class" get a free ride, and the reverse do not
I've heard this suggested before, but I don't find it terribly convincing. In an alternate universe, where Jews do condemn "mere commerce", we might find that the same history explains that, as well; because we were once confined to those careers, we no longer want to be associated with them, now that we are free to choose.
(Yes, I am Jewish.)
There’s something to be said for not trying to lamely pander to every group you speak to in the course of a campaign. Just consider Romney’s disastrous “patria o muerte” moment down in south Florida as an another example of trying to play to the crowd way too much. Here’s the thing about ethnic audiences: they know what their traditions are, and they want you, the candidate, to respect them. They do not want to hear about how you “understand” or “share” their traditions, because, unless you come from that group, you don’t. Don’t even try to pretend that you do. It’s embarrassing, and it’s liable to get you a lot of bad press coverage to boot.
On the other hand, making a comment about Jews winning Nobel prizes or being successful academics probably would not have attracted any attention at all because these are claims that don't have much of an anti-semitic counterpart to them (Jews controlling universities doesn't seem to be a common theme of neo-Nazi propaganda, though I confess I am not a regular consumer of such information).
This is all to say there isn't a clear set of rules on this but clearly anyone who makes a comment in public about Jews and money is treading on very thin ice.
The problem is that this is an incorrect stereotype. Asians tend to eat far more watermelon than African-Americans - I'm not sure why. I'm not just being pedantic here - the issue is that Thompson's gaffe was in talking about a stereotype that is true, in aggregate. I wonder if Thompson was speaking off the cuff, or if he had a speechwriter? If the latter, the guy (or gal) needs to be smacked - a speechwriter's job is to make sure these things don't happen. And as to the poster who likened this to "macaca" - please, spare us.
Visitor Again: I don't see much evidence here of genuine anti-Semitism both because the statement was made to a Jewish audience whom the speaker was courting and because the statement doesn't actually reflect much of an "anti-" sentiment. You may disagree with me as to the latter, but the rest of the post helps explain why I think the statement is accurate, and for obvious reasons I think the statement is on its face positive. Saying accurate, positive things about a group -- even accurate, positive things about a group that match a stereotype that some hold for hostile reasons, especially when one is saying these things when courting the group, seems to be very poor evidence of hostility to the group.
My comment took no position at all on whether the remark was anti-semitic, although I would say I agree with the commenter who said you give him a lot of credit he might not deserve.
All I did was question your reasoning--that the fact he was trying to court a Jewish group indicates his remark was not anti-semitic. My point remains untouched by your reply: ideological racists can't conceal their racism because they don't see it as wrong, and others who make racially insensitive remarks usually don't recognize their remarks as racist because such remarks are the product of the unexamined social habits of a lifetime.
It's my feeling, as the atheistic descendent of Presbyterian ministers, that your generalization is wrong. You can't make accurate generalizations about a community that ranges from the old-line declining denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians, riven by conflicts over gays and gender, through the Southern Baptists to the big churches like McLean Bible, the black churches and the Pentecoastal churches, and on to the Protestant(?, at least non-Catholic, semi-Christian) Latter Day Saints (which are growing as fast as did the early Christians before Constantine). Of course, now I think about it, don't the "Jews" include an equally broad range of beliefs and non-beliefs?
I've heard similary perceptions, also as to Jeiwhs doctors. I think some of it may be a holdover to the days of legalized admissions quotas against Jews, both official and unofficial, and against hiring decisions against Jews. These were quite common until the civil rights act of 1963, and especially before the end of WWII. As a result, a Jewish canditate had to be much better than the average Christian candidate to be admitted to even a second or third ranked school, or to be hired. This gave rise to a perception that Jews somehow had an innate talent for these professions, when in fact it was really a form of screening -- the less talented candidates never got the opportunity.
As to Thompson? Dumb, clumsy, ignorant, but not necessarily anti-Semitic. I agree that there's much more to worry about from the revival of quotas, as well as from the likes of Hollings, Carter, Baker, and other crypto-anti-Semites on the left and the right.
True. Orthodox Jews belive in the infallibility of the Oral and Written law, but not of any one human being. Conservative Judaism includes (or at least used to include) a principal called "Catholic Israel" -- that the practices adopted and followed at any time by the Jewish people as a body are an infallible guide to what the torah requires. But the Reform Action Committee may be the closest we have in Judaism to a pope, l'havdil -- they believe in the infallibility of the Democratic National Council.
A complementary generalization only insults those who don't fit the generalization, so it's only a compliment when everyone present does fit.
Thompson's comments don't reflect an innate characteristic, but rather a community value. A more apt analogy would be complemening Taiwanese-Americans for academic success in a room full of Taiwanese PhDs. There are certainly academic failures among the group, but not in the audience present.
Not wishing to drop the bigot bomb with so little to go on, I'll assume that he isn't one until I see more.
Nevertheless, he is clearly a doofus. Samuil, above, pointed out in detail just how remarkably stupid and politically/ethnically tone-deaf Thompson's remarks were. Of course, he is a midwestern Republican whose political base is white Christian Republicans, among whom such natterings pass casually all the time without offense being meant (sometimes) or even understood. If Thompson wants to go national, he should get out more.
Jewish people under Islam operated under much the same restrictions and hence filled much the same role. And in fact you can find a tendency even in antiquity of Diasporan Jews engaging in commercial activities (probably due to them being unable to own real estate property since they were not citizens of the Greek, Roman or Middle Eastern states where they resided)
Re: However, I'm seeing this primarily through the lens of the New Testament.
The NT deals mostly with the native Jewish communities in Judea. The Diaspora was a very different matter.
Re: but you cannot be both a socialist and a Jew.
This might apply to Communism, since it is inherently anti-religious and atheistic (I assume you are talking about Judaism as a religion, not an ethnic identity), but socialism makes no comment at all on religion.
Re: ...Latter Day Saints (which are growing as fast as did the early Christians before Constantine)
Be wary of acepting any private organization's membership figures as Gospel (pun intended I guess). The LDS, I know, often continues to count apostate members for years after they have ceased church attendance.
and i've heard eastcoastelite(tm) jewish comics make the EXACT same reference that thompson was making. casually even. oh, the horror
specifically, jon stewart in his standup routine comes to mind
I can't believe someone complaining about someone else's use of stereotypes would ever make such a stereotypical, bigoted remark!
The world is changing. Not everyone was raised to be prejudiced. I was an adult before I even heard many derogatory racist terms or had any remote understanding of stereotypes. I went to Catholic schools in the mid-west, by the way and it was simply not permitted. Do you recall the air line hostess who got into a world of hurt for saying "Any, meany, miney, mo, catch a seat ... I think, I heard the foul version of that once. I was certainly forbidden to ever use that word. I was a small child the last time I ever heard it when the word wasn't Tiger. The hostess was way too young to have heard the foul version and I am sure had no idea that it was ever used as a perjorative against Blacks. I heard the term jew him down in my younger years, but it was not until my brother, who married an orthodox jew, mentioned someone saying that in front of his wife and how awful it was that I even realized "jew" meant Jew. OK, so I am guilty of being really, really dense. I didn't know. If you are not taught to be prejudiced, a lot of this stuff just goes over your head.
What I do know is that most of the Muslin world wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and then go after Jews who are not in Israel. Ditto for all Americans. I do think we have just a few more things to be worrying about.
On the news today is that the journalists for the BBC voted to support the ban of all products from Israel. This is one of the most liberal groups of people in the world and the most bigoted. How do you cover the news with any pretense of objectivity when you come out with stuff like that?
This re the BBC from Wed, April 18 Jerusalem Post. If you Google BBC "Israel" this article will come up. You are pilloring Tommy Thompson? Get a load of this. Well according to the BBC ...
In case my Link won't work, and I doubt if I have it figured out, here is a sample of what went on.
By a vote of 66 to 54, the annual delegate's meeting of Britain's largest trade union for journalists called for "a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions, and [for] the [Trades Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government."
Some of the union's 40,000 members decried its "trendy lefty" agenda. Other motions before the four-day meeting in Birmingham, which ends Sunday, included condemnations of the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and support for Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
Irish artists' call for Israel boycott mocked
The second Lebanon war: JPost.com special report
The boycott motion was the third clause of a larger anti-Israel resolution proposed by the union's South Yorkshire branch that condemned Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon" last summer and the "slaughter of civilians in Gaza" in recent years.
Motion 38 also called for supporting the NGOs Jews for Justice, the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and the Council for the Advancement of British-Arab Understanding.
After an hour of debate, a motion to sever the boycott clause from the condemnation motion was adopted. The motion condemning Israel's "savage" behavior toward Palestinian civilians in the wake of "the defeat of its army" by Hizbullah passed by a wide margin.
Following two abortive hand counts, the boycott motion passed by 66 to 54.
I can't believe someone complaining about someone else's use of stereotypes would ever make such a stereotypical, bigoted remark!
I don't know about airline stewardesses too young to have heard the original version of "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," but I grew up, as Thompson did, among white, Christian Republicans who are now of an age to be friends, colleagues, school chums, business associates, and what have you, of middle-aged men in high office. I've been in the locker room at the golf club, as Thompson has been, and at the bar in the country club, as Thompson has been, and at the fraternal organizations' smokers and poker games, as Thompson has been, and I have heard this kind of crap all my life -- some of it within the last week, in fact -- as Thompson has. I can't dispute what you say about the limits of your own experience, but maybe Tommy Thompson isn't the only one who needs to get out more.
Perhaps, then again, maybe I choose my friends and associates more carefully that others, or perhaps I speak out when I hear such remarks and never hear them more than once, if I choose to associate with anyone again who said it the first time, which is unlikely. If it is known that you won't tolerate it, you don't hear it, I have found.
He was trying to communicate. Everyone says dumb things including liberal Democrats. Liberals frequenyly think what they say about Christians, Catholics, Mormons, southerners, etc. is perfectly OK and don't even realize how all the components of racism are the same except for the group being targeted.
FYI, I was very active in the civil rights movement since I was 13 back when it could get you killed. Having faced real evil, I think making a big deal out of well intentioned but clumsey statemrnts is a dangerous distraction from the real fight.
I also think that tolerating bigoted statements such as the one about white Republicans is just another side of bigotry. It is all wrong.
As a project, a student in Mass., as memory serves me, dressed in a burka and walked around school anonymously and went to classes. The teachers were horrified when some louts made the remarks one could easily expect from male high school students. The reaction of the school was that they had to start an educational campaing about Islam and women in Islam. For some reason, they mentioned Saudi Arabia. I don't know what they want to teach them that they think will make the students more "sensitive". I don't think they are going to teach about honor killings, the 14 girls who died in the school fire because they were not wearing head coverings and the male firemen would not let them out, etc. The point is, they need to be teaching respect for all people escpecially those who are different including different philosophies. I emphasize, you can make a judgement about a particular belief system without condemning the person. If they had been doing their job in teaching real tolerance, this may not have happened. But, they are not doing their job, and it will happen again to a different group.
In Seattle, a newsman was interviewing people "on the street" about the idea of a NASCAR arena coming to their area. One young. college age student, said, "We don't wnan those kinds of people coming here. When asked what kinds, he said, ' You know, white southern rednecks '. I nearly fell off my chair. Same words, different group. Now, I don't care for NASCAR, but I have a nephew who is a huge fan and he (as my daughter put it) drives satelites for a living. He has an advanced degree in Aeronautical Engineering and works for Johns Hopkins. Not exactly a "Souther White Redneck". But there it is, same words, different group. As OK to be prejudiced against this new group and many others (see Republicans) as it was in the past to be prejudiced against blacks or jews. Sorry, It is worng.
Thompson was clumsy, but we got a lot of problems in this generation. If you care about bigotry, then attack all forms of it, not just the one goring your ox and not someone for being well intentioned but clumsy.
As to whether socialism is compatible with Judaism, consider what the Jewish religion, in one of its basic source texts, says about private property:
To be socialist is to be an Am Haaretz -- an aspiration that is not consistent with being a practicing, believing Jew.
Thank you. Very interesting.
Why is it that all the people who claim to be offended by Imus's "ho" comment weren't upset when the kid in "Sleepless in Seattle" told the telephone doctor that "She's a ho! My dad is kissing a ho!"
I'm really tired of all of this stuff. Those of you who insist on taking offense... go do something constructive - you have too much time on your hands. Just grow up and snap out of it!