The jews got their own Holocaust, but what about others in the 20th century ?

Did someone suggest that they did?

To aknowledge that these constructs retain power is not to endorse them. On the contrary, it is a necessary precursor to any attempt to revise them. If they had no power, we wouldn't be discussing them in the first place.

Meanwhile, to tell people that their identities don't exist is oppression. Even if membership in that group is detrimental to them; it's simply not for you to dictate people's identities to them. It violates their self-determination, and is counter-productive to boot. Such discourse is the core of imperialism, among other vices. Ask an actual black person, and you're likely to find that what they'd like to see is not the erasure of blackness, but the expurgation of its negative aspects. I imagine the same is true of the various castes in India; at least that's the impression my various Hindu Indian acquaintances have given me.

Meanwhile, as to the actual thread topic, your motives for derrogating the Jewish identity lack the putatively good intentions of your attacks on Dalit or black identity, so there's little activist solace for you there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let untouchables be untouchables? Let nazis be nazis? Let racists be racists

Sorry thats BS

They can call themselves whatever they want, if its gibberish, its gibberish, No one is a Jew because his mother is one, or not one because his mother isn't one. That is just BS

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's like saying no one is Indian even if their mother was one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're right, they are not. They have to fulfill the requirements for citizenship none of which involve their mothers ethnicity or rabbi

 

SAM, you really need to look at life from someone elses perspective than your own, you know that?

 

I have. I've seen what it means to be black, an untouchable and a Palestinian.

No I have no desire to embrace any racist perspectives. Sorry.

 

And citizenship has nothing to do with being Indian.

 

That's not what was implied, no. And you're conflating political ideologies with identity groups.

But the implication of your phrasing is revealing. It is not for you to "let" people decide how they identify. If you want to affect the prevalence of these sorts of groups, then you have to start by aknowledging the power of individuals and groups to instantiate them, and your lack of power to overrule those designations.

You don't reduce the number of untouchables in the world by pretending that there's no such thing.

Sure they are. And your views of that fact don't have any bearing on that. You don't get a vote on the self-identification of Jews, or much of anyone else.

Even if they were self-consistent: you say they can call themselves whatever they want, and then immediately insist that they can't call themselves Jews. As if you had any standing to dictate who can and can't identify as a Jew.

I'm wondering what you even mean by that. Do you think that people who identify as ethnically Jewish because their mother was Jewish are somehow decieving you? Or are you saying that they're incorrect?

In the former case, that's a pretty bizarre supposition. In the latter, it doesn't even make sense. One can't really be incorrect about one's identity.

 

I doubt that very much SAM.

SAM how about you do yourself a favor and look at it from an Israeli's perspective? Without any bigotry or hate or arrogance. Just imagine what its like being surrounded by countries that want you dead. That regularly blow up your buses and bomb your schools.

That little hotel bombing you guys had a year ago? Thats nothing.