In public it would be acceptable. In an actual class. It is definitely questionable wether it should be allowed. Freedom of speech is great and all but forcing an opinion on someone else isn't
So if he was comparing Jim Crow laws to South Africa or native American displacement to Australia, he would be imposing his opinions on his students?
I honestly cannot form a truthful opinion because I know very little of JC laws let alone the later. But if what he is teaching is NOT common fact as in what is taught normally to a class in any other school and there is reason to believe it is heavily biased by the teacher, than the teacher is not doing his/her job.
There is a great correlation between the Jim Crow laws (segregation) and the South African apartheid. The idea of "separate but equal" is what segregation was all about. Where black and white people had an equal opportunity, just separate, like the Taoist symbol, and there was love everywhere and life was grand. Obviously we know this was not the case. White people had preferential treatment while black people were given no respect. White people would be given free passes when committing crimes against black people, while black people would be put to death without a trial at times. Apartheid is quite similar to this. You can change the colors around but the image remains.
Exclusion is not extermination, but S.A.M. brought up the idea that the cutting off supplies and services is subjecting the Palestinians to a slow death. While it is not as quick and forward as extermination, they are still dying as a result of these policies. It is a valid comparison and in a global studies class the idea should be entertained. If a student has a problem with it then they should speak up. It is certainly not "anti-semetic".
You might argue it was along the same lines of the seige of Warsaw, but without as extreme a blockade, with a sympathetic population on all other sides (or nominally so), and the massacre at the end. Also, the Jews of Warsaw weren't at war with the Germans before the seige, and didn't have religious/political leaders egging them on to the extermination of the Germans based on religious differences beforehand, or during. Other than those items, I'm sure there are similarities.
So Jenin was a "massacre", and the conflict in Gaza was "as bad as the Holocaust"... what's next? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You know, in the past month alone there have been over 5000 dead Tamils in the Sri Lanka / LTTE conflict.... SAM you are such a hysterical hypocrite... time to up the dosage.
So you think the 6 million Holocaust victims should be brushed aside because 60 million other people also died in WWII?
Yeah but you see the Sri Lankan government went on the Tamil offensive some time after the Israeli's were on theirs. The world being so distracted didn't even give a fraction of the coverage given to the Israeli offensive. If the world wants to complain about the Tamils they only have to site the precendent of the Israeli's. What's good for the goose...
"Precedent of the Israelis"... as if there has never been war before the Gaza offensive Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The civil war in Sri Lanka has been going on since at least the early 80s. There were far worse massacres perpetrated before this latest round of "only" 5000 dead. CNN couldn't be bothered to mention any of it in the last 30 years? Oh right, the Gaza offensive of 2009... how could I forget. It really is a shame the world doesn't give a fraction of a fraction of the coverage it is obsessively throws at Israel to conflicts much deadlier and more heart breaking than "the Jenin massacre". The "Palestinians" must be glowing of happiness from all the attention they've been getting (and ACTUAL victims must be glowing from the fire that is burning them alive from all the LACK of attention.) Back to the OP: SAM's and other anti-Semites' comparison of the Holocaust to 1000 war-dead is grotesque and obscene. And yes, there ARE Jewish anti-Semites, such as Norman Finkelstein who SAM so gleefully quotes in the OP, just like there are black Uncle Toms and other self-hating people from every race and culture.
otheadp: So according to you, William I. Robinson, professor of sociology at the UC, Santa Barbara is being an anti-semite when he proposes a discussion on the parallels between Israeli actions in Gaza and Nazi actions in Germany during a class on global affairs?
You can define parallels in history without saying that one event is more important than the other. It is ugly to say that one event is more important than the other because of the number of people who died. I argue that comparisons can be made between the Holocaust and Apartheid. It is about the conditions that allow such atrocities to come about, and not about who killed the most, like some kind of demented high score.
I agree. Much of human history is repetitive patterns of abuse based on similar themes. It is spurious to pretend that one act is somehow more noteworthy or more deserving of sympathy than the other, if the motivations are the same
These words in and of themselves, on a purely intellectual level, are not as bad as what they mean in the context of our discussion and in what you're applying it to. You're a terrible person SAM. If there is a hell, there's a special seat there reserved just for you.
You mean its okay when you're discussing Jim Crow, South Africa, Tasmania, Australia, the Armenians, Khmer Rouge and the Nazis. But when it comes to this, you feel violently conflicted and want to see it as anything but what it is. That actually speaks well of you. It means if it were to happen before your eyes, you would not stand for it. Its why it does not bother me when people like you, spider and fedr stick up for Israeli atrocities. I think if faced with the truth, you'd make the right choices.
