British university boycott

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Tommy-2guns..., Jun 11, 2007.

  1. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    That's because "anti-semitism" is now used as a "special move" in verbal combat. If logic is a straight old punch to the face, then accusations of anti-semitism are M. Bison's psycho crusher. It isn't invoked because it it means anything, it's invoked because many people think it's unblockable.

    In fact, you can stop M. Bison's psycho crusher with a straight punch if you time it right, just like you can stop its verbal equivalent if you don't just throw in the towel.
     
  2. 0gmios

    0gmios Valued Member

    I like to think of logic as a swift kick to the bits, its painfull but its efficient :D

    The point I was trying to make is that the term doesn't make sense. Especially when Semites claim that other Semites are being Anti-Semitic. Because the word is religious in connotation, the etymology is very important. The history of the term is valid, but the application of the term is wrong (in the case I pointed out before).

    Regards,
     
  3. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    ok
     
  4. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Language has a nasty habit of evolving!

    Although it is true that Arabs (and I believe maybe some others too) are semitic people just as much as Jews are, the phrase antisemitism was coined specifically to refer to prejudice against Jews. (CanuckMA already posted a very good explaination of this.) It might not be accurate in the strictest sense, but sometimes language isn't. Get over it. Everyone knows what the word 'antisemitism' means, so I really don't see the point in being a smart-alec about it. ;)
     
  5. 0gmios

    0gmios Valued Member

    I am not being a smart-alec, I am simply pointing out that some claims of prejudice are as ill-founded as the words used to describe them. This fact is pointed demonstrated when Semites claim that other Semites are being anti-Semitic.

    Regards,
     
  6. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP



    You actually didn't make any point about the claims of prejudice, you just pointed out a possible error in the term used to describe it.


    It doesn't really further the discussion of anti-jewish sentiment one bit, which is rather obviously what is being referred to.
     
  7. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    You're just playing with words. You know what 'antisemitic' means.
     
  8. 8GatesAaron

    8GatesAaron Valued Member

    You really have to look at whether or not the British Universities are dealing with Israel in an even handed way, or if they have a double standard that seems to only deal with Israel. One has to wonder what the British Universities’ policy is on the treatment of the Kurds under the Turks, or the Tibetans under the Chinese, Chechniyans under the Russians, or any number of ethnic and non-Muslim religious minorities throughout the Middle East and in other Muslim countries (and this is just a short list). The British Universities also have to look at the capability of the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians were that ones that walked away negotiating table at Taba, and instigated an armed conflict with Israel – terroristic attacks that continue to this day. Palestinian educational institutions (all grade levels, including higher education) actively foment violence against Israel and Jews in general. How does the British Universities deal with that? Again, I have to ask, is Israel being dealt with in a fair and even handed way?

    I think this is much more important than getting stuck on if we should be using the term anti-semitic or not. However the term came into existence isn’t important, it is a term in common usage and is likely to stay that way. If people don’t like that say anti-Jewish instead, but getting stuck on this point is really not seeing the forest because of the trees.
     
  9. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    So do you think that South Africa were unfairly treated during Apartheid. Is it unfair to criticise one brutal regime if you dont criticise every other one?
     
  10. Tommy-2guns...

    Tommy-2guns... southpaw glassjaw

    To be honest i think the treatment of other nations is irelervant , if criminal X has killed 20 people and criminal Y has killed 30, criminal X cant complain if i didnt try and catch criminal Y first,as they both commited a crime.

    The fact is,This is an attempt to punish Israel for wrongs it has commited and continues to commit, the question is, will it be an effective/useull one.
     
  11. 0gmios

    0gmios Valued Member

    Your avatar makes me want to say sorry. I should have been less facetious in my approach to what I was hoping to be the implied point.

    Why does it have to be antisemitism, why does it have to be prejudice. Why can't some people just have done something wrong, and hence something should be done about it? And if it is not clear, no I am not referring just to the topic at hand.

    Regards,
     
  12. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    ogmios,

    Prejudice is equally bad WHOEVER it is directed at. Anti-Jewish prejudice just happens to have a particular label of 'antisemitism', that's all. It's just a word. Prejudice is still prejudice.

    Peace.
     
  13. 0gmios

    0gmios Valued Member

    Okay I was pretty sure the point of my last post was pretty clear. I said nothing about the term antisemitism, I did use it because I know the definition. What I was saying was why does any negative action against Jewish people HAVE to be antisemitism? Why does any negative action against African-Americans HAVE to be racist?

    We are all just people!

    You know what, I think this post made my point much better than the last one.

    Thanks,
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2007
  14. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    A 'negative action' against a person is only the result of prejudice if it is done to them because of their race or religion or whatever it is that causes the other person to be prejudiced against them.

    Surely that is obvious? :confused:
     
  15. 0gmios

    0gmios Valued Member

    Yes you are correct.

    But if someone (or group of people) does something wrong, why can't action, e.g. political action, be taken in response without it being labelled as prejudice?
     
  16. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    That is a good question! Did the Universities boycott South African Universities and Academics or did a student group? I thought it was the latter. Why do you think that South Africa was singled out when others weren't? Why do you think that Israel is singled out today? My guess for Israel being singled out is that there is a much larger Muslim population in Britain and in Europe than a Jewish population. Why South Africa was, I am not sure.

    Is it unfair to single one and ignore others? Probably not. However, the hypocrisy factor may be huge. If you care so much about discrimination and human rights that you have one boycott for a short period of time and several years after it ends, you start another one while far greater atrocities have occured with no action, it begs the question of what is the real reason for the boycott.
     
  17. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    Certainly political action can be taken without it being labeled as prejudice. That is unless, the actions and circumstance would suggest that it is actually prejudice.
     
  18. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    what about the Springbok boycott?

    I am not muslim yet still loathe the actions of the Israeli government, although the palestinians arent exactly helping themselves at the moment either.

    What other universities would you have the UCU boycott? Which other universities play such an active part in their governments atrocities? And before you start screaming about Palestinian universities, you'll have to provide evidence of UK/Palestinian collaboration in the first instance.
     
  19. LJoll

    LJoll Valued Member

    The point is that it's better to be a hypocrite that does a few good things to some people, than a man of principles that is equally bad to everyone.
     
  20. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    Can you explain the Springbok boycott? Are you talking about where pretty much the rest of the world boycotted the rugby team?

    What role does the Israeli Universities have in their governments atrocities? I mean beside being Israeli. It seems that many, including Palestinians, think the universities have helped to temper the government. Is that the right thing to boycott?

    Is any university a good thing to boycott?

    Evidence of UK/Palestinian collaboration? The link I gave from wiki had that the boycott is at the request of a palestinian trade union.
     

Share This Page