Dennis Mangan has a point: Israel is dependent on America's good will, so it is only natural that we are expected to meet American standards of behaviour. And we are not meeting it. That famous video clip of an Israeli officer violently pushing away an unarmed Danish demonstrator proves it.
I discount all our protests that we are the most moral army in the world. I am not sure we are better than others. What I can say with certainty is that we are trying very hard to be up to American moral standards. It is so difficult that even the American Army find it very difficult or impossible to avoid daily scandals of improper behaviour. Just now I read about the circus American media is making around a picture of American soldiers in the front (Afganistan) with dead enemy bodies. Or Secret Service young men meeting working girls. Or the worst media-crime of all, the anonymous Guantanamo guard who is accused of having urinated on a book.
I am not American and live forty years in this Middle East inferno, so it is not surprising that I find American media's standards bizarre to say the least. Grotesque is a better word. And if the American armed forces cannot gain the approval of the American media, how could we? The American army is the best of the world by far and it imposes iron discipline on its members. They are trained to follow clear rules and they do. Anglo-Saxon discipline in war, I think of the old British Navy, is legendary. In comparison, the Israeli army is not even an army but a militia, and my experience confirms that. I would also say that the human quality of the professional American army is higher than our conscripted lumpen-proletariat. That we are losing once and again the media battle against our enemies, which is not a Palestinian child playing the heroic film star throwing stones against a tank, but the international leftist media.
Dennis (Ill.: The Severe Teacher, by Dutch Master Jan Steen) is right that we should expect to be judged according American media's standards. We are trying very very hard, but it seems to me a battle lost before it started. I'm not the first one nor alone discovering that something is wrong with the standards of American (and Israeli) leftist media. They hate us at least as they hate American soldiers and policemen and Secret Service bodyguards, and "White Hispano" volunteer neighborhood watchmen.
6 comments:
In other news today, Zimmerman set a world's record as the world's brownest "white" person.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing.html?hp
George matches the mahagony panelling of the courtroom much more closely than he matches his own white shirt.
If this is the best the media can come up with as a flag bearer for the evil white race, then we are really in trouble. If an even whiter white person had killed Zimmerman, he would surely be just plain Hispanic now, not the heretofore unheard of category of "white Hispanic".
Racial identity is always up for grabs. If Jews in Poland or Hungary were more successful, especially on the world stage, they were considered Polish or Hungarian - otherwise they were Jews. Today I came across a documentary on the double life of Asa Carter, aka Forrest Carter. In one life he was a white supremacist, writing speeches for George Wallace. In the 2nd act of his life, he became an acclaimed "American Indian" author of Cherokee descent. He went so far as to deny that he was the same person. This sounds like the stuff of fiction but truth is stranger.
K
K
There is, BTW, a long history in America of people of ambiguous appearance "crossing the color line" to whichever race it is more advantageous to be. For most of American history, this was white so light skinned blacks made every effort to be taken as white, seeking out equally pale skinned or white mates, using various creams, etc. until eventually their descendants merged into the "white" race - the flip side of the fact that American blacks are maybe 30% white is that American whites are a few percent black. Many Americans (truly or not) claim to be of partly American Indian descent - while black ancestry was always hidden, having a few drops of American Indian blood was considered good.
In recent years, things have flipped - being a minority gets you all sorts of benefits, so that you have pure Whites claiming to be Native Americans and the palest Octoroon mulattoes are 100% identified as "black" even if their 1/4 black father took off the minute they were born and they were raised by an all white family.
K
Mangan cares more about this incident than the Dane.
What fantasies about Jews Mangan has.
He has mental problems.
K,
It is inaccurate to say that American whites are a few percent black. That is true of the Afrikaners (among whom admixture was documented in the early settlement period) but not of U.S. whites. Rather, a relatively low percentage of whites in the U.S. have African ancestry, but it is not universal.
This has come up at the end of one of Razib's recent posts about Cuban population genetics:
"He will then likely find himself in the 5 percent of the American white identified population which has discernible recent African ancestry!"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-case-of-the-white-cubans/#more-16301
Definitely not universal in that the later immigrants (Jews, Italians, etc.) would have zero admixture. Even earlier, in many of the non-slave states, blacks were few and far between. So most of the admixture would have occurred in the South. Louisiana was famous for being full of mixed race people of all different shades, each of which had a name. I would bet a fair # of the "whites" of Louisiana whose families have been there since before the Civil War have some black admixture.
When they wanted DNA to figure out if it was true that Jefferson had fathered Sally Hemmings children, they went looking for Hemmings descendants and one branch had "crossed the color line" and was white again. Apparently the story was that one of her sons (who was maybe 7/8 white) had "escaped" to the North but the rumor was that Jefferson had looked the other way. Jefferson was not at liberty to just free his slaves because they were collateral for his debts - he was up to his ears in debt. Not long after he died, a Jew (Levy) bought Monticello at the urging of Lafayette - it otherwise would have fallen into ruin.
K
Post a Comment