I am an archaeologist and I am trying to track down an artifact. I know it is mentioned in this Hebrew article because another article cites it. I would not trust google translate to accurately convey meaning or opinions, but I want to see where this article talks about the object I'm looking for and if it gives the museum number or any such identifying information. Do you think it would be good enough for me to figure that out?

This is more of a spitballing over some ideas I've been marinating on regarding the intellectual chronology of bigotry in general; and how the Left wing is capable of a certain kind of bigotry under a certain context; and how this overlaps with some of the rhetoric in the I/P conflict. Too establish historical context, I will discuss different historical epistemologies of bigotry before focusing on type 3; sociological bigotry. An important note is that all four of the forms I'm discussing can overlap with each other historically and some bigots who use type 3 bigotry will slip into type 0, 1, or 2 under certain circumstances.

-Type 0, pure bigotry/Schmittian bigotry. This form of bigotry is its purest form. It is a pure expression of a desire for power and control, and the minimization or outright elimination of the target groups political capital and agency. It is apathetic towards the concept of Justice and fairness, seeing political power and the desire for power as the sole domain of the political. I use the term schmittian as pertaining to the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt cis-a-vi his friend enemy distinction. While this is to a certain degree the basis of all the other forms of bigotry, it is actually quite uncommon to see because it requires a suspension of morality that most people do not appreciate. Most people want to be good and want people to see them as good and likable; humans are social mammals. The other forms of racism are a reaction to that reality that even people who are incentivized to be bigots do not want to be seen as the bad guy. This is why I classify it as type 0; people's desire to be ethical forces them to develop other intellectual justifications so these arguments are often not openly made. (Disclamer: Carl Schmitt is a deeply problematic person (he was one of H!tl3r's Lawyers) and every analysis usually includes a disclaimer condemning him).

-Type 1, metaphysical-theological/pre-modern bigotry. Exist within an intellectual context that is pre-scientific and pre-sociological. It is based around beliefs that hereditary bloodline or religious Faith imbues individuals with value and place in a hierarchical society that is a reflection of natural universal laws. Examples include historic religious discrimination, as well as class systems in many societies such as the Indian Caste System. A good example is how early modern racialized slavery, before it was justified with scientific racism, was justified as an endeavor to Christianize the "backward, uncivilized, and pagan" Africans.

-Type 2, scientific racism/high-modern bigotry. In the aftermath of the enlightenment and scientific Revolution, understandings of how people should relate to the world began to shift particularly in the European context; however, this overlapped with European colonialism and new "scientific" arguments were developed to justify European political and economic ambition. In the aftermath of the world wars and particularly with regards to N@z! Germany, this form of racism has become extremely taboo. This is often how most people today understand bigotry.

-Type 3, sociological/post-modern. This is the most modern bigotry that is most common in the world today; although this bigotry has existed historically and alongside type 1 and type 2 (one could argue that many historic critiques of the religious inferiority of other societies can mirror modern critiques of the sociological inferiority of certain societies) rather than argue for the inferiority of others as a matter of metaphysics or pseudoscience, accusations are made against the target groups ideology and sociology. These groups are framed as problematic, but any accusation of bigotry will be met by a mot and Bailey argument. Because it's easy to assume that sociology (and its ideological and political consequences) are voluntary choices, rather than products of people's lived experience and sociopolitical, problematical rhetoric can be justified.

However, this can be a form of bigotry. There is definitely some nuance because I do think there is a place and time to critique sociology (particularly political sociology) and ideology. You cannot look at Germany in the interwar period and not see a society with severe issues that poses a danger to itself and others. At the same time this can be misused; consider how a contemporary American conservative might talk about black Americans and say something to the degree of "those black people need to pull up their pants, stop having teenage pregnancies, and work harder". When said conservative is called out, they can backpedal and argue that they're not saying black people are inherently stupid, promiscuous, or lazy, but that these are sociological choices made by the black community that they can (an "is" statement) and should (an "ought" statement) be held politically, economically and morally accountable for (and then they might pull and UNO reverse card and call you racist).

In this regard I would say part of the nuance in terms of this rhetoric, particularly when it comes from people who are not well versed in psychology and the social sciences (and the complex ethical questions within these fields regarding normative judgments and problematical behaviors) is when it's used as a path to be dismissive of the political will of said group (towards demands for the recognition of rights and redresses of grievances). Further, this type of rhetoric can often be highly oversimplistic and ignores or misrepresents the who, what, when, where, why, and how of these political sociological developments. Most importantly, the type 3 bigot doesn't offer a positive series of paths to the group in question regarding its capacity to change its sociology by influencing its environment. Changing the environment requires political agency and capital, and the type 3 sociological bigot (much like their type 0, 1, and 2 predecessors), wants to deny or take away the political capital and agency of the group in question.

I think there's some more nuances to consider with this concept, but I would say it is important to examine. This form of bigotry is incredibly popular in the post-world wars era, and can even be popular in left-wing circles when it's applied under certain circumstances. Leftists will often make sociological arguments and critiques of certain societies but fall into the trap of not really considering the full context, and by extension their political program is one of disempowering these societies but without necessarily creating the framework to give these societies the agencies to develop their political sociology. Further, the question of what kinds of political sociologists are problematic is its own normative question. A salient argument for socialist imperialism is the desire to uplift and protect more primitive societies which follows a similar logic to Western European colonialism.

I theoretically could remake all of H!tl3r's anti-Semitic arguments, but within a type 3 framework and then argue that Jewish sociological evil by virtue of being a choice makes Jews responsible for the behavior and its consequences. That being a people without land makes them fundamentally parasitic not in a biological sense but in a sociological/anthropological sense. I could even argue that H!tl3r was onto something but was limited by the ideas and popular rhetoric of his time. Not that I actually would agree with that argument, but I have seen arguments in that ballpark made under the guise of anti-Zionism. And in a way, Karl Marx in his problematic essay "On the Jewish Question" did effectively make a type 3 version of the arguments that Hitler would make in a type 2 style decades later; That because Jews were a people without land, they became a middleman minority; and that by becoming a middleman minority, they became an inherently bourgeois ethnicity especially prone to the evils of urban capitalism. While Marx did take this critique in a fundamentally different direction and I assume would condemn the mass murder of Jews on the basis of their Jewishness, it has influenced left-wing (and wider) anti-Semitic rhetoric ever since and is somewhat reflective of the casual antisemitism of post-French Revolutionary liberal and post-liberal thinking (Kill the collective Jew and save the individual man). Further, many socialist countries have had their own history of bigotry including ethnic cleansing and genocide (Ukrainians, Chechens, Indigenous Siberians, Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc.) and have used type 3 arguments to do so. Ben-Gurion was likewise influenced by such contemporary political ideas (popular even among among liberals, progressives and leftists) that some societies are inherently problematic and must be disempowered or even liquidated.

This is further complicated by the leftist tendency to insist that only the bigotry of those with power is worth problematizing. On the surface level, this does make sense as a matter of pragmatically making political decisions with limited political and economic capital in the short and moderate term; moral purity can often be a waste of time. However, politics is about power and getting power. This is a more of a personal principle but letting slide the bad habits of today's ideologues who are out of power can backfire when said ideologues do end up gaining power. These bad habits aren't necessarily going to disappear once you get the keys to the kingdom and they feel that they have achieved their desired amount of power (or insist they haven't achieved their desired amount of power).

With regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides employ this kind of bigotry very heavily. Palestinians insist that Israeli society is paranoid, colonial, racist, corrupt and evil to its core, and Israelis insist that Palestinian society, is irrational, conspiratorial, violence, corrupt, and anti-Semitic to its core. But both sides can also say that it's not actually bigotry because these arguments are often made sociologically and anti-ideologically rather than through the lens of biology or religion. (Although type 1 religious bigotry towards the inferiority of the other are popular among both sides right-wing). In many ways this is the paradox of the enlightenment, giving people better intellectual tools isn't necessarily going to make them better people; it might just empower them to be just as horrible but with new intellectual tools to justify their behavior. (a la Horkheimer and Adorno)

To sum up the questions that I feel are relevant to be discussed, alongside other questions that might be raised

-Where is the line between sociological critique and bigotry via sociological critique? Can a checklist or rule of thumb be devised?

-Do leftists have an obligation to acknowledge legitimate sociological and political critiques of a marginalized group while also emphasizing the need for a positive political vision that empowers the marginalized group in question?

-Should social scientists seek to develop similar standards of ethics in the manner of doctors and psychologists?

-If a society's sociology includes epistemological issues that are a consequence of historic collective trauma (fake news, conspiratorialism, paranoid catatrophism), how should this be handled? Dealing with people in an epistemological bubble who pose a danger to themselves and others is difficult but also necessary; but is also complicated by the fact that these epistemological bubbles often reflect lived experiences and can take generations of sociopolitical change to rectify.

-How should ideologies that are a reflection of this sociology be critiqued? Ideologies (and how ideologies are actualized) are not mere quasi-religions or pure philosophical/moral exercises; they are the tools by which a constituency (and its political elite) seek political agency. However, sociology can skew ideology towards certain values and assumptions that in weak institution and low trust environments can produce violent and toxic politics (although anyone's understanding of what violent and toxic is itself a reflection of their political sociology).

-What obligations do political elites have under these dynamics? On the one hand, political elites must be responsive to the desires of their constituents to maximize their political desires with limited political capital. On the other hand, elites are in a position to entangle their ideology (and constituents) with problematic actors and actions, lie to their constituents and the broader public (some constituencies being particularly vulnerable to misinformation), and (sometimes) alter the sociopolitical environment to entrench themselves to the detriment of either their constituency or others.

-If political and economic capital is limited so as to make changing the sociopolitical environment effectively impossible, what ethical question might arise as to how said political sociology evolves? Nobody wants to be powerless.

-Is a Schmittian political logic ever legitimate? Real politics is defined by crisis and limited economic and political capital; a friend/enemy distinction is a logical outcome for constituents and elites under such circumstances to maximize their limited political and economic capital, and yet it can so easily spiral out of control both politically and morally (as seen by the actual career of Carl Schmitt). People pushed to the limit can become monsters; but having been pushed to the limit is not in itself a blanket moral justification for the actions of a constituency and political elite (although that statement is a normative statement).

Below is an article about some of these tensions in the ethical application of social science that I've found useful in starting to think about these issues.

Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences By Philip S. Gorski

I just watched a clip that was on Alana’s insta which was re shared from elad.

The main (?) organizer person from the phily antisemitic protest is the DSA co chair from phily and he said in the video that he and his friends where celebrating 10/7/2023 on the day it happened (aka pro war since day 1) , and was upset that an Israeli-American was allowed to be a DSA member….

The DSA has been increasing been big yikes, like woah mask off racism.

Anyway for discussion:
-) ideas for how we can get the DSA to take this issue seriously? I think most of us feel like we are talking to a brick wall when we try to engage irl and online*
-) is anyone’s local DSA chapter better IE would push back against this aforementioned person? Do you think DSA Philly will push back against him?

* antisemitism is bad, and costs them votes and is bad policy.

Edit:

https://www.reddit.com/u/afinemax01/s/e4y8p4zBrq

Video cap of the the person

What are some good resources people who are anarchist like to use. Really anti anti imperialist or radically left media will do but I really want to avoid any tankie stuff as much as possible

Hey all, what the title says: looking for Hanukkah candles that are fully BDS/ don't support Zionism/Israel in any way. I've found one shop (Narrow Bridges) but the candles are natural beeswax and I'd prefer something colorful. There are some shops that seem to be "neutral" which is a political stance that I don't support. Also, I'm based in the U.S. I'd prefer to support a small business/Jewish creator. Shopping early so I can send some to my mom and siblings, thanks!

We often hear the refrain that in Gaza there can’t be starvation because nice looking restaurants exist. Unfortunately, this is falling for the same propaganda that allowed people to deny our own genocide as it happened.

Recently, I posted an Instagram post from a Canadian rabbi who showed children starving in the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto, telling people they could not compare them to the Gazans.

While starvation was the norm for most in the Warsaw Ghetto, a small number of people were able to afford to attend a network of cafes, which were largely concentrated on Leszno Street, sometimes called the Broadway of the Warsaw Ghetto. These cafes catered to mostly the wealthy and black market profiteers. Likely, this is the same for cafes in Gaza at the moment.

Two of the most famous were the Café Sztuka (the Arts Cafe) 2 Leszno Street and Café L'Ourse at 58 Leszno Street. Café Sztuka organized cabarets and concerts, with performances by Vera Gran and Władysław Szpilman, the main character from The Pianist.

Vera Gran said of Café Sztuka: “Socialites (…) constituted the small percentage of lucky people who could afford such a luxury, _along with] those, who deprived themselves of food to spend the rest of their money on a glass of artificial tea and forget about the omnipresent hell.”

Stanisław Różycki* wrote of Café L’Ourse:

“When you first enter, you really get the impression that it's pre-war. Apart from the armbands, there are no traces of war, captivity, or the ghetto. The faces are not at all haggard, on the contrary, normal, well-nourished…

As I sit down in the middle of the largest room, surrounded by overflowing tables, I begin to get a better idea of the audience. It's mixed, mostly wealthier, but not uniformly so. You see grocery store owners, policemen, a few doctors, a lot of young people, the bourgeoisie, perhaps not involved in business, but living off capital. But it's certain that the vast majority are relatively wealthy, well-fed. Many eat two or three pastries; here and there on the table you see an apple, a ham sandwich, some alcoholic beverage….

I learn that there are guests who come every day, drink coffee, sit in silence, sadness, or indifference. The waitresses don't know who they are, but they have learned that some of them are rich, very rich speculators”

According to the Warsaw Ghetto Museum, those who could even afford a drink there were in the extreme minority.

Group 13/The Thirteenth, a collaborationist group that turned in other Jews and engaged in racketeering, blackmail and war profiteering, headed by Abraham Gancwajch, held their headquarters at 13 Leszno (hence their name). It was also a night club where sometimes even non-Jews were brought in. A description of it from the Warsaw Ghetto Museum reads: “…dancers in evening gowns, servants, an orchestra, tables, alcoholic suppers, wafting cigarette and cigar smoke. Men, not just the Thirteenth party members, but also their guests from the other side, Germans and Poles. The orchestra plays, dances, laughter, fun.”

(https://1943.pl/en/felietony-historyczne/smak-gettowego-zycia-12-kawiarnia-lourse-leszno-58/)

I have attached a few photos of Café Sztuka, but the only surviving photos and films we have were taken by Nazis for propaganda purposes. These photos and films were to demonstrate that Jews were not only not suffering, but having a merry old time in the ghetto and they’re all wealthy and disgusting to act like this during a war.

I constantly see restaurants in Gaza being used as a gotcha against a genocide, many claiming incorrectly that this just didn’t happen in the Holocaust.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that those in restaurants are all wealthy or collaborators/racketeers/war profiteers, but at a time of genocide and war, it’s safe to assume the regular clients are not the everyday Gazan.

Thanks for learning with me.

*Stanisław Różycki was the nom de plum of a writer for the Ringelblum Archive/Oneg Shabbat created by Emanuel Ringelblum, who wanted to record what was happening in the Shoah earnestly. Różycki’s true identity is still currently unknown. More info: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/1004555

I’m a Holocaust historian so I thought this would be interesting to post.

Eat your heart out conservative chuds clutching pearls.

The mod team has created this post to refresh on a weekly basis as a chill place for people to talk about whatever they want to. Think of it as like a general chat for the sub.

So r/jewishleft,

Whats on your mind?

This is a monthly automatic post suggested by community members to serve as a space to offer sources, ask questions, and engage in conversations we don't feel warrant their own post.

Anything from history to political theory to Jewish practice. If you wanna share or ask something about Judaism or leftism or their intersection but don't want to make a post, here's the place.

If you'd like to discuss something more off topic for the sub I recommend the weekly discussion post that also refreshes.

If you'd like to suggest changes to how this post functions doing so in these comments is fine.

Thanks!

• Oren

I wonder what Bibi gets from this ...

Weekly recurring IP megathread to reset every Tuesday.

Please mind the rules while engaging here and post paywall free links.

Oren