Knowing Herr Naam I would inject that I highly doubt it is racial prejudice as you suspect.

Of course in this topic a person with a background/ties to Israel would have a predisposition that as one side is guilt free & therefore the other has to be guilty.

Again a persons birth place should not brand them to a past nor should it censor their thoughts or questions of intent by parties involved what ever race they may be. If it questions the validity/sincerity of the topic being discussed.

Otherwise it would preclude for example any American talking bad about groups of blacks even if justified because the US had a history of slavery.

I completely agree. If you are referring to me, where Naam was born was never an issue. I stated that at least once. My grandmother was born in Germany. It's not about where one was born.

You know him, and I do not. But the history that he shared about his father was very interesting - a perspective that I had never considered.

Regarding Americans speaking against groups of blacks - there are laws on the books regarding blacks as a special class requiring higher sanctions for violating. Don't get me started.

Just as there are laws on the books, in various places around the world, that give special mention and treatment against anti-semitic actions.

Both the black and the Jew special treatments in these cases has a "rationale", or at least a reason, but is nonetheless discriminatory against all other minorities, as well as the majority!

For some reason, probably tied up with the above mentioned discrimination, my mention of special treatment for Jews was rubbished.

These discriminations are not only enshrined in law, but are also the prevailing general public attitude in varioous places around the world.

By "Don't get me started", I detect you are frustrated by the "special class" afforded to blacks. I can empathise with that.

I loath the concept and practice of any group being considered a 'special class'. Case in point, when Sarah Palin was running as the Vice Presidential nominee with John McCain, on Halloween there was a West Hollywood idiot homeowner who placed an effigy of Sarah Palin that was hanging from a noose off the side of his house. If Sarah Palin were black, the subject homeowner would have been in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws, however, because Palin is white, no problem.

They would have also been in violation of those same laws if Sarah happened to be lesbian.

Let me pose this question. Would the following be considered racist organizations in the US?

The White Chamber of Commerce

The Congressional White Caucus

The Miss White USA Contest

The United White College Fund

National Association for the Advancement of White People

White AIDS Institute

National Society of White Engineers

National Association of White Hotel Owners, Operators and Developers

These are all organizations but I have substituted the word "Black" with the word "White".

My source for some of them is BlackNews.com:

http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_a...nizations.shtml

They would have also been in violation of those same laws if Sarah happened to be lesbian.

Let me pose this question. Would the following be considered racist organizations in the US?

The White Chamber of Commerce

The Congressional White Caucus

The Miss White USA Contest

The United White College Fund

National Association for the Advancement of White People

White AIDS Institute

National Society of White Engineers

National Association of White Hotel Owners, Operators and Developers

These are all organizations but I have substituted the word "Black" with the word "White".

My source for some of them is BlackNews.com:

http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_a...nizations.shtml

I hear you. I agree with your stance.....and that it is not just racial prejudice, but sexual discrimination etc also.

bb

Let me pose this question. Would the following be considered racist organizations in the US?

Surely they would....But...by the same token if Obama asked to change the name of his current residence from the White house to the Black house

Well that would probably not go over too well either

Agreed. Chuckd - well done.

I always cringed at the mention of the Black Lawyers Association, or the Mexican American Lawyers Association. No way there could ever be a White Lawyers Association.

So far, we all agree on this side issue.

I wonder if either of you, chuckd and VL, would care to respond to the additional attitude put forward that no group should have special treatment?

There may be some hope for you (if you could ever get past the superiority issue). Pity it's so deeply ingrained. Challenging, isn't it.

i will never forget the reaction of my father (a former career officer in the german army) when in 1961 the Eichmann trial was broadcasted every day on german TV and original and detailed footage of concentration camp horrors was shown as evidence. after years of denial "impossible! these are dàmn lies! no officer with honour would participate in these crimes!" and big fights with me (a schoolboy then) he was sitting with a white and horrified face in front of the TV and kept on murmuring "if that is true... if that is really true... it must be true... this couldn't have been faked." if i ever saw a broken man in my life, it was him!

You have provided an interesting historical insight. Thank you for that.

Seriously, why do you appear to have a predilection for determining if one with whom you disagree is Jewish? Given your exposure at such a young age to the horrors perpetrated by your country, I would think that you would be cautious not to give even the slightest impression of being prejudice.

i have valid reason for being somehow prejudiced and mentioned it before.

quote: "based on my experience with more than a dozen jewish friends that question makes sense! they are all normal people and discuss each and everything rationally except when it concerns Eretz Yisrael, the "promised land" and the Palestinians. quite interesting is the fact that even the agnostics and atheists among them start quoting the bible when this topic is mentioned."

background information: i am a founding member of a group of bankers, traders and private investors who meet three times a year (twice in Asia, once in the Caribbean) and discuss investments. it is a well known fact that Jews are "over-represented" when it concerns financial services and my best guess is that more than a third of our members are jewish. the political scenario globally and specifically plays of course a big role in these discussions and Iran as well as the Middle East in general are always hot topics. that is why i have some insight into the irrational behaviour of my jewish friends which sometimes (when the discussions get hotter and the bottles emptier) reaches an embarrassing level because the reasoning is only short of Nazi-slogans when it concerns the Palestinians.

I wonder if either of you, chuckd and VL, would care to respond to the additional attitude put forward that no group should have special treatment?

Precisely what do you mean by "special treatment" and precisely what encompasses a "group"?

i have valid reason for being somehow prejudiced

Well at least you admit that you are bigoted, but I find it difficult to believe that all these "Jews" you know all think alike. One thing that they are well known for is never agreeing with each other on anything including the Palestinians and that has certainly been my experience.

When I read your posts I get the feeling that you really want to claim that some of your "best friends" are Jews.

There may be some hope for you (if you could ever get past the superiority issue). Pity it's so deeply ingrained. Challenging, isn't it.

i will never forget the reaction of my father (a former career officer in the german army) when in 1961 the Eichmann trial was broadcasted every day on german TV and original and detailed footage of concentration camp horrors was shown as evidence. after years of denial "impossible! these are dàmn lies! no officer with honour would participate in these crimes!" and big fights with me (a schoolboy then) he was sitting with a white and horrified face in front of the TV and kept on murmuring "if that is true... if that is really true... it must be true... this couldn't have been faked." if i ever saw a broken man in my life, it was him!

You have provided an interesting historical insight. Thank you for that.

Seriously, why do you appear to have a predilection for determining if one with whom you disagree is Jewish? Given your exposure at such a young age to the horrors perpetrated by your country, I would think that you would be cautious not to give even the slightest impression of being prejudice.

i have valid reason for being somehow prejudiced and mentioned it before.

quote: "based on my experience with more than a dozen jewish friends that question makes sense! they are all normal people and discuss each and everything rationally except when it concerns Eretz Yisrael, the "promised land" and the Palestinians. quite interesting is the fact that even the agnostics and atheists among them start quoting the bible when this topic is mentioned."

background information: i am a founding member of a group of bankers, traders and private investors who meet three times a year (twice in Asia, once in the Caribbean) and discuss investments. it is a well known fact that Jews are "over-represented" when it concerns financial services and my best guess is that more than a third of our members are jewish. the political scenario globally and specifically plays of course a big role in these discussions and Iran as well as the Middle East in general are always hot topics. that is why i have some insight into the irrational behaviour of my jewish friends which sometimes (when the discussions get hotter and the bottles emptier) reaches an embarrassing level because the reasoning is only short of Nazi-slogans when it concerns the Palestinians.

I do not believe that there is ever just cause for being prejudiced (any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable, in this case based upon one's religion). I am not summarily dismissing your rationalization. I can come up with many reasons why the group is 'over-represented' by Jewish people. By the way, what percentage do you deem as being 'over-representative'?

More to the point, why would this be troubling? Unless you are a proponent of quotas, allowing the mix of the group to be determined by anything other than qualifications would be prejudicial, no? In any event, what is the reason for there being more Jewish people than what you appear to believe is appropriate? Perhaps it's because they are more intelligent, qualified? Based upon what you said I would not surmise its due to their social skills. I don't know. But for some reason there are more than you feel are appropriate.

Regarding the lack of decorum when discussing Iran or the Middle East in general, I can appreciate one becoming emotional when discussing a group(s) that has determined that you or your country should not exist. But, on the other hand, losing one's temper causes one to lose the argument - every time. For me, if the group has greater numbers of Jewish people participating, I would want to understand why, and perhaps learn from the experience.

I agree & as I said in other threads I have no problem with counter opinions such as those expressed by many here.....chuck,koheesti,VL,sceagdugenga etc..

Well, at least as long as you are concentrating on me. Did you ever consider a career in comedy?

i have valid reason for being somehow prejudiced and mentioned it before.

quote: "based on my experience with more than a dozen jewish friends that question makes sense! they are all normal people and discuss each and everything rationally except when it concerns Eretz Yisrael, the "promised land" and the Palestinians. quite interesting is the fact that even the agnostics and atheists among them start quoting the bible when this topic is mentioned."

background information: i am a founding member of a group of bankers, traders and private investors who meet three times a year (twice in Asia, once in the Caribbean) and discuss investments. it is a well known fact that Jews are "over-represented" when it concerns financial services and my best guess is that more than a third of our members are jewish. the political scenario globally and specifically plays of course a big role in these discussions and Iran as well as the Middle East in general are always hot topics. that is why i have some insight into the irrational behaviour of my jewish friends which sometimes (when the discussions get hotter and the bottles emptier) reaches an embarrassing level because the reasoning is only short of Nazi-slogans when it concerns the Palestinians.

I do not believe that there is ever just cause for being prejudiced (any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable, in this case based upon one's religion). I am not summarily dismissing your rationalization. I can come up with many reasons why the group is 'over-represented' by Jewish people. By the way, what percentage do you deem as being 'over-representative'?

More to the point, why would this be troubling? Unless you are a proponent of quotas, allowing the mix of the group to be determined by anything other than qualifications would be prejudicial, no? In any event, what is the reason for there being more Jewish people than what you appear to believe is appropriate? Perhaps it's because they are more intelligent, qualified? Based upon what you said I would not surmise its due to their social skills. I don't know. But for some reason there are more than you feel are appropriate.

Regarding the lack of decorum when discussing Iran or the Middle East in general, I can appreciate one becoming emotional when discussing a group(s) that has determined that you or your country should not exist. But, on the other hand, losing one's temper causes one to lose the argument - every time. For me, if the group has greater numbers of Jewish people participating, I would want to understand why, and perhaps learn from the experience.

I wonder how many blacks and Palestinians are in that group of investors, bankers, etc?

1. I do not believe that there is ever just cause for being prejudiced (any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable, in this case based upon one's religion). I am not summarily dismissing your rationalization. I can come up with many reasons why the group is 'over-represented' by Jewish people. By the way, what percentage do you deem as being 'over-representative'?

More to the point, why would this be troubling? Unless you are a proponent of quotas, allowing the mix of the group to be determined by anything other than qualifications would be prejudicial, no? In any event, what is the reason for there being more Jewish people than what you appear to believe is appropriate? Perhaps it's because they are more intelligent, qualified? Based upon what you said I would not surmise its due to their social skills. I don't know. But for some reason there are more than you feel are appropriate.

2. Regarding the lack of decorum when discussing Iran or the Middle East in general, I can appreciate one becoming emotional when discussing a group(s) that has determined that you or your country should not exist. But, on the other hand, losing one's temper causes one to lose the argument - every time. For me, if the group has greater numbers of Jewish people participating, I would want to understand why, and perhaps learn from the experience.

1. it doesn't trouble me at all! these are all old friends (we know each other since the early/mid 90s, our wives meet once a year, families and family members are visiting each other, members assist each other with valuable advice, not only financially but in general). my reference to "prejudice" is based on

quote: "...discuss each and everything rationally except when it concerns Eretz Yisrael, the "promised land" and the Palestinians. quite interesting is the fact that even the agnostics and atheists among them start quoting the bible when this topic is mentioned."

the overrepresentation in our group is nothing but a fact i stated. the percentage of "jewish persons" (most of my friends insist they are not "Jews" because they are not religious and prefer the expression "jewish" or "of jewish descendance") in finance is certainly given when compared to the actual number of persons. but there is no such thing like me feeling this would be inappropriate.

i have valid reason for being somehow prejudiced and mentioned it before.

quote: "based on my experience with more than a dozen jewish friends that question makes sense! they are all normal people and discuss each and everything rationally except when it concerns Eretz Yisrael, the "promised land" and the Palestinians. quite interesting is the fact that even the agnostics and atheists among them start quoting the bible when this topic is mentioned."

background information: i am a founding member of a group of bankers, traders and private investors who meet three times a year (twice in Asia, once in the Caribbean) and discuss investments. it is a well known fact that Jews are "over-represented" when it concerns financial services and my best guess is that more than a third of our members are jewish. the political scenario globally and specifically plays of course a big role in these discussions and Iran as well as the Middle East in general are always hot topics. that is why i have some insight into the irrational behaviour of my jewish friends which sometimes (when the discussions get hotter and the bottles emptier) reaches an embarrassing level because the reasoning is only short of Nazi-slogans when it concerns the Palestinians.

I do not believe that there is ever just cause for being prejudiced (any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable, in this case based upon one's religion). I am not summarily dismissing your rationalization. I can come up with many reasons why the group is 'over-represented' by Jewish people. By the way, what percentage do you deem as being 'over-representative'?

More to the point, why would this be troubling? Unless you are a proponent of quotas, allowing the mix of the group to be determined by anything other than qualifications would be prejudicial, no? In any event, what is the reason for there being more Jewish people than what you appear to believe is appropriate? Perhaps it's because they are more intelligent, qualified? Based upon what you said I would not surmise its due to their social skills. I don't know. But for some reason there are more than you feel are appropriate.

Regarding the lack of decorum when discussing Iran or the Middle East in general, I can appreciate one becoming emotional when discussing a group(s) that has determined that you or your country should not exist. But, on the other hand, losing one's temper causes one to lose the argument - every time. For me, if the group has greater numbers of Jewish people participating, I would want to understand why, and perhaps learn from the experience.

I wonder how many blacks and Palestinians are in that group of investors, bankers, etc?

one of the members is "black", no Palestinians, five from the Indian Subcontinent (three Hindus, two Muslims), two Asians and the rest Caucasians from 14 different countries.

i have valid reason for being somehow prejudiced and mentioned it before.

quote: "based on my experience with more than a dozen jewish friends that question makes sense! they are all normal people and discuss each and everything rationally except when it concerns Eretz Yisrael, the "promised land" and the Palestinians. quite interesting is the fact that even the agnostics and atheists among them start quoting the bible when this topic is mentioned."

background information: i am a founding member of a group of bankers, traders and private investors who meet three times a year (twice in Asia, once in the Caribbean) and discuss investments. it is a well known fact that Jews are "over-represented" when it concerns financial services and my best guess is that more than a third of our members are jewish. the political scenario globally and specifically plays of course a big role in these discussions and Iran as well as the Middle East in general are always hot topics. that is why i have some insight into the irrational behaviour of my jewish friends which sometimes (when the discussions get hotter and the bottles emptier) reaches an embarrassing level because the reasoning is only short of Nazi-slogans when it concerns the Palestinians.

I do not believe that there is ever just cause for being prejudiced (any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable, in this case based upon one's religion). I am not summarily dismissing your rationalization. I can come up with many reasons why the group is 'over-represented' by Jewish people. By the way, what percentage do you deem as being 'over-representative'?

More to the point, why would this be troubling? Unless you are a proponent of quotas, allowing the mix of the group to be determined by anything other than qualifications would be prejudicial, no? In any event, what is the reason for there being more Jewish people than what you appear to believe is appropriate? Perhaps it's because they are more intelligent, qualified? Based upon what you said I would not surmise its due to their social skills. I don't know. But for some reason there are more than you feel are appropriate.

Regarding the lack of decorum when discussing Iran or the Middle East in general, I can appreciate one becoming emotional when discussing a group(s) that has determined that you or your country should not exist. But, on the other hand, losing one's temper causes one to lose the argument - every time. For me, if the group has greater numbers of Jewish people participating, I would want to understand why, and perhaps learn from the experience.

I wonder how many blacks and Palestinians are in that group of investors, bankers, etc?

one of the members is "black", no Palestinians, five from the Indian Subcontinent (three Hindus, two Muslims), two Asians and the rest Caucasians from 14 different countries.

That's one heck of a party you manage to put together every 4 months.

That's one heck of a party you manage to put together every 4 months.

it has become a routine. everybody has his preferred hotel. except for the odd newcomer or guest, people know how to get from Swampy to Pattaya and there are enough old hands to explain Walking Street or other "peculiar" things of interest. all what i do is making a few reservations in restaurants. it is much more difficult for the chaps who live in the Caribbean or South America and those who attend the annual meeting as the venue shifts every year. nobody ever suggested "why always Pattaya? why not Karachi or Calcutta?"

my reference to "prejudice" is based on

the overrepresentation in our group is nothing but a fact i stated. the percentage of "jewish persons" (most of my friends insist they are not "Jews" because they are not religious and prefer the expression "jewish" or "of jewish descendance") in finance is certainly given when compared to the actual number of persons. but there is no such thing like me feeling this would be inappropriate.

You do realize that you are justifying bigotry? Klu Klux Klan members make exactly the same type of excuses.

I wonder if either of you, chuckd and VL, would care to respond to the additional attitude put forward that no group should have special treatment?

Precisely what do you mean by "special treatment" and precisely what encompasses a "group"?

I think that is plain in the context of what we are discussing. "Special treatment", for example what you and VL brought up about laws that favour one group over another. "Group"....is self explanatory...any collection of people that can be distinguished by, say their race, religion, sexual orientation.....eg American blacks, Jews, lesbians...

I wonder if either of you, chuckd and VL, would care to respond to the additional attitude put forward that no group should have special treatment?

Precisely what do you mean by "special treatment" and precisely what encompasses a "group"?

I think that is plain in the context of what we are discussing. "Special treatment", for example what you and VL brought up about laws that favour one group over another. "Group"....is self explanatory...any collection of people that can be distinguished by, say their race, religion, sexual orientation.....eg American blacks, Jews, lesbians...

Are you talking, specifically, about "laws" or simply "preferential treatment"?

my reference to "prejudice" is based on

the overrepresentation in our group is nothing but a fact i stated. the percentage of "jewish persons" (most of my friends insist they are not "Jews" because they are not religious and prefer the expression "jewish" or "of jewish descendance") in finance is certainly given when compared to the actual number of persons. but there is no such thing like me feeling this would be inappropriate.

You do realize that you are justifying bigotry? Klu Klux Klan members make exactly the same type of excuses.

i would have offered you to kiss my àss General but i refrain as the long line of people who are already entitled to kiss my àss your waiting time would be unbearable. you are nothing but a little trollish and uneducated boy who likes to have some special fun because you are not capable to conduct a rational discussion. i wonder how long the ladder has to be which you have to climb to reach my niveau.

I wonder if either of you, chuckd and VL, would care to respond to the additional attitude put forward that no group should have special treatment?

Precisely what do you mean by "special treatment" and precisely what encompasses a "group"?

I think that is plain in the context of what we are discussing. "Special treatment", for example what you and VL brought up about laws that favour one group over another. "Group"....is self explanatory...any collection of people that can be distinguished by, say their race, religion, sexual orientation.....eg American blacks, Jews, lesbians...

Are you talking, specifically, about "laws" or simply "preferential treatment"?

I feel you may be steering me to offer a qualified opinion on a matter of law. I am not qualified to do that.

So, let's take it as "preferential treatment".

As you pointed out with all the organisations for which you substituted "white" for "black", we expect that the "white" organisations would be censured, and the law seems to back up the censure.

I would think that we both agree that that constitutes preferrential treatment for black Americans.

Not to be argumentative, but it actually is indicative of prejudice against whites.

For the record, I am fine with the existence of the aforementioned groups as long as whites are able to have the same race designated groups. It's denying whites the opportunity to have their groups, labeling them as racist for even mentioning it, that is prejudicial.

Not to be argumentative, but it actually is indicative of prejudice against whites.

For the record, I am fine with the existence of the aforementioned groups as long as whites are able to have the same race designated groups. It's denying whites the opportunity to have their groups, labeling them as racist for even mentioning it, that is prejudicial.

Not to be finnicky on my part, either....... indeed what I am saying is that it is prejudice; aginst one group or for another......or for one group and against another.....or for one group, but not for another, or not for one group but for all others......

Prejudice or discrimination will always, by definition, discern one group from another, and treat those groups differently.

There's some sort of double negative, reverse logic, semantic thing happening here.

one of the first things i noticed when i read bkk post help wanted ads many years ago. " pretty female not more than 27yrs old" I loved it, the company new exactly what they wanted and are able to say what they want rather than waist time interviewing 100's of nqs

one of the first things i noticed when i read bkk post help wanted ads many years ago. " pretty female not more than 27yrs old" I loved it, the company new exactly what they wanted and are able to say what they want rather than waist time interviewing 100's of nqs

Of course there is a downside. Anti-discrimination laws do prohibit freedom of expression. They are mutualy exclusive.

Which way would you have it?

Not to be argumentative, but it actually is indicative of prejudice against whites.

For the record, I am fine with the existence of the aforementioned groups as long as whites are able to have the same race designated groups. It's denying whites the opportunity to have their groups, labeling them as racist for even mentioning it, that is prejudicial.

Not to be finnicky on my part, either....... indeed what I am saying is that it is prejudice; aginst one group or for another......or for one group and against another.....or for one group, but not for another, or not for one group but for all others......

Prejudice or discrimination will always, by definition, discern one group from another, and treat those groups differently.

There's some sort of double negative, reverse logic, semantic thing happening here.

Well said....I think.

my reference to "prejudice" is based on

the overrepresentation in our group is nothing but a fact i stated. the percentage of "jewish persons" (most of my friends insist they are not "Jews" because they are not religious and prefer the expression "jewish" or "of jewish descendance") in finance is certainly given when compared to the actual number of persons. but there is no such thing like me feeling this would be inappropriate.

Not only have you have made it very clear that you are "prejudice", but you have also admitted and made a number of justifications and excuses for it - just read your own words. Getting indignant does not change the obvious. Apparently, the truth hurts.

i wonder how long the ladder has to be which you have to climb to reach my niveau.

They say that it is quite a ways.