posted on January 17, 2004 05:50:03 PM new
plsmith
My comment,
"Many Jewish groups are constantly reinforcing beliefs of the ancestral suffering with no mention of grandchildren’s attainment."
Is based on my own general 'lay' observations in recent years.
I am not a scholar on the issue of Jewish suffering or claim to be well read on the topic, but a google search of Jewish Suffering http://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+suffering&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=
shows 488,000 results.
Although a quick look at the first page shows sites with accusations of Jewish ‘holocaust exploitation’.
Having said that, I also searched “Jewish success” and found 1,240,000 results, and so I don’t know that I can prove anything to you at all.
Is a big part of the Jewish faith not the teaching of ancestral suffering and persecution?
posted on January 17, 2004 05:53:07 PM new
No it is NEVER ok to ban/destroy art, even those sick pictures from the morgue, if you don't like it, don't look.
posted on January 17, 2004 06:14:55 PM new
A little clarification of my earlier post. I don't think the incident in the original post was right. That art should not have been destroyed.
When the question was posed my knee-jerk reaction would be to say no, art should never be banned or destroyed. But, I'm rarely comfortable with ever or never statements. So, I tried to think of an occasion when it would be okay to destroy art.
In the morgue pictures - there were other issues - as in did the photographer have the right to even be in the morgue. The families of the dead were not consulted or even notified that the pictures would be taken.
posted on January 17, 2004 06:39:18 PM new
And, just to make your argument all the more complicated to refute or support, Stusi, remember that this incident took place in Sweden.
posted on January 17, 2004 06:49:39 PM new
"Is a big part of the Jewish faith not the teaching of ancestral suffering and persecution?"
That's a big part of all faiths, Austy. There are martyrs in every religion; many have become saints ( -long after their deaths, of course).
You're in Australia, correct? Certain political factions in your country have recently (past decade to present) attempted to block immigrants and tried to limit the rights of aboriginal people. My God, man, you're right in the midst of History In The Making! I'd love to hear your views on Australia's changing demography... how it is affecting you, personally, and how you vote, etc.
posted on January 17, 2004 06:57:06 PM newIt is a censorship/first amendment issue.
In the case posted at the beginning of this thread, it is a censorship issue, but not a first amendment one. The First Amendment would apply only here in the US.
I agree with others who have said that such censorship is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. I have hated censorship since grade school when some parents tried to deny all of us the right to read something just because they didn't want their own kids reading it. Seems my sig line is very appropriate for this thread:
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 17, 2004 07:22:43 PM new
plsmith
I have no problem with admitting the wrongs committed to the Australian Aborigines and seeing my Government doing something about the inequalities/prejudices that still exist.
Re immigration: It may be the case that people who put their lives on the line and come to our shores as refugees in leaking boats have proven better than anyone that they are in desperate need of safety and willing to lay it all down for a better life. Perhaps these are the type that will work harder than anyone in their new homes.
Also, I personally think Australia could do more to exploit it’s mixed race make up, and have better relations with all nations and not just certain ones.
The sooner the whole world is 'mix-bred' ...the better.
posted on January 17, 2004 07:46:18 PM new
I feel uncomfortable with saying that there should be no censorship in art and literature, but otherwise ..who decides and on what?
I would not like to entrust that veto to any one entity.
But I don’t agree with giving a voice, for example, to paedophile organisations; where do you draw the line if at all.
In public? As stusi suggests sounds good.
I would like to see more censorship in the free to air TV my kids are exposed to, I do a lot of that myself.
posted on January 17, 2004 08:02:16 PM new
"It may be the case that people who put their lives on the line and come to our shores as refugees in leaking boats have proven better than anyone that they are in desperate need of safety and willing to lay it all down for a better life. Perhaps these are the type that will work harder than anyone in their new homes."
Americans could say the very same of Cubans who intrepidly raft to Florida's shores in the flimsiest watercrafts, or of Mexicans who risk razor-wire and gunshots at the U.S. border, or pile into sealed cargo trucks (often expiring during the journey). Truly, Austy, every Mexican National I've ever met or worked with has been worth at least two of his American counterparts; I've not encountered the "gang" Mexican, the "drug-dealer" Mexican; I've only encountered people who were already doing more than I was ( -attempting to speak two languages) and who worked their a$$ses off...
posted on January 17, 2004 08:03:27 PM new
plsmith, bunnicula- I was relating this to the U.S., as the question asked "ever", so I thought it was implying "what if" here. As a Jewish person, I really do not want to participate in any discussion where austbounty is involved.
Helen- LOL, and I forgot to thank you for the info regarding my grandmother the other day.
posted on January 17, 2004 08:10:41 PM new
"As a Jewish person, I really do not want to participate in any discussion where austbounty is involved."
Egad, there's some history here I know nothing about!
Stusi, don't let anyone drive you away... your opinions are valid and valued; and it's been so long since you and I touched base that I'm gonna insist that you stay put!
(Well, not really, but I do want you to know that your input is appreciated... )
posted on January 17, 2004 08:52:08 PM new
The history plsmith, is my putting forth many statements, which were seen as antiSemitic and anti American, in the lead up to Iraq War II.
I felt my comments were necessary as opposition to the proliferation of anti-other-Semite sentiments.
Just for stusi,
I will consider a wall built around this topic and keep segregated as long as he/she wishes.
Go for it, it’s all yours.
posted on January 17, 2004 09:21:34 PM new
Austy and Stusi both, I still have no knowledge of the "history" between you beyond an inkling that some things were said which offended.
Look, you guys, the Internet annoys the fluck out of me, and this place, in particular, has always gotten on my wick. I leave it for years at a time. (And, no, I don't read it while I'm away.)
Whenever I have the desire to wade back into this swamp, I've long forgotten the personalities and squabbles that had me toss in my hat the last time around.
I'll be leaving again all the sooner if you two decide to stop posting because the polarity of your views prevents you from engaging in the same threads or saying what's on your minds.
(Not that I expect the threat of my departure will alter anyone's position, mind you, but because I value the participation of all those still registered to post here, and will not much relish the inevitability of sparring with Hellenoid, Gravid, and Linda without you. Krafty and Bunni are in classes by themselves, heh... )
posted on January 18, 2004 01:46:00 AM new
plsmith- austbounty has just admitted again to being an anti-semite, has expressed numerous such thoughts here previously, and as long as he injects his bigotry into a non-political/religious thread I will not participate in such a discussion, as I have made my thoughts on this clear on many other threads. Is any further explanation necessary? Why this would affect your posting is unclear.
posted on January 18, 2004 05:53:32 AM new
I may be wrong but it's my understanding that your choice not to post in those threads may be seen as insurrection and punishable by plsmith's disappearance once again.
Hellenoid
ed to spell my name right
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 18, 2004 05:57 AM ]
posted on January 18, 2004 12:31:16 PM new
Stusi, do you really think it best to let Austy have his say and not call him on it? No matter what the stated topic is?
Hellenoid, just call me Pita -- everyone will know you mean me
posted on January 18, 2004 12:58:14 PM new
What about prison art? Wayne Gacy's stupid paintings sold for hundreds of dollars, and I hear Manson is an artist as well with people lined up for his work. Should this stuff be available? Should they be making money from their art? (I use the term art loosley with these guys.)
posted on January 18, 2004 01:09:40 PM new
There is legislation that specifically prohibits people like Manson from profiting from their notoriety in any way, but the fact is, there are scores of people who act as middle-men and sell the stuff perfectly legally -- especially on eBay. Manson is "paid" for his autograph (and other dreck) through gifts, i.e.: stuff he wants.
I'm not certain, but I think this whole issue first arose when Albert DeSalvo (The Boston Strangler) was going to write a book. The public outcry was tremendous and DeSalvo was prevented from profitring in any way from his crimes. F. Lee Bailey wound up writing the book and reaping all the profits...
posted on January 18, 2004 02:45:37 PM new
plsmith- I have repeatedly called him on it to no avail. I would participate in a non-religious/political(as in Israel) thread he was in if he stuck to the topic, instead of choosing to drag his anti-semitic sickness into it.
posted on January 18, 2004 03:19:29 PM new
Recent statistics on anti-semitism in Australia:
1997/1998
One of the most significant developments in racist activity in 1997 was the increased sophistication in technology used by extremist groups across the spectrum. Two new political parties served as magnets for extremist elements. There were 245 reported incidents of anti-Semitism in Australia in 1997, representing an 18 percent decrease from the previous year. Besides the usual anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial claims in the extreme right and Islamic and Arab press, there were some notable examples in some mainstream publications, mainly connected with the Middle East conflict.
1999/2000
Despite a decrease in reported cases of anti-Semitism from the previous year, the 1999 figure of 253 incidents was still 11 percent higher than the average over the previous nine years. The year was marked by deep divisions within the parliamentary ranks of the One Nation party in Queensland and signs of splintering within the far right camp. The most insidious form of anti-Semitism in Australia today is the claim that no Nazi genocide of Jews occurred.
2000/2001
During the twelve-month period from 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001, an almost unprecedented level of antisemitic activity took place within Australia. Manifestations included acts of physical violence against Jewish individuals and vandalism of synagogues and community sites, as well as threats of violence communicated by mail, telephone, e-mail or leaflets. There were a number of articles and letters printed in mainstream newspapers which crossed the line from political commentary into antisemitic stereotyping. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, circulating primarily on the Internet but also with some currency beyond it, were particularly prevalent after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.
2002
Australia's Jewish community is also experiencing the highest level of anti-Semitism since statistics were first collected 57 years ago, figures released recently by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry showed.
Council President Jeremy Jones told United Press International there were 593 reports of anti-Semitism in the year to Sept. 30, with incidents ranging from physical and verbal assaults to firebombs thrown at synagogues and community centers, telephone threats, hate mail and e-mail.
posted on January 18, 2004 03:34:05 PM newSharon Supports Envoy In Art-Show Vandalism By Jon Immanuel
Reuters JERUSALEM -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon praised his government's ambassador to Sweden on Sunday for wrecking a Stockholm art exhibit depicting a Palestinian suicide bomber and said the envoy had struck a blow against anti-Semitism.
However, the expatriate Israeli artist who created "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" called the envoy, Zvi Mazel, "an intellectual dwarf." Mazel, attending the opening of an art exhibition on Friday linked to an anti-genocide conference, said he saw red on encountering Dror Feiler's rectangular basin filled with red fluid. On the symbolic blood floated a boat, "Snovit" ("Snow White" in Swedish) written on its side, which carried a portrait of suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat, who killed herself and 22 Israelis in a restaurant in northern Israel in October.
Mazel disconnected the electrical cables of spotlights that surrounded the work, shoving one of the lights into the basin and Israel into a diplomatic spat with Sweden.
Sharon devoted his public opening remarks at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting to defending Mazel, a veteran diplomat. "I called the Israeli ambassador ... and thanked him for his stand against the growing wave of anti-Semitism" in the world, the prime minister said. "I told him the government stands behind him."
Mazel's attack dominated the news in Israel, where many expressed outrage at the artwork's use of a fairy tale theme in connection with suicide bombing. One right-wing legislator from Haifa, where the bombing took place, said he would lobby the city to change the name of its Sweden Street in protest.
Defending his work against accusations that it glorified Jaradat's attack, Feiler said: "I'm absolutely opposed to suicide bombers. I think it is horrible and it doesn't serve their cause." Feiler, who has lived in Sweden since 1973, is active in Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, a Stockholm-based group opposed to Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Sweden's Foreign Ministry said Mazel had behaved improperly and that it would summon him for talks Monday to hear his side of the incident. The Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned the Swedish ambassador to lodge its own protest.
n Thousands of Palestinian workers massed at the crossing from the Gaza Strip into Israel on Sunday, desperate to return to work as the army lifted a ban imposed after a suicide bombing killed four Israelis last week.
Only a handful of Gaza's 1.2 million Palestinians get permits to enter Israel, but the chance to work there is a huge boon for those trapped in economic misery that has deepened through three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence.
An army spokeswoman said more than 3,600 Palestinian workers entered Israel or a border industrial zone regarded as one of the few examples of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. The army was authorized to issue up to 19,000 permits.
More workers are expected to be able to cross the border for work in Israel in coming days.
Two pictures of the art in question can be viewed here:
posted on January 20, 2004 08:15:59 AM new
I just read this thread after I allready started another thread upstairs in the EO that deals with the question at hand here and I probably should have just posted here instead but here it is, added here to this discussion.
posted on January 20, 2004 09:44:22 AM new
Hmmmmmmmm. Took a look at that thread.
Obviosly the fellow is trying to pull in the market that will buy those images for a perverted reason.
Actually that pic is not only not sexually stimualting to me it is also a rather dark crude photo lacking grace and any interesting background.
I have seen my niece naked at her house and she was as pretty and graceful as a deer in the woods, as comfortable in her skin as covered and I thought her beautiful. But this pudgy little grump is not. I suppose you'd have to either be a pervert or like ugly dark photos to like it.
I'd say the shocked people who have such a visceral reaction to it are correct. They should not own this or similar items because obviously it generates feelings in them they find revolting. I suppose you could make a case for not allowing anyone to ever own it. Some cultures are even stricter. In the Middle East little girls have to die rather than be treated by a male doctor because they might give him impure thoughts. I guess it's a matter of what price you are willing to pay to safeguard morality in your culture. There is always a price.
It amuses me that everyone applies the same thing the law does - a 'reasonable person' test. That means another person thet agrees with me really.
posted on January 20, 2004 11:52:38 AM new
I don't believe that the book should be censored. Throughout great literature and art you will find what someone will consider offensive.
In this particular book of nudes I can only see two representative photos and in those, I see nothing offensive. Although I wouldn't enjoy looking at the book what right do I have to decide what others may want to view.
The photo of the naked little girl is very sensitive and doesn't represent anything offensive to me.
Say more!!