Sure; the meaning was an unfavorable comparison meant to dehumanize the people being referenced.
Give it a name, rationalize the reasons that it was done; it was still a dick move.
13 Likes
I’m not defending the choice of words, but Mark described SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENED.
1 Like
I’m not sure about that. It’s an offensive metaphor, but it’s pretty clear to me that he chose it to describe a process, not to characterize the people engaging in the process. I may be wrong about him, and I don’t know this guy from the proverbial Adam, but in my experience, people who care about the ongoing decimation of Palestinian rights are generally not anti-semitic. They care about the former because they’re against all modes of abuse, racist and otherwise. Do you have other information about Hank Johnson suggesting or demonstrating that he’s actually bigoted towards Jewish people. If so, I’d certainly retract my willlingness to give him the benefit of the doubt on intention here…
7 Likes
M’kay, if you say so.
Maybe start your own website then, and write your own content exactly the way you want it, if you’re so disappointed.
That’s all I’m saying here.
There are ways to make one’s point emphatically without denigrating an entire group of people; and silly me, I expect better of people who hold such high positions, at least when speaking publicly.
14 Likes
So call them “illegal settlers” if you wish. “Termites” is unacceptable language, especially for an elected representative of the United States.
12 Likes
I find it interesting that I’m “the trolley here…”
Yet I’m not the one who came heckling the author in a passive aggressive manner, and I’m not the one who lost my temper and started disrespecting folks.
Weird how that whole projection thingie works.
8 Likes
I think I stumbled upon a descriptive that’s adequate already. “Cossacks” works.
People who kill and de-home others don’t get to have nice names applied to them.
1 Like
Oh but they do. “Settlers” is used constantly for them, and it strikes me as a very nice name. Overly nice, actually. Very much overly nice.
6 Likes
Illegal settlers. Occupiers. Militant Colonists. Land-grabbers. The terms used in political discourse don’t have to be “nice,” but they should at least avoid comparisons that deny the other side’s basic humanity.
20 Likes
Usurpers, interlopers.
Again, that’s all I was saying.
Dehumanization should never be an aspect of accepted foreign or domestic policy, and if we stoop to that level then we really are no better than anyone else.
18 Likes
I think we need to refocus on how he thought Guam was going to tip over if it got too heavy. The dude’s response was perfect though.
3 Likes
To be fair I think such language was used on those engaged in dehumanizing Palestinians as a matter of both domestic and foreign policy.
Frankly this argument is stupid. The reaction to calling them “termites” was founded in the notion of “extermination”. But now this is extending to all harsh language.
Can I not refer to Boko Haram as “scumbags” because some idiots think I’m referring to all Africans or all Muslims?
You don’t get to bulldoze homes, assault and murder people, and then play the fucking victim.
2 Likes
I’m against it; no matter who does it, or why.
You can call people whatever you want to, as long as you can handle the consequences and repercussions of saying it.
Obligatory ‘Captain Obvious’ moment:
I haven’t bulldozed anyone’s home.
I haven’t murdered anyone.
I am not playing “the fucking victim,” nor am I advocating that anyone else do so…
So it would be really nice if you’d ease up a tad on the overly defensive rhetoric, at least when addressing me.
I get it that you feel strongly about this topic, and that’s fine; but I’m not the bad guy here.
I’m the one saying that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct in our words and our actions; even when dealing with people who don’t share our perspectives or goals.
I’m moving on now; I’ve said all that I had to say on the subject.
Have a good day.
13 Likes
But the Native American example would only be appropriate if the First Nations people had displaced the Europeans living in the New World over the last few centuries. But they did not. You might make a case for the ancestors of the current Native American population having displaced a previous wave of migration through the Bering sea land bridge, but that happened so very long ago that we do not have any real data on how it happened. Israel is another story.
For the majority of the last 3000 years, Israel has been ruled by Jewish leaders, or at least populated by a Jewish majority under a foreign occupying force, like the Romans. I understand the perspective is very different when you only look at the history of the area starting in 1948. But that seems to be very much in the American way of thinking. Always rooting for the underdog. The main problem with that philosophy is that as soon as one side is about to win, the other team becomes the scrappy underdogs. When the US bases policy on that, we become guilty of prolonging conflicts and increasing suffering.
I really do not want to put forward a pro or anti Zionist viewpoint. I am neither Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic, and I do try to take the long view of history, and to be as objective as I can.
But in the long view, the Jews have been getting pushed out of, and fighting to return to Israel since at least 700 BCE, while the Palestinians, as we know them today, are largely a 20th century phenomenon. That does not excuse any particular act of cruelty occurring today.
3 Likes
Yeah, no. The problem is that “settling” something implies it is aboriginally in the state of being wild, untamed, not previously owned by someone else. How about “so-called settlers” or “self-styled settlers”?
6 Likes
Since any discussion of this topic is an exercise in walking on eggshells, I prefer to stick to verbs as much as possible rather than using nouns intrinsically defined by verbs. So, for example (I actually only have cursory knowledge of this facet of Middle Eastern relations, so feel free to correct this statement), ‘Israelis construct new housing developments in territory currently under dispute between Israelis and Palestinians’.
4 Likes
I avoid speaking in these discussions for the most part, due to stereotype threat. But, I couldn’t resist pointing out that neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. 
9 Likes
I’m staying out of this one, thankyouverymuch. Like @ActionAbe, I’ve found that, due to who and what I am, people don’t actually listen to what I have to say on this general topic. I’ve just been flagging the blatant antisemitism when it shows up and noting the less blatant bits. 
10 Likes
Sorry. It’s been a long day and this tripped the darker side of my sense of humor.
