Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 53: Line 53:
== Richard Nixon: avowed racist? ==
== Richard Nixon: avowed racist? ==


Doubtless, Nixon was both a racist and an antisemite. However, was he really an ''avowed'' racist? I would think that you're only an ''avowed'' racist if someone aks you "Are you a racist?" and you say "Yes," or something equivalent to that. The Times article linked to here never uses the word "avowed"; it just lists a bunch of actually racist (but not avowedly so) stuff that Nixon said. [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/11/depth-of-nixons-racial-prejudices-exposed-in-audio-recordings/ This article] confusingly does call Nixon an "avowed racist," but then goes on to say that Nixon exhibited the gold standard of non-avowed racists: he denied being a racist. Shouldn't people like David Duke, or all of the people at Stormfront, who are so well documented all over the internet go in the "avowed racists" section instead of Nixon?[[Special:Contributions/68.63.148.22|68.63.148.22]] ([[User talk:68.63.148.22|talk]]) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Doubtless, Nixon was both a racist and an antisemite. However, was he really an ''avowed'' racist? I would think that you're only an ''avowed'' racist if someone asks you "Are you a racist?" and you say "Yes," or something equivalent to that. The Times article linked to here never uses the word "avowed"; it just lists a bunch of actually racist (but not avowedly so) stuff that Nixon said. [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/11/depth-of-nixons-racial-prejudices-exposed-in-audio-recordings/ This article] confusingly does call Nixon an "avowed racist," but then goes on to say that Nixon exhibited the gold standard of non-avowed racists: he denied being a racist. Shouldn't people like David Duke, or all of the people at Stormfront, who are so well documented all over the internet go in the "avowed racists" section instead of Nixon?[[Special:Contributions/68.63.148.22|68.63.148.22]] ([[User talk:68.63.148.22|talk]]) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:53, 16 July 2014

VERY Biased

This article refers to on numerous occasions that Holocaust Revisionism is an anti-Semitic practice, which is simply untrue. Many Jewish men and women have come out in support of Revisionists (or are Revisionists themselves) such as David Cole, Norman Finkelstein, and many others. Also, might I add that 'Holocaust Denial' is an outright falsehood, as the 'Holocaust' was not a singular event that ANYONE 'denies'. What people DISPUTE, however, is the existence of Homicidal Gas Chambers and a Nazi plan of final solution, the end goal of which was total Jewish destruction. These parts of the Historical record have repeatedly been revised by the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISIONISTS. I hope to one day see a truly UNBIASED online encyclopedia which bows to no special interests and is concerned simply with factual evidence, but it seems Wikipedia is too far gone. Mathiasr101 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about some evidence?

Not one sentence about what David Duke or Pat Buchanan actually said or wrote that is allegedly anti-Semitic 68.183.223.176 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section regarding Black antisemitism

As a black man who speaks regularly with blacks i must say I find this 36% figure on black anti-semitism to be HIGHLY innacurate. I OFTEN hear blacks speak among ourselves regarding issues of race but i almost never hear anyone mention jews. I do not believe that the vast majority of black americans even has a consciousness of jews apart from that of whites. I would be very interested to know the particulars of that survey, namely the sample size, specific geographical locations from which the opinions were gathered right down to the specific cities and neighborhoods, as well as the specific questions asked. The results of this survey sound just too suspicious to me because jews almost never come up in disscusions of race with other blacks. If a full third of blacks held these sorts of views i and other blacks would certainly know it. 71.249.67.188 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on the study, click on the footnote at the end of the section and follow the link. Bear in mind that the study is already ten years old and evaluates not what respondents bring up in everyday conversation, but what answers they give to direct questions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

Please discuss the merge in Talk:History of antisemitism in the United States#Merge suggestion `'Míkka>t 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of hollywood or banking allegations?

I notice this article contains a section on holocaust denial, but nothing on "control of hollywood" or "control of banking industry" which are certainly prominent themes of anti-semitism in USA. Are those covered in another article? --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander: do you take this for a balanced medium? Wikipedia has been dead for a long time now.74.193.241.226 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Criticism, "Noted Scholars" is a misleading term, and should be deleted.

Noam Chomsky is not professionally regarded as an expert in civil rights or antisemitism -- he is employed as a linguistics professor, and despite having an interest in Jews and Israel, is not recognized for being an expert in this field. He is often amateurishly speaking in an area where he is NOT regarded as a professional expert, or "Noted Scholar." His views on antisemitism are as equally unqualified as a civil rights professor's views on linguistics might be.

Norman Finkelstein IS (or was) a professor with areas of supposed expertise in this area, however (as of 3/22/2011), he has been let go due to academic misconduct. His viewpoints hardly represent those of a "Noted Scholar," more like those of an infamous and professionally condemned ex-professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.219.91 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism & anti-Israel sentiments

One can certainly be opposed to Zionism, which is at its heart racist, and the current governmental policies of Israel, which is evil and warmongering, without being anti-Semitic. This article is so biased as to be entirely useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.40.227 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here is really the one which is actually "so biased as to be entirely useless". That is proved by how you said Zionism is racist (tip: see this) and how you called Israel's policies evil and warmongering (advice: read this), as if these two claims were undisputed facts. Please point out a sentence you think needs to be changed instead of being a hypocrite. -Yambaram (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian fundies not mentioned?

Christian fundamentalists aren't even mentioned in this article, despite a history of fostering anti-Semitism in the US, so shouldn't we at least mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, I will take a look at this and will add necessary information soon. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon: avowed racist?

Doubtless, Nixon was both a racist and an antisemite. However, was he really an avowed racist? I would think that you're only an avowed racist if someone asks you "Are you a racist?" and you say "Yes," or something equivalent to that. The Times article linked to here never uses the word "avowed"; it just lists a bunch of actually racist (but not avowedly so) stuff that Nixon said. This article confusingly does call Nixon an "avowed racist," but then goes on to say that Nixon exhibited the gold standard of non-avowed racists: he denied being a racist. Shouldn't people like David Duke, or all of the people at Stormfront, who are so well documented all over the internet go in the "avowed racists" section instead of Nixon?68.63.148.22 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]