Why the U.S. Should Pay Attention to Mexico's Zapatistas
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Jan. 14, 2006, 6:52PM
Why U.S. should pay attention to Mexico's Zapatistas
Hopes for new democracy a challenge to political class
By ALEJANDRO REUSS
The Zapatistas of Mexico have not gone away. And they have
much to teach us in the United States.
Visiting the city of San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, on
New Year's Day, I was lucky to witness an extraordinary event.
Thousands of indigenous people, men and women, adults and
children, some wearing the traditional clothing of the Maya
people of the region, most wearing the black ski masks
emblematic of Mexico's Zapatista National Liberation Army
(whose Spanish initials are EZLN), marched en masse into the
city square.
The rally there, featuring speeches by EZLN leaders, marked
the 12th anniversary of the uprising that first brought the
group to international attention. It also touched off the
beginning of a national tour the organization hopes will
help build a new kind of democracy "from below."
The Zapatista caravan intends to visit all 31 states of
Mexico and the federal district on a six-month tour ending
in Tijuana, 2,500 miles from Chiapas. The group calls the
tour, which coincides with the country's national
presidential campaign, the "other campaign."
For the Zapatistas, however, the campaign is not a sideshow
to the presidential elections. It is a challenge to the
entire Mexican political class, which they view as promoting
the interests of large corporations at the expense of
Mexico's workers and peasant farmers, and especially at the
expense of the country's indigenous people.
The Zapatistas are fiercely critical of the turn toward
free-market, free-trade policies on the part of Mexico's
main political parties, the Revolutionary Institutional
Party (PRI), which ruled Mexico continually for more than 70
years, and the pro-business National Action Party (PAN), the
current ruling party.
These policies, the Zapatistas say in a new manifesto, have
left "many Mexicans destitute, like peasants and small
producers, because they are 'gobbled up' by the big
agro-industrial companies" while urban workers face factory
closures, with the only alternative being low-paid work in
the maquiladoras opened by multinational corporations. To
the Zapatistas, this is the fullest expression of an
economic system that generates wealth for the few while
sowing poverty, inequality and exploitation for the many.
The Zapatistas practice a different kind of politics. In the
areas of Chiapas where the EZLN is strong, they have not
simply governed on their own authority, but have largely
stepped back and allowed indigenous "autonomous communities"
to decide how to govern themselves. Nor has the EZLN sought
power through the ballot, in order to govern on behalf of
the people. They have repeatedly submitted their decisions
to popular ballot, an approach they call "leading by
obeying," but they have not sought office.
The message of the Zapatistas is that there is more to
politics than just electioneering, and that the people
should not be satisfied with leaders who care about them
only when they are looking for votes. People can take power
and change the conditions of their own lives, collectively,
the Zapatistas argue, without relying on politicians to do
it for them.
That is a message with more than a passing relevance to the
United States, where we often reduce politics to nothing
more than elections, and where election campaigns rarely
deal seriously with the blights, such as poverty and racism,
which vex our society as they do Mexico's.
We would do well to take to heart the Zapatistas' message:
"We believe that a people which does not watch over its
leaders is condemned to be enslaved, and we fought to be
free, not to change masters every six years."
Reuss is an associate of Dollars & Sense magazine.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3586856.html
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra
James A. Donald
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Jan. 14, 2006, 6:52PM Why U.S. should pay attention to Mexico's
> Zapatistas Hopes for new democracy a challenge to political class By
> ALEJANDRO REUSS
>
> The Zapatistas of Mexico have not gone away. And they have much to
> teach us in the United States.
The Zapatistas *were*, perhaps still are, an alliance of two groups
with very different agendas. A bunch of peasants in a faraway
province with a moderate, indeed conservative, agrarian agenda, and
handful of intellectuals from the big city with a wildly radical
agenda. For the alliance to hold together, the leadership had to
speak in forked tongued obfuscations, a course that got every trickier
and more delicate. The current program of the Zapatistas could be
paraphrased as "We have a really radical program but we will not tell
you what it is."
Unsurprisingly, this does not seem to catching a very large number of
votes
.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
zJZjWbWjSxgzDGcHamKMzs7eS6iEUigCEvEsz/Bj
4U6GCBFgzrvQ4gg8nQP215hoJxiqqFNkpRcVVa4hx
Limbaugh Fart Detector 2
> --
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:34:48 -0800, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> >
> > Jan. 14, 2006, 6:52PM Why U.S. should pay attention to Mexico's
> > Zapatistas Hopes for new democracy a challenge to political class By
> > ALEJANDRO REUSS
> >
> > The Zapatistas of Mexico have not gone away. And they have much to
> > teach us in the United States.
>
> The Zapatistas *were*, perhaps still are, an alliance of two groups
> with very different agendas. A bunch of peasants in a faraway
> province with a moderate, indeed conservative, agrarian agenda, and
> handful of intellectuals from the big city with a wildly radical
> agenda. For the alliance to hold together, the leadership had to
> speak in forked tongued obfuscations, a course that got every trickier
> and more delicate. The current program of the Zapatistas could be
> paraphrased as "We have a really radical program but we will not tell
> you what it is."
>
> Unsurprisingly, this does not seem to catching a very large number of
> votes
> .
I understand what you are saying, but I was thinking this morning about
the shift to the left in Central and South America, adn how these
governmnets are in defiance , almost, of everything America has tried
to feed them over the past 50 years.
The IMF and the World BAnk, economic hitmen, it's all coming home to
roost.
Add to that the WTO, and the fact 3rd world workers have been exploited
horrifically, and you have a mass movement, comparable to, I hope, the
social strides that were made in the 30' and 40's, under Roosevelt.
I have no illusions Chavez will be anything more than another Castro,
when challenged, but it is good to see people standing up for their
rights, electing governemnts the CIA or the WHITE HOUSE can't destroy
without sever consequence to the US.
And in part, this shift to the left plays into China's zeitgeist.
America needs bold, liberal leadership to remain a determinig force in
the world, and from what I have seen of Congress and the White House,
we are no longer a contender.
Those mediocre businessmen and opportunistic party bois and girls
"leading" the country -- this whole right wing revolution was a joke,
immature narcissists imposing a high school political culture on
America.
And we are now second place to China, as we failed to understand , and
counter, the political changes taking place in the world -- this is
Bush's true legacy -- the destruction of America as a superpower..
But we still have smart people willing to work and tell the truth, do
the right thing.
So maybe this whole BUSHfiasco will work out to an advantage as it will
help remove corporate mediocrity from government. The South and Central
American governemnts have no use for the businesses that raped them and
their people, repeatedly.
Interesting.
constan...@gmail.com
Well, you have a choice. You can believe that the US could crush Chavez
rather easily. Or you can believe that all that stuff about how South
America has been under the thumb of the US is just a tad
bit...exaggerated.
The US is the foreign scapegoat that local governments use to cover
*their* asses, to blame for *their* sins. The US is treated as if it
were the devil. The devil, of course, does not exist, but in certain
parts of the popular imagination the devil has great influence over the
lives of men. This human capacity for imagination, for delusion, for
finding some scapegoat for things outside of oneself, has not reduced.
The scapegoat has simply become the US, the Great Satan. And yes, I
know the CIA is here and there and everywhere. But you know what, Jews
are here and there and everywhere too. Doesn't mean they run the world,
though some people think they do run the world, for instance Chavez.
jbd...@hotmail.com
Whattaya know, you jump so swiftly to lap up any lie to reinforce the
alternate universe you've created for yourself.
Marcus Welch
jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > But you know what, Jews
> > are here and there and everywhere too. Doesn't mean they run the world,
> > though some people think they do run the world, for instance Chavez.
>
> Whattaya know, you jump so swiftly to lap up any lie to reinforce the
> alternate universe you've created for yourself.
>
> http://www.forward.com/articles/7189
Which only goes to show that some jews are more than happy to feed the
hand that bites them.
G*rd*n
So if Jews say they are being oppressed by Chávez,
they're being oppressed, but if they say they're not being
oppressed by Chávez, they're still being oppressed, in
fact all the moreso. How do we know? The Truth Faith tells
us so. Chávez is politically incorrect, therefore he
must be oppressing the Jews, consorting with terrorists,
eating babies, etc. etc. etc.
constan...@gmail.com
I already saw articles like that, possibly that very article, you dolt.
I've considered what he said, I've considered the defenses made for it,
and what I saw in his defense just does not pass muster. I cannot
honestly deny that he clearly said what he appeared to have said, i.e.,
an anti-semitic remark. I would have to twist my brain into a pretzel
the way you guys are so practiced at doing in order to get convinced by
the desperate arguments in his defense.
That particular article that you quoted is especially embarrassing, in
that it relies so strongly on ad hominem, i.e., on the identity of who
it is that believes Chavez's remarks were not anti-semitic.
"Venezuela's Jews" defend him, so his remarks must be kosher. I'm not
surprised you find such a stupid argument impressive.
constan...@gmail.com
G*rd*n wrote:
> "Marcus Welch" <mwe...@europe.com>:
> >
> > jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But you know what, Jews
> > > > are here and there and everywhere too. Doesn't mean they run the world,
> > > > though some people think they do run the world, for instance Chavez.
> > >
> > > Whattaya know, you jump so swiftly to lap up any lie to reinforce the
> > > alternate universe you've created for yourself.
> > >
> > > http://www.forward.com/articles/7189
> >
> > Which only goes to show that some jews are more than happy to feed the
> > hand that bites them.
>
>
> So if Jews say they are being oppressed by Chávez,
> they're being oppressed, but if they say they're not being
> oppressed by Chávez, they're still being oppressed, in
> fact all the moreso.
I didn't say anything about whether the Jews were being oppressed. I
was referring to a remark of his. It is a sentiment that I find all too
common in Latin America, not just limited to my Nazi great-uncle.
jbd...@hotmail.com
Oh, and I can rest assured of what a fair hearing that must have been.
;-)
So you think he was saying that the Jews 'crucified' Bolivar and kicked
him out of Venezuela.
You've considered arguments against what you're prejudiced to believe
is true, and what you desparately want to be true, and you've decided
it's true. Stop the presses....
> and what I saw in his defense just does not pass muster.
> I cannot honestly deny that he clearly said what he appeared to have said, i.e., an
> anti-semitic remark. I would have to twist my brain into a pretzel
> the way you guys are so practiced at doing in order to get convinced by
> the desperate arguments in his defense.
You're already twisted into a pretzel by your ideology. The evidence
for this is how easily you lap up nonsense like this.
> That particular article that you quoted is especially embarrassing,
So the article in which leading Jewish organizations in Venezuela are
standing up to defend Chavez from these claims, and denounce the
accusors for taking the statements out of context and not understanding
the issues or culture in Venezuela is "embarrasing", not for those
making the claims, mind you, but for _Chavez_.
Ok. I had thought you were about as full of crap as it was possible
for a human being to be, but I must now concede that I was wrong.
> in that it relies so strongly on ad hominem, i.e., on the identity of who
> it is that believes Chavez's remarks were not anti-semitic.
> "Venezuela's Jews" defend him, so his remarks must be kosher. I'm not
> surprised you find such a stupid argument impressive.
I agree that does not, alone, prove anything, but that's not the only
reason. It's just one among several good ones, such as the context,
(always carefully excised from the far right defamation sites you're
likely reading) which renders the anti-semitic interpretation absurd
and ridiculous.
But then, anything that defames an ideological enemy of the true faith
and the holy state are 'clearly' true, even when, or even "especially"
when, it is absurd and ridiculous.
jbd...@hotmail.com
> G*rd*n wrote:
> > "Marcus Welch" <mwe...@europe.com>:
> > >
> > > jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But you know what, Jews
> > > > > are here and there and everywhere too. Doesn't mean they run the world,
> > > > > though some people think they do run the world, for instance Chavez.
> > > >
> > > > Whattaya know, you jump so swiftly to lap up any lie to reinforce the
> > > > alternate universe you've created for yourself.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.forward.com/articles/7189
> > >
> > > Which only goes to show that some jews are more than happy to feed the
> > > hand that bites them.
> >
> >
> > So if Jews say they are being oppressed by Chávez,
> > they're being oppressed, but if they say they're not being
> > oppressed by Chávez, they're still being oppressed, in
> > fact all the moreso.
>
> I didn't say anything about whether the Jews were being oppressed. I
> was referring to a remark of his. It is a sentiment that I find all too
> common in Latin America, not just limited to my Nazi great-uncle.
Well, if your careful analysis here is any indication, it's likely that
you're inventing "a sentiment" in many cases, and will disregard
anything that suggests the thing you've invented isn't really there.
Perhaps if you didn't do this, it would no longer be "all too common",
assuming there is any such amount that wouldn't be such.
jbd...@hotmail.com
Indeed. The fondness for circular axiomatic reasoning really is
striking.
constan...@gmail.com
I think it's not much of a sin to mention a bit of recent news in
passing without providing a careful analysis of it. You're trying to
pick an argument about Chavez apparently, but it seems to me that the
argument was had a few days ago.
constan...@gmail.com
No, I simply understand English. Since you want to talk about it some
more, here's the first Google News reference I found that has a
comprehensible bit of the quote:
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=875
:: Chavez had said that while the world offers riches to all,
"minorities
:: such as the descendants of those who crucified Christ" have
:: become "the owners of the riches of the world."
:: The president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of
:: Venezuela, Fred Pressner, said, "We believe the president
:: was not talking about Jews and that the Jewish world must
:: earn to work together."
You don't use the wording that Chavez used unless you're talking about
Jews. Here's the original Spanish:
"El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero resulta que unas minorías, los
descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los
descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también
lo crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. Una
minoría se adueñó de las riquezas del mundo, una minoría se
adueñó del oro del planeta, de la plata, de los minerales, de las
aguas, de las tierras buenas, del petróleo, de las riquezas, pues, y
han concentrado las riquezas en pocas manos: menos del diez por ciento
de la población del mundo es dueña de más de la mitad de la riqueza
de todo el mundo y a la... más de la mitad de los pobladores del
planeta son pobres y cada día hay más pobres en el mundo entero."
> > and what I saw in his defense just does not pass muster.
> > I cannot honestly deny that he clearly said what he appeared to have said, i.e., an
> > anti-semitic remark. I would have to twist my brain into a pretzel
> > the way you guys are so practiced at doing in order to get convinced by
> > the desperate arguments in his defense.
>
> You're already twisted into a pretzel by your ideology. The evidence
> for this is how easily you lap up nonsense like this.
I didn't lap up anything at all, I just read Chavez's words, which
speak for themselves, and then I read various responses in defense of
Chavez and found nothing of interest. I didn't even bother to read any
of the no doubt many people actually trying to argue that the grass is
green, i.e., trying to argue that Chavez was making an anti-semitic
remark. Though I suppose I should, just to give the anti-Chavez side a
fair hearing, which I already gave the Chavez side, biased as I am in
favor of defense and innocence.
> > That particular article that you quoted is especially embarrassing,
>
> So the article in which leading Jewish organizations in Venezuela are
> standing up to defend Chavez from these claims, and denounce the
> accusors for taking the statements out of context and not understanding
> the issues or culture in Venezuela is "embarrasing", not for those
> making the claims, mind you, but for _Chavez_.
No, it's not embarrassing for Chavez, it's embarrassing for you. Chavez
isn't the one who cited the article as evidence - you are. There's
nothing wrong with people professing their belief in Chavez, but there
is something wrong with you using their profession as evidence of his
innocence of the charge. I see that you repeat your point that these
are Jews, as if this demonstrates something. As if it even begins to
meet the evidence of the passage itself.
> Ok. I had thought you were about as full of crap as it was possible
> for a human being to be, but I must now concede that I was wrong.
Wow, I'm floored by your logic. Argument by vehemence.
> > in that it relies so strongly on ad hominem, i.e., on the identity of who
> > it is that believes Chavez's remarks were not anti-semitic.
> > "Venezuela's Jews" defend him, so his remarks must be kosher. I'm not
> > surprised you find such a stupid argument impressive.
>
> I agree that does not, alone, prove anything, but that's not the only
> reason. It's just one among several good ones, such as the context,
> (always carefully excised from the far right defamation sites you're
> likely reading) which renders the anti-semitic interpretation absurd
> and ridiculous.
I read the context, in Spanish, and didn't find that it exculpated him.
As I said, you do not employ, especially in a public speech, the idea
of Christ killers unless you mean Jews. Everyone knows that Christ
killers means Jews.
> But then, anything that defames an ideological enemy of the true faith
> and the holy state are 'clearly' true, even when, or even "especially"
> when, it is absurd and ridiculous.
To interpret the use of the idea of Christ killers as a reference to
Jews is *very* straightforward interpretation of speech, and only with
the tightest contortions can one possibly pretend to convince oneself
otherwise.
jbd...@hotmail.com
> jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
...
I'm not convinced you do, at least where ideological convenience is
involved, but he wasn't speaking English anyway.
> Since you want to talk about it some
> more, here's the first Google News reference I found that has a
> comprehensible bit of the quote:
>
> http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=875
>
> :: Chavez had said that while the world offers riches to all,
> "minorities
> :: such as the descendants of those who crucified Christ" have
> :: become "the owners of the riches of the world."
>
> :: The president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of
> :: Venezuela, Fred Pressner, said, "We believe the president
> :: was not talking about Jews and that the Jewish world must
> :: earn to work together."
>
> You don't use the wording that Chavez used unless you're talking about
> Jews.
The wording above has two parts of a broader quote wrenched out of
context, with a part in between excised that, if restored, renders the
interpretation you suggest absurd.
> Here's the original Spanish:
>
> "El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero resulta que unas minorías, los
> descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los
> descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también
> lo crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. Una
> minoría se adueñó de las riquezas del mundo, una minoría se
> adueñó del oro del planeta, de la plata, de los minerales, de las
> aguas, de las tierras buenas, del petróleo, de las riquezas, pues, y
> han concentrado las riquezas en pocas manos: menos del diez por ciento
> de la población del mundo es dueña de más de la mitad de la riqueza
> de todo el mundo y a la... más de la mitad de los pobladores del
> planeta son pobres y cada día hay más pobres en el mundo entero."
Why don't you try translating this passage and explain to me what
Bolivar is doing in there, and why the people that 'crucified' him and
kicked him out of Venezuela are being lumped together as the same group
as those who crucified Christ if he means to imply Jews.
> > > and what I saw in his defense just does not pass muster.
> > > I cannot honestly deny that he clearly said what he appeared to have said, i.e., an
> > > anti-semitic remark. I would have to twist my brain into a pretzel
> > > the way you guys are so practiced at doing in order to get convinced by
> > > the desperate arguments in his defense.
> >
> > You're already twisted into a pretzel by your ideology. The evidence
> > for this is how easily you lap up nonsense like this.
>
> I didn't lap up anything at all, I just read Chavez's words,
So you just said "I...lap up anything...I...read".
Yes, I know you do.
What you've read is a hatchet job of his words not much different than
the one I just did on yours. I'm not sure whether that original
hatchet job was intentional or an honest misinterpretation, but it
amounts to a hoax regardless, and that role will almost certainly be
the life it takes on.
> which speak for themselves, and then I read various responses in defense of
> Chavez and found nothing of interest.
Of course not.
> I didn't even bother to read any
> of the no doubt many people actually trying to argue that the grass is
> green, i.e., trying to argue that Chavez was making an anti-semitic
> remark. Though I suppose I should, just to give the anti-Chavez side a
> fair hearing,
You have already read it. The only 'side' there is to this is the
wrenching of certain parts of the quote out of context. You've seen
the whole case. There's nothing else.
All that's really required here at this point is poisoning the well,
that the right wing noise machine have a soundbyte that can be repeated
until it takes on a life of its own, irregardless of the facts, and can
be pulled out whenever some demonization is required. We'll see what
kind of shelf life it has in this regard.
> which I already gave the Chavez side, biased as I am in
> favor of defense and innocence.
>
> > > That particular article that you quoted is especially embarrassing,
> >
> > So the article in which leading Jewish organizations in Venezuela are
> > standing up to defend Chavez from these claims, and denounce the
> > accusors for taking the statements out of context and not understanding
> > the issues or culture in Venezuela is "embarrasing", not for those
> > making the claims, mind you, but for _Chavez_.
>
> No, it's not embarrassing for Chavez, it's embarrassing for you.
> Chavez isn't the one who cited the article as evidence - you are.
There's nothing embarrasing about that. It is evidence. It's actually
embarrasing for those making the accusations, such as the Weekly
Standard and others. But most of them have no shame, and their
ideology requires persistent lying to maintain anyway.
> There's nothing wrong with people professing their belief in Chavez, but there
> is something wrong with you using their profession as evidence of his
> innocence of the charge. I see that you repeat your point that these are Jews, as if this > demonstrates something.
It demonstates that the direct, supposed, victims of his, supposed,
smears of them actually looked at the accusations, looked at the
statements, and came to the conclusion that the accusations are false
and inaccurate interpretations of what was said.
This suggests pretty strongly that, unless we assume they're lying or
have some kind of psychological syndrome (as Marcus Welch suggests),
that we should set aside the selective quotations, and our prejudices,
if we have them, about certain "ideas" only having one possible
mandatory interpretation, and look at the context a bit more closely to
see what they're talking about.
At this point it seems as if the Wiesenthal Center, who made the
original accusations, is backtracking a bit, again quoting from my
"embarrasing" article:
"Sergio Widder, the Wiesenthal center's representative in Latin
America, countered that Chavez's mention of Christ-killers [their
phrase, not Chavez'] and wealth was ambiguous at best and in need of
clarification."
However, words like "ambiguous" and "in need of clarificaton" will not
serve the political needs of the Dick Cheneys, Sean Hannitys, Bill
O'Reillys, or Constantinoples of the world, so there must be no
backtracking, no matter the facts.
> As if it even begins to meet the evidence of the passage itself.
I think it more than meets the evidence of the passage, or the "pass
... age" as it were.
For instance, let's look at the part where the article I posted
restores the parts of the speech that were carefully excised in the
version you chose to read, and follow that with a different, and much
more plausible imo, interpretation:
------
"In his speech, Chavez lamented that while the world had enough
resources for all, "some minorities, the descendants of the same ones
who crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones who threw out
[South American liberator Simon] Bolivar from here and also crucified
him in a way in Santa Marta, over there in Colombia - a minority took
possession of all the planet's gold, of the silver, the minerals, the
waters, the good land, the oil, the riches, and they have concentrated
the riches in a few hands. Less than 10% of the world's population
possesses over half of the world's riches, and more than half of the
planet's population is poor, and every day there are more poor in the
world."
"Both the AJCommittee and the American Jewish Congress seconded the
Venezuelan community's view that Chavez's comments were not aimed at
Jews. All three groups said he was aiming his barbs at the white
oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era,
pointing to his reference to Bolivar as the clearest evidence of his
intent."
-------
That interpretation is far more reasonable that the one you'd like to
force on it. Yours makes no sense when we restore the excised portions
of the comments and read them in context, let alone when we also look
at the preceeding and further following comments about himself and
Morales.
What is Bolivar doing in there, and why are the people the fought him
lumped in as the same group as the people that killed Christ? Do Jews
posess over half the world's riches? etc. etc.
Another comment worth noting:
"One official noted that Latin America's so-called Liberation Theology
has long depicted Jesus as a socialist and consequently speaks of
gentile business elites as "Christ-killers."" [the "official"'s phrase,
not Chavez']
I think this all becomes pretty clear once we put things back in the
context from which they were wrenched out. He was talking about rich,
European imperialists. They're the "minority" who "took possession of
all the planet's gold, of the silver..." etc., and he's saying it's
these kinds of people who killed killed Christ and Bolivar because
Christ and Bolivar were, in his view, people who stood up for the other
90%, against the 10%, and were therefore a leveling threat against the
power and privileges of the 10%.
Agree or disagree with these sentiments (and I don't have to guess
which it'll be), but he's not talking about Jews.
> > Ok. I had thought you were about as full of crap as it was possible
> > for a human being to be, but I must now concede that I was wrong.
>
> Wow, I'm floored by your logic. Argument by vehemence.
Well, I examined the evidence fairly and saw nothing to the contrary.
> > > in that it relies so strongly on ad hominem, i.e., on the identity of who
> > > it is that believes Chavez's remarks were not anti-semitic.
> > > "Venezuela's Jews" defend him, so his remarks must be kosher. I'm not
> > > surprised you find such a stupid argument impressive.
> >
> > I agree that does not, alone, prove anything, but that's not the only
> > reason. It's just one among several good ones, such as the context,
> > (always carefully excised from the far right defamation sites you're
> > likely reading) which renders the anti-semitic interpretation absurd
> > and ridiculous.
>
> I read the context, in Spanish, and didn't find that it exculpated him.
> As I said, you do not employ, especially in a public speech, the idea
> of Christ killers unless you mean Jews. Everyone knows that Christ
> killers means Jews.
Apparently "everyone" except for Rabbi Arthur Waskow who says on the
issue:
"I -- and most Jews -- teach that it was the Roman Empire, and Roman
soldiers, who crucified Jesus."
So he claims to employ, and claims most Jews employ, the idea of Christ
killers while not meaning Jews. It follows thusly that he, along with
"most Jews" (and probably most theologians and historians at this
point), do not qualify to be in the "everyone" category. It also
follows that you must be undermining their efforts, as "everyone knows"
they are lying and covertly spreading anti-semitism, as no other usage
of "the idea of Christ killers" can exist, except to mean Jews.
He also advises:
"Please note the parallel between those who crucified Jesus and those
who fought against Bolivar. I know of no one who accuses the Jews of
fighting against Bolivar."
But why bother to read or investigate the context at all, or pay
attention to the supposed victims telling you they're not being
victimized, if you already have this axiom which "everyone knows" and
which states that you simply "do not" allow any other interpretation,
and the conclusion is therefore predetermined?
> > But then, anything that defames an ideological enemy of the true faith
> > and the holy state are 'clearly' true, even when, or even "especially"
> > when, it is absurd and ridiculous.
>
> To interpret the use of the idea of Christ killers as a reference to
> Jews is *very* straightforward interpretation of speech,
It is one interpretation, but one that can often be wrong, particularly
when the context renders that one interpretation absurd, as in this
case.
> and only with the tightest contortions can one possibly pretend to convince oneself
> otherwise.
The "tightest contortions" being allowing oneself anything other than
one mandatory interpretation, and thereby permitting oneself to look at
the context rationally to determine the appropriate one.
James A. Donald
On 17 Jan 2006 09:01:18 -0800, "Limbaugh Fart Detector 2"
> So maybe this whole BUSHfiasco will work out to an advantage as it
> will help remove corporate mediocrity from government. The South and
> Central American governemnts have no use for the businesses that
> raped them and their people, repeatedly.
I thought it was the Jews that were raping them and their people - at
least that is what Chavez tells us, and the Sandanistas frequently
told us. :-)
Parts of South America are once again moving towards social democracy
with a large touch of socialism - heavy government intervention into
the economy, nationalization of the commanding heights of industry.
This program has been repeatedly tried, and has repeatedly produced
ruin - for example Peron turned Latin America's only first world
nation into another third world cess pit.
The reverse course, as in Chile, has produced steady and substantial
economic growth, which is close to bringing chile from third world to
first world.
Latin America's propensity for self destruction is notorious, and
today there is no longer a Soviet Union to take advantage of it, so it
is no longer a matter of concern for the US. The flow of oil money
temporarily conceals the ruin wrought by Chavez, but Bolivia is going
to sink like a stone, as Argentina did.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
EWC+n/eln+0okhypyVLWoDVaSlEscJXJsp8gmQ6D
4g3AyF/nby2XJoR1a03Kz8kuNV9jLfoodVsWbw5Rz
James A. Donald
jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.forward.com/articles/7189
"Marcus Welch"
> Which only goes to show that some jews are more than happy to feed
> the hand that bites them.
A strategy that in the past has not proven very effective in warding
off persecution.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Mr1/vmm/Jsj6JvFevOFSAjyB3mpd5Dq9Vg5qlhTA
4w8AOcfqGFKog4QdHO213g4hOY7214M90uXeZt1z3
James A. Donald
On 18 Jan 2006 02:17:27 -0800, constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> To interpret the use of the idea of Christ killers as a reference to
> Jews is *very* straightforward interpretation of speech, and only
> with the tightest contortions can one possibly pretend to convince
> oneself otherwise.
I don't think these guys have convinced themselves otherwise. They
would deny that grass is green, if it suited their agenda.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ux+usrIlriFD1k+BP3JOXJMQ/QlhMQPhSVmLDxD8
4oDvAErcR0qkh7HLlqcQ/wOCW5Mnyy+AzTuKekUaU
James A. Donald
On 17 Jan 2006 16:16:54 -0800, jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Whattaya know, you jump so swiftly to lap up any lie to reinforce
> the alternate universe you've created for yourself.
>
> http://www.forward.com/articles/7189
Similarly, assorted "Jewish leaders" assured us Stalin was not
antisemitic either. Indeed, Chomsky has been busily assuring us that
all manner of people are not antisemitic.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ci9nJOR0eY7aiMiKVnDJqiF7BPM4J0yDUNp8zFe9
4zTQlUKqVxtFt8BRsqHjN0/X+JTh0ECfHrL3QnRMD
jbd...@hotmail.com
> --
> On 18 Jan 2006 02:17:27 -0800, constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > To interpret the use of the idea of Christ killers as a reference to
> > Jews is *very* straightforward interpretation of speech, and only
> > with the tightest contortions can one possibly pretend to convince
> > oneself otherwise.
>
> I don't think these guys have convinced themselves otherwise. They
> would deny that grass is green, if it suited their agenda.
"The proposition that Fox news is some kind of right wing propaganda
mill is just too silly." - James A. Donald
constan...@gmail.com
You are a cornucopia of fallacies, Josh.
jbd...@hotmail.com
That remark is antisemitic. shame on you.
john smith - nom de guerre
...
:)
outfoxed...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The mortality rate statistics mark an undeniable improvement in the
health of the world, but they do not easily identify capitalism as the
cause or catalyst. -- Gabrielle Rapagnetta