Re: [metatuning] Re: Reply to Jon

Thank you, Jon. I appreciate your comments.

Johnny

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Thank you, Jon. I appreciate your comments.

And I yours. I just did a Google on the term "subhuman monsters" (also with a hyphen) and "Sharon". I could not find a single attribution. This does not disprove that he said it, but for this one singular attribution one can infer it was not a common, repeated, widely-disseminated utterance.

On the other hand, the term "subhuman monsters" has been used to describe Germans, German Nazis, Palestinians, Greeks ("lying subhuman..."), prison inmates, conservatives, and Native Americans. Among others - that was just the first 20 hits.

Not an easy world.

Regards,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:

> And I yours. I just did a Google on the term "subhuman monsters" (also with a hyphen) and "Sharon". I could not find a single attribution. This does not disprove that he said it, but for this one singular attribution one can infer it was not a common, repeated, widely-disseminated utterance.

Where do you put the hyphen?

subhuman -monsters sharon

does work. I assume you know it's cheating ;)

Actually, there is a relevant link

http://pub16.ezboard.com/frealismfrm5.showMessage?topicID=391.topic

but it's to another forum like this, so it doesn't have any credibility. There are a couple of links on page 2.

> On the other hand, the term "subhuman monsters" has been used to describe Germans, German Nazis, Palestinians, Greeks ("lying subhuman..."), prison inmates, conservatives, and Native Americans. Among others - that was just the first 20 hits.

But not girls called Sharon, I hope. (Spot the almost song title!)

Graham

G,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Where do you put the hyphen?

I searched for both subhuman and sub-human.

> Actually, there is a relevant link [snip] but it's to another
> forum like this, so it doesn't have any credibility.

Yes, I was looking for a direct attribution, not hearsay or 2nd-party "quote".

> But not girls called Sharon, I hope.

I also omitted, in my post, the numerous sci-fi connections to s-h monsters, especially WRT Mars...

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 3/23/03 2:00:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, JSZANTO@...
writes:

> This does not disprove that he said it,

But using this pretense that he did would imply that Israelis democratically
elected a monster that wants to have a "final solution" of death for all
Arabs. This kind of rhetoric is patently vile.

Now, this does not mean that I love, or even support Sharon. I only know
that his election was the desperate move of the majority because they are
afraid to lose that one battle. I truly believe that Sharon was elected
solely because Israel had to circle the wagons once the second Intifada
began.

I agree this is not a black and white situation, especially regarding both
sides' grievances. But over the last 75 years, European anti-semitism has
been ably documented. And though there is less of it in the U.S., I am not
sure how Americans view the rare examples of anti-semitism that does exist.
Examples of the past included quotas in universities, believe it or not
(including Yale).

Living in NYC, it never comes up for me. But on the Internet, every morning,
it is depressing, and even terrorizing. Bush is terrorizing enough for a
single morning.

best, Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Johnny,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/23/03 2:00:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, JSZANTO@A...
> > This does not disprove that he said it,
>
> But using this pretense that he did would imply that Israelis
> democratically elected a monster that wants to have a "final
> solution" of death for all
> Arabs. This kind of rhetoric is patently vile.

Wellll, wait a minute: all I'm talking about, and what you referred to, was the actual usage by PM Sharon of the phrase "sub-human monsters" directed at Palestinians. All I did was look for anecdotal evidence, which I didn't find in a quick-and-dirty search. And that something does *not* show up on the net isn't proof it isn't there, though in this case I would have expected to find it somewhere.

> I only know that his election was the desperate move of the
> majority because they are afraid to lose that one battle.

Following that logic, one could say the election of Bush was a similar desparate move to rescue the country from the evil of the left - imagine what a landslide Bush might have gotten had the election happened on the heels of 9/11!

> I truly believe that Sharon was elected
> solely because Israel had to circle the wagons once the
> second Intifada began.

Then I have to ask the obvious questions: is it OK that Sharon was elected? Are Israelis more or less secure with his PMship? And do the ends justify the means?

> I agree this is not a black and white situation, especially
> regarding both sides' grievances.

Absolutely, and someone like myself living far from the areas directly affected can only mull this over, and not claim to know the best solutions, or even the remotest glimmer of such.

> Living in NYC, it never comes up for me. But on the Internet, every morning,
> it is depressing, and even terrorizing. Bush is terrorizing enough for a
> single morning.

Let's try to remember that sometimes, in fact frequently, good and hopeful things don't garner press, attention, or web pages. I just attended a concert my wife played of the Mozart Clarinet Quintet as a benefit for a group home for autistic and other challenged children and adolescents. It was a small gathering, but the 'concerted' efforts today helped to make the lives of a few better. All we can do is multiply these kind of efforts and try to blot out the dark with some light. I think your concerts are doing this, as well.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 3/23/03 8:40:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, JSZANTO@...
writes:

> though in this case I would have expected to find it somewhere.
>

Why? It's not in Sharon's character to say these things. He couldn't get
elected if he said these things. He wouldn't encourage a Palestinian state,
contrary to his party Likud, he said these things. It's totally
inconsistent.

No one said you said anything inappropriate. Someone else did and needs to
back it up, or state he was mistaken.

> > I only know that his election was the desperate move of the
> > majority because they are afraid to lose that one battle.
>
> Following that logic, one could say the election of Bush was a similar
> desperate move to rescue the country from the evil of the left - imagine
> what a landslide Bush might have gotten had the election happened on the
> heels of 9/11!
>

I disagree with your analogy. I guess you have never been attacked from all
sides since time immemorial. It runs in the blood. It's ethnic stock
memory. Your relativism is way misbalanced. But I do understand the natural
tendency to relate to one's own experiences.

> > I truly believe that Sharon was elected
> > solely because Israel had to circle the wagons once the
> > second Intifada began.
>
> Then I have to ask the obvious questions: is it OK that Sharon was elected?
> Are Israelis more or less secure with his PMship? And do the ends justify
> the means?

It's not black and white. None of the alternatives have worked. Most Prime
Ministers have had short time in office. No one has made any headway with
Arafat. When innocents are targeted (a significant difference to the
military tracking Hamas and having unfortunate collateral damage), a military
hero is an obvious choice. No?

I hope Sharon is not needed much longer. I hope that the two sides can learn
to live together.

Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Johnny,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/23/03 8:40:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, JSZANTO@A...
> writes:
>
> > though in this case I would have expected to find it somewhere.
> >
>
> Why?

I *meant* (and I thought you'd understand the sentence) that *if* he said it I *would* find it somewhere! Statements this bold, especially if covered in the press, don't stay hidden. Finding (in a quick search) *no* instances leads me to believe that it was a paraphrase or incorrect attribution.

> It's not in Sharon's character to say these things. He couldn't
> get elected if he said these things.

Oh, get real. People get elected saying the most heinous of things, and I could find it entirely in character, especially if he said it in the heat of the moment. His *character*??? Sorry, but I could easily envision someone like him using phrases like that.

> Someone else did and needs to
> back it up, or state he was mistaken.

Right, I understand. I was curious myself, and finding no similar instances I'm going to drop out of that particular detail, as it isn't my mess to clean up.

> I disagree with your analogy.

Your priviledge, of course, though it hardly invalidates it.

> I guess you have never been attacked from all
> sides since time immemorial. It runs in the blood.
> It's ethnic stock memory.

Then we've all lost, if you believe that no one can possibly understand, if you proffer that no relativism is possible, that every other aspect of human nature can be addressed and/or accounted for *except* your special case. You seem to want it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy!

I would never say that I can stand in another's shoes, in the sum total of their experience, both first-hand and inherited. But if I took you at the above philosophy, then I also would have no way to come to some kind of understanding with the worst of humanity that has plagued you, that equally has inherited - since "time immemorial" - a legacy of hatred and despicable behavior.

> Your relativism is way misbalanced.

And maybe the only way out, if the ills of the past are not to be repeated, is to attempt to look at the situation through other eyes?

> But I do understand the natural tendency to relate to one's own
> experiences.

What else, pray tell, can one do?

> None of the alternatives have worked.

Maybe they haven't been given a proper chance.

> When innocents are targeted (a significant difference to the
> military tracking Hamas and having unfortunate collateral damage),
> a military hero is an obvious choice. No?

Obvious, yes. Counter-productive to a future that somehow can get past multi-lateral carnage? I would say yes as well.

> I hope that the two sides can learn to live together.

<Sigh> If ever you and I have agreed on something, this is it. I'm sure I won't be around to see it, but the seeds of another way have to be sown in our lifetime or this world is not going to survive. And if anything were to cause me to give up music, it would be this kind of quest.

Maybe I screwed up because I posed some more questions to you; don't feel obligated to answer, because I think I've gone about as far on this thread as is appropriate. I doubt I have much more constructive to say...

Regards,
Jon

In a message dated 3/24/03 12:14:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JSZANTO@... writes:

> Finding (in a quick search) *no* instances leads me to believe that it was a
> paraphrase or incorrect attribution.
>

Or absolutely incorrect and wrong.

> > It's not in Sharon's character to say these things. He couldn't
> > get elected if he said these things.
>
> Oh, get real. People get elected saying the most heinous of things, and I
> could find it entirely in character, especially if he said it in the heat
> of the moment. His *character*??? Sorry, but I could easily envision
> someone like him using phrases like that.

People may get elected saying heinous things, but I stand by my informed
knowledge that Jews could not elect someone that called his neighbors, and
1/5th of the Israeli population, "sub-human monsters."

> > Someone else did and needs to
> > back it up, or state he was mistaken.
>
> Right, I understand. I was curious myself, and finding no similar instances
> I'm going to drop out of that particular detail, as it isn't my mess to
> clean up.
>

Here I totally agree with you.

> > I disagree with your analogy.
>
> Your priviledge, of course, though it hardly invalidates it.

> > I guess you have never been attacked from all
> > sides since time immemorial. It runs in the blood.
> > It's ethnic stock memory.
>
> Then we've all lost, if you believe that no one can possibly understand, if
> you proffer that no relativism is possible, that every other aspect of
> human nature can be addressed and/or accounted for *except* your special
> case. You seem to want it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Every case is a special case when it comes to millennia of history. Armenia,
Cambodia, Rwanda, Native Americans, all special cases. Why force relativism
on it that does not fit, and in fact misleads?

> > Your relativism is way misbalanced.
>
> And maybe the only way out, if the ills of the past are not to be repeated,
> is to attempt to look at the situation through other eyes?

There is no repeat of history here. Jews have a country of their own for the
first time in centuries.

> > But I do understand the natural tendency to relate to one's own
> > experiences.
>
> What else, pray tell, can one do?
>
> > None of the alternatives have worked.
>
> Maybe they haven't been given a proper chance.

Maybe.

>
> > When innocents are targeted (a significant difference to the
> > military tracking Hamas and having unfortunate collateral damage),
> > a military hero is an obvious choice. No?
>
> Obvious, yes. Counter-productive to a future that somehow can get past
> multi-lateral carnage? I would say yes as well.

I understand this. Of course the US is following the Israeli course. It is
truly distressing. I love all peoples. My specialty was Arabic music when I
received a fellowship to study Ethnomusicology at Columbia University. I
have a number of dear, loved ones who are Palestinians. I know teens that
shared with me how they lost their childhoods in Ramallah.

But once innocents were targeted, I knew all negotiation was over. You
cannot negotiate with terror. And yet, Sharon's son is in constant
negotiation with Palestinians behind the scene. Arafat is the architect of
most of the horror as information has been uncovered demonstrating this. You
can call this an opinion, a philosophy, or whatever. But I know the people
from which I was born. They are not a viscous, killing people. I would
suggest you consider it as more informed than self-prophesizing.

regards, Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]