"Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and I have more genes in common than she does with your prime minister."
and of course not forgetting the Berbers, the Almoravid, Almohad and personal favorite dynasty the Awlad Ziri, Zirids of Grenada, and the Zayyanid, Hafsid, Marinid, Wattasid etc berber dynasties that ruled in the Maghreb and sometimes Spanish kingdoms, often allying with both Grenada and the Iberian, Kings of Castille, kind of like America pre 1861, when it all went to the hell from which we are yet to be delivered. Mostly Sanhaja and Zennata Berbers, other than when they are neither,
have you seen the Arabic and neo-Aramaic speaker comparing notes
a Christian scholar once told his class, I was sitting in, "while one can not state that Jesus spoke Arabic he certainly did if he ever bought anything in a Palestinian market."
anyway just made me recall.
yeah but you don't know anything either about the united fronts or in fact any of the recent history of your own fucking country.
let me gnomically say that I personally am unimpressed by white Americans who denounce the racism of the NOI or whatever when they have obviously read nothing know little, even about the present context but are firm in their convictions nonetheless...so firstly here is one Garrett Felber (race unspecified)
“Those Who Say Don’t Know and Those Who Know Don’t Say”:
The Nation of Islam and the Politics of Black Nationalism, 1930-1975
chpt 5 p.228-9
The Nation of Islam’s attempts at building these coalitions suggests that refusing to
organize with whites was not a politically narrow agenda, but one which recognized the common
struggles of all black people under a shared oppressor. When viewed from the national level, the
NOI and most civil rights organizations appeared at irreconcilable odds with one another. As
Roy Wilkins had said the previous year: “There is nothing to debate with the Muslims, as we see
it.”2 Nor was the Nation of Islam without blame for these poor relations. A flyer inviting
community members to a Harlem Freedom Rally quoted Malcolm challenging Wilkins and other
civil rights leaders: “You parrot the white man’s false charges against Mr. Muhammad!! You are
invited to this Freedom Rally as our guests so you can prove Mr. Muhammad is wrong and that
you, not he, speak for the Black Masses!!!”3 Such invitations were more provocations than
genuine attempts at coalition building. Yet, despite this bleak national picture, the Nation of
Islam worked with the NAACP, CORE, and other local civil rights groups within black
communities. Most expressions of black united fronts, therefore, came at the local level in
response to community concerns about police violence, racial profiling, and law enforcement
accountability. Even when they did not necessarily agree, the NOI actively debated its position
“Muhammad Calls For United Black Front!” Muhammad Speaks, June 1962.
2 Roy Wilkins to Helen Edelstein, September 6, 1961, General Office File, Black Muslims, 1961-1965, Papers of the
3 Harlem Freedom Rally, May 13, 1961, ibid.
alongside these groups at community forums and united front meetings, suggesting a much more
nuanced portrait of black political organizing and cooperation at the community level than has
Black united front politics have often been associated with the Black Power movement,
when nationalist ideas of self-determination, community control, and critiques of integration had
moved from the margins to the center of political discourse"
a close and careful reading of which i would expect to pay dividends
and because two women (and a black man) are better than one, i am linking to pt2 it being taken as read that the conscious conscientious student will seek out pt one for themselves.
if you don't actually know anything but are in "no doubt" conversation becomes tedious very quickly and when you are seized with irrational hatreds its all a bit pointless even if you are getting off on "my people" histrionics...it's pitiful Yonah when the privileged scream about black racism pitiful ...i will have to sadly reactivate the no nutter rule till you know what the fuck you are talking about.
"Kwame Ture was an antisemite. Maybe it was born of antizionism, but in his later career he was a venomous, rabid, sick antisemite. (referring to the jewish landlord as the zionist landlord is a sign of the blurring of lines between antizionism and antisemitism.)"
for those who don't mind actually engaging with "post-colonial" discourse (meaning de-colonized rather than that colonialism is a thing of the past)
. “An organization which claims to speak for the needs of a community, as does the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, must speak in the tone of that community, not as somebody else’s buffer zone. This is the significance of black power as a slogan. For once, black people are going to use the words they want to use, not just the words whites want to hear. And they will do this no matter how often the press tries to stop the use of the slogan by equating it with racism or separatism.”
which I think is eternally relevant and now
Africans and anti-zionism
Kwame Nkrumah on the Enemies of African Unity (Imperialism & Zionism)
"At present, there is in Africa an intensification of struggles and conflicts between imperialism and its class allies on the one hand, and the vast mass of African peoples on the other...there has been an intensification of already existing western capitalist intelligence networks which work in close co-operation with neocolonialist governments to block socialist advance. Most prominent and active in Africa are those of the USA, Britain, West Germany, France, Israel, Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa."
Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, pp. 48 - 9, Class Struggle In Africa
"a venomous, rabid, sick antisemite" cool to see the old Black anti-racists are/were anti-semites riff get off again, true colours boy Yonah you putting the red into the white and blue
"Yonah yonah yonah come out now.....theres still lightening in the skies but no wicked people telling you lies"
venomous rabid sick, you such a bitter old fool, the ground is sinking under your feet, venomous rabid sick. so judge for self...in the above the below is not amenable to refutation.
"Neither is the white superior"
and of course slaves ruled much of the Muslim world for much of its history, in Egypt especially and they defeated the Mongols and Crusaders, were active social reformers and economic innovators and energetic builders, but still slaves, as they say it's complicated and the sons of slaves ruled as well, plantation slavery was rare, it's like it has its own secret unknown Islamohistory.
but then life is just talking points these days
Just inter alia Islam regulated the existing institution of slavery and placed a very high value to manumission, in some instances, such as if a slave woman breastfeeds her mistress' baby she is automatically manumitted and must be treated as if she was never enslaved, the institution was more similar to indenture than slavery as practised in Greece, Rome and the good old US of A, a slave had a right to food of equal quality and quantity as the Masters household, sufficient clothing and time to earn money on his her own account and could force self manumission by buying themselves...find out all sorts of shit if you study.
and the Muslim states, as a result of the scholars reading of the Quran, put aside money specifically for the manumission of slaves, but yes Islam and Arabs grrr.
racism is so so boring, it's really not good for you.
how about Rabbi David Goldberg, the "Arab lover" associated with DYR or how about Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi or Jackie walker or Thomas Suarez, I post the whole to make it easier to read for those who can barely be bothered.
"Sort and Destroy
I agreed to talk at length with Tanya Gold for her article because she posed as someone genuinely trying to understand non-Zionist Jewish viewpoints [“Among Britain’s Anti-Semites,” Letter from the United Kingdom, October]. Her article reflects nothing of what I told her. It casts no light on the long history of Jewish dissent from the Zionist idea of a state that privileges Jews and separates us from the rest of humanity. She ignored the views of the authoritative thinkers she interviewed with perspectives that oppose her main thesis, including Antony Lerman, the former head of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, and David Rosenberg, a prominent Jewish socialist writer and commentator. She was also disdainful and uncomprehending toward black Jewish antiracist activist Jackie Walker, who has been a prime victim of the hysteria in the United Kingdom about alleged anti-Semitism on the left.
In the eight months it took Gold to write her article, she appears not to have investigated a single one of the allegations made against the left by its enemies. She has simply repeated old accusations, using her skills as a writer to bolster the ongoing, dangerous bastardization of the term anti-Semitism. Its real meaning—hostility to Jews because we are Jews—is being lost, the fight against racism in all its forms is being weakened, and the voices of Palestinians are being deliberately silenced.
Media Officer, Jewish Voice for Labour
I have no idea of the brief given to Gold, but Harper’s Magazine’s investment in months of investigative journalism on the so-called crisis of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party was a unique opportunity that failed to do anything except regurgitate the pap served up by British newspapers.
What Gold neglects to tell her readers is that an extraordinary number of key positions in Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership group are held by Jews, including some with well-known Zionist sympathies. It seems that Gold, like the writer Howard Jacobson, whose offensive pen she quotes in her article, was not going to allow facts to counter her narrative.
I met with Gold often during her reporting. We spoke intensely, sometimes passionately. Despite our political differences (Tanya is a Zionist), I thought we had found a way to communicate. I watched her struggle, sometimes to the point of tears, with issues I raised. She appeared to listen, admitting to limited knowledge of the history and ongoing oppression of black people in the West. Ever the optimist, I hoped dialogue might help achieve something desperately needed here and in the United States—a bridge between opposing sides. Instead, Tanya’s article stoked hate and, perhaps, more violence.
That Tanya barely mentions the tradition of anti-Zionist Jews is an obvious error. Her failure to acknowledge that many of the members suspended and excluded from Labour for anti-Semitism are in fact Jewish may be where Tanya’s reporting is shoddiest. But to omit the controversy surrounding the politically constructed concept of “new anti-Semitism,” which conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and has been used to stoke allegations of “leftist anti-Semitism,” can only be seen as an attempt to foreclose any challenge to what is, in fact, a highly controversial notion: that criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic and that the rise of anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom comes from the left. This is not only nonsense but, as protofascists rise on both sides of the Atlantic, also dangerously stupid.
Gold’s assertion about how few Jews are anti-Zionist is also questionable. In the United Kingdom, the Orthodox Neturei Karta, who as a rule do not support the state of Israel, make up a sizable portion of the Jewish population. And while the letter from twenty-nine Orthodox rabbis who support Corbyn has not been widely circulated in the media, I’m sure Gold must at least be aware of the findings of “The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel,” a survey funded by Yachad, a liberal Zionist group, who in 2015 found a declining number—just 59 percent—of Jews identifying as Zionists. This is not confined to the United Kingdom. Recent research in the United States shows a rising trend, particularly among the youth, for Jews to disassociate themselves from Israel. Not surprising, perhaps, given the murderous actions undertaken by the Netanyahu government, its embedding of racism in Israeli legislation, its ongoing illegal demolitions of Palestinian and Bedouin homes, and its atrocities against protesters. Apart from the medics and journalists shot amid recent protests on the Great March of Return in Gaza, more than ten thousand have been injured and killed, including several twelve-year-old children.
However, this can never be reduced to a simple numbers game. How many whites thought slavery immoral? How many Germans opposed the Nazis? In many ways it’s immaterial. There are ethics, there is power—and the lack of it. As Booker T. Washington said, “A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.” Sometimes numbers don’t count.
There’s more I could say about Gold’s angry and politically illiterate piece of journalism, but I will end on a personal note. Given Tanya’s background, her ignorance of people of African descent, you might ask, How could she ever really get the perspective of a black, Jewish, antiracist activist without the leap of genius this article so obviously lacks?
Gold, perhaps unsurprisingly, misunderstood my suggestion that concern about anti-Semitism in our most right-wing press, which coincidedwith the election of Corbyn as leader, would obfuscate other forms of racisms. In her article, Gold renders this point as a competition, as if justice has to be rationed. This reminds me of a child who fears losing the love of a mother when a younger sibling arrives. Justice, like love, expands to fit the space it’s given. I must also have been mistaken when I thought that Gold was listening, either to me or to the words of my one-woman show, The Lynching, which she attended, since she seems to have misinterpreted that message as well. I am an internationalist, and I reject any boundary that separates one people from another.
Of course, how could Gold get me when instead of a leap of genius, what we got was a leap of imagination, which suggested, without a shred of evidence, that I blame Jews for what happened to my mother? Her desperate attempt to make sense of my political stance by suggesting this is abusive. I can only think it serves some internal need to believe that any contradiction to her views on Israel must stem from animosity toward Jews. I’m afraid it doesn’t. Much more, if not most—who knows the quantity?—opposition to the state of Israel comes from a commitment to human rights.
A week after Gold’s article was published, at a meeting of Jewish Voice for Labour at this year’s Labour Party conference, the screening of a new documentary film that focuses on a year of my political life, Witchhunt, was canceled by the police after the venue received a bomb threat to “kill many people” and explicitly mentioned Jews. There was hardly a mention in the mainstream media, no comment from Gold. Perhaps Jewish Voice for Labour, as Jews who do not necessarily see Zionism as part of their identity, are considered the wrong sort of Jews to be included in Gold’s, or the media’s, concerns about anti-Semitism.
Gold performs a revealing sleight of hand when she replaces the historical issue of Zionist dealings with the Nazis with “calling Jews Nazis” in the next. This approach is revealing: Gold sees Jews as implicitly synonymous with Zionism and Israel. This claim of an organic oneness between a political ideology or a nationstate and an ethnicity is unique, exploiting Jewish identity to shield that nation-state from accountability. But to assert that Israel, Zionism, and Jews are inextricably entwined, is equally to assert that the Israeli state informs the values and morality of Jews, simply because they are Jews. That, to me, is anti-Semitism. Gold cannot have it both ways.