ABC suspends 'The View' host Whoopi Goldberg for saying Holocaust 'not about race'
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 2 years ago • 170 commentsBy: Tim Stelloh and Gemma DiCasimirro
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Link copied Feb. 2, 2022, 3:07 AM UTC / Updated Feb. 2, 2022, 5:02 AM UTC By Tim Stelloh and Gemma DiCasimirro
ABC News suspended "The View" host Whoopi Goldberg for two weeks after she said the Holocaust was not about race, the network said Tuesday.
In a statement, Kim Godwin, president of ABC News, called Goldberg's comments "wrong and hurtful."
"While Whoopi has apologized, I've asked her to take time to reflect and learn about the impact of her comments," Godwin said. "The entire ABC News organization stand in solidarity with our Jewish colleagues, friends, family and communities."
Whoopi Goldberg apologizes after her Holocaust statements causes outrage
Goldberg made the comments Monday morning while the panel was discussing a Tennessee school board's banning of "Maus,"a graphic novel about the Nazi death camps.
"It's about the Holocaust, the killing of six million people, but that didn't bother you?" she said. "If you're going to do this, then let's be truthful about it. Because the Holocaust isn't about race. No, it's not about race."
Another host, Joy Behar, responded that the Nazis described Jews as a different race.
"But it's not about race," Goldberg said. "It's not. It's about man's inhumanity to other man." After another host pointed out that the Nazis didn't view Jews as white, Goldberg said she was "missing the point."
"The minute you turn it into race, it goes down this alley," she said. "Let's talk about it for what it is. It's how people treat each other. It's a problem."
Goldberg apologized hours later.
"On today's show, I said the Holocaust 'is not about race, but about man's inhumanity to man,'" she said. "I should have said it is about both. As Jonathan Greenblatt from the Anti-Defamation League shared, 'The Holocaust was about the Nazi's systematic annihilation of the Jewish people — who they deemed to be an inferior race.' I stand corrected."
A representative for Goldberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Tags
Who is online
425 visitors
Although she was correct in saying that The Holocaust was about man's inhumanity to man, she was defining the word "race" in its narrowest interpretation, but since the word "race" was used by the Nazis in a broader context, she was incorrect to challenge their interpretation of it, which I guess she has now realized.
Unfortunately, these days the word "holocaust" is being trivialized, used for many lesser situations and even totally misused, so I believe that when writing or speaking of what the Nazis did to the Jews, one should capitalize both "The" and "Holocaust" as The Holocaust to differentiate it from such lesser situations and indicate that it stands out as one of the most horrendous schemes in all of history.
You nailed it! That's what they shouldn't be doing!
Amen Brother...
I don't know what bothers me more, but I guess it all boils down to ignorance.
The Tennessee school board's banning of "Maus is ignorant and insensitive.
Whoopie doesn't get that race can be about anything that a society decides. It is not just about color.
This is all too depressing and sad.
Read more about why the book was banned here:
I just sent you a regular email.
Buzz
I remember you...wb.
Hi kpr!
Welcome back
In her mind it was about two white races (Aryan and Semitic) and thus couldn't be racial.
She said: “Well, this is white people doing it to white people. Y’all go fight amongst yourselves."
Funny that statement isn't included in the above article. She has recently been suspended and apologized. Something tells me that her apology has already been accepted.
Her Monday night "apology" was not an apology at all, it was an explanation of why she said what she did. Her Tuesday morning apology was an apology. Hopefully she understands what she said was not correct and very hurtful to so many people and she learned something. Either that or the network gave her an ultimatum, "Either give a heartfelt apology that people will buy and accept a two week suspension or get fired". I don't know her well enough to know which it is.
Aryan
Its kind of ironic that that term is incorrectly used.
Just as the Swastika had a very positive definition for ages and was "stolen" be the Nazis...the word "Aryan" was not historically used the way Hitler used it:
Aryan or Arya Indo-Iranian *arya is a term originally used as an ethnocultural self-designation by Indo-Iranians in ancient times, in contrast to the nearby outsiders known as 'non-Aryan' (*an-arya). In Ancient India, the term ā́rya was used by the Indo-Aryan speakers of the Vedic period as an endonym (self-designation) and in reference to a region known as Āryāvarta ('abode of the Aryas'), where the Indo-Aryan culture emerged.
In order words, Aryans were a people living in the area which is now mainly Iran and Northern India, etc.
And the Swastika's ancient meaning was very positive!
The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party,[1] is an ancient religious icon in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
And the Swastika's ancient meaning was very positive!
The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party,[1] is an ancient religious icon in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
Yoga postures are called asanas.
One of themis called Swastikasana (I.e. "Swastika Pose"...) although the term Swastika is used only because those who named it originally thought the shape of the body resembled the geometric shape called a Swastika:
SWASTIKASANA ("SWASTIKA-SHAPE POSTURE")
Mosaic swastika in an excavated Byzantine church in Shavei Tzion , Israel (Wikipedia)
Good thing it didn't happen!
Sean even if it didn't happen (and I saw no evidence of this), it should have never even been brought up.... kind of like Whoopie.
ven if it didn't happen (and I saw no evidence of this), it should have never even been brought up.... kind of like Whoopie.
I haven't read the book so I can't comment if it's appropriate for eight graders. But all the school board did was vote to remove it from the curriculum and replace it with a more age appropriate book on the Holocaust. That's not "banning." Every book that is not part of a curriculum is not banned, nor is a change in a curriculum banning.
Yes, it is. By definition, removing a book is banning it from the curriculum. Replacing it with a more "appropriate" one, does not negate the banning. You also have to ask, who determined another book is more "appropriate", and why it was considered more "appropriate".
Maus is by a Pulitzer award winning author.
A Tennessee school board removed the graphic novel 'Maus,' about the Holocaust, from curriculum due to language and nudity concerns
Tennessee school board bans Holocaust graphic novel ‘Maus’ – author Art Spiegelman condemns the move as ‘Orwellian ’
Tennessee school board denies students valuable classroom lessons by banning 'Maus' | Opinion
When you remove a book from the library, then it's banning.
And if you look at actual movies from the camp, they are more ugly than that book is, and much less relatable to 8th graders.
hen you remove a book from the library, then it's banning
The only thing the board voted on was to remove it from the curriculum.
btw, to remove from the curriculum means to yank it from the school library. I think I would know since I was a teacher.
move from the curriculum means to yank it from the school library. I think I would know since I was a teacher.
That's simply not true and your anecdotal claim doesn't make it so. One in no way requires the other. There are plenty of books in every school I've been in (and I was a student so I think I would know) that weren't part of the curriculum
Interesting.
So when a school changes textbooks, the old ones are banned?
Hmmmmm....never heard that before.
Yes.
They are banned from being used as a teaching aid in that school, usually due to outdated information in that book.
Well color me surprised.....
I am willing to bet that if a kid walked around with an old text book and the new one, no one would say a thing and no one would take the old book from him.
They're not banned. They're retired.
Read the actual resolution voted on by the school board and then write a letter to your source asking for a correction.
That is what I have always thought.
Some claim "retired" is "banned" now.
Wow, you are really spinning trying to make your comments sound more sensical than they are. You think a school board is going to censure what books a person can read or buy on their own? Really? Is that really the least idiotic claim you can make?
Both mean they are not allowed use as a teacher aid in class. You are now down to arguing semantics.
Kinda sucks when someone uses one's own tactics against them doesn't it.
A simple fact no one here has argued.
I learned long ago that "not allowed for use" and "banned" were two different terms with different meanings.
I figured a wordsmith would know that by now.
Since I claimed absolutely NOTHING of what you just claimed, WTF are you going on about now?
WTF do you read when I post? Your "answers" are rarely even fucking related to what I write. Why is that?
No, they don't, and you know it.
No, you're just arguing hysterics.
Absolutely no need to do so.
From 1998 to 2015 I attended almost every school board meeting in my PA home town.
One satellite elementary school with a very small library.
The second elementary school, middle school and High school
were on the same campus and shared the same library which was 4 times the size of the public library
across the road from the campus.
When books were removed from the curriculum for ANY reason, the librarian, at one time, my daughter,
removed them from the school library. Back then the books were offered to the public library first,
then used book stores.
Think about it. Removing a book or preventing teachers from using them in class,
but keeping them in the library available to the kids
makes ZERO sense if the parents or school board don't want kids to see them.
Pick a word, banned, deleted, cancelled, it's all semantics to a school board.
( and the curious kids just read the books on their Kindles )
To wit, "Too Kill a Mockingbird" is arguably one of the most famous and infamous books ever written by an
American and still finds itself challenged in court for the discussion about the rape and the racist language.
Then explain the difference.
I was a math teacher.
Retiring a book simply means that you've bought a new one. That may be because the old ones are showing too much wear, or too many have gone missing.
In the "big 5" states that drive most textbook sales, it usually means that the standardized testing has been updated and the textbooks need to reflect which essential element or curricular objective each lesson addresses. It can also happen when the state dept of education decides that things need to be taught in a different order, using different emphasis or using a different pedagogical methodology. Those things are usually incorporated into the new books on a 5-year cycle.
It does NOT mean the teachers cannot use supplementary materials, excerpts, lessons, or anything else from the previous texts.
If the old Geometry book has some really good materials for teaching constructions or proofs or elementary trig functions or whatever, you are absolutely allowed to continue to use those. Most experienced teachers have collected a go-to set of materials that they fall back upon when they find kids in remedial situations.
Banning a book is a stupidly inaccurate description to describe when a book's use is expressly prohibited in the school. Contrary to popular hysteria, there are a number of good reasons to prohibit the use of certain materials in schools and/or to remove certain books from the school library.
This usually has to do with the age-appropriateness of the content. However it can also happen when the content has been overtaken by events to the point where the information and/or presentation are no longer factually correct or in line with current social norms.
For example, you would not want a history book in use that referred to Cherokee or Sioux warriors as "savages", and you would not want a science book in use that teaches the Steady State Theory as the most likely explanation of the origin of the universe.
In truth, schools cannot ban books anyway. They simply remove them from the school setting, which is not at all the same thing.
Bullshit. Retiring a book means it will not be used in the curriculum any longer for whatever reason (content, age, etc.). Retiring a book has nothing to do with purchasing a new one.
And again bullshit. Banning a book means it will not be used in the curriculum any longer for whatever reason (content, age, etc.).
In this instance they are synonyms.
They're not banned. They're retired.
Does that mean they get a good Pension?
(And move to southern Florida . . . or Arizona?)
So the key issue may not be about race but rather its anti-Semantic after all?
Actually I've seen people use racist in a very loose (and inaccurate) way.
Its gotten to the point that who some people accuse of being a racist is...anyone who has a different opinion about something than you do!
that is what many people have been saying.
the race card is overplayed and improperly used.
that is what many people have been saying.
the race card is overplayed and improperly used.
You just revealed your hand. You are playing two cards:
and
(So therefore... "many people" might be saying that you aren't exactly playing with a full deck!)
inanity, shocking.
Improperly used?
Definitely!
Perhaps instead of the usual ka-ka that our schools teach, they should focus more on teacher the proper use of the Race Card!
Kind of like teaching grammer, but perhaps it would hold the little kiddies attention for a longer time..you know how they get!
Well at least its not boring.
Or maybe they should start with grammar and spelling.
Well, yeah, it is.
The Tennessee school board's banning of "Maus is ignorant and insensitive.
And now..."The Law of Unintended Consequences" has come into play!
Holocaust Book ‘Maus’ Sales Soar After School Board Ban
How ya been.
Every day, in every way, I keep getting better and better!*
(Well, mostly pretty good. Had Covid twice...no big deal either time.)
And you?
How's the pooch?
__________________________________________________
*Just thought I'd play La méthode Coué (The Coué method) card- - and see what happens (although admittedly on a social media site its not exactly according to Hoyle).I never it learned it that way but rather through my reading Think and Grow Rich (Napoleon Hill) several decades ago.
She should not have been suspended. She should have been flat out fired!
If she were a conservative she would have been.
So true. When Barr fired off her tweet, she apologized but ABC said they don't accept apologizes and fired her. But then again it is ABC, if they didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Yep.
This is an example of how being a celebrity doesn't make you smart. In her mind, race only deals with skin color. It should be obvious to all that she surely didn't pay any attention to anything history based or her statement wouldn't have been made.
The ONLY reason she apologized is that her ignorance was called out. Not only on the show but afterward. She was forced to learn. But it's only a 2 week suspension. She's a liberal. I doubt she'll meet the same fate as others.
Also an example of the free pass some people receive.
Whoopi has a history of expressing the very thing. Whoopi has a history of claiming you have to be black to know what racism is. She has a history of expressing a belief that people should be fired on the spot for expressing opinions or views that are racially insensitive. (unless, of course the person making the insensitive remarks is one whom she believes is deserving of a free pass...then, she is willing to conduct an investigation, giving the person the full benefit of doubt, followed by a modest reprimand)
The "good enough for thee but not for me" bullshit. Sad thing is, this anti-Semite will be back in the seat flapping her gums in short time claiming she's the victim.
I don't even know that to be the case. I agree, she will be back at her post though, and would not be surprised to see her claiming she is the victim. To me, this is but an example of why Whoopi really can't entertain any thoughtful conversation on racism. 1) If you are white, to her, there is no conversation. She shouted down Rosie Odonnell on the issue. 2) She has made remarks, insinuating that she possibly recognizes instances of racism separate from a white/black backdrop...but her conduct, and words, suggest that it's a white on black thing, and we are back to square 1, and the position that white people cannot fathom racism...so there is no conversation to be had.
It's that or she is more of an idiot that I initially thought.
I have seen her play the race card several times and even play the victim based on her skin color.
Whoopi has a history of expressing the very thing. Whoopi has a history of claiming you have to be black to know what racism is. She has a history of expressing a belief that people should be fired on the spot for expressing opinions or views that are racially insensitive. (unless, of course the person making the insensitive remarks is one whom she believes is deserving of a free pass...then, she is willing to conduct an investigation, giving the person the full benefit of doubt, followed by a modest reprimand)
WTF?
What right does she have to express her opinions?
(Hopefully she will be appropriately punished...)
I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy. But, the first rule of being a smart-ass is to be right. Point out in my comment, which you use to support your sarcasm, where I suggest she hasn't the right to express an opinion. Failing in that endeavor, let's hear why I am not also in my right to remark on her remarks and hypocrisy.
This also begs to question the hypocrisy of ABC. Roseanne Barr put out a racist tweet and the next day ABC fired her. Whoopi is given a two week suspension.
Why the hypocrisy? Why the different results?
Or what Disney did to Gina Carano.
Some people are more equal than others.
Apparently ABC and Disney are good with antisemitism but draw the line at racism.
The Nazis would have executed Whoopi twice. Once for being Black and the second time for being "Goldberg". Hitler was all about race.
I think he would have executed her first for being "Goldberg"
The Goldberg race?
She certainly doesn't have the wisdom of Guinan.
Now that gave me a good laugh
I think this is wrong. I disagreed with what Whoopi said, but she doesn’t need to be punished for it. I believe she spoke from ignorance and a difference of perspective while trying to have a thoughtful conversation. She wasn’t trying to demean or offend anyone. I hate these knee jerk corporate reactions to speech.
I mean the show is supposed to have controversial debates, isn’t it? If everybody just agrees on everything, you don’t have a show.
I disagree. Whoopi has a very large following and as we see on this board along (not to mention in real life) that words have meaning and too many people will accept at face value from their "hero's" without review. Remember what Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.". While what Whoopi said was not a lie, her following is large enough that there are plenty in that who would accept at face value.
Except you could say the exact same thing and replace Whoopi's name with Tucker Carlson's, and the statement would still be accurate. What Whoopi said was not correct, but like you said, it was also not a lie.
Suspension is good until the uproar dies down. She has also apologized and corrected herself multiple times now.
That I wouldn't know because I don't listen to Carlson. I read a couple of his columns and I don't care to read his shit so I don't follow him at all.
I felt that the suspension is a good thing because it helps to show to her followers that she was wrong and she is having to deal with the consequences of her actions. All good and proper and she will come back in two weeks.
Of course they do.
Except that she got immediate review from Joy Behar who disagreed with her out loud, right at that moment. Then, over the next several hours, she obviously got lots and lots of other review because she ended apologizing before the sun went down.
The response to speech - especially speech offered as part of a good faith discussion - is opposing speech. She was wrong, but she didn’t do anything wrong, and once she had been educated a little, she reversed position. I see no cause to suspend her.
Suspension doesn't show her as wrong, it shows the producers disagreed with her. Her following statements and apologies showed she was wrong.
However I also agree that the suspension is proper. She is a public figure and must watch what she says, and how she says it.
I feel like it simply reinforces the fact that Americans are weak, pathetic, candy-asses and rewards their weak, pathetic meltdowns.
I think that's correct. She says stupid, wrong and offensive things all the time and people need to be free to say stupid things.
But ABC/Disney has to figure this out and apply a standard uniformly. . She should either be fired similar to what they did to carano, or not punished but actually discuss it on air. Abs basically gave her a vacation while avoiding having her discuss it on air. In two weeks it’ll be like it never happened
I agree with this, for sure. I think at minimum, there should be conversations, warnings, probation, or last chances before you just suspend or fire someone over something they said. It’s hard to find good people in this world, and it’s impossible to find perfect people.
I know they’re saying it’s “just a suspension” but I guarantee you ABC is going to take this time to think about firing her.
Hopefully she will spend the next 2 weeks educating herself about The Holocaust
I would not count in it.
I mean the show is supposed to have controversial debates, isn’t it? If everybody just agrees on everything, you don’t have a show.
Good point!
In fact its kinda like nasty fights on social media platforms. If you didn't have real controversy-- and a few good trolls-- their page views plummet!
Some people prefer a show to be "fair" (whatever that means)...but its the controversy that really keeps the viewers.
Some people hate Tucker Carlson. And OMG-- Laura Ingraham. But they stir up emotions. They get their loyal viewers furious re: the latest atrocities commited by the Libs (whether real or imaginery). Ditto other stations-- although the labels may be reversed, modern TV news stations have one focus-- to get their viewers all riled up and extremely pissed off!
(Its a variant of what a lot of politicians have known for years: create a problem where none exists ...and then present yourself as being the solution!).
The View needs her more than she needs them. She will be fine.
Whenever their ratings start sinking someone says something to stir up the masses to pump their ratings...
Back in 2009 Whoopie was stirring it up over rape...
Not Rape, Rape....
She has some strange ideals for a liberal...
But based on your comments here-- c'mom, be honest Nowhere Man-- don;t you feel that all Liberals have strange ideas?
Oh good grief. Is there nobody left in this country with a spine?
She has a very unusual interpretation of this historical event. I happen to disagree with it.
If you think she should be suspended because she said something that you disagreed with, with all due respect (which is very little), you need to grow up.
This is what living in a free society is about. It's not for cowards. People are allowed to say shit.... and it may even challenge the prevalent existing world view.
I don't watch the show but Imo that is what the show was for. For them to voice their opinions. If people are not allowed to express their opinions, how would one ever learn or grow if those opinions happen to be wrong. They would just be buried.
I saw what she said and her apology. I think she did learn a little something.
Yeah...but what?
That it's OK for a black woman to say something as long as the Jewish woman approves?
I don't know what you are talking about.
I think she was seeing race through a lens of colour. Ie white people killing white people.
So what if she was?
Why should that be cause for suspension?
I think they would receive backlash either way.
In todays climate it is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't option.
The merry band of morons on the view have been trying to cancel others for years, the latest being Joe Rogen for saying things they don't like. If you are going to throw stones you shouldn't be surprised when someone lobs one back the first chance they get.
I totally agree with your last statement but it has to be true for both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes. It is a well-documented historical practice among leftists.
That's no justification for action that is utterly antithetical to the fundamentals of a free society.
Upon what basis will we demand that future ideas not be punished if we concede here for the sake of "well...they do it, so now we're doing it"?
Then you can provide this documentation? Right?
Maybe if it happens to them a few times they may wish to relook at it happening to others? There has to be something that helps them learn just how destructive cancel culture is. They seem to be unable to come to that conclusion on their own. Boycotting companies that bend to the woke mob is not working, maybe this will. If there is another way I am all ears but I don't believe just letting them stomp on the first amendment and hope they will learn it is dumb is going to work.
Or you could always find it on your own. You might be more likely to believe it if you find it and not just reject something you are spoon fed because you don't like the source.
He won't provide it because it doesn't exist.
Also, I wasn't talking to you.
Your usual agnorance.
Bingo!
So.... your idea here.... is that these people who love to go shout at the sky over shit they could solve in an afternoon are somehow going to develop the attentiveness and intelligence required to experience this epiphany for which you hope.
Bro...do you hear yourself?
I think your optimism is wonderful....but we're talking about people who fail to grasp the concept of "male" and "female". Not with learning drugs and electric shock therapy could you achieve what you seek.
They're not stomping on the first amendment. Congress has made no law. They're chasing their own tails, convinced that more noise = more "progress" and the more drama they create the more "important" they are.
Is that a new word?
Maybe, Seems Mika B is saying cancel culture has gone too far after Whoopie. I notice you don't like my suggestion but have not suggested a better alternative.
You are correct.
Hence the phrase "not with learning drugs and electric shock therapy".
I also don't have a suggestion for how we can walk to the moon.
You are dealing with a group of people for whom liberal politics is their religion. In their minds, conservatives are infidels who must be converted or destroyed. A person's purity of heart and character are a function of how strictly they adhere to the tenets of liberalism or wokeness or whatever.
They are religiously committed to irrational views, idiotic behavior, and view "cancel culture" as stamping out heresy, much the way the Spanish Inquisition or the women's temperance movement would have in a previous century.
Any attempt to dissuade them will be seen as an attempt to convert them away from their religion.
If you imagine you can 'teach' these people anything, I believe you are more wildly optimistic than a fervent Dallas Cowboys fan.
You can even teach a dog not to shit on the floor if you rub their nose in it enough. Hopefully the liberal crazies are smarter than puppies. Not sure about that though.
What we can actually do is hopefully teach the dems sitting on the sidelines that this is not in their best interest if some of the people they like get canceled and isolate the crazies that way. I am not looking to change the mind of the nut cases but isolate them enough so they understand they are not speaking for the party and the party thinks they are as ridiculous as the rest of the world. Bill Maher is a good example of a real liberal that has not gone crazy and speaks out against them. We need more of that.
Dogs do not consider themselves martyrs for a cause.
Sure.
What really solves the whole problem is ignoring them. This is, after all, yet another round of attention-getting behavior from the greatest group of attention whores the planet has ever known.
When Netflix ignores the fact they don't like Dave Chappelle and Spotify ignores the fact they don't like Joe Rogan and the Minnesota Vikings ignore the protests about stereotyping Danes as violent pillaging rapists...then there is no reward for their religious intolerance.
Ignoring them will work if it is the corps that ignore them. It seems to be heading more and more in that direction but there are still too many corps that are bowing to the vocal few.
I think the pendulum swings as it always has.
Eventually this tedious group of young Millennials will grow up just like their tedious young Baby Boomer parents did.
Of course there are.
David Dike has a spine. Wayne LaPierre. has a spine. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert each have their own individual spines. Matt Gaetz.. then there's Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Stephen Bannon, and George Papadopoulos.And all the other convicted and/or indicted felons parsdoned by Trump.
And how could we forget Ivanka Trump!
Yeah. You're absolutely right!
Urchins have spines.
A friend of mine who shoots this show says when they do shots of Whoopi they have a designated camera 15ft further from the rest of the herd on the show because she has gotten so fat. He claims the craft service is constantly attacked by her when they put out healthy foods.
What an ignorant [deleted comment]
lol, hey, Shamu needs to be fed!!!
Whoopi darlin', you've gone and set yourself up as a partisan ping pong squirrel.
And now back to what really matters ... the Scotties Tournament of Hearts (that's women's curling) Go N.B.!
Sweepers don't get the credit they deserve.
If I could play, sweeper is what I would want to be.
I am not into sports but I love curling.
I love watching women's curling.
It gives me the opportunity to look into their eyes as they concentrate and get their rocks off.
Oh no you didn't!
I do not fully 'get' this controversy and at the same time I do "get" it. Is that weird? So for the last few days I have tried to let it 'wash' over me to formulate an opinion. It has not fully 'matured' yet. One thing that does keep coming up to me (after listening to news 'accounts' on this, is why do Jewish people not de-mystify some of the misinformation and "unsanctioned" things stated about routinely? This is not an attempt to deflect from Whoopie for whom I am yet unclear about what she knew and when she knew it.
It is an open and honest question. About why don't I, for example, know more about Jewish people and how they wish to "present" to the world and dispel errors in how others think about them when I am in proximity to beautiful Jewish people online. Again, that I feel apprehensive just posing the question seems to me the way I see news anchors 'tip-toeing' around the edges of it (again) without immersing themselves.
I want to know more about Jewish people, and I ain't going to be afraid to ask! Nothing is gained by silence and just being ignorant!
So here is my first question:
1. Who or what is a Semite - a (Jewish) person, race, or is it properly stated Semitic languages?
2. Please read:
Question: How does a race 'float' or "jump" a category?
This needs some clarification, or else ignorance will 'consume' us in myth-making!
Side note: I was reading the referenced book ahead of this controversy arriving on the scene; I had these questions in mind too.
Question: How does a race 'float' or "jump" a category?
Sometimes its different for different groups.
Many immigrant groups starting coming here in large numbers at about the same time. For example there was a flood of Irish immigrants as a result of the great Potato Famine.
In some cases a group arrived when there were shortages of workers in a various profession-- so it was easy for them to get jobs (at the bottom) which they did...and over time worked their way up the organization.
Sometimes a whole new area opened up-- for example the "new" field of computer technology. And for those groups whose cultural values included valuing innovation and challenging conventional wisdom-- and hard work!-the newer areas of technology offer a real opportunity.
Sometimes a whole new area opened up-- for example the "new" field of computer technology. And for those groups whose cultural values included valuing innovation and challenging conventional wisdom-- and hard work!-the newer areas of technology offer a real opportunity.
A while back I made friends with a Chinese-American guy. And met his friends. Now I have a whole new group of friends..they are almost all computer programmers or software engineers-- and most either Chinese-Americans or Indian (Desi)-Americans...and third in number are Jews. (Traditional Jewish and Chinese culture puts a large emphasis on learning-- a plus in a field dominated by technology which is ever evolving with new concepts.
Not sure why there are so many Indians, except that many Indian_Americans I know are very entrepreneural-- they're almost all in Technology-- or work hard and save until they have their own business (often owning a motel or 7-11). A disproprtionately large number of Indian women I know are Doctors.
It is because certain Asian cultures want the freedom in this country, but do not intend to work for a white businessman or woman (or other racial groups and ethnicities as paid 'slaves' -the other use of the term) to get it. Thus, they sat up their own business and hire their own family, friends, and 'tribal' community. I ain't complaining about that either. Just has been told to me by some Asians (Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino (shop) owners). The curious thing is this: Whites do not obfuscate this occurring, whereas some cities and towns push all types of obstacles and "insurmoutables" in the direction of the black business owner-up to and touching, not patronizing black businesses sufficient enough to keep them worth operating. Of course, then the businesses atrophy and terminate.
Hi Krishna! What I am asking is how a racial group has the 'luxury' to be a minority group; a majority group, and maybe even 'treading' in-between. That is, are we not what we are racially throughout a lifetime?
As to Jewish people @15.1.1 they shifted their status over time. I find that. . .remarkable. I am not sure why I do, but I do.
Lastly, I would love to research who was the first white American who turned the world against freed slaves in this country?! Was it the Ku Klux Klan (organization) or someone else. Why have some white people, never all whites, made it their lives' achievement to spread animosity against Blacks, Minorities, Women, Homosexuals, Jews, you name it. Who started us on this 'journey' to this bad behavior AFTER the civil war ended? I would like to 'meet' that figure in history.
Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."
So where are the people with answers to questions?!!! "Non-meaningful participation." That's a GLARING problem with this whole topic!
Whoopie Goldberg may, may have been in manifest wrong or error; what is OUR excuse for ignoring questions on the subject right in front of us?
Whoopie Goldberg may, may have been in manifest wrong or error; what is OUR excuse for ignoring questions on the subject right in front of us?
In my experience, it has a lot to do with the values of the family a kid was brought up in.(And I'm not trying to bash-- or praise-- any racial or ethnic group here. Within the same group some kids "turn out well"-- "others don't.). And while there are exceptions-- in my experience its almost always the family they are growing up in that makes the big difference.
I think Whoopi Goldberg made herself look kind of dumb with her Holocaust comments. And now ABC has made itself look dumber by suspending her for 2 weeks. This was not a suspendable offense
her employer (the ones who count here) thought it WAS an offense warranting suspension .
Looks like they are 100% right, too.
3. If Jews are from the lineage of Noah, what race was Shem? We need to understand this openly. No hatred, just love and understanding!
CB, Shem was the son of Noah, according to the Bible, right? Therefore, Shem would have been the same race as Noah.
This is assuming that you accept the Biblical mythology, as I believe you do.
Okay and thank you Gsquared, what race is Noah? I ask this, because the 'mythology' as you elegantly put it my friend, informs us that Ham was cursed to be start of the Canaanite people or race of people who would be the world's slaves. In America that has been long ago interpreted to be Black people of and transported from Africa. Clearly, Noah was something other than cursed to be 'black.'
Respect for you!
Is Noah's race described in the Bible? Not that I am aware of. So, I would say that you may believe whatever you want about it.
Greatest respect for you, CB, always.
Now, I can see how 'difficult' this can be for Whoopie. It's awkward for. . . people. Noah has to have a race, all people have defining physical characteristics.
Yes, awkward is an appropriate way to put it. She obviously didn't mean to cause harm or give offense.
For me, discussing Noah as a real person is not what I believe. All that aside, if Noah was an actual historic figure, for all we know, he could have been of mixed race.
My friend, I will leave it at that. (Smile.)
Good enough.
I always had a suspicion Whoopi was racist, she just proved it.
Now you're just being provocative and indulgent. Read @15 and @17 thread (right above your comment).
And turn off your 'lifesaver,' you probably don't need it for this discussion! /s
Read it. Cute. Doesn't change Whoopi being a racist.
And you are simply throwing out labels willy-nilly? What does that make you?
Oh no, that makes me a progressive! I better stop flipping through CNN and MSNBC, it seems to be wearing off on me.
Yeah, snark? It's all you got?
You asked a question, he answered, and now you are complaining about what YOU asked for?
Why?
I have truth. MSNBC and CNN can't go an hour without calling someone a racist.
Her words support it.
They do? When did they start doing that?
Yeah, you've got nothing. Moving on. Nice day!
Of course you are welcome to your opinion, no matter how biased it is.