---“You are being invited to help make history,” Herzl wrote to Rhodes. “[I]t doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial… [Y]ou, Mr. Rhodes, are a visionary politician or a practical visionary… ---
Shimon Peres to E.M. Rhoodie, South African Secretary for Information,
"This cooperation is based not only on common interests and on the determination to resist equally our enemies, but also on the unshakeable foundations of our common hatred of injustice and our refusal to submit to it."
I feel like this reply isn't relevant to the post, so I will delete later today. I welcome all comments, including critical ones, but you have to stay on point. Otherwise it's just an abuse of a venue. If you want to explain the relevance, I'm all ears.
You write: "He was a strong supporter of Apartheid South Africa and white ruled Rhodesia" And I added more names to the list of supporters. How is that not relevant?
Again, that may be true but it's not relevant to the issues discussed. What you are engaged in here is thead-jacking, of trying to move the discussion to what you want to talk about rather than what it is. I don't think that's conducive to good dialogue.
The topic is racism in contemporary culture. I added one comment. Now you're arguing and struggling to make a distinction where many people, and more by the day, think none exists. I think you're causing yourself more trouble than I am.
"It’s worth remembering that freakizoids like Weyl, eager to apply calipers to beatniks, were very much mainstream on the American right."
Shouldn't that be 'are' and not 'were'? Can't remember a time without some conservative dude explainerating that black people are born stupid.
elm
it's in that graph right there - proof!, they tell you
Theodor Herzl's letter to Cecil Rhodes
---“You are being invited to help make history,” Herzl wrote to Rhodes. “[I]t doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial… [Y]ou, Mr. Rhodes, are a visionary politician or a practical visionary… ---
https://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/actually-herzl-was-a-colonialist/
Shimon Peres to E.M. Rhoodie, South African Secretary for Information,
"This cooperation is based not only on common interests and on the determination to resist equally our enemies, but also on the unshakeable foundations of our common hatred of injustice and our refusal to submit to it."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons
I feel like this reply isn't relevant to the post, so I will delete later today. I welcome all comments, including critical ones, but you have to stay on point. Otherwise it's just an abuse of a venue. If you want to explain the relevance, I'm all ears.
You write: "He was a strong supporter of Apartheid South Africa and white ruled Rhodesia" And I added more names to the list of supporters. How is that not relevant?
Huge stretch. There were many such supporters
At this point I'll just be blunt.
B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: "This is Apartheid"
https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
Again, that may be true but it's not relevant to the issues discussed. What you are engaged in here is thead-jacking, of trying to move the discussion to what you want to talk about rather than what it is. I don't think that's conducive to good dialogue.
The topic is racism in contemporary culture. I added one comment. Now you're arguing and struggling to make a distinction where many people, and more by the day, think none exists. I think you're causing yourself more trouble than I am.