m.

I’m willing to speak on the terms that allow the greatest freedom of participation for the discourse community, not the ones that allow me the most control. That’s the difference between you and me; I invite open discourse, you want to close it off.

You were actually speaking to several non-white people including an Indian-American person who obviously doesn’t like someone telling him that something which happened sixty years ago in Europe must necessarily erase his centuries of his culture.

I don’t particular care that you are non-white. As I explained, your argument services the interests of white power. It suggests that the white experience, the white context is universal and when it is contradicted by a non-white context, the non-white context must be suppressed. This is quintessential white supremacy.

Jews aren’t a particularly oppressed group any more. They’ve for the most part been assimilated into the white hegemon, similar to the way the Irish and Italians (both groups that at one time faced fearsome discrimination in America, and which still to some extent do in certain parts of Europe) have been. This isn’t to say that antisemitism is dead (it never really went away in Europe), but the way the Jewish population of North America has constructed itself as a white subject (as DagSeoul is fond of saying) has immunized it to the kind of routine systematic oppression faced by, say, people from the Indian subcontinent who follow a non-western religious tradition.

I don’t really feel this conversation is fair to you. I don’t like that you are forced to respond to me through a character limit. Perhaps you should reconsider the merits of open discourse, rather than continue to rely on this tedious format.