H.G. Callaway ,

I just wanted to contribute the following digression and main point:

Digression

As part of my thought process on why machine learning is often attributed with discrimination and how this can be traced back to the data based on human evaluations, I traced it partly on statistical baggage. That is part of the "demographical" data still used to day can be traced back to Census data[1]. This is one aspect that we as scientist using statistical methods should learn to detect proper biases that can perpetuate such patterns of behavior and eliminate it.

Main point

Further, upon additional search for explanations of such discriminatory behavior, I came upon the concept of 'parochial Altruism' [2][3]. I found it enlightening to explain such behavior and why it can lead to war. That said, does anyone out there can can offer arguments or references to refute the theory? If the theory is correct it may explain why it can be hard to judge as you say "one by one" and not as part of "belonging to demographics groups". Yet, once we recognize the explanation, it does not mean that we must follow such behavior nor does it mean that it is correct.

References

[1]Census Technology, Politics, and Institutional Change, 1790–

2020 by Steven Ruggles and Diana L. Magnuson . J Am Hist. 2020 June ; 107(1): 19–51.

[2] How generalizable are patterns of parochial altruism in

humans? by Anne C. Pisor and Cody T. Ross (preprint).

[3]The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War by Jung-Kyoo Choi, et al.

Science 318, 636 (2007);

I agree. Judging people ethnically is an inefficient approach. Every person is what he/she does in a given context, following motives, originated by more or less specific needs.

The set of (systemically related) acts is what we know as History, and the resulting of that making at the societal level is the Culture.

That's why the human being is an Historical - Cultural entity (Vygotsky).

Always, when people invoke their ethnic/racial/national/religious/... membership,as a way of justify their actions/thoughts/rights/... a thought or feeling comes to my mind , that could be translated into the statement: "another one with an inferiority complex calling their tribe for help..."

Antisemitism is absurd. But currently the problem is what antisemitism means; obviously Palestinians, Arabs in general can NOT be antisemitic, at least genetically (in the sense of gen); nor culturally.

Even here there is a paradox: I could speculate that people from surrounding nations are more "genetically Semitic", than most of current inhabitants of Israel (by obvious historical reasons). Even the possible allegations against a common culture is historically determinate.

There is not any justification supporting antisemitism. Neither genocide.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Geigel & readers,

You may want to have a look at Matthew Arnold's essay on "Rome and Jerusalem." This was a piece in the 19th-century debate on the theme of "parochial altruism" vs. ethical universalism. Arnold held that there could be excesses in either direction--toward universal inclusiveness or polity, or toward emphasis on cultural particularities.

See, e.g.:

https://blog.oup.com/2013/04/matthew-arnold-victorian-culture-critic/?itm_medium=sidebar&itm_source=trendmd-widget&itm_campaign=OUPBlog&itm_content=OUPBlog_0

If I understand what you mean by the phrase "parochial altruism," then I'd say it is only the extremes of it which are dangerous and productive of exaggerated conflicts and war. In a sense its the opposite of moral universalism, as in the Christian adage "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Whatever the confession involved, there are very few people who would not favor their own family over random strangers. The late 19th-century debate arose in the context of the "globalization" of those times--that of the European colonial empires.

I suppose that recent globalization has lifted millions and maybe hundreds of millions out of poverty. So, three-cheers for a single universal system of political values? (Two cheers?) On the other hand, we do not seem to want a total homogenization of the world. Instead, we need to favor "our own."

There is an old argument that goes something like this "Universal love' is all fine and good. However, we require deep consideration of our own specific and particular situations in order to know how to go about it. Put your own family first, then your locality, town and country, and then consider how doing so may positively or negatively effect the rest of the world. That is certainly not easy to do. But how better to go about universal love?

More intensively inward-looking societies are generally better at passing on their values down the generations, but at the risk of misunderstanding and poor relations with neighboring outsiders. Total openness to every foreign influence and value system, on the other hand (that happy, optimistic universalism) runs the risk of dissolution of constitutive domestic value configurations. The refusal to acknowledge that the U.S. has any particular value system needed for its well being as a political society is a defective conclusion drawn on the basis of the economic achievements of globalization. In a sense (just now) we need more of "Jerusalem" and less of "Rome."

H.G. Callaway

There is a Different Dimension to this Jewish Scientists in the Free World Vs Nazi Scientists . The Nazis enlisted other physicists, including Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, to denounce Einstein. "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" was published in 1931. Einstein in this video "Why we should Thank Jewish Scientists" is credited as as founder of Relativity and "Quantum Mechanics" but it is more correct to say he was founder of Quantum theory and Quantum Electro Dynamics . "Quantum Mechanics" was a German development designed to undo Ontological certainty and Introduce probability . To which Einstein made the famous reply " God does not Play Dice with the Universe". (Or Originally " the Old One" in a Letter to Max Born) I wrote of this Metaphysical Divide in my Book "The Way in Divine Metaphysics". The "Peoples of the Book" A Phrase used in the Koran including Jews also Kept One of the Longest Histories on Earth in the Old Testament Scriptures of their National History . While the Nazis supported a Palestinian Uprising against them.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Tarran & readers,

It's true that Einstein on relativity long remain very controversial--and often rejected--; and of course, he was awarded a Nobel prize for this work on the photoelectric effect --a contribution to quantum mechanics. But he was also the founder of relativity theory. This became more fully recognized and accepted in light of Arthur Eddington's confirmation of the predicted displacement of stars in the vicinity of the sun during a total eclipse. Eddington's work contributed greatly to greater recognition of Einstein. Early QM chiefly developed in Germany, but on the other hand Einstein was himself a German-born Jew.

See:

Book Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, An An...

Einstein left Germany because he saw the threat posed by the Nazis, and his work was perhaps more generally recognized in the English-speaking world at the time. The Nazis persecution was by no means based on any scientific criticism. Their political system ran on the basis of social and political scapegoating of the Jews.

I'm not sure I have much to say on "divine metaphysics." However, Einstein's critical view of the random element in QM was a theme sometimes shared with his critics and prospective persecutors. The idea of strict physical determinism has very wide appeal; and something similar is expressed in the theme of divine foreknowledge.

H.G. Callaway

Rey Segundo Guerrero-Proenza I assume you make your assessment about the "semitic" nature of Israel's population is because you believe that a majority fit the "white European settler occupier"?

Per this Bing search,

https://www.bing.com/search?FORM=INCOH2&PC=1VIV&PTAG=ICO-c9d0fc87&q=israel+population

Israel's population is 9.3M - of which 2M are Arab (75% of those are Muslim). 73% of Israel's population is Jewish - 45% of that number are Mizrahi (just over 3M).

Mizrahi are those Jews (and their descendants) that settled in Arab nations after the Roman Diaspora, and were then kicked out of the various Arab countries after Israel's independence in 1948. They had resided in those countries for generations, but because they were Jews, they were told to go to their "homeland".

so 55% are Semitic (by your definition). How is it a majority of Israelis don't fit the description.

Philadelphia, PA

June 2, 2024

Dear readers,

Perhaps the following definition of "semitic" --from Webster's Dictionary will be helpful:

Semitic

1 of 2

adjective

Se·​mit·​ic sə-ˈmi-tik also

1: of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic

2: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites

3: JEWISH

---end quotation---

See:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitic#:~:text=%3A%20of%2C%20relating%20to%2C%20or,%3A%20jewish

The concept of interest for the present thread is defined in entry no. 3.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

June 4, 2024

Dear all,

Have a look at the following brief summary of Franklin Foer's Atlantic magazine article on the "Decline of the Golden Age of American Jews."

See:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/03/decline-of-golden-age-for-american-jews/

The original article, though available from The Atlantic magazine is mostly behind a paywall.

What strikes me as particularly interesting, beyond the detailed story of contemporary antisemitism, is the idea of a polar opposition between "assimilation" to the American mainstream and being truly oneself. Though some aspects of contributing demographic groups are truly alien and legally or morally unacceptable, there is nothing of that which will prevent development of the same group in other ways, consistent with its background or origin. (Otherwise, most Americans would be something like "Europeans living in the colonies" --which we aren't.)

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Prof. H.G. Callaway, thank you for the most interesting questions and posts on the matter. I have read with interest posts by others. I could not concur with you more in the correct definition and conceptualization of antisemitism that you posted above. Further, and as science teaches again and again, generalizations, rarely do have a scientific foundation based on hard fact evidence. Moreover from a human, moral and ethical stance, generalizations, for example in terms of stereotyping, are simply abhorrent and unacceptable.

H.G. Callaway having just finished reading your link, I am bothered by the fact that the author apparent insistence that antisemitism in the US is predominantly from Trump/Republicans/far right.

From a racial perspective, the far right sees Jews as non-white, whereas the left sees Jews as white. In the world of intersection created by the left, being white puts Jew near the bottom of the hierarchy. That hierarchy drives DEI initiatives on campuses around the US resulting in Jews (who barely make up 2% of US population) not being a minority that they should include in their umbrella.

Self-hating Jews (those born Jewish, who in turn oppose anything Jewish) are often antisemitic. Pointing out those individuals is *not* antisemitic, but is used to make those criticizing Jews/Israel beyond reproach. I would consider Senator Bernie Sanders to be a self-hating Jew. Criticizing Trump (who has a Jewish daughter, son-in-law, and Jewish grand-children) as antisemitic would also seem incorrect.

In a country where we are not to assume that one Muslim individual's actions are not supposed to represent all Muslims, all Jews are apparently responsible for actions taken by the Israeli government.

Dear Prof. H.G. Callaway, thank you sharing the interesting article by Simon (2024) which considers the article written by Foer in the Atlantic. I attempted to access the article in question, but it is behind a paywall. What, I found most interesting in Simon’s (2024) article, among the many points, about what Foer was saying on cultural pluralism, and how this enabled tolerance, etc.

In considering multiculturalism, from a rather straightforward point of view, for example, see link https://www.britannica.com/topic/multiculturalism , this does tend to go somewhat against liberalism and democracy. The main point being made here is that in such systems fostering respect for diverse cultures, can and may have the tendency, to segment societies and thus, in theory, put them in groups, which differ from others. This, may bring about a societal discrimination based on culture and thus highlighting differences and not similarities and definitely undermining societal equality.

This is still rather apparent today, for example, in the USA, where for example, parts of the society are considered as ‘illegal’ simply because they derive from central and south America and have ‘no papers’ to actively reside in the country. See for example Biden’s executive order, yesterday, to temporarily close the border between the USA and Mexico (see link https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/04/biden-border-close-executive-action-migrants-00161483 ) to migrants. This effectively places people from a defined ‘culture’ to be set in a marginalized group based on the lack of legal immigration papers. Indeed, the ‘wall’ is placed between the USA and Mexico and, not for example, between the USA and Canada, even though for example, on 15th March 2024, and as reported by CBS News, there were also record numbers of immigrants crossing the border from Canada into the USA ( see link: https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/northern-border-illegal-crossings-vermont-canada-new-hampshire-new-york-question-everything/). As such, this example, shows to a degree, how culturally biased views are on defined peoples and how they provide and foster segmentation within a society. This comes to show how, with this small example, how multiculturalism is still alive today. Unfortunately there are many other examples of this from around the world.

Philadelphia, PA

June 7, 2024

Dear Heyman & readers,

Thanks for our note.

To my knowledge, Senator Sanders is much admired for his independent stance--even sometimes among people much opposed to his political brand. His New England accent strikes me as charming, and it is perhaps worth recalling that Vermont is a pretty distinctive state--contrasting sharply even with neighboring New Hampshire and Massachusetts. From my own perspective, Sanders strikes me as like those born Jewish who become Unitarians or sometimes even Quakers. He seems as Jewish as he wants to be?

Concerning Mr. Trump, the usual accusation is not that he is antisemitic, but that he accepts or tolerates antisemitic supporters.

I wonder how many people would agree with your judgements of Sanders and Trump. Would you say more?

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

June 7, 2024

Dear Hilmi & readers,

Thank you for your note.

What many seem to miss about the U.S. is that it has no official ethnic or racial definition. In this way it is very much unlike many other countries and many or most European countries in particular. From the perspective of that point, multiculturalism and identity politics are a politicized attempt to impose a (disjunctive) ethnic/racial definition on the country.

Every country in the world, or virtually all, attempt to regulate immigration and the inflow of migrants by law --with one eye on the unemployment rate. This is typically much stronger in countries with some particular ethnic or racial definition. However, the regulation is reasonable and acceptable, I suppose, insofar as any given country is expected to look after the interests of its own citizens in the first place. Any attempt at an official ethnic or racial definition of the U.S. would be extremely unwise and likely unconstitutional.

Mass immigration across the southern U.S. border has become very unpopular--particularly in the border states such as Texas and Arizona. Moreover, people are arriving at the border from all over the world and not just from Latin America. In consequence, there is little reason to think that the recently imposed decision of the administration in Washington, D.C. is directed against any particular ethnic or racial or cultural group. Immigration across the northern border with Canada has not created anywhere near the same level of popular opposition. In fact many recent immigrants to the U.S. leave the country in preference for Canada.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

June 11, 2024

Dear readers,

Here follows an announcement from Senator Bernie Sanders regarding antisemitism and bigotry.

"NEWS: Sanders Offers Resolution to Condemn Bigotry in All Forms on College Campuses and Calls for the Protection of Students’ Right to Free Speech and Protest."

See:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-offers-resolution-to-condemn-bigotry-in-all-forms-on-college-campuses-and-calls-for-the-protection-of-students-right-to-free-speech-and-protest/

According to the announcement,

WASHINGTON, May 7 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today rose on the floor of the Senate to offer a resolution condemning antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of bigotry on college campuses across the country. Sanders introduced the resolution in response to one offered by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), that did not go far enough in protecting students from bigotry, violence, and the violation of their First Amendment right to protest and free speech.

H.G. Callaway