Whoopi Goldberg is 'On the AIR'

[sdkitty]

more from the Jewish community:
Opinion | Whoopi Goldberg Apologized. Punishing Her Further Is Un-Jewish. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

[poopsie]

Since there isn't anything to go on but a link that I refuse to click on, I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that coming from the NYT whatever is in the article is going to be a pro Whoopi puff piece
I also question whenever one voice proposes to speak for the multitudes. No group of people is a monolithic bloc.

 

[rose60610]

The NYT opinion piece was written by Nathan Hersh: Mr. Hersh is a writer and the former managing director of the social justice nonprofit Partners for Progressive Israel.

Here'a part of his message from the very long editorial: "One of Judaism’s most famous sages, the 12th-century philosopher Maimonides, made clear the role the forgiver should play in a case like Ms. Goldberg’s: Help the wrongdoer overcome her ignorance and then forgive her. Maimonides said: “One must not show himself cruel by not accepting an apology; he should be easily pacified, and provoked with difficulty. When an offender asks his forgiveness, he should forgive wholeheartedly and with a willing spirit.

The problem with punishment is it uses shame, rather than teaching and reflection, as the tool to address what is at best a clumsy misstatement and at worst a failure of understanding. Shame doesn’t foster a better relationship with the truth, or history; it simply forces silence, and that can breed resentment. In turn, silence and resentment fuel antisemitism. The better answer in these situations is obvious, but not easy: education, education, education."

Well, isn't that nice? Let's dig up words from a philosopher who lived in the 1100's to defend Whoopi Goldberg. All she needs is teaching and reflection. Right. And so shouldn't that then go for EVERYBODY who says something outrageous? Whether they be a celebrity, a politician, a journalist, or anybody else? The article goes on to quoting others who defend Whoopi. The shrews on The View aren't exactly "understanding" of others who they simply don't like. I'm not convinced all of Whoopi's defenders would just as strongly trip over themselves to defend certain other people.

Yes, it is a big pro Whoopi puff piece.

 

[prettyprincess]

I don’t see what she said that was so offensive

I still don’t either honestly. My understanding of the extermination was that it was based on ethnicity, religion, political ideology, and sexual orientation. I think bc the majority of the victims were “white” she doesn’t consider it “racially motivated” even though the Nazis were trying to create “superior race.”
It’s all very complex. A lot of historians have different opinions.
It could’ve been a productive conversation. They could’ve brought on different historians to discuss their opinions, as opposed to the reflex of cancel cancel cancel.

 

[papertiger]

I still don’t either honestly. My understanding of the extermination was that it was based on ethnicity, religion, political ideology, and sexual orientation. I think bc the majority of the victims were “white” she doesn’t consider it “racially motivated” even though the Nazis were trying to create “superior race.”
It’s all very complex. A lot of historians have different opinions.
It could’ve been a productive conversation. They could’ve brought on different historians to discuss their opinions, as opposed to the reflex of cancel cancel cancel.

She's correct because there is indeed only one race - the human race.

She's incorrect because she takes race from a US POV, which in itself is colonialist since US culture now equates with international. US based academic and popular theory on centred on race, mostly based on segregation laws and then trying to make sense on race outside of the 'territory' and experience. Jews 'pass' for white in the US - unless they go to temple where they're held hostage at gun point or children are spat on in the streets of Brooklyn.

Race isn't based on colourism, a term we now only ascribe to countries that are predominantly non-white to use light to represent 'fair' and deeper skin-tone to mean less beautiful/worthy/intelligent etc. There is unfortunately racism between people of the same or similar skin-tone too. Just because Whoppie is a WOC doesn't mean she can't be racist.

Whoopie made up she was Jewish years ago after a charity cookery recipe was full of stereotypical and quite hideous 'jokes'. Her PR at the time said she couldn't be anti-Semitic because she was partly Jewish. That's acknowledged now as a lie. Had she converted to Judaism, there's no reason why she couldn't religiously be a practising Jew, but she didn't, she changed her name that sounded Jewish because she thought it would help her ambitions. Kinda funny when you consider how many Jewish actors and industry insiders changed their name to anglicised version to make them more acceptable.

Before WWII, German (and European) academics as well as many others wrote reams of texts on 'the Wandering Jew' about how these 'Orientals' were like the desert dunes of their homeland, their exoticism and strangeness, so unlike the European. They lived all over the globe including Africa, India and S. America, but were often singled-out as a different race from the main. Their nomadic existence in tolerant (or not) host countries was apparently incidental, it was apparently their race that made them 'X' or 'Y'.

In more recent years, Jews are often called European even when they're born in the Middle East (or anywhere else). This is a political POV, not a scientific one, and it's why being anti-Israel can be anti-Semitic (although not always). Making Jews White is a way of making them European and thereby, by implication colonisers, not a race that has been victimised since Roman times. This is why what Whoopie said is at best dangerous ignorance and, taking her past into account and in the current climate may not be just a view.

 

[LibbyRuth]

The NYT opinion piece was written by Nathan Hersh: Mr. Hersh is a writer and the former managing director of the social justice nonprofit Partners for Progressive Israel.

Here'a part of his message from the very long editorial: "One of Judaism’s most famous sages, the 12th-century philosopher Maimonides, made clear the role the forgiver should play in a case like Ms. Goldberg’s: Help the wrongdoer overcome her ignorance and then forgive her. Maimonides said: “One must not show himself cruel by not accepting an apology; he should be easily pacified, and provoked with difficulty. When an offender asks his forgiveness, he should forgive wholeheartedly and with a willing spirit.

The problem with punishment is it uses shame, rather than teaching and reflection, as the tool to address what is at best a clumsy misstatement and at worst a failure of understanding. Shame doesn’t foster a better relationship with the truth, or history; it simply forces silence, and that can breed resentment. In turn, silence and resentment fuel antisemitism. The better answer in these situations is obvious, but not easy: education, education, education."

Well, isn't that nice? Let's dig up words from a philosopher who lived in the 1100's to defend Whoopi Goldberg. All she needs is teaching and reflection. Right. And so shouldn't that then go for EVERYBODY who says something outrageous? Whether they be a celebrity, a politician, a journalist, or anybody else? The article goes on to quoting others who defend Whoopi. The shrews on The View aren't exactly "understanding" of others who they simply don't like. I'm not convinced all of Whoopi's defenders would just as strongly trip over themselves to defend certain other people.

Yes, it is a big pro Whoopi puff piece.

Isn’t that the point? That forgiveness is much healthier than grudges? And that not only should those upset by Goldberg practice that, but also Whoopi herself? Seems to me the focus is more on how things should be than how they are now.

 

[OriginalBalenciaga]

Since there isn't anything to go on but a link that I refuse to click on, I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that coming from the NYT whatever is in the article is going to be a pro Whoopi puff piece
I also question whenever one voice proposes to speak for the multitudes. No group of people is a monolithic bloc.

The NYT opinion piece was written by Nathan Hersh: Mr. Hersh is a writer and the former managing director of the social justice nonprofit Partners for Progressive Israel.

Here'a part of his message from the very long editorial: "One of Judaism’s most famous sages, the 12th-century philosopher Maimonides, made clear the role the forgiver should play in a case like Ms. Goldberg’s: Help the wrongdoer overcome her ignorance and then forgive her. Maimonides said: “One must not show himself cruel by not accepting an apology; he should be easily pacified, and provoked with difficulty. When an offender asks his forgiveness, he should forgive wholeheartedly and with a willing spirit.

The problem with punishment is it uses shame, rather than teaching and reflection, as the tool to address what is at best a clumsy misstatement and at worst a failure of understanding. Shame doesn’t foster a better relationship with the truth, or history; it simply forces silence, and that can breed resentment. In turn, silence and resentment fuel antisemitism. The better answer in these situations is obvious, but not easy: education, education, education."

Well, isn't that nice? Let's dig up words from a philosopher who lived in the 1100's to defend Whoopi Goldberg. All she needs is teaching and reflection. Right. And so shouldn't that then go for EVERYBODY who says something outrageous? Whether they be a celebrity, a politician, a journalist, or anybody else? The article goes on to quoting others who defend Whoopi. The shrews on The View aren't exactly "understanding" of others who they simply don't like. I'm not convinced all of Whoopi's defenders would just as strongly trip over themselves to defend certain other people.

Yes, it is a big pro Whoopi puff piece.

Im so sorry that that’s your perspective. To me the essay was much more about forgiveness, antisemitism and education.

 

[CarryOn2020]

Haven’t read the NYT article. This article explains why WG’s comments are beyond inappropriate. It’s worth your time to read it.

FYI - I’m looking forward to the day The View is cancelled. It contributes and has contributed to creating a culture where people yell to make their unsubstantiated points. The universe needs less of this bs. IMO.

Can Whoopi Goldberg’s public history lesson actually do some good?

Goldberg’s comments reflect a growing national ignorance about the Holocaust. What happened next could be a model for how we move forward.

www.vox.com

 

[purselovah91]

She's correct because there is indeed only one race - the human race.

She's incorrect because she takes race from a US POV, which in itself is colonialist since US culture now equates with international. US based academic and popular theory on centred on race, mostly based on segregation laws and then trying to make sense on race outside of the 'territory' and experience. Jews 'pass' for white in the US - unless they go to temple where they're held hostage at gun point or children are spat on in the streets of Brooklyn.

Race isn't based on colourism, a term we now only ascribe to countries that are predominantly non-white to use light to represent 'fair' and deeper skin-tone to mean less beautiful/worthy/intelligent etc. There is unfortunately racism between people of the same or similar skin-tone too. Just because Whoppie is a WOC doesn't mean she can't be racist.

Whoopie made up she was Jewish years ago after a charity cookery recipe was full of stereotypical and quite hideous 'jokes'. Her PR at the time said she couldn't be anti-Semitic because she was partly Jewish. That's acknowledged now as a lie. Had she converted to Judaism, there's no reason why she couldn't religiously be a practising Jew, but she didn't, she changed her name that sounded Jewish because she thought it would help her ambitions. Kinda funny when you consider how many Jewish actors and industry insiders changed their name to anglicised version to make them more acceptable.

Before WWII, German (and European) academics as well as many others wrote reams of texts on 'the Wandering Jew' about how these 'Orientals' were like the desert dunes of their homeland, their exoticism and strangeness, so unlike the European. They lived all over the globe including Africa, India and S. America, but were often singled-out as a different race from the main. Their nomadic existence in tolerant (or not) host countries was apparently incidental, it was apparently their race that made them 'X' or 'Y'.

In more recent years, Jews are often called European even when they're born in the Middle East (or anywhere else). This is a political POV, not a scientific one, and it's why being anti-Israel can be anti-Semitic (although not always). Making Jews White is a way of making them European and thereby, by implication colonisers, not a race that has been victimised since Roman times. This is why what Whoopie said is at best dangerous ignorance and, taking her past into account and in the current climate may not be just a view.

So are you saying Jews are a different race of people? And therefore they should not identify as White? Just trying to understand

 

[papertiger]

So are you saying Jews are a different race of people? And therefore they should not identify as White? Just trying to understand

Whoopie was referencing the past. She said the 30s/40s Holocaust was not about race, I was explaining why it was. By saying it wasn't because Jews were/are white (hence privileged in today's identity-politics rhetoric) she denies not only that they were treated as a different race at that time (as were Slavs and 'Gypsies') but repeats many of the tropes and falsehoods said by others about Jews today.

Race discrimination

Explains what is meant by race discrimination, according to the Equality Act 2010.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk

"Race discrimination is when you’re treated unfairly because of one of the following things:

• colour
• nationality
• ethnic origin
• national origin.

You can be discriminated against because you belong to a certain racial group. People who share the same colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins are part of the same racial group."

In the UK (where I live) by law, Jews come under ethnic origin whatever their colour, nationality or national origin:

"Ethnic origins
The law says an ethnic group is a group who share the same history and cultural traditions. In addition, the group may share one or more of the following things:

• the same language
• the same religion
• the same literature
• the same geographical origin
• being an oppressed group
• being a minority.

The courts have said that Irish Travellers, Jews, Romany Gypsies and Sikhs are all ethnic groups."

An unprovoked crime against anyone who is part of any of the above would said to be racially motivated.

I think Jews should be able to identify as they (the jewish individual) wish(es) but in agreement with the laws I live under, they should still be protected them from discrimination and crime because they are part of a community that is part of the same ethnicity (all the above).

 

[Silverplume]

Well done, Paper Tiger.

 

[Roxanna]

Thank you, Paper Tiger!

 

[prettyprincess]

She's correct because there is indeed only one race - the human race.

She's incorrect because she takes race from a US POV, which in itself is colonialist since US culture now equates with international. US based academic and popular theory on centred on race, mostly based on segregation laws and then trying to make sense on race outside of the 'territory' and experience. Jews 'pass' for white in the US - unless they go to temple where they're held hostage at gun point or children are spat on in the streets of Brooklyn.

Race isn't based on colourism, a term we now only ascribe to countries that are predominantly non-white to use light to represent 'fair' and deeper skin-tone to mean less beautiful/worthy/intelligent etc. There is unfortunately racism between people of the same or similar skin-tone too. Just because Whoppie is a WOC doesn't mean she can't be racist.

Whoopie made up she was Jewish years ago after a charity cookery recipe was full of stereotypical and quite hideous 'jokes'. Her PR at the time said she couldn't be anti-Semitic because she was partly Jewish. That's acknowledged now as a lie. Had she converted to Judaism, there's no reason why she couldn't religiously be a practising Jew, but she didn't, she changed her name that sounded Jewish because she thought it would help her ambitions. Kinda funny when you consider how many Jewish actors and industry insiders changed their name to anglicised version to make them more acceptable.

Before WWII, German (and European) academics as well as many others wrote reams of texts on 'the Wandering Jew' about how these 'Orientals' were like the desert dunes of their homeland, their exoticism and strangeness, so unlike the European. They lived all over the globe including Africa, India and S. America, but were often singled-out as a different race from the main. Their nomadic existence in tolerant (or not) host countries was apparently incidental, it was apparently their race that made them 'X' or 'Y'.

In more recent years, Jews are often called European even when they're born in the Middle East (or anywhere else). This is a political POV, not a scientific one, and it's why being anti-Israel can be anti-Semitic (although not always). Making Jews White is a way of making them European and thereby, by implication colonisers, not a race that has been victimised since Roman times. This is why what Whoopie said is at best dangerous ignorance and, taking her past into account and in the current climate may not be just a view.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I do disagree that being critical of Israels actions and policies against the indigenous population is anti-Semitic. They too should be protected from discrimination and crime.

 

[limom]

WG did everything she could to manage the situation.
She misspoke and immediately apologized the next day.
She also had the person from the ADL on the program to explain why what she said was offensive.
She is a noted friend/supporter to the Jewish community.
I never expected her to be suspended for two weeks. Especially after all the misguided things she has said in the past….
It is going to be interesting to see how she deals with returning on the show and how the other hosts will interact with her.

 

[OriginalBalenciaga]

@limom so good to see you back, I hope everything is okay!!! ❤️