Joanna
Liza Featherstone wrote:
>I actually think "Saudi" money is OK, just as it's OK to talk about U.S. or
>Israeli or British or French money. And we do talk about U.S. money: the US
>money in Israel sustaining the occupation, etc. The reason the term "Jewish
>money" creeps us out -- and it should -- is because "Jews" qua Jews are not
>a nationality or government or any kind of body from whom "money" can
>reasonably said to originate. Jews cannot as a body write a check. Some
>Jews as individuals send money to pro-Israeli groups, others send money to
>anti-war groups, or subscribe to LBO. To talk about "Jewish money"
>substitutes a racist cliche for analysis, as we all agree. Inasmuch as talk
>about "Saudi" money is similarly not always about the government, it risks a
>similar racism, but when we make clear we are talking about the Saudi
>elites, who effectively do run the country, I think it is acceptable. I
>think Moore in his film did do that, especially with the shots of Bush
>senior cavorting with the Saudi ruling class. There the message was not,
>look, he's hanging out with these weird scary Arabs, but rather, look how
>comfortable he is with other rich people, regardless of apparent cultural
>barriers. Unlike Clinton, Bush I was not a guy was often shown relaxing and
>kicking back with people very different from himself, so the image is
>striking, making you think, oh, maybe they are not so different: perhaps
>globally, the ruling class is his "base" rather than the American people who
>voted for him.
>
>Liza
>
>
>
>
>>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:15:38 -0400
>>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia
>>
>>On Jul 11, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You are completely missing my point here. I'm saying that, *just as
>>>it is not acceptable to speaks of "Jewish money,"* it is *not*
>>>acceptable to speak of "Saudi money," and that, while leftists
>>>*correctly* recognize and criticize the former problem, many of them
>>>are evidently *incapable of recognizing the latter problem,* let alone
>>>criticizing it, as your replies to me demonstrate.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, I'm glad to hear that you do not think that "Jewish money" is an
>>acceptable term, and I agree that "Saudi money" would not be either. (I
>>think that when people do use that term, they use it as a sort of
>>sloppy short-hand for "money from the Saudi royal family and other
>>wealthy Saudis," who presumably could be specified as individuals, so
>>it is not a calumny on the whole country.)
>>
>>I have another theory, different from yours, about why Moore put so
>>much about Saudis and not about Israel in his film. But I still think
>>that the question of why he put certain things in his film and not
>>others is not one that we can profitably speculate about without any
>>input from the man himself. What people who are curious about that need
>>to do is to ask Moore himself, or an authorized representative of him.
>>But I imagine they are a bit too busy these days to answer promptly.
>>:-)
>>
>>If anyone wants to put out a hard-hitting doc on Israel's role in world
>>affairs, and I think the subject is important enough to justify a film
>>on that specific topic, they are quite free to do so. There have been
>>any number of them produced and distributed in this country over the
>>years, as well as numerous books,'zine articles, web sites, etc., etc.
>>I don't think there is any Jewish cabal, monied or not, that has the
>>power to prevent the U.S. public from hearing about the faults of the
>>Israeli government. Indeed, as many people have pointed out, there are
>>quite a few Jewish individuals, or persons of Jewish heritage, who are
>>strongly critical of the Israeli government, starting with the Chomster
>>himself. So where is the censorship?
>>
>>Of course, it's always been true that people with money, whatever their
>>ethnic background, have been able to influence what the public sees and
>>reads to an inordinate extent: "the press is free to those who can
>>afford to buy one," as the old saying goes. But this saying is less and
>>less true these days. The article in yesterday's NY Times Magazine,
>>"How to Make a Guerrilla Documentary," discusses Robert Greenwald's
>>upcoming "Outfoxed," as well as his film "Uncovered" about Iraq. The
>>latter is coming out next month in theaters, in an expanded version,
>>according to the Times story, so it will provide the 2nd punch of a
>>"1-2 punch," after F911. The method Greenwald has been using --
>>distributing films as DVDs through left-wing periodicals and orgs like
>>MoveOn, and then in theaters if the demand builds enough -- is one way
>>of getting around the "press is free if you can buy one" obstacle which
>>will probably be used more and more in the future.
>>
>>
>>Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
>>__________________________________
>>When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit,
>>'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet;
>>Nor ever ever shall, until that I die,
>>For the longer I live the more fool am I.
>>-- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>