Gentiles must cease their relentless cultural appropriation of bagels

April 4, 2016 • 11:00 am

There is much talk about cultural appropriation these days, as oppressed groups are waking up to the great harm that has been done to them by PoPs (persons of power) who simply steal aspects of minority culture. This shameless theft has involved everything from mis-prepared General Tso’s chicken in college cafeterias to Americans being allowed to try on kimonos for fun—and even to dreadlocks being worn by white people.

It’s distressing that this rampant borrowing of foods, clothing, hairstyles, and behaviors from their proper cultures isn’t merely done, but done without acknowledging the oppression that historically weighed on the offended groups. The fact that General Tso’s chicken, for instance, is not a real Chinese dish should not distract us from the fact that it’s regularly enjoyed by Westerners wholly ignorant of the atrocities committed by the Japanese on the Chinese during World War II.

But one oppressed group has been the victim of rampant cultural appropriation without the slightest acknowledgement, recognition, or opprobrium. I am referring, of course, to the Jews.

Although cultural theft from Jews is rampant (look at the Yiddish words and phrases like “oy vey,” “nosh”, and “schmuck” that regularly litter the language of oppressive Christians), I want to mention perhaps its clearest instantiation in America—the pervasive consumption of bagels.

I’ll be brief, but I need to establish three things: Jews are an oppressed minority, bagels are a Jewish food, and borrowing foodstuffs from Jews is clearly cultural appropriation. That appropriation is, by the way, defined in its most Sophisticated Form as follows:

. . . a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group.

And let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about Jews not being oppressed, regardless of your take on Israel. Historically, Jews are probably the most oppressed religious group, driven from land to land—and pogrom to pogrom—by Christians who viewed them as killers of Christ. Jews were, of course, nearly exterminated in Europe by the Germans, and still experience discrimination everywhere, including the U.S. Remember that only 0.2% of the world’s population is Jewish (in contrast, 22% is Muslim and 5% is Buddhist), and even in America Jews make up only 2% of the population. (I estimate that at least 94.7% of Americans have eaten a bagel.)

Therefore, any element of Jewish culture taken over by non-Jews is cultural appropriation, pure and simple. One might call it Gentile Entitlement.

I thought of this a few weeks ago when I was in a campus coffee shop and observed several students noshing on bagels with cream cheese—students who were clearly not Jewish. And as they shoveled the snack into their maws, they were just as clearly ignorant of the history behind that donut-shaped bread. How dare they be?

Bagels are an Eastern European Jewish food, and combining them with cream cheese and lox, while a later invention, is clearly a Jewish comestible as well. In an article in the Independent on the offense commited by white people who wear dreadlocks, author Wedaeli Chibelushi notes that the real problem is not just cultural theft, but ignorance of the oppression experienced by the co-opted group:

As the black actress Amandla Stenberg says, “appropriation occurs when the appropriator is not aware of the deep significance of the culture that they are partaking in”. By wearing dreadlocks without acknowledging their symbolic resistance, Goldstein reduces cultural power to a “cool” trend.  As part of the oppressive culture, he emulates minority tradition while bypassing the discriminations that comes with it.

But as far as that criticism goes for dreadlocks, it goes ten times farther for bagels. After all, not many white people wear dreadlocks, but nearly every goy eats bagels. Not only that, but even the concept of bagels as Jewish food has been stolen by Gentiles. Take, for example, the offensively named “Einstein Bros. Bagel” chain, a name conjuring up Jews (after all, it brings to mind the world’s most famous Jew after Jesus). But it’s a name that’s wholly confected. There are no Einstein Brothers: the name was made up by the Boston Market corporation to sell bagels.

It’s time to bring this to a halt. If you find yourself craving or ordering bagels, at least be mindful of the two millennia of oppression and bigotry weighing on the people who lovingly shaped each ring of bread. And think about how the genuine article, a small chewy circle, has been completely transformed by goyim into a large circular and tasteless pillow of dough. (The use of steamed rather than fried meat in General Tso’s Chicken pales before such corruption.) If these thoughts don’t occur to you as you have your bagel, you don’t deserve to eat it.

As genuine bagel eaters might say, “Hent avek aundzunder beygelekh.” (“Hands off our bagels.”)

bagel-lox1000a
This is Jewish.

Charlie Hebdo on Brussels bombings: “the first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent”

April 4, 2016 • 9:30 am

The online Charlie Hebdo posted an editorial about the Brussels bombings, “How did we end up here?” They’re not much bothered to single out a cause, even one involving religion, merely noting that everyone will choose their favorite provocation. Instead, the editorial points out the not-so-subtle ways that Islam is discouraging criticism of itself. Take Swiss Islam-apologist Tariq Ramadan—please:

All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion. Rather like lecture by a Professor of Pies who is also a pie-maker. Thus judge and contestant both.

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

We’re all too familiar with intimidation of this sort, which only works for Islam because of fear of retribution. The editorial gives more examples of Taria-ism (sadly, neither Glenn Greenwald nor Reza Aslan are mentioned), and then the writer affixes some blame for terrorism on its victims:

And yet, none of what is about to happen in the airport or metro of Brussels can really happen without everyone’s contribution. Because the incidence of all of it is informed by some version of the same dread or fear. The fear of contradiction or objection. The aversion to causing controversy. The dread of being treated as an Islamophobe or being called racist. Really, a kind of terror. And that thing which is just about to happen when the taxi-ride ends [the ride of the three bombers to the Brussels airport] is but a last step in a journey of rising anxiety. It’s not easy to get some proper terrorism going without a preceding atmosphere of mute and general apprehension.

Umm. . . I’m not so sure about that. It all has to begin somewhere, before there is fear, and the modern spate of Islamist terrorism preceded the fear of criticizing it. After all, you don’t become shy of criticizing a religion until people have killed in its name.

And the peroration:

The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It’s an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow.

Presumably, the point is to inform us of the terrorists’ message: violence will stop as soon as we stop criticizing Islam—or pointing out some of its incompatibilities with Enlightenment-informed democracies.

Charlie Hebdo is right that we should never, ever, stop criticizing irrationality, even if it puts us in danger. But even if we did, would that stop the terrorism, as the editorial implies? I don’t think so. The beef of Islamist terrorists isn’t criticism of their faith, but the incompatibility they see between their religion and modern secular society.

h/t: Jószef

Spot the cat

April 4, 2016 • 8:30 am

I’m pretty much a jet-lagged wreck right now, having not gone to bed since arriving in Chicago at 1 a.m. after a two-day attempt to get here from Delhi. But all is well: the stone Ganesha that I was given by the Institute of Life Sciences in Bhubaneswar survived in one piece (it has my name, the date, and the occasion of my visit engraved on the back!), as did the two jars of Indian honey given me by three nice godless people whom I met for coffee in Bangalore. Now I will try to get back on track. Substance will be thin for a day or two.

Stephen Knight, aka Godless Spellchecker, sent a photo with the note, “I’m currently in Rome taking in the sights. A few cats live in the Colosseum. Managed to snap one. Can you find it?”

Can you? (Click to enlarge.)

20160401_140156

Here’s where the bird really is

April 4, 2016 • 7:00 am

For those who care about these things, I have to issue a correction: I misidentified the bird in the “spot-the-bird-among-the-leaves” photo I posted the other day. Reader Bruce Lyon sent in the true position and some notes:

In the event that anybody is interested, here is a lightened version of your recent spot the bird post showing that the blob in the center was a leaf and that the bird was to the left. Even without photoshop I was suspicious based on shape but Photoshop brought out the green in the central leaves.

p1100285-1

I stand corrected, and ashamed. . .

 

Monday: Hili dialogue

April 4, 2016 • 6:30 am

I’m home at last! In fact, it’s now 2:07 a.m. on Monday—a time when I’m awake about once a year (our plane landed at O’Hare about an hour ago, giving us an 18-hour delay. But I did manage to avoid the snorer: though still seated next to him on the 15-hour flight, when I decided to sleep I managed to find an empty bed/seat in another part of the cabin. Besides discovering that Air India isn’t so great at communicating with customers, I also watched Ben-Hur for the first time and discovered that not only is it a dreadful movie, but Charlton Heston was a dreadful actor. Live and learn.  The only good movie on tap on the plane was one I’d seen a gazillion times—”On the Waterfront”—and so I mostly read and slept. There’s a lot to be said for business-class status for long haul trips, but I’m still to0 cheap to pay for it myself.

On this day in 1841, William Henry Harrison became the first U.S. President to die in office, and the one with the shortest tenure: he was President for 30½ days. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Notables born on this day include Dorothea Dix (1802), Muddy Waters (1913), Clive Davis (1932), and Robert Downey, Jr. (1965). Those who died on this day include Johnny Stompanato (1958, stabbed to death by Lana Turner’s daughter), Gloria Swanson (1983), and Roger Ebert (2013). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Andrzej is messing with Hili:

Hili: Do you see the same as I do?
A: If you see the same as I do, then yes, I do.
P1030980
In Polish:
Hili: Czy ty widzisz to samo, co ja widzę?
Ja: Jeśli ty widzisz, to samo co ja widzę, to tak.

Reader Anne-Marie from Montreal, our premier Squirrel Photographer, sent a lovely photo of an American Red Squirrel (Tamiascirus hudsonicus):

DSCN1998

Amy Winehouse: “I love you more than you’ll ever know”

April 3, 2016 • 2:30 pm

I first heard this song on the classic rock album “Child is Father to the Man,” (1968), by Blood, Sweat & Tears. It was written by Al Kooper—one of several great songs on that underappreciated debut album (Kooper soon left the group and was replaced by David Clayton-Thomas). Do listen to the original version here.

But since we’re listening to La Winehouse these days, have a listen to her cover. This is Amy as the classic club chanteuse, long dress and long gloves.

I love the bit of post-song patter in her London accent.

Air France decides it’s okay to insult women

April 3, 2016 • 1:00 pm

by Grania

Air France is in the middle of a row with their staff members after instructing female crew members to cover their heads and wear loose jackets and trousers when they travel to Iran. Staff point out that it is against French law to require them to wear “ostentatious religious symbols”.

Air France’s response to their objections can crudely be summarised as this:

That’s nothing, just wait until you see what we make our female staff wear when they go to Saudi Arabia.

The staff are not objecting to wearing head coverings while out of uniform in Iran, but object to it being made a part of their uniform.

This is yet another example of the grossly insulting “respect” shown to totalitarian and misogynistic regimes in the name of religion. Worse, it shows very clearly that when the dignity of actual women is measured against respecting religion; religion wins every time, even in the secular West, even in liberal countries, even places where women ought to be safe from the dictates of fanatical parochial conservative males.

Not only does this sort of mealy-mouthed appeasement of ridiculous and misogynistic dress codes betray Western women; it also insults the women and men of Iran who campaign against the hijab and similar suffocating and illiberal laws.

Here’s a thought-exercise for those of you who might be thinking that maybe this isn’t something worth protesting.

If the southern states of the USA still practised slavery, how palatable would you find it if multinationals required black staff members to wear special garments if they traveled to those regions so as not to offend the status quo?

I’m guessing you would think that repulsive and outrageous; and you would be right.

It may seem a little extreme of an example, and yes, it is. It isn’t a perfect analogy. But why is it always the dignity and self-determination of women that is expected to take a back seat when secularism meets Islam or any other ultra-conservative religion?

Whether we are talking about segregation of sexes at gatherings, absurdly archaic dress codes, seating arrangements on airplanes or prohibition of women from entering certain premises; religion is allowed to trump equality even in countries which claim to champion women’s rights. It’s morally reprehensible, and in many cases it is actually illegal. But it won’t go away until companies and organisations realise that they are better off siding with women than with regressive religions. And that is not going to happen until people complain bitterly and publicly every time this sort of thing happens.

hijab-landscape