Skip to main content

View Diary: A Jew Gene Jamboree! (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll try to find a link. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crose, Fire bad tree pretty

    I read a bunch of reviews a few days ago. My understanding is that he uses the case of the Khazars, but also of mass conversions in Yemen and among North African Berbers to argue that proselytism and conversion were more widespread than is generally acknowledged.

    But I haven't read the book. And neither have you. And that inevitably makes this a pretty stupid discussion.

    I did go and look at the reviews on Amazon and the pattern there was pretty clear. The people who wrote favorable reviews had actually read the book, while those writing negative reviews had quite clearly not. That doesn't mean there aren't peopel with legitimate criticisms, but I really find it odd for someone to be so aggressively promoting negative reviews of a book they have not themselves even read.

    •  now finish the sentence... (5+ / 0-)

      but I really find it odd for someone to be so aggressively promoting negative reviews of a book they have not themselves even read

      ... promoting a white-power myth about the non-Jewishness of the Jews.

      Gosh, why on earth would that be in any way problematic?

      harps and angels! harps and angels!

      by zemblan on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 07:05:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

        IF that is what Sand is promoting. But that is a question that can only be settled by ACTUALLY READING THE BOOK.

        Is Sand arguing that Ashkenazi Jews are really Khazars and therefore not "really Jews"? Or is he arguing something else about the very nature of national identities and myths. The reviews I've read suggest strongly that your characterization is incorrect.

        I don't know if you really care. Maybe you figure that the political conclusions that Sand draws are bad enough and that the actual questions of scholarship aren't really the issue and that what is important is to trash the book. That certainly seems to be the MO of the folks posting negative reviews on Amazon.

        •  give it a rest (6+ / 0-)

          IF that is what Sand is promoting. But that is a question that can only be settled by ACTUALLY READING THE BOOK.

          Or seeing the reviews unanimously agree that this is what he's doing.

          Really. Time to stop hyperventilating. You made your point - again and again - and it's really not much of a point. I can go to Amazon.com and find people going on in great detail about how wonderful David Irving is.

          And your attitude of "so zemblan's pointed to several different review articles all showing how Sand is repeating a white power meme against the Jews - and this matters exactly why?" is doing you no credit.

          harps and angels! harps and angels!

          by zemblan on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 07:48:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I read the reviews (0+ / 0-)

            that you  linked to. They are all to one degree or another tendentious and ultimately non-serious. They are ideologically motivated. Which is not to say they may not make some legitimate points. But it really is impossible to know without reading the book.

            You don't like being asked if you've read a book that you are blowing hot air about more than once? Too fricking bad. When you slander people by comparing what they've written to the work of Nazis and you haven't actually read it, you should expect to be taken to task until you stop.

            What you are doing here is deeply intellectually dishonest. It is really outrageous and you have no right to expect to get a pass on it.

            •  ideologically motivated? (5+ / 0-)

              i see - the yahoo's on amazon now have more weigh as book critics than the new york times and/or a bioligist cited in the book in question?!?!

              i'll make a deal with you christopher. if you go out and purchase a copy of mein kampf, i will go out and but sand's book. then we each can write a diary whereby we discuss the merits of the author's theories. deal?

              "I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

              by canadian gal on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:20:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was referring (0+ / 0-)

                to the reviews that Zemblan linked to. I'm sorry if that was unclear (but it shouldn't have been).

                RE: your deal. No thank you. You deserve a donut for that, but my money says none of your pals here will give it to you.

                •  ? (5+ / 0-)

                  i understand what reviews you were referring to. but you also claimed defense of this book by citing the reviewers on amazon. so if one is to understand your line of reasoning, then you are lending more credence to a random (or perhaps not) individual who rated it on amazon positively rather than the published links zemblan cited in the NYT and other publications. in fact, if you read brook's (a source used by sand's in his book) comment in one of the reviews - he pwned sand so hard that he must still be smarting from it.

                  and why should i be HR'ed for my comment?  it is an extremely appropriate offer.

                  "I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

                  by canadian gal on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:46:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Suggesting that I (0+ / 0-)

                    believe that Hitler's theories have merit would get you a well-earned knuuckle sandwich anywhere but cyberspace. But hey, whats a little Godwin when you are among friends.

                    I referred to the review on Amazon only because it actually reviewed Sands overall argument, something that the reviews in more prestigious fora largely failed to do.

                    •  frankly... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      volleyboy1

                      this is not about you or what you believe. so perhaps, you can take the knuckle sandwich elsewhere. this is about discussing the merits of a book that pretty much is in the same category.

                      "I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

                      by canadian gal on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:32:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How long (0+ / 0-)

                        have Mein Kampf and the Protocols been on the Israeli bestseller list?

                        You actually have no basis for making this judgement. You haven't read the book and its only been in print a short time.

                        •  i see. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          zemblan, hikerbiker

                          so the argument that because it sold well in israel makes debunked and offensive theories valid. perhaps ms. palin's book sales indicate that she credibility then?

                          "I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

                          by canadian gal on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:24:02 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How long has Glenn Beck been (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hikerbiker, canadian gal

                            on the US bestseller list?

                            harps and angels! harps and angels!

                            by zemblan on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:52:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't argue that it was valid. (0+ / 0-)

                            You see I don't make such arguments about books I haven't read.

                            Rather, and you should be able to see this without having it explained, I suggested that the fact that book had been on Israel's bestseller list for 19  weeks might indicate that it doesn't really fall into the category of Mein Kampf and the Protocols. Which is quite a different thing arguing that its claims are valid. A minimum condition in my view for determining the validity of an argument is first determining what the argument is. I am not at all confident that any of you here actually know what Stone's real argument is, let alone where specific claims fit in to it.

                            In any event your willingness to compare it to mein Kampf indicates that you aren't really interested in finding out.

                          •  you have made.... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zemblan, hikerbiker

                            at least 25 comments in this thread by my count all repeating the same claim over and over. i think you have made your opinion abundantly clear - its just that there doesn't seem to be much agreement for it.

                            i am also not understanding why you think that there is somehow a difference in reading, or not-reading in this case, this book but not others like mein kampf. so again - if will extend the offer that i made before to you, which is that if you would like for us both to read the books i suggested and write on them respectively, i am game.

                            oh and i think you meant sand's, not stone's argument.

                            "I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

                            by canadian gal on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 05:39:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Tedium tedium tedium tedium (0+ / 0-)

                          You've made your point over and over and over and over.

                          harps and angels! harps and angels!

                          by zemblan on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:53:08 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  212 comments (0+ / 0-)

                in a diary about a book that NOBODY here has actually read. A book that has only been out in English for a month. And 99% of them are agreed that the book -- that they haven't read -- is absolutely terrible and not to be read.

                Anybody care to offer a psychological analysis of what that is all about?

                Okay, I will. You know that this book is being taken seriously and that it is being discussed. Indeed it was a bestseller for 19 weeks in Israel. So you need to collectively reassure yourselves of your verdict in advance, so that you can happily go around comparing it to Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and laughing at the suggestion that you should actually read the thing before forming an opinion.

                This is basically an online talking points training/pep rally so that you can all now confidently do what Zemblan has done and hold forth on a book you haven't read. Its intellectually dishonest in the extreme, but since most people you'll be talking with aren't going to read the book most of them won't need to know that you haven't either and that you are basically talking out of your asses.

                Carry on.

            •  and with a wave of the hand (3+ / 0-)

              They are all to one degree or another tendentious and ultimately non-serious.

              Translation: they attack a book I defend, so they're "non-serious."

              What crap, CD. You've really outdone yourself on this thread, whipping yourself into a trolling frenzy and then letting loose with things like the above.

              harps and angels! harps and angels!

              by zemblan on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 06:39:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ideologically motivated? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bouwerie Boy, canadian gal

              Isn't Sands' book ideologically motivated? If ideological motivation undercuts a review, surely it also undercuts the piece being reviewed.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 12:19:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You're trolling. Please stop. (5+ / 0-)

          You've made your point countless times throughout the comments.

          •  I'm sure there is no (0+ / 0-)

            repetition of themes in other peoples posts.

            Asking people whether they have read the book they are pontificating on isn't "trolling."

            •  to quote CD (3+ / 0-)

              Anybody care to offer a psychological analysis of what that is all about?

              Sure. People like CD want to embrace a pseudoscience, pseudohistory book for purely political reasons, and when it turns out not to be a big stick after all, and its central argument turns out to be not only crap but the exact same crap you get out of the white power folks, then he went into a spamarama hoping to just shout everybody down.

              harps and angels! harps and angels!

              by zemblan on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 06:42:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  My Suspicion (0+ / 0-)

      is that a lot of the negative reviews are jumping over what sounds like a difficult going first chapter on the formation of national identities in general and then as a result misreading what Sand is actually saying about the Khazars, which as I understand it is NOT that they replaced the descendants of ancient Hebrews, but rather that they are one of several known convert populations that probably had a significant impact on the Ashkenazi population.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site