#11 Asian Girls
January 20, 2008 by mylosh
Please note that this is one area where white women are exempt from, but they should be exempt from other things such as voting and participation in Division 1 sports.
95% of white males have at one point in their lives, experienced yellow fever. Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon such as guilt from head taxes, internment camps, dropping the Nuclear bomb and the Viet Nam War . This exchange works both ways as asian girls have a tendency to go for white guys. (White girls never go for asian guys. Bruce Lee and Paul Kariya’s dad are the only recorded instances in modern history). Asian girls often to do this to get back at their strict traditional fathers. There is also the option of dating black guys, but they know deep down that this would give their non-english speaking grandmother(s) a heart attack.
White men love asian women so much that they will go to extremes such as stating that Sandra Oh is sexy, teaching English in Asia, playing in a coed volleyball league, or attending institutions such as UBC or UCLA (please note that both schools’ colors of “blue” and “yellow” are intentional also the “A” in “UCLA” stand for “Asian” while the “B” in “UBC” stands for “Billion” try and figure out what the rest of the letters stand for). Another factor that draws white guys to asian women is that white women are jealous of them.
Take for instance the fact that asian women well into their 30s and 40s retain teen / college girl looks without the help of botox, yoga or a trendy diet (future posts). Asian women also avoid key white women characteristics such as having a mid life crisis, divorce, and hobbies that don’t involve taking care of the children (also future posts). Should white guy / asian girl marry, they produce hybrids that are atheistically pleasing, but are very annoying. This practice is also a means by which white people can catch up to the asian peoples in the population race, as most of the hybrids often act white rather than asian.
references: Bananas, Toyota Prius, Michelle Branch, California Roll, Johnny Damon, Kristen Kreuk, 40% of Vancouver’s population
Pages: [320] 319 318 317 316 315 314 313 312 311 310 … 1 » Show All
better to informe people instead of deleting very useful information in times when fundamentalists muslims plan to attack twitter and youtube.
Thanks for showing the posts and your comprehension , this is time to act.
Hey John R.,
I can learn a couple of things from you.
Excuse me to ask you this, do you have children?, what language(s) do you teach them??
No children yet…at least born. One on the way. My wife is due with our first child (happens to be a boy) in April 2009.
I will insist that my children learn, as a second language, Mandarin Chinese.
Another language that I would like them to learn is Spanish, given the increasing Spanish speaking population. I really wish I had practiced my Spanish after highschool. I didn’t and forgot alot. I have alot of Spanish speaking patients…love them.
I’m trying my best to relearn as much as possible.
By GEETA ANAND, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, YAROSLAV TROFIMOV and ZAHID HUSSAIN
MUMBAI — India has accused a senior leader of the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba of orchestrating last week’s terror attacks that killed at least 172 people here, and demanded the Pakistani government turn him over and take action against the group.
Just two days before hitting the city, the group of 10 terrorists who ravaged India’s financial capital communicated with Yusuf Muzammil and four other Lashkar leaders via a satellite phone that they left behind on a fishing trawler they hijacked to get to Mumbai, a senior Mumbai police official told The Wall Street Journal. The entire group also underwent rigorous training in a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, the official said.
Several extremist groups have targeted India over the years. Here, the wreckage of a car damaged by a bomb blast lies in front of the Gateway of India in Mumbai on Aug. 25, 2003.
Mr. Muzammil had earlier been in touch with an Indian Muslim extremist who scoped out Mumbai locations for possible attack before he was arrested early this year, said another senior Indian police official. The Indian man, Faheem Ahmed Ansari, had in his possession layouts drawn up for the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel and Mumbai’s main railway station, both prime targets of last week’s attack, the police official said.
Mr. Ansari, who also made sketches and maps of locations in southern Mumbai that weren’t attacked, had met Mr. Muzammil and trained at the same Lashkar camp as the terrorists in last week’s attack, an official said.
U.S. officials agreed that Mr. Muzammil was a focus of their attention in the attacks, though they stopped short of calling him the mastermind. “That is a name that is definitely on the radar screen,” a U.S. counterterrorism official s
It also emerged Tuesday that U.S. authorities had warned Indian officials of a pending attack by sea. Hasan Gafoor, Mumbai police commissioner, told reporters there was a general warning issued in September that hotels could be targeted as well, after the bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad.
Two militants arrested in early 2007 also told police officials then that they were part of a band of eight Lashkar members who slipped into India by boat from Karachi, Pakistan, and made their way to Mumbai, an Indian police official in Kashmir said in an interview Tuesday. The group broke into pairs — just as last week’s attackers did — and made their way north using safehouses provided by local sympathizers, the police official said.
The evidence cited by investigators is giving fresh ammunition to the Indian government, which has long tried to pressure Pakistan into cracking down on Lashkar-e-Taiba. India claims the group enjoys support from elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Pakistan denies that and outlawed the organization in 2002, but has done little to curtail its operations.
Mr. Muzammil’s name is on a list of people — numbering about 20 in all — that India gave Pakistan earlier this week, demanding their immediate extradition, a senior Pakistani official told the Journal. The official said Pakistan was examining India’s list of suspects and has assured New Delhi that action would be taken against them if there is evidence of involvement in the attacks.
Any move by the shaky civilian government of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari against Lashkar-e-Taiba could create a huge backlash, however, particularly from Islamic groups, said a senior official in Pakistan. On Tuesday, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani convened a meeting of all of the country’s political parties in the capital to develop a joint response to Indian demands for extradition.
“The government of Pakistan has offered a joint investigation mechanism and we are ready to compose such a team which will help the investigation,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said in a televised statement. Mr. Qureshi, however, declined to say whether Pakistan would hand over any of those sought by India.
Indian authorities say evidence highlights how Lashkar has broadened its operations to include recruitment of both Indian and Pakistani Muslim extremists.
Lashkar-e-Taiba — literally Army of the Good — has been implicated by Indian officials in several recent terrorist attacks on Indian soil. The group initially focused on fighting the Indian army in the disputed state of Kashmir. Over the years, it has expanded its cause into the rest of India and aims to establish Islamic rule.
India has told Pakistan that the latest attacks in Mumbai were masterminded by Mr. Muzammil, aided by others in Lashkar’s senior ranks including an operative named Asrar Shah, according to a senior Pakistani official. Mr. Muzammil, a Pakistani in his mid-30s, became head of Lashkar-e-Taiba’s anti-Indian planning cell some three months ago, according to Dipankar Banerjee, director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, an independent think tank in New Delhi. Indian authorities believe he is in Pakistan but officials there haven’t acknowledged that.
India also claims the attacks were approved by Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, the Pakistani official said. Mr. Saeed is the head of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the parent organization of the Lashkar group. Mr. Saeed, who is free in Pakistan, denied the accusations. “India has always accused me without any evidence,” he told Pakistan’s GEO News television channel.
Indian investigators — helped in part by the testimony of the one terrorist they captured alive, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab — say they now possess solid proof. “We have made substantial progress in the investigation,” said A.N. Roy, director general of the State Police of Maharashtra, where Mumbai is located.
According to Mumbai police chief Hasan Gafoor, Mr. Kasab told interrogators that he and fellow gunmen spent between a year and 18 months in a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp.
An armed policeman guards the Victoria Terminus station on Tuesday in Mumbai.
The 10 militants left Pakistan’s port city of Karachi on Nov. 23 aboard a ship called the Al Husseini, which also carried a crew of seven, another senior police official said. Investigators believe that all the 10 gunmen were Pakistani because they spoke Punjabi or Punjabi-accented Urdu.
When they entered Indian waters, the terrorists hijacked a fishing trawler called the Kuber and took its five crew members prisoner. The terrorists transferred four of them to the Al Husseini and they were subsequently killed, police believe. The terrorists kept the Kuber’s lead crewman alive and sailed close to Mumbai.
The terrorists abandoned the Kuber in haste, fearing detection by an approaching vessel, the senior police official said. In the process, they forgot their satellite phone on the Kuber. Investigators found in the call log the numbers of five people, including Mr. Muzammil, two of his deputies and his personal aide, the senior police official said. Indian officials had already intercepted phone conversations made while the terrorists were traveling to Mumbai.
Indian Muslim leaders are skeptical of Lashkar’s reach into India. But police say Lashkar has increasingly sought contacts and recruits among Indian extremists. In October, for instance, five Muslims from the southern state of Kerala were recruited into Lashkar-e-Taiba and traveled to the Indian part of Kashmir, according to T.K. Vinod Kumar, Kerala’s deputy inspector-general of police. They tried to cross the line of control that runs between India and Pakistan and reach training camps on the Pakistani side.
Four among the group were killed in a firefight with the Indian military during that attempt. The fifth, construction worker Abdul Jabbar, was arrested two weeks ago, Mr. Kumar says.
Unlike other Pakistani-based jihadist organizations, Lashkar draws its recruits across a broad social spectrum, from universities as well as among unemployed youths. The majority come from Punjab; Mr. Kasab used to live in the Punjabi village of Faridkot, according to Indian investigators.
In March 2007 when two militants were arrested in the Indian-controlled section of Kashmir, the pair told police that Lashkar was looking to start slipping people into India from the sea to avoid heavily guarded land borders. The sea also provided a winter route to Kashmir for Lashkar members, when high mountain passes crossing to India’s part of the state are often blanketed by deep snow.
Revealed: Britain’s torture of Obama’s grandfatherHussein Onyango Obama, a British soldier in the second world war, was locked up as a Mau Mau rebel in KenyaComments (84) The past usually finds a way of catching up with us. Could Britain’s colonial sins pose a risk to our relationship with the soon-to-be most powerful person on Earth?
According to the Times, Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and tortured by the British during Kenya’s Mau Mau uprising.
The claim is spread across three pages of the newspaper and illustrated with black and white photographs of detention camps operated by British soldiers in the 1950s.
Hussein Onyango Obama, the president-elect’s paternal grandfather, had served with the British army in Burma during the second world war and later found work back in Kenya as a military cook.
Like many army veterans, he returned to Africa hoping to win greater freedoms. But his aspirations soon turned to resentment of the occupying British.
He became involved in the Mau Mau independence movement and was arrested as early as 1949, probably on charges of membership of a banned organisation.
During two years’ detention he was subjected to horrific violence, according to the story’s authors, Ben Macintyre and Paul Orengoh. Tortures inflicted on Kenyan prisoners sometimes involved such barbaric implements as “castration pliers”.
“The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” Sarah Onyango, 87, tells the Times.
The behaviour of British soldiers is the subject of continuing legal action in the UK courts from victims seeking reparations for torture and mistreatment suffered more than 50 years ago. The Kenyan Human Rights Commission is still gathering evidence.
The alleged torture of Onyango reportedly left him permanently scarred and bitterly anti-British. Barack Obama’s memoirs, the paper observes, show that he too is no admirer of British colonialism.
Obama’s family connection to the Mau Mau was already known – some US commentators have even used the label to smear him as a “Mau Mau insurgent”.
Obama, with more pressing contemporary problems on his plate, is unlikely to be fixated on extracting revenge from the UK. But he may draw the broader historical conclusion that the imposition of torture and repressive violence has a habit of undermining the political legitimacy of world-class powers.
He has already signalled his determination to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and speed up withdrawal from Iraq. We will have to wait and see whether his grandfather’s experience has a bearing on his policies on Afghanistan and international terrorism.
I just think all these interracial couples are so rampant because its become socially acceptable more and more to date outside your race as we all know and isn’t it nice to date someone with different features than what you are used to growing up with and surrounded by?
For a white guy, its probably nicer for him to be with an Asian woman because everything about her is so different from maybe the white women he dated in high school and college… her hair is darker, face shape is different, attitude is different, culture is different, experiences are different… and same thing goes for the asian woman’s feelings toward dating a white guy.
So, maybe all this doesn’t have to do with hating each other’s own races/daddy issues/self-hate, but more so because opposites attract.
Oh,
Who really knows what women (no matter the race) want? if any of us knew this, we wouldn’t be sharing on a blog. We would be selling our books and CDs…this would be worth more than gold!
Women are too complex for us men with our one-track, monovision minds to figure out. They will play head games that make the best of us nuts. And when playing the game right, women have many advantages in love.
We men like to strut around like proud peacocks but in the end we wind up pretty much hen-pecked. Like the mayflies: we wind up exhausted and dead long before our female counterparts. But, hell, we did have fun along the way.
Just kidding…some.
THE BENEFITS MADE BY JEWS
Most work in the field of Jewish history deals with the almost invariably vast impact of the outside world on the Jews, who are almost invariably a small minority of the population. My concern is with the impact of the Jews on the rest of humanity. And, in particular, with the explosive transformation of this impact in the 19th and 20th centuries: that is to say, since the emancipation and self-emancipation of the Jews began in the late 18th century.
Between their expulsion from Palestine in the first century AD and the 19th century, the Jews lived within the wider society of gentiles, whose languages they adopted as their own and whose cuisine they adapted to their ritual requirements; but only rarely and intermittently were they able and, what is equally to the point, willing, to participate in the cultural and intellectual life of these wider societies. Consequently their original contribution to this life was marginal, even in fields in which, since emancipation, their contribution has been enormous. Only as intermediaries between intellectual cultures, notably between the Islamic and Western Christian worlds in the (European) Middle Ages, did they have a significant part to play.
Consider a field of outstanding Jewish achievement: mathematics. So far as I am aware no significant developments in modern mathematics are specifically associated with Jewish names until the 19th century. Nor do we find that Jewish mathematicians made major advances which were only discovered by the wider mathematical world much later, as was the case of the Indian mathematicians whose work between the 14th and the 16th centuries, written in the Malayalam language, remained unknown until the second half of the 20th. Or take chess, the excessive practice of which was actively discouraged by religious authority in general and Maimonides in particular as a distraction from the study of the Law. No wonder the first Jewish chess player to gain a wider reputation was the Frenchman Aron Alexandre (1766-1850), whose life coincided with the emancipation.
This segregation or ghettoisation, both imposed and self-imposed, was at its most stringent between the 14th and the 18th centuries, and reinforced after 1492 by the expulsion of non-converting Jews from the Spanish dominions, including those in Italy. This reduced the occasions for social and intellectual contact with non-Jews, other than those that arose out of the professional activities that linked Jews to the gentile world. Indeed, it is difficult to think of Jews during that period who were in a position to have informal intellectual contact with educated gentiles outside the only major urban Jewish population remaining in the West, the largely Sephardi community of Amsterdam. Most Jews, after all, were either confined to ghettos or prohibited from settling in large cities until well into the 19th century.
As Jacob Katz observed in Out of the Ghetto (1973), in those days ‘the outside world did not overly occupy the Jewish mind.’ The elaborate codification of the practices of Orthodoxy that constituted the Jewish religion in the compendia of the time, notably the Shulchan Aruch, reinforced segregation; and the traditional form of Jewish intellectual activity, the homiletic exposition of Bible and Talmud and its application to the contingencies of Jewish life, left little scope for anything else. Rabbinical authority banned philosophy, science and other branches of knowledge of non-Jewish origin – even, in darkest Volhynia, foreign languages. The gap between intellectual worlds is best indicated by the fact that the rare advocates of emancipation among Eastern Jewry felt they needed to translate into Hebrew work evidently available to any educated person in the gentile print culture – Euclid, for example, or works on trigonometry, as well as on geography and ethnography.
The contrast between the situation before and after the era of emancipation is startling. After many centuries during which the intellectual and cultural history of the world, let alone its political history, could be written with little reference to the contribution of any Jews acceptable as such to the Orthodox, other than perhaps Maimonides, we almost immediately enter the modern era when Jewish names are disproportionately represented. It is as though the lid had been removed from a pressure cooker. Yet the prominence of certain names – Heine, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Ricardo, Marx, Disraeli – and the flourishing milieu of wealthy educated Jews in a few favoured cities, notably Berlin, should not mislead us. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars the great bulk of Ashkenazi Jews remained unintegrated in gentile society, in Germany as much as in Holland or the Habsburg Empire, except – a very recent development – administratively, as subjects with civil surnames. Even top families had some way to go: Marx’s mother never felt entirely at home in High German, and the first two generations of Rothschilds corresponded with one another in Judendeutsch in the Hebrew script. The Jews of the Central European hinterlands of the Habsburg Empire remained unaffected by emancipation until the 1840s at the earliest, when immigration into cities became possible, and very much later, in the case of those of Galicia and the Russian shtetls. Even in America, as Stephen Thernstrom reports in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, ‘until well into the 20th century the majority of the immigrants could recall, or had come directly from, a traditional Jewish society.’ The bulk of the Sephardim too remained in segregated enclaves. In fact, I doubt whether we can find any places before the French Revolution, except for small refugee communities in France and the Netherlands and the ancient communities in Northern Italy and the South of France, where the totality of Jews, and not merely the elite, were integrated into the surrounding society, where, for example, they habitually spoke the local gentile vernacular among themselves.
The process of Jewish emancipation therefore resembles not so much a suddenly gushing fountain as a tiny stream rapidly turning into a massive river. I have grouped together the mathematicians, physicists and chemists listed in the respective articles of the Encyclopaedia Judaica by birth dates. Only one in all these three groups was born before 1800, 31 were born in the first half of the 19th century, and 162 in the second half. (The analogous curve for medicine, the intellectual field in which pre-emancipation Jews were already established in the wider world, is less dramatic.) I need hardly add that at this stage we are concerned overwhelmingly with the Ashkenazi wing of Jewry, which formed a large and growing majority of the world’s Jewish population, and in particular with its increasing urbanisation. The number of Jews in Vienna jumped from fewer than four thousand in 1848 to 175,000 on the eve of the First World War.
It’s important not to underestimate the impact of small elites of the wealthy and educated – of the 405 Jewish families in early 19th-century Berlin, say. Pre-democratic liberal societies were constructed for the benefit of such groups. Thus the Italian Jews, though they represented 0.1 per cent of the population, might, under the restrictions of Italian electoral law, amount to 10 per cent of the electorate; the election of Cavour in the Kingdom of Savoy in 1851 was ensured by the votes of the Turin Jewish community. This may help to explain the rapid emergence of Jews on the Western and Central European public scene. So far as I am aware, they hardly appear in the French Revolution or among its European sympathisers, except, as one might expect, in the bourgeois milieu of the Netherlands. But by the time of the 1830 Revolutions, the Jewish presence in French politics, especially in the Midi, was already impossible to overlook. The same was true for Germany and Northern Italy: Mazzini’s secretary as well as several of his activists and financiers were Jews. By 1848, the prominence of Jews was quite startling. Crémieux, for example, immediately became a minister in the new French revolutionary government, while Daniel Manin became the leader of revolutionary Venice. Three Jews sat prominently in the Prussian Constituent Assembly, four in the Frankfurt Parliament (it was a Jew who, after its dissolution, saved its Great Seal, which was returned to the Federal Republic a few years ago by his British descendant). In Vienna, it was Jewish university students who launched the call for the March revolution, and Jews provided eight of the 29 signatures on the Manifesto of Viennese Writers. Metternich’s list of subversives in Austrian Poland contained no obvious Jewish names, but only a few years later Jews in Poland were expressing their enthusiasm for Polish freedom and a rabbi, elected to the Imperial Reichstag, sat with the Polish faction. In pre-democratic Europe, politics, even revolutionary politics, belonged to a small squadron of the educated.
There was no doubt in the minds of emancipators that two changes were essential: a degree of secularisation and education in, as well as the habitual use of, the national language, preferably, but not necessarily, an accepted language of written culture (think of the enthusiastically magyarised Jews of Hungary). By ‘secularisation’ I don’t mean that the Jewish faith had to be abandoned, though among the emancipated there was a rush to conversion, sincere or pragmatic, but that religion was no longer the unremitting, omnipresent and all-embracing framework of life. Instead, however important, it filled only part of life. This kind of secularisation ideally allowed the intermarriage or partnership of educated Jewish women with gentiles, which was to play a major role both culturally and later in (left-wing) politics. The relationship of women’s emancipation to Jewish emancipation is a very significant subject.
Primary education, necessarily in the vernacular, did not become universal until the last third of the 19th century, although near universal literacy could be assumed in large parts of Germany by mid-century. After 1811 it would have been technically difficult for a Jewish boy in Germany to avoid the public education system, and it was no longer virtually compulsory to learn the Hebrew letters in a religious establishment as it still was in the East. West of the borders of Russian and Austrian Poland, the cheder was no longer a competitor to the secular school. Secondary education, however, remained highly restricted throughout, ranging from a mid-century minimum of less than 0.1 per cent in Italy to a maximum in Prussia of less than 2 per cent of the relevant age-group; university education was even more restricted. As it happens, this maximised the chances of the children of disproportionately prosperous small communities such as the Jews, especially given the high status that learning enjoyed among them. That is why the Jewish share in Prussian higher education was at its maximum in the 1870s. It declined thereafter, as higher education began its general expansion.
To speak, read and write the same language as educated non-Jews was the precondition of joining modern civilisation, and the most immediate means of desegregation. However, the passion of emancipated Jews for the national language and culture of the gentile countries in which they lived was all the more intense, because in so many cases they were not joining, as it were, long-established clubs but clubs of which they could see themselves almost as founder members. They were emancipated at the time when a classic literature was coming into being for German, Hungarian and Polish, alongside the various national schools of music. What could be closer to the cutting edge of German literature than the milieu of Rahel Varnhagen in early 19th-century Berlin? As Theodor Fontane said of one impassioned Jewish emancipator, ‘only in the region he inhabits do we find a genuine interest in German literature.’ In much the same way, two or three generations later, emancipated Russian Jewish intellectuals fell, in Jabotinsky’s words, ‘madly, shamefully in love with Russian culture’. Only in the multilingual Levant did the absence of national linguistic cultures make language change less crucial. There, thanks to the Alliance Israélite Universelle of 1860, modernising Jews received their education in French, while continuing to speak, but no longer to write, in Judeo-Spanish, Arabic or Turkish.
Of all the emancipatory languages, German was by far the most crucial, for two reasons. Throughout half of Europe – from Berlin deep into Great Russia, from Scandinavia to the Adriatic, and into the far Balkans – the road from backwardness to progress, from provincialism to the wider world, was paved with German letters. We tend to forget that this was once so. German was the gateway to modernity. Karl-Emil Franzos’s story ‘Schiller in Barnow’, written on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Schiller, the classical voice of moral and political freedom for common readers of German in the 19th century, illustrates this wonderfully well. In the story a small, badly printed volume of Schiller’s poems becomes the medium through which a Dominican monk, a young Ruthenian village schoolmaster and a poor Jewish boy from a shtetl in what the author bitterly calls ‘Demi-Asia’ (‘Halb-Asien’) find the liberation that the 19th-century version of education and modern culture had to offer. The story culminates in a reading of the ‘Ode to Joy’. In the darkest East, Schiller was even translated into Hebrew. The emancipatory role of German explains why the city fathers of the most Jewish centre in Galicia, the town of Brody (76 per cent of its population was Jewish), insisted on German as the language of instruction in their schools. In 1880 they even fought – and won – their case in the imperial court in Vienna on the grounds, patently implausible, that this was a language of common use in Galicia.
It was not. Almost all eastern Jews spoke Yiddish, a German dialect, relic of a past bond with the wider society, now – like Sephardic Spanish after 1492 – a badge of linguistic separation. A priori one might have expected Yiddish to coexist as an oral medium with the written national language, as other German dialects did and as Schwyzerdütsch still does but, unlike these, it was a barrier to joining the modern world that had to be removed linguistically and ideologically, as the language of the most obscurantist communities. Speaking Polish or German, and wearing a ‘German jacket’, were ways used by the pioneers of emancipation in Warsaw to distinguish themselves. In any case, the children of Yiddish-speaking immigrants in German schools found themselves handicapped by their grammatical usages, correct enough in Yiddish but not in written German. Wealthier Jews, parvenus in an established society, were even more likely to abandon visible and audible marks of their origins. Characteristically, in Arthur Schnitzler’s novel Der Weg ins Freie, that wonderfully perceptive account of the nuances of Jewish assimilation in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna, Ehrenberg, the rich businessman, renounces the old German liberal hope of Viennese Jews in his wife’s salon with a deliberate relapse, in the presence of gentile ‘society’, into semi-Yiddish: ‘vor die Jours im Haus Ehrenberg is mir mieß.’
The division between non-assimilated Yiddish-speaking Ostjuden and assimilated Westjuden thus became and remained fundamental until both perished in the same Holocaust. Though no doubt familiar in educated conversation, it seems first to have been formally made in the Bukowina in the 1870s, where a proud and extraordinarily distinguished educated middle class encountered the first attempts (by the doubters of Germanisation) to give Jews a national status through their own national language – i.e. Yiddish. For emancipated Jews in Mitteleuropa, ‘Ostjuden’ defined what they were not, and did not want to be: people so visibly different as almost to constitute a different species. After listening to the adults’ conversation as a young boy in Vienna I remember asking an older relative, ‘What sort of names do these Ostjuden have?’ – to her obvious embarrassment, since she knew that our family, the Grüns and Koritschoners, had come straight to Vienna from Austrian Poland, as such distinguished figures in German Jewry as Rudolf Mosse, Heinrich Graetz, Emmanuel Lasker and Arthur Ruppin had come directly from Prussian Poland.
And yet it was the mass movement of the Ostjuden from the late 19th century which played the greatest part in transforming the impact of the Jews in the modern world. While there is obvious continuity, the Jewish influence or effect on the gentile world in the 20th century is of a different order from its effect in the 19th. The liberal-bourgeois century turned into what Yuri Slezkine in his book of that title calls ‘the Jewish Century’.[1] The American Jewish community became the largest by far in the Western diaspora. Unlike any other diaspora in the developed countries, it was overwhelmingly composed of poor Ostjuden, and far too large to fit into what there was of an existing acculturated German-Jewish framework in the US. It also remained culturally rather marginalised, except perhaps in jurisprudence, until after the Second World War.[2] The modernising effect on the Jewish population in Poland and Russia of a massive awakening of political consciousness, reinforced by the Russian Revolution, transformed the nature of Jewish emancipation, even in its Zionist version. So, too, did both the enormous expansion of jobs in higher education, notably in the second half of the last century, the rise of Fascism, the foundation of Israel and the dramatic decline of Western anti-semitic discrimination since 1945. The sheer scale of the Jewish cultural presence would have been inconceivable before the First or even the Second World War. So, obviously, would the size of the identity-conscious, book-buying Jewish public, which clearly affected the shape of the literary mass market, first in the Weimar Republic, later elsewhere. A distinction between the two periods must therefore be made……………..
following
From the start, the contribution of emancipated Jews to their host societies had been disproportionately large; but, by the nature of emancipation, it was culturally unspecific: they wanted to be simply un-hyphenated French, Italian, German and English. Conversely, and even allowing for widespread anti-semitic feeling, in their liberal phase these societies also welcomed a prosperous and educated minority which reinforced their political, cultural and national values. Consider pre-Second World War show business, in which Jews really were dominant: operetta and musicals in both Europe and the US, theatre and later the movies, or for that matter popular song on both sides of the Atlantic. In the 19th century Offenbach was French, Strauss was Austrian. Even in the 20th century Irving Berlin was American, and in Jewish-controlled Hollywood of the great period you will search in vain for anything other than what Zukor and Loew and Mayer considered 100 per cent white American values, or even for stars whose names hinted at immigrant origin. In the public life of united Italy the 0.1 per cent of Jews played a far larger role than in any other state: 17 of them sat in the Senate; they provided prime ministers and ministers, even generals. Yet they were so hard to distinguish from other Italians that it wasn’t until after the war that we find historians drawing attention to their extraordinary over-representation.
It was the same in the high arts. Jewish composers produced German and French music, while the takeover of concert halls and orchestra pits by Jewish musicians and virtuoso performers was the first sign of emancipation in the benighted East. But the great 20th-century Jewish violinists and pianists reinforced the repertoire of Western classical music, unlike the modest Gypsy fiddlers, the black jazz and Latin American musicians who extended its reach. A handful of London Irish writers (Wilde, Shaw, Yeats) left a larger recognisably ‘Irish’ mark on English literature than Jewish writers left on any 19th-century European literature. In the Modernist period, on the other hand, the Jewish contribution became much more identifiable as well as influential both in literature and the visual arts, perhaps because Modernist innovation in these fields made them more attractive to a group uncertain of its situation in the world, and perhaps, too, because the crisis of 19th-century society moved gentile perceptions closer to the unfixed situation of Jewry. It was the 20th century that imbued Western culture with ideas derived from the very consciously Jewish father of psychoanalysis. A Jew becomes central in Ulysses, Thomas Mann becomes preoccupied with these themes; and Kafka makes his enormous posthumous impact on the century. Conversely, moved by the general American – perhaps global – meanings of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, we barely notice, as David Mamet has reminded us, how recognisably Jewish is the experience on which it is based.
In the visual arts, one or two distinguished figures who happened to be Jews (Liebermann, Pissarro) gave way to a cosmopolitan 20th-century diaspora in which Jews were more numerous – something like 20 per cent of the artists in the catalogue of the great Berlin/Moscow 1900-50 exhibition appear to be Jewish – as well as more prominent (Modigliani, Pascin, Marcoussis, Chagall, Soutine, Epstein, Lipchitz, Lissitzky, Zadkine) and sometimes, as in Chagall’s case, more recognisably Jewish. More recently, Yiddish locutions have been introduced into journalists’ English thanks to the Americanised culture of the mass media. Today, most anglophone gentiles understand the word chutzpah: forty years ago hardly anyone who wasn’t Jewish used or even understood it.
As for the natural sciences, the contribution of Jews increased dramatically after 1914, as the record of the relevant Nobel Prizes demonstrates. However, they offer very little scope for national and cultural coloration, and only the ideologies of the radical right could link the two as ‘Jewish science’. For obvious reasons the social and human sciences have been a very different matter, and issues to do with the nature, structure and possible transformations of society in an era of radical historical change both in practice and in theory have attracted emancipated Jews disproportionately almost from the beginning, starting with the Saint Simonians and Marx. This fits in with that understandable Jewish proclivity to support movements for global revolutionary transformation, which is so striking in the epoch of the Marx-inspired socialist and Communist movements. Indeed, one might say that Western Jews of the earlier 19th century were emancipated thanks to an ideology not associated with them, while the Eastern Ashkenazim largely emancipated themselves through a universalist revolutionary ideology with which they were closely associated. This is even true of the original Zionism, deeply penetrated by Marxist thinking, that actually built the state of Israel.
Correspondingly, in the 20th century new fields opened up or evolved, such as, in certain regions of Europe, sociology, and especially psychoanalysis, which again could seem as disproportionately populated by Jews as, say, the international club of violin virtuosos. But what characterised these sciences, like all the others to which Jews contributed so signally, was not genetic association, but lack of fixity, leading to innovation. Daniel Snowman has pointed out in The Hitler Emigrés (2002) that in Britain ‘the greatest impact of the exiles’ from Central Europe ‘was probably in the newer, more cross-disciplinary fields (art history, psychology, sociology, criminology, nuclear physics, biochemistry), and the most rapidly changing professions (film, photography, architecture, broadcasting) rather than in those long established’. Einstein has become the best-known face of 20th-century science not because he was a Jew, but because he became the icon of a science in revolution in a century of constant intellectual upheaval.
Why, one might ask, has the Jewish contribution to the wider world of Western culture and knowledge been so much more marked in some regions than in others? Take the Nobel Prizes in the serious sciences. Of the 74 British prizes, 11 were won by Jews, but, with one possible exception, none of them was born in Britain. Of the 11 Russian prizes won since 1917, six or seven went to Jews, presumably all natives of the region. Until 2004, no Nobel Prizes in science had been won by Israeli researchers in any country, although Israel has one of the highest outputs per capita of scientific papers: 2004, however, produced two, one native-born and one born in Hungary. On the other hand, two or perhaps three have been won since Israel became independent by members of the modest Lithuanian-Jewish population of South Africa (c.150,000), though all outside that continent. How are we to explain such striking differences?
Here we can only speculate. In the sciences clearly the enormous increase in the research professions is crucial. The total number of university teachers in Prussia in 1913 was less than two thousand; the number of public secondary teachers in Germany was little more than 4200. It’s very unlikely that the exiguous number of academic posts in the field has no bearing on the surprising absence of Jews from the list of eminent conventional academic economic theorists before the Second World War (with the notable exception of Ricardo). Conversely, the fact that it was in chemistry that Jews chiefly won Nobel Prizes before 1918 is surely connected with the fact that this was the field in which academically trained specialists were first employed in substantial numbers – the three big German chemical companies alone employed about a thousand. The only one of my seven paternal uncles who had a professional career before 1914 was a chemist.
These may be superficial criteria, but they are not negligible. Patently, without both the opening of US academia to the Jews after 1948 and its vast expansion, the enormous wave of home-grown US Nobels after 1970 would have been impossible.[3] A more important factor, I believe, is segregation, whether of the pre-emancipation kind or by territorial/genetic nationalism. This may explain the relatively disappointing contribution of Israel, considering the relative size of its Jewish population. It would seem that living among gentiles and addressing a gentile audience is as much a stimulus for physicists as it is for film-makers. In this respect it is still much better to come from Brooklyn than from Tel Aviv.
On the other hand, given equal rights, at least in theory, a certain degree of unease in relations between Jews and gentiles has proved historically useful. This was clearly the case in Germany and the Habsburg Empire, as well as in the US until well after World War Two, in the first half of the 20th century in Russia/the USSR,[4] and in both South Africa and Argentina. The substantial support given by Jews to other groups suffering official discrimination, as in South Africa and the US, is surely a symptom of this unease, though it isn’t found in all Jewish communities. Even in the countries of the fullest toleration – France in the Third Republic, western Austria under Franz Joseph, the Hungary of mass Magyar assimilation – the times of maximum stimulus for Jewish talent may have been those when the Jews became conscious of the limits of assimilation: the Fin-de-Siècle moment of Proust, who came to maturity in the Dreyfus decade, the era of Schoenberg, Mahler, Freud, Schnitzler and Karl Kraus. Is it possible for diaspora Jews to be so integrated as to lose that stimulus? It has been argued that this was the situation of the established Anglo-Jews of the 19th century; and certainly British Jews were less than prominent in the leadership of the socialist and social-revolutionary movements, or even among the groups’ intellectuals – one has only to compare them with their counterparts east of the Rhine and north of the Alps. I am unqualified to come to a conclusion one way or the other. Whatever may have been the case up to the time of Hitler and the Holocaust, it is no longer so.
The paradox of the era since 1945 is that the greatest tragedy in Jewish history has had two utterly different consequences. On the one hand, it has concentrated a substantial minority of the global Jewish population in one nation-state: Israel, which was itself once upon a time a product of Jewish emancipation and of the passion to enter the same world as the rest of humanity. It has shrunk the diaspora, dramatically so in the Islamic regions. On the other hand, in most parts of the world it has been followed by an era of almost unlimited public acceptance of Jews, by the virtual disappearance of the anti-semitism and discrimination of my youth, and by unparalleled and unprecedented Jewish achievement in the fields of culture, intellect and public affairs. There is no historic precedent for the triumph of the Aufklärung in the post-Holocaust diaspora. Nevertheless, there are those who wish to withdraw from it into the old segregation of religious ultra-Orthodoxy and the new segregation of a separate ethnic-genetic state-community. If they were to succeed I do not think it will be good either for the Jews or for the world.
To ss:
I’m not Josh…it’s john r:
I never said that all white men are fat, sun-spotted lard-asses. Sadly many are. Or maybe that’s a good thing: less competition.
I also never said that all Asian girls fall for any/all white guys.
Based on my experience, the best looking, more successful Asian girls are attracted to the better looking, more successful white men. Yeah, you’ll find the occasional good looking Asian girl with some fat, older guy. Who knows? Probably because she just arrived off the boat or was found by lardo in her native country. Chances are she was poor in her homeland and was desperately looking for a way out. Don’t be suprised when she dumps this lemon for a newer, shinier ride a few months later…like our good friend Wendy Murdoch. Of course, Mr. Murdoch isn’t newer or better looking…just filthy rich. I guess this is all Wendy needs!
But, most asian women want their man (many demand it) to be well educated, have a good career, have some ambition, and be pleasing to the eye. If a man wants better success with the Asian hotties (who also are successful in their own right and who come from good families) he should strive to obtain the best education and career that he can.
He shouldn’t let his career, however, get in the way of keeping himself looking as good as he can. This involves hitting the weights in the gym, pounding the pavement in cardio, dressing reasonably well, and maintaining some descent grooming.
Extras: Most Asian women hate facial hair and excessive body hair. They prefer their men to be clean-cut, smooth skinned, well-dressed, muscular and lean (but not body builder type). So, if you are lacking in some category, not to worry. Get to it. Shape up. Hell, keeping clean-cut and well-groomed isn’t that hard to do. Think David Beckham, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reaves, Tom Cruise (although point deductions for being short).
Of course, we could say that most/all women (no matter the race) prefer such men. But, we are talking about Asian women…aren’t we? Asian women have no less standards than other women. In fact, many have much higher standards and can be much more demanding than white and black women. Many are certainly not easy. Most men will find it challenging to win the attention and true affection from a very good looking Asian woman.
If you are a man who believes that all Asian women are easy and that they will just fall into your lap no matter what you look like, no matter how little you have going for you in a career, no matter how slim your wallet is: then, you haven’t had much experience with Asian women. You are operating off of stereotypes that you have seen on some old TV show, been listening to your one too many of your dirty Uncle’s war stories, and/or visited one too many porn sites.
If you work hard to do the above suggested things, then you will find yourself one step closer to finding a beautiful Asian gal. White guys do have in our favor being, on average, taller, more muscular, more masculine, and less shy.
John r
“They prefer their men to be clean-cut, smooth skinned, well-dressed, muscular and lean (but not body builder type). So, if you are lacking in some category, not to worry. Get to it. Shape up. Hell, keeping clean-cut and well-groomed isn’t that hard to do. ”
ALL WHAT THEIR RACE LACk
OUCHH!!!!!
as an asian girl, you are completely spot-on in my personal opinion john r. you’ve DEFINITELY had experience with many, many asian women through your own experiences and probably the experiences of your white friends and co-workers. the beautiful asian girls you are referring to are exactly like me and my friends and the gorgeous asian women i know with high expectations of men- regardless of race. we all have college degrees (it’s frowned upon if we don’t), keep ourselves well-groomed always, and demand respect. there are literally hundreds of thousands of women described like this in southern california- orange county where i am from and los angeles and san diego.
and you are 100% correct that to land a beautiful asian woman you need to be educated, goodlooking and have a nice salary as a white man. AND, the plain-jane asians are the ones that end up with dorky/fat/boring white guys… so as a white guy, don’t expect a smokin’ asian chick unless you have something to offer as well.
Monique,
Thanks for the response.
You are very correct: Respect is also key. Going after Asian women just because their Asian is not the way to behave. Sure you can have a preference for Asian women. But, no man should let this cloud his understanding that Asian women (like any women) should be treated with respect and dignity.
I have dated Asian women in the past. I’ve dated white, black and Middle East women in the past too. I happen to be married to a woman from Beijing China. You could say I prefer Asian women. But, I cherish my wife. She’s better looking than me and smarter than me. I’m blow away that she considers me somebody that she wants to spend the rest of her life with. In many ways, she’s the boss…and I mean this in the best of ways. I am humbled by the culture she comes from…the Han Chinese. Very proud, very accomplished…the leaders of much of the culture of Asia. No less accomplished than my own heritages. And, as I’ve said before, by marrying me she actually had to take a step or two down the economic ladder…at least initially.
I also have many Asian male friends. Two of my inner circle of closest freinds (roomates from college) are Asian. Most men who have Asian girlfriends/wives understand that Asian people are a varried people with many different cultures, proud cultures who equal and rival, in many ways, any other culture.
If you are a man who doesn’t have any respect for women, Asian cultures, and Asian women, please stay away from Asian women. Chances are you will come out empty-handed because most will see right through your bull—-. And even if you have some limited success (if that’s what you consider success) you just gave the rest of white or black men a black eye. You gave your father a black eye. And you made your mother regret the day she brought you into this world.
Finally, an intelligent comment from someone who truly understands and appreciates Asian women.
This is in contrast to other white guys who just go for Asian women because they are “exotic” without truly absorbing and truly understanding their culture and background- instead they are just stupidly proud that they landed an asian woman and brag to all their friends and the world as if they are the hot shot now.
Asian women have more to them than just their so-called “exotic” looks- behind it all is a rich and varied CULTURE. I would suggest all white guys try to get to know this side of them and see beyond the obvious.
I don’t think asian girls are easy, many guys list have blondes, blacks, latins, and the asian is missing. As the matter of fact many of my friends ask me to introduce to them some of my oriental friends because they don’t know how to pick up an asian girl.
I have one question:
To watch a lot of kun fu movies as a kid can get you the yellow fever??. anyone?
What’s funny is that white males talk about how feminine Asian women are compared to white females. But is there any group of women that has emasculated their OWN men more than Asian women have? They will be the first to bash their own men and praise other (white) men.
Absolutely true!!! going to white man= telling asian man, you are:
short
ugly
tiny body
shy
etc ….
THEY SHARE THE SAME PHYSICAL FEATURES !!!
but the majority of the time it is true, asian dude. isn’t it? if its the truth that majority of asian guys are small, why is that wrong to state? its natural for any woman to be attracted to any man who is taller, outgoing and not shy-regardless of race. i am an asian girl dating a korean guy, but he’s not short, not shy and has great body structure. if he were short, shy and small i definitely would NEVER date him, as that turns me off. again, that is regardless of race.
so sue me.
you just need to find yourself a lil woman that LOVES asian dudes and stay away from the women that HATE asian men… trust me there are plenty of them around. you just need to STEP UP YO’ GAME!
Considering the fact that how white men bash their own women and praise other (Asian) women, this could be another reason why white men AND Asian women are perfect match LOL
What irks me is the fact that some “white people” degrade asians and dismiss them as people that they can date whenever they want to. I remember sitting at Starbucks and while eating a mint brownie (which isn’t my point) I overheard a conversation between an asian and a caucasian. The asian-girl barely understood english and from the eavesdropping, it seemed that he was trying to take advantage of her.
P.S. I should note the fact that, they just met!
In fact, I bet she had sex with him that night.
As much as i hate to admit it, maybe.
Sadly, being an Asian as well, it has been said that they (hint no me) are known for being easy. Situations such as that proves it in a way, which could also be another reason why white people like Asian girls.
The uglier the guy,the more “moral” the girl. The handsomer the guy….heh heh heh
I’m a latin guy and my wife is chinese and i have to say that i love my marriage, we have 8 years knowing each other and 2 married, the cultural exchange is always interesting and after 6 months you get used to eat rice everyday, lol, any curiosity feel free to ask!!
Ronald, we get it already! *laughs
You love your wife and life is dandy for you and eating rice everyday is fun!
I didn’t mean to come across as being obnoxious or anything :] What I meant is more power to you, dude!
Pages: [320] 319 318 317 316 315 314 313 312 311 310 … 1 » Show All