My heart is one with the black, not the white; with the Jew, not the Nazi; with the Palestinian, not the Israeli; with the Kurd, not the Turk; with the woman, not the man; with the queer, not the straight; with the trans, not the cis; with the oppressed, never the oppressor.
This is 100% tribalist approach. You basically assume every single Palestinian or black person is morally superior to every Jew or white simply because is particular places there's overrepresentation of one group among opressed. This is precisely the approach that leads to partisanship and fuels conflicts forever, because we focus on person's identity rather than their actions.
@kravietz: What does '100%' mean? We need to consider when (the time factor) and intent (meaning). I think you have a good point, but I have always wondered about the numbers--the math of it. Do we tend to focus on identity when it is regarding the majority beliefs of that group and focus on actions when it is the exception or vice versa?
With Nazi it's quite easy because you *choose* to support national socialist ideology (I mean not you, but people in general :). Kurd, Palestinian, Israeli etc you're born and you may not even support the policies of your country.
Absolutely, Hannah Arendt analysed that into great detail in "The Origins of Totalitarianism". She made an interesting observation about "banality of evil" which as I understand it meant that you didn't need to be some kind of evil master, just a regular fellow who followed the violent ideology.
@kravietz: i c. Interesting pt. I can't ever condone Nazi or Nazism, but something I came across struck me (I'll have to go find it) abt a general on trial for genocide and a Holocaust survivor who lost his entire family in attendance in pure hatred & anger suddenly on the stand looking at the general then fainted in the courtroom. He later explained that he looked at the accused and just saw a man and felt any man could have turned. Is 'choice' teachable?