Talk:Dual loyalty/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article is ridiculous and should be deleted.

Should we not give some more example of genuine dual loyalty (rather than accusations of dual loyalty)? I've started with Napoleon III's dual loyalty to France and Italy.

Yes that would be a great idea. If you would be willing to do so go right ahead, but you must be able to refer to specific examples to back up your claims. Solar Flare 09:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

reverting jayjg's edit

I can see your point (if no additional justification is presented), but i removed the statement because the anti-semetic lable gets thrown around too much. So you should provide... some justification. 209.148.139.41 17:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't made an edit, I've reverted edits which defy policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has potential for being a big mess. The opening sentence starts badly: if people have a strong loyalty to 'another' country, which is their 'home' country? The one they feel the strongest affiliation with? The one they were born in? DJ Clayworth 17:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I have absolutely no problem with you addined the paragraph about the term being used as a prejective, bit you are abusing this article with your obvious biased edits.

Tone it down...

I changed this article because I thought it was awkwardly worded, and the examples were either obscure and non-objective, or pandered to some people's sense of victimhood. --3eguoxn02 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This article is questionable, in that it seems like a soapbox designed for certain.... interests. In any event, it's not something you'd find in any kind of objective encyclopedia.

I recommend deleting it, but in the meantime, let it deal with the historically real issue of the U.S. WWII internment camps. Any contemporary "examples" of "dual loyalty" (eg, "can't trust those Mexicans" or "can't trust those Jews" or "can't trust those Arabs") is just ridiculous, and say more about the writer him/herself, than anything in the real world. 65.96.9.239 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal biases have no room in wikipedia articles. Your sarcastic claim of should we add... "can't trust those Mexicans, can't trust those Jews?" demonstrates that bias because, unlike your examples, the article did not make a blanket assertion that applied to an entire race/religion/group of people, nor, more importantly, did it actually accuse Jewish people of having a dual loyalty. What the article did do was point out the undisputed fact that the term dual loyalty is sometimes applied to Jews in the United States. This is a fact. The article does not say that application of the term is correct, just that term is applied sometimes. If you have any of your own examples of the term dual loyalty being applied, you are more than welcome to post them. Solar Flare 09:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I added a third paragraph that I think captures the spirit of many previous third paragraphs of this article. Spir 04:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The previous paragraphs were removed because they did not have a neutral POV. Please, if you can't be objective then don't edit this article. Or at least discuss before making any major edits. Contrary to your belief, the article did not accuse Jewish people of having dual loyalty. The article merely pointed out the fact that the term is sometimes applied to American Jews. Solar Flare 09:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Puh-lease! Rob/Solar Flare, look at What links to this article. Despite it being a theoretically neutral or universal concept (ie, someone with more than one loyalty, or the claim thereof), here on Wikipedia the article exists to target a very specific group. The purpose of this article is to emphasis a claim made by a decidedly "non-neutral" POV. What you are arguing is that a "neutral POV" simply documents nasty, pejorative terminology without explaining that the term is designed to be that way. By your logic, we should create an article called Big Noses about all the people who are said to have Big Noses and not discuss the history/motivation behind that claim? Look at the first version of this article. Perhaps it should be reverted to that and we'd both be satisfied?

I'm not even asking to point out the logical upsurdity of claiming "dual loyalty" in a country of immigrants. Irish Americans suffered greatly for during the IRA conflict, Japanese Americans suffered greatly for it during WWII, and Mexican Americans suffer for it constantly. The use of the term against the "Jewish neocons" is a more recent thing. However, what I feel should be pointed out is that in general, "dual loyalty" is a favorite rhetorical device for xenophobes and conspiracy theorists, in addition to their recent use in partisan politics. In the end of the day, everyone wants to be last person to move into the neighborhood. This feeling is magnified during times of conflict.

Before starting a silly edit war on a stub, let's think about this. Spir 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but this article was not created to "target" a very specific group. Also, I do not view the term as designed to be pejorative or nasty--that is your completely subjective opinion. While it can be used that way, it does not mean that this how the term was designed to be used. I think it is fine to add a paragraph or statement that says the term is used as a pejorative sometimes. The original post you linked to says it is "generally" considered to be anti-semitic and that is hardly a NPOV. I would appreciate it if we discussed exactly what you wish to add before you do add it.

With that said, I ask that you exercize restraint in your wording of the new addition because I can tell you feel strongly that the term being applied to Jews is xenophobic, antisemitic, and false. Though you feel that way, that is purely your opinion and you should keep that in mind. Solar Flare 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about this one. I can see from your edit history that you have gone to great lengths to make sure the world knows that about the particular example of "dual loyalty" which you repeatly mention, and that the topic of neoconservatives and like-subjects have been the topic of your edits in other articles. So you've got your agenda, and clearly I have my sensitivities. Being new to this particular piece of Wikiturf, I will exercise restraint as you said. Spir 10:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that I have my own bias. I will openly admit that I do believe there is a small segment of the Jewish population that expresses a dual loyalty. This small segment is extremely concerned about Israel. Thus, when it comes to supporting certain policies these people are much more willing to support risky US policies than your average American because said policies support Israel. Now, I don't think these people are traitors or anything like that. I just think they are misguided. With that said, I have not added anything of my own bias to the article. I do understand your concerns, and I do not deny that the term is sometimes used by anti-semitic pieces of shit. But I want to point out that I have been called both bigotted and anti-semitic merely because I have suggested that we (the US) should reevalute our relationship with Israel. So you'll have to forgive me if I personally believe the anti-semitic accusation gets abused often as well.

As I read the article I do feel that maybe I should change the word "especially" to "in particular" and if you have no objections, I will go ahead and do that. As I said before, I think you have some legitimate concerns and I am more than fine with adding a statement or paragraph about how the term is sometimes used as a pejorative. Solar Flare 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with the "especially" to "in particular". I have an idea for the article in general, which involves taking the advice of Wikipedia and consider writing for the "other POV" as an exercise. So that is my homework to do.

Btw, I am a dual citizen -- U.S.A. and Canada -- and although I consider myself more American than anything else, I could tell you lots of stories how I've gotten suspicious looks or comments from people, especially since 9/11, when I tell them that I'm also Canadian. I love the U.S. and want to positively contribute to its strength and success, and I think many immigrants have that attitude, too. I think it's very possible that these neocons, though I must educate myself further first, also sincerely believe they are making the U.S. stronger with their foreign policy. Hell, if Bill Clinton & Co. got it wrong, who knows what's right? Not that I like the current crew too much, either... but at least the fight is happening over there instead of over here. Spir 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article?

Actually, it would be nice, per the first comment, if we could give more examples of genuine dual loyalty, rather than accusations of dual loyalty... the problem is of course that it would be very difficult since this topic, by its nature, is accusatory. (Perhaps a reason for deletion?) Since Sept 11, 2001, this term has been thrown around a lot. Leaving aside the fact that many prior edits to this article show an infatuation with Neoconservatives who are ethnically Jewish, we should remember that Sikh in Arizona who got shot after 9/11 because he was wearing a turban. Muslims -- and even people who look like Muslims -- face the accusation of dual loyalty every day, sometimes suffering grievous consequences. Leaving aside personal politics, is it not "neutral POV" to point out how the term "dual loyalty" is part of a larger slippery slope? Spir 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A reason for deletion? Um sorry, but you can't just impose your own personal views on others through outright censorship. As to your slippery slope statement, you should know that the slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. Solar Flare 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Relax buddy, I was just contemplating the matter, not threatening anything. Mind you, articles get deleted off Wikipedia all the time, especially pointless stub articles with thinly-veiled agendas. :) Articles that contain weasel words, especially when combined with undue weight (though I haven't yet decided if this article has crossed that line), usually get some kind of an alert banner on top... But rest assured nobody wants to censor you, or at least I don't. Maybe I'll pitch in on this article after thinking about it some more. Spir 10:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My Findings & A Proposed Cure to Biased POV

Ok, I've done some serious research on this topic of dual loyalty, as the term relates to historical and contemporary political discourse. I've also watched Solar Flare's edits. Solar Flare has a clear agenda, which is to document the "fact" of an opinion, and to do so in a disproportionate manner, so as to showcase his POV. However, my research shows that, in fact, Solar Flare's POV was quite widespread in recent years... the rhetoric of "Jewish Dual Loyalty" has been part of a major, well-documented controversy which begun with Pat Buchanan, David Duke and others from the far-Right and picked up by James Zogby and other prominent Arab Americans (who, by the way, themselves mention the well-documented accusations of dual loyalty against either Arab Americans and/or Muslims in America, but tellingly, in a recent edit we see that Solar Flare would prefer to censor that from this article... giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can only guess he thinks such opinions shouldn't be documented because those opinions don't meet a strict nationalist definition of "dual loyalty" (although "Islamist" could certainly be said to be a sympathy/loyalty).... but despite the fact that we may agree that the opinions are misguided and the terminology inappropriate, the opinion exists with great prominence, and so according to the logic that wishes to document the "fact" of an opinion, the opinion certainly deserves "airtime" in this article). In any case, the voice from the other (mainly Jewish) side of the "Jewish Loyalty Question" has been equally strident... terms like anti-semitism have been thrown around and parallels have been drawn to the blood libels. In short, it's a big controversy and should certainly be talked about. But not in an unattributed, weaselish manner. It is definitely not NPOV to hide the fact of any one opinion in this controversy. It is also not NPOV to justify one opinion over another.

Therefore, I believe the article needs to be expanded appropriately, setting a context for the POV that Solar Flare represents.

Also, in addition to the Jewish American and Japanese American examples, in the U.S. there are several well documented cases of "dual loyalty" concerns in the popular media: Catholic Americans (JFK, Vatican issues), Muslim Americans (War on Terror, US Armed Forces in Iraq) and Cuban Americans (Cuban policy in general, Gonzales case), and slightly more tangentially the whole issue of McCarthyism during the Cold War, although that one was a special case of dual loyalty, divided along political rather than racial/religious lines.

There are a few other groups that have been targeted--er, accused, on a less well known scale, however, at a certain point the difference between a "dual loyalty" bias and a "special interest" bias become blurred. It could be said that use of the term "dual loyalty" is not bound by strict definitions.... in fact, the only people who insist on a strict definition seem to be the people who have a particular group/definition in mind.

On that note, I think it will be important to situate this phenomenon of dual loyalty relative to such ideas as special interest, treason, and even dual citizenship and Transnationalism. I'm talking more than just a "See Also," but rather, an attempt to compare and relate the issues all together.

Finally, the implications to the accused party in any "case" of dual loyalty is an important distinction that needs to be mentioned, since, according to my research, very few cases of dual loyalty accusation have gone beyond rhetoric and media commentary, except in certain notable cases where there was an actual change governmental policy or other tangible consequences.

Oh yeah, also, we're being very U.S.-centric here... let's go to some other countries, too.

This, I believe, will make this article look like other Wikipedia articles of this vein and bring us to a NPOV on this controversial, sensitive, and perhaps special-interest topic. Spir 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To begin, this article does not contain a biased POV. Nowhere does it say the accusations are correct. It merely documents them. That is not a biased POV.

Furthermore, I have no agenda other than the truth. Unlike yourself, I did openly admit I have my own bias. However, I made it clear that my bias did not enter the article. It clearly did not, as I have never made an edit to the article that stated there actually are some Jews that express a dual loyalty in the US. The truth is that you have a clear agenda, Spir, and this is evident in not only your lastest post here--which disingeniously tried to use a tactic of guilt by association through a neo-nazi such as David Duke--but you also wrote on your page that when you editted this article, you felt dirty even touching it. To even think such a thing, let alone post it on your own page, speaks volumes about your own bias. Once again you also attempt to smear anyone who even points out that some Jews might just possiblity have such a strong devotion to Israel--both culturally and religiously--as anti-Semitic.

As for why I removed the Arab (Muslim)-Mullah citation, it had nothing to do with bias, but rather facts. I am not Muslim nor Arab, but it doesn't take too much thought to realize that the Mullah is not a country, nor on the same level as the Pope in terms of a concept of dual loyalty. In fact, I even also editted out the Catholic reference as the Pope is not a country, but I then realized that Vatican City would allow it to qualify, and thus I added the snippet about Vatican City. You also go on to say that Muslim Americans have been accused of dual loyalty specifically in regards to the War in Iraq. Personally, I'd love to see where you are getting this bit of information from, as it is a highly dubious claim at best.

The reason why I first started editting this article was because of others like youself who take issue with the dual loyalty accusation because they, themselves, are Jewish Neoconservatives. This is an obvious conflict of interest in regards to editting this article. You say you would "rather fight them over there, the here" as if that is some sort of justification for your misguided opinion. Fight who over there? Iraq under Saddam was not a supporter of anti-US terrorism. He was however, a sponsor of anti-Israel terrorism. In regards to anti-US terrorism, Saddam had no connection to Al Qaeda and was not a threat to US, or even his neighbors. Both Cloin Powell and Condelezza Rice are on record as saying that Saddam had little to no capability in regards to WMD, that his military forces had not been rebuilt, and that he was not even a threat to his neighbors. Iraq also never attacked us amd none of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. The war is nothing more than a foolish attempt at US dominance in the world.

So to get to my point, since Saddam posed no threat to us, why do you still support the decision to invade Iraq? Who was Saddam more of a threat to? I think we both know the answer.

The fact that you even try to suggest that supporting an aggressive and down right dangerous foreign policy in the Middle East because of an extreme Jewish loyalty to Israel should be called a "special interest" is almost laughable. Trade Unions are a special interest, corporations are a special interest. Supporting an Imperialistic American Foreign Policy that obviously damages our economy, our military, and our image in the world because you want to keep Israel secure is not a special interest, that is a dual loyalty.

I want to finish with this. The article is NPOV as it is right now. If you want to extend the article and add the POV you believe to it, you are opening the gates for me to actually apply my POV.

If that it was you wish to do, I am more than fine with that. But as a friendly word of advice, your POV will be much better off leaving this article as is. That's not a warning or a threat, just a notification that my section of POV would make it clear that there IS a segment of the US Jewish population that consistantly and openly expresses a dual loyalty. It will, without a doubt, demonstrate that these people do exist and they willingly put Israel interests above US ones. Solar Flare 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Errr, dude, by saying I was glad the war was going on "over there" I meant generally... Afghanistan, definitely. Iraq, sort of... I'm not a huge supporter of the most recent U.S. invasion there -- especially the way it was done. In terms of the general feeling of wanting to draw Al Quaeda & Co. and establish a "front line", I think the U.S. has made a good tactical decision from the economic and morale (note the "e" there) side of things. Civilian casualties are incredibly demoralizing, and war on your own soil is very expensive. That's just my opinion from a tactical point of view. And I'm no military genius, I know... just another armchair general.

From a long term strategy POV, I'm much more ambivalent U.S. invasion of Iraq (but I still support the one in Afghanistan).... I'll address that in a minute (but we're veering off topic, I think – if you want to continue this beyond this point, please either start a user page, or feel free to post to mine) But I hope you know there is a global conflict going on, and regardless of who, what or why it's "really" about, from the U.S.'s point of view, success has always lay with it keeping the battlefield far offshore. I'm not morally approving it across the board, and the whole torture and abuse scandal is shameful, but I think the U.S. *has* historically looked out for its own interests. Especially in this particular way of pushing the fight offshore. So yeah, my comment was perhaps callous. But it wasn't some crazy radical subversive neocon thing...

Let me also just say that perhaps I haven't explained myself properly in all this. I don't even disagree with some of what you've said, and may have even changed my mind about certain things since we started this conversation. I'm malleable on some things..... and right now I'm looking for common ground. I'm learning a lot just by writing this. I will try to answer your questions and concerns... but please note that I've been on the record already and we've discussed this: I'm uncomfortable with this article because I think it misses the whole point:

"Dual Loyalty" more often than not, is a jingoistic thing, and if you do the research as I have, you will see that almost every minority/immigrant group at one time faces this accusation, and the primary sources for those "documented facts of an opinion" tend to be sources that most people would be embarrassed to be associated with. Wow, I've made some broad generalizations here. I know there are always exceptions. But I'm talking about GLARING FACTS, BIGGER TRENDS about the matter. . Dig up the primary sources and you will see people who promulgate the views have an agenda… they wish to denigrate an opponent for what are, at best, political motives. Yes, I use the word "dirty," because when you get down to it, this is a largely dirty subject. Right now all this article says is that "dual loyalty can indeed be dangerous." It also justifies one or more of the claims. However, it says nothing of the often (if not mostly) spurious nature of the accusation. Observe:

Most scholars agree the WWII U.S. Japanese internment camps were an unnecessary over reaction, and their image was invoked by the media after 9/11 as a way of describing how NOT to behave. Catholics and their Vatican, Jews and their Israel... ask some of them and they will proudly say they are loyal to both the U.S. and their respective affiliations… perhaps they even put their cultural/religious/whateverloyaltiesyouwanttoincludeinyourdefinitionof"Dual" values first... this is no scandal, as you suggest. They believe their loyalties are ALIGNED, more than anything else. I know you disagree with that, but if you take away all the people in the U.S. with affiliations and loyalties to other nations, religions and even ideas that are NOT part of the U.S. government’s party line, you'd be left with very few people. It's starting to sound like jingoism to me. I'm sure you agree with me at least that most of us aren't as "pure bred" as David Duke... that we are all mutts. As a U.S. immigrant from Canada, I believe that I can synthesize my loyalties to both countries in a very effective way, and bring a unique "North American" perspective to the table. Cuban-Americans are more often than not, dual loyalists with a twist: they can be dually loyal to the U.S. itself in the sense of being loyally AGAINST the Communist Party of Cuba... and they would encourage the U.S. taking a harder stance against Cuba.... harder, perhaps than a non Cuban American might. A Tibetan American might similarly encourage the U.S. to take a harder stance against China. They would justify it on the basis of what they thought was in the U.S.'s interests, but it would certainly come from a certain bias. I think it's hyperbolic to call this "dangerous."

Hell, even after all that Napoleon III stuff, I'd say France is doing better than Russia is today. (ok, so that was tongue in cheek... but there is a grain of long-term truth there.) So yes, this is my totally biased opinion. And yes, if it makes you happy, my biased opinion is partially a product of my background and personal experiences. The thing is, this "bias" is also called "sensitivity" to an issue. A wikipedia article that deals with such a controversial topic should certainly have editors who are sensitive to the issues.... in addition, i suppose, to editors who want to document and protect particular examples of accusations of dual loyalty because for whatever reason those particular examples are important to those editors.

Anyway, going back to Iraq, I don't know if the long term strategy of the U.S. invasion of Iraq is sound, but I suspect nobody really does (?)... time will tell. The image of the U.S. abroad has definitely suffered. We had a much better image under Clinton... although critics would point to 9/11 as being planned during that period where America was most conciliatory with the world. Who knows? What seems to be the case is that the U.S. and its Presidents have always been reviled by at least someone in the world during every international conflict, and the same goes for any country in the world (well, maybe not Canada.... most people love Canada). I don't presume to know what will come of all this, long term. But I am actually more worried about the long term physical environment of our planet, more so than America's PR. Unfortunately our current administration isn't helping with either. Which brings us to...

You ask me who was most threatened by Saddam Hussein and therefore who benefits most from the war. You say, "I think we both know the answer." Yes, we do, don't we? The answer is "The Man." :) In terms of motivations for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, apart from vague ideas about moving the center of the conflict away from the U.S. Eastern Seaboard and back inside what Dick Cheney sees as arc extending from Africa to Indonesia, in my biased, unprofessional, limited-perspective, Canuck-trained opinion, the war in Iraq has everything to do with oil and tightening control of it. Rather than dealing with the crisis by curbing the use of oil, we just extend ourselves further to secure our sources, like paranoid addicts. And on terms of helping other interests, there are some interesting consequences of the war in Iraq, but harping on Israel's interests to the exclusion of many obvious other interests (and saying that Jews in America drive it) does deserve some guilt-by-association, if I may be so bold (but not so serious). I mean, what about Dick Cheney, Ahmad Chalabi, and a whole host of other people who had various vested interests, to say nothing about the multinational corporations that benefit in all this? No, as I understand the issues, while the peoples of various Middle Eastern countries benefit in different ways as a result the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, including Israelis, Shiite Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Kurds, etc, etc.... , it certainly doesn't benefit the Israelis more than some others, and in all cases, it's a mixed bag from the local perspective. Observe:

• Iranians hated Saddam and his ilk and now their Baathist public enemy #1 is gone... better still, with all the turmoil going on, they can get a "piece of the action" inside Iraq, expand their influence, etc. On the other hand, the U.S. now has troops on their doorstep.
• Hmmmm, actually, I don't know how the Kuwaitis are negatively affected by this latest U.S. invasion of Iraq, although the last one was more directly to their benefit than this one because Saddam invaded them (and Saudi Arabia thought they were next). But on the other hand this time around Kuwaiti businesses win access to Iraqi consumers.
• In the case of the Kurds, the U.S. is taking on some of their military expense and giving them greater autonomy, but on the other hand they now have to go through the U.S. for a lot of stuff... basically, they'll have their hands tied in dealing with Turkey and Syria.
• Israelis are similar to the Kurds in that the U.S. is taking on some of their military expense, but the Israelis must go through the U.S. now in dealing with their opponents... for example, whereas in the past they could preemptively strike Saddam and knock out his nuclear program, now they can't touch Iran.
• Those are just a few groups. Everyone has an interest one way or another, even Canada (although their anti-war stance didn't have the same economic motivation as France's).

Interestingly, as Americans we think it's only good for people like the Israelis, Kuwaitis and Kurds since we pay the bills and also we think we are wiser than they are when it comes to governing their neighborhood, but I'm sure they all disagree on that (but anyway love the fact that America is muscling against their enemies, where applicable). My feeling is that those who can only think of Israel's interests, to the exclusion of all else, are obsessing due to some outside bias and are missing the forest for the trees... that goes for both pro-Israel Americans as well as anti-Israel Americans. (We sort of agree with each other, strangely enough.) Where I think you demonstrate a more big-picture view on the Iraq war is when you write "...a foolish attempt at US dominance in the world." I don't fully agree with that, or more to the point, I would substitute the world "dominance" with "control" and "world" with "energy supply." Not to say there aren't non-economic motives for the U.S. to be in Iraq, but while George W. Bush may or may not be a "religious crusader" (which I don't presume to know) or a military strategic genius/fool, he certainly is a politician responsible for America's interests, short term, long term, whatever. Anyway, we can debate if it would be more in U.S. interests to put the Iraq war budget towards paying-off U.S. industry so they accept much-needed (in my POV) environmental regulation, but the important thing is that we're having a real U.S. political discussion, rather than taking pot-shots at our fellow citizens.

Anyway, I think I've sufficiently worn my heart on my sleeve. Let me know if I've found any common ground.

Spir 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, after two and half weeks, the silence speaks for itself. I have gone ahead and elevated this article to something beyond an epithet, though I have respected the previous contributions and the laundry list of finger-pointing that was so important to at least one previous editor. Despite its origins, this article is looking pretty good now. Spir 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(Note two vandalism/revert attempts by 68.45.133.94 on Mar 17. I guess someone is listening....) Spir 09:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1