April 28, 2017

"Foreign countries and companies might appreciate the idea that they can more easily handle Donald Trump if they lavish his daughter with attention..."

"... this is a common enough practice when dealing with authoritarian governments. But it should at least cause a little unease here at home," writes Amy Davidson in "The Global Effort to Flatter Ivanka" (in The New Yorker). She's writing about that panel discussion about women and entrepreneurship that happened at the W20 conference, where Ivanka Trump got to share the stage with Angela Merkel, Queen Máxima, Christine Lagarde, and Chrystia Freeland.
And one saw, again... how the perceived need to pander to Ivanka Trump can distort almost any conversation. At one point, Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister, while making a point about the important role that fathers play in their daughters’ progress, said, as she looked at Ivanka, who nodded in agreement, that behind “every successful woman” was a very supportive father.
So it's Ivanka's fault that the Canadian Foreign Minister said something plainly wrong and obviously damaging to the self-esteem of millions of women?!
The moment played less as a shout-out to men in the developing world (which was likely what Freeland intended) than as a validation of the First Daughter concept.
Why does Freeland get the benefit of charitable interpretation and Ivanka get the blame for the negative aspect of a remark she did not make?
And it left little room for the fatherless, or for the defiant, or even for the sort of complexity experienced by, say, Queen Máxima, who is originally from Argentina, where her father was a member of the junta that ran that country’s Dirty War. Whatever their relationship, Máxima went along with the decision not to invite him to her wedding to the Crown Prince of the Netherlands, in deference to Dutch public opinion. Even royalty has to listen, sometimes.
Even royalty? Here you have Davidson complaining about the stature acquired by the daughter of a U.S. President, and somehow simultaneously viewing royalty as lofty. Ivanka may have her position by birth but the U.S. President was elected by the people. Royalty gets its power by birth and by marriage.

By the way, did Davidson ever critique the global effort to flatter Barack Obama's wife (not to mention the truly insane effort to flatter Bill Clinton's wife — which is the main reason we've got Ivanka Trump's father as President).

86 comments:

exiledonmainstreet said...

"By the way, did Davidson ever critique the global effort to flatter Barack Obama's wife (not to mention the truly insane effort to flatter Bill Clinton's wife — which is the main reason we've got Ivanka Trump's father as President)"

"It's OK when we do it."

MountainMan said...

How about the insane effort to promote Chelsea Clinton for elective office?

Saint Croix said...

the Canadian Foreign Minister said something plainly wrong and obviously damaging to the self-esteem of millions of women?!

if you're self-esteem is so easily damaged

how successful are you?

rhhardin said...

And it left little room for the fatherless, or for the defiant, or even for the sort of complexity experienced by, say, Queen Máxima, who is originally from Argentina, where her father was a member of the junta that ran that country’s Dirty War. Whatever their relationship, Máxima went along with the decision not to invite him to her wedding to the Crown Prince of the Netherlands, in deference to Dutch public opinion. Even royalty has to listen, sometimes.

Women's minds are filled with fluff.

Saint Croix said...

I think his comment was wrong, by the way

he should have said "man," not "father."

and there's nothing wrong with reminding women

you did not get there on your own

MayBee said...

I'm not a huge fan of Ivanka. But it is weird how thrown off people who want to worship or criticize a first lady are by Donald Trump's daughter filling that role.

It's almost like it makes them see the ridiculousness of the "first lady" thing, but not quite.

Saint Croix said...

"your" not "you're"

just think how bad my grammar would be

if there were no women!

Saint Croix said...

did Davidson ever critique the global effort to flatter Barack Obama's wife

it's a nice impulse

why critique it?

wives are important

husbands are important

this is how babies happen

and joy is found

Laslo Spatula said...

New Antifa Guy says...

It's funny: the Chicks in the Group hate Trump of course, but they REALLY hate Ivanka. She is a Little Rich Girl throwing women into the Ovens, basically. When this conversation really gets going it inevitably causes dark eyes to narrow at the Clean College Chick With The Hot Nose Ring and Herpes, who the other Chicks see as a Little Rich Girl who is Slumming It while fucking the Leader with the Anti-Fascist neck tattoos...

The Guys in the Group then say how they'd Hate-Fuck Ivanka, and they get really stoked on that. Me, I feel uncomfortable, hating a woman because of who her Father is, but I know to keep my mouth shut. I mean, I'd fuck Ivanka without it needing to be a Hate Fuck, that's all I'm saying...

Of course, when the Chicks are around the Guys don't even mention Hate-Fucking Ivanka, because the Chicks still see that as finding her desirable, and That Makes Them Mad and No Blow-Jobs. So if the Chicks are around the Guys, the Guys -- if they say anything -- will say how they'd Skull-Fuck Ivanka, which the Chicks find acceptable...

Some of the Guys, they would practically Skull-Fuck any Famous Chick, regardless of her Politics, but they will Skull-Fuck a Celebrity HARD if she happens to be Jewish.I think THEY think this is Ironic, I don't know. Again: I get uncomfortable with these conversations, sometimes: it is a lot easier to just talk about breaking car windows...

I am Laslo.

Mike Sylwester said...

The New Yorker used to be a superb magazine.

Now, however, it has been reduced to publishing resentful, snide articles complaining that our First Daughter gets too much flattery.

Fortunately, The New Yorker still has funny cartoons.

Hagar said...

These days, royalty mainly get their power, if any, by listening very carefully to the people and try to represent their nations as they wish to be seen.

Rene' Saunce said...

Why does Freeland get the benefit of charitable interpretation and Ivanka get the blame for the negative aspect of a remark she did not make?


It's the pro-D hack press. There are NO charitable or kind words for Ivanka. She is a media enemy.

exhibit A:
Ivanka was/is grilled over her father's "treatment of women."
Is Chelsea ever grilled over her father's sexual deviancy? Never.

David Baker said...

From the album of: Great photos of Ivanka...

sparrow said...

Didn't Kurtz just have an article on the excess mistreatment of Ivanka?

Rene' Saunce said...

Laslo has the Fresh Antifa Berkeley Progs pegged.

traditionalguy said...

Ivanka is a sort of Diplomat at large to spread the image that Trump as a good man and good father. That softens his Hitler image.

And she has a track record of feminist successes. Ridiculing DJT as a misogynist is easy, but Ridiculing Ivanka is nearly impossible...so she must be The Real Hitler.

Rene' Saunce said...

Is it time yet for another Chelsea Clinton award?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Another reason to flatter Ivanka is that she could be President one day.

SGT Ted said...

It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch, Johnson!

Mike Sylwester said...

After our President Trump finishes his two terms, the Republicans should nominate a ticket consisting of Mike Pence and Ivanka Trump.

Gretchen said...

The same people who continuously flatter Chelsea tear down Ivanka. Both women are products of privilege, but Ivanka has actually accomplished something and created jobs for others.

Derek Kite said...

Gretchen: That is why they tear down Ivanka and elevate Chelsea. They have to tear down people who are smarter and more capable than they. Chelsea, and I submit Obama made people feel superior; for all his vaunted intelligence his knack was making others feel superior in his presence.

Trump and Ivanka and most people who accomplish things don't.

Amadeus 48 said...

As to Amy Davidson's failure to evaluate the fawning heaped on Michelle O, Hillary, and Chelsea, self-awareness is so rare it should be a superpower.

Fernandinande said...

Queen Maxima

That name makes me think of Batman-ish super-criminals, fat blues singers and a cartoon Maxipad saleswoman -> a fat blues singing cartoon super-criminal selling Maxipads.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse;

You do such an elegant, excellent job of deconstructing the mainstream media bias against the Trump family.

Would you agree, that they'd be doing much the same against any Republican who occupied the White House? (I expect you to respond with something like, "Perhaps; probably. But I'm looking at the nature of how the media is skewing its messaging about all things Trump. I am just interested in the process, with cruel neutrality about policy matters.")

For my part, I have to say (as someone who has been fixated on Donald Trump's personal stupidity/repulsiveness/laughable sociopathy) that I do think Trump is getting much of what any Republican would get, from the media. And so I don't use the media as a measure of how well or how poorly a Republican is doing. My measure is more of an absolute, based on adherence to conservative principles and how their actions and speeches and personal behavior will be viewed by history.


mockturtle said...

I should think Ivanka has been lavished with attention her whole life and is immune to flattery.

Rene' Saunce said...

Lets not leave out the jealous prog-fem angle.

Ivanka is gorgeous, well spoken and smart and that must really anger the ugly fem-o-progs. Quick - somebody soothe the jealousy with another award for Chelsea... STAT.

Michael K said...

"Is Chelsea ever grilled over her father's sexual deviancy? Never."

Of course not. Chelsea is a woman with no accomplishments at all.

Ivanka has grown up rich but, in spite of that and perhaps because of her father's influence, she has done some things that show she is a person of some accomplishment.

There used to be a tradition in this country where the children of the rich felt some obligation to do something with their lives.

The Rockefeller sons had some of this, no matter your opinion of their politics. Even the first generation of Kennedys, like Jack and Joe and Robert and even Ted although his seems to have been more being pushed along by his more accomplished brother.

These days, the children of celebrities are more likely to be wastrels.

William said...

If Davidson is right about this dynamic, why wouldn't it apply equally to Chelsea? Why not to the Obama and Bush children? I suppose it does. They have a much better chance of landing a glamorous job than your kid. But Ivanka, of all the presidential progeny, is the most photogenic and graceful. She knows how to fill a public stage. She's the one you would look at on that podium. The Bush and Obama children are likable and worthy, but not significantly more so than other nice, well reared children. Ivanka has a star quality.......I don't know what the opposite of star quality is, but Chelsea has it. There's something vaguely discomfiting about her. You want to look away. She shrivels rather than blooms under public attention.

mockturtle said...

There used to be a tradition in this country where the children of the rich felt some obligation to do something with their lives.

Noblesse oblige is dead.

Marty Keller said...

Life-long Republican Chuck said, "My measure is more of an absolute, based on adherence to conservative principles and how their actions and speeches and personal behavior will be viewed by history."

Does anyone know how to interpret this claim? Has Chuck somewhere else taught us what "conservative principles" actually are? Does he truly believe that the MSM treat his beloved President Trump exactly as it would have Jeb Bush? Clearly my University of Michigan English degree has completely failed me here.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"The Rockefeller sons had some of this, no matter your opinion of their politics. Even the first generation of Kennedys, like Jack and Joe and Robert and even Ted although his seems to have been more being pushed along by his more accomplished brother."

I have mixed feelings about this. While the WASP sense of noblesse oblige was admirable in some ways, it can also turn into a sense that "we" (the Kennedys, Rockefellers, the Bushes) are entitled to high office. I don't want Ivanka or the Trump sons to seek the presidency someday anymore than I want Chelsea or Michele Obama and her girls to do so. We supposedly got rid of hereditary dynasties in this country. The ones we have had thus far have not done us much good.

Laslo Spatula said...

The Clean College Chick With The Hot Nose Ring and Herpes says...

All of the women here in the Antifa Group think I am Privileged: like I got to choose my upbringing. right? Like I got to choose a Father who was a successful Capitalist but a shitty Dad who was always working. Like I got to choose to live in a lily-white neighborhood full of luxury SUVs and Mexican Gardeners with Leaf Blowers...

I think I should get credit for turning my back on that Patriarchal White Capitalist Life. Some of the women here have never even had anything, so it's easy for them to still not have anything, right? But I've given up Big Things: I CHOOSE to live this way. Which do YOU think is harder? How many people here have turned their back on the Mercedes their asshole Dad gave them for getting accepted into a Good College? Do it: give up a free Mercedes and THEN we'll talk Privilege, okay...?

Many of the women here didn't have their Father in their Lives, so they didn't see the Patriarchy up close like I did. They didn't hear their parents argue over a Kitchen Remodel -- like my Father should have had any say, being that he never even cooked for us...

So I understand Ivanka better than they do, because I understand how much she HASN'T given up to help fight Oppression. You think that would get me a little more respect, right...?

I am Laslo.

mockturtle said...

Good one!

mockturtle said...

Laslo clearly understands the basics of class dynamics. Just as Lamar has explained to us that blacks are unimpressed with whites marching in BLM protests, so are the poor unimpressed with the 'sacrifices' of the rich. They see it for what it is: A paternalistic form of contempt.

mockturtle said...

And I must confess that, back in the day, BTDT.

FullMoon said...

Maybe the MSM is pumping up Chelsea in an attempt to make her Ivanks equal, or attempt to minimize Ivanka's popularity.
When asked by debate moderator to say one admirable thing about Trump, Hillary said "his children".

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that the problem with Ivanka is that she is the closest we have had to a princess since JFK. Girls grow up with Disney princesses, and that is what a lot of them want to be, at some point in their lives - beautiful, poised, intelligent, classy, rich, nice, etc. Of course she has her own clothing line, and can talk personally about female entrepreneurship. What else would a princess do these days? A dream job, designing clothes (notably a soap opera staple). Sandwiched in between flying around the world with their handsome husband, beautiful children, etc, with never a hair out of place, and a calm regal smile on her face.

We try to push other First Daughters into this mold, but they, inevitably, have feet of clay. The Obama girls have a big mother who has probably fought her entire adult life to keep her weight down, and the daughters appear headed in the same direction. Bush twins were wholesome next door girls who got some of their father's wildness. Everyone on the left seems to have wanted Chelsea to fit this mold, but she had the unfortunate problem of being Crooked Hillary's daughter, and ended up (despite a bit of surgery) somewhat ugly, charisma impaired, entitled, etc - almost the opposite of what you would want in a storybook princess. So, we now have our storybook princess, but she is Trump's daughter, and, while apparently still a Democratic herself, has a father elected as a Republican. If her parent had entered the White House as a Democrat instead, the MSM would be besides themselves that we finally have American royalty. I think that it is this cognitive dissonance that is driving them to these heights of idiocy.

khesanh0802 said...

@exiledonmainstream The Kennedy's were not WASPS they were good Boston Irish Catholics. I don't think they ever sought office as an act of altruism. They were rich (we all know about father Joe) and they had a desire for power. Teddy was a schmuck and a murderer. Joe, John and Robert had a sense of duty that just might have been interpreted as noblesse oblige

Richard Dolan said...

"not to mention the truly insane effort to flatter Bill Clinton's wife — which is the main reason we've got Ivanka Trump's father as President."

Not quite right, although the effort to crown Hillary! and her obvious sense of entitlement certainly helped Trump. What's even more insane is the effort to promote Chelsea -- more than the Nobel given to Obama, the awards and recognition coming her way are an unfunny joke to all but the most clueless flatterers in Dem-ville.

Laslo Spatula said...

The Clean College Chick With The Hot Nose Ring and Herpes says...

I understand Oppression. Daddy wanted me to be a Cheerleader in High School because it would look good on College Applications, so I had to be a Cheerleader in High School. Even then I understood the Hypocrisy of Women being defined by their ability to cheer Men on: I get it, Dad, okay...?

Then on Rally Days I would have to wear my Cheerleader Outfit all day at school: of course my male teachers LOVED that. Like I didn't notice you trying to look up my skirt in class, you assholes...

The Women in the Antifa Group have never had to endure such experiences. They have never been at a Party where all the guys see you just as a pretty blonde sex object they want to fuck.They have never had a Black Girl yell at them just because you had your blonde hair in corn-rows...

I have talked to our Leader about this, and he counsels me to be patient: he says we have to fight Capitalist Oppression first, then Gay and Transgender Oppression, before we can get to the Oppression of Women. I don't know: maybe our Group would be different if it were led by a Woman...

I am Laslo.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that this desire for being led by royalty is mostly on the Dem side. We saw this clash even back in 1960 between aristocratic Jackie Kennedy and middle class Pat Nixon. For the most part, Republicans are more comfortable with upper middle class First Ladies, and their upper middle class children. The Democrats are the ones dreaming ng about being led by royalty. My guess is that this royalism on their part goes back throughout most of the 20th Century. My theory is that we have two different ideals in this country, a top down organization preferred by Dems, and a more grass roots, democratic one preferred by much of the GOP. As a Republican, I have little faith in the trustworthiness of anyone I couldn't see across from me having a beer or at a Rotary meeting. I am thinking of Pat Nixon and her middle class cloth coat. The Democrats, somehow, have become the party where the masses expect to be led, to get orders from their betters, and to carry them out.

Normally, as a conservative, I would be uncomfortable with the older Trump kids. The party of First Ladies with good cloth coats doesn't do well with entitled, spoiled, children of the rich and famous. With royalty. But, the Trumps are different. The second generation buckled down and is carrying its own weight (how many of the Kennedys could you say that about?) PDT turned over running his business empire to his oldest boys, who seem to be perfectly capable of carrying on there, and daughter Ivanka is doing her job, married to Trump's tactical brain, of being our American princess.

GrapeApe said...

Oh good grief. Trump likes to listen to members of his family including Ivanka and her husband. Who the heck doesn't do that? Just dumb ass ginned up mess to go at Trump because he doesn't adhere to the political theme of the day.

Michael said...

Bravo, Laslo!! On it

mockturtle said...

I have talked to our Leader about this, and he counsels me to be patient: he says we have to fight Capitalist Oppression first, then Gay and Transgender Oppression, before we can get to the Oppression of Women. I don't know: maybe our Group would be different if it were led by a Woman...

This was more or less my experience at two meetings of the White Panther Party. The role of women was pretty much confined to sex and cooking. That's when I began to doubt the 'progressive' left.

Michael K said...

I don't want Ivanka or the Trump sons to seek the presidency someday anymore than I want Chelsea or Michele Obama and her girls to do so.

I wasn't thinking of politics. The third generation of Kennedys seems to be trying to set up some sort of dynasty while still being drunks or drugged up. That's not what I meant,

There are a number of examples of children of the rich spending their lives trying to do good things for others, not seeking power. When I was a medical student, I met a few who had gone into medicine as a worthy career when they did not need any money, One example that few know about is Edgar A Kahn, who became the first chief of Neurosurgery at U of Michigan and is believed to be the inspiration for Lloyd C Douglas novel "Magnificent Obsession" about a neurosurgeon who is a secret philanthropist. Kahn's father was a famous architect and rich. Kahn decided to become a neurosurgeon when that was a grim field with a high mortality. He was said to have never taken a salary.

Interestingly, "Eddie" Kahn was also an athlete, something I learned only from the article about his father.

Joe Kennedy was certainly not seeking fame or political office when he volunteered to go on the mission that killed him.

Martin said...

Liberal journos gotta hate--it's what they do.

Crazy Jane said...


Last year The New Yorker calculated that, between the two major party candidates, Donald Trump was worse. (It was a difficult decision for many Americans.) The magazine did its best to make sure that Trump, an admittedly unusual candidate, did not win the presidential election. Since the election, it has continued to push the theme.

Althouse's diagnosis is correct here. The operant rules are these: If Trump does it, it's Bad. If previously admired people join the Trump administration or advise the president, they are Bad. Trump's relatives are Bad.

You can believe this stuff, but when you lay it on with a trowel every chance you get, this too is Bad. People begin to suspect that you aren't willing to look at anything Trump except through the refracted lens of your own prejudice. People wonder why the Clintons and Obamas always got/get the benefit of the doubt and Trump is just plain evil.

It doesn't take a Trump supporter to see that this has become a problem.

buwaya puti said...

There is the Jewish aspect of this Democratic party worship of royalty.
This also cuts across party lines, and I think explains for instance NRO and the likes of Goldberg and Krauthammer.
Trump himself is only a figurehead of dislike, and his family a secondary one.
The real problem is who Trump represents. It is the old Jewish distrust of the volk and their preferred dependency on the aristocracy and especially the sovereign as a shield against the populace.
This is not a reasoned position, I think it is a (Jewish) folk attitude that has been reinterpreted at various times and is present today in several flavors.
This also explains other things such as the reflexive dislike of the Catholic Church.
All of this is perfectly sensible in light of Jewish history.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Joe Kennedy was certainly not seeking fame or political office when he volunteered to go on the mission that killed him."

I think that some have questioned this. He was supposed to be the one who became President, the golden son, but his younger brother was (I believe) already a war hero. And this competition was what some have claimed was what drove him to take on that suicide mission.

I may be over sensitive to this sort of thing. I am the oldest, but my next brother, a year and a half younger, has never really accepted my role there, nor, indeed, the theory of primogeniture. Whenever I would do something, he would do the same. BA mathematics? Check. MBA? Check. JD? Check. Patent attorney? Check. He did finish an MS in engineering that I never quite finished. Finally, with the death of our father last year, he has his glory - we unanimously voted him in as president of the family company, and is doing a better job than I would be doing, despite having been much more involved with it over the years.

cubanbob said...

Buwaya thank you for today's dose of anti semitism.

"And one saw, again... how the perceived need to pander to Ivanka Trump can distort almost any conversation. At one point, Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister, while making a point about the important role that fathers play in their daughters’ progress, said, as she looked at Ivanka, who nodded in agreement, that behind “every successful woman” was a very supportive father."

Behind every successful man is a woman is OK but behind every successful woman there was a very supportive daughter is not OK. Got it.

RonF said...

exileonmainstreet said:

"While the WASP sense of noblesse oblige was admirable in some ways, it can also turn into a sense that "we" (the Kennedys, Rockefellers, the Bushes) "

Kennedys are WASPs? You do realize that a) W = white, a classification that the Boston Brahmins who held power in New England for centuries only begrudgingly granted that classification to the Irish, b) AS = Anglo-Saxon, which certainly does NOT describe the Irish, and c) P = Protestant - JFK was the first Catholic President.

William said...

The Roosevelts (FDR not TR) had a troubled marriage. Their kids absorbed the toxicity of that marriage. All of them had divorces, and most of them had drinking problems. Ronald Reagan wasn't much of a family man. His kids were kind of flaky. Chelsea looks like she was pulled in a lot of different directions as a kid, and it shows. Trump, from all appearances, wouldn't seem to be such a dutiful father, but his children aren't wastrels. He or his wife/wives did something right.......The Bush family seems to have a knack for happy and enduring marriages. Maybe that's why they qualify as a dynasty. It's easier for your kids to prosper and thrive if your parents don't pull you apart......Joe Kennedy was despicable on some levels, but he knew how to be a father.

buwaya said...

"Buwaya thank you for today's dose of anti semitism.'

! ?
I did not think it antisemitic. Why so?

cubanbob said...

"Foreign countries and companies might appreciate the idea that they can more easily handle Donald Trump if they lavish his daughter with attention..."
"... this is a common enough practice when dealing with authoritarian governments."

Why not? They were expecting another Clinton Administration and assumed the same with Trump.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Kennedys are WASPs? "

JFK had more in common with his Harvard classmates than he did with the working stiffs in south Boston.

traditionalguy said...

A good observation made without bias shows that Ivanka is partly filling the role of our first Female President. She has more clout than Bannon and Conway put together.

buwaya said...

"JFK had more in common with his Harvard classmates than he did with the working stiffs in south Boston."

But it was probably his dad who was calling the shots, at least until his stroke in 1961.

mockturtle said...

The Kennedys are not WASPs. They were shunned by Boston society and had to form their own.

traditionalguy said...

JFK was the genuine article. The rest of the Kennedys were Joe's role players. But somehow Jack morphed into a genuine honorable man that out fought all comers, like DJT today.

Only CIA Bullets with Secret Service help and an FBI cover up assist could stop them. Trump will probably survive, but he will be under fire soon.

Sigivald said...

So it's Ivanka's fault that the Canadian Foreign Minister said something plainly wrong and obviously damaging to the self-esteem of millions of women?!

Well, obviously.

Trudeau is Old Left stock, and Ivanka's dad is Donald Trump.

Thus he acted correctly and any problem must be her fault.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"She has more clout than Bannon and Conway put together."

Since Ivanka's instincts are liberal (despite the crappy way they are treating her), I do not find that statement reassuring.

exiledonmainstreet said...

To clarify: I think the old sense of noblesse oblige was very much a WASP thing. (Old Joe Kennedy was not motivated by anything but a desire to for more power for his clan.) I think that that idea has been corrupted, by the Kennedys and the Bushes and Clintons into a sense of entitlement based on family trees, which is not a good thing for a republic.

Mike Sylwester said...

Bruce Hayden at 11:41 AM

He [Joe Kennedy] was supposed to be the one who became President, the golden son, but his younger brother was (I believe) already a war hero. And this competition was what some have claimed was what drove him to take on that suicide mission.

About a year ago, public TV broadcast a show about the airplane mission. There was some problem with the equipment inside the airplane. That was the cause of the crash. I do not remember the details.

It was not "a suicide mission".

I do remember that the show was quite interesting.

Mac McConnell said...

But, the Kennedys took on the old money WASP culture, Brooks Brothers/J.Press wardrobes, the mansions, the WASP prep schools, the mistresses, etc.

Mike Sylwester said...

I remembered just now that Joe Kennedy's mission had something to do with a huge artillery gun that the Germans were building.

On his airplane, some timer or other device was set incorrectly, causing the plane to crash.

johns said...

yesterday's meme: Trump is the laughingstock of the civilized world, and he sends his dress-designer daughter to conduct diplomacy!!

new meme: Everyone is treating Ivanka with exaggerated respect because they want to suck up to the US dictator.

buwaya said...

While not suicidal the Aphrodite missions were extremely dangerous.
The aircraft were worn-out bombers rigged for remote control, to be piloted to a service altitude by human pilots (Joe Jr.), at which point the pilots would bail out.

A. They were flying dangerous, junk aircraft considered unserviceable and disposable.
B. Bailing out was dangerous in itself.
C. Experimental weapons systems are dangerous, especially if they involve large amounts of explosives.

Neither A or B of these, probably, was the direct cause of the accident. C certainly applied.

On the whole he was doing a more dangerous job than commanding a PT boat, which was with a few exceptions (Bulkeley's "Expendables" for instance) not as dangerous a duty. Less so probably than other warships such as submarines and destroyers.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do find it humorous that the Irish here now are considered WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). What it says to me is that European Catholics in general, and the Irish in particular, have gone mainstream, have become pretty fully assimilated by our melting pot. I found it quite enlightening that at one point last year, all three of Fox News' prime time anchors were Irish (O'Reilly, Hannity, and Kelly). Shows to me where the country, and the Irish here, have come since the worries that national policy would be determined in the Vatican if JFK won the election in 1960 (he did, and they didn't).

Ambrose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cubanbob said...

buwaya said...
"Buwaya thank you for today's dose of anti semitism.'

! ?
I did not think it antisemitic. Why so?"

Try re-reading your earlier post.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Actually, buwaya's post contains some truth. I don't think it is true that Jews ever "worshipped" royalty (they certainly didn't hold the Czars in high regard) but in certain European countries, Jews frequently served as rent collectors and agents of aristocrats and depended on those aristocrats and the Crown to protect them from angry peasants. (Middlemen are usually hated; the same thing happened to the Chinese in Southeast Asian countries. The Jews had the additional disadvantage of the religious animus directed against them.) The royalty and aristocracy were more than happy to use Jews as buffers and toss them to the wolves when necessary.

buwaya said...

Cubanbob, I wrote it.

The points in there are what I always thought were mainstream.
You will find similar commentary in everything from Maxim Gorky to Paul Johnson ("History of the Jews"). Jews everywhere had the most to fear from the peasantry and the mob, that was always the case.

What in there is controversial?

buwaya said...

Its not just European aristocracy and royalty (the protectors of Poland's Jews were the Polish magnates, etc.)

In Morocco for instance the Sultan was their explicit protector, and the masses were the danger. Whenever there was political unrest and the royal authority was weak it was usual for the mellah (ghetto) to be sacked. You will find a description of exactly this (in 1907) in "The Conquest of Morocco", Douglas Porch.

buwaya said...

An example of the Sultan of Morocco (who had very limited power by that time) sheltering Jews from a spontaneous pogrom in 1912, under French rule -

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/when-the-jews-sheltered-with-the-sultans-lions/

This was not the first time either.

William said...

Antisemitism is like a dry riverbed. It can lay dormant for years, but when the waters come, that's where they run. The Gordon Riots in London were explicitly anti-Catholic, but the rioters assaulted the Jews........In the 19th and early 20th centuries, many German Jews felt that antisemitism was a medieval thing that was dying out. Schnitzler claimed that he only knew one anti Semite while in high school. Many German Jews were optimistic about the future.......I don't know if the Jews felt protected by the German aristocrats, but the German culture and language was the one that the Jews of eastern and Central Europe gravitated to. The Jews had a tremendous impact on German culture, and, similarly, German culture had a tremendous impact on Judaism. Reform Judaism, Zionism, some Hassidic sects were all ideas that that were formed and proselytized by German speaking Jews.. Similarly, it was Mendelssohn who reacquainted the Germans with Bach. I think Heine is after Goethe the most beloved German poet. Even Hitler didn't strike his Lorelei poem from the canon. Funny how things worked out. Not ha ha funny.



Paco Wové said...

Buwaya – I don't really see what cubanbob is talking about either. However, Americans frequently have a tendency to be extremely sensitive to any sort of assigning group characteristics to Jews, especially any that could potentially be taken in a negative light.

mockturtle said...

William, while Felix Mendelssohn was of Jewish ancestry, he was a Lutheran Christian.

R.J. Chatt said...

With anti semitism there is always a tendency to confuse cause and effect. (Jews were not allowed to own land or be farmers therefore Jews were unsuited to agricultural work. Jews were limited to certain professions like money lending so therefore Jews are obsessed with money.) Jews living in autocratic countries were sometimes protected by the ruling families and just as often victimized when those rulers needed scapegoats and ended up expelling the Jews. To make some kind of generalization that Jews gravitate towards monarchies is inaccurate but also willfully ignores reality. What of those Jews who gravitated towards communism and socialism? What about the founding of the State of Israel as a democratic country?

That's why there is suspicion of anti-semitism. Odd that it is so deeply embedded as to be unconscious.

R.J. Chatt said...

Also, there is much literature about the role of fathers in the lives of their daughters. I was surprised to read Ann's criticism of that remark as if it was not well documented. See: How Dads Affect Their Daughters into Adulthood by Linda Nielsen Linda Nielsen is a Professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University. A member of the faculty for 35 years, she is a nationally recognized expert on father-daughter relationships.

Tommy 'Sterilize 'Em All' Douglas said...

Christina Freeland is even dumber than Canada's PM Trudeau.
Yes, it is possible.

Tatter said...

Say, that's a mighty fine ideer, that. If only yer media fellers hadn't whipped the people of Europe into such a Trump-hating frenzy that they booed Ivanka off the stage, it mighta even worked.

Angel-Dyne said...

R.J.Chatt: That's why there is suspicion of anti-semitism. Odd that it is so deeply embedded as to be unconscious.

What's "so deeply embedded as to be unconscious" - the anti-semitism or the automatic suspicion of anti-semitism?

This stuff gets silly when people start accusing people of anti-whatever motivations, conscious or unconscious, because those people offer interpretations of historical events or trends that are most certainly open to debate. "Inaccurate and willfully ignoring reality"? Approaching a complex topic with "I'm right, you're wrong, and therefore an anti-Semite" isn't persuasive, to say the least.

Ctmom4 said...

@traditional guy "But somehow Jack morphed into a genuine honorable man that out fought all comers, like DJT today." JFK was an honorable man? The guy who deflowered his teenage intern, then had her service one of his pals? The guy screwing around with Sam Giancana's moll? The guy who made Slick Willy look like an amateur when it came to cheating on your spouse?

mockturtle said...

JFK was far from honorable.

R.J. Chatt said...

Historical interpretations based on false knowledge which ascribe negative motives to the Jewish people and not acknowledging the underlying intention to do so is what I call unconscious anti-semitism. Saying that Jews are oriented towards royalty and not towards populism is not a debatable interpretation of historical events because it is based on a faulty knowledge of history. As I pointed out many Jews were attracted to socialism and communism; you can't get more populist than that. On the other hand, I would agree that merely having a critical opinion about Jews or some aspect of Judaism does not automatically make someone an anti-semite.

Note: I find the verification process incredibly tedious. Wish there were a better way.