Harper-Collins prints atlas with no Israel.

[fm93]

I used to be on a political forum where one poster not only denied the validity of the concept of borders; he denied that borders or countries actually existed in the first place. As one of his fellow an-caps told him; "I agree with your sentiment, but there are borders. You're going to get shot if you try to cross."

I once saw a poster on a different site call Israel "Isntreal."

[Leonhard]

I just wish we'd preface Israel with The State of Israel, to distinguish it from the true Israel which is the Church.

[Jedidiah]

I just wish we'd preface Israel with The State of Israel, to distinguish it from the true Israel which is the Church.

A whole different can of worms.

[KingsGambit]

I think in a context like this where we're talking about current events, it's clear enough. If we're talking in church about the other meaning, that would be clear enough. (Sort of like how we can tell the difference between the country China and dishes by the context.)

[Cow Poke]

I think in a context like this where we're talking about current events, it's clear enough. If we're talking in church about the other meaning, that would be clear enough. (Sort of like how we can tell the difference between the country China and dishes by the context.)

It's actually pretty easy --- when speaking of modern day Israel, just pronounce it "IZ ree-ul", but when speaking of the Bible Israel, pronounce it with a flair ... Iss RYE elle. An British accent even makes it more official.

[Joel]

I used to be on a political forum where one poster not only denied the validity of the concept of borders; he denied that borders or countries actually existed in the first place. As one of his fellow an-caps told him; "I agree with your sentiment, but there are borders. You're going to get shot if you try to cross."

There is a sense in which we can say that there is no such thing as a nation or national borders: That the only actual entities are the individual human beings, each acting upon his/her own complex thoughts and motives, including interacting and cooperating together with other human beings. A nation is just an abstract concept in the minds of men. If everyone in the world forgot about or decided to ignore or drop the idea of the nation of Spain, for example, it would instantly cease to exist, revealing its lack of objective reality. The individual human beings, buildings, guns, and the like would remain. Likewise a national border, as usually conceived, is an imaginary line. You may get shot if you cross some imaginary line, but you aren't shot by a "nation". You are shot by a particular human being who chose to shoot you out of his own motivations (including based on his concepts of "nations" and imaginary lines)--who could have individually chosen not to shoot you.

But even if you see through the fiction of "nations" (in this sense) like the emperor's new clothes, you can't prudently ignore the concept, because other people still believe the fiction and act upon it. And there can be collections of people who work together to defend an imaginary line with lethal force (for good or ill, and whether called a "nation" by anyone). Which leads to my first suggested definition of borders in my earlier post: the bounds of a territory where a given collection of individuals coordinating together to use force happens to dominate over all others who would use force there. That's an objectively observable phenomenon.

One more example in case it's helpful: Suppose a large organized group of people is coming after you with swords, thinking they are doing it on behalf of Zeus. That doesn't mean Zeus actually exists. But on the other hand, you can't prudently ignore the fact that a large organized group is coming after you with swords, thinking they are doing it on behalf of Zeus. But that's because of what those human beings are thinking and doing, and not because Zeus has any objective reality.
(Now replace "Zeus" with "a nation")

[Teallaura]

I think in a context like this where we're talking about current events, it's clear enough. If we're talking in church about the other meaning, that would be clear enough. (Sort of like how we can tell the difference between the country China and dishes by the context.)

To be fair, it may be more confusing to a non-native speaker.

[Teallaura]

It's actually pretty easy --- when speaking of modern day Israel, just pronounce it "IZ ree-ul", but when speaking of the Bible Israel, pronounce it with a flair ... Iss RYE elle. An British accent even makes it more official.

[One Bad Pig]

It's actually pretty easy --- when speaking of modern day Israel, just pronounce it "IZ ree-ul", but when speaking of the Bible Israel, pronounce it with a flair ... Iss RYE elle. An British accent even makes it more official.

Or Greek - Iz rah EEL

[Cow Poke]

Or Greek - Iz rah EEL

OK, fancypants!

ישראל

[Carrikature]

Given the fact that I've been traveling for the past few days, my response to this thread has been delayed.

It's perpetuating that which has long term political repercussions - but more to the point, it's aiding and abetting raw hatred. Stupid business practice for a Western business to get involved in.

Mind you, I think that's just as true for Google, et al.

I found this bit about Western business to be pretty amusing; it's not as if Western business has any claim to moral high ground. We're the capitalists, remember? The mantra is to find a market and corner it, and where there's not a market to create one. As it stands, I continue to see this as a double standard. I'd be willing to bet that no one here knows what else HarperCollins has published, let alone taken a look at the possible long term repercussions (political or otherwise) of these publishings.

It's not trivial if a scholarly book, published as reference material is not accurate. It doesn't matter whether it's Israel or the Balkans. Do it right.

I agree. However, I maintain that this distinction is not as tight as people would have us believe. A "scholarly book, published as reference material" covers a lot of things, and accuracy is not necessarily one of them. One need only point out the many errors in a mathematics textbook (so much errata to download).

Just because a practice is established or popular (locally) doesn't mean that practice is not immoral.

Certainly. That said, the practice under discussion is a long way from having been established as immoral.

If it was the Arab League printing the atlas, it could be understandable. But a major publisher who expects to maintain some credibility?

Would you feel the same way if Encyclopedia Britannica* printed an edition of encyclopedias that totally omitted any reference to Israel?


*are they still printing encyclopedias?

If there were any indication that the content within works published by a company actually impacted that publisher's credibility, I think you'd have a point. As it stands, I'm quite certain that HarperCollins should be well beyond such things. Anti-theists and non-theists certainly aren't on a crusade against HC for publishing Bibles and other religious material. Would you suggest that we should be?

The encyclopedia is an interesting thought experiment. I happen to own the Brittanica Encyclopedia of World Religions, but I'm under no illusions that it's exhaustive, let alone 100% accurate. It's still a great resource.

This is especially sensitive because of some of the genocidal rhetoric that has been bandied about opposing Israel. In a small way, playing along with those who want Israel off the map legitimizes this.

Here's the thing: people keep repeating over and over that somehow the hate against Israel is legitimized by what's happened. There's claims that Israel has been marginalized, and that somehow Israel is a victim. Prove it, says I. The countries buying these atlases have hated Israel for decades, and that cuts both ways really. The cultural conflicts have been going on for centuries, and Israel is hardly an innocent. Any potential damage caused by these atlases is a drop in a bucket sinking in an ocean. HC is just smart enough to see the dollar signs, which I dare say isn't too far off from their reasoning for creating a Christian-oriented section.

[KingsGambit]

Here's the thing: people keep repeating over and over that somehow the hate against Israel is legitimized by what's happened. There's claims that Israel has been marginalized, and that somehow Israel is a victim. Prove it, says I. The countries buying these atlases have hated Israel for decades, and that cuts both ways really. The cultural conflicts have been going on for centuries, and Israel is hardly an innocent. Any potential damage caused by these atlases is a drop in a bucket sinking in an ocean. HC is just smart enough to see the dollar signs, which I dare say isn't too far off from their reasoning for creating a Christian-oriented section.

In the grand scheme of things, this probably won't have much of an effect as schools in these countries will find the atlases with the biases they want, and if HC won't play along somebody else will, but I think it's a shame to see such a prominent company play along.

Ten years or so ago, I read a book (edit: The Language Police by Diane Ravitch) about textbook battles in the United States, and a major issue was that textbook publishers in the US are disproportionately influenced by the standards of New York, California, and Texas for obvious reasons. The author's thesis was basically that California's standards were overly sensitive to various forms of political correctness, and that Texas's were overly protective of a conservative POV. I remember discussing this in college as well. Recently, I remember reading about these publishers finally refusing to play along with Texas (with their recent inaccurate history standards). If these companies will take a principled stand on that, I don't think it should be impossible for this (though I'm sure they'd find some local publisher if they had to.)

I don't, of course, claim Israel is by any means innocent; I am very critical of some of the actions they have taken in recent years; but I find it troubling to stoop to the tactic of literally erasing them from the map. I don't have any solution for the situation as a whole but don't see this as helping any.

(Also, I'm all for accurate teaching. This isn't as blatant as North Korea teaching their students that South Korea was the aggressor in the Korean War, but it's up there.)

[Carrikature]

In the grand scheme of things, this probably won't have much of an effect as schools in these countries will find the atlases with the biases they want, and if HC won't play along somebody else will, but I think it's a shame to see such a prominent company play along.

I might agree (about it being a shame) if there had been word one about what Google does for its maps (as Raphael pointed out). In both cases, we're dealing with groups of people that are, quite frankly, delusional. It's not as if these countries or their borders moved because of what has been presented. Further, the people buying and/or using such information already know better. Are we to believe that a huge percentage of the population suddenly forgets Israel is sitting right where they want to be?

Ten years or so ago, I read a book (edit: The Language Police by Diane Ravitch) about textbook battles in the United States, and a major issue was that textbook publishers in the US are disproportionately influenced by the standards of New York, California, and Texas for obvious reasons. The author's thesis was basically that California's standards were overly sensitive to various forms of political correctness, and that Texas's were overly protective of a conservative POV. I remember discussing this in college as well. Recently, I remember reading about these publishers finally refusing to play along with Texas (with their recent inaccurate history standards). If these companies will take a principled stand on that, I don't think it should be impossible for this (though I'm sure they'd find some local publisher if they had to.)

I don't, of course, claim Israel is by any means innocent; I am very critical of some of the actions they have taken in recent years; but I find it troubling to stoop to the tactic of literally erasing them from the map. I don't have any solution for the situation as a whole but don't see this as helping any.

(Also, I'm all for accurate teaching. This isn't as blatant as North Korea teaching their students that South Korea was the aggressor in the Korean War, but it's up there.)

I'm familiar with the textbook issue. I wasn't under the impression that it was publishing companies taking a principled stand, though. Rather, it was my understanding that more (and varied) textbooks were created to cater to specific states. They haven't stopped making such textbooks for Texas, et.al., they've simply expanded their options for the other states.

[KingsGambit]

I might agree (about it being a shame) if there had been word one about what Google does for its maps (as Raphael pointed out). In both cases, we're dealing with groups of people that are, quite frankly, delusional. It's not as if these countries or their borders moved because of what has been presented. Further, the people buying and/or using such information already know better. Are we to believe that a huge percentage of the population suddenly forgets Israel is sitting right where they want to be?




I'm familiar with the textbook issue. I wasn't under the impression that it was publishing companies taking a principled stand, though. Rather, it was my understanding that more (and varied) textbooks were created to cater to specific states. They haven't stopped making such textbooks for Texas, et.al., they've simply expanded their options for the other states.

You have a strong point about Google. I've heard similar criticisms lobbed at Apple (which I'm sure can go for any number of companies) for their compromising of their supposedly strong principles to gain entry to the Chinese market.

Also, it turns out I had in fact misread a headline a few months ago - what I thought was a company withdrawing a book from publication altogether was really their withdrawing from consideration in Texas (though I find it telling that the companies weren't swooping in to write Texas-friendly textbooks on the fly).

[Carrikature]

But even if you see through the fiction of "nations" (in this sense) like the emperor's new clothes, you can't prudently ignore the concept, because other people still believe the fiction and act upon it. And there can be collections of people who work together to defend an imaginary line with lethal force (for good or ill, and whether called a "nation" by anyone). Which leads to my first suggested definition of borders in my earlier post: the bounds of a territory where a given collection of individuals coordinating together to use force happens to dominate over all others who would use force there. That's an objectively observable phenomenon.

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Using this concept, it's certainly dumb to use maps that pretend a given imaginary line is non-existent and/or undefended. I suspect the people using such maps have just found a crazy way to soothe their own impotence.