In 1971, sometime near my ninth birthday, I was approached on Madison Avenue between 74th and 75th street by a white man raising money for the defense of Angela Davis.
This post is deeply depressing....but extremely important. Baldwin was (and is) a hero of mine, and I often taught his wonderful essay on whiteness as something one becomes rather than is born to by virtue of skin color. In that essay, he argues that Jews became “white” when they came to America (as did the Irish.) I thought it a bold anticipation of ideas that were yet to be widely held, regarding the historical construction of race. I didn’t know about the pieces you examine here, perhaps because I didn’t want to know about them. I loved Baldwin, and it would have crushed me to think of him as holding this kind of blind, mistaken view of Jews. It crushes me now...perhaps especially now, when these writings can be touted as support for the destructive “progressivism” among young leftists today. Upsetting. But I needed to know, and I thank you for writing about it.
In the field of animal behavior there is a concept of the Omega animal. The most despised member of the pack, who is abused by everybody, upon whom everyone vents their frustrations.
Jews were the Omega Animal of Europe, while African Americans have been the Omega Animal of the United States. I once said to someone, “The Jews were the n...rs of Europe.” If I remember correctly, I got a puzzled book, and I have not tried it again.
Perhaps, immigration worked so well for the great influx of Jewish arrivals from 1880 to 1920, because this country already had an Omega Animal.
That's interesting. Even within Jewish immigration, the earlier arriving German Jews in America looked down on the Eastern European Jews (most of us) who came in the 1880-1920 period.
I still consider Baldwin an intellectual and writing hero. But he was, like all of us, deeply influenced by the times he lived in and his passions.
Among liberal Jews, there has always been a natural connection with the cause of Civil Rights and Black American oppression., and no one wrote about it better than Baldwin. We are natural allies. But it does sting to read the quotes; the worst is the SNCC newsletter.
Baldwin may not have realized that he paid American Jews a backhanded compliment—when he says they are paying conscience money, at least he implies they have a conscience unlike most white Americans.
I don't believe Jewish contributions to the civil rights movement were “conscience money” in any way. I think they come straight out of the rich social consciousness that developed in Europe in the 19th century.
They come out of Egypt, out of Passover, which teaches us to always remember that we were slaves. "Avadim hayeenu." I have always thought that to be the most important and universal teaching from Passover. If we remember that we were slaves, it should color how we treat others. After some 15 centuries, the lesson is still there for us and I think that is what made us supporters of the Civil Rights movement. At the same time that we guard our existence in Israel, we should keep the same lesson in mind.
Thanks for the stronger analysis. It would have been really wonderful if there was a big enough Jewish population in America in the 1840s and 1850s to take part in the abolitionist movement. I wonder how they would have expressed themselves.
My personal take on Jews becoming white is that it didn’t happen until WWII and the founding of Israel. As I’ve said before, my parents were not born “white.” They became “white” in their teen years along with the rest of the Jews in America.
and yet, we are white only in the eyes of those who want to see us that way. Many whites do not see us as being part of their group. I'd argue, though without statistics, that there is more antisemitism among Whites than among Blacks.
So, there is antisemitism in both groups. No news there. But in both groups, the antisemites are a minority so to speak as if those two groups, the alt-right whites and the anti-semitic minorities are a majority is prejudicial. I say that, of course, not intending that antisemitism is not a problem, but to point out that we should not treat any major group as antisemitic. Alt-right, not conservatives, are not representative of white youth or even conservative youth. Is there a problem? Of course, but we should be careful not to ascribe a minority view to an entire group, whatever the view or group. That is my point.
You can also convince yourself that the good people at "progressive causes" aren't shot through with anti Jewish hate. You can talk in platitudes and mention Islamophobia instantly when discussing genocidal hate speech and attack on Jews, and forget that while Jewish protestors aren't saying such things, and aren't attacking Palestinians or Arabs, it's conservative Muslims and their Leftist buddies who are attacking Jews for being Jews. The two are not the same, no matter the progressive handwaving.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I fully know the difference and have spoken to it many times. What I am saying is that while it is true, for example, that there are antisemites among progressives, we should be careful not to say, categorically, that progressives are antisemites. Here's an example. Some Jews are crooks. Should someone then say Jews are crooks? We would not agree with such talk and, as a matter of principle, we should be careful not to engage in it. Some are not all, in any group. The leap from some to all is prejudice, no matter who practices it. I am speaking to a single principle here, in no way defending anyone else' actions or words.
David, I'm with you in questioning the seemingly reflexive nature of some protests, or the apparent lack of nuance in some forms of activism. However, I'm really struggling with your logic near the end, which feels like it leans toward a different form of confirmation bias. More particularly, it is the turn from "a clarion call to oppose oppression" to the repetition of "hate" in the following paragraph, most notably in this sentence: "When it comes to protesting oppression, perhaps the muscle memory is to hate first, ask questions later." I think it's a mistake to equate protest or dissent with hate, as your closing seems to do.
I didn't intend to label all dissent and protest as hate, but I did intend to label the specific protests against Israel as "hate first, ask questions later." I could have been more clear.
Is there evidence that people are marching "in hatred of Israel"? Maybe some, but I think most are marching against relentless bombing of a civilian population that cannot escape, by an Israeli government that has stated openly that it wants to annihilitate that population.
The acid test is always this: if the roles were reversed and it was the Israelis who were in the position of the Palestinians and being bombed day after day week after week, with all of the infrastructure of their world (homes, hospitals, schools, houses of worship, etc.) basically annihilated, and people were marching against that, would you interpret it as hatred?
Btw, you should have been upset with your parents. You did a compassionate and heartfelt thing supporting Angela Davis. But then I think most white parents would have reacted that way in that time period (since I'm close in age to you).
Well, we didn’t see anyone marching when Israel was bombed numerous times by Hamas during the past two decades. And always after a ceasefire. And I haven’t seen anyone in the Israel government state that it wants to annihilate Palestinians, but Hamas has said openly that its intention is to annihilate Israel. I’m a huge critic of the Netanyahu government, but let’s stay with facts.
The Netanyahu government was constructed with the support of extreme right-wing Israeli parties. One member of the government stated that the use of a nuclear weapon in Gaza was not off the table. Another member suggested that Israel drive the entire population of Gaza into the Sinai Desert so that they could become Egypt's problem.
Neither of these suggestions is the policy of Netanyahu government, but neither has he kicked these two guys out of his cabinet. I hope that you could Google these concepts, but I will do it for you if you need me to.
This is true—but we have many right-wing crazies in our government, and I wouldn’t characterize “our government” as wanting what the most insane want—e.g. to put women who have abortions in jail. So I guess I overstated the case by saying “no one.” That was going too far.
Netanyahu has been a disaster for the cause of a safe and secure Israel. Because he committed acts of corruption, he can't kick those guys out or else he'll lose power and may go to jail. Which is not an excuse but a shameful and shameless act on his part.
I take from the "river to the sea" as hate speech, despite protestations to the contrary. Context matters, and the context here is that October 7th triggered, predictably, all that followed. Some of the people chanting that may not view it as hate speech, but so many Jews do.
What I find equally troubling is that we live in a time and place where institutions aggressively cull words and phrases as to avoid causing hurt or pain to others. Words/phrases that have been banned/eschewed include “pain”, “seminal” “American” “take a shot at”, “no can do”, “submit” (Stanford University); “snowball” and “snow cone” (American Institute for Research); peanut gallery” (Politico); and “Mother” (take your pick). And yet, despite loud and pained protests and attempts from the Jewish community to educate the uneducated about the ”River“ phrase, these are words that are not only still permitted in many places and but celebrated. It is difficult to understand this neon lit double standard unless one is willing to accept that antisemitism and Jew hatred are part and parcel of the explanation. And yes, I know, that some Jews use it. That is a complication, not an excuse – in the same way that popular and well thought of songs sometimes use the ugly, hate filled word to which you referred. That too is a complication, not an excuse.
Maybe you forgot a day called October 7. When Israel was invaded by Hamas barbarians who started a war. And maybe, just maybe you missed the annihiliistic slogans ‘ftom the river to the sea’ and ‘in our lifetime’. Please don’t gaslight us with some dumb interpretation. We know what this means. And if you support feminism why don’t you cry out about the women the Hamas savages raped?
I was referring to the concept of gaslighting people with an interpretation of ‘from the river to the sea’ which does not mean the annihilation of Israel. I could use other words like ‘stupid, obfuscating, deliberate denial’ or something like that. I didn’t call him dumb. But I think he’s blind and deaf because he doesn’t see and hear what has been going on.
Your article was sad. We want to have heroes and they aren’t heroic.
Are you referring to the relentless bombing that followed a call from the Israeli government to leave in advance of their need to defend themselves against the heinous attacks on civilians? As to stating openly one's purpose, you have it precisely wrong. The Hamas charter calls for the annihilation of Israel. Israeli military efforts have always been primarily to protect its borders. Now, I'm not saying all Israeli decisions were correct, but the existential threat it TO Israel not the other way around. In 1947, the UN proposed 2 states. It was not Israel that opposed that. When Israel was established in 1948, it was not opposed to a Palestinian/Arab state as a neighbor. That potential neighbor, on the other hand, vowed to destroy the state and annihilate Jews.
There are things the Israeli government has done with which I disagreed at the time and do now. Perfection, as a yardstick of behavior, is an impossible standard and like all humans, they do not measure up to it. However, what they do not do, have never done, is vow to annihilate another people. Forced to defend themselves, they do so. Israel was not at war and has no plans to attack again prior to the actions of October 7. There is no moral ambiguity in that.
“by an Israeli government that has stated openly that it wants to annihilitate that population.”
This is an objectively untrue. The Israeli government has done no such thing and has, in fact, acted in a fashion that proves its intentions are the exact opposite. Were the Israeli government even *willing* to annihilate the population of Gaza, much less actively wanted to do so, the war with Hamas would have been over on October 8. That’s pretty inarguable.
Have a fringe voice or two in Israeli politics said something that could be interpreted along this line? Sure. They’ve been routinely condemned, and the Israeli government has not adopted their position in their actions.
The path out from under the boot needs to be a moral one, or it is self-destructive. The path needs to be a positive one, with a focus on honesty. If one believes in the sanctity of life and the value of each human, that value should be held tight. Last night, watching "Harriet" on Netflix, the story of Harriet Tubman, there was a moment when her former slave-owner was on his knees in front of her still claiming she was his property. She held a gun and he was unarmed. It could have been the moment in which she killed him. She did not. In her work to free slaves, she was guided by God, something she said over and over again. She held to her righteous path. This is not about what is socially acceptable, (who cares?) but about what is right. One cannot act wrongly fighting for what is right. Even if we assume Hamas is right in its wanting the destruction of Israel, raping and slaughtering women and children is so heinous even some Arab voices called them out for it. It will not get them what they want.
“Some Arab voices?” How about the 2 million Arab Israelis who want Hamas gone? Not one protest from those 2 million Arab Israelis. Hamas did not discriminate on Oct 7. One Arab Israeli pleaded with Hamas saying, I’m Arab. They shot him dead in front of his kid who later retold the story. A woman in a hijab is one of the kidnapped. You won’t hear these stories on mainstream media.
I have said from Oct 7, that Hamas' target audience on that date was only secondarily Israel and the US. I think their primary target was always the greater Arab/Muslim world, in particular anyone who might be even thinking about normal relations with Israel. It was a terrorist's message of intimidation, a reminder of their willingness and ability to punish those who would not support them. I'm not saying Israeli Arabs should remain silent, but consider their fear of Hamas along side the fear in certain Arab capitals, where those in power were reminded that Hamas is able and willing to conduct a crusade against them, even on religious grounds. After all, if you're not with them you are seen as unfaithful to Islam. They can play the infidel card at will. Shooting the Arab in front of his child was just such a message, as was the woman wearing the hijab.
"Angela Davis was on trial for the procurement of guns used in a murderous exchange between black revolutionaries and the police. She was exonerated."
It may seem extravagant, but I'm going to credit you with .000001 percent of that win. It was doubtless also an important moment for you gaining intellectual and emotional independence of your parents.
I'm sure it added to his feelings of alienation, including from the Nation Of Islam and other "macho" groups within the Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
David, I take issue with your footnote #7. Specifically, I take issue with the expurgation. For years, many who were diagnosed with cancer (and their families and friends) referred to the disease as the C-word. Somehow, it seemed to them, saying cancer was a terrible thing. But we should not be afraid of words and here I draw the distinction between the use and mention of words. I might use the word fat in a sentence (just did), but that is a mention. It is not the same as calling someone fat. I would not want someone to call me a kike, but I am not disturbed by its mention in a discussion about words. If I am quoting someone, I think I ought not be afraid to mention the word within quotation marks.
I realize many do not feel the same way as I do, and I was once asked not to repeat the very word to which you referred on another Substack, but I strongly feel that, as with c-word, we give the word even more power over our thinking if we are afraid to mention it. When I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, I made a point to say "I have cancer." It was my act of defiance. I would not let the word frighten me. I would not give it that power. I don't disagree that we should not USE the word in question, for all its horrific and ugly history. Still, it is a word and we should not be afraid to mention it. When I say we, I mean everyone.
I hate the fact that some words are made so heavy and loaded that we must watch each one. My grandson married a lovely woman who insists on "they" as her pronoun. I just don't use pronouns when talking about her in her presence, because I think such word enforcement is not only nonsensical but actually counter-productive, sure to create a backlash. I respect her and who she is and I'm sure she knows it. Still, words are often all we have to communicate. Sigh
There has been a strain of antisemitism within the Black liberationist movement since the late 1960’s. It by no means took over the entire movement but it was there. While Baldwin lived in France not the US he was apparently influenced by it.
Jews were thrown out of the civil rights movement by radical Blacks in the late 1960’s. In my mind, that was the beginning of the end of a true civil rights movement which just morphed into a bunch of riots. Economic improvement ended. Busing was enforced but hated.
Whether you believe it to be for the better or the worse, that is not the case in many of the circles within our culture. In those circles, the utterance of certain words, despite the context of that utterance, is considered to be unacceptable - which is the point I had hoped to make - words offensive to Jews should be as forbidden as any of the others - yet in many places those words are not only tolerated, they are celebrated.
We are all victims of our preconceptions, and a titanic intellect like Baldwin is no exception. I remember how many Jewish intellectuals were devastated by Baldwin's critique, which is so rife with half-truths as to be embarrassing. Jack Greenberg did not participate in Brown v Board to assuage his conscience, nor did Andrew Goodman or Mickey Schwerner go to Mississippi for that reason. I did my share of protesting and, haha, I did not have all that much conscience to assuage. And to equate the Warsaw ghetto with Black protest here is simply ludicrous. The real lesson is never to anoint anyone as a unquestioned authority or moral paradigm, but rather to subject every argument, every point of view to critical analysis regardless of the source. I used to teach that the most important arguments to critique were those that you agreed with. That goes for people as well.
Exactly...the pitfalls of pedestals. I remember when Black activists turned against the Jews...all they talked about were that Jews owned all the businesses in Harlem and were price gouging local residents, which had an element of truth but which was as specious a generalization as the ones they were fighting about their own people. Eventually all the Jewish businesses disappeared and became Black owned businesses that price gouged local residents. Bottom line, there are no shortcuts to either knowledge or wisdom.
Along with which arguments to critique (excellent point), is the question to whom should we listen? That answer is those with whom we disagree, for a few reasons. 1) We might learn something. 2) There is even a chance, however small, that it will change our thinking. 3) Assuming #2 is not the case, listening and really hearing what is being said and an effort to understand what is behind it may help us make our argument stronger. It is always worthwhile to try to understand what the opposition thinks. We won't learn much inside our own echo chamber.
Agreed, except, in number 2, the chance of learning something is in no way small...assuming we are actually interested in learning, which, alas, with many people is not always the case. In fact, even if we continue to disagree, our perspective will change, maybe only slightly, but enough to make the arguments we do put forth more incisive and effective.
I stopped reading authors, black or white, who were/are known anti semites. From Hemingway to Maya Angelou. The list is long. Sometimes I’d rather remain blissfully unaware of their hatred so I could enjoy a good book.
And recently Zibby media pulled out of attending the National Book Awards ceremony due to the promise that a group of winners would use their platform to support Palestinians (which these days equates to supporting Hamas). See her article: https://zibbyowens.substack.com/p/why-zibby-media-pulled-out-of-the
I wonder what Baldwin would have felt about January 6? What he reaction he might have been to the U.S. refusing Jewish refugees sanctuary during WW II as they were thought to be a threat to "national security"?
I'm not nor have ever been anti-semitic. Nor have I ever been racist. I'm not a Christian, nor anything really. My parents made sure that this child of the 1950's grew to be a fair and equatable person.
I'm a naive Pollyanna who believes everyone of any race, colour or creed should be valued and protected by all of us - a moral duty to hold onto like a life raft in a world gone mad.
I found the post, despite its truths, to be so unsettling and many of the comments even more so. That's the problem with being a Pollyanna - totally unrealistic.
And now, a view from an old man who is neither black nor a Jew.
I really don't mean to disrespect the tragic histories of either group, but neither do I wish to be part of the woke victim tripping history lessons which are currently so popular across the culture. Before readers start throwing the rotten fruit, perhaps they might pause a minute to consider the reasoning behind that statement.
The history lessons aren't bad, in fact I would agree they are essential, especially for young people. But we should understand the price tag. Every minute we spend on the victim tripping history lessons is a minute we don't spend focused on practical solutions to real world problems that are happening today. And so without further ado, let's proceed directly to that...
PROPOSAL: What if America offered fully free education at every level to blacks and native Americans? By "fully free" I mean tuition, books, room and board, every expense which is needed to advance one's education. This plan would continue until such time as the wealth gap between whites and these minorities is erased, a specific goal line which can be measured with data.
I've been pushing this idea for years, and it never goes anywhere. Here's why.
Everyone appears to be hopelessly distracted by the blame game victim tripping history lessons quest for moral superiority and woke validation of their political correctness. I don't mean this blog, or Substack as a whole, but nearly the entire culture. That is, our discussion of such topics is typically all about us, instead of those we could assist with specific, bold, plans of action.
Could my proposal be improved? Of course! But that won't happen. What will happen instead is that maybe a few readers will post why my proposal is wrong, bad, will never work, and why as an old white man who is not a Jew I have no right to speak etc etc.
And then discussion of specific, bold, plans of action will be discarded, and we'll head straight back to the blame game victim tripping history lessons.
Ok, my turn is up. I've put on the plastic rain suit and am ready to receive the rotten fruit. Fire when ready!
Okay, so I'm an old (75, so maybe older?) white guy and also a Jew. I like your proposal. Someone once suggested to me that such ideas should be expanded to include all poor people and I think that is a suggestion worth of discussion. To your larger point, I agree we should be looking forward to what good can be accomplished. The sad part is that everyone could benefit from a better world, but as we move in that direction we will sometimes be derailed by those whose motivation is hate. That is not to say we should not continue to try to make things better for all, with particular attention to the disadvantaged. Others may have fruit to throw, but I'll hold an umbrella for you as long as you are trying to move things forward for the benefit of all.
Hi Josh, yup, you have me beat by 4 years. Thanks for your engagement.
I'm not attached to my proposal being "the one true way", I'd just like to see more discussion of specific, bold, plans of actions aimed at practical problems. These can take many forms.
This post is deeply depressing....but extremely important. Baldwin was (and is) a hero of mine, and I often taught his wonderful essay on whiteness as something one becomes rather than is born to by virtue of skin color. In that essay, he argues that Jews became “white” when they came to America (as did the Irish.) I thought it a bold anticipation of ideas that were yet to be widely held, regarding the historical construction of race. I didn’t know about the pieces you examine here, perhaps because I didn’t want to know about them. I loved Baldwin, and it would have crushed me to think of him as holding this kind of blind, mistaken view of Jews. It crushes me now...perhaps especially now, when these writings can be touted as support for the destructive “progressivism” among young leftists today. Upsetting. But I needed to know, and I thank you for writing about it.
In the field of animal behavior there is a concept of the Omega animal. The most despised member of the pack, who is abused by everybody, upon whom everyone vents their frustrations.
Jews were the Omega Animal of Europe, while African Americans have been the Omega Animal of the United States. I once said to someone, “The Jews were the n...rs of Europe.” If I remember correctly, I got a puzzled book, and I have not tried it again.
Perhaps, immigration worked so well for the great influx of Jewish arrivals from 1880 to 1920, because this country already had an Omega Animal.
That's interesting. Even within Jewish immigration, the earlier arriving German Jews in America looked down on the Eastern European Jews (most of us) who came in the 1880-1920 period.
I still consider Baldwin an intellectual and writing hero. But he was, like all of us, deeply influenced by the times he lived in and his passions.
Among liberal Jews, there has always been a natural connection with the cause of Civil Rights and Black American oppression., and no one wrote about it better than Baldwin. We are natural allies. But it does sting to read the quotes; the worst is the SNCC newsletter.
Baldwin may not have realized that he paid American Jews a backhanded compliment—when he says they are paying conscience money, at least he implies they have a conscience unlike most white Americans.
I don't believe Jewish contributions to the civil rights movement were “conscience money” in any way. I think they come straight out of the rich social consciousness that developed in Europe in the 19th century.
They come out of Egypt, out of Passover, which teaches us to always remember that we were slaves. "Avadim hayeenu." I have always thought that to be the most important and universal teaching from Passover. If we remember that we were slaves, it should color how we treat others. After some 15 centuries, the lesson is still there for us and I think that is what made us supporters of the Civil Rights movement. At the same time that we guard our existence in Israel, we should keep the same lesson in mind.
Thanks for the stronger analysis. It would have been really wonderful if there was a big enough Jewish population in America in the 1840s and 1850s to take part in the abolitionist movement. I wonder how they would have expressed themselves.
We don’t need to be friends with our enemies.
I'm not sure who you mean by our enemies.
Speaking as a Jew I’m not going to be friends with someone who hates Jews. I don’t have any obligation to help people who are Jew haters.
That, and the justice orientation deep within Judaism.
My personal take on Jews becoming white is that it didn’t happen until WWII and the founding of Israel. As I’ve said before, my parents were not born “white.” They became “white” in their teen years along with the rest of the Jews in America.
and yet, we are white only in the eyes of those who want to see us that way. Many whites do not see us as being part of their group. I'd argue, though without statistics, that there is more antisemitism among Whites than among Blacks.
I wish that was true. Young black and Hispanic Americans are as antisemitic as alt-right young whites.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-race-ethnicity-and-politics/article/abs/antisemitic-attitudes-among-young-black-and-hispanic-americans/5465F2124BC3D44B40521D2CD000D023
So, there is antisemitism in both groups. No news there. But in both groups, the antisemites are a minority so to speak as if those two groups, the alt-right whites and the anti-semitic minorities are a majority is prejudicial. I say that, of course, not intending that antisemitism is not a problem, but to point out that we should not treat any major group as antisemitic. Alt-right, not conservatives, are not representative of white youth or even conservative youth. Is there a problem? Of course, but we should be careful not to ascribe a minority view to an entire group, whatever the view or group. That is my point.
You can also convince yourself that the good people at "progressive causes" aren't shot through with anti Jewish hate. You can talk in platitudes and mention Islamophobia instantly when discussing genocidal hate speech and attack on Jews, and forget that while Jewish protestors aren't saying such things, and aren't attacking Palestinians or Arabs, it's conservative Muslims and their Leftist buddies who are attacking Jews for being Jews. The two are not the same, no matter the progressive handwaving.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I fully know the difference and have spoken to it many times. What I am saying is that while it is true, for example, that there are antisemites among progressives, we should be careful not to say, categorically, that progressives are antisemites. Here's an example. Some Jews are crooks. Should someone then say Jews are crooks? We would not agree with such talk and, as a matter of principle, we should be careful not to engage in it. Some are not all, in any group. The leap from some to all is prejudice, no matter who practices it. I am speaking to a single principle here, in no way defending anyone else' actions or words.
Who wants to be white anyway?
David, I'm with you in questioning the seemingly reflexive nature of some protests, or the apparent lack of nuance in some forms of activism. However, I'm really struggling with your logic near the end, which feels like it leans toward a different form of confirmation bias. More particularly, it is the turn from "a clarion call to oppose oppression" to the repetition of "hate" in the following paragraph, most notably in this sentence: "When it comes to protesting oppression, perhaps the muscle memory is to hate first, ask questions later." I think it's a mistake to equate protest or dissent with hate, as your closing seems to do.
I didn't intend to label all dissent and protest as hate, but I did intend to label the specific protests against Israel as "hate first, ask questions later." I could have been more clear.
Is there evidence that people are marching "in hatred of Israel"? Maybe some, but I think most are marching against relentless bombing of a civilian population that cannot escape, by an Israeli government that has stated openly that it wants to annihilitate that population.
The acid test is always this: if the roles were reversed and it was the Israelis who were in the position of the Palestinians and being bombed day after day week after week, with all of the infrastructure of their world (homes, hospitals, schools, houses of worship, etc.) basically annihilated, and people were marching against that, would you interpret it as hatred?
Btw, you should have been upset with your parents. You did a compassionate and heartfelt thing supporting Angela Davis. But then I think most white parents would have reacted that way in that time period (since I'm close in age to you).
Well, we didn’t see anyone marching when Israel was bombed numerous times by Hamas during the past two decades. And always after a ceasefire. And I haven’t seen anyone in the Israel government state that it wants to annihilate Palestinians, but Hamas has said openly that its intention is to annihilate Israel. I’m a huge critic of the Netanyahu government, but let’s stay with facts.
The Netanyahu government was constructed with the support of extreme right-wing Israeli parties. One member of the government stated that the use of a nuclear weapon in Gaza was not off the table. Another member suggested that Israel drive the entire population of Gaza into the Sinai Desert so that they could become Egypt's problem.
Neither of these suggestions is the policy of Netanyahu government, but neither has he kicked these two guys out of his cabinet. I hope that you could Google these concepts, but I will do it for you if you need me to.
This is true—but we have many right-wing crazies in our government, and I wouldn’t characterize “our government” as wanting what the most insane want—e.g. to put women who have abortions in jail. So I guess I overstated the case by saying “no one.” That was going too far.
Netanyahu has been a disaster for the cause of a safe and secure Israel. Because he committed acts of corruption, he can't kick those guys out or else he'll lose power and may go to jail. Which is not an excuse but a shameful and shameless act on his part.
Polls show currently that if there was a vote today Bibi and smotrich would be out. But no voting til war is over.
He can’t kick anyone out he’s barely got a majority in the coalition. He’s toast anyway.
I take from the "river to the sea" as hate speech, despite protestations to the contrary. Context matters, and the context here is that October 7th triggered, predictably, all that followed. Some of the people chanting that may not view it as hate speech, but so many Jews do.
What I find equally troubling is that we live in a time and place where institutions aggressively cull words and phrases as to avoid causing hurt or pain to others. Words/phrases that have been banned/eschewed include “pain”, “seminal” “American” “take a shot at”, “no can do”, “submit” (Stanford University); “snowball” and “snow cone” (American Institute for Research); peanut gallery” (Politico); and “Mother” (take your pick). And yet, despite loud and pained protests and attempts from the Jewish community to educate the uneducated about the ”River“ phrase, these are words that are not only still permitted in many places and but celebrated. It is difficult to understand this neon lit double standard unless one is willing to accept that antisemitism and Jew hatred are part and parcel of the explanation. And yes, I know, that some Jews use it. That is a complication, not an excuse – in the same way that popular and well thought of songs sometimes use the ugly, hate filled word to which you referred. That too is a complication, not an excuse.
It is not the choice of words, so much as the intent, that matters.
Maybe you forgot a day called October 7. When Israel was invaded by Hamas barbarians who started a war. And maybe, just maybe you missed the annihiliistic slogans ‘ftom the river to the sea’ and ‘in our lifetime’. Please don’t gaslight us with some dumb interpretation. We know what this means. And if you support feminism why don’t you cry out about the women the Hamas savages raped?
While I disagree with E. Z.'s POV, I would not call it "dumb."
I was referring to the concept of gaslighting people with an interpretation of ‘from the river to the sea’ which does not mean the annihilation of Israel. I could use other words like ‘stupid, obfuscating, deliberate denial’ or something like that. I didn’t call him dumb. But I think he’s blind and deaf because he doesn’t see and hear what has been going on.
Your article was sad. We want to have heroes and they aren’t heroic.
Are you referring to the relentless bombing that followed a call from the Israeli government to leave in advance of their need to defend themselves against the heinous attacks on civilians? As to stating openly one's purpose, you have it precisely wrong. The Hamas charter calls for the annihilation of Israel. Israeli military efforts have always been primarily to protect its borders. Now, I'm not saying all Israeli decisions were correct, but the existential threat it TO Israel not the other way around. In 1947, the UN proposed 2 states. It was not Israel that opposed that. When Israel was established in 1948, it was not opposed to a Palestinian/Arab state as a neighbor. That potential neighbor, on the other hand, vowed to destroy the state and annihilate Jews.
There are things the Israeli government has done with which I disagreed at the time and do now. Perfection, as a yardstick of behavior, is an impossible standard and like all humans, they do not measure up to it. However, what they do not do, have never done, is vow to annihilate another people. Forced to defend themselves, they do so. Israel was not at war and has no plans to attack again prior to the actions of October 7. There is no moral ambiguity in that.
Nicely stated.
“by an Israeli government that has stated openly that it wants to annihilitate that population.”
This is an objectively untrue. The Israeli government has done no such thing and has, in fact, acted in a fashion that proves its intentions are the exact opposite. Were the Israeli government even *willing* to annihilate the population of Gaza, much less actively wanted to do so, the war with Hamas would have been over on October 8. That’s pretty inarguable.
Have a fringe voice or two in Israeli politics said something that could be interpreted along this line? Sure. They’ve been routinely condemned, and the Israeli government has not adopted their position in their actions.
This is for me a very enlightening, informative, sad article David.
There is still the question of what is the socially acceptable path for one underneath the boot?
The path out from under the boot needs to be a moral one, or it is self-destructive. The path needs to be a positive one, with a focus on honesty. If one believes in the sanctity of life and the value of each human, that value should be held tight. Last night, watching "Harriet" on Netflix, the story of Harriet Tubman, there was a moment when her former slave-owner was on his knees in front of her still claiming she was his property. She held a gun and he was unarmed. It could have been the moment in which she killed him. She did not. In her work to free slaves, she was guided by God, something she said over and over again. She held to her righteous path. This is not about what is socially acceptable, (who cares?) but about what is right. One cannot act wrongly fighting for what is right. Even if we assume Hamas is right in its wanting the destruction of Israel, raping and slaughtering women and children is so heinous even some Arab voices called them out for it. It will not get them what they want.
“Some Arab voices?” How about the 2 million Arab Israelis who want Hamas gone? Not one protest from those 2 million Arab Israelis. Hamas did not discriminate on Oct 7. One Arab Israeli pleaded with Hamas saying, I’m Arab. They shot him dead in front of his kid who later retold the story. A woman in a hijab is one of the kidnapped. You won’t hear these stories on mainstream media.
I have said from Oct 7, that Hamas' target audience on that date was only secondarily Israel and the US. I think their primary target was always the greater Arab/Muslim world, in particular anyone who might be even thinking about normal relations with Israel. It was a terrorist's message of intimidation, a reminder of their willingness and ability to punish those who would not support them. I'm not saying Israeli Arabs should remain silent, but consider their fear of Hamas along side the fear in certain Arab capitals, where those in power were reminded that Hamas is able and willing to conduct a crusade against them, even on religious grounds. After all, if you're not with them you are seen as unfaithful to Islam. They can play the infidel card at will. Shooting the Arab in front of his child was just such a message, as was the woman wearing the hijab.
"Angela Davis was on trial for the procurement of guns used in a murderous exchange between black revolutionaries and the police. She was exonerated."
It may seem extravagant, but I'm going to credit you with .000001 percent of that win. It was doubtless also an important moment for you gaining intellectual and emotional independence of your parents.
Thanks Kathleen. I'll take it!
A thoughtful piece. Thank you.
Congratulations. Loved this piece. I wonder if Baldwin hated straight people for his oppression as a gay man.
I'm sure it added to his feelings of alienation, including from the Nation Of Islam and other "macho" groups within the Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
I never liked him because somehow I was aware of his Jew hatred. I’m not sure how. As for Angela Davis, she’s still alive and quite despicable.
David, I take issue with your footnote #7. Specifically, I take issue with the expurgation. For years, many who were diagnosed with cancer (and their families and friends) referred to the disease as the C-word. Somehow, it seemed to them, saying cancer was a terrible thing. But we should not be afraid of words and here I draw the distinction between the use and mention of words. I might use the word fat in a sentence (just did), but that is a mention. It is not the same as calling someone fat. I would not want someone to call me a kike, but I am not disturbed by its mention in a discussion about words. If I am quoting someone, I think I ought not be afraid to mention the word within quotation marks.
I realize many do not feel the same way as I do, and I was once asked not to repeat the very word to which you referred on another Substack, but I strongly feel that, as with c-word, we give the word even more power over our thinking if we are afraid to mention it. When I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, I made a point to say "I have cancer." It was my act of defiance. I would not let the word frighten me. I would not give it that power. I don't disagree that we should not USE the word in question, for all its horrific and ugly history. Still, it is a word and we should not be afraid to mention it. When I say we, I mean everyone.
I just didn't feel comfortable using it lest it be taken out of context, despite it being in quotations, and lest it make anyone reading it feel bad.
But I get and respect your position.
I hate the fact that some words are made so heavy and loaded that we must watch each one. My grandson married a lovely woman who insists on "they" as her pronoun. I just don't use pronouns when talking about her in her presence, because I think such word enforcement is not only nonsensical but actually counter-productive, sure to create a backlash. I respect her and who she is and I'm sure she knows it. Still, words are often all we have to communicate. Sigh
There has been a strain of antisemitism within the Black liberationist movement since the late 1960’s. It by no means took over the entire movement but it was there. While Baldwin lived in France not the US he was apparently influenced by it.
Jews were thrown out of the civil rights movement by radical Blacks in the late 1960’s. In my mind, that was the beginning of the end of a true civil rights movement which just morphed into a bunch of riots. Economic improvement ended. Busing was enforced but hated.
Whether you believe it to be for the better or the worse, that is not the case in many of the circles within our culture. In those circles, the utterance of certain words, despite the context of that utterance, is considered to be unacceptable - which is the point I had hoped to make - words offensive to Jews should be as forbidden as any of the others - yet in many places those words are not only tolerated, they are celebrated.
We are all victims of our preconceptions, and a titanic intellect like Baldwin is no exception. I remember how many Jewish intellectuals were devastated by Baldwin's critique, which is so rife with half-truths as to be embarrassing. Jack Greenberg did not participate in Brown v Board to assuage his conscience, nor did Andrew Goodman or Mickey Schwerner go to Mississippi for that reason. I did my share of protesting and, haha, I did not have all that much conscience to assuage. And to equate the Warsaw ghetto with Black protest here is simply ludicrous. The real lesson is never to anoint anyone as a unquestioned authority or moral paradigm, but rather to subject every argument, every point of view to critical analysis regardless of the source. I used to teach that the most important arguments to critique were those that you agreed with. That goes for people as well.
Great points all around. I suppose devastated because they had put him on a pedestal and devastated because they felt betrayed.
Exactly...the pitfalls of pedestals. I remember when Black activists turned against the Jews...all they talked about were that Jews owned all the businesses in Harlem and were price gouging local residents, which had an element of truth but which was as specious a generalization as the ones they were fighting about their own people. Eventually all the Jewish businesses disappeared and became Black owned businesses that price gouged local residents. Bottom line, there are no shortcuts to either knowledge or wisdom.
Along with which arguments to critique (excellent point), is the question to whom should we listen? That answer is those with whom we disagree, for a few reasons. 1) We might learn something. 2) There is even a chance, however small, that it will change our thinking. 3) Assuming #2 is not the case, listening and really hearing what is being said and an effort to understand what is behind it may help us make our argument stronger. It is always worthwhile to try to understand what the opposition thinks. We won't learn much inside our own echo chamber.
Agreed, except, in number 2, the chance of learning something is in no way small...assuming we are actually interested in learning, which, alas, with many people is not always the case. In fact, even if we continue to disagree, our perspective will change, maybe only slightly, but enough to make the arguments we do put forth more incisive and effective.
Exactly
I stopped reading authors, black or white, who were/are known anti semites. From Hemingway to Maya Angelou. The list is long. Sometimes I’d rather remain blissfully unaware of their hatred so I could enjoy a good book.
TS Eliot. Roald Dahl. Ezra Pound.
And recently Zibby media pulled out of attending the National Book Awards ceremony due to the promise that a group of winners would use their platform to support Palestinians (which these days equates to supporting Hamas). See her article: https://zibbyowens.substack.com/p/why-zibby-media-pulled-out-of-the
Very brave in those circles. The polite intellectuals don’t like Jewy Jews.
Very thought provoking article.
I wonder what Baldwin would have felt about January 6? What he reaction he might have been to the U.S. refusing Jewish refugees sanctuary during WW II as they were thought to be a threat to "national security"?
I'm not nor have ever been anti-semitic. Nor have I ever been racist. I'm not a Christian, nor anything really. My parents made sure that this child of the 1950's grew to be a fair and equatable person.
I'm a naive Pollyanna who believes everyone of any race, colour or creed should be valued and protected by all of us - a moral duty to hold onto like a life raft in a world gone mad.
I found the post, despite its truths, to be so unsettling and many of the comments even more so. That's the problem with being a Pollyanna - totally unrealistic.
Keep the faith. I do believe that the moral arc bends upward in the long run.
I’m with David. Keep the faith. We need people with the heart to smile in the life raft.
And now, a view from an old man who is neither black nor a Jew.
I really don't mean to disrespect the tragic histories of either group, but neither do I wish to be part of the woke victim tripping history lessons which are currently so popular across the culture. Before readers start throwing the rotten fruit, perhaps they might pause a minute to consider the reasoning behind that statement.
The history lessons aren't bad, in fact I would agree they are essential, especially for young people. But we should understand the price tag. Every minute we spend on the victim tripping history lessons is a minute we don't spend focused on practical solutions to real world problems that are happening today. And so without further ado, let's proceed directly to that...
PROPOSAL: What if America offered fully free education at every level to blacks and native Americans? By "fully free" I mean tuition, books, room and board, every expense which is needed to advance one's education. This plan would continue until such time as the wealth gap between whites and these minorities is erased, a specific goal line which can be measured with data.
I've been pushing this idea for years, and it never goes anywhere. Here's why.
Everyone appears to be hopelessly distracted by the blame game victim tripping history lessons quest for moral superiority and woke validation of their political correctness. I don't mean this blog, or Substack as a whole, but nearly the entire culture. That is, our discussion of such topics is typically all about us, instead of those we could assist with specific, bold, plans of action.
Could my proposal be improved? Of course! But that won't happen. What will happen instead is that maybe a few readers will post why my proposal is wrong, bad, will never work, and why as an old white man who is not a Jew I have no right to speak etc etc.
And then discussion of specific, bold, plans of action will be discarded, and we'll head straight back to the blame game victim tripping history lessons.
Ok, my turn is up. I've put on the plastic rain suit and am ready to receive the rotten fruit. Fire when ready!
Okay, so I'm an old (75, so maybe older?) white guy and also a Jew. I like your proposal. Someone once suggested to me that such ideas should be expanded to include all poor people and I think that is a suggestion worth of discussion. To your larger point, I agree we should be looking forward to what good can be accomplished. The sad part is that everyone could benefit from a better world, but as we move in that direction we will sometimes be derailed by those whose motivation is hate. That is not to say we should not continue to try to make things better for all, with particular attention to the disadvantaged. Others may have fruit to throw, but I'll hold an umbrella for you as long as you are trying to move things forward for the benefit of all.
Hi Josh, yup, you have me beat by 4 years. Thanks for your engagement.
I'm not attached to my proposal being "the one true way", I'd just like to see more discussion of specific, bold, plans of actions aimed at practical problems. These can take many forms.
Great perspective
I don’t think the racial gap is about money for education. At all.