Substack Antisemitism Deconstructed
You’ve likely read about Ye’s (Kanye West’s) recent antisemitic outbursts, and perhaps have learned that nearly 60 percent of all religious bias hate crimes in this country are directed at Jewish people, even though this group makes about 2 percent of the US population.
Possibly, you’ve also seen diverse editorial posts about the affair, whether from the #Anti-Defamation League or from CNN’s #LisaRespersFrance, who questioned why Ye was allowed to continue with rhetoric and actions perceived as anti-Black, but was only more widely condemned when he engaged in antisemitic tropes. Dave #Chappelle made somewhat ambiguous remarks related to Ye’s antisemitic outbursts on Saturday Night Live on November 12, not endorsing #Ye but at the same time possibly suggesting that maybe there are too many Jews in Hollywood.
I’ve been mostly dissatisfied with everything I’ve read or heard about the affair. Maybe this will be an exercise in futility, but I want to clarify what we really mean when we discuss antisemitism.
First, let’s define our terms, particularly “antisemitism.” The term was coined in Germany around 1860 in the context of Jew hatred, and the word “semite” was earlier used in the 18th century to refer to languages (and by extension, people) with ancient Near East origins. The word “Semite” is said to be derived from the Biblical person Shem, a son of Noah. Read more here or here. In other words, “Semite” was not always a synonym for “Jew,” and this is why some Muslim Arab speakers have argued that they cannot be antisemitic because they are themselves Semites. But the meaning today, and in any context, is that antisemitism is Jew hatred.
What was lethal about the expression “antisemitism,” especially in its German context, was its link to “race” and heritable genetic makeup. While one could convert to Christianity (or Islam) to avoid persecution, one could never change one’s genetic makeup. This insight is at least one of the keys to understanding Adolph Hitler’s genocidal campaign against the Jews – religious conversion simply wouldn’t do, and the 1933-35 #NurembergLaws said anyone even with one Jewish grandparent and even if raised from birth in a Christian church was nonetheless still a “Jew.”
Still, why have people hated the Jews in the first place? Historically, the main driver was the Christ-killing charge, despite the fact that all the Disciples were born as Jews and the first appeals made by Jesus and the Apostles were to fellow Jews. And, some Jews converted! But those who didn’t, either in the 1st century of the Common Era or later? As a professor at #MarianUniversity, a Catholic institution in Indianapolis, once explained to me, the Christ-killing charge came to mean that Jews who refused to convert were acting as if they were standing with the mob that allegedly clamored for Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus; it was as if they supported the deicide. Transgenerational guilt is evil enough, but at least there was an out, which was conversion.
As the alleged Christ-killers, #Jews were increasingly marginalized and segregated from the rest of the societies in which they lived, though there are always confessional reasons why any religious or ethnic group would choose to live close to each other when in a “host” country. And, I must note that the historian Michael Grant, a great student of the Roman Empire and the early Christian church, has argued that Jews were somewhat exclusive prior to the life and death of Jesus. Grant has written that Jews comprised up to 9 percent (!) of the total population of the Roman Empire at its height and, as others have noted, had a somewhat special status among the Romans, that is, at least until the Jewish Revolt of 67-70 CE. Whatever the basis for the segregation and self-segregation over the generations, being a minority in cultures that were either highly theocratic or highly clannish (and, later, highly nationalistic) meant the Jews were always in a precarious position. They were “the other.”
The great success of the Jews in the two millennia since the death of Jesus was survival, and I believe that is their greatest crime today. Legendary British historian Arnold Toynbee referred to the Jews, collectively speaking, as a “fossilized” people with no reason to exist (as a distinct people) anymore because they had no land of their own and their religion had been superceded. Yet survive they did, survival in hard times being the singular measure of success.
As the Jews were generally barred from owning land in Europe, they excelled in the trades and in moneylending, businesses you could “take with you,” as it were, while their deep study of religious texts also meant the Jews had a high literacy rate, which put them in some demand as bureaucrats, translators, and experts. But this Jewish success put them at some risk from populist-based antisemitism – the Jews “have it too good” and all that, while the peasants and masses, depending on which country and historical context one is talking about, did not have it as good.
This notion of Jewish success despite being the targets of hate, exclusion and persecution over the millennia is central to modern antisemitism. I don’t see much in the way of the Christ-killing charge anymore, especially in light of the “Declaration on Relations of the Catholic Church to non-Christian Religions,” released by the Vatican in 1964 and which specifically absolves “the Jews” of culpability in the death of Jesus, so the focus has changed.
But I do hear and read statements that appear to mock the Jews for complaining about antisemitism when, as a group, there are many success stories, whether in medicine, science or politics, or in finance or owning professional sports teams. But these skeptics are like people who say there can’t be racism in America because Oprah Winfrey was so successful, or Michael Jordan’s endorsement has sold so many athletic shoes, or because the bi-racial Barack Obama was first elected president in 2008. Basically, the hard-core antisemites are still out there, but there are laws and cultural norms that prevent them for oppressing the Jews, so many Jews have prospered in America.
While Ye’s antisemitism has been widely condemned and, despite CNN’s Lisa Respers France’s belief that the media was quick to condemn his antisemitism while slow to condemn his anti-Black racism, it should be clear to all that condemning Jew hatred in fact has taken a back seat in recent years to concerns over anti-Black racism; assaults on Asian Americans; anti-immigrant xenophobia; LGBTQ+ rights, and more.
Nonetheless, I do think that some current critics of Ye have been careless in their approach. The Anti-Defamation League in particular sometimes counts “anti-Zionism” as a form of antisemitism and this is both a logical and tactical mistake. While anti-Zionism (or total opposition to the State of Israel) can be linked to antisemitism and is a convenient place for antisemites to hang out, it is still the case that Israeli policies vis a vis the Palestinians should be argued on their own merits and demerits. The trend on some college campuses to bar pro-Israel speakers (while apparently not barring pro-Iranian speakers or Communist Chinese-funded programs) should be exposed, too, but it’s still a mistake to axiomatically conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. To do so changes no one’s mind, and may push some observers to challenge other aspects of antisemitism that are often cited.
I don’t know where the controversy over Ye’s antisemitism will end up. I know some people will say, “Look at Jewish power; the Jews are making people turn on Ye.” I like to think that responsible leaders, governments and journalists want no part of “death con three” to the Jews, or anything related to what is arguably the oldest form of hate extant today, which is antisemitism. The sad reality is that Ye is not the only Black person of note to be an antisemite – I would just refer you to a line from a poem written by the late, celebrated Black poet, #AmiriBaraka: “Smile jew. Dance, jew. Tell me you love me, jew. I got something for you ... I got the extermination blues, jewboys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured ... So come for the rent, jewboys ... one day, jewboys, we all, even my wig wearing mother gonna put it on you all at once.”
I reference this one excerpt, albeit allegedly reputed later on by Bakara, because it does reference Hitler (i.e., genocide, and favorably so, just as Ye promised “death con 3” for the Jews, which is a reference to a nuclear Holocaust) and because it’s not been uncommon for notable Black artists and leaders (Nikki Giovanni, Louis #Farrakhan, others) to condemn the so-called Jewish middleman, that is, the Jewish landlord or storeowner in Black neighborhoods in the 20th century. Yet missing from all such antisemitic attacks was any notion of what sociologists call “ethnic succession,” that is, that Jews were the next to last to move into better neighborhoods in major American cities, and while Blacks were the group that often followed, the latter had few if any financial resources to buy apartments or businesses from those Jews, hence the Jewish landlords and proprietors were forced to hold on to their properties or abandon them, which turned out to be a real dilemma with no happy outcome for anyone.
I sometimes think of adversity and division as teachable moments, and I sometimes think, “What an insipid response that is” to adversity and division. Ultimately, I fall back on two Enlightenment principles. One is to judge each individual as just that – an individual – responsible only for his or her actions, as someone who should be judged not by race, religion, national origin and so on, but just on their own merits.
And the second principle is a call for free speech and reasoned discourse. Let’s not tar and feather anyone but, if necessary, pick apart and expose the flawed thinking or actual hate we see in others and hope that we can convince the wider audience of where the truth lie/
.
Thanks much. It's certainly challenging to offer a forum to other to speak when you/we know they wouldn't return the favor if they were in power. Thanks for reading!
Thank you for your writing. I especially liked your ending takes:
“… Enlightenment principles. One is to
judge each individual as just that – an
individual – responsible only for his or her
actions, as someone who should be
judged not by race, religion, national
origin and so on, but just on their own
merits.”
This to me goes back to the “Golden Rule.”
And your second:
“And the second principle is a call for free
speech and reasoned discourse. Let’s
not tar and feather anyone but, if
necessary, pick apart and expose the
flawed thinking or actual hate we see in
others and hope that we can convince
the wider audience of where the truth lie/“
Although I wholeheartedly believe in free speech, I do believe that “hate” speech has no place in our world. It goes against everything in your first principle, and causes a great harm to those it is aimed at. It’s so hard to put that “monster” back in a pocket because it develops a “crazy” mind of its own, and people are hurt and/or killed from it (hate speech).
Unfortunately, this is one thing I am now dreading from the recent candidacy announcement of the former president. He just can’t help himself in calling people names and making fun of people. As a former teacher, I could not show him in my classroom due to not knowing what disparaging remarks might come from his mouth.
There is too much of that attitude that has been accepted in our society since his first term in office. It’s not the way I was raised, nor do I want my grandchildren to see that kind of example as acceptable.