The New Anti-Semitism

I was 17 years old before I realized that people didn’t like Jews. I’d read books of course, and had history classes. I’d learned, intellectually, about anti-Semitism. I knew about racism in America from programs like “All in the Family;” but I never personally experienced anti-Semitism till I visited Europe. In Paris, I was called “sale youpin,” or “dirty kike” for wearing a star of David as I traveled. In Spain, too, I heard nasty comments about Jews. I continued to visit France throughout the 1980’s when the synagogue in Paris was bombed, and LePen was becoming a political superstar.

Historically, France has been a hotbed of anti-Jewish sentiment. “Scientific” anti-Semitism, which so influenced Hitler and racists worldwide, originated in France with de Gobineau. Jews, he “proved,” were genetically inferior. The French national anthem, like the original German one, is rife with xenophobia. The last line of the Marseillaise cautions against letting “impure blood” dilute the veins of France. Unlike Germany, which has come to terms with its anti-Semitic past, France still has work to do. I recommend seeing “Sarah’s Key” (Elle s’appelait Sarah) for a fictional but well-researched consideration of the topic.

It’s easy to point fingers at the racism of other countries. Our own nation was built on the twin crimes of genocide against native people and enslavement of Africans. America has a significant population of Jews, and anti-Semitism hasn’t had a strong footing here, except among fascist sympathizers like Lindbergh and Ford.

But anti-Semitism here and abroad never seems to run its course: it re-invents itself. Throughout the West, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feeling is on the ascendancy.
We are at war with God knows how many Muslim countries from Afghanistan to Libya. September 11 was a great pretext for anti-Semitic sentiment directed at Arabs. Never mind that Christian extremists are a far greater threat domestically than Muslims. Muslims are just “different,” we are constantly told--- some of the people who tell us this are Jewish. It’s sad and sick, a family feud. The Christian terrorist in Norway cited American anti-Semites in his tiresome manifesto. One of these writers was Jewish.

In Europe, as well as America, the right and left can agree on one thing: Muslims are just “different.” They are extreme, they are medieval, they refuse to assimilate.
Anti-Semitism is an insidious racism with an almost 2,000 year history in the West. When Christianity became Rome’s official religion, those who wouldn’t convert were ostracized or executed. The exception was the Jews, who were kept around as an object lesson for the unrepentant. Jews served as convenient scapegoats for everything from missing children to the plague. Then there were the Crusades, and Westerners got to direct their racism at another group of Semites.

One of the most insightful explanations of anti-Semitism I’ve come across is from Jonathan Schell, who wrote an article on the topic for the Nation. “Conspiracy theories are appealing not despite their nonfactuality but precisely because of it. When the longing for illusion--- a hardy perennial in political life--- arises, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, which almost flaunt their defiance of the actual world, are ready and waiting to satisfy the need. Casting off factuality is then not a burden but a release from a burden--- a palpable liberation from the ever-difficult, ever-frustrating efforts of seeing things as they are.”

Well said, Mr. Schell. When things go wrong, blame a Jew--- and if that is too uncomfortable or inconvenient, blame a Muslim. Without them, we’d have to look at ourselves.

Why Arizona SB 1070 Is Wrong

Last month, Arizona passed a new law, SB 1070. This bill was signed by the Republican right-wing governor, Jan Brewer. She’s Palin’s new best buddy, which tells you everything you need to know about her. The law states that people must carry documents with them at all times to prove they are legal residents. Officers who don’t do this can be sued by private citizens. Brewer et al claim that this will not lead to racial profiling. It’s hard to see the new law as anything other than racial profiling. Proponents of the law claim that you can tell who’s a citizen by the shoes they wear, for instance. SB 1070 is a legal mandate for racism, and is mean-spirited.

America is a country of immigrants. The Statue of Liberty invites everyone to come and seek freedom. Despite this open invitation, our country has a history of racism and nativism. The country was created on the twin crimes of ethnic cleansing and slavery. It must be noted that French, English, and even Spanish settlers did marginally better than Americans in their interactions with first nations. The United States has had no qualms about breaking treaties, claiming land, and massacring native Americans. African immigrants were brought forcibly to this country, and enslaved. This is our past, our heritage. As more English and German settlers came to this country, there were backlashes against immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. In 1880, for instance, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. This law defined Chinese, and eventually other Asians, as a distinct, inferior race. Chinese immigrants could not become citizens, and in many parts of the country, notably California, could not own land. The 19th century was the time when the concept of “race” was created. Jews were seen as subhuman. The concept of “moron” came in to existence, and people of certain ancestries were considered stupid and impossible to educate. When the IQ test was invented, the basic Stanford test, it was used to bar immigrants to this country. A patrol of female bureaucrats waited on Ellis Island to deny entry to those they thought were “morons”, based on a visual inspection. Others were given the Stanford test. Since most didn’t speak English, they didn’t do well on the exam. Nativist hysteria culminated in the Immigration Act of 1924, which mandated limited quotas of immigrants of despised ethnicities. American eugenics was in full swing.

Jews were the target of much of the racist anxiety. In France, writers like de Gobineau and Chauvin (from whom we get the term “chauvinism”) considered race prejudice scientific. Jewish immigrants were eventually barred from disembarking in New York City, and were sent to Galveston instead. It was believed they would assimilate faster there. Newspapers like the New York Times blamed Jews for slums and illiteracy. They were thus guilty of living in the circumstances society proscribed.

America’s past informs the current immigration debate. This country has a history of racism and discrimination. Leave it to a bunch of old white folks in Arizona, and elsewhere, to revive the same stereotypes of the Other. (As an old white guy, I can freely call them out.) Everything Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin say about Mexican workers was said of Jewish, Chinese, Italian, Polish immigrants. Immigrants are stupid, lazy, violent. Same racism, different day.

Eleven cities are boycotting Arizona, and hopefully others will follow suit. No doubt the country needs immigration reform, and that is a complicated topic. Racism has to be taken out of the discussion, or reform can’t happen. SB 1070 inserts prejudice into the debate, and must be seen for what it is, namely, legally sanctioned discrimination.

America’s racist past must be acknowledged. But history isn’t destiny. Fortunately, we live in a country where we can express opinions on this law. When you look without, you are also obligated to look within. To say that we are “colorblind,” or that we “don’t have a racist bone” is not realistic. Growing up in this society, we have ingrained racist attitudes. It’s important to eradicate the racism within.

The insidious thing about SB 1070 is that it purports to address immigration issues, but instead condones racism. It’s an issue that calls us to examine the history of our country, as well as inner prejudice. By doing this, maybe, just maybe, we can move towards the world imagined by John Lennon when he sang “imagine there was no country… nothing to live or die for, and no religion, too…”