Things not to write about antisemitic attacks, a thread:
"The vast majority of anti-Semitic attacks ... are ...by right-wing white supremacists. But most of the recent New York[] attacks have been carried out by people of color expressing very different grievances, or none..."
"The vast majority of anti-Semitic attacks ... are ...by right-wing white supremacists. But most of the recent New York[] attacks have been carried out by people of color expressing very different grievances, or none..."
Yes, let's dive into the "grievances" of the various people attacking Jews. This is helpful, but that's a mouthful. We need a shorthand. Call this the "Jewish question"?
"The recent street violence ... are based, in part, on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories similar to those on the Right. & yet, it is dangerous & misleading to see this as the same phenomenon, b/c the social contexts, []dynamics of race, [&] relationships 2 power are []different."
Yes, it's very important whether the trailer park dwelling KKK member in rural Tennessee has more systemic privilege than the black dude in Brooklyn. That completely changes the fact that they both think Jews control the world and the appropriate response to such bigotry
After noting that Grafton Thomas, like the Jersey City shooters, was influenced by BHI theology that "blames Jews for degrading American culture and accuses them of being self-interested moneymakers" - classic antisemitic tropes that feature in Nazi propaganda, he says:
"But in these cases, the anti-Semitic themes are sometimes wedded to quasi-progressive concerns about racial justice, or, more broadly, to grievances against Jews as usurious landlords or agents of gentrification."
Oh? I guess that's OK then.
Oh? I guess that's OK then.
I mean, it's not like it's a WHITE guy claiming Jews are destroying communities, so, I guess, is it really all that bad? And really, "agents of gentrification" is kind of a compliment when you think of it, no? Accusing Jews of usury is bad, but not in their capacity as landlords
He then points to the Jersey City councilwoman's antisemitic Facebook rant as an example of this "wedded to quasi-progressive concerns" paradigm.
O ... k? Is this supposed to make things better?
O ... k? Is this supposed to make things better?
Antisemites conspiracize about Jews destroying the things THEY care about. That's how this works. It's why you wouldn't expect the SPECIFIC antisemitic "grievances" of a peasant in 1300s Germany (anachronistic, I know) to track the specific "grievances" of today's neo-Nazis
So, great. Wonderful. Black antisemites in Brooklyn will frame their specific conspiracizing around the values and priorities that matter to them, not the ones that matter to our hypothetical KKK trailer parker. Blinding insight, much important.
(NOTE for the hysterical or intellectually dishonest. We're talking about SPECIFIC individual Black folks who are in fact antisemitic. Not the Black community at large. Stop it.)
"This combination of baseless hatred and socio-economic grievance stands in stark contrast to the wordy theoretical manifestoes of white supremacist anti-Semitism."
Not really, no. White supremacist antisemitism boils down to "you're destroying my home by [insert conspiracy]"
Not really, no. White supremacist antisemitism boils down to "you're destroying my home by [insert conspiracy]"
You've built an entire article around the notion that there's a meaningful difference in the fact that black antisemites find different conspiracies and bigotries to insert into that template
"there is no left-wing or African-American equivalent of President Trump ... After all, the notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan may be the leader of the Nation of Islam, but Trump is the leader of the free world."
Re left-wing antisemitic leaders, go talk to the British Jewish community about that, then get back to me after you've cleared your myopia.
From there, the article devolves into the standard "look, right wing antisemitism is the REAL problem" handwaving, as though we're incapable of fighting both.
It's like a bad Monty Python sketch. A Jew goes to the constables to complain that he was separately attacked by a neo-Nazi and a Corbynite and the constable (played by John Cleese, of course), goes "so, which would you like us to arrest, then?"
Jew: Both
Cleese: No, sorry, can't
Jew: Why not?
Cleese: Sorry, regulations. We can only respond to antisemitism from one side of the spectrum. Pick one, please.
Jew: What, are you serious?
Cleese [drinking tea]: Sorry, my hands are tied.
Cleese: No, sorry, can't
Jew: Why not?
Cleese: Sorry, regulations. We can only respond to antisemitism from one side of the spectrum. Pick one, please.
Jew: What, are you serious?
Cleese [drinking tea]: Sorry, my hands are tied.
This is noxious garbage that the author should be ashamed of, and the publication as well.
End of rant
End of rant
