Did you know that black people should never be accused of anti-Semitism?
University of New Hampshire physics professor Chanda Prescod-Weinstein took to Twitter on New Year’s Eve to explain why anti-Semitism is exclusively a “white” problem, and why it is inappropriate to discuss anti-Semitic acts committed by black people.
Prescod-Weinstein began her tweetstorm by explaining that it is “anti-Black” and “dangerous both to non-Jewish Black people and to Jews” to consider violent attacks against Jews by Black people “equivalent” to “white antisemitism.”
“But know that if you’re demanding that Black leaders make a particular point of speaking out about antisemitism, you’re probably a garden variety racist.”
“Antisemitism in the United States, historically, is a white Christian problem, and if any Black people have developed antisemitic views it is under the influence of white gentiles,” the professor clarified.
The professor goes on to explain how “white Jews adopted whiteness as a social praxis and harmed Black people in the process,” and that “Some Black people have problematically blamed Jewishness for it.”
This is interesting for so many reasons. The first is that it is historically inaccurate. Black people who have developed anti-Semitic viewpoints have done it mostly for two reasons. The first is the usual resentment developed towards people who are sometimes or even often the shop owners and landlords in economically depressed neighborhoods in which a certain group (in this case, poorer black people) tends to live. The second is the influence of certain anti-Semitic “leaders” who are far more influenced by Islam than by any “white Christians.” I speak of course of the likes of Louis Farrakhan, and he’s certainly not alone.
Another was Malcolm X and the black power movement of the 60s, which caused a rift between black activists and the Jews who had once been their supporters and co-workers:
Then, just as the struggle for civil rights achieved its cardinal victories with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many of its black activists began to turn away from their original goal, taking up instead the cause of “black power.” The meaning of black power was never clearly defined. Its driving motive seemed to be the venting of rage over racial humiliation, a rage that the earlier civil-rights movement had insisted on subordinating to the strategy of nonviolence and sublimating in the rhetoric of Christian love.
One convenient arena for this rage was the movement’s own organizations, in which the presence of whites in leading positions, and indeed at all levels, was now regarded as an intolerable affront. In a trice, CORE and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which had been on the cutting edge of the fight for integration, became racially exclusive. For a while, CORE continued to allow my grandmother to stuff envelopes, but in time she was asked not to come back.
With whites in the movement redefined as oppressors, and with so many of the whites being who they were, some of the new hostility was bound to assume an anti-Jewish tone. In 1967, at the Conference for a New Politics organized by leaders of the New Left soon after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, the black caucus insisted on pushing through a resolution condemning “imperialist Zionist[s].” The following year, during the New York City school strike, leaflets were distributed attacking Jewish teachers as “Middle-East murderers of colored people,” and a viciously anti-Semitic poem was read over the radio by the black activist Leslie Campbell.
These developments, cutting so sharply against the fraternal grain of the civil-rights struggle, shocked the Jewish community. Perhaps they should not have done so. For as we are reminded by Murray Friedman, anti-Semitism has in fact had a long history among American blacks. In the 1920’s, the “buy-black” campaign of the black-nationalist leader Marcus Garvey was explicitly targeted at Jews, and Garvey later spoke admiringly of Adolf Hitler. Malcolm X, too, was a vociferous anti-Semite in both public and in private. In one meeting with representatives of the Ku Klux Klan, at which he solicited their support for his project of black separatism, Malcolm “assured them,” writes Friedman, that “it was Jews who were behind the integration movement.”
“Georgia has the Negro and Harlem has the Jew.” Thus did the black writer James Baldwin acknowledge in COMMENTARY in February 1948 how widespread anti-Semitism was in his community. In time, Baldwin would demonstrate that he, too, was not above indulging in a little of the practice, as when he wrote that while Christians make up America’s true power structure, the Jew “is doing their dirty work.” Baldwin went on to denigrate Jewish financial support of civil-rights organizations as mere “conscience money,” and to complain bitterly that the Harlem and Watts riots of the mid-1960’s were not treated on the same high moral plane as the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943.
Prescod-Weinstein’s tweets also – among other things – deny black people what’s popularly known as “agency.” To blame the anti-Semitism of some blacks on the fact that they are puppets of anti-Semitic white Christians (who tend to be philo-Semitic, if anything, these days) is to deny that anti-Semitic black people are thinking for themselves, and also to deny the Black Muslim beliefs of many of them.
Prescod-Weinstein labels as “racists” those who believe that other black people should call out black anti-Semites on their beliefs. It seems that no one can criticize a black person or ask anything of a black person without being a “garden-variety” racist, despite (or because of?) the fact that Prescod-Weinstein herself seems to see the world in racial and racist terms.
And then there’s her use of jargon like “praxis” to demonstrate her bona fides in the world of academia and leftism.
Prescod-Weinstein is a somewhat unusual combination of theoretical physicist and leftist social activist, who is of mixed racial heritage herself (mother from Barbados and father Jewish – thus, the hyphenation). She is described (probably self-described?) as “queer and agender.” Here’s a passage from her webpage, the title of which is “Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Theoretical Physicist and Feminist Theorist”:
I’m Dr. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (she/her/they), Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Core Faculty Member in Women’s Studies at the University of New Hampshire. I’m also a columnist for New Scientist…
My work lives at the intersection of particle physics and astrophysics, and while I am primarily a theoretical researcher, I maintain strong ties to observational astronomy…
I also do research on feminist science studies, with a specific focus on the experiences of Black women in physics. I believe we all have the right to know the universe.
I was unaware that anyone on earth disagrees with the idea that “we all have the right to know the universe.”
Prescod-Weinstein might be a brilliant physicist. She might even keep her politics out of her work in physics, although that’s somewhat difficult to believe. My criticism, however, is of these tweets and the twisted “logic” behind them, which is very typical of the direction both leftism and academia (somewhat redundant, I know) have gone in recent years.
[NOTE: If you’re interested in learning more about Prescod-Weinstein’s thoughts on the matter, read the whole article about her at Campus Reform. Among other things, she has referred to Trump as “antisemite in chief.”]
Babble about ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ is 99% humbug and consists largely of status games played by gentry liberals and black chauvinists. This broad utters nothing in good faith and should be ignored if not spat upon.
Sigh….
Nobody is more racist than a leftist
They have such a low opinion of blacks that they believe it is their duty to protect them from standards.
Because in their view blacks are lesser beings who can’t be expected to meet them.
BTW Neo, I agree Islam is the far greater source of black anti-semitism. But since Muslims are another protected class they can’t bear any responsibility either.
And perhaps we are garden variety Islamophobes for noticing the obvious link.
How is that true? Obama was the first and only anti Semitic Prez that I recall. Somebody needs to clue that nutty woman . Nice hire here UNH.
The idea that any group cannot be anti-Semitic or have any other kind of prejudice is in fact kind of racist. It is seeing them as something separate from the rest of the human race.
The most anti-Semitic person I knew was Hispanic. He was overly proud of his pure Spanish blood on his father’s side. He believed that the Holocaust was God’s punishment for Christ’s death (which ignores the fact that the Roman’s had a hand in that.) He liked to brag his race was the most creative. (If there is a most creative race it’s probably the Jews. I say that as someone who is, to best of my knowledge, pure gentile.)
Neo – I admire you greatly and always enjoy your writing. You have a gift of never speaking down to readers like me despite being highly cultured and most erudite. But for some reason you chose to devote significant time and keystrokes to the analysis of comments that gave rise to a more succinct response here: “Not only is Ms. Prescod-Weinstein a fool, she is clearly unaware that spouting gibberish like this makes it widely known. Poor woman!”
She personifies a quote I heard often from my beloved late uncle John: “I’m not nearly educated enough to believe something so stupid as that”.
Scott:
I wish universities saw it that way.
But unfortunately, this is the sort of thinking that’s become not just acceptable at universities, but pretty much standard and even required. It struck me as notable that this person is a physicist. I’ve noticed in the last couple of years that the requirements and demands of wokeness have now pervaded the sciences as well as the humanities. Gibberish it may be, but it’s the mode of thought in which generations are being instructed.
“Black people who have developed anti-Semitic viewpoints have done it mostly for two reasons. The first is the usual resentment developed towards people who are sometimes or even often the shop owners and landlords in economically depressed neighborhoods in which a certain group (in this case, poorer black people) tends to live.” neo
In black neighborhoods, Jewish, Korean, etc. shop owners and landlords who dare to make a profit, regardless of how minimal… are viewed as ‘exploiters’. Anything less than ‘free stuff’ is viewed as oppression.
One universal among black racists is their entitlement attitude. The world owes them… everything. Which is a self-perpetuating spiral into failure.
Matthew:
I wonder if that guy knows that many Hispanics tend to have some level of Jewish DNA because of the converso phenomenon:
Amazing how much black prejudice against Jews in New York resembles black prejudice against Koreans in L.A…
This is a variation on the line that says black people cannot be racist, because they are victims, despite the evidence that a number of black leaders hate white people and don’t mind saying so.
Prescod-Weinstein is a somewhat unusual combination of theoretical physicist and leftist social activist,
You mean like Oppenheimer? It’s not usual for physicists to be left-wing at all, but most of them aren’t quite as activist about it.
I find the tarring of Trump as “anti-Semitic” quite the most loony of all the slurs thrown his way. He has Jewish grandchildren — actual observant ones, not merely of Jewish heritage. Many of the people he has selected to work with, both politically and in business, are Jewish. He has been a massive (and IMO excessive) supporter of Israel. How he gets to be anti-Semitic is quite beyond me.
As soon as someone describes Trump as anti-Semitic, I know they have lost the plot. No rational person could do that.
P-W might be but is probably not a “brilliant physicist”. She is a mere assistant professor at a public university, where she is also in Womens’ Studies. There are few black physicists, very few, and even fewer of her sex, so she got her job based on her female melanin in all likelihood to satisfy the unspoken quota..
The American culture has been based on individualism – that each person should be judged on their own character, not on their tribal affiliation of sex, race, religion, or ethnic group.
These tribalist attacks and PC censorship is to reduce individualism, and judge people more by their groups than as people. This is terrible.
How to stop it?
Stop gov’t money to colleges would be a big first step.
“if any Black people have developed antisemitic views it is under the influence of white gentiles”- so what she is saying is that Black people lack the capacity to form their own opinions and therefore can’t be held accountable for them. This is another great example of leftists claiming to be allies of minorities, while really just adopting them as mascots, as Thomas Sowell pointed out. I hope that people will recognize that the quote at the top of this comment translates literally to ” monkey see, monkey do”. That’s what the professor is actually saying.
Neo, I don’t know if he knew that but when I first heard that statistic I thought of him and found it humorous. It was worth noting he wasn’t a scary individual, but rather pathetic. He had a personality that was a smugness hiding deep seated insecurity. This was in junior high so he may have grown out of his beliefs.
Matthew, does your Hispanic friend/acquaintance purport to be some sort of Christian? If so he missed the whole point if he thinks someone needs to be punished for Christ’s death.
The only reason He condescended to become man was to make a sacrifice of Himself. To die on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.
Then rise again on the third day to show He conquered death.
Tell this guy he’s doing it wrong.
mikesixes:
And Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is in a rather unusual position in terms of this particular topic, because her heritage is half black (mother from Barbados) and half-Jewish (father).
}}} [NOTE: If you’re interested in learning more about Prescod-Weinstein’s thoughts on the matter, read the whole article about her at Campus Reform. Among other things, she has referred to Trump as “antisemite in chief.”]
Projection.
Also not a river in Egypt.
“Black people who have developed anti-Semitic viewpoints have done it mostly for two reasons.”
I suspect that there is a third reason: possibly more important, if more diffuse, than the two you found — During the so-called Civil Rights Era (all genuflect), a lot of Southern blacks spent a lot of time working with, and being condescended by, a lot of Northern “Jews” (by which I mean atheistic leftists whose grandmothers were Jews). Blacks can recognize condescension as well as anyone else; and condescension calls forth disdain.
She ain’t brilliant.
Universities would be trampling the bodies of actual brilliant physicists to hire her if she were even marginally so. Brilliant young physicists don’t wander off into women’s studies, unless there’s some mental illness beginning to peek over the edge of the table.
Looking at her bio, she got a lot of internships at various places that were probably thrilled to be able to say “we’ve got a black female astrophysicist” at conferences. But UNH isn’t exactly ground zero of theoretical physics. She peaked, and realized it, and now she’s off in the weeds of “studies” to prove that she wuz robbed.
“But unfortunately, this is the sort of thinking that’s become not just acceptable at universities, but pretty much standard and even required. It struck me as notable that this person is a physicist. I’ve noticed in the last couple of years that the requirements and demands of wokeness have now pervaded the sciences as well as the humanities.”
As another commenter mentioned, the sciences are not immune to leftist thought. I hate to say it, but many physicists still have a leftover trait from childhood where they were most likely shunned as being “nerds”. Many still want to be seen as part of the cool crowd, which in academia is now the far left. They may know deep down that the far left’s push for more social justice in the sciences will result in a degrading of their discipline, but they don’t have the courage to go up against those forces. The term “racist” still strikes fear in many of them.
And I also agree that this woman was most likely, as is euphemistically called nowadays in academia, an “opportunity hire”. I’ve seen it many times.
@physicsguy:he sciences are not immune to leftist thought. I hate to say it, but many physicists still have a leftover trait from childhood where they were most likely shunned as being “nerds”. Many still want to be seen as part of the cool crowd, which in academia is now the far left.
My experience of physicists leads me to disagree. They are highly intelligent and they align themselves with the “smart” kids, not the “cool” kids. They believe that applied intelligence solves all problems (“Crazy Eddie”) and for them this has been true. This idea has ever been the siren song of the Left. If only humans were directed intelligently by the best minds working together for the good of all…
And because physicists are highly intelligent they tend to discount the difficulty of problems in other fields.
Incidentally while I agree with the assessment that Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is not brilliant as physicists go, she almost certainly is a great deal smarter than the general population, which is worth keeping in mind. There are players in the NBA who have never started, or never even played in an NBA game, who are still nonetheless way better at basketball than you or I or most people.
I’ve split my working life between physics and business. If you are at the average for business, you are rarely going to meet people who are a lot smarter than you, though of course you will meet a range. If you are at the average for physics, since everyone is in the far right tail of the bell curve, you are going to meet people 2, 3, 10 times smarter than you practically daily. It can be humbling, or it can give you a chip on your shoulder.
“If you are at the average for physics, since everyone is in the far right tail of the bell curve, you are going to meet people 2, 3, 10 times smarter than you practically daily.”
The question is…what do you mean by smart? Somebody being smarter than you IN PHYSICS does not necessarily equate to greater intelligence in other areas. And I’m not really sure everyone in physics is on the far right tail of the bell curve to begin with.
Mike
@MBunge:Somebody being smarter than you IN PHYSICS does not necessarily equate to greater intelligence in other areas.
All else being equal it is the way to bet. If both you, and someone “smarter than you in physics” set out to learn something you both know nothing about, that person is far more likely to learn it faster and understand it better. Again, all else being equal. No one has ever shown evidence for different kinds of “intelligence” that isn’t far weaker than evidence for one single kind of intelligence.
And I’m not really sure everyone in physics is on the far right tail of the bell curve to begin with.
If someone has an advanced degree in physics then at minimum they passed calculus and probably a whole bunch of other advanced math. That puts them on the right of the bell curve right there. Again, it is the way to bet.
As an undergraduate I had three semesters of calculus, two of differential equations, linear algebra and statistics. Furthermore physics courses usually involve very specialized math that you have to learn as you go…
Ilion:
Oh, so the Jews that helped black people in the South back then, often at the risk of their lives and sometimes even giving their lives to the cause, were obnoxiously arrogant little snobs who deserved to be hated?
Frederick:
Depends on the field, whether there’s a carryover in terms of intelligence. Being really intelligent in physics doesn’t necessarily seem to carry over into being really intelligent in the humanities, for example, as far as I can see.
And then there’s wisdom, which IMHO can be quite separate from intelligence in the academic or scientific sense.
@neo:Being really intelligent in physics doesn’t necessarily seem to carry over into being really intelligent in the humanities, for example, as far as I can see.
I’m not sure what “intelligent in humanities” entails other than being able to read and write effectively. There are far more physicists who can do that, than professionals in the humanities can do lab work or math, in my experience of academia. Perhaps your experience has been different, or perhaps you mean something different by “intelligence”…
And then there’s wisdom, which IMHO can be quite separate from intelligence in the academic or scientific sense.
No question. Wisdom tends to live between 95 and 120 in my experience… though it is more likely to be found in the far right than in the far left.
re: humanities vs sciences.
Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
@Andy: I was just rereading “the Two Cultures”.
I never had any trouble talking about Shakespeare (or Emily Dickinson for that matter) with my colleagues in the English department, nor about Voltaire and Victor Hugo with the professors of French, or Battle of Blenheim with history professors. I didn’t have the specialized knowledge they had, no. But I could read and understand and discuss what they were able to read and understand and discuss. I have never encountered this working the other way.
Frederick:
I’m not just talking about book learning or reading ability when I talk about intelligence in the humanities. It usually requires some insight into human interaction and human nature that is not required in science or math. And of course there are plenty of professors in the humanities who are professionally successful but who lack that sort of intelligence as well as lacking wisdom.
@neo: It usually requires some insight into human interaction and human nature that is not required in science or math.
I can see why you would have this impression. But scientists and mathematicians have to deal with humans just as everyone else does.
For academia, this means faculty committees, teaching, research, grant funding, navigating workplace politics, diversity training, etc. which are no different in the College of Sciences than for the College of Arts.
Dealing successfully with people is just much required for success in a math or science career, as it is in any other career.
But very few careers require any proficiency in math or science, even at their most basic. And that’s why I said “I have never found it worked the other way”.
When I transitioned to business I had a lot to learn about how humans interact in business. (I still do.) It was different from how humans interact in an academic or scientific setting, true. What I have learned (and yet have to learn) might be a long conversation in its own right. But the point is I had to learn it to be at all successful at it just as I had needed to in academia.
12% of medicine articles are not cited, compared to about 82% for the humanities. It’s 27% for natural sciences and 32% for social sciences That basically sums up the state of the academia in that field.
@Andy: That basically sums up the state of the academia in that field.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I think what those numbers mean is that science and other technical fields have to build on each other more so than the humanities does.
For example, you can write a new and startling interpretation of an Emily Dickinson poem that no one wrote before, totally different from anyone else’s. And next year so can someone else. Same goes for philosophy. Each new philosopher can start from zero if they wish.
With the sciences, you can’t. If the humanities worked the way the sciences did, this is what would happen with my new interpretation of an Emily Dickinson poem:
1) I’d have to show by some metric why mine was better or explained more that the others that came before.
2) Dozens of others would immediately refute it, or support it, but either way they’d be discussing it and checking on it.
3) If refuted, no one would ever be able to take my interpretation seriously again, without doing an enormous amount of work to refute the refutations.
3′) If supported, no one else could come out with a new interpretation of the poem unless and until they had addressed what distinguished theirs from mine.
That’s the thing that is always going on in the sciences that doesn’t really happen in the same way as in the humanities.
“Cancel culture” would seem to be a counter-example: if someone proved tomorrow that Emily Dickinson was really a racist white male, then no one could ever interpret Emily Dickinson in an another way without losing their career. And that sort of thing is true today. But the next generation of academics may have totally different views.
Science does not work that way at all. The popular view is that Einstein “disproved” Newton. But Newton’s work is still taught, studied, and most importantly used. Because so much of it was objectively right and still is. You can’t put out a paper that contradicts Newton’s laws without an enormous amount of work showing why it’s okay for you to do that (unless it’s in an area where it’s already understood that Newton’s law don’t work well). There are certainly things Einstein’s theories don’t explain and whatever new theory comes out will NOT replace Einstein just as Einstein’s work did NOT replace Newton’s.
Being “smarter in physics” is a really muddy thought. “Smarter” than whom? It is generally acknowledged that females are less able in the STEM fields, but that does not mean they are less “smart”.
I will buy remarks such as ” Physics and the other hard (as in rigorous) sciences seem to come more easily to some [males] than to others [females]” as Larry Summers posited as president of Haavaad, which cost him his job.
But the babe in question is undoubtedly smarter than most of her Jamaican DNA-sharing peers, physics included!
@cicero:but that does not mean they are less “smart”.
If the average for males and females are the same, but the standard deviations are different, you will find more males than females at both the right end and the left end.
The males found at the left end will not be “less smart” than the females found there. The males found at the right end will not be “more smart” than the females found there. The average for males and females will be the same. Yet “smart” males will outnumber “smart” females and “dumb” males will outnumber “dumb” females.
Physics departments are one place you find a preponderance of males. Prisons are another, and so is the developmentally disabled populations. Universities are female-dominated and have been for some time. All this is perfectly compatible with what’s observed for the gender distribution in STEM.
Very good analysis, Neo. In a short piece you have encapsulated the history of black anti-Semitism, the elephant in the room no one wants to see. The reason for this is important. The Democrat party knows that if it does not win 91 out of every 100 black votes, they may lose, so they turn a blind eye. The media and entertainment industry, the public relations arm of the Democrats, does the same thing. When forced to pay attention to it (like they are now), they obfuscate with theories and excuses, just like our esteemed professor in this article. It is sad, but black anti-Semitism is a very old and probably permanent fact of life among a substantial portion of the black community and will likely remain so. A high degree of education is no cure for this prejudice, as we can see from the subject of your article. The best defense against this, imperfect as it may be, is exposure, exposure and exposure, thus the importance of conservative internet.
This post pretty much supports everything Neo said.
NYT editors are not noted for being supporters of white supremacism, in case you didn’t know.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/01/05/nyt-editor-scolds-national-media-for-ignoring-rise-of-anti-semitism-n2558971
And from the other side, a black conservative scolds white
liberalprogressive Methodists for the same kind of condescension about their black constitutency that also figured in some of the comments above.The backstory:
https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2020/01/05/a-prediction-about-the-coming-split-in-the-methodist-church-n2558954
https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2020/01/04/760004/
Democrats once again seeking to overturn a democratic vote: it’s the new normal.
neo, with the ‘open mind’, totally not turning what I wrote (which is up there in black and white) on its head: “Oh, so the Jews that helped black people in the South back then, often at the risk of their lives and sometimes even giving their lives to the cause, were obnoxiously arrogant little snobs who deserved to be hated?”
Way to go!
But, yes, the leftist carpet-baggers who bungie-flooded the civil-rights organizations in the South in those days contained a high proportion of “obnoxiously arrogant little snobs” … who called forth a corresponding disdain amongst many blacks toward “Jews” … and, sadly, Jews.
nor can they be accused of anti white racism..
i seem to remember warning about this by pointing out the feminist quote that:
The oppressed have a right to class hatred against their oppressors
[this means its ok for everyone to hate whites, hate Jews, for women to hate men, gays to hate straights, and eventually, invest in ovens or some kind of education programs, which we have, but they are on location, not someplace you get sent to (yet)]
but we dont take the stuff THEY take seriously…
not until things change and cant change back
THEN and only then do we believe
I warned of this outcome over ten years ago…
because its an incremental process no one believes until the change changes enough that its perceived. some perceive early and are ignored or told negative things till they shut up, others it comes later, and they dont even see it when everyone else does. but when its easy to see and the early viewers are confirmed, its too late… way too late… (because this is the fourth generation, and the organs of the state are full of people whose world view has been trained to the point that this is actually happening and been happening for a long while. a steam cooker doesn’t blow until there is steam, and we ignore the steam phase)
isn’t that right tovarish (comrade)?
its now illegal in NY to call an illegal alien illegal alien…
soon, everyone with think the way they want you to think
and those that dont, well, will suffer or die…
welcome to the reality that we let happen…
and we DID let it happen
James Baldwin wrote about Black antisemitism. http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-antisem.html
And heeeer’es the sequel we’ve all been waiting for! (With, no doubt, many more on the way….)
Cuckoosfilm Ltd. (very much so, in fact), following up its acclaimed “Up in Smoke”, now proudly presents:
“The Hemp Pyre Strikes Back”
(Note: We were going to call it “Sheer Stupidity Strikes Back” but it wouldn’t fit on the marquee.)
https://www.thecollegefix.com/u-new-hampshire-prof-black-antisemitism-is-the-fault-of-white-gentiles/
Barry – EVERYTHING is the fault of white gentiles (by which she means white Christians, of course).
Well you gotta blame it on somebody….
Palestinian rules!
Surellin on January 6, 2020 at 9:15 am said:
James Baldwin wrote about Black antisemitism. http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-antisem.html
* * *
Very interesting counterpoint to the Prescod-Weinstein assertion that antisemitism in the US historically has been “a white Christian problem,” and anti-Jewish feelings expressed by blacks are due to the “influence of white gentiles.”
Basically they agree on the essential foundation of that point, but the differences made by 50 years of cultural change, their life histories, and that Baldwin is simply a smarter, better writer, make his essay a thoughtful exposition of the then-existing (1967) serious problem of actual racist oppression of black people, and hers a whiny screed.
In particular: “There is no systemic Black on Jewish violence,” the professor clarified before insisting that “Putting more police and people with guns outside of synagogues may make white Jews feel safer but it will endanger Jews of color, especially Black Jews and Middle Eastern Jews.”
One might quibble about the definition of “systemic” here, but how does she deal with this sort of thing:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/im-a-queer-jew-of-color-woke-college-students-tried-to-shut-me-down-at-vassar/
It struck me as notable that this person is a physicist. I’ve noticed in the last couple of years that the requirements and demands of wokeness have now pervaded the sciences as well as the humanities.
Being knowledgeable in one field, especially science, is no evidence of knowing anything else. For a century or more, folklore has described the absent minded professor or the wild haired mad scientist. This is all “Scientism.”
re: the back and forth commentary by Frederick and numerous others: I think what we have in Frederick is not just an academic snob who refuses to entertain any others’ opinions, but one who attempts to project superiority by slapping down others’ thoughts and opinions and experiences. Ironically, math does provide a basic platform for learning to think and solve problems, and the work of physicists in advanced theory and the complicated analysis and proofs which follow does not necessarily follow that the intelligence of others who excel in the humanities is less. Not being an “expert” or having published and accepted work in either field, I believe physics involves a different direction of thought that posits theory and then attempts to prove or disprove via series of complicated theorums and proofs. In the humanities, breadth of knowledge and experience, the ability to digest and synthesize such knowledge to arrive at various interpretations of others’ work may be more subjective but is not indicative or lesser intelligence. The thought process certainly differs but accomplishment in one field over the other is not indicative of lesser intelligence or ability to process concepts. As to whether males and females differ in the ability to pursue either, it seems that a level of interest is more the deciding factor. And is not the level of interest in specific fields more the result of a combination of factors such as historical and cultural exposure and expectations versus sex and levels of intelligence?
Well that is an interesting opinion and long speculation which “may be more subjective” than that posted by an academic snob with illusions of superiority. But maybe not, it could be a sex or cultural thing. One wouldn’t want to question Fredrick’s character or anything like that.
Moreover —
neo: “Oh, so the Jews that helped black people in the South back then, often at the risk of their lives and sometimes even giving their lives to the cause …”
These are leftists you’re committing hagiography upon.
Leftists don’t give a damn about justice (except in the negative sense, as they *hate* justice).
And leftists don’t give a damn about *actual* human beings, and they have even less regard for “persons of color” than they do for other persons.
These statements are true now, and they were true then.
So, whatever those leftists may have been doing in the South, and whatever cause some of them may given their lives for, it was never their intention to help black Americans, nor to foster justice for them by ending the Democrat’s legalized-and-enforced injustices against black Americans.
Ilion:
Your comments convey quite a bit, and I did not accuse you of anything that wasn’t implicit in your comments.
Leftists are not all demons. Some are misguided – especially during the era we’re talking about. One entire wing of my family when I was growing up (not my nuclear family, but my larger family) were leftists. Communists, to be blunt, for some of them anyway. I have written about this before.
Not all Communists who went down to help black people were Jews, and not all Jews who went down there to help black people were Communists, by the way. Some were garden-variety liberals. You haven’t a clue whether most of them were condescending or not, personally, to the black people with whom they worked – even if you were one of those black people they worked with in the 50s and 60s (in which case you wouldn’t have known enough of them to say what the majority were like). But I am fairly confident that you were not one of those black people they worked with back then.
I can assure you that whatever faults the leftists I knew back then had – and they had plenty – most of them were not condescending to black people. They were genuinely outraged at the genuine discrimination black people had to suffer particularly in the days of segregation, and even for many years after that.
… and that’s my cue to stop wasting my time with someone who *will not* reason.
That is sometimes a problem; someone who knows how things must have been and someone who knew those who were there. Who is actually being reasonable and rational, Ilion?
Pingback:Soleimani And The Question No One Seems To Be Asking - Manning The WallManning The Wall