The racist bastard fires back

After the jump, you will find the words I fired back at two anonymous (ah yes: Always anonymous) commenters to this post. In that post, I wrote that I've known a lot of Jews and I consider that group of people neither better nor worse than any other group of people. This, apparently, is considered a racist sentiment.

(We live in a strange world. In 2004, some called Howard Dean an anti-Semite when he called for "balance" in our attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian problem.)

My text derived, in large part, from doc elsewhere's earlier piece, a rather innocent article on the current problems in Israel. Predictably, some readers accused her of racism.

If you now feel as though you showed up in the middle of the movie, don't worry. What follows should be comprehensible enough on its own. If confused, check out the links given above.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Well, the ultra-annoying posts I've encountered heretofore have usually fallen into two categories: Trannies and guys telling me to buy a Mac. Both are irritants because both are incessant salesmen who keep trying to get a foot in the door even after I have clearly told them to go elsewhere.

But anon 10:58 and anon 3:53 take the cake.

The two of you talk about Jews as if they were another species, and are utterly blind and deaf to the implications of doing so -- or that you *are* doing so.

Bull-fucking-SHIT.

Note that you do not cite any specific text, my suspiciously anonymous friend. You are responding to words that exist in your imagination, not on the screen.

Here is what I actually said:

What have I learned from my interactions with Jewish people?

Jews are people.

I can't see them as either the Chosen or as demons. They are people, just as capable of nobility and of baseness as are any other individuals. Mark Twain once said something along these lines: "Don't talk to me about a man's race; it's enough to know that he is a man. The news can't get worse."

You say:

And yet the language used in this this blog, formerly by unirealist, and now dr. elsewhere, is patently racist to my large ears, and would be seen as such, if used (say) in a discussion of African-Americans.

Racist? I'll happily apply that semi-accurate Twain quote to blacks, whites, Chinese, Jews or anyone else. Hey, why offend one when you can offend all?

People don't like Jews, as this blog clearly demonstrates.

Bull-again-I-say-shit. If didn't like Jews -- which is to say, if I held any special contempt for them that outweighed my contempt for mankind in general -- why would I have befriended so many? Why would I have admired so many?

Nor do I think that Jews are disliked generally, at least here in America. Before you scoff, consider the large number of prominent Jewish figures embraced and revered by this society. From Einstein to Kubrick to Kafka to...well, I could name thousands of other names, including, I guess, Jesus: Americans read their works, talk about them in classrooms and even hang their images on our walls. In a society where Jews really were disliked, that situation simply would not happen.

You want to know what it REALLY is like to be disliked in this society? Pose as a Muslim for a day. America will take (say) a Sacha Baron Cohen to her heart, but she will never embrace any Arab performer nearly so readily. For a year after after 911, the poor Pakistani fellow working the night shift at a convenience store local to me feared that he would get beaten up just for being who he was.

THAT is "dislike," my friend.

Turn off your self-centered paranoia, see the world as it really is, and count your damn blessings.

Most Jews, if they had a choice, would not be Jews.

Bullshit once more.

1. They do have a choice, at least in the area of religion. 2. I think the vast, vast majority of Jews are just fine with who they are, which is precisely as it ought to be.

Maybe you speak for yourself. If so, then all I can say is that your personal neurosis is not my problem, and is not to be ascribed to any larger group.

Most Jews do not think they are the "chosen people", and resurrecting that phrase, as if it's a Jewish patrimony and believed by Jews because it figures in bible mythology, says a lot about the speaker (what religious or national group doesn't think it's "chosen"?).

All religious Jews do so think, although they have (at least in my presence) been careful to distinguish between being "chosen" and being superior. And as long as that distinction is recognized, I have no problem with the phrase, even though I don't accept the theological basis for it.

If you read my use of that phrase in context, the reference is not so much to Jewish self-identification but to Christian Zionists, who DO use the term.

Guess you missed this part:

Similarly, if you've never met any Jews, it's easy to see them as either God's impossibly noble Chosen People or as demonic Schemers Against All That Is Good. Fundamentalist Christians who live in areas of the country where Jews are rare tend to cycle (perhaps understandably) between one stereotype and the other.

In Fundamentalist circles -- I've read the literature -- the phrase "chosen people" is indeed used often when shoring up support for everything Israel does. And the phrase does carry (again, in THAT literature) a hyper-romanticized aura of "specialness."

And now for the kicker:

The old canard, "Some of my best friends are Negroes" was (and still is!) used to demonstrate the speaker's innocence and purity of heart ("what me, racist?"). The few rare cases were it was actually true aren't relevant here.

Christ, you missed my point entirely! My intention was to demonstrate that this shopworn and much-derided phrase is neither a canard (unless the speaker really is lying) nor condescension. All I can do is to repeat what I wrote, and hope that this time it sinks in:

Friendship, acquaintanceship, family relations -- these things do mean something. Ultimately, they may be the only antidotes for the toxin of intolerance.

And that is why I said my reference to my Jewish stepfather came without apology. Y'see, for as long as I can recall, any discussion of race relations went along these lines:

SPEAKER 1 (on the attack): "You don't like Group X."

SPEAKER 2 (playing defense): "That's not true..."

SPEAKER 1: "You don't! Hell, you don't even KNOW any members of Group X..."

SPEAKER 2: "Nonsense. I've known many. I can even count Group X-ers among members of my family. Why, some of..."

SPEAKER 1: "You were about to say that some of your best friends are members of Group X. Why, you condescending bastard!"

See? Speaker 2 can't win, no matter WHAT he says.

If he says he has no Group X friends or relations, then he is damned for being isolated and ignorant. If he says he DOES have friends or relations in that category, then he is damned for being condescending.

Well, I call bullshit on that unfair conversational tactic.

I say once again that personal interaction across racial, religious and cultural divides is worthy, useful and necessary. Furthermore, in conversation or debate, it is -- at all times, under any circumstances -- perfectly legitimate for you, me, or anyone else to bring up ANY aspect of personal history.

Anyone who says otherwise can go to hell.

Oh, anon 3:53: Your comparison would be apt if Nigeria had millions of fundamentalist Christian zombies supporting every wrongheaded thing that nation did.

In my experience, African-Americans are quite realistic in their assessment of African governments. Back in the 1970s, I never encountered, in print or in person, a single black American apologist for Idi Amin. Maybe my reading wasn't wide enough back then, but I read pretty damn widely for a teen.

Sorry, but you can find LOTS of American Jews who defend the indefensible in Israel.

(Some of you may want to presume that when I wrote "LOTS," I meant "ALL." Read the previous paragraph again. And please respond only to words actually used, not to the words in your imagination.)

Has anyone tried to stop me from criticizing Israel? Not physically. The feedback can be pretty harsh. And it segues pretty quickly into the usual: "You don't like Israel because you don't like Jews."

If I say otherwise, the dialog immediately takes the familiar course outlined above -- the "Speaker 1, Speaker 2" thing.

Is the phrase "Jewish brethren" or "African Brethren" -- or "Chinese brethren" or "white brethren" or whatever -- patronizing, as our boldly anonymous critic says? Nope. Never. The very forms of the words give the lie to this idea. I suggest you look up the meaning of "pater," the Latin root of the word "patronizing." You do know the difference between a father and a brother, do you not?

"Brother," used figuratively, implies both equivalence and a certain root familial relationship -- as in, "we are all members of the human race." Got a problem with that, bub?

Besides, he also has black in-laws and he knows blacks are human, just like you or me. Yes, there are some pretty awful blacks, but they all need to be judged as individuals. That's why he's not ashamed to say his stepfather was black. The guy was a bastard, but his own mother acknowledged as much. Besides, says Commentator B, I've been to my share of Kwanzas, so I have a special understanding of blacks.

"Get the drift, folks? It's not very pretty.

Seems purty enough to me. If that really is the writer's history, why shouldn't he mention it, if he cares to do so? Why keep things hidden? Both you and I have a right to reveal as much biography as seems comfortable, for any reason that seems good to us.

By the way, I never claimed to have a "special understanding" of Jews -- unless recognizing that they are neither better nor worse than anyone else counts as a "special understanding."

(I mentioned the fact that my stepfather was a bastard for a special reason: I'm preparing the audience for a nice little essay that will appear as soon as the guy leaves this mortal coil. As noted before, he is somewhat revered in his field, and I'm gonna stop the hagiographies in their tracks. And yes, I really did like his mother. How such a nice lady could give birth to a guy like that is the greatest conundrum of genetics I've ever encountered.)

You know who you are, my anonymous friend? You are Speaker 1 in the dialog above. You just LOVE that particular unfair conversational gambit. And you are royally pissed off because I made it difficult for you to use that bit of verbal jui-jitsu ever again.

Sorry, pal. Ain't gonna let you get away with it any more.

I learned a long time ago that sophists can scry racism into ANY text -- even if that text reads "I know you; you are just like me." And that is precisely what our two fearlessly anonymous friends have tried to do here, in the expectation that I would simply roll over and die.

Bull-fucking-SHIT I will!