What’s a Minority? Or the Problematic New-Age Definition of Racism
When it comes to Jewish issues in general, and specifically in America, there is an obvious Jewish double standard. The Jewish double standard is simple; Jews–because of their history as a persecuted minority–will speak out against evils and atrocities committed against everyone, but when it comes time for reciprocation in the aftermath of antiSemitic incidents, there are crickets. This double standard keeps popping up in the wake of the George Floyd murder.
First, it was the lack of outcry when temples were desecrated and antiSemitic chants rang out from the mouths of Black Lives Matter protesters. Then it continued with the DeSean Jackson and Stephen Jackson saga. But another issue was crystallized most recently by Malcolm Jenkins when he said, “Jewish people are not our problem and we aren’t their problem.” Ignoring for the moment he is empirically incorrect, why would Jenkins be so dismissive? If blacks are a minority, and Jews are a minority, shouldn’t they want to go out of their way to help one another out, instead of merely saying we are not each others’ problems? Of course, yes.
In fact, there are numerous instances of Jews and blacks coming together to do just that, so it is an odd statement from Jenkins. (1) Because it is verifiably false blacks in America are not a problem for Jews, and (2) because the history of blacks and Jews helping one another out is laudable.
The symbiotic history of the relationship makes the current status of one minority constantly attacking another minority truly appalling: there is Moritz Pinner making the Kansas Post an anti-Slavery paper while John Brown was good friends with August Bondi, or David Einhorn getting chased out of Baltimore for preaching abolition, and Jewish people helping W.E.B. Du Bois in the founding of the NAACP, and of course, the fact Jews made up “half the young white people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer.”
That is a long list of Jews making damn sure to worry themselves and adjust their “focus” over the plight of their black brethren in America. Moreover, this was historically not a one-way street, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s zionist tendencies are well documented, and other numerous instances of the American black community coming together to support their Jewish brethren. However, that support has waned over the years and even turned ugly. So while Jenkins is correct to say “Jewish people are not our (black people’s) problem,” he is factually incorrect to say, “and we (black people) aren’t their problem.”
Why the Ignorance of Minority on Minority Violence?
The sad fact of the matter is that in today’s climate–statistically speaking and culturally speaking—blacks are absolutely a problem for Jews. When the majority of violent offenders of the Jewish minority in the United States, and specifically New York City, are blacks, that is a problem. And a rather large one at that. This is not to single out the black community–especially because practically every community has or has had problems with Jews throughout their history–but instead to point out that this issue gets almost completely swept under the rug. So why is that? What is the reason?
Just because it is a minority literally beating and killing another minority does not make it acceptable. Especially when one minority is actually the majority in a side-by-side comparison. But when Jews are wary and raise questions about the legitimacy of the Marxist Black Lives Matter group that propagates antiSemitic fervor, they are told to keep quiet. No other minority group would be treated as such, which again begs the question, “how in this day and age of intersectionality–with the spotlight focus on the burdens of minorities–are Jewish problems constantly ignored?” The answer? Jews–despite being just 2% of the U.S. population–are seen as wielding outsized power, and the new-age definition of racism states that racism can only exist in a power imbalance.
So when you routinely see black people (roughly 13% of the U.S. population) beating up on Jews just because they are Jews, that is not racism. The same thing holds true when Hispanics (clocking in at a little more than 16.5% of the U.S. population) attack Jews. Nope, still not racism. Only when it is a White Supremacist attacking and killing Jews is it racist; because Whites have more power than Jews in the U.S… Understood? Even though Jews make up 2% of the population (and that is after rounding up!), when it comes to minority versus minority crime, those acts are not racist despite the verifiable evidence these crimes are committed simply because of the person’s race.
The people committing these crimes cannot be racist owing solely to the fact (antiSemitic trope alert) many people believe Jews wield outsized power, even though one minority is persecuting another simply for being Jewish. This is, of course, absurd. If you are attacking somebody because of their race, you are a racist and the incident is classic racism. This new-age definition of racism is so flawed and backward it allows for racism to prosper, pushing the death of racism that much further into the future. Worse, it is blatantly saying a racist incident becomes not racist depending on the location.
The Absurdity of Seeing Racism as a Power Imbalance, Especially Between Minorities
If a Jew is beaten by a token white person in America because he is Jewish, that is racist. Agreed? Is that same situation then not racist if it occurs in Israel? What about a majority Jewish neighborhood in the U.S.? Is a black person beating a Chinese person in the wake of Coronavirus in Detroit racist, but not if it happens in China (where blacks are outrageously discriminated against)? The definition is patently absurd and anybody that abides by it cannot defend that position for long.
It becomes impossible to defend any position when it is grounded in either absurdity or flies in the face of reality. That is why it was so impactful to hear Malcolm Jenkins say, “Jewish people are not our problem and we aren’t their problem.” It is a statement that belies every possible fact on that matter and it seems to dismiss the valid complaints of American Jews.
But this is the real issue at hand; this new-age definition of racism allows people to dismiss acts of racism towards Jews (antiSemitism) and say “we are not their problem.” That is not just problematic, it is dangerous. It allows antiSemitism to flourish and we are seeing that in action right now.
Don’t believe it? Why have we seen so many “coincidental” acts of antiSemitism disregarded or ignored? And for the ones that have not been ignored, there have been no real consequences or repercussions. There have been no consequences because–for many people–they do not belong to a collection of racist antiSemitic instances, but rather are a bunch of one-off moments where Jews were coincidentally the victims. And because Jews were the victims and Jews have “more power” than other minorities, they are more easily cast aside because they simply do not fall under the rubric of racist incidents as it pertains to the modern-age definition of racism.
Yes, there is a Jewish double standard in America right now, but only one minority is getting the support. That is because too many people have bought into the notion that you (1) can only concentrate on one issue at a time and (2) one issue is more important than the other because one minority is perceived to have more power. This is obviously not true. Racism is racism no matter who the offender is and no matter who the victim is; to suggest otherwise is a fallacy and will only allow racism to flourish thereby hurting more minorities in the future.