A Jew Answers a Curious Gentile's Query
Tom Sunic asks:
The answer: take a historically-considered and nuanced approach to the issue. For instance: when declaiming that a disproportionate number of Bolsheviks were Jews, also note that perhaps Tsarist policy played some role in Jewish resentment toward the ancien regime. When wondering out loud why so many Jews lean left or vote liberal, consider how Jews have fared in the past under far-right regimes. You may find that like other human beings, Jews are not just the cause of history; they are also subject to and respond to its effects. In other words, provide context to your critique.
Another point: if you're going to bemoan negative Jewish influence on the West, intellectual consistency demands you also acknowledge positive Jewish influence on the West. The much-maligned Jacques Derrida, Sigmund Freud, Susan Sontag and Karl Marx were indeed ethnically Jewish. So were Niels Bohr, Franz Kafka, Fritz Lang and Gustav Mahler. Not all Jews are saints, but not all Jews are sinners either. If you only take the time to mention the Jews you don't like when discussing Jewish influence in the West, some might indeed accuse you of polemical intent.
Sunic writes:
I agree that an attitude of self-censorship indeed prevails over discussion of controversial Jewish issues. However, before running to blame Abe Foxman, who is indeed a dick, you might want to consider the man who really made the subject taboo: Adolf Hitler. While "a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in the West" can have dramatic consequences, so can a hysterical climate of anti-Jewish obsession in Vienna. Both extremes are harmful, but there's a reason the pendulum has shifted so far in the other direction. Acknowledging that small point might make Jews less suspicious of your motive in raising the issue.
Sunic declares that Jews and non-Jews are "opposing groups." Some non-Jews do see it that way. Some Jews do too. However, since neither Jews or non-Jews are going to go away any time soon (getting rid of the former has been tried through the Holocaust and Canaanism; erasing the distinction has been tried through communism and Pauline Christianity - to no lasting success), perhaps the people on both sides who don't see things that way should try engaging in dialogue. Consider this post a start!
How does one dare critically talk about the extraordinary influence the Jews in the West without running the risk of social opprobrium?
The answer: take a historically-considered and nuanced approach to the issue. For instance: when declaiming that a disproportionate number of Bolsheviks were Jews, also note that perhaps Tsarist policy played some role in Jewish resentment toward the ancien regime. When wondering out loud why so many Jews lean left or vote liberal, consider how Jews have fared in the past under far-right regimes. You may find that like other human beings, Jews are not just the cause of history; they are also subject to and respond to its effects. In other words, provide context to your critique.
Another point: if you're going to bemoan negative Jewish influence on the West, intellectual consistency demands you also acknowledge positive Jewish influence on the West. The much-maligned Jacques Derrida, Sigmund Freud, Susan Sontag and Karl Marx were indeed ethnically Jewish. So were Niels Bohr, Franz Kafka, Fritz Lang and Gustav Mahler. Not all Jews are saints, but not all Jews are sinners either. If you only take the time to mention the Jews you don't like when discussing Jewish influence in the West, some might indeed accuse you of polemical intent.
Sunic writes:
Such a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in the West will sooner or later lead to dramatic consequences for both Jews and non-Jews. The lack of healthy dialogue can last for decades, but feigned conviviality between opposing groups cannot last forever. Mendacity carries the germ of civil war.
I agree that an attitude of self-censorship indeed prevails over discussion of controversial Jewish issues. However, before running to blame Abe Foxman, who is indeed a dick, you might want to consider the man who really made the subject taboo: Adolf Hitler. While "a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in the West" can have dramatic consequences, so can a hysterical climate of anti-Jewish obsession in Vienna. Both extremes are harmful, but there's a reason the pendulum has shifted so far in the other direction. Acknowledging that small point might make Jews less suspicious of your motive in raising the issue.
Sunic declares that Jews and non-Jews are "opposing groups." Some non-Jews do see it that way. Some Jews do too. However, since neither Jews or non-Jews are going to go away any time soon (getting rid of the former has been tried through the Holocaust and Canaanism; erasing the distinction has been tried through communism and Pauline Christianity - to no lasting success), perhaps the people on both sides who don't see things that way should try engaging in dialogue. Consider this post a start!
And a good start it is. In fact, you should consider writing an opus in reaction to the likes of Kevin Macdonald.
ReplyDelete