In his essay, Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White, James Baldwin explains the constant state of Black protest for self-assertion as compared to the Jew's: The Jew's suffering is recognized as part of the moral history of the world and the Jew is recognized as a contributor to the world's history: this is not true for the blacks.
Jewish history, whether or not one can say it is honored, is certainly known: the black history has been lasted, maligned, and despised the Jew is a white man, and when white men rise up against oppression, they are heroes: when black men rise, they have reverted to their native savagery.
The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was not described as a riot, nor were the participants maligned as hoodlums: the boys and girls in Watts and Harlem are thoroughly aware of this, and it certainly contributes to their attitude toward the Jews.
But of course, my comparison of Watts and Harlem with the Warsaw ghetto will be immediately dismissed as outrageous. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is that while America loves white heroes, armed to the teeth, it cannot abide bad niggers. But the bottom reason is that it contradicts the American dream to suggest that any gratuitous, unregenerate horror can happen here. We make our mistakes, we like to think, but we are getting better all the time.
THE RIGHT HISTORY
On April 20, 1969, eighty members of the Afro-American Society (AAS) marched out of Cornell University's Willard Straight Hall with their fists raised in Black Power salutes. The students held up rifles, while the AAS minister of defense wore a bandoleer of bullets across his chest. As the day wore on, the AAS, the Students for a Democratic Society, and several radical faculty members declared that they would seize other buildings.
The Cornell faculty initially vetoed making any concessions to the Afro-American Society. As the standoff continued, the faculty split into two factions. One, led by President Perkins, wanted to reach an agreement with the students. The other led by Straussianism: Professors Allan bloom, Walter Berns, Werner J. Dannhauser and their students. For them, the idea of treating with the protesting students was tantamount to appeasement. They wanted to face down the rebellious students. Ultimately, they had a heroic conception of history with themselves in a Churchillian role.
Donald Kagan, a professor of classics at Cornell who vehemently disagreed with the Straussians, [whose leader was Paul Wolfowitz--G.W. Bush's DOD secretary], about the nature of political science, nonetheless saw eye to eye with Bloom on the issue of radicalism. During the events at Cornell, he understood for the first time how the Nazis could have come to power through mob violence. Bloom declare that the Cornell student uprising was nothing less than a repetition of the ominous events that took place in Weimar Germany.
Heilbrunn notes that the importance of the radical attack on the universities for the neoconservatives cannot be exaggerated. For striving Jewish immigrants, the universities had represented an oasis. Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and the new Straussians camp were enraged by the Let's antics at Columbia, Cornell, Berkeley, Harvard, and elsewhere. So were traditional social democrats like Daniel Bell.
The demands of Black radicals for race-based affirmative action came as a particular shock. The Jews had experienced a Jewish quota; were the Blacks now, perversely, to insist on a special quota for themselves? Was merit to be supplanted by skin color? [Skin color, or the absence there-of had always determined the merit of entrance into the America dream.]
As Jews the neoconservatives felt personally menaced by these developments, which therefore served to unify them despite their differences. Nathan Glazer [a Negrotologist] attacked the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, which would be the source of the student uprisings in coming years. In December 1964 they took over the administration building, and several hundred were arrested.
It was the beginning of a protest against American society itself for its conformism and banality. Glazer denounced the New Left, declaring, “Anti-Semitism is only a part of this whole syndrome, for it the members of the middle class do not deserve to hold on to their property. Their positions, or even their lives, then certainly the Jews, the most middle-class of all, are going to be placed at the head of the column marked for liquidation.” This is an extraordinary passage, invoking as it does, the fear of Jews being stripped of their possessions, herded into ghettos, and shipped off to concentration camps.
Of course, the Jews were never in such danger.
Because has control of the media and knew how to use the media.
In Beyond the Melting Pot (1963), sociologist Nathan Glazer were that African Americans had no culture. Because all their culture was appropriated; therefore, they had no culture to protect. This was determined from his collaboration with David Riesman in Faces in the Crowd: Individual Studies In character And Politics (1952). Riesman and Glazer posit that in America, too many alternatives are evident—evident even to the most isolated, the dullest, the most oppressed or the most satisfied. There are no real traditions to which to conform; only false traditions, that is ideologies.
The case of the American-born Negro is somewhat different. The temptation to revert is present—witness the Negro Moslems, the Negro Jews of Harlem, the vanishing Garveyites—but as these very movements show, there is no fixed tradition, no church, no “nationalism” to revert to. When the Negro becomes concerned about his race—and even the most oppressed and ignorant are so concerned...--this is not reversion, but in terms of character a step forward to a modern, inner-directed attitude. It is the Negro's tragedy—and perhaps eventually his blessing—that he possess no full Negro culture to return to; this was destroyed in the voyages of the slave ships, which disrupted families and threw together Negroes from many different tribal cultures.
What was created here, in the South, was largely a caricature of white culture, as mediated by the house slaves and freedom; for most Negroes this blend could have no high status and only a very few elements (spirituals, jazz, and some aspects of religion) could possess even an ambiguous value as “Negro tradition.” thus, while our interviews in Harlem include a number with Negro women who had a fatalistic, accepting, and quiescent outlook on life... it cannot be said that this represents either survival of or return to tradition-direction as full-blown mode of conformity; what it does represent we shall try to see hereafter.
MEIN KOMPF ON CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
Hitler declares that the Jewish people, despite all apparent intellectual qualities, is without any true culture, and especially without any culture of its own. For what sham culture the Jew today possess is the property of other peoples, and for the most part it is ruined in his hands.
In judging the Jewish people's attitude on the question of human culture, the most essential characteristic we must always bear in mind is that there has never been a Jewish art and accordingly there is none today either; that above all the two queens of all the arts, architecture and music, owe nothing original to the Jews. What they do accomplish in the field of art is either patchwork or intellectual theft. Thus, the Jew lacks those qualities which distinguish the races that are creative and hence culturally blessed.
To what an extent the Jew takes over foreign culture, imitating or rather ruining it, can be seen from the fact that he is mostly found in the art which seems to require least original invention, the art of acting. Even here he is only a 'juggler, or rather an ape; for even here he lacks the last touch that is required for real greatness; even here he is not the creative genius, but a superficial imitator, and all the twists and tricks that he uses are powerless to conceal the inner lifelessness of hiss creative gift.
Here the Jewish press most lovingly helps him along by raising such a roar of hosannas about even the most mediocre bungler, just so long as he is a Jew that the rest of the world actually ends up by thinking that they have an artist before them, while in truth it is only a pitiful comedian.
No, the Jew possesses no culture-creating force of any sort, since the idealism, without which there is no true higher development of man, is not present in him and never was present. Hence his intellect will never have a constructive effect, but will be destructive, and in very rare cases perhaps will at most be stimulating, but then as the prototype of the 'force which always wants evil and nevertheless creates good.' Not through him does any progress of mankind occur, but in spite of him.
Since the Jew never possessed a state with definite territorial limits and therefore never called a culture his own the conception arose that this was a people which should be reckoned among the ranks of the nomads.
But this did not keep the neoconservatives/Zionists from seeking revenge against upstarts Blacks who “don't know their place” as they are presently doing to Marc Lamont Hill.
BEYOND 'BEYOND THE MELTING POT,' MOYNIHAN AND GLAZER FEEL VINDICATED
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports of such problems to firstname.lastname@example.org.
December 3, 1983, Page 001027 The New York Times Archives
When two scholars, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Nathan Glazer, approached Harvard University more than 20 years ago for assistance in publishing a book about ethnic groups in New York City, they were politely turned away. They were told that the subject, the theme of their now classic ''Beyond the Melting Pot,'' was too sensitive.
Now, as Senator Moynihan and Professor Glazer mark the 20th anniversary of their book, they look back over a period in which the study of ethnic behavior has become academically fashionable. New Waves of Immigrants
They have observed new waves of ethnic groups arriving, particularly Hispanic and Asian, to influence the ever-changing character of the city.
And they are also taking comfort that some of their hypotheses have been borne out by events.
''Beyond the Melting Pot'' argued that the earlier immigrants who streamed into New York City had maintained their ethnic identities through successive generations.
It further asserted that this persistence of ethnic consciousness was a social form that would endure.
These notions, which were examined with five groups - blacks, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans - were greeted with some surprise in 1963, when interest in ethnic groups was low.
''Empirical evidence has come along that proves us right,'' Mr. Moynihan said recently, as he and his co-author relaxed in his Senate office. ''In the 1980 national census, for the first time they asked people what ancestral group they came from. Eighty-three percent of persons interviewed identified with at least one ancestor group. Only 6 percent claimed their ancestry was American.''
He cited the census data from Tennessee as further proof of their 1963 hypotheses. ''People there still think of themselves as English, Irish or Scottish, and they've been in those hills for centuries,'' he said.
Moved by the bitter 1969 New York City mayoral race, in which Mario A. Procaccino ran as an embodiment of middle-class Italian-American anger against what appeared to be gains made by blacks, the authors added a new essay to the 1970 edition of the book. A Decade of Optimism?
They noted then that one of the chief problems of race relations in the city lay in the ''disproportionate presence of Negroes and Puerto Ricans on welfare.'' They suggested that perhaps the 1970's would be the ''decade of optimism'' for these groups.
This was a point in ''Beyond the Melting Pot'' that did not come to fruition, Professor Glazer said.
''One of the things that has bothered me most about the rise in ethnic awareness is how many people it hasn't helped,'' he said.
Echoing themes of conservative economists, he said welfare had turned out to ''represent good will'' but furnished ''a very bad teaching effect.''
''We have a black and Puerto Rican underclass in the city,'' Mr. Glazer said. ''We began the 1960's with 300,000 people on welfare and ended the 1960's with economic conditions better and with one million on welfare, and it still stays at one million.'' The Catholic Church's Role
Another phenonemon that has not changed is the decline of the Roman Catholic Church as an intellectual and political force.
Mr. Moynihan had included a lament about the church in his chapter on Irish-Americans. He said in the interview that, despite some opinions to the contrary, there had been no significant revival in the power of the church.
There were two recent political trends in New York City they could not have been foreseen, said the Senator, who is of Irish descent and once ran for Council president, with Paul R. Screvane, an Italian-American who was seeking the mayoralty.
''When we wrote the first edition, Jewish males were not very active in politics,'' Mr. Moynihan said. ''Jewish females were, but Jewish males were not. That has been entirely transformed. You can see it in Albany, on the City Council.
The other trend, he said, ''is the continued migration of the Irish to the Republican Party and to the suburbs.''
''We now have a time, probably for the first time in a century, where there is no Irishman on the Board of Estimate,'' he said. ''But there is an Irish county executive in Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk - all Republicans.'' A Friendly Disagreement
Although the two authors are firm friends who take pride that Harvard has seen the light and published many works on ethnic groups since their 1963 debut with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, they disagree on the reasons for the surge of European-American ethnic consciousness in the late 1960's.
Mr. Glazer thinks it was mostly a defensive reaction against the civil- rights movement. Mr. Moynihan counters that it was more a matter of what newspapers and television had made acceptable.
When Basil A. Paterson ran for lieutenant governor in 1969, the ethnic identity issue was so intense that he must have been identified dozens of times in newspaper accounts as Basil Paterson, the first black on a statewide ticket, according to the Senator. 'This Sudden Change'
But seven years earlier, another black, Edward R. Dudley, was nominated to run for state attorney general, an official significantly more powerful than a lieutenant governor, and hardly anyone noticed, Mr. Moynihan said.
''There was this sudden change from what you didn't notice and didn't want to hear about to what you did want to know and did want to draw attention to,'' Mr. Moynihan said.
As for the future, there is no question that people of Hispanic and Asian background, groups whose growing numbers could not have been predicted even 13 years ago, will gain more political influence and create a new era of ethnic competition, according to the authors.
''Now the blacks see the Asians and Hispanics making claims,'' Mr. Glazer said. ''On the Hispanic side there is the greater political clout and on the Asian side greater human capital - more skills and education.''
Mr. Moynihan seemed to be most impressed by the rise of people in New York whose families came from India. ''I would wager that the Indian population is the highest social-economic class in the city,'' he said. ''They are doctors, nurses and merchants.''
Correction: December 13, 1983
Tuesday, Late City Final Edition and December 9, 1983, Friday, Late City Final Editio