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 OF BLACK JEWISH TENSIONS
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 administration], 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, i.e. an expert on Negroes and Negro life borrowed from Mein Kampf] 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.
WHITE CHICKENS COME HOME
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a 1994 book by psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray, in which the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and that it is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status. They also argue that those with high intelligence, the "cognitive elite", are becoming separated from those of average and below-average intelligence. The book was controversial, especially where the authors wrote about racial differences in intelligence and discussed the implications of those differences.
Shortly after its publication, many people rallied both in criticism and defense of the book. A number of critical texts were written in response to it.
The Bell Curve, published in 1994, was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray to explain the variations in intelligence in American society, warn of some consequences of that variation, and propose social policies for mitigating the worst of the consequences. The book's title comes from the bell-shaped normal distribution of intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in a population.
The Bell Curve received a great deal of media attention. The book was not distributed in advance to the media, except for a few select reviewers picked by Murray and the publisher, which delayed more detailed critiques for months and years after the book's release. Stephen Jay Gould, reviewing the book in The New Yorker, said that the book "contains no new arguments and presents no compelling data to support its anachronistic social Darwinism" and said that the "authors omit facts, misuse statistical methods, and seem unwilling to admit the consequence of their own words."
A 1995 article by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting writer Jim Naureckas criticized the media response, saying that "While many of these discussions included sharp criticisms of the book, media accounts showed a disturbing tendency to accept Murray and Herrnstein's premises and evidence even while debating their conclusions".
After reviewers had more time to review the book's research and conclusions more significant criticisms begin to appear. Nicholas Lemann, writing in Slate, said that later reviews showed the book was "full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors." Lemann said that "Unsurprisingly, all the mistakes are in the direction of supporting the authors' thesis."
Herrnstein and Murray were criticized for not submitting their work to peer review before publication, an omission many have seen as incompatible with their presentation of it as a scholarly text. A writer at the online publication Slate magazine complained that the book was not circulated in galley proofs, a common practice to allow potential reviewers and media professionals an opportunity to prepare for the book's arrival. Many scholarly responses to the book arrived late. Richard Lynn (1999) wrote that "The book has been the subject of several hundred critical reviews, a number of which have been collected in edited volumes," suggesting that the book's lack of peer review had not prevented it from becoming the subject of subsequent academic commentary. Over two decades after its publication, one set of scholarly authors stated that The Bell Curve contained ". . . very little information that has since come into question by mainstream scholars. . . . The Bell Curve is not as controversial as its reputation would lead one to believe (and most of the book is not about race at all)."
Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", an opinion statement endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal. Of the 131 who were invited by mail to sign the document, 100 responded, with 52 agreeing to sign and 48 declining. Eleven of the 48 who declined to sign claimed that the statement or some part thereof did not represent the mainstream view of intelligence.
In Beyond the Melting Pot (1963), sociologists (Irish-American) Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Nathan Glazer posited that African Americans had no culture. Because all their culture was appropriated as slaves from their masters; therefore, they had no culture to protect. This was determined from Glazer's 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.
THE END OF PART ONE