|
Anti-Semitism: Second Installment
In the previous newsletter, I began presenting my
solution to anti-Semitism and racism. Here is my second
installment. If you have not already done so, you may
wish to read the previous issue before you read this
one.
Please resist the urge to bombard me with angry emails
condemning my approach to anti-Semitism. This is only
one installment in a long series. After you have had my
complete presentation, it may make more sense to you.
If it doesn't I will gladly accept your criticism.
Read Previous Newsletter
|
|
Violating Bullies to Buddies Rule Number One: Refuse to Get Angry at Bullies |
 |
|
My first Bullies to Buddies rule is "Refuse to Get Angry."
As I repeatedly demonstrate through "Izzy's Game,"
when we get angry at people for doing things we don't
like, we are actually encouraging them to repeat those
actions. When we get angry at others, we make them
win, they have fun driving us crazy, and we look like
idiots, making it impossible for us to get respect.
Furthermore, anger is what we feel towards an enemy,
so when we get angry at people, we are actively
treating them like enemies. Can we expect people to
treat us like friends when we treat them like enemies?
Of course not.
What do we Jews typically do when others criticize,
insult, or blame Jews? We violate the first rule. We get
angry! Our anger gives anti-Semites a wonderful
weapon to use against us. No matter how much power
we may have accumulated, no matter how intelligent or
educated or talented we may be, they can easily
defeat us by saying or writing things that we respond
to with anger. And since we are treating them like
enemies, they stay our enemies.
The first step in combating anti-Semitism is for us to
stop getting angry when people express views against
Jews. We need to stop giving them the pleasure of
enraging us, and, perhaps more importantly, we need to
stop treating everyone who expresses anti-Semitic
sentiments as enemies. We are against discrimination,
but when we get angry at non-Jews who criticize us,
we are discriminating against them. Jews can criticize
Jews, but non-Jews can't? Are we not all brothers? And
are any of us truly perfect? We Jews can see each
others' faults and criticize each other. Jewish
newspapers are full of criticism of Jews. If we can
criticize ourselves, it should be all right for others to
criticize us, too.
Furthermore, we violate the Golden Rule when we get
angry at verbal expressions of anti-Semitism. We
believe it is legitimate for us to express anger at other
groups, but they have no right to be angry at us.
Where does this double standard come from? The victim
mentality. It is the belief that since we are victims, we
are the good ones, so we are allowed to be angry and
vengeful toward our bullies. Our bullies are bad, so they
are NOT allowed to be angry and vengeful toward us.
What brilliant moral reasoning!
Freedom of Speech is very useful in helping us get rid
of anger. Freedom of Speech is the Constitutional
version of the "sticks and stones" slogan. It recognizes
the fundamental difference between physical
aggression and verbal aggression. The results of
physical aggression are objective. If you attack me
physically and I get hurt, you are the one who hurt me.
Verbal aggression has subjective results. If you attack
me with words, it is up to me - not to you - if I get
hurt. That's why the First Amendment protects us from
being punished for expressing ourselves verbally. As
long as the other person's words are not directly
causing damage to our bodies or possessions, it is not a
crime. When we realize that others have the right to
say what they want, we are less likely to get angry at
them for saying it. Jews will not lose respect when we
can handle criticism and insults without getting angry.
On the contrary. We will be winners and our respect will
rise in the eyes of our detractors.
|
|
|
The Limits of Freedom of Speech |
|
|
My earlier statements about Freedom of Speech are
bound to meet with some resistance, and for very good
reason. Freedom of Speech is not a simple concept to
apply because words can, indeed, have catastrophic
results. I am a great advocate of Freedom of Speech,
but it has its limits. Freedom of Speech applies where
words have the potential of hurting people's feelings. It
does not apply to situations in which the words directly
result in damage to bodies and possessions. Thus, it
does not cover the classic case of yelling "fire" in a
crowded theater. It does not cover threats of violence.
It does not cover slander and libel because they can
cause tangible damage to people's lives.
Unfortunately, one area of speech that SHOULD be
forbidden is being permitted to go largely unchallenged.
I wrote about this in greater depth in the February '04
newsletter article. (Go to the link below if you wish to
read it.). The words of authority figures have much
greater power than the words of ordinary people. When
leaders tell people what to do, many people go and do
it. Therefore, it should be forbidden for people in
leadership positions to encourage hatred and violence
against other groups.
There are numerous countries in the world in which
government and/or religious leaders are preaching
hatred and encouraging violence against Jews and
other groups, particularly Americans. I believe that the
official policy of any country that calls itself a
democracy should be to refuse to conduct business
with any country that whose leaders preach hatred.
We are so concerned about fighting terrorism. Yet our
government has friendly relationships with countries like
Saudi Arabia that officially express anti-Semitic ideas
and fund religious schools that teach hatred of Jews
and Americans. How can we act like the people
creating the next generation of terrorists
are our friends? To permit this is both immoral and
suicidal.
In my previous newsletter I criticized the large Jewish
defense establishment for unwittingly contributing to
the perpetuation of anti-Semitism. I need to qualify my
criticism. I have no objection to their efforts in
combating official expressions of hatred for other
groups. When government officials, State-controlled
newspapers, and religious leaders call for violence, that
IS violence, and they should be fought just as
forcefully as we would combat those who are bombing
us.
Read February '04 newsletter. »
|
|
|
Movie Recommendation: Jungle Fever |
|
|
I recently saw Spike Lee's 1991 film, Jungle Fever.
Considering that I am writing about racism, the current
newsletter is an appropriate place to mention it.
I have tremendous respect for Spike Lee. He is a first-
rate producer of movies. It is hard to go wrong
choosing a Spike Lee film.
While Spike Lee is clearly sympathetic to his own ethnic
group, he is far from a racist. He is able to see the
faults of Blacks just as clearly as those of Whites and
other groups. Jungle Fever does a wonderful job of
showing the racist views that have infested all groups.
Rent it. You won't be disappointed.
|
| Quick Links... |
|
|
