Chris Paul and Gregg Popovich Embody Unwarranted Sense of Entitlement That Has Become Too Common in NBA
Listen to interviews by retired NBA players such as Julius Erving and David Robinson, and you will note that they speak of the responsibility that goes hand in hand with being wealthy, famous, and admired; they do not speak or act as if they are entitled to anything, but rather that they understand that they owe a debt to their devoted fans and that they are privileged to be able to provide their time, voice, and money to help worthy causes. Both on and off the court Erving and Robinson exhibit humility and grace, knowing that those traits did not in any way limit their ability to help their teams win championships: Erving won three championships, while Robinson won two championships.
I know that there are current NBA players who also understand the responsibility that comes along with their privileged lives, but there are too many NBA players who act like they are entitled to a lot but responsible for very little--and the same is true of too many coaches who have become obnoxious and self-absorbed as their salaries soared thanks to their salaries not being subject to salary cap restrictions.
Two Wednesday night incidents are not the most egregious examples of this problem, but they are worth noting as part of a larger trend.
Gregg Popovich has coached the San Antonio Spurs to a 3-12 record this season. The Spurs have not posted a winning record since 2019 and they have not won a playoff series since 2017. Based on that record, Spurs' fans have had a lot to boo about recently, but instead they show up, cheer the home team and--as is their right--boo the opposing team. However, Popovich believes that he has the right to tell paying customers--the same paying customers who pay his $16 million per year salary--when to boo and when not to boo. During the Spurs' 109-102 loss to the L.A. Clippers, Popovich grabbed the house microphone and criticized the San Antonio crowd for booing the opposing team, apparently upset that Spurs' fans were expressing their displeasure with Kawhi Leonard, the former Spur who asked out and then led Toronto to the 2019 NBA title before joining the Clippers. Quite correctly, the crowd responded by booing even louder than they had been booing before. The Spurs shot .385 from the field in that game, and scored just 14 first quarter points while trailing wire to wire.
Would Popovich prefer that the home fans boo him and his sorry team that seems to be heading for the Draft Lottery on accident after tanking their way into the Draft Lottery on purpose to increase their odds of acquiring Victor Wembanyama? Would Popovich prefer that the home fans stop showing up until he puts a winning product on the court? Would Popovich prefer that media members--who ask him softball questions either out of too much fear or too much respect--point out the large difference between his winning percentage coaching Tim Duncan versus his winning percentage sans Duncan? It is said that people in living in glass houses would be wise to not throw stones, and it should also be said that highly paid coaches who have not won anything of consequence for a long time should not draw the spotlight on themselves.
Fans do not have the right to throw things on the court or interject themselves into the action in any way, nor should fans spew profanities or hate speech--but fans pay for the right to cheer or boo, and it is the height of delusional arrogance for any coach, let alone the coach of a losing team, to have the nerve to lecture fans the way that Popovich did. It would have served him right if all of the fans left their seats, demanded refunds for poor performance, and went home so that the Spurs played in front of no fans.
I don't mean to suggest that Popovich is a bad coach or a bad person. He has been a very successful coach, and I don't know him personally so I can't say what kind of person he is. However, Popovich's arrogant press conference demeanor over the years, and his growing penchant for providing social and political commentary that has not been sought and is not grounded in deep research indicate that his outburst directed toward Spurs' fans is not an aberration but part of an unwarranted sense of entitlement: "I'm Gregg Popovich and you're not" is the unspoken justification for Popovich's behavior. He is being paid a lot of money to win games, not to provide commentary about society or lectures on etiquette.
The other Wednesday incident involved Chris Paul, also known as "The best leader in the NBA" (who has never won a championship during his 19 season career). Paul's new team, the Golden State Warriors, fell to 7-9 after losing 108-104 to his previous team, the 9-6 Phoenix Suns. Paul was ejected from the game with 23.2 seconds remaining in the first half and his squad losing, 59-47. During a stoppage of play, Paul complained to referee Scott Foster about a previous foul call. Foster and Paul talked briefly, and then Paul said something to which Foster took offense, resulting in Foster calling a technical foul on Paul. Then, Foster did what referees are instructed to do after calling a technical foul: he walked away from Paul to deescalate--and when Paul continued to talk, Foster put up his hand in the universal "stop" gesture, indicating that he had heard enough. Paul kept yapping, and Foster hit Paul with a second technical foul, leading to automatic ejection. No microphones captured the earlier part of the conversation, but after the ejection Paul attempted to confront Foster before being restrained, and Paul clearly called Foster a "bitch." I wish Paul's teammates had not held him back so that we could find out if Paul lacks the wisdom and self control to avoid hitting a referee; he knew that if he charged at Foster then that boosts his "street cred" and he also knew that as soon as he did that he would be held back, so it would have been fascinating to see what he would have done if he had not been held back. The NBA is full of "hold me back" guys who act like they want to fight because they know that a fight is not going to happen.
After the game, Paul told media members that Foster has had a beef with him dating back to Paul's time with the L.A. Clippers several years ago, mentioning that the league office organized a meeting with Paul, Paul's father, Foster, then Clippers Coach Doc Rivers and then head of NBA officials Bob Delaney. Paul declined to explain what was discussed other than saying that the matter had something to do with his son and Foster. NBA officials are only allowed to speak to reporters in a very limited fashion, so Foster's only explanation of the ejection was that Paul received the first technical foul for "unsportsmanlike conduct" and that Paul received the second technical foul for continuing to "complain" in a way that was also deemed to be "unsportsmanlike conduct."
Paul acts like he feels entitled to say whatever he wants to say and act however he wants to act without facing any consequences. He refuses to take responsibility for his actions, and instead casts aspersions on Foster.
Foster is the easy target here. As the saying goes, the fans don't buy tickets to see the referees but to see star players. However, based on what we saw and heard there was nothing unusual about the ejection. If Paul truly believes that Foster is biased against him, then why did Paul keep talking after getting a technical foul? It must be emphasized that Foster walked away after issuing the first technical foul; this is not Jake O'Donnell versus Clyde Drexler or Hue Hollins versus Scottie Pippen/the Chicago Bulls, instances when officiating bias was an obvious pattern. O'Donnell's grudges against multiple players led to him losing his job despite grading out highly, while Hollins' bias was so obvious that his name was the first one that came to many people's minds when the story first broke about an unnamed referee (who later turned out to be Tim Donaghy) intentionally making wrong calls.
Paul has publicly created a narrative that Foster has a grudge against him without providing any proof, knowing full well that he is immune from consequences because Foster will not be permitted by the NBA to publicly respond. Why should media members or fans believe Paul? Paul has proven to be both a cheap shot artist and a whiner throughout his career, and there are many players around the league who have feuded with him, including both teammates and opponents. I am not aware of a single other player accusing Foster of bias, and Foster consistently grades out as a top referee. I watch a lot of NBA games, and while my focus is much more on the players and the coaches than the referees I have never felt that Foster is incompetent or biased.
It has become popular to suggest that the NBA should never assign Foster to officiate a game involving Paul's team. That is nonsense. If Foster grades out well enough to officiate the NBA Finals and Paul is fortunate enough to be carried to the NBA Finals by Stephen Curry then how can the league take that assignment away from Foster? No, the answer here is simple: if there is objective evidence that Foster is nursing a grudge that prevents him from officiating Paul in an unbiased manner then the NBA should fire Foster--and if there is no evidence of that, then the NBA should fine Paul for his comments, and make it clear that if he makes additional comments questioning the integrity of the officiating then he will be suspended. That is how former Commissioner David Stern would have quashed this nonsense that current Commissioner Adam Silver has allowed to fester for several years. If Paul is correct that the NBA organized a meeting with Paul, Foster, and others then the outcome of that meeting should have been an understanding that Paul's job is to play, Foster's job is to officiate objectively, and that if this ever becomes a public issue again then the person at fault is going to be disciplined by the league. Instead, Silver is letting one of these guys--and my strong suspicion is that the culprit is Paul--make a mockery of the league.
Stern always came to press conferences armed with facts and data, and he would challenge reporters who asked questions without doing their homework. Consequently, many media members have touted Silver as a kinder, gentler Commissioner because they like Silver more than they liked Stern, but I would argue that Silver is a weaker and less effective leader than Stern was. The Commissioner's job is to lead, not become popular with media members. The NBA's record on many issues--from the Paul/Foster nonsense to Draymond Green's unchecked violence, to the league's silence about Chinese tyranny because the NBA makes billions of dollars doing business with China--leaves much to be desired during Silver's reign.
Speaking of China, I would be much more impressed by Popovich if he grabbed a microphone and spoke out about Chinese oppression--which he has never done despite providing a lot of impromptu and unsought political/social commentary--instead of chastising his team's fans. Of course, speaking out about Chinese oppression could lead to a backlash against him, the Spurs, and the league, so Popovich--and other NBA coaches who often voice their opinions on selected issues--will never do that.
There is a big difference between being a loud voice and being a courageous voice. NBA and WNBA players and coaches are very selective about when their voices are loud and when their voices are silent. NBA and WNBA players and coaches made a lot of public comments demanding that Russia set free WNBA player Britney Griner, who had violated that country's drug laws, but I have yet to hear a single NBA or WNBA player or coach say anything about Hamas' October 7 massacre in Israel or about Hamas holding hundreds of civilian hostages, including American citizens. If the NBA and WNBA stand firmly against what they perceived to be the wrongful detention of one American basketball player in Russia then why are the NBA and the WNBA silent about the war crime of holding hundreds of civilians hostage? If the NBA and the WNBA stand firmly against violence against minorities and women then why are the NBA and the WNBA silent about Hamas' crimes against humanity, including rape, torture, and mutilation of women? Over 100 universities have publicly united against terrorism, and over 1500 lawyers from some of the world's biggest law firms issued a public statement condemning Hamas' terrorism, demonstrating the difference between being a loud voice and being a courageous voice; condemning evil even when "woke" self-proclaimed "progressives" will be upset is courageous, while telling fans not to boo or whining about a referee is just being loud and self-entitled.
Labels: Adam Silver, Chris Paul, David Robinson, Gregg Popovich, Julius Erving
posted by David Friedman @ 2:11 AM
16 Comments:
Does them not publicly condemning Hamas in the way you think is appropriate mean that they shouldn't say anything about violence against minorities? Or are you ok with violence and racism towards minorities and tired of hearing people talk about it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Frankly a lot of people condemning Hamas and speaking out against antisemitism (rightfully) are silent regarding violence and oppression towards people of color.
Anonymous:
Did you read this article and my other articles? If so, then why did you ask that question? I have never suggested the things that you are implying that I suggested.
The NBA has publicly positioned itself as a "progressive" organization that collectively speaks out against a variety of injustices and that encourages individual members of the NBA family to speak out as well. Therefore, it is very disturbing that--other than one brief statement--the league has said nothing about Hamas' October 7 massacre and the ongoing hostage crisis (not to mention the ongoing rocket bombardment of Israel that has forced hundreds of thousands of Israelis to seek shelter).
Regarding your last sentence, I have no idea which "people" you are alluding to, but if you mean Jews then you and all readers should know that Jews have been at the vanguard of the Civil Rights Movement for over 100 years. Sadly, despite the tremendous support that the Jewish community as a whole plus many individual Jews provided to the Civil Rights Movement, antisemitism is much higher in the Black community that in American society as a whole (as numerous polls have demonstrated). It is odd that the Black community sides with an Arab/Muslim society that is currently occupying the northern part of Africa and that displaced, enslaved, and massacred the native Black communities there.
David,
I'm just responding to your last paragraph in your response to Anonymous.
I suspect that the higher rate of "antisemitism" in the Black community has to do with Blacks' tendency to put Askenazi and Sephardic Jews firmly in the category of "white". It's not that white Jews are Jewish per se. It's just that, so far as Blacks can tell, most Askenazim and Sephardim in the U.S. have assimilated into American "whiteness" and they've benefited thereby. Nor can we so blithe generalize the Jewish community as a collective civil-rights advocate. Yes, there were many Jews who supported civil rights, namely the founders of the NAACP and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's patrons. Some Jews were martyred, indeed. But they don't seem typical of the mainstream white-American Jew. For example, if we rewind back to the 19th century, there were critical masses of Jewish Confederates too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_Confederates. Judah Benjamin was Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America and righthand man of Jefferson Davis.
As for the 20th century, Robert Moses, the most influential urban planner of the past 100 years, basically built modern New York City. He innovated so-called urban renewal, which James Baldwin quipped was "Negro removal" in terms of systematic displacement of inner-city Blacks. Moses epitomizes anti-Black institutional racism. Robert Caro's biography of Moses, The Power Broker, details just how deep his racist loathing of Black people was.
Not to get too deep into the weeds of Black-Jewish relations in the U.S. re: your basketball forum, but given your remarks on antisemitism in the Black community, I think it's worth pointing out that the Blacks you've described are more antiwhite than they are "antisemitic." Not saying that one is better than the other. Two wrongs don't make a right. But as a point of clarification.
[Full disclosure: I am Black so I do think I'm speaking here from the inside, as it were.]
Actually, there is another player who has publicly spoken out against Scott Foster and you won’t be surprised to know that it’s James Harden. Chris Paul and James Harden, a pair of players where every postseason for them concludes in bitter disappointment in large part due to their own playoff basketball shortcomings and their first instinct is to blame the officiating. I’m open to the possibility that Paul might have some legitimate personal issue with Foster, I’m a bit curious about this private meeting that somehow involved Paul’s son, but Foster’s ejection of Paul the other night was completely justified and hardly qualifies as proof that Foster has it out for him: Paul fouled Durant, Foster correctly issued the foul to Paul, Paul proceeded to whine like a little “word he called Foster”, Foster put up with Paul’s whining for an extended stretch and then rightfully issued a technical when he realized that Paul wasn’t going to drop the issue, Paul continued to poke the bear and was rightfully ejected. Paul was ejected because of his own childlike stubbornness.
Anonymous:
This is primarily a basketball website but I brought up some non-basketball topics, and I appreciate your thoughtful response, even though I disagree with some of what you said. I am not interested in a lengthy back and forth in this forum, but I will address some of your points.
The higher rate of antisemitism in the Black community compared to American society at large is a fact that has been demonstrated in polling for decades. It is bizarre that many Black people identify Jews as their persecutors. I am not claiming that there are no racist Jews, but as a group Jews are much less racist than any other group that I can think of, and Jews--both collectively and individually--were at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. Incidentally, I know that many Blacks resent Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, claiming that Jews tried to take over something that should be run by Blacks, which just illustrates the old cliche about no good deed going unpunished: somehow, Jews are blamed for both being racists and for taking over the Civil Rights Movement. This is similar to how White antisemites blame Jews for both being capitalists and for being communists (depending on which economic system that set of antisemites considers more offensive at the moment).
Jews are not "assimilated" into American "whiteness," and what has been happening since October 7 underlines that point; nobody is marching in the streets chanting "Death to the Irish" or "Death to the Catholics" or "Death to the Whites," but there are many people chanting "Gas the Jews."
America has always been dominated by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants; every other group is a minority group in terms of collective power. Sure, there are individual Jews who have power, just as there are individual Blacks who have power: people like LeBron James or Oprah Winfrey (not to mention Barack Obama) have more power than 99.9999% of Jews ever will.
Anonymous:
I divided my response in three due to word count limitations. Here is the second part.
The notion that there was a "critical mass" of Jews involved in the Confederacy sounds like a line Farrakhan would utter. The entire Jewish population of America--North and South combined--during the Civil War was 175,000, with 150,000 living in the North and 25,000 living in the South. The U.S. population (North and South combined) was about 31 million, so the Jewish population was .5% of the total (that is a half of one percent). It is interesting that many polls show that people tend to think that there are lot more Jews in the U.S. and the world than there really are. The Jews were not a "critical mass" in the North or the South; they were a small minority. A few Jews became wealthy and powerful, just as some Black people became wealthy and powerful (even back then). Most of the Jewish immigration to America happened post-1880 (i.e., after the Civil War and the end of slavery), and most of those Jews had never seen a Black person in their lives prior to coming to America; those Jews were trying to survive in a new country, and had nothing to do with enslaving Blacks in the 1700s and 1800s, nor did they have anything to do with the Jim Crow horrors from the 1860s through the 1960s.
The "mainstream white-American Jew" overwhelmingly votes Democrat, and holds views that are more "progressive"/left-wing than the general population. Whatever Robert Moses did was something that he did as an individual, not as part of some Jewish-dominated power structure. Further, until very recently, many cities had property "covenants" that forbade selling the property to Jews; this was still going on in my lifetime, because members of my family could not buy property in certain areas when I was a kid. I am not asserting that the "urban renewal" process was worse for Jews than for Blacks; my point is that Jews were not part of the power structure, but in fact were discriminated against (but some Jews lived in fancy houses in the 1970s, just as some Black people did--the point is that generalizing or stereotyping any group misses the larger truth of what happened).
Anonymous:
Part three:
In the mid-1600s, Ukrainians revolted against the Polish nobles who had been oppressing them. The Poles held all of the real power, but the Jews--who were among the few literate people in the region at the time (other than the Catholic priests)--were used by the Polish nobles to collect rent from the Ukrainians; the Jews were not running Poland, and in fact were persecuted by the Poles (the original "ghettoes" were areas where Jews were physically confined, which of course is not how the word is used now), but when the Ukrainians revolted they did not distinguish between Pole and Jew, and they massacred hundreds of thousands of Jews. The Ukrainians' inability to distinguish between Pole and Jew mirrors the way that antisemitic Blacks view Jews as part of a power structure that in fact does not include the Jewish community (though it includes individual Jews, just as it also includes individual Blacks).
The people who really have power are delighted that so many Blacks hate Jews, because to the extent that Blacks lash out at Jews they lose focus from who is really holding them back. Farrakhan, Sharpton, and others have done a great disservice to the Black community by enriching themselves by propagating antisemitism that is a distraction from the root causes of the suffering in the Black community. Chase every Jew out of America, and the condition of the Black community would not improve; in fact, it would regress, because the "white" group that feels the greatest kinship with the Black community is the Jewish people.
White antisemites from Marx (who was born Jewish) to Hitler to the modern KKK/neo-Nazis vehemently deny that Jews are white. It is not hard to find quotes from the people who really are inside this country's power structure who state that Jews are not white and should never be on equal ground with white Christians.
The same people who want to get rid of the Jews will sooner or later go after the Blacks, and the same people who want to get rid of the Blacks will sooner or later go after the Jews. It is tragic that such a schism has developed between the Jewish and Black communities, because we are natural allies and we both need each other.
The nations and terrorist groups at war with Israel now are no friends of the Black community, though they may regard the Black community (and the "progressives") as proverbial "useful idiots" in their p.r. campaigns. The Arabs/Muslims conquered North Africa, killing, displacing, and enslaving large numbers of Black people. Arabs and Muslims are slaughtering Blacks in Africa right now. When Farrakhan embraces Arab dictators he looks like the biggest fool on Earth to anyone who knows this history.
Michael:
Did Harden complain about Foster other than when he and Paul were teammates in Houston? I think that some of Paul's teammates over the years have offered lukewarm support of the notion that Foster targets Paul, but I can't recall another player saying that Foster had targeted him. Harden has complained about officiating in general since the league cut back on "flop and flail," but if he made a specific assertion that Foster is out to get him at a time when he was not Paul's teammate then I missed that or forgot about it.
David,
Same (Black) Anonymous here. We can respectfully disagree about the extent to which (Caucasian) Jews in the U.S. have actually assimilated into whiteness. Nor are Democrats and white liberals immune to anti-Black racism. Just saying.
But I do agree with you 100% that Blacks too often give Arabs a pass re: Arabs' deepseated anti-Black racism that's centuries in the making. To wit, Arabs enslaved Black Africans going back to the 7th century A.D. up until the 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world And, as you rightly point out, Arabs and Muslims are committing genocide against Black Africans as we speak.
Malcolm X is my hero, The Autobiography of Malcolm X is my favorite book, but even he comes off as foolish towards the end of his classic when he goes on and on about the rainbowlike brotherhood of Islam. Reading it you wouldn't know that Arab Muslims instigated the slave trade, but Malcolm is otherwise so on point as popular teacher of Black history. Malcolm doesn't seem to get that the Arab bigshots who treated him so well on his Hajj did so precisely because he was MALCOLM X, that is, a statesman of international repute (unofficially) representing some 22 million African Americans. No doubt the Arabs in question treated him with so much hospitality because they saw him as a potential "useful idiot," to your point. Which, also to your point, is how they've seen Farrakhan all these years.
I mean, did Malcolm really think that if he were an ordinary Black man from America, the Arab-Muslim bigshots would have treated him so well? I understand that Malcolm was probably sugarcoating mainstream Islam as a way of counterpointing the Manichean demonology of the Black Muslims that he had just broken away from and that had framed all whites as devils. But still. Malcolm X's pollyannish depiction of Arabia is a massive blindspot in his and Haley's classic.
Nor, as a rule, are Palestinians any less anti-Black racist than are their Arab slave-trade-instigating compatriots.
BLM have foolishly put themselves on the side of the Palestinians. But I very much doubt that the Palestinians, in turn, are on the side of Black folks. BLM should be Swiss neutral re: Israel/Palestine. Now back to basketball.
Anonymous:
I agree that Democrats and white liberals are not immune to racism, but my point about voting patterns is that Blacks and Jews tend to vote the same way and tend to be on the same side of many issues.
Individual Jews with light complexions can "pass" as white, which is something that individual Blacks cannot easily do--but, as a community as a whole, the Jewish community is not part of the larger power structure. That larger power structure is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Much like individual Blacks have obtained fame, wealth, and power through sports and entertainment, individual Jews have obtained fame, wealth, and power by striking out on their own as entrepreneurs--but the larger power structure used to be openly antisemitic (just as it was openly anti-Black) and many segments of it continue to be antisemitic. In the 1920s and 1930s there were anti-Jewish quotas at Ivy League schools, and there were many businesses that would not hire Jews. Could Jews blend in by changing their names and not being obviously Jewish? At times--but the very necessity of doing those things refutes the notion that Jews as a group had assimilated into the power structure.
As you correctly noted in reference to Malcolm X, a famous and powerful Black person would be treated differently than Black people who are not famous and powerful; the same is true for Jews.
I would argue that BLM should be pro-Israel because Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast. It is not good for Black people (or anyone) if totalitarian regimes topple democracies. Of course, BLM will never be pro-Israel because BLM is more about promoting Marxism than it is about helping Black people. As I wrote elsewhere, I very much believe the concept behind Black lives matter, but I cannot support BLM because of the underlying Marxist ideology.
You may be interested to research the deep connections between Nazism and the Islamic extremism now represented by Iran/Hamas/Hezbullah. Haj Amin Husseini, a prominent Arab leader in the 1930s and 1940s, met with Adolf Hitler and recruited Muslims to participate in the Holocaust. Arab states such as Egypt and Syria recruited Nazis to help them build their militaries.
The Jews were at the top of Hitler's list, but he had a long list of "sub-humans" and if he had stayed in power long enough he would have worked his way to Black people (and when he was done with everyone else he would have turned on his Arab allies, just like he turned on the SA forces that helped him gain power once they were no longer useful to him).
Israel is fighting against people who both deny that the Holocaust happened and are trying to create a new Holocaust today. Even if Black people care nothing about Jews as fellow humans (which would be sad), purely from a self-interest standpoint it should be obvious that heirs to the Nazis are not friends to Black people.
I do want to get back to basketball, and we will, but I will conclude by saying that I think most non-Jews do not understand how viscerally traumatic October 7 was. We know that people hate us and are trying to kill us, but the idea that an invading force could kill 1200 people in one day in Israel and take hundreds of hostages--many of whom are still being held captive--brings back echoes of the Holocaust. Imagine if in one day 1200 Black people were lynched in America in 2023. The racism that exists today is terrible, but imagine the reaction if a mass lynching happened in one day--and for the impact to be proportional, the number would be much higher than 1200, because the Black population of America is more than twice as large as the Jewish population of the world, and is several times larger than the Jewish population of Israel.
Israel is roughly twice the size of L.A. County, and the Jewish population of the world is less than the population of New York state. It is quite a phenomenon to be simultaneously a tiny, vulnerable minority, and a group that is accused of having tremendous power.
You wrote that "Individual Jews with light complexions can "pass" as white". That is a really strange way to put it, as if it is some sort of exception to the norm. Almost all American Jews are physically indistinguishable from Europeans. Maybe that's why people have referred to Jews as being "white," even though they have some middle eastern ancestry.
Anonymous:
Here, "white" is short for "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant." The power structure in the U.S. is controlled by "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" people, and the Jewish community is outside of that power structure. However, from the standpoint of superficial appearances, a Jew can "pass" as "white," assuming that the Jew does not dress in traditional Jewish garb, while a Black person cannot "pass" as white. It is interesting that the majority of Israel's Jewish population is Sephardic, i.e. not descended from Europeans and not "white."
As I discussed above, Nazis, the KKK, and neo-Nazis vigorously deny that Jews are "white"; from their standpoint, Jews are subhuman, as are Blacks and other minority groups.
BLM's dehumanization of Israel in particular and Jews in general is right out of the Nazi playbook, which should be a disconcerting warning sign to anyone who supports BLM.
David,
I noticed that my two comments are now missing. Was there some type of glitch? [No need to post this here missive. Just want to bring to your attention my missing posts on this thread concerning Jews and whiteness as well as Malcolm X's pollyannish world of Islam. I quite enjoyed our exchange and I'm sorry to see that my side of it is no longer up.]
Anonymous:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
The Blogger platform somehow marked your comments as Spam and removed them after I had already approved them and they had been posted. I have never seen a comment that had already been approved then be removed, so I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. I went in and manually restored your comments.
Comment moderation is a sad necessity to avoid automatic posting of comments by robots as well as posting of comments with inappropriate content, but after a comment has been moderated it should stay up, so I have no idea what happened.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, and it would look odd to have long responses by me to comments that no longer are visible, so thank you again for bringing this to my attention!
I am the anonymous who posted about why people probably refer to Jews as "white." I understand your point of view that WASPs control the power structure in the US, and I don't necessarily agree with the following, but it might help clarify for you why many people don't distinguish between Jews and WASPs (and other people who are physically indistinguishable from Europeans). It is easy for any people who look white (by that, I mean physically indistinguishable from Europeans) to assimilate into the dominant American WASP culture. This not only happens through "passing," but through intermarriage. The vast majority of today's white Americans can trace their ancestry to multiple European countries. There are relatively few "pure" WASPs left, and what was once a WASP-dominated power structure has been expanded to include anyone who can easily assimilate into that structure via their virtually indistinguishable appearance. Minorities such as blacks cannot assimilate in such a way. If you don't think Jews are part of America's current power structure, I respect your opinion. I understand there is a lot of antisemitism even today.
Yes, the Nazis saw Jews as a separate race. They also viewed Slavs as a separate, inferior race (and, as I a sure you know, committed many atrocities against Slavs on that basis). Does that mean Slavs are not white? The KKK used to have a problem with white Catholics. Today's white supremacists have no problem with white Catholics. I am not trying to diminish anyone's historical suffering, just pointing out that things change.
Anonymous:
You and I may be addressing two different issues. You are speaking about passing/assimilating on an individual level based on physical appearance or intermarriage; I am speaking about collective group power. As a group, Jews are outside of the larger power structure, which continues to be dominated by WASPs. There are individual Jews who have wealth and power, just as there are individual Blacks who have wealth and power--but the existence of wealthy individuals from a minority group does not prove that their minority group has collective power, and many Blacks have made that precise argument, saying that just because LeBron James has wealth and power that does not mean that Blacks as a group have power. Also, I disagree with the notion that Blacks cannot assimilate via intermarriage. Racial intermarriage has become common, and some children from racial intermarriage can "pass" as white from an appearance standpoint.
Antisemitism is soaring in the U.S. and around the world. People in the U.S. are openly chanting antisemitic slogans, and attacking Jews; if any other group were facing what Jewish people are facing right now there would be massive outrage but--because Jews are a small minority that does not have a lot of power within the power structure--the mainstream response to the prevalent antisemitism has been muted. If numerous college campuses were overrun by people chanting for the deaths of Blacks and the destruction of Black African countries, there would be (and should be) massive outrage.
The Nazis and other white supremacists cannot be accused of logical consistency within their abhorrent belief systems. Adolf Hitler, a brown haired and brown eyed short Austrian, extolled the virtues of blond haired, blue eyed, tall, supposedly superior Aryans, and he was elected Germany's leader based on his platform of hate. The inconsistencies within the white supremacist belief systems do not prove that Jews are collectively part of the WASP power structure. Regarding Catholics, I question your assertion that white supremacists have no problem with white Catholics. My understanding is that Protestants do not think that Catholics are true Christians (and vice versa), and my understanding is that the KKK would still view Catholics with derision (though I am sure that the KKK has harsher feelings toward Blacks and Jews).
I agree that some things change, but if one looks at the broad historical view it has often been the case that individual Jews achieve high status but the Jewish community as a whole lacks power; that was true in Spain before the 1492 expulsion, in Poland before the Chmielnicki massacres, in Germany (where assimilation and intermarriage did not save the Jewish community) before the rise of the Nazis, and in America today, where the Jewish community is being targeted in unprecedented fashion.
Post a Comment
<< Home