Jim Crow was a fictional character created by whites to disparage Blacks. The Jim Crow character was not only highly stereotypical, but created stereotypes that (before Jim Crow) never existed. Jim Crow-like characters would dress in a fashion whereas it would appear he was trying to “pass” for white, but obviously wasn’t accomplishing such a task. He stole chickens and ate watermelon. He was a misogynist and violent. He was dumber than dumb. Jim crow spoke poorly...the list goes on.
Real blacks were in fact never like the Jim crow character, but some of them, over the years, have ended up embracing a culture very similar to the white formulated “Jim Crow” ). Examples tend to come from the entertainment industry, as “Jim Crow” was actually a international hit as a song. They include Flava Flav, Uncle Murder, and Bert Williams among others.
These people, despite their talent (or lack there of...Uncle Murder), absorb stereotypes created by non-Blacks to express their “identity” and make a living.
This occurrence, which I will refer to as the “Jim Crow Disease” (the acceptance of negative stereotypes as a identity and culture), is not limited to the descendants of former slaves in America. I see this disease as an epidemic among all culturally/nationally disenfranchised youth in America.
(Polish Cover of the anti-Semitic bullshit rag, The Protocols of The Elders of Zion)
Jews, being a target of so much hate over the last couple thousand years, have amassed a trove of stereotypes manufactured by non-Jewish peoples. The stereotypical Jew (you might think of Shylock from the Merchants of Venice, or Fagin in Oliver Twist) is greedy, cheap, big-nosed, fat, stupid, rich, running the world, controlling the media, killing Christians, poisoning wells, etc.
Some Jews, just like some descendants of slaves, have taken to these stereotypes as an expression of their “identity” and “culture”. Some Jews in the entertainment industry embrace these stereotypes for a living. The first example that comes to mind for me is comedian Jackie Mason (“Money is not the most important thing in the world. Love is. Fortunately, I love money.”)
I have witnessed first hand its deplorable disease manifest itself within our youth! Jewish children embracing anti-Semitic stereotypes as an expression of what they think to be their “identity”; such is Jim Crow disease. From Middle School to today I often see fellow Jews doing such stupid things as making a spectacle out of themselves as they pick up a couple of cents off the ground, or making lame-ass jokes about lawyers and accountants. When such a phenomenon began in Middle School, it sometimes took the form of a repulsive race of sorts before gym class would start. In this race (which was organized by members of the Jewish youth), two Jews would line up as if on a starting line, while a third person would hold a nickel or dime. At the yell of “go”, the dime would be throw away from the starting line and the two Jews would run to get to the change first, sometimes wrestling over it. The Jews involved in this exercise thoroughly enjoyed themselves, as their non-Jewish classmates applauded there spectacle (back to the laughter/assimilation point).
Stereotypes constructed by our non-Jewish oppressors should never be the “identity” we find in Middle School and carry for the remainder in our lives. There is no need for such a disgrace of our people, especially when it is perpetrated by our own people.
Surely humanity in general is capable of putting an end to this current epidemic of self-degradation and public spectacle. It is not right for anyone to feel as if they have to embrace the negative stereotypes in order to outwardly express their identity. Our youth must once again realize what it is to be Jewish and have a Jewish identity. Degradation of Jewishness, by becoming our people’s Jim Crow has the potential only to hurt us.
WE MUST STOP THIS NOW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also from my Journal The Jewish Mirror.
4 months ago
7 comments:
i have a hard time seeing the two as equal; jim crow, and black stereotypes, furthermore, have been marketed stereotypes, for whites who laughed at it and first, and then to blacks who came to be jim crows out of example and who came to like chiken and watermelon because supposedly that's what they like; jewish stereotypes seems to have simply been made by comedians or silly observations that jewish people are generally this or that, is think theres a difference between these two kinds of stereotypes.
i think something like jim crow is biggotry, something like saying that jews are rich is just a silly observation about an excepted for of success in modern life. jewish stereotypes in america have generally been just jokes as far as ive ever known, they arent out of hate or even genuinely believed, i think having a sense of humor about yourself and cultural identity is important it helps people steer clear of dogmatic behavior, which is why so many religious sects kill for their beliefs; they've never been kept grounded about how it is at least possible that they are not right.
with that said penny races are silly and possibly even breed a wrongful impression of jewish culture as well as maybe in the kids a sense of self-loathing, but i can't imagine it's as bad as some other situations. i hear what youre saying about not maintaining the integrity of the culture, but at some point it cannot be that serious, there needs to be breathing room, calculated as it may be if we can define what is and isn't funny in context, we must be able to laugh at our beliefs before we start blowing ourselves up for it as it seems that islam has infected some individuals in the middle east. -- im not all to educated on this as you know, im judging on appearence, but im sure you can see the point im trying to make
i still hold that these sort of stereotypes are not nearly as detremental as black stereotypes in america. black stereotypes caused hundreds of lynchings per year etc, whereas in an isolated case someone thought a jewish guy was rich and tortured him, that was unlucky for the jewish guy, anyone that stupid is easily suceptable to anything that they are told, the widespread popularity of that stereotype i dont think had anything to do with this one mans offence; and i can confidently say that they have not reached the severity of black biggotry. thats sort of irrelavent, though.
offence on religious grounds is a nearly outdated practice. religions are still somewhat struggling in the west with faith over intelligence because the practice of reason is undeniably the intelligent and intuitive human way to go about things. with that said, there is no sense in getting upset about humor or insults jabbed at one's religion because if one believes, and believes through reason as is accepted as the only way to come to belief in the intelligent community, he is unaffected by insults because he knows what he says is right. im sort of tired so im not gonna finish this thought, but it would seem that if this follows that humor and even blatant insults towards religions are moot and negligible to those who believe for the intelligent reasons and that some other things lies behind why this disrespect is a problem, but i can't think of what it is now. it also would seem that one person with a certain belief and a reason for real confidence in his belief would not wsate time insulting or ridiculing anoter belieg but rather arguing intelligently with those believers. it seems now that a possible source of tension is the people who dont believe in anything or the people who believe and have not reason. im too lazy to finish this thought right now im sure there are plenty of holes...
my first argument is contextual, as i argue with people that drinking is not in line with their interests as living as "happy" human beings, though that is not the true argument behind it; as was my argument here, and it was in context of history as an entire body of past events influencing current society, and further more, excuse my comments on the french guy, towards american society because that's where we aim to institute change; there will be no universal moral constant in which we can confide to solve our problems, i was arguing contextually for the american jewish culture.
either way that isn't the argument i care for. though that kind of contextual argument seems necissary at times i prefer that my justification for things comes on philosophical grounds; thus my main argument which finds it's legs on more solidly acceptable grounds than a historical and cross cultural argument where we find our legs wherever history fits our own arguments.
the problem the becomes the international nature of peoples and cultures. can something be looked at from an american perspective if so much of that subject was founded outside of america? i am a little unsettled by your comments on historical argument, surely because it is not as concrete as reason/philosphy, doesnt mean it should be tossed aside out of the arena. "historical and cross cultural argument"s are important to be had, however theytake a lot of work and study to be more than pick and choose cablenews style debates.
to say jim crow is more detrimental in american society, than "that jew has a big nose and is cheap" appears true on the surface. surely jim crow has done more to negatively affect blacks in this country than stupid anti-semitic stereotypes have affected jewish self image and culture.
however, when one dives into the muck of history, such observations immediatly become historically simplistic. Such simplism is highlighted when supporting evidence like "black stereotypes caused hundreds of lynchings per year etc" are used. In America, yes more blacks were lynched because of hate than Jews. However Jews are an international people with thousands of years under their belt. Even though we presently speak of America, is it right to ignore international history, of an international people, within the context of a national argument?
What worries me about the Jim Crow behavior among Jewish youth today, is the reality of who do they share their laughter with?
For example...when i went to YIVO, i was looking at some old newspapers. one was a illustrated comedic one. In it there were many Jewish stereotypes, (a cartoon of a new immigrant with a monterously big nose), also there was an illustration of a Jewish audience in an american theatre (being civilized) and the same crowd in a Yiddish theatre (acting crazy and uncivilized). This is an example of the laughing at ourselves we need. However, Jews as a cohesive nation with a language, press, theatre and so on no longer exists (in the Diaspora). Now when Jews make fun of themselves they are doing so not to an audience made up soley of their own people (which may only continue to exist as a religious group) , but rather a largly gentile/assimiliated audience. Are they laughing with eachother anymore? not so much. they are laughing with mostly gentile Americans (of which many are surely laughing with them, but many still are laughing at them).
You make a good point with jewish international history being a dark and biggoted (that's a word now, in that sense, if it wasnt before, eat it) one, and I don't have the facts about black international history, nor the motivation to find it out because I'd probably be doing it only to bolster my own argument. While I can see your point about this, and agree, no one wouldn't, I can't help but to revert back to asking how this will help immediatly change American Jews. It is undoubtedly, in this respect, ncissary to conside the past of the Jewish people, but putting as much emphasis on it seems to be irrelavent when the immdiadte place in which you would aim to have your effect - i assume this because the culture you reffered to in your original argument was that of america- is in America, thus it is important to keep the influences more apparent to American Jews in the forefront of the argument. With this said, it seems to become somewhat important what I mentioned about Jews not being as hatefully descriminated a race - I can make this judgement, because like the uneducated Jews, the ones who don't care about their culture and heritage as you do, I am not everly exposed to the historical nuances of Jewish culture, I am only exposed to general cultural notions. So myself and these more 'ignorant' Jews are exposed to a Jewish humor that is purely humor, though it may have roots in hate - but if it does, this is somewhat irrelivant to our current argument because the people we seek to change, like myself, obviously have no idea that the humor about Jews in America is about hate, or at least enough of an idea to stop them from participating in stereotype-games. I actually, on a side note, had no idea - this is how little history I know - that the Jewish-rich stereotype thing was even present anywhere else than America, and at that more recently, I sincerely thought that it just happened at one point that a few weathly jews were in visible positions and someone noticed. So I think for our current argument, and for the sake of changing those whom we are immediatly involved with, who I will take are more closely as educated on the subject to what I am, because if they were as educated as you they most likely would not need changing and not participate or help to continue the use of stereotypes at all, especially about Jews. A useful analogy one of my proffesors brought up the other day about something else seems relevant; when considering satelites, or even the moon, we consider that ir rotates the earth entirely, but when looked at from a whole around the sun it does a sort of sine wave in a circle: if we were to try to figure out the math of how to make a satelite work in relation to the sun arounf the earth we'd be working for years, but we do it as if it is simply going around the earth becasue it works like that and its a hell of a lot easirer. We could spend our time trying to figure out how to fix culture and stereotyping around the world and considering how the hell to work that sine curve, or we could do the circle in america and go from there....
Now for the two other things, which are more readily importnat to myself. To the philosopher; the true epistemologist or metaphysicist, there cannot be much consideration of nations or culture. The emphasis is on human life in general, not in the silly things people decide to in theirs and how to fix them. So for myself and what i aim to be, as well as for the foremost in the pure fields of philosophy, there is no national, and for myself American midset on this issue; if anything it is my ignorance of international facts that makes me American, but as we've established already that is what will help me in solving the American problem with Jews and the continuation of their stereotypes in America.
More importantly, though, is the actual argument for philosophy over historical argument. Argument is philosophy, and philosophy requires the highest level of argument and intelligence to come to acceptable answers, these answers coming hopefully from the most base and simple assumtions and deductions we can make from life as human beings; cultural and historical argument argues inside the realm of what has happened sohuld happen and will happen in a world with a moralty and a world where the rights and wrongs of cultures are accepted; these rights and wrongs nearly always found in assumptions above and beyond what can be reasonably assumed and deduced from living life; for this reason I am obliged as a philosopher to reject the legitimacy of nearly ever religion and culture that resulted from it, and then necissarily, why should I consider a culture or nation I reject as a legitimate for of thought and living in what I should do next? If I do it should only be what not to do next; yes considering current conditions may be necissary, but I need not consider what will help to continue or help a culture I do not support.
I think it may require a little more explanation as to why I reject many cultures and religions off the bat:
These definitely include judaism and christianism among may others, I will use monotheistic religions as a model. The assumption, because at one point logic was not where it is, of a single governing deity was acceptable at that point, but human life is much about progression; if we were to place such a faith and apreciation in heritage as would be necissary to carry on a religion just becasue others did it and it created a culture would be the same level as to make us live in caves, we reject what won't make the wealthy comfotrable and keep what will make everyone comfortable; a controlable idea of single god. So on that, judaism and catholicism are archaic, but that is not enough. Not only are so many cultures built on lazy asumptions and rejections in order to create comfort and complacency, but when real progress is made in mind and reason, these religions refuse to accept that reason and logic may have proven enough problem to reconsider, though theyve already impeded years of thought already, their positions; rather, as is most apparent in christianity, idiots like Aquinas and Anselm find ways around reason, rather than embracing that religion has become arechaic in the time when as many people are capable of reason - by this i mean literacy and language have becoe much more widley present so that the minds of people are more able to break out of the shells that limited language and controlled beliefs had been able to let them acheive. So not only do I reject them on their loft assumptions that are far beyond that which man can deduce, although they tried to prove otherwise, though it was so far after the religions were created that I can conidently dismiss these tohughts, as the religions are still based on 'superstitions'.
As such become the societies and cultures, and eventually nations, become. Therefore, when I consider the best path fo the human race, the only consideration I have for religion and dogma based societies is that I know all the ways those things have fucked up and I won't try any of it. It is, though important, to consdier the current state of things, and if it were the case, one might have to play along for a while to help those who are stuck in situations caused by dogmatic belief, but I do not ever condone or suggest that these practices should be continued.
This isn't to say that I'm possitive that I'm right, but I'm confident that these things have caused enought damage to the state of human life, and prove to be detremental enough to the human psyce (over 1000 years of intellectual backtracking in christianities case) that I can say that they need to be done away with because they onlt promote the dogmatism that they've always preached.
What would the world be like if all of the christians (including all the branches of christianity; catholicism, protestant, etc.) were not christians, but were intellectually, philosophically, and scientifically geared minds? I have little doubt that our physical planet would be doing a hell of a lot better than it is, not to mention the deaths and feud that wouldn't happen. Imagine Islam and Judaism and Hindu and all the other historic religions were not around, and a philosophic mindset prevailed, how much more pleasant would our world be? No wars in the middle east, etc. It is irrelevant, let me add, that there is a possiblity for something worse, that is relevant in every aspect of life and does not disprove a disproving of a though, I am suggesting the monumantal problems that religions and dogmatic cultures have caused. If you wish to defend them it is not your job to find holes in my argument becasue it is not an argument in favor of anything in particular, it is an argument against religion; you must legitimize religion - the critic's job is not to theorize it is not criticize theroies, the theorists job is to make and support theories under criticism.
alrite i think thats it. im sure i forgot shit here and ther but ill get to it if you refer to it...
This is probably self evident but what is "the circle in america" from which we can proceed (dont explain your profs analogy, i understand that, just apply it to what we are talking about).
"To the philosopher; the true epistemologist or metaphysicist, there cannot be much consideration of nations or culture."
Is this not a cop out of sorts? even in you ideal philosophy world, there would be culture. Your supernatural belief (religion) would be your alleignce to reason (and maybe forms). Whereas the peoples of the world will split into different schools of thought, thus becoming new nations with unique cultures based upon their core beliefs. It is my feeling that there is no such thing as a world without culture or nations, it is natural.
"if we were to place such a faith and apreciation in heritage as would be necissary to carry on a religion just becasue others did it and it created a culture would be the same level as to make us live in caves"
surely one must admit that religion and the cultures that stem from it have the ability to be progressive. conditions change, times change, morals get realized. Jews used to worship in a grand Temple, it got destroyed we got kicked out. as humans we adapted to our new surroundings and times and changed the religion accordingly. If a high preist from the days of the Temple were to walk into Saturday's Yom Kippur service in Whittier, he would be more than confused. Social evolution happens no matter what restricts we place on ourselves. (even the amish have reflectors on their buggies today!)
Surely religion has caused a lot of problems. But i have hope that humanity has the abilty to be both diverse and united for the common good. nothing good can come from uniformity (hell thats the major flaw of religions, trying to convert everyone.
I might be wrong, but i beleive there was a quote that came out of the Jewish enlightenment that was "Be a Jew in your home and a man on the street". The Yiddishists massacred this notion saying that being a Jew makes you more of a man, and being a man makes you more of a Jew...so you you should be both everywhere (same concept holding for other nations i suppose). What we need today is something to the effect of, be an dogmatic fool in your celler, and be a rational nation/culture on the street.
I might disagree with that when i get a chance to think about it, but well see.
by applying the circle in america i meant like treating the satelite in a circle as opposed to a sine curve; treat the problem where it is relevant because trying to treat it as a whole is either impossible, or a collosal waste of time because it can be done an easier way. i realise the analogy breaks down after this because then we actually do want to fix the problem outside of American, but that's for when we've finished the problem in america, then we can look at the larger picture, at which point it would be relevant to look at other smaller culture segments that have this problem and fix them one by one; we never really need to concern ourselves with the fact that it is a worldwide problem, only that it's a problem in a very large amount of individual places...
theres absolutely the necessity for culture in the progression of human evolution, it is a component of it, and unfortunately superstitious belief (this is a Humean term, and I dig it) is a necessary part of it. Not only schools of though, but forms of art and music and language also form the back bones of society, and those things would still exist, in much more of a pure and unregulated form in less dogmatic societies; no culture is rediculous to suggest, I didn't mean to come off as saying that. I am saying that I reject cutures that have come from such backgrounds as I've mentioned; if there were an ideal society, art and music and poetry would probably be the foremost components of it's culture, there would be nothing lost in any realm of culture besides dogmatism and resentment for other peoples because of what their dogmatic beliefs allowed them or pushed them to do - this is often people manipulating things like the bible, so other people who like the bible get pissed. But; philosophy is derived from that from which nothing simpler the human mind can assume (as opposed to God being "that which than nothing greater can be conceived", which attempts to reach the mind into the supernatural). Thus if we can conceive of something entirely un-superstitious and objective that is the object of philosophy; and one of the main components of philosophy is it's devotion to exploring the possibilites of the mind and reason; and historically of being open minded and respectfully ripping the last guy who was wrong a new intellectual asshole. With that nature in a culture, though this is a fairly ideal concept adn one i'd like to stay away from, i would find it hard to conceive of wars over belief and such and overwhelming amount of hatred as there is today; the leaders of these societies would be most incredible minds, not osama and big g.w
as a person who is too often tempted to be enslaved by his own emotions i dont want to come off insulting to a belief system that you stick very honorably too, but as a philosopher i will say what i think in the least abrasive terms i can manage...Social evolution happens, and as i said religion is certainly part of this evolution, but it's had it go, its done its function, and for far too long, id say that it had completed its mission by the presocratics when thought really began - imagine how far humanity would be without the 1600ish years of backwards progress caused by christianity and it's cohorts. it's true that the cultures of religion are relevent to our life today, and stem back as one of the original subjects of language, which is one of, if not the thing that makes us human as we are today, but it's about as important as a childs first word; it's great that the kid is speaking and learning, but once she's 40 years old she shouldn't be living by 'cookie' anymore, she should probably be living by some extensive and well thought out moral code - she's just going to run in to a load of trouble living by ;cookie', not to mention get made fun of, and even get into fights with people who said cake or lollipop first. religion had its run, we used it as a vehicle for progression, but now we're just idling because cookie doesnt cut it anymore and everyones jsut fighting over which junk food is better for us when if we could just get past religion we'd find something like apples, which are delicious and good for us. I like that analogy a lot i'm proud of it. my point is that we can't jsut keep going with something that's done all it can do for use, it was a vehicle and we can appreciate it as a historical part of humanity, but if we are as in love with the progress that we praise religion for providing us wiht, we must let it go so that the age of induction/deduction can fully be realized in culture and in government and in the world in general...
on that note, you're right that it would be boring if everyone agree, but we are on the path where we want that to some extent. diversity is good, and with individual influences in life its bound to be there, this is what a philosophically realized society may be able to acheive; diversity, but respectful diversity, but not in the exacy same light as you may see it. if we were all to unite for the good of man, it would mean that weve all agreed on what the good of man is, and thus had some smart people figure out how to acheive that; diversity is unfortunatly not part of that, and it will probably never be realized as such because of the diversity of human experience, etc. someone who believes in god is not going to think the same as someone who does not as the best thing for mankind, and if these are leaders, these people will not agree. if there was to be a uniting factor, i think global warming may be it; we are all very subjective on waht humanity is and all that, but we all know what the environment is and that its fucked up and everyones making it worse, i think thats a very agreeable issue. the problem is that everyone in a leadership position is a reateard, if someone came out and said something objective like that it would probably strike a lot of environmental reforem, etc.
i do disagree with the cellar thing, and ill tell you why. people arent honest. ever. being an idiot in the cellar will cause consious alternative motives and uncounsious weight on decision making. that;s what america seems to be. pretend youre moral on the outside, be a relentless narcissist without knowing on the inside. far be it from me to say what we do need, but its not less honesty.
Post a Comment