Boy walks with his father at the Jewish graveyard. They’re reading the tombstones. After some time the boy asks: Daddy, do thieves never die?
One does not want to affirm oppressive stereotypes. One should write against the forces of bigotry and repression. But what to do with not so nice but oppressed people? Here a dozen examples.
Do poor people never steal — not to save themselves from poverty but just because they don’t care about honesty? Should this be reported or should be added that he grew up poor as mitigating circumstance?
Are women never abusive? And when they are, do we hide that? We certainly do not want to equate violence in relationships between men and women. For starters, some male abusers kill; from women, that’s extremely rare. But to write about regularly violent women?
There were crazed African dictators who slaughtered people like flies. Never as many as Stalin or Pol Pot, but still, do we hide that?
Were there no Jewish collaborators with the Nazis? There were ( — her Jewish part was published in the left-wing intellectual de Volkskrant but her lesbian side was not reported anywhere in the Netherlands). Hardly any, but there were. (The ones normally called collaborators were trying to make things the least bad possible, but some did not!)
Are secular educated people always polite? No, not always (the jeers show how superior she feels in comparison to these primitive idiots).
The main teacher of Trump, who taught him to be a bully and liar, how to get away with anything, was gay and Jewish. He helped the US crusade against “Communists” (McCarthyism) and get the innocent Rosenbergs executed. Should his identities be ignored or presented as justification like: most gay Jews are bullied into docility and such a diametric exception should be excused and understood also as the product of his own oppression?
A friend once told me that she didn’t try to stop a Black friend from raping her for fear of being racist. Political correctness gone bunkers!
There is something very disheartening in how so many people are upset that some Jewish US TV personality called another non-White celebrity an ape. By being too upset about it, it is as if it’s a truth that should not be mentioned. But rather, it is ridiculous (I never heard, growing up, that non-Whites would be monkeys) and it should be treated as if she said that Blacks are dogs: it’s degrading racism but not almost true!
I’m completely shocked how many of the famous metoo# violators in US political and entertainment circles and clergy turn out to be Jewish. This especially because Judaism has such a healthy attitude towards sexuality. (The percentage of Jews who violate is tiny but the percentage of the general population seems way above average.)
Michelle Wolf is right though, when she states that a true feminist is not obligated to applaud everything any woman ever does.
I googled “pyramid scheme,” and the greatest schemer of all times, a Jew, was not featured. It seems that the stereotype that Jews are thieves is enough debunked in the US at least, that the connection is not automatically made. He was a crook, but it had nothing to do with him being Jewish. Even the English Wikipedia article about his fraud only mentions Jews when is described how he used his Jewishness to win the trust of other Jews – to rip them off.
And maybe this is the solution. Violations of law and decency should be reported about everyone by the free press. Their oppressed status should be mentioned parenthetically and not be made a big deal about – not in the accusatory sense and not in the excusatory sense.
My conclusions about mentioning the oppressed status of perpetrators:
- Censuring it out is dishonest and reprehensible.
- Stressing it is oppressive – when it’s oppressively mentioned.
- Stating it in passing is just fine.
- To excuse it, except for lightly, is too accusatory too.