I love your truth-telling to both the Black and Jewish communities. Sadly, we live in an age when appearances seem to carry much more weight than the truth. This reality-check you’ve written is much needed and appreciated. Thanks.
Thank you for this well-reasoned and measured response to a politically motivated cause célèbre masquerading as “righteous indignation” for a just cause. Kyrie Irving appears to be in a modern equivalent of a witch hunt/trial while BLM & others continue to practice their Marxist sorcery to bilk billions from beguiled victims. Such a shanda!!
Kyrie Irving could use this information to leverage the NBA pressure he’s facing. He can take responsibility for this actions once he understands how complexed the rhetoric goes.
Question: How do you feel about the 1619 project as a historical work? I did not see the project itself as a problem. The separate agenda is clearly not focused on broadening or improving the lives of African Americans. But the history was useful to me as a naturalized citizen who never gets to speak to African Americans about their histories.
"'We’ve been very deliberate in saying that the violence and pain and hurt that’s experienced on a daily basis by black folks at the hands of a repressive system should also be visited upon, to a degree, to those who think that they can just retreat to white [read: Jewish] affluence,' the BLM-LA co-founder ranted."
Don't do that Mr. Washington. There are a lot of people who are anti-white; you can't just declare that they are thereby also anti-semitic. Same thing with conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. There are ultra-orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists, obviously, it's possible to be anti-Zionist.
That said, you are correct that the film is anti-Semitic, and that a form of anti-semitism far worse, or at least more directly threatening, was unleashed on the Jewish community in L.A. and a few other places, which was at least tacitly-condoned if not outright encouraged by BLM.
But the aspect of the response to Kyrie Irving that I don't really agree with is not so much the severity of the punishment or the hypocrisy vis-a-vis BLM, but the lack of willingness to just sit down and talk with him and explain why the film is anti-Semitic. We seem to focus so much more on cancellation versus education in these situations, and I don't think that really moves the ball forward in creating more understanding between the races in America.
I also don't know that your summation of the film did a very good job of addressing its core claim: that the Black people who were brought to America were descended from the Biblical Israelites. The unfortunate thing about the film is that the filmmaker did not have to deny the ancestry of Askenazi, Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews in order to argue this point. The mainstream story of the lost tribes of Israel posits that there were ten lost tribes, but Judah, Benjamin and at least some of the Levites are the ancestors of most of today's Jews. It's not hard to imagine that at least some other Israelites did head south into Africa after the Assyrian invasion, as we have universally-acknowledged Jewish groups in Ethiopia and also further south.
Just to take the Igbo people of Nigeria as an example, the film is correct that they have until this day been circumcising their infants (I know because my wife is Igbo and her mother demanded such when my son was born). Where could that really come from as a cultural versus medical practice predating European colonialism?
I'm not trying to say it's proven fact, and you're right Hebrew to Negroes is "unacademic", and so useless as a source of proven facts. But I also don't think that the core claim that there are descendants of Biblical Israel to be found in Africa and even among black Americans is to me something that should be seriously considered, and I don't think it's anti-semitic to do so.
"Don't do that Mr. Washington. There are a lot of people who are anti-white; you can't just declare that they are thereby also anti-semitic."
The quote I sourced explains that the person who led the BLM riot in LA specifically targeted a Jewish neighborhood (Fairfax), desecrating Synagogues and Yeshivas, spray painting antisemitic language, and shouting "kill the Jews!" A local rabbi literally called it Kristallnacht (also quoted). If we don't see that as antisemitic then our nation is in trouble indeed.
Thanks for that incredibly enlightening comment. The issue that intrigues me a little bit though is this thought of "legitimate Lost Tribe descendants". A quick Google search would reveal that it's far from an established fact from an academic point of view that Ethiopian Jews are descendants from the tribe of Dan. It's not even an established fact from a rabbinic point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the claim of Ethiopian Jews to Judaism hinged ultimately more on their religious affiliation in recent centuries than claims of Israelite lineage. That is to say, however they got to it, it was an absolute fact that they had constituted a distinct group of practicing Jews for the past several hundred years.
But I'm also interested in the bigger question of what does "legitimate" mean in this context? The question of the Israelite ancestry is a fascinating place where religion, science, politics, history, mythology and demography all collide into a stew where I'm not sure exactly that it's possible to draw a precise line between fact and fiction. I'm not saying that the Hebrew Israelites, or any other entity with putatively nefarious motives, are correct, but I'm also not sure that there's a single entity that has an absolute right to declare a particular religious and national narrative legitimate or not.
Again, thanks very enlightening. Maybe at this point in the discussion, I should disclose that I am Jewish (Ashkenazi) by birth through my mother, and I suppose a very lightly practicing Jew. I'm also African-American by birth through my father, so the question of black Jews has always intrigued me. I've known a ton of other black and Jewish people over my life, and I've seen behind the facade of the Hebrew Israelites a fair amount as well.
I'm already onboard with nearly all of what you said above, I don't in any way question in general the historic and genetic foundation of Jewish lineage to the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, etc., of the Bible. The fact that Beta Israel or the Falashas were air-lifted to Israel is one of my all-time favorite events in modern history.
In my mind, there are some established historic and genetic facts about the connection between Jews and Biblical Israelites, but as I understand it, not among those facts are questions related to the Lost Tribes, which would presumably include the Ethopian Jews, being as they are claiming descent from the tribe of Dan, right? It's a question that I've been fascinated by for years, so I'll well aware of theories relating to groups that might be Israelite descendants from West and Southern Africa all the way to China and India's eastern borderlands. But in studying that topic, I'm also well aware that there are plenty of reasons to think that these disparate groups may in fact descend from the Judah and Samaria (and Levi), or from groups that converted hundreds or even thousands of years ago, and then very understandably found an attractive origin story in the very text with which they would've presumably been incredibly familiar. I'm not offended by a claim of that sort, we're dealing here not just with nationality but also religion, so why shouldn't more esoteric origin stories also have some validity?
But it should be obvious that questioning claims to descent from the Lost Tribes in no way places into question the mainstream of Israeli society, which by all generally-accepted accounts, descends from the "Found Tribes".
I also don't think it's in any necessary to assert that Mediterranean people might've had blue eyes and blonde hair. My (adopted) sister has blue eyes and blonde hair and she's fully half-black. It's doesn't take a lot of race mixing for genes to get mixed into the population that occassionally are going to surface. How many generations have the Ashkenazi Jews lived in Europe? There weren't a lot of intermarriage or conversions, but there also weren't zero. The Kazar conversion alone is probably sufficient to explain the presence of those features in the Jewish population.
But my basic issue still goes back to the "Google or Jewgle" question, which is the foundation for asserting the right to decide the question of claims on Israelite ancestry. I get that the state of Israel has to make a call that makes sense in the context of the Law of Return and the threats to the Jewish demographic majority in Israel, but does that need to be the final say? Could there be Israelite descendants who are not Jews for purposes of the Law of Return? Or could there be another way to draw the line that would still exclude the truly ill-intended. And is there a role that organic collective self-identification can play?
The Israel situation makes it difficult to have this discussion, because the outcomes may have significant political consequences, but if we can manage to put that aside, then I do think there's a complex and fascinating discussion to be had. I'm married to woman of Igbo descent, and I've had many conversations with her family about their own national/ethnic lore about being descended from Israel, and their various longstanding sort of proto-Jewish cultural practices such as circumcision. Maybe there aren't any real descendants from the Lost Tribes, except for various groups claiming descent for one reason or another, but so what if that were true? Again, we're in the realm of not just nationality but also religion. And even purely within the realm of nationality, Jews would be far from the first group to include a degree of mythology within their origin story.
This was a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
You are a courageous man of conviction! A true mensch!
I love your truth-telling to both the Black and Jewish communities. Sadly, we live in an age when appearances seem to carry much more weight than the truth. This reality-check you’ve written is much needed and appreciated. Thanks.
Thank you for this well-reasoned and measured response to a politically motivated cause célèbre masquerading as “righteous indignation” for a just cause. Kyrie Irving appears to be in a modern equivalent of a witch hunt/trial while BLM & others continue to practice their Marxist sorcery to bilk billions from beguiled victims. Such a shanda!!
Kyrie Irving could use this information to leverage the NBA pressure he’s facing. He can take responsibility for this actions once he understands how complexed the rhetoric goes.
I am unequivally with you sir!Thank you
Question: How do you feel about the 1619 project as a historical work? I did not see the project itself as a problem. The separate agenda is clearly not focused on broadening or improving the lives of African Americans. But the history was useful to me as a naturalized citizen who never gets to speak to African Americans about their histories.
"'We’ve been very deliberate in saying that the violence and pain and hurt that’s experienced on a daily basis by black folks at the hands of a repressive system should also be visited upon, to a degree, to those who think that they can just retreat to white [read: Jewish] affluence,' the BLM-LA co-founder ranted."
Don't do that Mr. Washington. There are a lot of people who are anti-white; you can't just declare that they are thereby also anti-semitic. Same thing with conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. There are ultra-orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists, obviously, it's possible to be anti-Zionist.
That said, you are correct that the film is anti-Semitic, and that a form of anti-semitism far worse, or at least more directly threatening, was unleashed on the Jewish community in L.A. and a few other places, which was at least tacitly-condoned if not outright encouraged by BLM.
But the aspect of the response to Kyrie Irving that I don't really agree with is not so much the severity of the punishment or the hypocrisy vis-a-vis BLM, but the lack of willingness to just sit down and talk with him and explain why the film is anti-Semitic. We seem to focus so much more on cancellation versus education in these situations, and I don't think that really moves the ball forward in creating more understanding between the races in America.
I also don't know that your summation of the film did a very good job of addressing its core claim: that the Black people who were brought to America were descended from the Biblical Israelites. The unfortunate thing about the film is that the filmmaker did not have to deny the ancestry of Askenazi, Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews in order to argue this point. The mainstream story of the lost tribes of Israel posits that there were ten lost tribes, but Judah, Benjamin and at least some of the Levites are the ancestors of most of today's Jews. It's not hard to imagine that at least some other Israelites did head south into Africa after the Assyrian invasion, as we have universally-acknowledged Jewish groups in Ethiopia and also further south.
Just to take the Igbo people of Nigeria as an example, the film is correct that they have until this day been circumcising their infants (I know because my wife is Igbo and her mother demanded such when my son was born). Where could that really come from as a cultural versus medical practice predating European colonialism?
I'm not trying to say it's proven fact, and you're right Hebrew to Negroes is "unacademic", and so useless as a source of proven facts. But I also don't think that the core claim that there are descendants of Biblical Israel to be found in Africa and even among black Americans is to me something that should be seriously considered, and I don't think it's anti-semitic to do so.
"Don't do that Mr. Washington. There are a lot of people who are anti-white; you can't just declare that they are thereby also anti-semitic."
The quote I sourced explains that the person who led the BLM riot in LA specifically targeted a Jewish neighborhood (Fairfax), desecrating Synagogues and Yeshivas, spray painting antisemitic language, and shouting "kill the Jews!" A local rabbi literally called it Kristallnacht (also quoted). If we don't see that as antisemitic then our nation is in trouble indeed.
Thanks for that incredibly enlightening comment. The issue that intrigues me a little bit though is this thought of "legitimate Lost Tribe descendants". A quick Google search would reveal that it's far from an established fact from an academic point of view that Ethiopian Jews are descendants from the tribe of Dan. It's not even an established fact from a rabbinic point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the claim of Ethiopian Jews to Judaism hinged ultimately more on their religious affiliation in recent centuries than claims of Israelite lineage. That is to say, however they got to it, it was an absolute fact that they had constituted a distinct group of practicing Jews for the past several hundred years.
But I'm also interested in the bigger question of what does "legitimate" mean in this context? The question of the Israelite ancestry is a fascinating place where religion, science, politics, history, mythology and demography all collide into a stew where I'm not sure exactly that it's possible to draw a precise line between fact and fiction. I'm not saying that the Hebrew Israelites, or any other entity with putatively nefarious motives, are correct, but I'm also not sure that there's a single entity that has an absolute right to declare a particular religious and national narrative legitimate or not.
Do you acknowledge that there are unknowns on this question?
Did the Ethiopian Jews have Jewish ancestry in their DNA?
Again, thanks very enlightening. Maybe at this point in the discussion, I should disclose that I am Jewish (Ashkenazi) by birth through my mother, and I suppose a very lightly practicing Jew. I'm also African-American by birth through my father, so the question of black Jews has always intrigued me. I've known a ton of other black and Jewish people over my life, and I've seen behind the facade of the Hebrew Israelites a fair amount as well.
I'm already onboard with nearly all of what you said above, I don't in any way question in general the historic and genetic foundation of Jewish lineage to the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, etc., of the Bible. The fact that Beta Israel or the Falashas were air-lifted to Israel is one of my all-time favorite events in modern history.
In my mind, there are some established historic and genetic facts about the connection between Jews and Biblical Israelites, but as I understand it, not among those facts are questions related to the Lost Tribes, which would presumably include the Ethopian Jews, being as they are claiming descent from the tribe of Dan, right? It's a question that I've been fascinated by for years, so I'll well aware of theories relating to groups that might be Israelite descendants from West and Southern Africa all the way to China and India's eastern borderlands. But in studying that topic, I'm also well aware that there are plenty of reasons to think that these disparate groups may in fact descend from the Judah and Samaria (and Levi), or from groups that converted hundreds or even thousands of years ago, and then very understandably found an attractive origin story in the very text with which they would've presumably been incredibly familiar. I'm not offended by a claim of that sort, we're dealing here not just with nationality but also religion, so why shouldn't more esoteric origin stories also have some validity?
But it should be obvious that questioning claims to descent from the Lost Tribes in no way places into question the mainstream of Israeli society, which by all generally-accepted accounts, descends from the "Found Tribes".
I also don't think it's in any necessary to assert that Mediterranean people might've had blue eyes and blonde hair. My (adopted) sister has blue eyes and blonde hair and she's fully half-black. It's doesn't take a lot of race mixing for genes to get mixed into the population that occassionally are going to surface. How many generations have the Ashkenazi Jews lived in Europe? There weren't a lot of intermarriage or conversions, but there also weren't zero. The Kazar conversion alone is probably sufficient to explain the presence of those features in the Jewish population.
But my basic issue still goes back to the "Google or Jewgle" question, which is the foundation for asserting the right to decide the question of claims on Israelite ancestry. I get that the state of Israel has to make a call that makes sense in the context of the Law of Return and the threats to the Jewish demographic majority in Israel, but does that need to be the final say? Could there be Israelite descendants who are not Jews for purposes of the Law of Return? Or could there be another way to draw the line that would still exclude the truly ill-intended. And is there a role that organic collective self-identification can play?
The Israel situation makes it difficult to have this discussion, because the outcomes may have significant political consequences, but if we can manage to put that aside, then I do think there's a complex and fascinating discussion to be had. I'm married to woman of Igbo descent, and I've had many conversations with her family about their own national/ethnic lore about being descended from Israel, and their various longstanding sort of proto-Jewish cultural practices such as circumcision. Maybe there aren't any real descendants from the Lost Tribes, except for various groups claiming descent for one reason or another, but so what if that were true? Again, we're in the realm of not just nationality but also religion. And even purely within the realm of nationality, Jews would be far from the first group to include a degree of mythology within their origin story.