How does Trayon White still have a job?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! This entire thread is shocking. Complete denial of someone's abhorrent views as they relate to Jews (and a turnaround to condemn Jews who are upset by those views.) Why is he getting a pass? Because he's a Democrat? Because he's a black man? Why are liberals bending over backward to defnd this guy?

Please quote one statement by White that demonstrates "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews". If you make such an allegation but cannot support it with even a single example, then you deserve to be condemned.

Even the liberally biased WaPo categorized his remarks as antisemitic - right in the headline.

It is a known ploy by which antisemties brew resentment against Jews by falsely putting forth conspiracy theories as to their all-powerful, controlling interests in a variety of measures. He said that the Rothschild's - code for Jews - control the weather, to advance even more antisemtitsm.

I know your response.....White is just an idiot (finally, a point we agree on!) who didn't know that the Rothschilds were Jewish. OF COURSE HE DID. Nobody is that ignorant. HE KNEW. He probably heard it in context with other anti-Jew remarks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/his-anti-semitic-remarks-touched-off-an-international-reaction-but-at-home-dc-lawmakers-allies-remain-loyal/2018/03/24/529a4f82-2c62-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the other poster who still feels strongly that White is anti-semitic.

I am unclear why whether or not he intends to be anti-semitic matters much. As I said earlier, what's missing for me is an indication that he sees the kind of anti-semitism that is so pervasive that it could reach someone who couldn't care less about Jews in the form of conspiracy theories about controlling the weather as a BIG DEAL. I don't see that; haven't heard it..

I think that "anti-Semitism" and a failure to acknowledge the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism are two different things. Note, that "failure to acknowledge" is different than "deny". If White denied that anti-Semitism is pervasive, I would agree with you. But, I think simply not being informed about the topic is different and is not anti-Semitic. I think White has taken a number of steps to become more informed.

Anonymous wrote:
Someone who did see it as a big deal would have stuck out the tour, WaPo reporter or not, and then issued a statement that made that reporter look like an ass for doubting his sincerity. Instead, White is annoyed that his PR tour was derailed, and is commenting on that.

I think you are being unfair to deride the visit as a simple PR tour. White closed his office and brought his entire staff to the museum. Rabbi Glazer said that White was "very sincere in wanting to come here.".

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I don't care about White much at all. I care about the fact that we seem to have all come to understand that racism is so baked into our culture that it is easy to do racist things without intending to do them, and that the response should be self-reflection, not defensiveness. We don't seem to want to admit the same about anti-semitism, and as a result, it is free to grow.

When White's initial comments were publicized, there was a huge outcry from all quarters. White was self-reflective and he engaged in dialogue with Jews and Jewish groups. His visit to the museum was part of that experience. If anti-Semitism were free to grow as you suggest, there would have been no outcry, no apology from White, no seders, and no visit to the museum. You are just wrong in your analysis.

Anonymous wrote:
As for "the facts on the ground" not supporting it, again, I will admit Jews may be hyper-sensitive to this since we were similarly successful and assimilated in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, and we all know how that turned out. If you're not sure, you could ask the people who are still alive today who lived through it. It's the casual anti-semitism that left unchecked grows into formal anti-semitism, probably these days starting in the form of asking American Jews to disavow Israel, and then working to get the gov't to sign on.

Jews have a right to be concerned that conspiracy theories lodged in anti-Semitism are being spread by the likes of Trayon White. You certainly have a right to be concerned about the Nation of Islam and its inroads in DC. I would argue that non-Jews such as myself should also be concerned. However, it is also important to differentiate between actual anti-Semitism and actions that might trouble you -- such as leaving a museum tour or supporting Palestinians -- that aren't anti-Semitic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! This entire thread is shocking. Complete denial of someone's abhorrent views as they relate to Jews (and a turnaround to condemn Jews who are upset by those views.) Why is he getting a pass? Because he's a Democrat? Because he's a black man? Why are liberals bending over backward to defnd this guy?

Please quote one statement by White that demonstrates "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews". If you make such an allegation but cannot support it with even a single example, then you deserve to be condemned.

Even the liberally biased WaPo categorized his remarks as antisemitic - right in the headline.

It is a known ploy by which antisemties brew resentment against Jews by falsely putting forth conspiracy theories as to their all-powerful, controlling interests in a variety of measures. He said that the Rothschild's - code for Jews - control the weather, to advance even more antisemtitsm.

I know your response.....White is just an idiot (finally, a point we agree on!) who didn't know that the Rothschilds were Jewish. OF COURSE HE DID. Nobody is that ignorant. HE KNEW. He probably heard it in context with other anti-Jew remarks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/his-anti-semitic-remarks-touched-off-an-international-reaction-but-at-home-dc-lawmakers-allies-remain-loyal/2018/03/24/529a4f82-2c62-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html

White didn't accuse Jews of controlling the weather, he accused a family whose religion he says he didn't know of controlling the weather. I also thought it was strange that he didn't know the Rothschilds were Jewish. But, I then heard from several acquaintances who grew up in DC that they didn't know either. It is probably even more likely that you wouldn't know such a thing if you attended the sub-standard schools of SW DC.

But, the bottom line here is that the only way you manage to quote White (which you don't actually do) demonstrating "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews" is to claim access to his brain and being able to determine what he knows and doesn't know. Forgive me for not believing that you actually have such access to his brain.

White espoused a moronic conspiracy theory. He says that he didn't know that the moronic conspiracy theory was anti-Semitic and, when he found out, he apologized and took many steps to ameliorate the situation. Clearly, if he held "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews" he wouldn't apologize or attempt to work with Jewish groups to educate himself.

If you are going to accuse people of having "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews", you need to be able to support it a lot better than this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moderate Jew here who hates Trump. White is an anti-semite and I don't understand why anyone is giving him the time of day. if that is what Ward 8 wants to support, then the people in need in Ward 8 who have been the beneficiaries of countless hours of donated time and lots of donated money to support education, workforce development and create jobs and grow investment in the Ward 8 community can look elsewhere for that kind of support.

Being a Jew doesn't make you an authority on what constitutes anti Semitism and just because you've decided that an individual is anti Semite doesn't make him one . Ward 8 residents are here to stay .

You are right, being a Jew doesn't make me an authority. However, if I am Jewish, and I am offended by his words and actions in the context of Judaism, then doesn't that show a lack of tolerance or understanding on his part? I mean, if people use the "N" word, then likely they are racist assholes. One doesn't need to have dark skin to understand that. I am not sure how or why you don't understand the difference.

And yet, I can choose to devote my time and charitable contributions away from Ward 8 in protest of Councilmember White. If the voters of the Ward continue to support him despite his words and actions, then that reflects poorly on those voters.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the other poster who still feels strongly that White is anti-semitic.

I am unclear why whether or not he intends to be anti-semitic matters much. As I said earlier, what's missing for me is an indication that he sees the kind of anti-semitism that is so pervasive that it could reach someone who couldn't care less about Jews in the form of conspiracy theories about controlling the weather as a BIG DEAL. I don't see that; haven't heard it..

I think that "anti-Semitism" and a failure to acknowledge the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism are two different things. Note, that "failure to acknowledge" is different than "deny". If White denied that anti-Semitism is pervasive, I would agree with you. But, I think simply not being informed about the topic is different and is not anti-Semitic. I think White has taken a number of steps to become more informed.

Anonymous wrote:
Someone who did see it as a big deal would have stuck out the tour, WaPo reporter or not, and then issued a statement that made that reporter look like an ass for doubting his sincerity. Instead, White is annoyed that his PR tour was derailed, and is commenting on that.

I think you are being unfair to deride the visit as a simple PR tour. White closed his office and brought his entire staff to the museum. Rabbi Glazer said that White was "very sincere in wanting to come here.".

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I don't care about White much at all. I care about the fact that we seem to have all come to understand that racism is so baked into our culture that it is easy to do racist things without intending to do them, and that the response should be self-reflection, not defensiveness. We don't seem to want to admit the same about anti-semitism, and as a result, it is free to grow.

When White's initial comments were publicized, there was a huge outcry from all quarters. White was self-reflective and he engaged in dialogue with Jews and Jewish groups. His visit to the museum was part of that experience. If anti-Semitism were free to grow as you suggest, there would have been no outcry, no apology from White, no seders, and no visit to the museum. You are just wrong in your analysis.

Anonymous wrote:
As for "the facts on the ground" not supporting it, again, I will admit Jews may be hyper-sensitive to this since we were similarly successful and assimilated in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, and we all know how that turned out. If you're not sure, you could ask the people who are still alive today who lived through it. It's the casual anti-semitism that left unchecked grows into formal anti-semitism, probably these days starting in the form of asking American Jews to disavow Israel, and then working to get the gov't to sign on.

Jews have a right to be concerned that conspiracy theories lodged in anti-Semitism are being spread by the likes of Trayon White. You certainly have a right to be concerned about the Nation of Islam and its inroads in DC. I would argue that non-Jews such as myself should also be concerned. However, it is also important to differentiate between actual anti-Semitism and actions that might trouble you -- such as leaving a museum tour or supporting Palestinians -- that aren't anti-Semitic.

I am not "just wrong in [my] analysis." However, I interpret the facts differently than you do. This is why merely reporting facts has never been a complete argument for or against any conclusion (in this case, is White anti-semitic or not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! This entire thread is shocking. Complete denial of someone's abhorrent views as they relate to Jews (and a turnaround to condemn Jews who are upset by those views.) Why is he getting a pass? Because he's a Democrat? Because he's a black man? Why are liberals bending over backward to defnd this guy?

Please quote one statement by White that demonstrates "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews". If you make such an allegation but cannot support it with even a single example, then you deserve to be condemned.

Even the liberally biased WaPo categorized his remarks as antisemitic - right in the headline.

It is a known ploy by which antisemties brew resentment against Jews by falsely putting forth conspiracy theories as to their all-powerful, controlling interests in a variety of measures. He said that the Rothschild's - code for Jews - control the weather, to advance even more antisemtitsm.

I know your response.....White is just an idiot (finally, a point we agree on!) who didn't know that the Rothschilds were Jewish. OF COURSE HE DID. Nobody is that ignorant. HE KNEW. He probably heard it in context with other anti-Jew remarks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/his-anti-semitic-remarks-touched-off-an-international-reaction-but-at-home-dc-lawmakers-allies-remain-loyal/2018/03/24/529a4f82-2c62-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html

Rothschild code for Jews , according to Jews who unironically happen to be the ones who in their majority were aware that the roschschild are Jewish

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

I'm beginning to think stretching the truth is some kind of shared genetic amongst a certain 'group' . You've attempted to propagate several falsehoods whih should not go unanswered. Jews were fighting for their own survival during the civil rights era , your assertion that they stood with AA is meant in a way that would make some uninformed man think this was some kind of favor . IT WAS NOT.
Put this in your dishonest head , Farrakhan is a civil rights leader in his own right and furthermore If some of you Jews had any sense you'd know that he's he least or should be the least of your worries .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

+ 1 I also find it disheartening for someone to casually remark that [Jewish] history is absolutely nothing compared [to black history]. Not only does it show callous disregard for the largest genocide of the 20th century, but the overall persecution of the previous 3000 years. How does such a statement build understanding? Rather, it reveals hostility toward Jews who, as the PP above noted, stood hand-in-hand with blacks during the civil rights era. Why is not that statement called out for sewing division? Why does the blame always go to the Jews?

Furthermore, it should be understandable - expected, actually - that Jews will not want to continue to support black communities that demonstrate such hostilities toward them. Reminds me of my grandfather, a poor NYC boy who went to CCNY, and "made good," as the saying goes. I was sitting at the table when the phone rang, and it was the college, seeking contributions from alumni, made up of LOTS of Jewish boys. Grandpa screamed something into the phone about Professor Jeffries (big antisemite who said Jews were injecting black babies with AIDS) and told them they wouldn't see a cent as long as the antisemtie is still there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

I'm beginning to think stretching the truth is some kind of shared genetic amongst a certain 'group' . You've attempted to propagate several falsehoods whih should not go unanswered. Jews were fighting for their own survival during the civil rights era , your assertion that they stood with AA is meant in a way that would make some uninformed man think this was some kind of favor . IT WAS NOT.
Put this in your dishonest head , Farrakhan is a civil rights leader in his own right and furthermore If some of you Jews had any sense you'd know that he's he least or should be the least of your worries .

^^^ "shared generic trait"? "If you Jews had any sense?" "Farrakhan is a civil rights leader"? (Civil rights means killing whites? He sure isn't for whites' civil rights.)

Hope Jeff can at least recognize the antisemtisim is this post!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the other poster who still feels strongly that White is anti-semitic.

I am unclear why whether or not he intends to be anti-semitic matters much. As I said earlier, what's missing for me is an indication that he sees the kind of anti-semitism that is so pervasive that it could reach someone who couldn't care less about Jews in the form of conspiracy theories about controlling the weather as a BIG DEAL. I don't see that; haven't heard it..

I think that "anti-Semitism" and a failure to acknowledge the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism are two different things. Note, that "failure to acknowledge" is different than "deny". If White denied that anti-Semitism is pervasive, I would agree with you. But, I think simply not being informed about the topic is different and is not anti-Semitic. I think White has taken a number of steps to become more informed.

Anonymous wrote:
Someone who did see it as a big deal would have stuck out the tour, WaPo reporter or not, and then issued a statement that made that reporter look like an ass for doubting his sincerity. Instead, White is annoyed that his PR tour was derailed, and is commenting on that.

I think you are being unfair to deride the visit as a simple PR tour. White closed his office and brought his entire staff to the museum. Rabbi Glazer said that White was "very sincere in wanting to come here.".

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I don't care about White much at all. I care about the fact that we seem to have all come to understand that racism is so baked into our culture that it is easy to do racist things without intending to do them, and that the response should be self-reflection, not defensiveness. We don't seem to want to admit the same about anti-semitism, and as a result, it is free to grow.

When White's initial comments were publicized, there was a huge outcry from all quarters. White was self-reflective and he engaged in dialogue with Jews and Jewish groups. His visit to the museum was part of that experience. If anti-Semitism were free to grow as you suggest, there would have been no outcry, no apology from White, no seders, and no visit to the museum. You are just wrong in your analysis.

Anonymous wrote:
As for "the facts on the ground" not supporting it, again, I will admit Jews may be hyper-sensitive to this since we were similarly successful and assimilated in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, and we all know how that turned out. If you're not sure, you could ask the people who are still alive today who lived through it. It's the casual anti-semitism that left unchecked grows into formal anti-semitism, probably these days starting in the form of asking American Jews to disavow Israel, and then working to get the gov't to sign on.

Jews have a right to be concerned that conspiracy theories lodged in anti-Semitism are being spread by the likes of Trayon White. You certainly have a right to be concerned about the Nation of Islam and its inroads in DC. I would argue that non-Jews such as myself should also be concerned. However, it is also important to differentiate between actual anti-Semitism and actions that might trouble you -- such as leaving a museum tour or supporting Palestinians -- that aren't anti-Semitic.

Why should the Nation of Islam inroads in DC be concerning ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

I'm beginning to think stretching the truth is some kind of shared genetic amongst a certain 'group' . You've attempted to propagate several falsehoods whih should not go unanswered. Jews were fighting for their own survival during the civil rights era , your assertion that they stood with AA is meant in a way that would make some uninformed man think this was some kind of favor . IT WAS NOT.
Put this in your dishonest head , Farrakhan is a civil rights leader in his own right and furthermore If some of you Jews had any sense you'd know that he's he least or should be the least of your worries .

^^^ "shared generic trait"? "If you Jews had any sense?" "Farrakhan is a civil rights leader"? (Civil rights means killing whites? He sure isn't for whites' civil rights.)

Hope Jeff can at least recognize the antisemtisim is this post!

Next time try not to propagate falsehood to advance a transparent agenda . The assertion that Jews 'stood' with AAs for civil rights is inherently false just like many other things you've crowed about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

I'm beginning to think stretching the truth is some kind of shared genetic amongst a certain 'group' . You've attempted to propagate several falsehoods whih should not go unanswered. Jews were fighting for their own survival during the civil rights era , your assertion that they stood with AA is meant in a way that would make some uninformed man think this was some kind of favor . IT WAS NOT.
Put this in your dishonest head , Farrakhan is a civil rights leader in his own right and furthermore If some of you Jews had any sense you'd know that he's he least or should be the least of your worries .

^^^ "shared generic trait"? "If you Jews had any sense?" "Farrakhan is a civil rights leader"? (Civil rights means killing whites? He sure isn't for whites' civil rights.)

Hope Jeff can at least recognize the antisemtisim is this post!

Next time try not to propagate falsehood to advance a transparent agenda . The assertion that Jews 'stood' with AAs for civil rights is inherently false just like many other things you've crowed about

First, you're talking to more than one Jew here. I wasn't the first to bring up civil rights and Jews support of them.

But it is scary how you refuse to acknowledge how the Jews DID stand hand-in-hand with blacks, to the point of dying for it. These are not falsehoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

Uh, the history of Jews in the Middle East and Europe has many parallels to the African/African American experience: slavery, discrimination, intolerance, extermination and the list goes on. Both groups have been treated horribly by "the majority" in historical terms and for the past 150 years in the United States, it has been mostly the jews who have stood with African-Americans in the fight for civil and social justice. That is why American Jews get so upset when we see support from the AA community for someone like Louis Farrakahn, or when someone like Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown.

It is disrespectful to a group of people who collectively have been standing side by side with the likes of MLK and many other American Civil Rights heroes.

I'm beginning to think stretching the truth is some kind of shared genetic amongst a certain 'group' . You've attempted to propagate several falsehoods whih should not go unanswered. Jews were fighting for their own survival during the civil rights era , your assertion that they stood with AA is meant in a way that would make some uninformed man think this was some kind of favor . IT WAS NOT.
Put this in your dishonest head , Farrakhan is a civil rights leader in his own right and furthermore If some of you Jews had any sense you'd know that he's he least or should be the least of your worries .

^^^ "shared generic trait"? "If you Jews had any sense?" "Farrakhan is a civil rights leader"? (Civil rights means killing whites? He sure isn't for whites' civil rights.)

Hope Jeff can at least recognize the antisemtisim is this post!

Next time try not to propagate falsehood to advance a transparent agenda . The assertion that Jews 'stood' with AAs for civil rights is inherently false just like many other things you've crowed about

First, you're talking to more than one Jew here. I wasn't the first to bring up civil rights and Jews support of them.

But it is scary how you refuse to acknowledge how the Jews DID stand hand-in-hand with blacks, to the point of dying for it. These are not falsehoods.

And P.S. Your hostility toward Jews is reprehensible, as is your praise of Farrakhan to a Jew. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the other poster who still feels strongly that White is anti-semitic.

I am unclear why whether or not he intends to be anti-semitic matters much. As I said earlier, what's missing for me is an indication that he sees the kind of anti-semitism that is so pervasive that it could reach someone who couldn't care less about Jews in the form of conspiracy theories about controlling the weather as a BIG DEAL. I don't see that; haven't heard it..

I think that "anti-Semitism" and a failure to acknowledge the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism are two different things. Note, that "failure to acknowledge" is different than "deny". If White denied that anti-Semitism is pervasive, I would agree with you. But, I think simply not being informed about the topic is different and is not anti-Semitic. I think White has taken a number of steps to become more informed.

Anonymous wrote:
Someone who did see it as a big deal would have stuck out the tour, WaPo reporter or not, and then issued a statement that made that reporter look like an ass for doubting his sincerity. Instead, White is annoyed that his PR tour was derailed, and is commenting on that.

I think you are being unfair to deride the visit as a simple PR tour. White closed his office and brought his entire staff to the museum. Rabbi Glazer said that White was "very sincere in wanting to come here.".

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I don't care about White much at all. I care about the fact that we seem to have all come to understand that racism is so baked into our culture that it is easy to do racist things without intending to do them, and that the response should be self-reflection, not defensiveness. We don't seem to want to admit the same about anti-semitism, and as a result, it is free to grow.

When White's initial comments were publicized, there was a huge outcry from all quarters. White was self-reflective and he engaged in dialogue with Jews and Jewish groups. His visit to the museum was part of that experience. If anti-Semitism were free to grow as you suggest, there would have been no outcry, no apology from White, no seders, and no visit to the museum. You are just wrong in your analysis.

Anonymous wrote:
As for "the facts on the ground" not supporting it, again, I will admit Jews may be hyper-sensitive to this since we were similarly successful and assimilated in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, and we all know how that turned out. If you're not sure, you could ask the people who are still alive today who lived through it. It's the casual anti-semitism that left unchecked grows into formal anti-semitism, probably these days starting in the form of asking American Jews to disavow Israel, and then working to get the gov't to sign on.

Jews have a right to be concerned that conspiracy theories lodged in anti-Semitism are being spread by the likes of Trayon White. You certainly have a right to be concerned about the Nation of Islam and its inroads in DC. I would argue that non-Jews such as myself should also be concerned. However, it is also important to differentiate between actual anti-Semitism and actions that might trouble you -- such as leaving a museum tour or supporting Palestinians -- that aren't anti-Semitic.

Why should the Nation of Islam inroads in DC be concerning ?

Because it's an anti-Jew, anti-white hate group whose leader advocates killing of people who aren't black. You don't think spreading that tyoe of vitriol is a bad thing?