Some say that a British accent makes everything better. But can an accent improve hatred? A new book out, entitled Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, by Anthony Julius, investigates anti-Jewish sentiment in the land of nobles and fish ‘n’ chips.
A blog by Canadian writer Barbara Kay examines what she calls “genteel anti-Semitism.—The Brits haven’t been as outright in condemning Jews as other people have, she says, but have a condescending view of the Jews. These “polite” snubs may not have come in the form of outward violence, but of snide remarks cloaked in highfalutin manners. Writes Kay about Julius’s book, “The English variety is an anti-Semitism of a fairly benign character.”
As I haven’t read Trials of the Diaspora, I can’t say I know the specifics of Anthony Julius’s argument or whether that statement was Kay’s interpretation of it. Kay goes on to say, though, that this “strain of anti-Semitism†is not “malevolent.†Who is she kidding? The word “anti-Semitism†is discrimination, no matter how it appears. There is no such thing as discrimination that is benevolent: that defies the meaning of the world. Whether the British look down their noses and sneer at the Jewish stereotypes of frugality, as cited in an example by Julius in the case of Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer, or are painting swastikas on synagogue walls, that is a form of hatred.
Hatred comes in many different guises. It might not be as offensive to be called a penny-pincher as a symbol of Nazism to be sprayed on a house of worship, but that doesn’t mean either of them are right. Calling any form of discrimination “genteel†implies that it is noble, somehow above declaring that another race is worthless, even if it is still racism. There is no such thing as “genteel racism.†Gentility, as Kay sees it, is the British stiff upper lip cracking into a sneer at those poor little schmucks, then going about their day. Whether or not it’s surrounded by polite language, a racist remark is a racist remark. True gentility is not nobility of blood or a high-class accent, as some may see it, but strength of character. I pity those who are still so stuck in the medieval era that they cannot realize that.
Julius calls nineteenth-century anti-Semitism “Jew-wariness.†That sentiment, Kay explains, is a caution around the Jews….for what reason? (Again, I’m not saying either Kay or Julius support this belief).Were Victorian-era Christians afraid that Jews would sacrifice their babies for their blood, like they were in the medieval ages? It’s a testament to bigotry that it was not until 1858 that Jews were allowed in Parliament. Even then, the first Prime Minister of Jewish descent, Benjamin Disraeli, was baptized into the Christian faith as a young child and was a practicing Anglican. What would his Judaism do to Parliament, you ask? Well…nothing, to be frank. Interestingly, Disraeli negotiated with his Jewish identity his entire life and was subject to criticism from both Jews and Christians about his conversion.
Take Disraeli as an example of the qualified man who could not be accepted by either side because of a simple matter of faith. The blue-blooded aristocrats couldn’t stomach him because he was Jewish and a commoner. The Jews wouldn’t take him as their own because he had been baptized as a child. Regardless of conversion, Disraeli remained ethnically Jewish and shouldn’t have had to face discrimination from either side. It is a credit to Queen Victoria that she did not stoop to others’ levels and favored Disraeli in his terms as Prime Minister. Whether from this year or yesteryear, anti-Semitic Brits should let their stiff upper lips down and welcome in the Jews.
