ETHNIC POLITICSrnAny effort by the black community to combat spiritual and socialrndecay must depend upon its ability to impose considerablernsocial discipline and to rein in antisocial elements. . . . [T]hernstruggle to restore a stable family life may well prove sine quarnnon, and, if so, the necessary measures may not comport wellrnwith the endless demands for individual rights and the arrogantrnpretensions to such newly invented constitutional protections asrnenvisaged, for example, in the program of the gay and lesbianrnmovement. Whites have no business telling black communitiesrnhow to resolve these problems and would do well to keeprntheir own preferences and prejudices to themselves. But tornspeak of “communit'” at all means to recognize as unavoidablernthe existence of prejudices, whether grounded in religion andrnhistorically developed sensihilit’ or in response to an immediaternthreat to survival.rn—from Eugene D. Genovese, ‘”The Southern Traditionrnand the Black Experience,” August J994rnThe rate of violent crime can be lowered—reducing the slaughterrnthat kills blacks and the terror that grips whites—only if it isrnacknowledged that blacks are responsible for most violentrncrime. The problem —which is not merely the problem ofrncrime but the problem of the black community’s survival andrnsuccess—can be solved. But it cannot be solved without facingrnthe fact that a small number of irredeemably violent people arerndestroying the possibilitv of solution. The black majority alonerncannot solve the problems of the black community, and a reductionrnof black violence is onlv a nccessar)’ but not a sufficientrncondition for the solution of its problems; the commitment andrnresources of the entire society arc required. However, the problemsrncannot be solved at all unless the black majority can socializernthe rest of the members of its communit)’ to meet thernnorms that must be met in any communit}- that is to survive, andrnthere is no chance whatever that members of the black majorityrnwill be able to do this while being picked off one by one onrnstreets that a relatively small number of predators now control.rn—from Steven Goldberg, “Black Murder,” Januan^ 1995rn. . . [ 1 ]he U.S. Holocaust Museum has moved the Poles, savernfor “some Polish intellectuals,” from the first category [victims]rnto the second [victimizers], while homosexuals have beenrnraised in its literature and displays to covictims with the Jews.rnOne can be sure that the Brownshirts and Hermann Goeringrnwoidd appreciate this posthumous tribute. Some Nazi bigwigs,rnone may assume, might even be eligible for other victiniologicalrnhonors, in view of their drug-dependency and penchant forrnlittle boys. Note that the group having the most nefariousrnrecord of Nazi collaboration, the Bosnian Muslims, now getsrnmuch better press than the once-victimized Poles. The professionalrnholocaust survivor and Hillar)’ Clinton companion EliernWiesel claims not to use the term lightly (and certainly not forrnthe Nazi slaughter of Poles), but he has wailed about a newrnholocaust descending on the Bosnians. Such a catastrophernshould be distinguished from the earlier unmentioned one thatrnoccurred in the Balkans, after the Bosnian Muslims had volunteeredrnto form two Waffen S.S. divisions. This selective amnesiarnis so striking that even I, an Austrophile critic of the Serbs,rnnote it with astonishment. Are human memories as selective asrnthe reconstructed World War II ‘ictimology seems to suggest?rnThis question is, of course, rhetorical.rn—from Paul Gottfried, “Polonophobia,” January J 997rnAmong the terms of endearment applied to Americans whornworry about present immigration policy is “xenophobe.” . ..rnA “xenophobe” is someone who fears foreigners. Fears themrnwhy? No dictionary is competent to say. Every xenophoberndoubtless has his own reasons. . . . Xenophobia, whatever eonnotationsrnthe word may take on in the mouths of the liberal establishment,rnspeaks to a reality of human existence: to wit, therernare foreigners we’d damn sure better fear. Or at the very leastrnkeep an e}e on. . . .rnHad the Mexicans, and the Spanish before them, possessedrnthe sense to shut out my buckskin-clad forbears, scratchingrnthemselves and smelling no doubt of bear grease, nudging theirrnwagons through the piney forests of the Sabine region, or debarkingrnon the sandy beaches of the Gulf Coast, Texas might berna different place today.. ..rnWhat Spain and Mexico lacked was a critical mass of xenophobes,rnready, out of cultural pride, to point out the Gringo Peril,rnto close their minds fast to entreaties concerning brotherhoodrnand diversity, to utter a curt but meaningful: No —nunca,rnsenores, nunca. They didn’t, and that’s that. Still, the sibilant sirnof 200 years ago, which ushered in the Gringo era, has residualrnresonance. And maybe more than that.rn—from William Murchison, “From Greeks to Gringos: WhyrnMexico Lost Texas,” July J997rn. . . [AJbout half of the Jews who live in the United States… definernthemselves in singularly ethnic terms. For them, “beingrnJewish” is a matter of who they are and what they are — it isrnsomething of which they are proud—but it carries no requirementrnto participate in public life as part of a community. HerernSpinoza’s model governs: the radically isolated individual ofrnJewish origin and Jewish predilections and proclivities, howeverrnthese may be defined, even down to a st’le of joke-telling.rnSecular Jewishness defines traits deemed ethnically characteristic,rneven innate. Feelings and personal preferences take over, asrnsecular Jews elevate the importance of having the “correct” feelings.rnIn place of faith, history, and eovenantal loyalty, they invokernpersonal opinion, memory, and ephemera of attihides andrnpolitical sympathies, certain that the right opinion, the correctrncollective memory, and the accepted attitude will suffice tornmake this person Jewish, that one not.rnMore to the point, secular Jews outside the framework ofrncommunity suppose themselves smart, witt’, and focused. Inrnthe hands of enemies, Jewishness finds its definition in suchrncounterpart traits as clever, nihilistic and cynical, and aggressive.rnBoth sides appeal to what we nia’ dismiss as either racismrnor cultural determinism, depending on whether we opt for thernexplanation of traits by reason of nature or nurture. It hardlyrnmatters. When it comes to the privatization of secular Jewishness,rnwe enter a world without rationality, racist or cultural.rnLike Hermann Goering, who said he would decide who was arnJew, secular Jews decide what “being Jewish” means to the ultimatern”me.” Once the individual decides to be Jewish on hisrnown, then idiosyncratic interpretation takes over, and all largerrnpublic meanings fail.rn—from Jacob Neusner, “Jews Without Judaism,” November 1997rn56/CHRONICLESrnrnrn