Scan barcode
tcreedy's review against another edition
5.0
Reads like a brilliant stream of consciousness, but meticulous and thorough. Some rude language but it fits. Essential reading for those of us interested in people or the public square.
quenchgum's review
5.0
Baddiel, a progressive Jew, wants progressive gentiles to read this book. I want them to read it, too.
Baddiel’s general argument is that progressives should treat antisemitism as though it’s just as bad as other forms of racism. I agree that progressives treat antisemitism differently than they view, say, racism against black people. I’m just not sure that I think that that’s a bad thing. To his credit, Baddiel acknowledges that there are, of course, appreciable differences between these types of prejudices (i.e., largely that the average Jew is white-passing and is relatively financially well-off). He and I just differ on how significant we think those differences are. Even though I firmly view all antisemitism as inexcusable and blatantly wrong, I also think that those differences mean that progressives sometimes *should* view these situations differently.
Here’s a small but illustrative example. Baddiel notes that progressives will cause a stink when a white actor is miscast as a Latino character but won’t care so much when a non-Jewish actor is miscast as a Jew. I think he’s right that progressives don’t care as much about the Jewish miscast — but I also think that that’s how it *should* be. Representation is a big plank of the progressive platform. Progressives care that Latino actors play Latino characters in large part because Latino actors are underrepresented. Jewish actors aren’t underrepresented, so to progressives it’s less — and, I believe, *should be less* — of a big deal. Baddiel acknowledges this point, but he still thinks that progressives should be *equally* as upset about the Jewish miscast because progressives also claim to care about the authenticity of a lived experience, and obviously only a Jewish actor can authentically play a Jewish character. I agree that the authenticity point is important; it’s basically another plank of the progressive platform. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be miscasts in part for that reason. Even so, the fact remains that the Latino miscast violates both the representation and authenticity planks, while in comparison the Jewish miscast only violates the authenticity plank. For that reason, even though I think neither miscast is *ideal*, I do think that one miscast is worse than the other. In comparison, Baddiel thinks progressives should be equally upset about both miscasts. The crux is that Baddiel views the disparity in progressive pushback as indicative of how the public feels toward Jews, whereas I think the disparity is morally appropriate (or at least arguably so) and that therefore Baddiel cannot conclude as a fait accompli that the disparity is due to antisemitism.
Is that an inconsequential example? Sure. But Baddiel has tens of other examples where progressives don’t support Jews the way they support other minorities — he refers to this as “passive antisemitism” — and he’s right that it does start to paint an ugly picture. Sometimes I think Baddiel is right. Sometimes, like with the miscasts, I think he’s pushing it too far. But in all cases I believe he is arguing in good faith and, at least to some extent, is addressing nuance. I think it’s important to spell this stuff out because we usually just talk right past each other. Nuanced detail pushes the conversation forward to help us realize we often aren’t as far apart as we think we are. Let me explain by referring back to the (yes, somewhat silly!) miscast example: if Baddiel hadn’t admitted he agrees that the representation plank didn’t apply to Jewish miscasts, then his critics would think he was ignoring an obvious point and thus arguing in bad faith. But because he added that nuance, his critics know the only follow-up conversation that needs to be had is about whether, as I argue, the one-plank-versus-two-plank-disparity can arguably justify the difference in progressive outrage. At the very least, if that follow-up conversation happens then Baddiel may come around to believing that people aren’t as antisemitic as they say they are. Or, honestly, maybe progressives engage on that point and certain of them even come around to realizing that maybe their one-v-two-plank defense is, to some extent, a rationale that they perhaps wouldn’t invoke if they had felt more warmly towards Jews. Because, regardless of what I argued earlier (which I do sincerely believe), I also know that it remains true that the pervasive nature of subconscious bias means that we often don’t even realize our biases. And the only way we realize them is to have finely crafted discussions that avoid red herrings and focus on our nuanced differences.
Rating: 4.5, rounded up bc it was wonderfully readable and bc it refines the conversation.
——————————————//
Addendum #1, re: Israel stuff. The book only very briefly addresses the intersection of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Baddiel argues that you can generally tell whether anti-Zionism is antisemitic by asking whether the allegedly anti-Zionist critique invokes stuff that predates Zionism (i.e., if it implies things like Jews being greedy or having lots of power). I think that’s a decent rule of thumb. However, Baddiel unfortunately did not discuss AIPAC’s bad faith antisemitism weaponization campaign. I think it would have further refined the conversation. In other words, I wanted him to say what I think he believes: that while it’s true there are indeed pockets of overt antisemitism among the progressive left, it is also true that (1) the vast majority of pro-Palestine progressives are clearly not antisemitic AND (2) there is a concerted and dishonest campaign to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism in order to chill political speech. It was a missed refinement opportunity. And I mean, I get why he punted, because he’s not here to pick a bone with AIPAC. He just thinks progressives have some suspiciously Jew-shaped moral blind spots. It just hits like a missed opportunity.
Addendum #2, re: my bias(?). Just FWIW, and I guess I think it should be worth not-nothing given that progressives believe impact matters more than intent and that we should trust minorities on how they report their lived experiences as such (perhaps these are progressive planks numbers three and four?) — I’m a progressive Jew. If you can’t tell from, like, literally ALL of the above.
Baddiel’s general argument is that progressives should treat antisemitism as though it’s just as bad as other forms of racism. I agree that progressives treat antisemitism differently than they view, say, racism against black people. I’m just not sure that I think that that’s a bad thing. To his credit, Baddiel acknowledges that there are, of course, appreciable differences between these types of prejudices (i.e., largely that the average Jew is white-passing and is relatively financially well-off). He and I just differ on how significant we think those differences are. Even though I firmly view all antisemitism as inexcusable and blatantly wrong, I also think that those differences mean that progressives sometimes *should* view these situations differently.
Here’s a small but illustrative example. Baddiel notes that progressives will cause a stink when a white actor is miscast as a Latino character but won’t care so much when a non-Jewish actor is miscast as a Jew. I think he’s right that progressives don’t care as much about the Jewish miscast — but I also think that that’s how it *should* be. Representation is a big plank of the progressive platform. Progressives care that Latino actors play Latino characters in large part because Latino actors are underrepresented. Jewish actors aren’t underrepresented, so to progressives it’s less — and, I believe, *should be less* — of a big deal. Baddiel acknowledges this point, but he still thinks that progressives should be *equally* as upset about the Jewish miscast because progressives also claim to care about the authenticity of a lived experience, and obviously only a Jewish actor can authentically play a Jewish character. I agree that the authenticity point is important; it’s basically another plank of the progressive platform. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be miscasts in part for that reason. Even so, the fact remains that the Latino miscast violates both the representation and authenticity planks, while in comparison the Jewish miscast only violates the authenticity plank. For that reason, even though I think neither miscast is *ideal*, I do think that one miscast is worse than the other. In comparison, Baddiel thinks progressives should be equally upset about both miscasts. The crux is that Baddiel views the disparity in progressive pushback as indicative of how the public feels toward Jews, whereas I think the disparity is morally appropriate (or at least arguably so) and that therefore Baddiel cannot conclude as a fait accompli that the disparity is due to antisemitism.
Is that an inconsequential example? Sure. But Baddiel has tens of other examples where progressives don’t support Jews the way they support other minorities — he refers to this as “passive antisemitism” — and he’s right that it does start to paint an ugly picture. Sometimes I think Baddiel is right. Sometimes, like with the miscasts, I think he’s pushing it too far. But in all cases I believe he is arguing in good faith and, at least to some extent, is addressing nuance. I think it’s important to spell this stuff out because we usually just talk right past each other. Nuanced detail pushes the conversation forward to help us realize we often aren’t as far apart as we think we are. Let me explain by referring back to the (yes, somewhat silly!) miscast example: if Baddiel hadn’t admitted he agrees that the representation plank didn’t apply to Jewish miscasts, then his critics would think he was ignoring an obvious point and thus arguing in bad faith. But because he added that nuance, his critics know the only follow-up conversation that needs to be had is about whether, as I argue, the one-plank-versus-two-plank-disparity can arguably justify the difference in progressive outrage. At the very least, if that follow-up conversation happens then Baddiel may come around to believing that people aren’t as antisemitic as they say they are. Or, honestly, maybe progressives engage on that point and certain of them even come around to realizing that maybe their one-v-two-plank defense is, to some extent, a rationale that they perhaps wouldn’t invoke if they had felt more warmly towards Jews. Because, regardless of what I argued earlier (which I do sincerely believe), I also know that it remains true that the pervasive nature of subconscious bias means that we often don’t even realize our biases. And the only way we realize them is to have finely crafted discussions that avoid red herrings and focus on our nuanced differences.
Rating: 4.5, rounded up bc it was wonderfully readable and bc it refines the conversation.
——————————————//
Addendum #1, re: Israel stuff. The book only very briefly addresses the intersection of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Baddiel argues that you can generally tell whether anti-Zionism is antisemitic by asking whether the allegedly anti-Zionist critique invokes stuff that predates Zionism (i.e., if it implies things like Jews being greedy or having lots of power). I think that’s a decent rule of thumb. However, Baddiel unfortunately did not discuss AIPAC’s bad faith antisemitism weaponization campaign. I think it would have further refined the conversation. In other words, I wanted him to say what I think he believes: that while it’s true there are indeed pockets of overt antisemitism among the progressive left, it is also true that (1) the vast majority of pro-Palestine progressives are clearly not antisemitic AND (2) there is a concerted and dishonest campaign to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism in order to chill political speech. It was a missed refinement opportunity. And I mean, I get why he punted, because he’s not here to pick a bone with AIPAC. He just thinks progressives have some suspiciously Jew-shaped moral blind spots. It just hits like a missed opportunity.
Addendum #2, re: my bias(?). Just FWIW, and I guess I think it should be worth not-nothing given that progressives believe impact matters more than intent and that we should trust minorities on how they report their lived experiences as such (perhaps these are progressive planks numbers three and four?) — I’m a progressive Jew. If you can’t tell from, like, literally ALL of the above.
lilyofthevalley_reads's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Antisemitism
jasminious's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
3.75
A good book that really made me think. It has definitely inspired me to do some further reading on the topic and perhaps ask myself some tough questions.