home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=94TT0245>
- <title>
- Feb. 28, 1994: Taking Yes For An Answer
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
- Feb. 28, 1994 Ministry of Rage:Louis Farrakhan
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- TIME FORUM, Page 28
- Taking Yes For An Answer
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>By Leon Wieseltier
- </p>
- <p> Literary editor of the New Republic magazine
- </p>
- <p> It is beneath the dignity of decent and intelligent men and
- women to struggle over the superstitions of Louis Farrakhan,
- except that the struggle is really over the definition of dignity.
- Farrakhan represents the view that hatred is an element of dignity,
- that a proper respect for oneself and one's own is well expressed
- by a proper disrespect for others. In this view, he is not alone;
- as a society we have gone from a hatred of hatred to a fascination
- with it.
- </p>
- <p> Or, to put it differently: the persistence of racism in America
- notwithstanding, the age of American racism has been succeeded
- by the age of American racialism. Racism and racialism agree
- that the color of a person's skin is an essential attribute
- of the person. For racism, the attribute is a negative one.
- For racialism, the attribute is a positive one. For a just social
- order, of course, the attribute is a neutral one. Neutral, not
- because race is not a fact; neutral, because race is not a value.
- Many people who do not share Farrakhan's bizarre beliefs share
- this belief that race is a value, which is why he has the power
- to disturb.
- </p>
- <p> Farrakhan is foul, but he is useful insofar as he casts light
- upon the larger confusion. For this reason, he should not be
- pressured, nor should any black leader be pressured, to recant
- anything. This lets him, and the present state of race relations
- in this country, off the hook. It is an invitation to euphemism,
- as Farrakhan cheerfully showed. We all should know what each
- of us thinks, and draw our conclusions. The advertisement in
- which the Anti-Defamation League reprinted Kallid Abdul Muhammad's
- little catalog of hatreds was brilliant for its restraint. It
- was an exercise in clarification. It said to its readers: here
- is prejudice, measure yourself by it. If it made some (but hardly
- all) black leaders trim and squirm, well, that was clarifying
- too.
- </p>
- <p> The A.D.L. advertisement was also an uncanny moment in Jewish
- history. In what other country would Jews themselves have disseminated
- anti-Semitic propaganda, in the certainty that its dissemination
- would protect them? The A.D.L.'s response to Farrakhan was an
- expression of the confidence of American Jews in America. I
- do not expect quite this degree of confidence in America from
- American blacks; racism, not anti-Semitism, has always been
- America's ugliness of choice, and the fate of blacks in America
- was, for whole centuries, obscene. In this century, however,
- this country has challenged its black citizens precisely as
- it has challenged its Jewish citizens. The political and philosophical
- procedures of America have dared both these groups, and not
- only these groups, to take yes for an answer.
- </p>
- <p> Taking yes for an answer is not as easy as it sounds. It means
- celebrating individual experience even as you celebrate collective
- memory; acknowledging the changes of the present in full, learned
- sight of the unchanging cruelties of the past; believing in
- politics, and pitting politics against the lachrymosities of
- culture. For groups that have suffered extremely, as blacks
- and Jews have suffered, taking yes for an answer may even be
- experienced as a form of betrayal. And so, in such groups, the
- improvement of life will be a great opportunity for the mongerers
- of guilt, and for those who flog their own brethren with ideals
- of authenticity to prevent them from recognizing the reality
- of progress.
- </p>
- <p> Farrakhan and the other racialists in the black community (and
- they are not all figures of the margin, and many of them flourish
- in popular culture) are precisely such mongerers and such floggers.
- Their chilling thesis is that the similarity between the black
- past in America and the black present in America is greater
- than the difference. For the past hundred years or so, the Jews
- have also had to contend with such a thesis about their own
- modernity. If they are more secure than they have ever been,
- in America and (for different reasons) in Israel, it is because
- they repudiated that thesis, not without bitter internecine
- battle, and because they made themselves ready in their own
- self-interest for the costs of change.
- </p>
- <p> America represented a revolution in Jewish experience, and the
- Jews wisely assented to the revolution. But there has also occurred
- another revolution in this country, more recently, in the name
- of civil rights. Can anybody any longer doubt that America,
- most comprehensively in the realms of law and politics, has
- repented of its repulsive treatment of blacks? Indeed, the contemporary
- troubles of the inner cities are so painful precisely because
- they are taking place after, and not before, the civil rights
- revolution. But even those troubles are not great enough to
- justify a denial of the revolution. Farrakhan speaks for such
- a denial. It is grimly amusing to watch black politicians who
- owe their distinction to the new dispensation flirting with
- this teacher of the old, with this peddler of reaction.
- </p>
- <p> There is no law of American history according to which all its
- minorities will forever be friends. To be sure, some of the
- conflicts between blacks and Jews have been false; but a false
- comity is not much better than a false conflict. Not every fight
- is the result of misunderstanding. There are fights that are
- the result of understanding. In the wake of the latest Farrakhan
- flap, the positions of many black leaders are more clearly understood.
- In some cases, this is for the better. In many cases, it is
- for the better. We do not need to honor each other as brothers.
- We need to honor each other as citizens.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-