|
410
exploitation of Blacks; virtually no Blacks were involved in such practices toward
Jews.56
Thirdly, it must also be noted that there is a strain of narrow ethnic
nationalism in Colbert's letter, and even in LJllie Jackson's, that falls into the
discourse of anti-Semitism. In Jackson's letter this is present in a strong tendency
toward ethnic stereotyping, for example, by implicitly though consistently
attributing the discriminatory actions of Jewish landlords and department store
owners to their Jewish ness alone. Moreover, Jackson raises the specter of Jewish
conspiracy with her implausible argument that Jewish department stores refused
serve to Blacks to force them to shop at Jewish-owned ghetto stores. Rev. Colbert's
indulgence of anti-Semitic discourse was far stronger. He constantly used the
phrase "the Jews" without qualifiers, as in "the Jews take the lead in this pernicious
practice," and clearly had a hard time seeing any differences among Jews in the city.
Moreover, he recycled the famous dictum blaming Jews for Communism and had a
far stronger conspiracy vision of relations within the Jewish community than did
Jackson.5'
All of this is not to argue the local N AACP leadership was overtly anti-
Semitic. Walter Sondheim, who had some difficult interactions with LJllie Jackson
over the years, emphatically stated that "there was no indication ever of an anti-
Semitic feeling on Mrs. Jackson's part." Nonetheless, anti-Semitic myths and
stereotypes had their effect. Juanita Jackson Mitchell in later interviews often
admitted anti-Semitism in the freedom movement of the period, but always pointed
to concrete experiences of discrimination as its source. And Ed Lewis' insight in
this regard is important, because few in the Black community or in the older adult
segment of the freedom movement had experience with the labor movement; they
were largely unaware of the poor, often militant working-class majority of the
Baltimore Jewish community. In fact, no one in this debate, nor in the testimony of
|
