It is time for me to take a sabbatical again as the
preparation and timing of these
posts take an inordinate amount of time away from other projects that interest
me.
But before I do so, I feel I need to do at least one more
post on the subject, which forms the title of this post.
What particularly prompts me to focus on this subject now,
is that I watched, for at least the second time, the movie “Gentlemen’s
Agreement”. For those who are not privy to the movie, or have long since
forgotten it, it was released in 1947, or some 67 years ago. At the time it was
considered a groundbreaker, for it dealt with a taboo subject – Anti-Semitism.
Those who are much younger than I will not be aware just how rampant it was,
and those who are old enough, may no longer remember. But for example, Representative
John Rankin (Dem–Miss.) on June 5, 1941 rose on the floor of the House of Representatives
and declared “Wall
Street bankers and international Jews” were dragging the country
into war.
“They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is
being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones
who created this nation… I am talking about the white Christian people of the
North as well as the South.”
Doesn’t that sound familiar - only now it is African-Americans. And it is no longer the Democratic Party; Now it is the Republican Party. After all these years, Jews still have very little prominence in the Republican Party.
Strangely, the
producer of the film Darryl Zanuck, who was not Jewish, was prompted to
produce the film after being refused membership in the Los Angeles
Country Club, because it was assumed incorrectly that he was Jewish.
Equally interesting “Before filming commenced, Samuel Goldwyn and other Jewish film executives approached Darryl
Zanuck and asked him not to make the film, fearing it would "stir up
trouble".
But the above is merely
background material for my reaction to the film, for from my vantage point,
almost 70 years later, what I noted was its inherent prejudices.
One couldn’t miss its sexism, as
when, for example, the female lead, after having accepted a marriage proposal
exclaims: “I want to feel how it sounds to be Mrs. Phillip Green”. Now looking
at the movie from a vantage point more than 60 years later, when so many women,
including my daughter, decline to take their husbands' last names, it seems
almost incredible that a women would so completely give up her identity as to surrender,
not only her last name, but her first name as well.
But much more striking is the
total absence in the movie of a face of color. When I say absence I mean we
don’t even see a face of color in the role of a maid. They simply don’t exist.
There is also the element of class, for we look in vain for even a small
glimpse of people who are not part of “polite society”.
But possibly what comes across
to me most of all is the change of the face of the parties. Rankin, was a
Democrat, as were the many Southern segregationists of the time. Governor
Wallace the outspoken segregationist from Alabama, who later ran for President,
was a Democrat. Strom Thurmond, the racist Senator from South Carolina, who
also later ran for President was a Democrat.
We don’t find people like that
in the Democratic Party any more. The first African-American to occupy the
White House is a Democrat.
The first women to occupy the
White House is also, more likely than not, to be a Democrat.
To be sure we have one prominent
African-American Republican as a Presidential candidate, Ben Carson. But it is
interesting to note the make-up of the Congressional delegations of the two
parties when it comes to Jews, African Americans and women.
Here is the scorecard:
There are a total of 10 (ten)
Jews in the US Senate. They are all Democrats. See here.
There are a total of 19
(nineteen) Jews in the House of Representatives. One (1) is a Republican; 18 (eighteen) are Democrats.
There is only one Jewish Governor in the US. He is a Democrat.
There are 9 (nine) Jewish mayors
of major cities in the USA. None are Republican. Eight (8) of them are Democrats and one is an
Independent.
---------------------------
There are a total of 43 (forty-three)
African-Americans in the House of Representatives. 43 are Democrats and none
are Republicans.
There is only one
African-American Governor in the US. He is Deval
Patrick of Massachusetts. He
is a Democrat.
The hoopla about Carson is
window-dressing.
--------------------------------
There are 20 women in the US
Senate. 14 are Democrats; 6 are Republican.
--------------------------------
There are Twenty-Nine (29)
Latino-Americans in the House of Representatives. Seven (7) are Republican; 22
are Democrats.
How many of these Hispanic House member are Cuban it is not possible to tell. This is
crucially important because there is a vast ethnic and political difference
between the “Hispanics” from South of the border and from Puerto Rico, and
Spanish speaking peoples who hailed from Cuba or from Spain.
All the so called Republican
“Hispanics” vying for the Republican Presidential nomination are of Cuban
descent. The media distorts and misrepresents when they put such disparate
groups into the same definition on the basis of a common language.
I think that these statistics
tell us a great deal.
Neither Jews, nor
African-Americans, nor women, have a home in the Republican party of today. It
is for good reason that the Republican Party of today has been described as the
party of old, Christian, White men.
------------------------------
Even though it is unrelated, I
have to share with my readers a letter I wrote to the New York Times, which I have no
doubt will not be published.
To the
Editor:
As a long
time reader and subscriber to the NY Times I am appalled at the discriminatory
coverage by the Times of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Clinton
launched her Presidential campaign yesterday, on June 13, 2015, in New York, on
Roosevelt Island.
The TV
networks and web outlets gave it prominent and instant coverage. The NJ
Newspaper, the Record, covered it on its front page in its Sunday edition.
The Washington Post gave it gave it front
page coverage with the headline: Democracy not ‘just for billionaires,’ Hillary Clinton tells crowd in N.Y.
Even the Times of Israel ran the headline: “At
first major rally, Clinton touts foreign policy chops”
But the New York newspaper, The NY Times relegates it to
page 14 of its Sunday edition.
What does that tell us about the paper?
Comments, questions, or
corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with
attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However,
please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have
an office.