Skip to content

Teaching a class about the relentlessness of prejudice takes a toll on the soul.  Week in and week out, my students and I tackle the thorny, implacable issue of anti-Semitism and the variety of pernicious ways in which it took hold of the public imagination, an exercise that leaves all of us a little worse for wear.

Gloomy clouds. Flickr/Kelantan Jottings

I say “took hold” rather than “takes hold” because most of the time we find ourselves in some faraway land and in some far-off time. So distant are we from, say, Trent in 1475 or Paris in 1898, that we can easily dismiss allegations of ritual murder and treason respectively as expressions of outmoded beliefs.

They dismay us, that’s for sure, dampening our eagerness to think well of people.  They leave us scratching our heads, too, at the processes by which anxiety about change all too often translates into hatred of others.  But, for the most part, we can put this stuff behind us.

Until now. As the semester progresses and we move increasingly into territory that isn’t quite so removed from us in time, it’s becoming harder and harder to hold anti-Semitism at arm’s length.

Last week, Gal Beckerman, the author of the prize-winning book, When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone, visited our class. He spoke eloquently and movingly about the show trials of the so-called ‘refuseniks’ of the 1970s and 1980s and had us collectively interpret a number of documents from the Politburo that made clear just how deeply entrenched the government’s animus against the Jews was.

Mr. Beckerman’s presentation hit home, especially since some of my students either had parents who had been active in the Soviet Jewry movement or, more dramatically still, had themselves experienced Soviet oppression.

What had once been reserved for History suddenly assumed a new identity and with it a new, and more charged, resonance.

And if that wasn’t enough to set nerves on edge, last week’s horrific events in Toulouse underscored the extent to which prejudice remains as potent a force in 2012 as it had centuries before.

Studying anti-Semitism has never been a mere academic exercise and – much as it pains me to write this – it probably will never be.

Right on the heels of last week's post about the relationship of Jews and capitalism comes this cold dose of historical reality: Henry Ford's claim that the Jews controlled the Federal Reserve Board.

I had known, of course, that the automobile tycoon was no friend of the Jews, but I was unaware that his antipathy ran so deep. But now, thanks to the research of my student Jonathan Robinson, a GW political science major with a keen eye for historical detail, I'm all the wiser.

Henry Ford
Henry Ford. Source: Wikipedia.

Over the course of the early 1920s, Ford had spilled a lot of ink railing against the Jews for their embrace of modernity. From his perspective, they had polluted the morals of the nation's young by introducing them to the movies and to jazz.

By 1926, his animus in full bloom, America's leading industrialist went on to charge the Jews with playing fast and footloose with the nation's economy as well. "The international Jew is in direct control of all financial centres of government, including the United States Federal Reserve System," he categorically declared.

Ford's claim so enraged Congressman Sol Bloom of New York that he publicly demanded that the manufacturer support them with hard and cold facts, even going so far as to suggest that he appear before Congress to give a full accounting of himself.

"Mr. Ford," said Mr. Bloom, "is a public man. When he speaks he has a national audience." Besides, his net worth is greater than that of the United States Treasury. His remarks cannot go unchallenged.

Not surprisingly, Ford declined the invitation. But his allegations, his casual relationship to the truth, live on, a testament to the ways in which -- then, as now -- innuendo is the coin of the realm.