The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Nazi Germany Isn't Properly Described as "White Supremacist"
One of my pet peeves is the way the modern academic left insists on seeing all ethnic and racial conflict through the lens of the American black-white racial dynamic. One example is the notion that Nazi Germany was "white supremacist." Some Jewish leftists trying to fight antisemitism on the left run with this, arguing that the Nazis did not consider Jews to be white, and thus their leftist colleagues should stop treating Jews like white oppressors.
However, as a recent post by Daniel Saunders at the Times of Israel notes:
The Nazis wanted an Aryan race that was pure in blood, not white of skin. They focused on a range of what they saw as markers of "impure" blood, such as cranium size, nose shape and the presence or absence of ear lobes. Impure blood, as a notion, was all the more insidious for being largely invisible. That an Aryan could interact with a Jew without knowing it made the Nazis worry more, not less, about Jews than they did about people with more visible differences.
More importantly, the Aryan race which the Nazis consider the German people to exemplify, was not considered synonymous with some kind of "white race" by the Nazis, even though contemporary neo-Nazis do make such a connection.
The Nazis did not see their Aryan race as originating in Europe. They were very much aware that 'Aryan' is cognate to 'Iranian' and saw their race as originating in that part of Asia. The Nazis focused on the so-called Aryan race, a tiny subset of all the people who would be considered white today.
Almost all of the Nazis' victims would be considered 'white' in the politics of the contemporary West, not just Ashkenazi Jews, but Poles and Slavs, "gypsies" (another inaccurate term, for Roma, Sinti and Lalleri peoples), the physically disabled and the mentally ill, homosexuals and even prostitutes and congenital petty criminals. All were seen as not conforming to the "racial community" and potentially "contaminating" it if allowed to procreate as well as being seen in many cases to pose a more conventional military risk or drain on scarce resources. Anti-social behaviours such as petty crime, sex work or even alcoholism were seen as inherited and in need of removal from the racial community through "racial hygiene," lest these traits spread at the expense of more desirable ones.
One might retort that the Nazis may not have cared if Jews were racially white, but in modern parlance they believed the Jews lacked "whiteness," a neologism that essentially means not being an accepted part of the dominant group in society. That's true, but it also disclosed to show how the modern understanding of whiteness in the academy does not correlate well with the actual historical understanding of race and racism in both the US and abroad. (Similarly, as I have noted previously, "white ethnics" in the United States such as Jews, Italians, and Irish Americans, may have lacked "whiteness," but were most definitely considered to be racially white.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Leftist academics see traits like being on time as White Supremacy so it is fruitless to argue with them and their idiocy on definitions, they should only be mocked as the unserious loons they are.
Leftists are idiots and unserious loons.
Conservatives are half-educated and obsolete bigots residing in can't-keep-up backwaters, gullible enough to believe that silly fairy tales are true.
Everybody has problems.
Remember the scene in "Blazing Saddles" where the mayor reluctantly agrees, "All right... we'll give some land to the n*****s and ch***s. But we don't want the Irish." The line was funny because it was true. That whiteness has been a highly malleable concept is an underlying contradiction within racism. And you've managed to twist it into a criticism of anti-racists. As Spock used to say, "fascinating".
But that is not actually true. The Irish were always white in the United States. They may have been of an inferior sort to the good protestant Anglo Saxons, but they were still white. No racial laws in the U.S. put the Irish in any other category.
David, are you REALLY that stupid???
There were Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics — and it was the Irish Catholics who were despised. Whom do you think the Klu Klux Klan was orgainized against in the 1920? Not the Blacks.
Ever see this?!?
https://thomasnast.com/cartoons/the-american-river-ganges/
The signs said "Irish Catholics Need Not Apply."
Try reading the comment you're replying to one more time.
Your comment doesn’t make sense in the context of David’s statement. You should contain your outrage for a second and read his comment carefully again.
As I understand it from people who experienced it, the Irish were considered by the bigots of yesteryear to be white but substandard. Italians were not considered white.
America has encountered successive waves of ignorance and intolerance -- often precipitated by skin color, national origin, religion, or perceived economic pressures and immigration -- throughout its history. Those targeted by America's bigots have included the Irish, Blacks, Catholics, gays, Hispanics, Jews, Italians, atheists, women, Asians, eastern Europeans, other Hispanics, Muslims, agnostics, other Asians -- most of America, at one time or another.
What makes America great is that bigotry and insularity do not prevail, not over time. Americans have withstood the onslaughts of ravioli, egg rolls, pierogis, pita, burritos, bagels, Jameson, fish frys, collard greens, tacos, pizza (this is starting to sound like a sound modern cafeteria menu at an American middle school), sushi, and rainbow cupcakes . . . and emerged as a constantly improving nation with better culinary choices (who remembers Chef Boy-ar-dee and Chun King?) and less old-timey bigotry and superstition.
The lesser voices do not win over the long term in America, and our latest batch of bigots -- who seem to be focusing on transgendered Americans, Blacks, gays, women, Palestinians, Jews, and agnostics -- seems nothing special, its reliance on the charms and insights of Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Eugene Volokh notwithstanding.
It appears Chun King no longer exists . . . although La Choy does, apparently for diners who live in the parts of America so far from civilization that they must pump in sunshine.
Italians were considered white. There was some thought that many southern Italians — Sicilians, in particular — had some African ancestry (which, of course, some would have), but that was southern Italians only, and even so, they were white unless it was proven otherwise.
Again, discriminated against by WASPs? Sure. But not white? No.
No one back in 1880 or whatever would have any idea of what you meant if you said that the Irish are of European origin and Caucasian but lack whiteness, so it's not that the concept has been malleable, it's that the concept itself didn't exist. The best way to understand "whiteness" as depicted by modern academics is as "people who were not thought capable of being full equals to WASPs." And the evolution is that groups like the Irish, Italians, Jews, etc eventually went from that category to being perceived as full equals. The problem is that there is no good reason to use "whiteness" as the term to describe this, as it had nothing to do with whether they were considered to be "white" or not. Near as I can tell, the reason that said academics are wedded to using the term whiteness is to imply that while Euro-American minorities could eventually become "white," groups that are too far outside the spectrum of whiteness, like black Americans, will never become "white," and thus radical "antiracist" measures are necessary in way they were not for other groups that lacked "whiteness."
You make that sound like a bad thing.
It’s worth noting that aalthough the US definitions Professor Bernstein so strongly objects to don’t exactly follow the Nazi ones, they do resemble them. Under the US definitions, Arabs generally, including Palestinians, are regarded as white, but Jews are not.
One of the issues is looking at things from the point of view of the of a particular group and then vying for whose view prevails. From a US Black point of view, it makes a fair amount of sense to regard everyone who seems above them in the recent American historical social hierarchy to be white, completely ignoring distinctions and animosities within “white” groups. And for better or worse, the current US academic point of view takes something closer to the Black one, in which for example Jews are white but Palestinians are not.
Historically, people have a hard time distinguishing people who don’t belong to their own race. It makes sense that they would have a hard time distinguishing subgroups within other races as well.
Sometimes Professor Bernstein might be better off if he would spend a bit more time trying to understand how people came to their point of view, rather than writing others off as absurd. People are rarely as completely irrational as their opponents claim they are.
from OP:
Quite aside from them being historically wrong (as the Times of Israel post explains), these "Jewish leftists" and "their leftist colleagues" are morally wrong. They are both saying that it's OK to mistreat "white oppressors." The "Jewish leftists'" objection isn't that it's wrong to mistreat people based on immutable characteristics, it's that they (and their fellow-Jews) should be excluded from the "oppressor" group.
I'm reminded of something I read. I think it was related as a true story, taking place in the Soviet Union. A group of antisemitic youths are beating up an old man. As they're beating him, he protests -- not against the fact of the beating, but to affirm that he isn't Jewish.
"[T]he current US academic point of view" that, according to you, Prof. Bernstein "[sh]ould spend a bit more time trying to understand" isn't just "irrational"; it is evil.
What?
R_Y,
To say that Palestinian Arabs are BIPOCS but MENA Jews are white, is the height of absurdity. How about "following the science" on this one.
"Under the US definitions, Arabs generally, including Palestinians, are regarded as white, but Jews are not."
This is wrong. Arabs and (white) Jews have been regarded as white, but as of March, Arabs are in a new MENA ethnic/racial combined classification, and Jews of recent European descent are still white, unless they or their immediate ancesteors lived in Israel, in which case they magically become MENA.
Does anyone have any idea what ReaderY is talking about? Under US definitions, Jews are not considered white? Huh? Usually I at least understand where stupid comments are coming from, but this totally baffles me.
See the Shaarei Tefilla v. Cobb, which held that Jews are not white for purposes of 42 USC 1982.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/615/
Are you sure RY? Looking at the link, it seems that the decision actually found the opposite :
That's not what that case says at all. What that case says is that in the 19th century, when the law was passed, the term "race" was used very differently than it is now, such that one could speak of the "Jewish race." But that didn't mean that Jews weren't legally white; race meant something more akin to ethnicity in that context. While there might have been much social disapproval to intermarriage between Jews and Christians (on both sides!), nowhere in the U.S. would it have been illegal, the way black-white was. (Unless the Jew or Christian was what we would today call African-American, obviously.)
Bizarre
NAzis are obviously 'white supremacist's , just a small subset of white
more like whitey white white white supremacist
Real nazis would be insulted to be called white supremacist because they hated most everyone
"Some Jewish leftists trying to fight antisemitism on the left run with this"
And some Jewish right-wingers issue undeserved, nearly inexplicable passes to fellow Republicans who express antisemitic views or engage in antisemitic conduct (while those same Jewish conservatives rant hysterically about antisemitism -- real or often merely asserted -- they figure they can try to pin on the liberal-libertarian mainstream, the culture war's winners). This occurs regularly at a white, male, bigotry-hugging, faux libertarian, movement conservative blog.
Carry on, clingers.
Two troll posts in half an hour? Nothing much doing today at the Department of Bureaucracy today, Artie? Or is it slow every day there?
Pointing out the hypocrisy, cowardice, polemical partisanship, and multifaceted bigotry found every day at this white, male, faux libertarian, right-wing blog may seem like trolling to clingers . . . but this entire blog is viewed as trollish by the great liberal-libertarian American mainstream, victors in the modern American culture war and shapers of American progress for many decades.
Do you contend many American law professors -- especially those at strong, reasoning, mainstream law schools -- respect the Volokh Conspiracy or Volokh Conspirators?
Sorry, this is a distinction without a difference. How many black aryans served in the SS? How many in the Gestapo? In the Wehrmacht? The Luftwaffe? How many Scandinavians, British, French, or Americans were regarded as subhuman, vermin, polluters of the "pure blood"? How many were slaughtered as were Russian civilians unlucky enough to live in the path of Barbarossa? How many French, Dutch or Czech Christians were abducted from their homelands, taken away in cattle cars to be gassed and cremated in Nazi death camps?
So OK fine, perhaps the Nazis were not white supremacists after all. They were aryan christian supremacists who killed millions of civilians without even the obscene formality of cranial and facial measurements. Those millions were condemned in advance and received death sentences without anything at all like a trial. So not white supremacists we could say, but rather soul-less, amoral, and viciously homicidal antisemites and anti-slavs. There's the difference for you, if you feel you should stoop to pick it up.
"They were aryan christian supremacists"
If you fail to take into account that they had their own version of 'Christianity' that bore very little resemblance to what anybody else would have considered "Christian'.