Lessons in Anti-Semitism From Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean

by rabbifink on July 6, 2010 · 34 comments

A little while ago I read the unfortunately mis-titled book, Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean.

I say unfortunately mis-titled because the book was excellent but it really was not about Jewish Pirates and certainly was not limited at all to the Caribbean.

The book was good because it tells the story of some of the most famous Converso Jews following the Spanish and Porteguese Inquisition. The well footnoted text gave me a better appreciation for the 15 century Mediterranean Jews, their struggles and their success.

Perhaps above all, as I was reading the book I found myself with a greater appreciation for Sephardi Jews.

I read Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean piecemeal. Every few weeks I would pick it up again and read another section. Meanwhile, in the real world, the Rubashkin saga has been dominated Jewish headlines. All the while, playing the victim card and charges of anti-Semitism in the legal system abound. The contrast of the Rubashkin campaigns and the reactions of the Conversos was striking.

Following decades of persecution and systematic genocide, the Jews of Spain and Portugal were forced northward. Many settled in Amsterdam. The local government tolerated the Jews but there were some blatantly anti-Jewish laws. The Jews were able to practice Judaism and in many respects they thrived there. For these refugee Jews, life was tough. It was not easy being Jewish.

The book follows the story of some of the Amsterdam Jews.

Not once, did I see a reference to “anti-Semitism”. The Meditteranean Jews did not deal with their persecution by labeling it as anti-Semitism. I did not see any attempt to portray themselves as victims or the “lamb among the lions”.

Ashkenazic Jews were also persecuted heavily. They were ousted from many countries and killed in many genocides. To cope with the hate and bloodshed, anti-Semitism was “blamed”.

This got me thinking. My impression of the current Sephardic Jewry landscape is very similar. I don’t recall hearing accusations of anti-Semitism when it comes to Sephardic Jews. Just last summer Solomon Dwek was arrested on Federal charges of bank fraud. This criminal pled guilty and awaits sentencing. I did not hear a peep about any anti-Semitism in his investigation.

Dwek is Sephardic.

Contrast that with the bank fraud that Rubashkin has been charged with. I have spoke to otherwise reasonable people who are convinced the whole thing is a plot by the anti-Semitic government. They say things like “this is how it was in Germany 1935″.

Rubashkin is not Sephardic.

I have a feeling that they heritage play a role in our collective reactions.

On one level, it seems that Sephardic Jewry never had a culture of blaming anti-Semitism while Ashkenazik Jewry has been crying about anti-Semitism for six centuries and using the term for around 150 years. Thus, we still react differently today.

On a deeper level, there also exists an anto-Sephardic bias in the Ashkenazik community (see: Somewhat On The Lighter Side). Perhaps the Ashkenazic community does not consider anti-Jewish activity that harms Sephardic Jews “anti-Semitism”.

Perhaps not. It’s just a thought.

(Either way, I recommend Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s a fun read and I plan another post about the episode in the book that had the biggest impact on me.)

Related posts:

  1. Attorney Nathan Lewin On Anti-Semitism In Rubashkin Case
  2. Is The Cartoon of Elena Kagan Anti-Semitic?
  3. Is the Rubashkin Saga / Trial Anti-Semitic?
  • http://baaltshuvaslowly.blogspot.com Dude with Hat (aka BTS)

    Last year’s Tisha b’Av the rav of our shul was talking about what’s happening around Jews these days and he made a clear parallel between Rubashkin in ’08 and Dwek in ’09 saying that it’s the same chain of actions. Our rav is ashkenazik and is very well learnt in Jewish history.

  • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

    Your Rav is wiser than most…

  • Izzy

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/reaction.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_affair#Protests_and_negotiations

    I am not sure what conclusions to draw from the “Damascus affair,” other than the fact that American Jewry at that time, whether Ashkenazic or Sephardic, was not afraid to protes the anti-semitic the episode.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      Whatever conclusion there may be, it does not contradict my observation. Any victim of a blood libel would and should protest. The question is only how the actions of the oppressor are characterized.

      • Izzy

        Agreed. I wonder how the actions of the oppressors were charecterized then.

        • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

          In my brief perusal of the materials it does not seem that this was characterized as anti-Semitism.

  • Shea

    As a law student I’m very surprised you would compare these two cases.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      Of course. One is ashkenazi and one is sephardi… No comparison. My mistake.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      Of course the cases are not identical. They share 2 very important common denominators: bank fraud and federal investigations.

      Dwek pled guilty. Rubashkin pled not-guilty. However, according to the evidence they were equally guilty.

      Rubashkin got caught after a Federal raid on his plant looking for illegal workers, Dwek got caught after he wrote a bad check.

      Is there a significant difference here that warrants anti-Semitic cries in one case and complicit satisfaction in the other?

      • Izzy

        In order for your comparison beween the Rubashkin and Dwek cases to be valid and supportable, you would have to compare the factors from the Rubashkin case that are commonly inerpreted by some as anti-semitic, and demonstrate how these factors were equally present in the Dwek, case, and are not interpreted as anti-semitic. Without doing an exhaustive comparison, I imagine a lot of those factors are inaplicable to the Dwek case, b/c of the fact that he pled quilty and cooperated in the investigations, and agreed to act as a cooperating witness in other invetigations. Basically – apples and oranges.

        • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

          I disagree. Part of the premise is that claims of anti-Semitism are usually knee-jerk reactions not based on any reality. I contend this is the case because of the way Ashkenazi Jews usually approach these kinds of issues

          • Izzy

            So your argument is that Ashkenazi Jews have a anti-semitism reflex, while Sephardim do not. You support that argument by contrasting the reactions of the two groups to two separate cases, without demonstrating that the two cases are similiar.

            That is like a Dr. that has two patients. He strikes one patient in patellar tendon with a tendon hammer (thx Wikipedia), to which the patient responds with a “knee-jerk reaction.” He taps the second patient on the head, producing no “knee-jerk reaction.” Per your logic, the Dr. would be able to say, “clearly patient #1 is predisposed to “knee-jerk reactions,” while patient #2 is not.

            • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

              No it’s not like that at all.

              This blog post was an observation of a few facts that led me to a possible / likely / probably theory. It is not scientific. There is no proof. It’s an opinion based on my observations.

              Can I be wrong? Certainly.

              Is the premise worth considering even if it’s not a controlled experiment meeting the rigorous standards of science? In my opinion, certainly.

              • Izzy

                I’ll give you possible.
                Just to throw a few more facts into the mix, there are a lot of cases involving ashkenazim where anti-semitism was not (popularly) claimed. One example would be the Spinka tax fraud/money laundering case. There are many more. I think the more likely explanation for the disparate (popular) frum responses to the Rubashkin and Dwek cases are that many people, including many non-jews, believe that Runashkin got a raw deal (which some people, correctly or not, attribute to bias), and the fact that Dwek, who was offered a plea deal in exchange for his participation in other investigations as a cooperating witness, does not exactly cut a sympathetic character in the frum community.

                • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

                  You might be right. In fact your possibility is what 99/100 frum Jews would say.

                  That doesn’t make it true.

                  I only wish to provide alternative ways of approaching communal problems so that we, as a group, continue to think about issues instead of sweeping them all under a very large (and bulging) carpet.

                • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

                  Facts:

                  There is an anti-Sephardic bias.

                  There is a tendency to cry anti-Semitism when it is not warranted.

                  Historically, Sephardic Jews do not claim anti-Semitism.

                  Opinion:

                  It fits in neatly with Dwek / Rubashkin.

                  Conclusion:

                  Whether you agree with the application to these 2 crooks or not, the facts still speak loudly enough to give you pause and make you think.

  • Izzy

    In order for your comparison beween the Rubashkin and Dwek cases to be valid and supportable, you would have to compare the factors from the Rubashkin case that are commonly inerpreted by some as anti-semitic, and demonstrate how these factors were equally present in the Dwek, case, and are not interpreted as anti-semitic. Without doing an exhaustive comparison, I imagine a lot of those factors are inaplicable to the Dwek case, b/c of the fact that he pled quilty and cooperated in the investigations, and agreed to act as a cooperating witness in other invetigations. Basically – apples and oranges.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      I disagree. Part of the premise is that claims of anti-Semitism are usually knee-jerk reactions not based on any reality. I contend this is the case because of the way Ashkenazi Jews usually approach these kinds of issues

      • Izzy

        So your argument is that Ashkenazi Jews have a anti-semitism reflex, while Sephardim do not. You support that argument by contrasting the reactions of the two groups to two separate cases, without demonstrating that the two cases are similiar.

        That is like a Dr. that has two patients. He strikes one patient in patellar tendon with a tendon hammer (thx Wikipedia), to which the patient responds with a “knee-jerk reaction.” He taps the second patient on the head, producing no “knee-jerk reaction.” Per your logic, the Dr. would be able to say, “clearly patient #1 is predisposed to “knee-jerk reactions,” while patient #2 is not.

        • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

          No it’s not like that at all.

          This blog post was an observation of a few facts that led me to a possible / likely / probably theory. It is not scientific. There is no proof. It’s an opinion based on my observations.

          Can I be wrong? Certainly.

          Is the premise worth considering even if it’s not a controlled experiment meeting the rigorous standards of science? In my opinion, certainly.

  • Izzy

    Agreed. I wonder how the actions of the oppressors were charecterized then.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      In my brief perusal of the materials it does not seem that this was characterized as anti-Semitism.

  • Izzy

    Agreed. I wonder how the actions of the oppressors were charecterized then.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      In my brief perusal of the materials it does not seem that this was characterized as anti-Semitism.

  • http://conservadox.tripod.com Woodrow/Conservadox

    A couple of possible explanations:

    1. Given that Ashkenazim were more affected by the Shoah, it might make sense that they would be more willing to “act out” in wacky ways.

    2. Because Ashkenazim are more likely to be haredim, they are more likely to be part of an isolated subculture in which it is more encouraged to “act out” in wacky ways.

    3. The 15th century isn’t quite relevant to our situation, because there wasn’t mass media (e.g. the internet) to spread wacky ideas.

    4. (admittedly inconsistent with 3) Who needs paranoia about anti-Semitism when you have false messiahs? (See, e.g., Sabbatai Zevi, Jacob Frank)

  • http://conservadox.tripod.com Woodrow/Conservadox

    A couple of possible explanations:

    1. Given that Ashkenazim were more affected by the Shoah, it might make sense that they would be more willing to “act out” in wacky ways.

    2. Because Ashkenazim are more likely to be haredim, they are more likely to be part of an isolated subculture in which it is more encouraged to “act out” in wacky ways.

    3. The 15th century isn’t quite relevant to our situation, because there wasn’t mass media (e.g. the internet) to spread wacky ideas.

    4. (admittedly inconsistent with 3) Who needs paranoia about anti-Semitism when you have false messiahs? (See, e.g., Sabbatai Zevi, Jacob Frank)

  • http://conservadox.tripod.com Woodrow/Conservadox

    A couple of possible explanations:

    1. Given that Ashkenazim were more affected by the Shoah, it might make sense that they would be more willing to “act out” in wacky ways.

    2. Because Ashkenazim are more likely to be haredim, they are more likely to be part of an isolated subculture in which it is more encouraged to “act out” in wacky ways.

    3. The 15th century isn’t quite relevant to our situation, because there wasn’t mass media (e.g. the internet) to spread wacky ideas.

    4. (admittedly inconsistent with 3) Who needs paranoia about anti-Semitism when you have false messiahs? (See, e.g., Sabbatai Zevi, Jacob Frank)

  • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

    I disagree. Part of the premise is that claims of anti-Semitism are usually knee-jerk reactions not based on any reality. I contend this is the case because of the way Ashkenazi Jews usually approach these kinds of issues

    • Izzy

      So your argument is that Ashkenazi Jews have a anti-semitism reflex, while Sephardim do not. You support that argument by contrasting the reactions of the two groups to two separate cases, without demonstrating that the two cases are similiar.

      That is like a Dr. that has two patients. He strikes one patient in patellar tendon with a tendon hammer (thx Wikipedia), to which the patient responds with a “knee-jerk reaction.” He taps the second patient on the head, producing no “knee-jerk reaction.” Per your logic, the Dr. would be able to say, “clearly patient #1 is predisposed to “knee-jerk reactions,” while patient #2 is not.

      • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

        No it’s not like that at all.

        This blog post was an observation of a few facts that led me to a possible / likely / probably theory. It is not scientific. There is no proof. It’s an opinion based on my observations.

        Can I be wrong? Certainly.

        Is the premise worth considering even if it’s not a controlled experiment meeting the rigorous standards of science? In my opinion, certainly.

        • Izzy

          I’ll give you possible.
          Just to throw a few more facts into the mix, there are a lot of cases involving ashkenazim where anti-semitism was not (popularly) claimed. One example would be the Spinka tax fraud/money laundering case. There are many more. I think the more likely explanation for the disparate (popular) frum responses to the Rubashkin and Dwek cases are that many people, including many non-jews, believe that Runashkin got a raw deal (which some people, correctly or not, attribute to bias), and the fact that Dwek, who was offered a plea deal in exchange for his participation in other investigations as a cooperating witness, does not exactly cut a sympathetic character in the frum community.

  • E. F. Shaar

    I think you make a good point.

  • http://toratezra.blogspot.com Rabba bar bar Chana

    I just took it out of the library – turns out my mother in law read it too, and she agrees that it’s fascinating. I’ll let you know my impressions after I read it.

  • KB

    Since the vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi, you will always hear Ashkenazi voices more than Sephardi.
    There is not much of a Sephardic community to be biased against in the U.S., although in Israel that’s not the case.
    The term “anti-semitism” didn’t exist in the 15th century, so why be surprised that it was’t used? Sephardim knew anti-Jewish behavior when they saw it.

    This entire post is just silly.

Previous post:

Next post: