Lisa Gill's clueless anti-Semitism? It's in the water -- and the most offensive term of all just might be "politician."

I've never met Jeffersonville city council representative Lisa Gill, but last week she pushed the wrong button -- more than once.

Anti-semitic slur used by Jeffersonville City Council member during meeting, by John Boyle (Summa Theologica)

During an Jeffersonville City Council meeting April 15, Vice President Lisa Gill used an anti-Semitic phrase while discussing price negotiations for a new service truck for the fire department.

"Gill asked 'did you mention that you actually called about that truck and actually, what I call Jewed them down?'"

Gill's choice of words is what I call amazingly dumb, and although she quickly passed through the ritual cycle of apology there wasn't the slightest indication she understands why she needed to do so.

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Kathy Dixon and the citizens of Jeffersonville for carelessly making a comment to describe negotiations of a maintenance vehicle during a public meeting. As a public servant, I consider myself a strong steward of taxpayers’ money and that is the context in which I made my comment in reference of the negotiations.

Those who know me understand my professional and personal life is one of commitment and dedication to all people of my community regardless of their ethnicity, their culture, or their social-economic status.

Please know that my intent was not to offend or hurt anyone and in the future I will gauge my words carefully. This has been a valuable learning experience and once again, I apologize.

Gill's apology might actually be more clueless than her original statement, although admittedly these rote, by-the-numbers templates generally fall flat because the person deploying them has no idea why any of it is happening; such is the thoughtlessness of the entire process.

At any rate, hundreds of comments have been made, perhaps a majority of which were in defense of Gill. From where I'm seated way out in the left field bleachers, Dan Canon's thoughts hit closest to the target's center. They were initially tweeted in a thread, and I've combined them.

Imagine thinking that saying something like this is A-OK, and you'll understand the mindset of the people who make the rules for Indiana.

I think I actually believe this is, in a way, totally innocent. Like this brand of anti-semitism is such a deep stain in the fabric of Jane Q. Indiana's collective consciousness that they don't even see it, and there's no real mens rea*, it's just a "thing you say."

Should she know that's not a nice thing to say? Yes, of course. Does she actually know it? No, no fucking way. She genuinely does not know. It's even more chilling that way, actually.

The goddamn truth of it is: you're only likely to be slightly better than the slimy, bigoted culture you came up in. It takes work to break out of it in any meaningful way. It's worth it, of course, but most of us just don't put in the work. Work is hard.

Of course, thoughtful and responsive people already know that "Jewed" is an offensive term straight out of the anti-Semitic glossary, one indicative of everyday racism, casual racism or just plain racism -- and that's why another aspect of Gill's utterance is worthy of close examination.

Think about her unthinking prelude: "What I call ... Jewed them down."

As though she was expressing pride at coining anti-Semitic usage that's probably been in circulation for a couple thousand years, if not longer. This is a special kind of historical ignorance, coupled with stunning non-self-awareness.

So, let's briefly go over what Gill failed to learn in kindergarten.

jew (jo͞o)
tr.v. jewed, jew·ing, jews Offensive
1. To bargain shrewdly or unfairly with. Often used with down.
2. To haggle so as to reduce (a price). Often used with down.

I didn't bother looking for the etymology of "Jewed," because to repeat, for as long as there has been prejudice directed at Jewish persons, there have been references to Jewish prowess (and trickiness) when it comes to money -- and Christians should know that this form of anti-Semitism historically was encouraged by governments based on ... that's right ... Christianity.

Among socio-economic factors were restrictions by the authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, tolerating them as a "necessary evil". Catholic doctrine of the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews dominated this business.

Consider it another excellent reason to keep church and state separate.

Most of us grew up amid pervasive ignorance about such matters, and we thoughtlessly repeated the shit our dads and moms said, while in all likelihood being unable to explain the first thing about what it actually meant.

But ultimately that's an excuse for a child, not an adult. Echoing Canon's incisive comment about putting in the work necessary to learn, I've certainly not been immune from the casual everyday racism. The struggle is real, and it never ceases. You have to think about what you're doing and saying, and as Dan noted, thinking is hard.

For a long time I referred to my ancestry as "white trash" potato diggers in Pomerania. Two things happened to change this description, and only one of them was the discovery that the German component of my DNA probably comes from areas closer to the Rhine River than the Vistula.

However the first was a belated and frankly embarrassing realization that "white trash" is derogatory on multiple levels. As a person who tries his best to be thoughtful and responsive, throwing terms like "white trash" into the air is indefensible -- so I resolved not to say it any longer.

Simple as that. Wish I could do the same with those harder-edged profanities I learned from my father the US Marine. Maybe some day.

But of more interest than the preceding is the way Jeffersonville's city council representatives circled the wagons to protect one of their own. 

As Bluegill and the Bookseller both have observed on numerous occasions, a political candidate elected to any council or similar body requires mere weeks (days?) to learn that when outsiders criticize insiders, the very first thing you do is preserve your privileges.

President Ed Zastawny and Councilman Nathan Samuel, neither of whom were present during the meeting, said that they do not believe Gill meant for her comments to be malicious, nor have they known her to intentionally label any group in a negative manner.

"When you speak on the record in a public forum like this, you make mistakes sometimes and you misspeak," Zastawny said. "I’m sure she didn’t mean to demean or hurt anybody’s feelings in any way. I think it’s one of those situations where she just slipped up.”

Goodness.

Another of Gill's colleagues was only slightly less tepid.

Councilman Dustin White said that he was caught off guard by the slur, noting that it's important for public officials to always be aware of the implications and derogatory nature of such comments.

"It was unfortunate that a statement like this was made," White said. "There have been some things that have happened around the country that have heightened awareness, like the tragedy in Pittsburgh. I'd like to think that there was no harm in the statement, but we have to be careful to not make statements like that that can disparage people. Whenever we are faced with situations like this, I think it's important to speak out and condemn such phrases as inappropriate."

But White added something I find bizarrely inexplicable.

According to White, no intercultural learning events have taken place during his time as a councilman, adding that he is open to the idea.

"In my three and a half years on the council, we have not had any sort of diversity training or listening sessions," White said. "As a proponent of civil rights, that's obviously something I would welcome."

Anyone heard of DIY? Is there a council by-law preventing White from organizing diversity training?

What's he waiting for, Donald Trump to organize it?

As always, this Gill scandal will be quickly forgotten. Nothing much will be learned. When stupidity from without seems hard-wired from birth, the only rational conclusion one can reach is to improve from within, and to hoe the closest rows.   

---

* intention or knowledge of wrongdoing

Anti-Semitism always mutates to survive, forever feeding on raw stupidity.

We live in times where there is a surplus of facts, information and knowledge, all of it at our fingertips, more bountiful and readily available than at any point in human history.

Perhaps it is a reflection of our inability (unwillingness?) to sort, collate and quantify all this knowledge that every day it's possible to pluck an item or 200 from the news feed and reach the inescapable conclusion that people have nonetheless become as stunted and dense as medieval peasants.

And yes, I know ... I'm insulting the medieval peasants by making this comparison.

I'm far from perfect as a human being, but these variants of hatred make no sense to me, whether they're anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny or homophobia. If anything, I can come close to understanding the impulse to hate the haters; while abstract discussions of "love" haven't ever ranked high on my personal hit parade, it seems obvious that hating hate isn't enough.

But at least medieval peasants knew how to cook their own meals, while contemporary white supremacists are doomed to the dollar menu at a fast food chain. If logic can't cripple them, perhaps coagulated arteries will.

Jew-hatred keeps mutating to survive (The Economist)

Lessons from the Pittsburgh massacre

... Most Jews in Europe do not cower. Nor have American Jews been as safe as they presumed. That became tragically apparent on October 27th, when a white-supremacist gunman, named as Robert Bowers, shot dead 11 Sabbath worshippers in Pittsburgh (see article). “I never thought that the kind of terrorism that we have seen in France and in other places in Europe would be raising its ugly head in America,” says Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish group. And he thinks “it’s only the opening round.” Suddenly, it is American Jews who have started talking about whether, when and how to leave.

It is futile to try to assess the true extent of Jew-hatred from the deeds of a lone gunman. The Anti-Defamation League (adl), which fights bigotry, says there was a sharp rise last year in anti-Semitic incidents, such as vandalism of Jewish sites and harassment (including bomb threats). But the number of assaults on Jews was small and fell. Worldwide, violence against Jews has declined sharply since 2014, according to an annual study by Tel Aviv University’s Kantor Centre (see chart).

Beyond such violence, defining anti-Semitism is harder because it is so protean. Historically, notes Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s former chief rabbi, “Jews were hated because they were poor and because they were rich; because they were communists and because they were capitalists; because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere; because they clung to ancient religious beliefs and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing.” These days, overt Jew-hatred is comparatively rare in the West, largely because of its association with the Nazi Holocaust. Often it is disguised. Rants about “globalists” on the far-right and “Zionists” on the far-left can be euphemisms for “Jews”. Yet both words have straightforward meanings, too, and not all who use them are bigots.

Michal Bilewicz of the University of Warsaw outlines three categories of anti-Semitism. The “traditional” kind is based on Catholic teaching (since abandoned) that Jews killed Christ, and on medieval blood-libels (accusations that Jews killed children to mix their blood with Passover flatbread). The second, “modern”, sort is based on a belief in conspiracies by powerful Jews. The last kind, “secondary” anti-Semitism, holds that Jews abuse the history of the Holocaust. Others seek to categorise the miasma differently: eg, as racist, economic, cultural and religious; or explicit and coded; or soft and violent ...

Shylock's Ghost: "The pound of flesh, which I demand of him, Is dearly bought; 'tis mine and I will have it."

Another hour well spent. How many of us have heard the phrase "a pound of flesh" without knowing the source?

Imagine: Shylock's Ghost (BBC One; Autumn 2015)

Alan Yentob travels to the ghetto in Venice with award-winning novelist Howard Jacobson as he embarks on a retelling of Shakespeare's most performed play, The Merchant of Venice. Through a series of lively - often fiery - interviews, they examine the charge of anti-Semitism against Shakespeare, whose character Shylock remains one of the most odious and divisive fictional Jews in history.

How did the moneylender from Venice become such a useful propaganda tool in Nazi Germany? And how much of a liberty will Jacobson be taking when he uproots the action to modern-day Alderley Edge, and audaciously reinterprets the infamous 'pound of flesh'?

Interviewees include Antony Sher, Anthony Julius and Stephen Greenblatt.

This review of Jacobson's completed novel offers more context.

Shylock Is My Name review – Howard Jacobson takes on Shakespeare’s Venetian moneylender, by James Lasdun (The Guardian)

A bold retelling of The Merchant of Venice, set in 21st-century footballers’ Cheshire, subverts and enhances an appreciation of the original

The figure of the unassimilated Jew, defiantly “other” in skullcap, gabardine and fringed garment, has been a source of Gentile unease for centuries. It is what fuels the main plot of The Merchant of Venice, and its corollary – Jew-baiting – is what gives the play its uncomfortable immediacy. We know this story; its ramifications are still playing out: the Holocaust, Israel, Gaza. Part of its disquieting power, in Shakespeare’s telling, is its unstable moral perspective: are we watching a play about antisemitism, or an antisemitic play? Unlike Malvolio, whose expulsion from the festive world of Twelfth Night is a cause for straightforward rejoicing, Shylock’s fall leaves us jangling with unresolved emotion. Yes, he was going to cut his pound of flesh out of Antonio, but he had been provoked: spat upon, robbed of daughter and ducats, goaded beyond endurance. Although Portia gives him every chance to be merciful, there is something faintly shabby about the “no jot of blood” trick she pulls when he refuses (all it really shows is that he has been playing in a rigged game from the start), and there is something downright chilling about the sentence of forced conversion that follows. The last act tinkles on in Belmont without him, as if Shakespeare half wants us to forget this troubling figure before we leave the theatre, but it is the Belmont lovers we forget. Shylock lingers.

Howard Jacobson’s new novel, part of a series of Shakespeare retellings commissioned for the 400th anniversary of the bard’s death, makes bold use of this haunting persistence.