The Cross of Redemption (25 page)

STUDENT:
[inaudible]

BALDWIN:
The Christian’s dirty work?

STUDENT:
Yes.

BALDWIN:
The people who own Harlem, for example, never arrive to collect the rent. The people who really are responsible for the misery all up and down those streets do not run the pawnshop. The people responsible for the horror are not in the liquor store, the people responsible for all the horror, if you really want to find out … When I was running up and down Manhattan trying to find a place to live, it was not the landlord I had to deal with; it was the man who owned the building. And he was in Croton-on-Hudson. Or it was Columbia University. The people who own anything, who really own it in the ghetto, are not to be found in the ghetto. The middleman is in the ghetto doing, in fact, the Christian’s dirty work. Is that clear?
[Applause from audience.]

STUDENT:
You said that the liberal facade is not enough.

BALDWIN:
I can’t hear you.

STUDENT:
You said that the liberal facade and being a liberal is not enough. Well, what is? What is necessary?

BALDWIN:
Commitment. That is what is necessary. You mean it or you don’t.

P
ROFESSOR
M
ICHAEL
T
HELWELL:
I’d like to speak to that
[inaudible]. [Laughter and applause from audience.]
And I’m here, brother, because for the first time I’m not quite satisfied with an answer you gave. The young man who asked a question initially about Jewish liberals, I’m afraid, defined the question in such a way that the answer did not satisfy me. I’m not in the habit of speaking publicly and personally at the same time, but I’m going to do that. When I worked … when I was a young man in the civil rights movement, there was a set of alliances in this country, and the young black movement—and it was very young, in terms of age, in terms of capability, in terms of resources—made alliances with professional Jewish organizations in the sense that they sought us out and they became our allies. And they are formidable allies. I mean, they are capable, and they fight, and are incredible allies to have. By the same token they are incredible enemies to have also, as Jesse Jackson is finding out. But if we say “What about the Jewish liberal?,” by the imposition of that term, “liberal,” you distort the argument, because liberals of all stripes suffer from the disabilities that you have attributed to them. But it wasn’t liberalism that we were experiencing. There is a quality which comes out of Judaism—that is to say, the Jewish faith and experience. And what we experienced, there were some groups which were liberal, there were some groups which were professional kinds, Zionist groups—so the alliance ruptured very easily the moment black people raised the question of the Middle East. But if we say that and leave it there, then the situation is significantly distorted. Because what there is in the traditions of Judaism is, number one, a genuine sense of social justice which, as Jimmy says, frequently comes up against the impositions of American reality. But there does seem to be a real stream which characterizes the people, a sense of struggle and a sense of distrust of power and an outrage at injustice, a quality of morality, codified in the Bible and coming down … and a tradition of social struggle. And that, it seems to me, is a very strong element of Judaism quite separate from American liberalism or anything else; and if we don’t recognize that, then the situation is distorted, because there were people acting less out of a sense of American liberalism, but out of … I got the sense of … a tradition going far back, of a kind of spontaneous struggle, a kind of spontaneous joining hands with the afflicted and the weak, and that is a real element of Judaism about which, I think, every Jewish person should be very proud and, also, should think very carefully about how they
preserve and strengthen.
[Applause.]
Thank you. And which is why it is so distressing, because the consequences of this very disastrous thing with Jesse is that there is going to be a further rift driven between the two most visible of the minority and oppressed communities in this country, because when American racism or the American state is pressured, that expresses itself in either anti-Semitism or racism. We both know that. And that is why the alliance has to be preserved, and we’ve got to go beyond this very temporary thing.

BALDWIN:
Thank you, Mike. Yes?

STUDENT:
I have a question on anti-Semitism and Israelis or Jews doing America’s dirty work. Has Jackson made any censorious remarks about Israeli arms sales to South Africa? And could you maybe talk about how Jackson might take a position on Israel and arm sales to South Africa?

BALDWIN:
As far as I know, Jesse has said nothing about arms sales to South Africa, and I don’t think he will, you know. The arms sales to South Africa on the part of Israel are again an example of the traditional role that Jews have often played in Christendom. It is, uh … After all, the state of Israel, as a state, that is to say, in terms of who is responsible for it, where the money comes from, is a—what is a polite word we use?—it is a Western state, it is a Western creation, it is a Western responsibility, isn’t it? And Israel selling arms to Israel, selling arms … I mean, South Africa, well, we all know that. I think it would serve very little purpose to single out Israel as the supplier of arms to South Africa when the real supplier of arms, not only to South Africa but to many, many other parts of the world, is not the state of Israel, but France, England, this country above all—you see what I’m saying? The state of South Africa, the state of Johannesburg, cannot be blamed on Israel—you see what I’m saying?

STUDENT:
Yes, I
[inaudible]
the accusation of anti-Semitism
[inaudible]
.

BALDWIN:
I think it would be a red herring; I think it would be a false trail—you see what I’m saying? It is not important in the context in which I am speaking that Israel can be accused of selling arms to [South Africa]. It is a distraction. In fact, the Western world is involved with selling arms not only to South Africa but to various other parts of the globe to keep, to maintain, the status quo. And Israel is simply a part of that structure. Where was I? Yes, ma’am?

STUDENT:
I just wanted to say that when you said
[inaudible]
.

BALDWIN:
I can’t hear you. I’m sorry.

STUDENT:
I’m sorry. I don’t know your name, but the professor—

T
HELWELL:
Mike Thelwell.

STUDENT:
What you said was very important, but the one thing that he did say was that also the Jews could be the blacks’ worst enemy.

BALDWIN:
He said what?

STUDENT:
He said that the Jews also could be the blacks’ worst enemies.

BALDWIN:
He said they could be formidable enemies also.

T
HELWELL:
I said that the Jewish organizations could be formidable allies and could make formidable enemies.

STUDENT:
Formidable enemies, okay. I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand … But this seems to be something that is just influenced or brought down by the American system when we choose, as you said, to make a distinction between the true safety over honor, and I think this is something that is influenced by the American system and that this is where the distinction comes, where the system itself is the instrumental factor which separates minorities and we’ve been able to cause that …

BALDWIN:
Well, the system is made for that. That is what it intends to do.

STUDENT:
Yeah, and it just weakens the structural or the pattern
[inaudible]
by Jews and blacks together as a whole. I know on a personal level that it is obvious that the similarities are there but on a political level we seem to always see the separation that is trying to be, or how they are trying to separate us … the whole case with Jesse Jackson
[inaudible]
expounding on it.

BALDWIN:
On the political level your options are, in principle at least, very different from mine. On the political level your options are white, you know, and it’s up to you.

STUDENT:
What do you mean by that?

BALDWIN:
Well, you are legally white in this country. I mean, I don’t know if you are white, but legally you’re white, and your political options, your social options, are, at least in principle, very different from that of any black person—you see what I mean? And the system knows that very well, and
plays on that very well. It is very hard for a person to give up safety. The system knows that very well, and it can divide us and keep us both in the same place forever as long as we go for it, as long as we don’t see what they are doing. As long as you don’t see or I don’t see—you see what I’m saying?

STUDENT:
Right, but I would think it’s also a fact that legally … I’m legally a woman, so these things come into play also.

BALDWIN:
Yeah, of course, but you are the one who has to make the choice concerning these realities.

STUDENT:
Right.
[inaudible]

STUDENT:
If you think that her political priorities are white—

BALDWIN:
I don’t know what they are. I said the system assumes that they are white.

STUDENT:
Okay, that is the question.

BALDWIN:
Okay, wait a minute. You first, Okay.

STUDENT:
If we accept that the essential character of the American heritage is immoral, do you then attribute to the elements of the civil rights movement which used these organs of immorality to achieve their aims—

BALDWIN:
What do you mean, “organs of immorality”?

STUDENT:
The courts and the political system established by the American heritage—do we consider them then as legitimizing or contributing to the immorality of the system?

BALDWIN:
Well, no, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think what the movement had to do, had no choice but to do, was to challenge.

STUDENT:
But challenge through the system or challenge by repudiating it?

BALDWIN:
One does both at the same time. You cannot take—I cannot take, you know—a blanket position, because you move according to where you can move. Of course, we had to begin with the courts, the legal system. And it is, you know … a proof of its immorality was the fact that it had to be attacked. The fact that it is immoral doesn’t mean that it cannot change. It doesn’t mean that human beings cannot change it. If you see what I mean. In fact we—What?

STUDENT:
Transcendence
[inaudible]
.

BALDWIN:
Well, one is not obliged to be at the mercy of the institution. You made it and you can unmake it. You made it and you can remake it.

STUDENT:
We didn’t make it. We used it.

BALDWIN:
So it’s a way of trying to make it serve a human purpose. Isn’t that the aim?

STUDENT:
I’m not questioning that we did have a positive effect. I’m just asking whether or not you see that as again reaffirming an essentially immoral system by using it in that way, by using it as an organ of change.

BALDWIN:
But all systems—for the sake of my argument, anyway, and in my experience—all systems are immoral, you know. Every system, social system, because it involves human beings in order to be made useful, has to be attacked and endlessly changed—you see what I’m saying? Where am I? I’ll begin way in the back and move forward.

STUDENT:
Okay, let me see if I’ve got your message so far. If you go into a black neighborhood being the middleman and the media ploy—

BALDWIN:
The what?

STUDENT:
—the media ploy on the Jesse Jackson issue, trying to divide and conquer, and the event was the creation of the federal state. How else could Jews
[inaudible]
in response to the possibility of what would happen if the Jews stopped being the middlemen—

BALDWIN:
The Jews stopped being middlemen …

STUDENT:
—and somehow form an alliance with all the other people who are being oppressed by this system? What do you think about that, is there that possibility?

BALDWIN:
Well, you’ve asked me an absolutely impossible question. If American Jews, or Polish Jews for that matter, if such an alliance could be—well, let’s leave it to America, let’s limit it to America. If the American Jew joined forces with the Native American, the so-called American Indian, and the blacks and Hispanics, which is not impossible, it would be bringing New Jerusalem much closer, but it is not very likely to happen. It is not likely to happen for a great many reasons, one of them being the American inheritance, one of them being the difficulty of turning your back on … and also a certain confusion, even a certain modesty. Some people in the civil rights movement were very hesitant about trying to—and this is in the best
sense—were very hesitant about trying to intrude on the black experience. They were not only afraid of it in a negative sense, but afraid of seeming to be impertinent, afraid of seeming to be presumptuous. There is that too. But it is unlikely that such a coalition will be formed very soon. People form coalitions of that kind when they cannot do anything else.

Yes, ma’am.

STUDENT 1:
I don’t know whether I can explain this in the way I want to—

STUDENT 2:
Please stand.

BALDWIN:
Please stand.

STUDENT 1:
I don’t know whether I can explain this in the way I want to, but I think a major misconception in all the ideas that are going around here is that all Jews have money and are capable—

BALDWIN:
Have money?