They reflect especially the view of those chauvinists who, just as the Romantics once did, fantasize about ancient Germanic purity of blood and thus express that which they accuse us of: racial arrogance. That historian, though, admits that he himself knows Jews whom he considers exceptions, and this is how all of these gentlemen proceed. They exempt the Jews they know or befriend but condemn the great bunch unknown to them, which means that any Jew faces bias so long as he has not found favor in their eyes.
It is not “over-sensitivity” – a charge leveled by that historian against a colleague who refuted him – that has forced the more outstanding among us to speak out against him. It is a sense of justice. We have not yet arrived at the point where Jewish scholars are on equal footing with Christian colleagues in terms of offices and appointments. And even if improvements have been introduced in recent years, it was different a few decades ago. For that reason, it would not be surprising if – as that historian thinks – the achievements of Jewish scholars were taking second place to those of Christian scholars. This is not the case, however. The third-rate writers of whom he speaks can be found among the adherents of all religions. And of course the second and first ranks also include writers of Jewish spirit and origin. As refutable as those arguments are, the polemic is nevertheless worth heeding, even for us.
We have to take things and people as they are, not as they ought to be, and we have to reckon with them. This modern vivisection of Jewry, this cutting of our living bodies by our adversaries, has – like everything God sends – a positive side to it. Along with the old rabbi, we say, gam su letaubo, even that has a positive side. For just as an agent of disease that collects in the body for a long time will finally be discharged in the course of the disease itself, and will thus bring about the subsequent recovery, this polemic also serves to cause the substance of the morbus antijudaicus, the hostility toward Jews, which has been present in the German body for a long time, to break out and thus lead to recovery.
[ . . . ]
In a transitional phase like ours, when legislation is frequently heading in new directions, when the painful consequences of enormous wars and rash business enterprises have been making themselves felt for years, when interests are more apt to be locked in grim feuds than parties, when people are venting dissatisfaction and are unable to probe for deeper sources, is it really surprising that people are striking out in a superficial way against those who have always been the target of anger when general problems arise?
For us, who are accustomed to thanking God for both the good and the bad alike, for us, this polemic shall serve as a test, a warning, and a reminder.
As a test: Have we everywhere remained true to the noble ideals of morality and honesty that our Jewry (in this respect agreeing completely with Christianity) teaches? Have we everywhere applied the blessings of modern times in such a way as we should and must? Have we become loyal fellow citizens, hard-working citizens, and true sons of our German homeland, of our German fatherland?
print version
return to list
previous document