CONVERSATION WITH ... Dr. Cheryl Greenberg Trinity professor writes book on African-American-Jewish relations By Judie Jacobson In her new book, "Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century," Dr. Cheryl Greenberg traces the "growth, peak, and deterioration of black-Jewish engagement over the course of the 20th century." A history professor at Trinity College in Hartford, specializing in African-American and 20th century U.S. History, Greenberg has also written, "Or Does It Explode?: Black Harlem in the Great Depression" and edited "A Circle of Trust: Remembering the SNCC." Dr. Greenberg recently spoke to the Ledger about her new book. Q: You characterize the black/Jewish relationship during its so-called golden era - the 1940s to the 1960s - as less than an "alliance" and more of a "tumultuous political engagement. Can you explain? A: I think that the Jews in particular, but both blacks and Jews, have characterized the civil rights era as a time when blacks and Jews walked completely hand in hand and there were no differences. They call it the "Golden Age" or an alliance. But an alliance really means you are joined in every way. And that is simply not true, because while we were absolutely in sync on many civil rights and human rights issues, there were still differences based on race and class and background that are inevitable among any community. I think that the main differences between the black and Jewish communities ... by and large, were the fact that because Jews were white, they were able to avoid many of the worst horrors of racism. It's not that anti-Semitism didn't exist, but it was far different from the impact of racism on black people. And so while Jews understood their own situation as being similar to African-Americans, what they didn't realize is the vast differences. The black perspective looked very different from the Jewish perspective because of these racial issues, and the racial issues then meant that African-Americans did less well economically which meant that the class issues were very different. Jews were looking at things from a more middle-class perspective by the 50s and 60s. What I think is not true though, is [the assertion] that the major differences between blacks and Jews were that blacks were anti-Semitic and Jews were racist. I don't that that is true. Q: You call the history of the black/Jewish relationship the history of American liberalism. Can you explain? A: American liberalism values individual rights as opposed to say, group rights, and pluralism, as opposed to everybody having to assimilate. In that sense, the civil rights movement was squarely in the liberal tradition. The problem is that liberalism is also based, in a democracy, on creating majorities. And so, it was very difficult for liberals to go out on a limb on really difficult political issues like race, because it would alienate too many people. And while liberals tried to do their best within that framework it meant that some fundamental issues of discrimination underneath civil rights couldn't be addressed... There are problems of racism that can't be solved by people just waking up and feeling nice about each other. There are real structural changes that have to be made, and those structural changes then fly in the face of liberal politics. Some African-Americans were more willing to challenge those basic limits of liberalism than Jews, partly because Jews had benefited from liberalism more than African-Americans. Q: When and why did the relationship begin to seriously deteriorate to the point that the two communities seemed to be at polar opposites? A: Although the perception has been for a while that blacks and Jews were at polar opposites, I don't actually think that was true in fact. But it is true that that is the perception. And the perception was made vivid by Crown Heights and protests like Ocean Hill - Brownsville which was much earlier. But it is not like the fundamental assumptions of equality and human dignity and the importance of minimizing racism and discrimination were ever abandoned by either side. So, in fact, behind the scenes they were never polar opposites. I would say that, although there were problems since the beginning, rooted in class and race differences, really it became vivid in the 1960s when some of these limits of liberalism showed up. Black people started saying we need to do one thing, and Jews would say that would threaten our stability. Blacks would say, what is more important - equality or your middle-class comfort? The 1960s were also a time when Black Nationalism increased. Many African American communities were saying, 'We don't want any white help. We need to go our own way.' And of course, who was the most significant white player in all of this? Jews. So when they move away from white coalitions Jews see this as moving away from Jewish coalitions. Q: Despite Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assertion that "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism," many black leaders did seem critical of Israel to the point of anti-Semitism from the very moment of its birth. Is that true? A: Certainly there have always been people in the black community just like in the white community who have opposed Israel or have been anti-Semitic. But the vast majority of members of the African-American community and particularly the African-American leadership were staunchly pro-Israel. They were in fact so pro-Israel that the head of the NAACP (Walter White) helped lobby the Liberian and Haitian delegations to the UN to vote for the partition. The NAACP as an organization was behind it and all sorts of African-American leaders not only supported Israel but were active in their support, because I think African-Americans understood the Jewish desire for a safe homeland and self-determination in that they understood Colonial groups wanting independence from colonial empires. This was the anti-Imperialist, post-war moment when vulnerable and discriminated against communities were beginning to assert their own independence. So just like the NAACP supported the freedom of African and Asian nations to become their countries, they also supported the notion of Jews coming back to their homeland, added to the fact that they were very sympathetic to Jewish security needs given the Holocaust. So they were in fact openly supportive of Israel and that didn't really change until the 1950s when you start to see Arab anti-Israeli propaganda becoming more public. And to a certain extent the African-American community like others was sensitive to those issues, but I think the larger conflict with support of Israel came in the 1960s when pan-Africanism, Black Nationalism -- the sense that the world was divided into races and that whites were dominating everything - really began to intensify. At that point African-Americans continue to support indigenous communities who want to be independent, but they start seeing Israel as a white nation ... and the indigenous population that is being oppressed are the Palestinians, who are of course, themselves, not white. So it is not that the African-American view changes, so much as their view of who the players are changes. Israel was no longer the underdog - Israel becomes the empire and the Palestinians become the underdog. Q: Despite our tumultuous history, can both communities still benefit from a coalition? A: I do think that we can still benefit from a coalition in the sense that I think every single community that is remotely politically- oriented can benefit from a coalition with communities who agree with them on that particular issue. That goes for everybody, including the evangelical right - if they can make common cause with another group on their issue, then that is going to advance their issue. I think that by and large the African-American and Jewish communities still share fundamental political commitment - to equal rights, opportunity to vote, equal treatment in all public venues, the end of discrimination, preventing violence, a fair economic system --- all of those human rights issues are in the direct interest of both the black and Jewish communities, both because of our histories and our general political leanings. So anything that would further those causes, it seems to me, is a good thing. It doesn't mean there is not a challenge to coalitions, but clearly in many of the things that Jews are concerned about, a coalition with the black community could only be beneficial.