Classy

Once I clicked through to the article it had a different headline, but the Post frontpage had this listed as "Lawmaker Angers Blacks, Jews" which sounded super-promising. And the text delivers! Virginia Delegate Frank Hargrove was giving a speech about why the Virginia legislature shouldn't apologize for slavery and said issuing such an apology would be like asking Jews to apologize for killing Christ. Double-whammy! The old alliance between black and Jewish civil rights groups revived in a single swoop.

Obviously, though, if you're inclined to believe, as Hargrove apparently is, that Jews do, in fact, bear collective responsibility for Christ's death, then doesn't it seem like we should apologize?

Comments

"I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs -- some Chinaman took them from me in Ko-rea!"

Posted by Royko | January 16, 2007 11:49 PM

I thing we should apologise to anyone what was a slave. Also, we need to make reformations as Rev. Al Sharpton say. I thing we owe all former slave's 40 acres + 1 mule + interest = $1,000,000,000. Anyway, I thing that they will all wave they're restorations if we select hillary clinton for president.

Posted by hillary for president | January 16, 2007 11:56 PM

Whatever. My Jewish ancestors were a bunch of Ruskies who converted. Pshaw.

Besides, killing Jesus did Christians a favor, since it allowed him to be ressurected and save their souls, right? so they should thank us!

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 16, 2007 11:57 PM

then doesn't it seem like we should apologize?

No, but not for any reason that makes his analogy make sense. In the Christian tradition, the death of Christ was the fulfillment of old Jewish prophecy about the Messiah. He had to be killed so he could be resurrected. It makes about as much sense as asking Jews to apologize to the descendants of Esau for Jacob stealing their birthright.

Posted by right | January 16, 2007 11:57 PM

Lawmaker Angers Blacks, Jews.

Hah! You should read up on the Arlon Lindner flap in Minnesota a few years ago. Keith Ellison prominently features.

Posted by Chris | January 17, 2007 12:01 AM

Just to point it out, but the guy in question doesn't think Jews should apologize for killing Christ. Wonder why. But why let that get in the way of a black jewish raprochment.

Posted by j mct | January 17, 2007 12:14 AM

I believe Asian-American is the preferred nomenclature.

Posted by futureman | January 17, 2007 12:20 AM

I believe what he is saying is that the modern Virginia legislature bears no more culpability for the sins of their fathers (ie slavery) than jews due for the sins of their's (ie christ killing). Thus, no one alive now need apologize for either incident. Makes sense to me . . .

Posted by Nicholas Yglesias | January 17, 2007 12:26 AM

Since it was the Roman government of Judea that ordered Jesus' execution we should make the Romans apologize. But, since modern Italians are Christian and the largest Christian denomination is headquartered in Rome (and largely derives its authority from the defunct Empire) we have a reached a paradox wherein it is necessary to have the mayor of Rome apologize to the Pope for killing a Jesus. Thus a (Roman) politician should apologize to a (Roman) Christian for killing a Jew. Instead of the scenario outlined by Hargrove where a Jew apologizes to a politician for killing Christ.
Oh, history! You are a cruel mistress!

Posted by justin | January 17, 2007 12:36 AM

the guy in question doesn't think Jews should apologize for killing Christ.

Thing is, us Jews can be kind of touchy about that whole "The Jews killed Christ" thing even if we're not being asked to apologize. Something about lots of Jews being killed over that very accusation.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 17, 2007 12:38 AM

If the Jews finally apologize for killing Christ, will the Christians finally shut the fuck up about it?

Posted by hed | January 17, 2007 12:51 AM

Thing is, us Jews can be kind of touchy about that whole "The Jews killed Christ" thing even if we're not being asked to apologize

Fuck that. I want my apology, Weiner.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 17, 2007 12:56 AM

Personally, I will not be issuing any apologies until I get my thank-you note from the ungrateful people of Iraq.

Posted by Steve | January 17, 2007 1:02 AM

justin: actually, the Pope is the one who should apologize, not the mayor of Rome. One of the Pope's official titles is Pontifex Maximus, an office which goes back to the early days of the Roman Republic. It means "supreme bridge-builder", and was basically the chief priest of the Roman state--the priest builds a bridge between men and the gods, get it? At the time Jesus was crucified the emperor Tiberius also held the title Pontifex Maximus. Clearly Benedict needs to sit down and have a serious talk with himself...

Posted by Bob Violence | January 17, 2007 1:10 AM

Well, black people were slaves only a hundred and fifty years ago, whereas Jesus was killed two thousand years ago- surely we can let bygones be bygones.

Posted by Dan | January 17, 2007 1:14 AM

Tim, I'm sorry you got upset when I killed your Lord. OK?

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 17, 2007 1:21 AM

South Park did this after Kyle saw The Passion of the Christ and was convinced that the Jews killed Jesus:

Kyle: "In 1973, the United States officially issued an apology to the African American community for slavery. In 1956, Germany officially apologized for World War II and the Holocaust. And now, I believe, in 2004, the Jewish community needs to apologize for the death of Jesus."

Posted by AP | January 17, 2007 1:41 AM

Notice, though, that he did not say that Jews didn't need to apologize for eating Christian babies.

Posted by blah | January 17, 2007 1:42 AM

I believe what he is saying is that the modern Virginia legislature bears no more culpability for the sins of their fathers (ie slavery) than jews due for the sins of their's (ie christ killing). Thus, no one alive now need apologize for either incident. Makes sense to me . . .

That's how I read it too. In fact, Hargrove says as much in paragraphs two and three of the linked story, immediately following Matt's quoted excerpt. Now, you can take issue with the idea that the U.S. doesn't need to apologize for slavery (and I would, since the U.S. has been a continually existing entity), but it's damned obvious he isn't saying that Jews bear collective responsibility for Christ's death. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 17, 2007 2:05 AM

I take back that last sentence. I doubt you were misreading deliberately.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 17, 2007 2:33 AM

Well, it's true that he said that Jews shouldn't have to apologize for killing Christ. But in doing so he did say that Jews killed Christ, which a) is wrong, as I understand it, and b) kind of shows that if the first analogy to American slavery that jumps to his mind is Jews "killing" Christ two millennia ago, he doesn't seem to have quite gotten over it just yet.

Posted by Royko | January 17, 2007 3:07 AM

which a) is wrong, as I understand it

If you take the Gospels as literal truth, some Jews a long time ago did kill Christ. As an atheist Jew I don't, myself, but it does say so pretty clearly.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 17, 2007 3:33 AM

If you take the Gospels as literal truth, some Jews a long time ago did kill Christ.

True, but then you would also have to acknowledge that some Jews tried desperately to save him. And yes, the Gospels give an account of how the Jewish mob chose to crucify Jesus while sparing the life of a convicted murderer. But isn't this the same mob that loved him so much that Caiaphas had to steal him away under cover of night, for fear of a riot? When do we get credit for that?

Obviously, there are a million facts at our disposal to explain how it was really the Romans who killed Jesus, and we probably needn't go into them here.

But more relevant to the article being discussed, it should be noted that modern-day white Southerners are the direct beneficiaries of slavery's legacy, while after the death of Jesus things pretty much went downhill for the Jews.

Posted by benny | January 17, 2007 5:11 AM

I agree with Antid and Nicholas. Let's say you think Policy A is ridiculous. If you say, "Doing Policy A would be like doing Policy B," you are not in fact implying any support for Policy B. So for instance, if I say, "Opposing gay marriage is in many ways similar to opposing interracial marriage," this should NOT offend both interracial couples and opponents of gay marriage, and certainly shouldn't somehow unite them against me.

Posted by minderbender | January 17, 2007 5:22 AM

"I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs -- some Chinaman took them from me in Ko-rea!"

I believe Asian-American is the preferred nomenclature.

CHINA IN "DIFFERENT COUNTRY" SHOCK

Immense Asian Power Not Actually Part of US, Experts Say

1.3 billion Chinese people refuse to be called 'Asian American' in massive linguistic upset

Posted by ajay | January 17, 2007 5:46 AM

"while after the death of Jesus things pretty much went downhill for the Jews."

Meh. More than half the population of the planet now worships the god of Abraham.

I'd say that with the crucifixion, the Jews came up with the greatest product rollout of all time.

Posted by Petey | January 17, 2007 5:57 AM

Actually, the Roman capital was transferred to Constantinople, and then when the Ottomans took that city they claimed Caesar as one of their titles as inheritors of the Roman Empire. Turkey is recognized as the Ottomans' direct successor, so Turkey should apologize.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | January 17, 2007 7:02 AM

Don't let it bother you, Matth. Bastard had it coming. At least, theologically.

Posted by Brian C.B. | January 17, 2007 7:46 AM

There's some precedent for this: in fine print deep within the Israel-Egypt Accords of 1979, Egypt apologized for holding the Israelites in bondage.

And, in an Italy-Tunisia trade agreement around the same time, Italy aplogized for earlier unfair trade practices, i.e. dumping of salt.

Posted by t e whalen | January 17, 2007 7:51 AM

Why do we always get the blame/credit for killing Christ? Why is nobody asking that the Italians apologize?

Posted by AG | January 17, 2007 7:55 AM

Hm. I guess I should read the thread before trying to be clever. Oh, and I should be cleverer.

Posted by AG | January 17, 2007 7:59 AM

Brian: On the other hand, the Russians also took credit for being the heirs of the Roman empire (where does the word "czar" come from, huh?) as the only Orthodox autocracy left standing. So they also should apologize.

Posted by Tom Scudder | January 17, 2007 8:02 AM

Tom-

And then they could also apologize to the Jews for putting blame on them all these years!

Posted by Brian Ulrich | January 17, 2007 8:08 AM

If the Jews finally apologize for killing Christ, will the Christians finally shut the fuck up about it?

Oh, no. They would say "Aha! So you admit it!", and then replay the tape every Good Friday.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 17, 2007 8:46 AM

Matt- Do you really not understand that the state of Virginia is a legal entity that is still the same one that allowed slaves? A very old legal entity that goes around still calling itself the Old Dominion? As such, of course its should apologize. Especially after it decided to make Confederate Generals its greatest heroes for the last 150 years.

Posted by Rob | January 17, 2007 8:49 AM

Shouldn't we make the Italians apologize for killing Jesus? After all, it was Roman legionaries that actually killed him, and a Roman procurator who sentenced him to death by crucifixion. I suggest we start a boycott of all Italian-derived things, such as pizza, pasta, Chianti, Parmesan cheese, etc.

Posted by Robert the Red | January 17, 2007 8:52 AM

"Do you really not understand that the state of Virginia is a legal entity ... A very old legal entity that goes around still calling itself the Old Dominion? As such, of course its should apologize."

So you're saying the State of Virginia is responsible for the death of the baby jesus?

Posted by Petey | January 17, 2007 8:59 AM

The problem with the argument that Hargrove doesn't think that the Jews killed Jesus, so they shouldn't apologize, just as Virginia shouldn't apologize for slavery, is that it makes the statement more offensive to blacks. If those are equivalent, it doesn't mean that slavery is a bygone and needn't be apologized for by the present government; it implies that slavery didn't happen at all.

This, I think, is the main reason to think that Hargrove is saying that the Jews killed Jesus. The analogy doesn't make sense any other way.

Posted by J. Michael Neal | January 17, 2007 9:18 AM

I think that we should dialogue over whether killing Jesus was a bad thing ot not, before we think of assigning praise or blame. There are a lot of things about Jesus that the Catholics aren't telling you. The initiates of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta know the truth, but by the time they do, they've already become part of the Christian Satanist conspiracy.

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2007 9:18 AM

I say lets just get everybody apologizing to everybody else in the whole entire world for everything that ever happened. My knowledge of history is beyond sketchy, but there are plenty of apologies to go around. For starters, how about the Christians apologize to both the Jews and the Arabs for the centuries of slaughter known as the Crusades?

Or jumping ahead in time a bit, what if the United States apologized to Iraq for not only completely trashing the country's infrastructure, but also, by most accounts, for directly or indirectly killing and maiming 100,000's more people than Saddam ever did?

Oh. Yeah. Then there are the Native Americans . . . and . . . and . . . millions of pointless deaths from aids and starvation in Africa . . . the Spanish Inquisition . . . the Cambodian Killing Fields . . .

the possibilities stretch ad infinitim, not to mention nauseum . . .

Posted by teknozen | January 17, 2007 9:20 AM

I think the solution is obvious: George Allen should just apologize to everyone for everything. As a former Virginia governor/senator/Christian/Jewish/Confederate sympathizer/Macacawitz, he's managed to offend just about everyone.

Hell, maybe he can even apologize for Dan Snyder!

Posted by Dave | January 17, 2007 9:26 AM

What exactly is considered so harmful about the Crucifixion? If the guy was God and was alive and better than ever 3 days later, what's the problem? Sure it was scary and painful for a few hours but so is giving birth in a barn.

Posted by apm | January 17, 2007 9:45 AM

To bring this topic back to the real issues of the day-- that is, all things Matthew Yglesias-- This is sort of the mirror image of Matt's idea of Democrats folding on symbolic, value issues so they can spend their political capital on economic or foreign policy issues that actually affect people's lives.

Same thing with this Delegate. I actually think he makes a good point-- sins of the father and all that. But as a political matter, he's foolish. If something is only a symbolic issue and its a huge thing to someone else, why not let them have their way? Save your battles for something worth fighting for.

Posted by beowulf | January 17, 2007 9:58 AM

As far as successors to the Roman Empire go, there's also a strong case for Austria, as the Habsburgs were Holy Roman Emperors before they were emperors of Austria. Perhaps this isn't the main thing Austria needs to apologize for, though.

Posted by William Burns | January 17, 2007 10:42 AM

The Jews should be proud they killed Jesus. It was a good thing all around.

Posted by Nave | January 17, 2007 10:53 AM

There are two things I've never really been able to grasp from the "Jews killed Jesus" line of reasoning. The first has been mentioned: Isn't Jesus' death (and subsequent resurrection) an important piece of the Jesus folklore? He died for our sins and all. Suppose "the Jews" hadn't killed him--how would "Christians" go about becoming saved in that case? The second--and I haven't worked out all the theological/racial/ethnic ramifications of this one, but it seems pertinent--is that Jesus himself was a Jew. So wouldn't this make him responsible for his own death?

Posted by Ben | January 17, 2007 11:24 AM

Just want to add that no one should be able to make such an incredibly prejudiced remark without immediate and widespread condemnation by virtually every element of our society.

There's no shortage of high horse riders warning against the dangers of "radical islam"; meanwhile self-proclaimed christians honor the the tenent of "love thy enemy" by promoting war (george, are you listening?).

The donning of the cloak of righteousness to hide not-so-righteous actions and intentions must date back to the very origins of religion itself, and/or to the origins of our species.

People who hijack religion for their own purposes are just plain dangerous.

Posted by SteveB | January 17, 2007 11:29 AM

It really bothers me to see Mariah Caery get off scot free on this stuff. She's got a lot to apologize for, believe me.

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2007 11:47 AM

I apologize for whatever roll my people may have had in letting Magic Johnson have a late night talk show - that was truly a sin, no matter who was responsible.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 17, 2007 12:40 PM

You know what other killing I want the Jews to apologize for? Cancelling "Action" in mid-first-season on Fox. That was a funny show. Also, "Arrested Development."

Posted by Brian C.B. | January 17, 2007 4:18 PM

benny commented:

"But more relevant to the article being discussed, it should be noted that modern-day white Southerners are the direct beneficiaries of slavery's legacy ..."

So are modern day black Southerners as if not for slavery they would be Africans a considerably less desirable situation.

Posted by James B. Shearer | January 17, 2007 5:34 PM

So are modern day black Southerners as if not for slavery they would be Africans a considerably less desirable situation.

Um, no... if slavery never happened, they wouldn't even be. Their ancestors would have intermarried with their own tribesmen, not fellow slaves who originated from all over the continent. And they certainly wouldn't carry the amount of European blood that they do.

If not for the Holocaust, I wouldn't be here either. Even so, I don't go around saying the Holocaust was a good thing.

Posted by benny | January 17, 2007 7:51 PM

But what do the Mormon's think of all this? We may have President Romney, you know.

And for the record, I herewith apologize to Southern Christians for all the bad things I have ever said about them. This post shows me for the bigotted fool I was.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 18, 2007 7:23 PM

First of all not all the Jews killed Christ, it was just me at age six. I'm not sorry and when He comes back I just might do it again. so there.

Posted by Michael's little kid brother | January 19, 2007 12:46 PM

Maybe the Jew Zionists should apologize to the Nazis and the Afrikaan Aparteidists for plagiarism

Posted by elderofchrist | January 20, 2007 1:41 AM

Sorry, now zionists and jews are the same. as per the Guardian: Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. So let me rephrase: All jews needs to apologize to the Nazis and the Afrikaan Aparteidists for plagiarism(Dont agree? Contact:www.guardian.co.uk)

Posted by elderofchrist | January 20, 2007 1:52 AM