Anti-Semitism and the Gentleman’s Agreement Essay Example

the “Jewish identity” of Phil Greenberg. His intent is to live as a Jew for six months. Unfortunately, his son’s first hand experiences, as well as Green’s own, are so bad that Green writes his series after only eight weeks.

Conflict Between Minority and Majority Groups Conflicts occur between individuals and groups of individuals.The participants are typically classified as a member of a majority or minority group. The members of the minority group are subordinates to the majority and have significantly less power to control their own lives when compared to the majority. Those in the minority must overcome obstacles tied to the factors of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, and/or disability (Koppelman, 2011).

The underlying conflict that Green was hired to “expose” was between anti-semitics and Jews.Although it was not clear whether the minority group of Jews was larger or smaller than the group of anti-semites, the majority group is that of anti-semites. They are the majority due to their dominance and power. The reason for the conflict is based upon the unfounded anti-semitics’ prejudice and discrimination toward Jews. The majority is able to employ tactics that enact obstacles that establish handicapped conditions for the minority group (Koppelman, 2011).

Due to the negative, shared beliefs toward the minority group, the majority is able to stop employment of Jews; deter or halt acceptance to colleges and medical schools; restrict membership to clubs; exclude attendance from resorts and other recreational establishments; and prevent the leasing of apartments and the purchasing of real estate. In a scene between Green and his secretary, Elaine Wales, the film attempts to demonstrate the obstacles and anti-semetic behaviors endured

by Jews. During this dialogue Green instructs Ms.Wales to send out letters and applications to potential employers, colleges, medical schools, etc…Two of each letter and application were to be sent to each address. One was to be signed by Schuyler Green. The second was to be signed by Phillip Greenberg.

After noting Green’s instructions, Ms. Wales’ response was: “Of course, you know it will be ‘Yes’ to the Green and ‘No’ to the Greenbergs. ” This statement serves as the basis for establishing the conflict to be exposed. In addition to beginning and exacerbating conflicts, labeling can occur informally and formally.Informal labels are utilized by an individual or group of individuals to establish a means of identification for another individual or group of individuals.

Formal labels are established by institutions, such as academia and government, as a means to identify an individual or group of individuals possessing similar characteristics. A label has the power to define the individual or group of individuals being identified. That power is equal to control (Koppelman, 2011). Both can have a positive or negative effect.Unfortunately, the labels used by the majority are meant to have a negative effect. In fact, the labels are meant to demean and hurt as much as possible.

They are so negative that there seems to be the intent to drive the labeled individual and/or group away, so they are no longer present and able to interact with the majority. Within the context of the movie, the minority group referred to themselves as Jewish or Jews. When used to describe one’s self, I believe that the intent was to refer to one’s ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion,

because they are strongly interrelated.Typically, the majority group labels itself in a way that clearly indicates they are not part of, nor associated with, the minority group. Some are even meant to establish superiority. The anti-semitic characters did not use labels to describe themselves.

They utilized labels in referring to a member or members of the minority group. When referring to Jews, the derogatory labels used were: yids, kikes, kiky ones, shanney, and ‘Chosen People’. Interestingly, the main character and supporting characters used labels to describe themselves primarily when engaged in heated discussions or disagreements. None of them seemed to be derogatory.These labels included: Christian and gentile, as well as the categories of: good people; nice people; Americans; and citizens. When discussing the majority group, the main character and supporting characters use labels that are intended to describe the majority’s behavior and beliefs, rather than derisive labels, which are meant to reflect a sense of contempt or ridicule based on factors such as race, class, disability, sexual orientation, and gender (Koppelman, 2011).

Although the labels inferred contempt, the contempt was directed toward behavior and beliefs, not toward characteristics as with derisive labels.These labels included: nasty snobs; persistent little traitors; Jew haters; low class people; dirty spade; and hypocrites. On several occasions, the characters mockingly and/or sarcastically utilize the terms ‘nice people’ or ‘good people’. The film did not appear to utilize any formal negative labels.

These types of labels are formal due to the source. The source utilizing or coining the label are typically institutions such as academia and government. Formal institutions did not play a role within the film. The magazine was the closest

example of a formal institution.

It did not utilize labels. The labels used would have been expressed through its editor, John Minify, and Phillip Green as a writer. Each utilized the labels mentioned when discussing the main and supporting characters. The process of derisive labeling has a definitive effect on the characters.

Such use evokes extremely strong emotions of anger, disbelief, and disappointment. The emotions are extremely strong whenever the labels are used. The emotions escalated dramatically when a close and trusted individual is perceived to demonstrate anti-semitic beliefs and/or behavior.This is demonstrated through several heated discussions between Green and his fiancee, Kathy.

The most powerful example demonstrating the impact of labeling occurred when Green expressed his extreme anger with Kathy’s response to Tommy upon learning he was a victim of an anti-semitic altercation. Green’s response to Kathy was: “You only assured him he’s the most wonderful of all creatures – A white, Christian American. You instantly gave him a lovely taste of superiority that poisons the millions of parents dropping on the minds of millions of children. ”This response is so powerful, because it utilizes derisive labels, which is one of the very effects Green is attempting to fight and eliminate. It, also, expresses the harmful effects that anti-semitism has upon individuals and society. These effects are an unfounded sense of superiority and the permission granted to children to embrace anti-semitic beliefs and behaviors.

Perspective in approach to the Problem of Anti-Semitism When social problems, such as anti-semitism, prejudice, and discrimination exist, they need to be addressed. Society can approach the problem in one of two ways, also known as perspectives.These two perspectives are known

as exceptionalistic perspective and a universalistic perspective. The exceptionalistic perspective requires that all problems be addressed on an individual basis, because although they are perceived to be private, local, unique, exclusive, and unpredictable, they are, also, perceived as consequences of individual defect, accident, or unfortunate circumstance. The universalistic perspective requires research to identify patterns and causes so that action can be taken to eliminate these problems and prevent them from reoccurring.The problems are perceived to be public, national, general, inclusive, and predictable, in addition to being a consequence of imperfect and inequitable social arrangements (Koppelman, 2011).

The film’s approach to diversity most closely reflects that of a universalistic perspective. The entire premise/plot of the film is to expose anti-semitism and its negative effects on individuals and society. Green was not going to expose anti-semitism through statistics and facts or the relaying of others’ experiences. The true effect can only be revealed and have potential impact for change through living as a Jew.One man’s personal experiences can potentially have a dramatic effect.

If the film’s approach was exceptionalistic, the plot would be different. Rather than living as a Jew, Green would share others’ anti-semitic experiences, in addition to citing statistics and facts. There would be individual problems to acknowledge and solve. Instead, the film demonstrates the effect of anti-semitism on one man’s life.

The effects and emotions escalate throughout the film. The problem comes to a volcanic boiling point when the problem directly affects Green and his son. Each faces the ugliness and effects head on.Though viewers witness a handful of characters facing the problems of anti-semitism, the problem does not demonstrate the characteristics of the

exceptionalistic perceptive. The problem is not private, local, unique, exclusive, and/or unpredictable. The characters do not perceive the problems as a consequence of individual defect, accident, or unfortunate circumstance.

Instead, the problem is researched through the main character’s magazine assignment, which is an attempt to identify patterns and causes so action and preventive measures can be taken to prevent reoccurrence.The characters’ dialogues establish that they perceive the problem to be public, national, general, inclusive, and predictable, in addition to being a consequence of imperfect and inequitable social arrangements. Dogmatic beliefs are demonstrated when one accepts beliefs taught to them without question and/or analysis (Koppelman, 2011). There did not appear to be anyone exhibiting dogmatic beliefs. Beliefs are expressed by action and words. Those expressing their beliefs do so through conversation, actions, and emotions.

Each character expresses himself or herself in a manner that establishes their beliefs.None of them are presented in an opportunity to demonstrate that they are merely taking on another’s beliefs without question. Often, others try to indoctrinate these beliefs into others through behavior and lessons. There did not appear to be any direct attempts to indoctrinate dogmatic beliefs into others, but, it is, perhaps, possible that they were too subtle to detect. There is a scene between Green, Tommy, and Mom at the breakfast table.

Green is discussing the relationship between buildings and religions in an attempt to explain anti-semitism. Tommy is enthralled by Green’s explanation, but he does not take them at face value.He questions Green in an attempt to understand, rather than simply accepting his explanations. The film relates directly to the Diversity in Society course material. The movie demonstrated

prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes, and bigotry throughout.

Further, the film’s plot permits the demonstration and perpetration of anti-semitism, xenophobia, nativism, and oppression. It is only through the acknowledgement and understanding of these terms can solutions be found to promote and embrace diversity within society. Xenophobia is the fear of or prejudice against people from nations other than one’s own (Koppelman, 2011).When fear and prejudice surface, one tends to develop ideologies and/or methods to deal with the resulting fear and prejudice.

One such ideology/method is navitism. Navitism is an anti-immigrant ideology, which advocates the protection of natives of a country from immigrants who are seen as threatening or dangerous (Koppelman, 2011). This ideology is not expressed directly in the film. It is implied through anti-semitic beliefs and actions. Anti-semites feel threatened and afraid of Jews, which is most likely due to their perceived stereotypes and biases. It is human nature to fear what one does not have knowledge or understanding of.

Xenophobia and nativism contribute to the oppression of Jews. Oppression is defined as the intentional or unintentional inequitable distribution of resources, as well as the refusal to share power; resulting in the imposition of ethnocentric culture and the maintenance of unresponsive and inflexible institutions toward another for its supposed benefits. The oppressors rationalize their actions by blaming or ignoring the victim (Koppelman, 2011). Oppression is demonstrated through the tactics and obstacles employed by anti-semites such as restricted memberships and exclusion from employment, resorts, colleges, and medical schools.