ShareThis Page
Ralph Reiland: Children, racism & government commands |

Ralph Reiland: Children, racism & government commands

| Monday, July 23, 2018 10:33 a.m.

Aviya Kushner is the language columnist in The Forward, a small but influential American magazine published monthly in New York City for primarily a Jewish-American audience.

The Forward, formerly known as the Jewish Daily Forward, is a Yiddish-language daily founded in 1897 and originally published in New York City as a vehicle for bringing socialist and trade unionist news and ideas to non-English speaking immigrants.

Kushner in her June 20 column in The Forward, “Infest – The Ugly History of Trump’s Chosen Verb About Immigrants,” delivers a stark warning about the historical linkages between prejudiced and menacing language, targeted and besieged categories of people, and subsequent oppression, cruelty and eventual killing.

“When President Trump characterized immigrants as ‘animals,’ some people waved it away, claiming he was only referring to gang members,” wrote Kushner. “But his use of ‘infest’ in connection to human beings is impossible to ignore. The president’s tweet that immigrants will ‘infest our Country’ includes an alarming verb choice for anyone with knowledge of history.”

Kushner explains the lessons from past eras, citing historical counterparts: “Characterizing people as vermin has historically been a precursor to murder and genocide. The Nazis built on centuries-old hatred of Jews as carriers of disease in a film titled ‘Der Ewige Jude,’ or ‘The Eternal Jew.’ As the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum notes on its website, in a section helpfully titled ‘Defining the Enemy:’ one of the film’s most notorious sequences compares Jews to rats that carry contagion, flood the continent, and devour precious resources.”

Reporting that scholars of Jewish literature and history have been sounding alarms over what is happening at the Mexican-U.S. border and about the increasingly harsh language and political polarization surrounding immigration, Kushner cites a recent statement by Ilan Stavans, linguist, translator, Amherst College professor, publisher of Restless Books, and born into a Jewish family in Mexico.

“The Trump Administration’s policy of separating children of their asylum-seeking Hispanic parents is spiteful,” Stavans wrote. “It is reminiscent of the Nazi strategy to divide Jewish families. Racism at its clearest. For how long will we remain silent? Are some families more sacred than others?”

Comments Kushner, “The last two questions posed by Stavans are especially important now; the verb ‘infest’ is, indeed, to borrow a bit from Stavans, language at its clearest.”

Taking the mistreatment of families, parents and children to a more state-controlled and all-encompassing level, far beyond the tactic of a forced and temporary separation of a subset of immigrant parents and children as was recently implemented in the United States, the Nazis political agenda, implementing Germany’s “racial purity” objective and requiring state regulation of human reproduction, prohibited “undesirables” from having children and mandated forced sterilization of certain impaired individuals, as defined and controlled by the state.

In the first public meeting of the Nazi party, in Munich, then called the German Workers’ Party, Adolf Hitler issued a report outlining the party’s political agenda. The party platform demanded racial purity in Germany and proclaimed Germany’s destiny to rule over inferior races.

Ralph R. Reiland is Associate Professor Emeritus of Economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh and a local restaurateur.
His email:

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.