In a recent article (Why I Applaud The NFL Players Who Spoke Out Against Israel) addressed to Michael Bennett and the other NFL players who recently boycotted a trip to Israel, author and activist, Marc Lamont Hill urged the players to consider the political ramifications of attending the trip, the letter drew on the undeniable connections between the struggles faced by Black and Brown communities in the U.S., and Palestinian, Afro Palestinian, Eritrean and Sudanese communities in Israel and Palestine.

While Hill is eager to draw connections between the struggles faced by Black and Brown communities in the United States and struggles of populations in Israel and Palestine, he completely ignores the struggles faced by Africans in the Arab World, which exist in the form of institutional racism and even slavery. The omission of any discussion regarding the more serious racism in the Arab World is puzzling, since Hill recently experienced Arabracism first hand while in Egypt on December 30, 2016:

Hill concluded his stop was attributable to White Supremacy, suggesting Arabs are incapable of racism without western influence. That argument would be more plausible if Hill was referring to former colonies like Haiti or Rwanda, where the European colonists created racial division among the local populaces, but the Arab countries, which have been engaging in theSlave Trade long before the start of the Atlantic Slave Trade?The same Arab Slave Trade that wasin some instances far morebrutalthan the Atlantic Slave Trade; for instance,Arabs would castrate theirAfrican slaves (discussed byDr. Marcus Garvey Jr., son of Marcus Garvey who founded the Negro Improvement Association in America)?

As an aside, Garvey also mentioned some of the slave merchants and financiers wereJewish. Garveywas,however, incorrect to portray that participation as being collective among Jews. The roles of Jews in the Atlantic Slave Trade as merchants and financiers were extremely marginal. Louis Farrakhanthe former leader of the Nation of Islam and arguably ananti-Semiteclaimed in his book, The Secret Relationship, the Atlantic Slave Trade was dominated by Jewish merchants and75 percent of the slaves owned in the South were owned by Jewish slaveholders. Farrakhan also claimedHarold Brackmans 1977 dissertation for the University of California, Los Angeles, on the history of black-Jewish relationssupportedhis claims in The Secret Relationship. Brackman refuted his dissertation supported any of Farrakhans conclusions in a letter to the New York Times, Jews Had Negligible Role in Slave Trade. Brackman also claimed the role Jewish merchants played in the Atlantic Slave Trade was marginal, citingJacob Rader Marcus, who argued the role played by Jewish merchants accounted for considerably less than 2 percent of the traffic. Brackman further claimedit was impossible for 75% of the slaves in the South to be owned by Jewish slave owners: In 1860, there were about 15,000 Southern Jews and 4 million slaves. If 3 million (75 percent) were so owned, this would mean 200 slaves for every Jewish man, woman and child, or 1,000 slaves for every Jewish head of household. Jews owned only a fraction of 1 percent thousands, not millions of the enslaved population. Winthrop D. Jordans article in the Atlantic, Slavery and the Jews, also refutedFarrakhans claims.

As for slavery in the Arab World, John Alembillah Azumah, author of The legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa,arguedthe expansion of Islam into Africa and the dehumanization of non believers under Islamic Sharia Law created the Arab Slave Trade. Azumah alsopositedthe reason African slaves where castrated was, because, the Arabs believed Africanshad an ungovernable sexual appetite. Azumah alsonotedArabs distinguished between Black and White slaves, referring to White slaves as Mamluk and to Black slaves as Abid. Further, Azumah mentioned the Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun,wrotethe negro nations are as a rule submissive to slavery, because they have attributes that are quite similar to dumb animals.

The Arab Slave Trade, unlike the AtlanticSlave Trade, is still ongoing in Arab countries likeNorth SudanandMauritania, and oppressive conditions still exist in many other Arab countries. InKuwait(There are still slaves in the world 1964), it wascustomary for rich Kuwaitis to give their children an African slave as a birthday present. Slavery was abolished in Kuwait in 1963, but abuses of migrant workers still persist in Kuwait according toHuman Rights Watch. Slavery was abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962; in Yemen in 1962; in the United Arab Emirates in 1963; in Oman in 1970; and in Qatar 1952. However, despite the abolition of slavery in Qatar in 1952, it was still practiced 12 years later when the documentary,There are still slaves in the world, wasfilmedin 1964. Qatar recently abolished its Kaflar system that forced foreign workers to seek their employers permission to change jobs or leave the country and Qatar has beenaccusedby Amnesty International of using forced labour to prepare for the 2022 World Cup.

In response to the questionHow could theArab Slave Trade still exist in the age of the United Nations?Sir Robert Maughamargued in 1964: in one word the answer [as to why slavery still exists in the Middle East] is oilthe civilization of the Cadillac has superseded the civilization of the Quran.

Additionally inTunisia, institutional racial discrimination is still practiced. TheAl Jazeera documentary, Tunisias dirty secret, discusses racial prejudice, violence, and segregation, such as separate buses for Black and Arab Tunisians.

In addition to avoiding the issue of Arab racism entirely, Hill also finds it paramount to combat unfair criticism of Islam, which he deems to be a form of racism. OnCNNHill argued Sam Harriss critique ofIslamthat Islam was the mother-load bad ideaswas unfair, when viewed in the context of other religions, and racist, despite the fact that Islam in not a race. However, Sam Harris has never examined Islam in isolation, but rather through the lenses of other monotheistic faiths, such as Christianity and Judaism. Harris even hadarguedthe Old Testament has verses that are even more violent than the Qurans.

Hills his accusations of Israeli racism, while ignoring the far more serious Arab racism, and his hyperbolic shielding of Islam from objective criticism as racist, raises questions of a possible bias Hill might have in favor of bothArabs and Islam. In anotherCNNdebate, Hill stated, Ive read the Quran thousands of times in Arabic. Undoubtedly, reading any work a thousand times goes well beyond the realm of scholarship, let alone in Arabic, which is not Hills native language. Further, Hills voracious reading of the Quran seems tocomport more with a religious reading of the Quran. Devote Muslims can claim to have read the Quran thousands of times in Arabic, because they practice and study the Quran daily.

However, being Muslim doesautomatically mean Hillhas a bias against Israel or that he would purposely ignore the racism of Muslim Arabs towardsAfricans in North Africa and the Middle East. Yet, that possibility should not automatically be dismissed, either.There is a prominent Black Islamic organization in America that has unequivocally been shown to put its own interests before Black Americans, while simultaneously advocating for the rights of Black Americans. That organization is the Nation of Islam, which came to prominence under the Honorable Elijah Muhammed (Muhammed), and Hill has professed to be influenced by Muhammed:

A short but beautiful conversation with The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. I did more listening than talking, but I did manage to tell him about the influence of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad on my formation and consciousness to this day.

According to Malcolm X (Malcolm),neitherthe Nation of Islam nor its then leader, Muhammed, was truly concerned with endingthe plight of Black Americans. Malcolm also discussed how Muhammad disgracefullyfatheredeight, out of wedlockchildren, with six of his teenage secretaries, all of whom he publicly isolated and embarrassed within the Nation of Islam. Malcolm even went as far as to say Muhammed was not even a man[for his treatment of those secretaries] much less a divine man. Malcolm also regretfully discussednegotiationsbetween the Nation of Islam and White Supremacist leaders in the 60s. Worst of all was thebombingof Malcolms house by the Nation of Islam. Captain Yusuf Shaw of the NYPD and a member of the Nation of Islamdeniedthe Nation of Islam was responsible for the bombing, and the Nation of Islam claimed Malcolm set fire to his own house. That incident was tragicallyironic, because when White Supremacists burned down Malcolms home in Michigan, when he was six-years-old, the policeblamedthe arson on Malcolms father. It seems when Malcolm joined the Nation of Islam, he merely traded one form of oppression for another.

It is also no secret that Malcolm was not a supporter of Israel; however, Malcolm was never deceptive in any of his claims and candidly believed them to be true when he made them; and he genuinely cared about the civil rights of Black Americans. For instance, when Malcolm realized after traveling to Mecca thatIslam as it was taught by the Nation of Islam was false (e.g. Whiteswere not capableof following Islam because they areinherently evil or that the Honorable Elijah Muhammedwasa prophet), he changed his views and adopted mainstream Islam. Malcolm, from his exposure to White Muslims in Mecca, was also able to realize that for Muslim Whites, identifying as Whitehadno substantial meaning, whereas for White Americans, identifying as White meant boss. Had Malcolm not been assassinated, he would have likely come to realize only White Supremacists in America identify as White. Jewish, Italian, German and Irish Americans, who haveall suffered discrimination by White Supremacists in American, identify by their ethnic origins rather than their race. White Supremacism in America, on the other hand, is limited only to actual racists who choose to identify with race overtheir own historic cultural-ethnic backgrounds, such as Richard B. Spencer and David Duke.

As for Farrakhan and Hill, both of them have questionable views on Malcolm. Farrakhan called Malcolms assassinationdeserved, a position he maintained until 2000, when heapologizedfor his views and statements on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace. Similarly, Hill questioned the sexuality of Malcolm in 2006 when he posted on his website: Malcolm X Was Gay? but later claimed he was indebted to Malcolm and his legacy:

Why is Hill so vocal on Israel and so silent on the racism practiced in the Arab World is a question I do not have the answer to. Unfortunately, Hills animus towards Israel has never been clear and is usuallycouchedin the Palestinian propaganda term, occupation, which is used by many Palestinian activists to justify the terrorism Israelis face on a daily basis. As to whether the occupation is genuinely Hills motive for unfairly condemningIsrael, we can only speculate.

It is, however, important to learn from Malcolm's mistake. By advocating for the Nation of Islam, Malcolmgrew and strengthened a "criminal organization" that was just as oppressive and corrupt as the society he was trying to reform. While Hill urges Michael Bennett and the other NFL players to look at the struggling of "Palestinian, Afro Palestinian, Eritrean and Sudanese communities in Israel and Palestine, Hill does not urge them to examine that struggling within the context of the region or its history. However, Malcolm after leaving the Nation of Islam did urge his followers not to form the habit of listening to what others say without weighing things for themselves, and I urge everyone interested in the Israel Palestine conflict to do just that:

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Think others should know about this? Please share

| |

See more here:

Marc Lamont Hill's one-sided view of racism in the Middle East - Jerusalem Post Israel News (blog)