November 19th: Vayishlach
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
Our Torah portion begins with a monumental misunderstanding. Jacob is on his way home to the Land of Israel and sends messengers ahead to let Esau know he is coming. “The messengers returned to Jacob, saying, ‘We came to your brother Esau; he himself is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.’ Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety, he divided the people with him and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, ‘If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, the other camp may yet escape.’” (Genesis 32.7-9) The reason for Jacob’s fear is understandable. The brothers parted on very bad terms—with Esau threatening to kill Jacob because of the stolen blessing incident. (Genesis 27.41) This is why Rebekah suggests a trip up to Haran to visit the family. Jacob has now been gone over twenty years, and we do not know if there has been any contact between Jacob and his parents and brother—or if Esau is still furious.
As it turns out, Esau has cooled down. He has grown and become successful and powerful, and he is no longer intent on murdering his brother. In fact, he is coming to greet Jacob with open arms. Jacob may have reason to suspect Esau, but the fact is that Esau has no ill intentions. The threat is all in Jacob’s head.
When I read this story, I think about the term “micro-aggression,” a term that assumes ill-intent—even if it is not present. Those identified as “aggressors” are often surprised that a comment or term is received as insulting or demeaning, and they are also often surprised at the ferocity of the response—both by the person who perceives the insult and those in society who have decided to be the arbiters of such micro-aggressions. Are these terms or comments a priori demeaning, or is it a matter of the listener’s mood or current opinions?
Following the story of Jacob and Esau, is the insult or danger really there, or is it all in the listener’s head? And, if it is all in the listener’s head, how can the perceived insult be addressed without oppressing the innocent speaker?
There has been a recent trend for scholars or journalists to research the origins of a term or ceremony and discover its hidden racist or derogatory roots. Though there may not be a current consensus about the “real meaning” of a term, the researcher seeks to inform everyone of their hidden racism and thus ban the term. A case in point is the term “cake-walk.” Some have traced this term back to slavery days when African slaves would be required to compete in elaborate dance contests to win a cake. Since the white people would watch and be entertained, we are counseled that any modern uses of the term are inherently or at least historically racist and should be discontinued. This is quite curious to me because, whatever the researcher’s understanding of the origins, the term has evolved and developed and is frequently used by African Americans who understand the term differently. Two examples: the acclaimed trumpeter Wynton Marsalis—a significant figure in Black culture—has included in his sets of classic jazz Sidney Bechet’s 1925 “Cake Walkin’ Babies From Home.” It is a cute song—with great opportunities for jazz improvisation, and, since Marsalis does not usually include a vocalist in his band, all the players—most of whom are African American—join in the fun and sing the vocals in unison. Are they “micro-aggressing?”
Another example is from the work of perhaps the most significant African American classical composer, William Grant Still. In his 1940 ballet, Miss Sally’s Party, the final and climactic movement is called “The Cake Walk Contest.” The party is hosted and attended by African Americans, and a contest involving fancy dancing is part of the fun. Whatever the origins of the term “cake walk,” it has evolved beyond its original context of oppression and evolved into a term for fun or frivolity—and is used by perfectly respectable Black people.
There is also the matter of individuals changing their opinions and sensitivities. In a recent interview on Here and Now (NPR and WBUR), Chef Bryant Terry, a food historian and celebrator of the African American culinary tradition, discusses his changing attitudes about watermelon. When he was growing up, “his family talked about watermelon as a sacred fruit that helped newly freed Africans to reach financial stability. But for a long time, he refused to eat watermelon because of the associated racist stereotypes about Black Americans.” He did not want to buy into or reproduce racial stereotypes that were detrimental to his people. However, after some time, he changed his mind and started enjoying watermelon again. As he explains, not eating watermelon was “what I needed to protect myself at that time,” but getting over that hump and really embracing it reflected “my own ability to grow and to live my life without concern for the white gaze. If I like watermelon, I'm going to eat watermelon and I don't care what anybody says about it.”
Is the problem in a racially meaningful food or ceremony or term inherent, or is the problem in the mind and current sensitivity of the listener? To be sure, there are insults that are lobbed as emotional grenades, but, then again, there are many terms which have evolved and no longer mean what a historian declares them to mean permanently and forever. Esau could have been coming for blood, but, as the story unfolds, the fear and danger are all in Jacob’s mind. As Dr. Freud is reputed to have said, “Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”
As we try to establish a more just culture—with due regard for everyone, we are beset with changeable opinions, sensitivities, and attitudes. And we never know at what point in a person’s developing attitudes a comment will be considered problematic or not. That is why a more judicious approach might be to treat perceived insults (“micro-aggressions”) the way the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission treats off-color jokes in the workplace. While some people find them amusing, and others find them extremely offensive, there is no way to set a standard by which such jokes are judged a priori offensive. It is a matter of individual perception. So, if a person in the workplace finds such jokes offensive, he/she should notify the office comedians—and supervisors—and go on record as requesting that such jokes not be told in their presence. Then, if such a joke is told around them, it can be construed as harassment. These rules call for communication rather than outrage and hostility—and give potential offenders a chance to be nice. Potentially weaponized situations can be humanized.
When Jacob’s fear and panic come face to face with a gracious and welcoming Esau, Jacob declares, “Seeing your face is like seeing the face of God, and you have received me favorably.” (Genesis 33.10). When Jacob sees the humanity and Divinity in his brother, the family bond is restored.