I’ve been reading an old English history by Macauley, and a friend here recommended a new one by Gerald Horne (his Apocalypse), both focused on the year 1688, the “Glorious Revolution”, when, from Home’s angle, the supercharged preindustrial apocalypse for African and American Indigenes really took off.
There’s a true commentary – not so much from Horne as, I’d say, strongly implied by his posing white power as the source of that predatory surge. In a context where whiteness is everything – including whether your whole town should be reduced to dust – it is neither absurd nor offensive, only the plain truth, to observe that what we call antisemitism has been a very long argument about whether Jews quality as white. Back in 1688, Iberian Jews wound up owning (and trading) black slaves in Barbados, and so won some conditional membership in the brotherhood of whites.
That’s why the term antisemitism doesn’t have anything to do with non-Jewish (presumably non-white) semites. That argument is what the puzzling (official AP style) capital “H” in the Holocaust which pertains to the shoah is about. The holocausts of non-whites don’t qualify for that exceptional capital H. The whole unspoken context is everywhere so drenched in racism – even to the point of what’s considered acceptable language – that it’s hard to find a place to shake off and get dry.