By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a rally in Iowa, President Trump stated he was unaware that some view the term “Shylock” as antisemitic. Trump used the word during the rally to criticize amoral money lenders, referencing the character from Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” The Anti-Defamation League condemned Trump’s use of the term, citing its association with antisemitic tropes about Jews and greed. Several figures, including Rep. Daniel Goldman and Amy Spitalnick, have condemned Trump’s use of the word, describing it as blatant antisemitism.
Read the original article here
Trump says he wasn’t aware the term “Shylock” was viewed as antisemitic after using it at a rally – okay, let’s unpack this. The immediate reaction, and I think it’s a pretty common one, is just disbelief. This is a guy who grew up in New York City, a place with a huge and vibrant Jewish community. He was a real estate developer, a profession that, in New York, has always had significant Jewish involvement. And somehow, he claims he didn’t know that “Shylock,” a word deeply rooted in antisemitic stereotypes, is considered a slur? It’s tough to swallow.
The comments here are pretty blunt, and frankly, I agree. It strains credulity to suggest that a man of his background, his experiences, his age, and his profession could be genuinely ignorant of the term’s connotations. The responses are dripping with sarcasm, and for good reason. This isn’t some obscure word; it’s a well-known reference, especially within the context of the historical and ongoing prejudice against Jewish people. It’s a term that comes straight from Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” where the character Shylock embodies harmful stereotypes about Jews and money-lending.
The argument that he simply didn’t know the word’s meaning is hard to accept. It’s also frustrating to hear him claim ignorance, especially when his actions often seem to align with the very sentiments the word represents. It’s almost as if he believes his supporters are oblivious to the implications of his words, or worse, that they share his views. He’s a master of playing the victim, and this excuse is just another move in that playbook. He’s a master manipulator, and this is just another play from the playbook.
The situation is further complicated by his history of making comments that are perceived as antisemitic. The fact that he used the word “Shylock” in a way that seemed to align with its negative stereotypes makes his denial even less believable. It’s a classic case of, “I didn’t mean it that way,” when the actions speak for themselves. It’s a familiar pattern.
The implication is that it’s “political correctness” to object to the word. This framing allows him to paint himself as a victim of “wokeness,” which is a common tactic. The comments point out this pattern, mentioning that he often uses the excuse that he simply didn’t realize something was offensive. However, most people seem to think it’s a deliberate ploy.
The fact that some people, even if they’re a minority, seem to support his use of the word is also important to consider. It indicates that there is a segment of the population that either doesn’t see the problem with antisemitic language or, perhaps, even agrees with the sentiment behind it.
It’s not just about the word itself; it’s about the broader context. His perceived lack of awareness is, at best, a deliberate misdirection. At worst, it reveals a deep-seated insensitivity to the very real pain and suffering caused by antisemitism. It’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The skepticism is widespread and valid. Many people in New York, not to mention those over 50, have a clear understanding of the term. It’s less about the word itself and more about the intent. The consistent use of such terms is a cause for concern.
In conclusion, while he may deny it, the claim that he wasn’t aware of the term’s meaning rings hollow. The weight of his history, his background, and the context of his usage all point to a different conclusion: that he knew exactly what he was doing.