This word derives from the Greek zelotes which means ‘emulator’ or ‘follower’. As a formal term, we first encounter zealots in the Bible (Simon the Zealot was one of Jesus’ disciples). It was this group that precipitated the revolt in 66 AD that, when suppressed, led to the destruction of the Temple and much of Jerusalem.
Zeal has changed over the years, yet retains its penchant for exciting rebellion and retribution. Nowadays, a zealot is usually someone, outside a group or cause, who embraces that group’s ethic and goes overboard, giving them ‘street creds.’ The modern zealot is distinguished by being neither gentle nor genuine; a character totally divorced from his biblical namesake. This modern zealot is someone who, outside of a particular group, seeks to crowbar his way into their good graces by excessive action or rhetoric.
Examples abound. Jimmy the Greek, a TV sports commentator (and former bookie), opined that the superiority of African American athletes over other racial groups might be explained by slave owners having ‘bred’ their slaves to maximize their physical capabilities; rather like champion race horses. It was 1988 and his words were poison; CBS firing him and he never appeared on TV again.
Who attacked him? Mostly the whitebread sports’ commentators who, interestingly, had a virtual lock on sports commentating; no commentator of that time being either black or female. They destroyed Jimmy the Greek from their comfortable monochromatic white TV studios. In 2012, Michael Johnson, an African American Olympic gold medal sprinter, opined the same superiority of blacks for the same reason, selective reproduction by slave-owners. No retribution.
In recent years, it has taken on more unfortunate forms. Police detective Mark Furman, lead investigator in the OJ Simpson murder trial, was outed as having used the ‘N’ word in prior conversation after having denied it on the witness stand. His entire testimony was impeached and ignored by the jury. O.J., a man clearly guilty in retrospect, was exonerated and Furman was hounded out of the LAPD. His detractors? Mostly financially comfortable white boy news commentators.
Paula Deen, the popular white haired cook on television, was battered when she also was found to have used the ‘N’ word in her distant past. She was heartbroken, verbal in her apology and genuine in her contrition. Her attackers? Mostly white folks. (Who never bothered to examine the past of Bill Clinton or Al Gore).
Except for the black demagogues who make their living by keeping the races bickering, the African Americans who were interviewed expressed an uncomfortably contrary opinion: that was in the past, she was a product of her southern upbringing, and she welcomes all peoples in her restaurant and employs black folk in her empire. They were confused by the overheated rhetoric of the white folks.
Riley Cooper, Philadelphia Eagles’ wide receiver, July 2013, was documented on video at a Kenny Chesney concert using the ‘N’ word. Aside from a black teammate expressing regret over hearing the word used by a friend (a far more effective indictment than rage), black athletes were not as upset as the wild-eyed, pale faced commentators who wanted to attack and destroy. They wanted to ‘outblack the blacks.’ Would that they had learned the same mature overview and forbearance of the African Americans, to whom they had sought to ingratiate themselves. For the sake of brevity, I will not address the issue of Richie Incognito (feel free to Google his name).
What motivates these ‘altruistic’ social magistrates? I have tried to grasp what they feel inside as they commit premeditated murder of a man’s reputation and employment. They must like the feeling; why else continue doing it? They feel warm, smug, and oh so self-righteous as they express their shock and disbelief.
This puts me in mind of Caiaphas, Chief Priest and judge at the trial of Jesus Christ. While he tore his clothing in the socially prescribed manner at hearing Jesus condemn himself by admitting to being the messiah, Caiaphas was internally gloating. In the subsequent two millennia, such self-appointed social judges have not changed. They revel in the knowledge that they occupy the ethical high ground, that mumsy and poppsy would be soooo proud.
Congratulations. In the 1960’s, racism made me ashamed of my white skin. 50 years later, these arbiters of social standards have once again made me ashamed. What can be learned? I hope they will someday grasp that they, being lily-white, are unilaterally reserving for themselves the role of spokesperson for a black or female group. This parody of moral outrage makes a mockery of the legitimate issues of these mistreated groups. Let them speak for themselves. We need a little of their maturity here, something the current white crop cannot provide.
– Dennis Garvin
