Novus America wrote:It is interesting how for the far right white supremacists they are not white enough but for many on the left they are “too white”, albeit for not entirely clear reasons. Not that racism is reasonable of course, but still it is interesting.
I think it might be rooted in how they conceptualize race. To the far-right, race is a static thing based on innate genetic characteristics. Jews aren't white because they're the descendants of people who spoke a Semitic language and often had dark features (or red/ginger hair) compared to the little cherub baby-men the far-right tends to idealize. I'm pretty pale, but I've gotten several largely innocent comments about how my hair and eyes are dark and "Jewish" or "exotic" looking.
Meanwhile, the left envisions race, even if they will not summarize it thusly, as an extension of social, class-related, and cultural factors that organize us into a hierarchical society. The fact that Jewish people can pass as white, aren't othered as often as they used to be, and can be seen succeeding in America, where this sort of ideology is most pronounced and coherent, means that we ceased to be non-white to many. Even if the hate crimes haven't stopped.
However, broadly left-wing people tend to treat it as an innate property at times too, often depending on political and narrative convenience. That's probably not completely fair given the things mixed-race people have to grapple with, ranging from racism to issues of passing and identity, but it's something that seems to stand out when we get political actors talking about these issues. Especially when Anglos talk about them.