The Two "Victimhoods": A Ben Shapiro Paradox

Ben Shapiro, a prominent conservative commentator, has built a significant platform on principles like individual responsibility, meritocracy, and a skepticism towards "victimhood culture." Yet, a closer look at his commentary reveals a fascinating paradox when comparing his views on two distinct group narratives: that of Black Americans discussing systemic racism and the legacy of slavery, and that of Jewish people discussing the Holocaust and antisemitism.

At first glance, Shapiro's stance seems consistent: he generally rails against narratives that emphasize historical oppression as a primary driver of present-day disadvantage. However, a deeper dive into how he applies this principle to these two specific groups reveals a notable philosophical inconsistency.

The "Victim Mentality" He Rejects: Black Americans and Systemic Racism

Shapiro frequently argues against the idea that systemic racism and the legacy of slavery are the primary explanations for contemporary disparities faced by Black Americans. His core argument is that such a focus fosters a "victimhood mentality" which he deems counterproductive.

For Shapiro, emphasizing historical oppression detracts from individual agency and responsibility. He suggests that America, despite its past, is now one of the "least racist multiracial countries" and that individuals should focus on seizing present opportunities rather than dwelling on historical injustices. From his perspective, the narrative of systemic victimhood becomes a political tool, hindering progress and undermining the pursuit of objective justice and merit. He champions individualism, arguing that judging people based on racial group identity rather than individual merit is inherently problematic.

The "Victimhood" He Embraces: Jewish People, the Holocaust, and Antisemitism

In stark contrast, Shapiro, himself Jewish, robustly defends and affirms the historical narrative of Jewish persecution, particularly concerning the Holocaust and the persistent rise of antisemitism. Here, his perspective shifts from dismissing a "victim mentality" to actively championing historical memory as a vital defense against an existential threat.

For Shapiro, the Holocaust and the long history of "Jew-hatred" are not merely historical footnotes; they are essential, relevant context for understanding contemporary threats to Jewish people. He sees antisemitism as an ancient, mutating "disease" that demands constant vigilance. He even extends this to anti-Zionism (opposition to Israel's right to exist), which he considers a modern manifestation of antisemitism, arguing it denies Jewish people their right to self-determination, especially in light of their unique history of persecution. This is not a "mentality" but a rational and necessary response to a real, ongoing, and unique existential threat.

The Paradox: One History vs. Another

The striking inconsistency lies in how Shapiro applies his core principles.

For Black Americans: Historical suffering is often framed as largely irrelevant to present individual success. Emphasizing it is seen as a subjective, political construct that individuals should overcome through personal responsibility.

For Jewish People: Historical suffering is deemed vitally relevant to present-day collective safety. Emphasizing it is framed as an objective, existential threat that mandates collective action, historical memory, and continuous vigilance.

In essence, Shapiro dismisses the systemic nature of racial injustice in favor of an individualistic ethos for one group, while simultaneously emphasizing the systemic (or ancient/conspiratorial) nature of Jew-hatred to justify collective, identity-based defense for another.

This paradox underscores a significant tension in his conservative worldview: how to reconcile a universal call for individual responsibility with the specific historical and ongoing threats faced by particular groups, especially when one's own identity is intertwined with one of those narratives. It raises questions about the selective application of principles and the nuanced line between acknowledging historical trauma and fostering a perceived "victim mentality."