The most interesting interchange at the Center for Jewish History event
on Hannah Arendt on May 2 involved Jewish assimilation in western societies.
Arendt was born in Germany in 1906. Jerome Kohn
said that two ideologies she grew up with were assimilationism and Zionism.
The assimilationists were for Jews becoming Germans. The Zionists were against it. They said that
anti-Semitism was the climate of Europe, and that the
answer was a Jewish nation to match the German nation, the French nation, and
so on. Of course, the Zionists were right about
Arendt was not an assimilationist. Though she studied Christian theology, and
was the lover of Heidegger, she never felt herself, panelist Richard Bernstein said, to be part of what she called the German "essence".
Jerome Kohn:
For the assimilationists the Jewish
past [was] the past of Goethe and Schiller and Beethoven. This was Jewish history
for the assimilationists⦠[Arendt] says that the problem is that the
assimilationists talked about Jewish history but never talked about …the role of Jews in Jewish history because it
didn’t exist for them. Assimilationism was a story of being part of what they
called bildung [the German ideal of education]…Zionists of course contradicted this impression. For them
Jewish history was a history not of Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven but the
history of anti-Semitism. Again, Jewish history was not the history of Jews; it was
the history of people who hated Jews. Zionists kept pointing out that the
assimilationists were living in an imaginary world of self-deception.
Kohn said that Arendt believed the more "socially-assimilated" Jews became in
Bernstein echoed that point:
One really has to understand⦠what
assimilation meant in a German context. In an American context it means more or
less secular. You don’t have to deny it, you don’t have to pretend that you’re a
Christian, you could be anything⦠It was in Germany, you might say, an aggressive
positive sense in which your identity is primarily German..
I was deeply interested in this conversation because I’m an assimilationist. I’d second Bernstein’s point: the German lesson has little application to
the American experience. Here Jews by assimilating don’t give up political rights or even a sense of Jewish identity. They don’t take on an American Christian "essence." Indeed, privileged Christians might also be said to be "assimilating" into a pluralist American culture that was formed not just by Christians, but by other groups, notably brainy Jews
(Hollywood, the
information industry, the academy). These Christians are also giving up their
religion to do so.
I have several friends who are were raised Episcopalian and
donât believe in the Christian god they were fed as children. They have
abandoned the idea of the divinity of Jesus Christ (though they study Christâs
teachings and the teachings of Buddhists and Hindus too). I join in a spiritual conversation with them
not by maintaining that Jews are a chosen people who received the law on
Steven Smith believe), but by surrendering some of the religious and ethnic paradigms/myths of my childhood. It is interesting to note that someone who would disagree with me, the Straussian Yale scholar Steven Smith, has written that being Jewish means
not accepting the Enlightenment, because Jewishness depends on the belief in
revelation, and specifically the revelation of the law to Moses. "To the
extent that the liberal Enlightenment has urged the abolition of particular
providence, it will always be at odds with Judaism," Smith says.
We assimilationists aren’t keen on that idea of a "particular providence." Here, for
instance, is Ted Koppel on the question: "I try to apply the ethical strictures
of Judaism to my daily life, but many of those have been adopted or adapted by
various branches of Christianity. My
wife is Catholic, my closest colleague, Tom Bettag is Catholic. Our ethical perceptions are largely
interchangeable." Koppel’s paradigm is more American, and useful, than Arendt’s.
"Here Jews by assimilating don't give up political rights or even a sense of Jewish identity. "
This is partly true, partly not true.
Among the left, those that choose to continue to self-identify as Jews, are often ridiculed. You know "religion in the opiate of the people", as if neo-Marxism or new-left views were less of a religion.
There are many valid Jewish views. including the flavor that you call assimilationist.
But, also the flavor that is nationalist Zionist, socialist Zionist, "Jew"-ddhist, also orthodox, Zionist hasidic.
There is a modern Jewish holistic practise that regards the shma "God is ONE", as not as in counting one God rather than two, but as in "Reality is God" (subjective and objective). And, the vhavta then consistently "Love the "Reality" with all your heart".
There is a version of assimilationist that is describably not in terms of whether one is part of this community or that one, but of whether one sees with depth and appreciates the inner as well as the objective.
The Jewish version of that, is that the Jewish community is just a specific flavor of being chosen to gather together, to collectively implement the invocation of the One in this life, to make what is profane profound.
Can one make what is profane profound without some sense of definition, either ethical or communal?
Those that make that commitment, in whatever collective name, are worthy of respect.
Assimilationits etc.
__________________________
There is one sentense of Phil's that I don't understand: "Kohn said that Arendt believed the more 'socially-assimilated' Jews became in Europe, the fewer political rights they had.I.e. the more they became Germans, and even got baptized, the fewer political advantages the rest of the Jews had." – Does that mean assimilation was at the expense of Jewish group-rights like running officially approved Jewish schools etc.? (My mother taught at one in the 1930s.) – Anyway.
Let's see, there are/were
1.
Assimilationists – they give up their Jewish way of life and identity. They become say 'American New Englanders'.
2.
Integrated but not assimilated. 'A Jew at home but a German in the street (or company).'
3.
Crackpot Orthodox who refuse to even share a glass of water with a goy – because that might endanger their holiness.
4.
Hard-core Zionists who believe that on principle Jews and a species called 'goyim' can't live together because of an inborn personality deficiency of the goyim (called 'anti-Semitism).
The Nazis thought the same thing the other way round – that's why they first enacted an apartheid system, then promoted emigration to Palestine (both approved by leading German Zionists) and in the end the 'final solution', (when during WWII, they thought the killing of Jews would be drowned out by the war's overall blood bath and not interfered with because of the 'inborn anti-Semitism' of the rest of he goyim).
Enlightnement and Judaism
______________________________
Phil quotes Steven Smith as saying:"To the extent that liberal enlightenment has urged the abolition of particular providence, it will alway be at odds with Judaism."
This is true for all beliefs in revelation. But what puts Judaism particularly at odds with the enlightenment is that its principles cannot be universalized.
It would be a contradiction in terms to say for instance
'all mankind should join Judaism so all mankind becomes
a chosen people.'
Klaus – I'm an assimilationist for the most part. I'm a secular Jew who is indistinguishable from my non-jewish friends and colleagues in most ways. I do celebrate Jewish holidays (seder on Passover, Hannukah with the kids in December, and fasting on Yom Kippur as an exercise in atonement to my friends and family) and my family does do a sort of god-lite shabbat ritual to appreciate all that we should be thankful for. Perhaps that makes me a #2.
I'm also in favor of a Jewish state in Israel; one which is part of 2-state solution with the Palestinians and which respects the rights of other religions. And I do think that anti-semitism is part of a justifiable reason for a state. I don't think there is something wrong with "goyim" – I think there is something wrong with humans. I don't think there is anything inherently different between Jews and non-Jews, but I do think that historical forces put people who identify as Jews at risk for various religious and political extremists' hateful agendas. And while I don't have any plans to move to Israel, I appreciate that it exists (so long as it strives for a peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians who were harmed in its creation.)
Now, does that make me any different from my lapse Catholic Italian-American friend Mario who raises money for charities in Italy and who cares about Italy's well being.
Check out the cover of the latest New Republic–
link to darrelplant.com
Also, Tom Lantos's campaign against Iran seems to be hurting the U.S.–
link to dailytimes.com.pk
It's hard to imagine an Italo-American analog for this type of rabid behavior.
Mario's friend – thanks for your comment, but what is a "lapse friend"?
I think I got it, you mean a "lapse Catholic" not a lapse friend. The term 'lapse so and so' was just unfamiliar to.
Klaus – I was referring to my friend's lapse status as a Catholic. He, like me, does not believe that Jesus was the son of God or that any supreme being is particularly interested in us and cares whether it's fine for men to love other men and to eat meat with milk.
Mr. David – you've made it perfectly clear that you don't like Jews. Your opionion has been registered and everything else you add merely makes you sound like a broken record.
Mario's Friend – I think you are a nice #2, but don't be so harsh on David. David doesn't dislike Jews -he dislikes a particular Jewish spirit, so do I and so does Phil. But here comes 'Mosche'.
'Mosche' and Jewish Identity
_______________________________
In a Frankfurt coffee shop I go to once in a while, there is an elderly man always playing chess. Everbody calls him 'Mosche'. I thought that was just a nickname with no particular meaning untill I overheard a conversation that he had been to Israel. Since I had been to Israel also, I talked to him and asked him: "Are you Jewish?" He replied: "Yes, by tribe but not by spirit." – I think Phil Weiss might have replied the same way.
Klaus – Most Israelis I've met would probably respond in kind as well. I share your disapproval of the ultra-orthodox who seek to separate themselves from the rest of the world in the same way Christianist and Islamist do.
You seem to have some distorted ideas about zionists. One can be a zionist and yet not think that Jews and non-Jews incapable of living well together (as we do here in the USA with 50% of Jews marrying non-Jews). The idea of a Jewish homeland, similar to a German homeland, an Italian homeland, Japanese homeland, and a Palestinian homeland, is perfectly normal, and one can argue healthy, in the world that we live in, and not preclude Jews and non-Jews living together in and outside of Israel. If you were to ask Europeans how they would feel if there nations were suddenly transformed through immigration so that they no longer represented the original groups (Anglo-Saxon in Britian, Normans and Gauls in France, Aryans in Germany, etc) and the culture those "tribes" developed over the last 2000 years, they would likely tell you they woldn't be happy at all by it. As cosmopolitian as they are, they still likely enjoy having a place where they can see their very own history and culture celebrated. Given Jews history of persecution and statelessness, it makes even more sense for Jews to want their to be a nation state that has a majority of Jews and celebrates Jewish culture.
Mario's Friend is a joke. A jew talking about how other tribes would like to be left alone? When it's "good for the jew" the jew remember other peoples feelings and viewpoints, but when it isn't they are all for open borders and dissolution of traditions and ethnic character.
Friend of Mario, here you may find the connections between Italy and Israel you are so fond of:
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-israel-apartheid-state.html
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-israel-racist-state.html
"The idea of a Jewish homeland, similar to a German homeland, an Italian homeland, Japanese homeland, and a Palestinian homeland, is perfectly normal…"
Only the idea is normal. The reality is as abnormal as it gets.
Speaking of things we like and dislike, it occurred to me while watching this clip from a recent comedy show–
link to comedycentral.com
/>
that we've reached the point where we can tell, with 99.9% certainty, the ethnic affinity of a media guest purely from the nature of the hatred he's promoting.
This applies to everyone from the talking heads on news panels to the producers behind "24". Whether this is a cynical manipulation of the American people in order to promote an Israeli agenda, or whether it is a genuine expression of the same racism that is at the root of Zionism, I think it is bad for American society and I don't like it.
After Spinoza and Sam Harris and Dawkins, please stop talking about God.
There is no Jewish history, only reporting on hiding in an intellectual desert.
Hegel practically ignored Judaism.
I am doing the same.
It was a bad start, and our brothers Christians and Muslims fell into the same trap.
After our Enlightenment, it is a shame to read the Holy Scriptures more than once, or to go to a church.
Why should we exalt nationalism? I accept the commenter's point about France for the French as a living tradition, but isn't that paradigm changing, aren't we moving past it, even in Europe? Italy used to be a patchwork of duchies, too, with similar ideologies…
Also, I like the IRish-American analogy. the Boston Irish gave lots of money to the IRA in the 70s and 80s to fight what they considered imperialist England. Some of that money surely went to terrorism. As Jewish Americans in the wake of the Holocaust gave money to the Haganah, and even the Irgun, which plotted terrorist actions, in violation of American law.. I dont see that the response of Arabs outside Israel/Palestine to the Palestinians– giving them money– is all that different…
All this makes me want pluralism, including for historical Palestine.
David asked in an earlier post whether the Islamophobia being peddled by the Zionist community was a tactical move or the expression of a genuine racist hatred. Evidence seems to be mounting that it's the latter:
"This week, Jessica Masse, interfaith coordinator of the Islamic Society of Boston, publicly released recent discovery materials obtained as part of the ISB's conspiracy lawsuit, which reveal that an Israel advocacy organization [the David Project], which specializes in creating malicious anti-Arab, anti-African and Islamophobic propaganda, met with real estate investors, attorneys, and Republican activists at their office at 210 South Street in Boston to discuss an action plan "to present a legal challenge" to the Roxbury Mosque project."
link to axisoflogic.com
Read the original David Project emails here. They're fascinating, if you've got a strong stomach.
link to tinyurl.com
Is the idea of a Jewish homeland perfectly normal?
________________________________________
No, it's an anomaly. Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely to find another people from pre-Roman times that left its territory and reclaims a homeland after nealy 2000 years. The only people that compares to the Jews (by age) are the Basque. But they stayed in their original territory. Look at all the hundreds of people the Bible and ancient historians mention: they are all gone. The normal thing is to be gone. The Jews are an anomaly. That's because their definition of identity is an 'anomaly' as Michael Walzer pointed out (see Phil's post on Walzer).