Anyway, today a closet-tribalist friend sent me the following link from the Center for Jewish History about John Brown, the radical abolitionist from Upstate New York (1800-1859):
In contrast to Brown, whose ancestors arrived in America on the Mayflower, Bondi’s family emigrated to St. Louis in 1848, in the aftermath of an unsuccessful democratic revolution in Austria. Bondi had been a member of the student revolutionary movement in Vienna and his idealism carried over to his adopted country. In 1855, he moved to Kansas to help establish the Free State movement there.
There is of course a parallel to Jewish freedom fighters in the South in the 1960s, whom Obama extolled at AIPAC in June, and pro-Palestinian Jews like Adam Shapiro, who last night screened a documentary about the Nakba of '48 and had trouble even using the word Israel. CJH will have an exhibit on Adam Shapiro and his brave family some day (can we do some fundraising around that exhibit now?). Note that John Brown died 4 years before a Realist imposed a solution on the American south: the Emancipation Proclamation. A long struggle. But the tide is ours.
Related posts:
{ 15 comments }
And Jews were by Jefferson Davis' side. So what? There were plenty of Jews who were slave traders, slave owners, and merchants who benefitted from black labor during slavery, reconstruction and segregation. And?
I'm not were sure that the Jews who were with John Brown viewed their actions as post-holocaust Jews view the same actions. Then again, maybe John Brown's Jews were just radicals who were thrown out of Europe in the 1840s and are very similar to many modern radicals?
Lincoln wasn't a Realist, he was a Jacobin imposing mercantilism. People thinking that America ceased to exist in the last few days need to study history; the America founded in 1776-1881 ceased to exist in 1861.
As for John Brown, he was a certifiable lunatic, not a freedom fighter. When I was in grade school, the (NYC-published) textbooks were just beginning the process of turning Brown into a heroic "freedom fighter". Now kids get to have Nat Turner handed to them as a brave, bold "freedom fighter" instead of the savage borderline-retarded baby murderer he actually was.
If your Realist imposed a "solution" on the South (not long before he imposed Sherman's absolute devastation), then why was his "solution" confined to Southern states only- and not to Union-controlled and border states? Mr. Realist was a consummate political animal, but he was no "freedom fighter", unless your definition of the term includes the practice of loading up hundreds of thousands of people on barges and floating them to Liberia.
These 1960's "freedom fighters" were, once again, radicals and communists whose main goal was to disrupt traditional Southern society. The welfare of blacks in the South was a peripheral concern to them at best. Now their generation has grown up to become the Bernanke's and the Abramoff's and the Feith's of our time. Great deal for the rest of us,huh; that tide that's somehow turned.
"I was not raised as a Zionist, but like all other Israelis I took it for granted that the Jews were a people living in Judea and that they were exiled by the Romans in 70AD.
"But once I started looking at the evidence, I discovered that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were legends.
"Similarly with the exile. In fact, you can't explain Jewishness without exile. But when I started to look for history books describing the events of this exile, I couldn't find any. Not one.
"That was because the Romans did not exile people. In fact, Jews in Palestine were overwhelming peasants and all the evidence suggests they stayed on their lands."
One further question is prompted by Dr. Sand's account, as he himself notes: if most Jews never left the Holy Land, what became of them?
"It is not taught in Israeli schools but most of the early Zionist leaders, including David Ben Gurion [Israel's first prime minister], believed that the Palestinians were the descendants of the area's original Jews. They believed the Jews had later converted to Islam."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=13569
I'm an out-of-the-closet "tribalist".
It is anti-ecological to ONLY assimilate. We live in multiple associations and should relish it.
It is health.
To impose an assimilationism is an oppression.
Sounds like a new Prussian Blue tune.
"To impose an assimilationism is an oppression."
Likewise, to impose Judaization is also oppression.
"Likewise, to impose Judaization is also oppression."
Hence, the two-state solution.
Optimizing self-governance, NOT imposing either Islam, Judaism, or "universalism" on ALL when 40% prefer Zionism, 40% prefer Palestinian nationalism, and maybe (gratuitiously) 20% prefer "universalism".
Israeli Arabs have a choice of going to either Hebrew or Arabic instructed schools. Nothing is imposed on them.
Adam Shapiro is speaking and leading workshops at the Rachel Corrie Foundation PeaceWorks conference next week. The conference is “Dual Occupations: Sovereignty and Freedom from Iraq to Palestine”
"These 1960's "freedom fighters" were, once again, radicals and communists whose main goal was to disrupt traditional Southern society."
Riiiiiight.
We suther' folk know what to do with our ne-gros!
We keeps them in chains, yes suh!
Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the traditional southern society.
Save your tears for the last decent white families left in downtown Detroit, or Washington, D.C., or Atlanta, or Cincinnati. How are you liking the alternative now? Are you thrilled with the multicultural stew you've created as a replacement?
Please check federal statistics on violent crime, paying attention to the trends since the 1960's. It is if there was another WWII since then; whites are killed at phenomonal rates by urban blacks. This is the utopian struggle for "freedom" Phil is talking about?
The Forward and Abolitionist Jews provides a dissenting opinion on Jewish Abolitionists. It may be closer to historical reality. The American Spanish Jewish population never had much problem with slavery while the German Jewish traders in the South (like the Lehman brothers) never had any complaints.
"Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the traditional southern society."
The point is that traditional Northern society wasn't much better, and a good case can be made that it was no better if you consider that segregation was common in the North, and that considerable wealth was made in the region from trading and transporting slaves, building ships for the trade before and after the Civil War, using slave labor, and trading raw materials produced by slaves, or producing the goods made from the materials and selling them at profit. You have to be pretty dishonest to claim that the Civil War was fought because people in the North believed that blacks were equal to whites.
The case for the North gets worse after the Civil War because massive Indian massacres and removals don't really fit well with the narrative of the righteous abolitionists, moderate Protestants and enlightened progressives all striving for a better society in constant conflict with the decadent South that we are always fed.
http://www.slavenorth.com/slavenorth.htm
The 20th century doesn't look much better. The great progressive Teddy Roosevelt was a firm white supremacist, as were most whites at the time, and purposely sought European immigration to build and populate the growing North because he didn't believe that blacks were capable of doing so. Throw in the eugenics movements that were fashionable right up to the civil rights movement, and I don't see where there is room to talk.
I don't imagine that white Marxist agitators from the South would have been any more welcome in the North than they were in the South. And let's not pretend that the elites of the North look past threats to their position. The turbulance of the 18 and 1960s shows otherwise.
I'm not trying to make excuses for the South, but I do understand that much of the South was largely settled well after the population centers of the North, and was following similar patterns of developement with some differences imposed by climate and land. The view that most people in the region were content with living some Jeffersonian ideal and selling cheap raw materials that can be made into expensive finished goods elsewhere doesn't ring true. The South of the 1860s was only backwards by Northern standards, and further industrialization and an expanded commercial shipping fleet only looked to narrow the gap.
If I'm even partially accurate, should the region have been destroyed, picked clean and sucked dry for nearly a century after the war? And do a few Marxist Jewish agitators really mean much, no matter what their fates or motives were? In both cases, I think no.
Witty: "To impose an assimilationism is an oppression."
Well, it's not. It's a deal we make with the country to hold it together. Other countries have dominant ethnicities, heritages, traditions, religions. We have none of that here. Virtually the only thing Americans have in common(or at least should have in common) is our commitment to the constitution. And if we don't have that we have nothing, which is why Teddy Roosevelt so soundly denounced the idea of "hyphenated-Americans". In his view a hyphenated American was a terrible mistake because it allowed people of dual loyalties to live here without ever having to make a full commitment to this country. And this, he thought, weakened and divided America, which it does.
David Duke totally agrees with Witty's position.
Comments on this entry are closed.