Here is a long and remarkable AP piece about how Obama's victory has opened the door on new definitions of black identity. Many blacks are quoted trying to come to terms with the new reality of acceptance, and talking about dropping the yoke of difference and suffering…I am guessing that Jesse Washington, who wrote it, is black, and therefore had the understanding necessary to write this.
The amazement to me of course is that this process has not taken place in the Jewish community. Certainly Jewish identity is changing, due to acceptance and power. It is happening under our feet. But who in the leadership is addressing this? Who is willing to acknowledge that the Council on Foreign Relations is basically half-Jewish if not more, that 30 percent of Supreme Court clerks are Jewish, that half the folks at Obama's first press conference are Jewish, that his first appointment was Jewish? These are issues that Avraham Burg is addressing head on.
I don't think blacks are any better than Jews. Obviously the issue is loaded. Jews have always been charged with influence. So you're dealing with a source of some anxiety. It would be like someone–say Michelle Obama–saying, It's my opinion that the black community needs to deal with the crime problem, and now. And the Holocaust and the "existential" threat to Israel make this loaded. Still: where's the Yivo panel on Jewish success?
In fact plenty of Black people say they need to deal with the crime problem. They are the ones getting shot.
Mr. Weiss:
You say, "I don't think blacks are any better than Jews." Umm, I'm mostly a supporter of your dialogue, I think you're doing good work here, for real, for true.
But the way to say it is, "I don't think Jews are any better than blacks," not the other way around.
I don't think the change is going to happen soon.
Once you acknowledge Jewish power, the narrative of victimhood is gone. And without victimhood the narrative of choseness starts to look uncomfortably like old-fashioned supremacism. And without choseness what's left? A few yiddishisms, chicken soup, and jokes about pushy mothers? It's not enough.
(I'm leaving aside Judaism — the religion — of course, as it's a hard sell these days.)
The shift from victim to peer to responsible is one that is written in Torah, and in the native urge for tikkun olam.
That is a human urge, but emphasized among Jews as the measure of the man. A mensch, not merely a material success, not merely power for its own sake.
Take part in the shift, preserving the obligation as affirmed culturally, not only humanly, so that for sure some culture is carrying the ball.
If others do as well, in their own way, wonderful.
Fascinating, Richard. Better than Rod McKuen.
But back to Phil's subject: Do you think the Jewish community has a tough time publicly acknowledging its power?
Rod McKuen!!!!!!(LOL)
"Many blacks are quoted trying to come to terms with the new reality of acceptance, and talking about dropping the yoke of difference and suffering"
No offence, but that is not the narrative I keep hearing on the street.
It's more like the Jeffersons "moving on up" hummed by millions of people…
I think it needs more than one token black face in the administration to make a point. Otherwise Obama is an exception to the rule. You need the government to be staffed in some sort of proportion that reflects make up of its populace.
By this criteria, Hispanics, Native Americans, Afro-Americans are totally underrepresented, White Americans are over-represented and Jewish-Americans are staggeringly over – represented.
To me, the lack of Hispanics in the government is most puzzling.
So says the pollack
How much money did your family clear on turning in Jews to the Germans?
In the interests of those subjected to SOG's constant name-calling, ethnic slurs, and questioning of Phil's self-identification as a Jew, here's some context:
The Gilad Atzmon Interview,
by nessie, San Francisco Indymedia, January 27, 2004
"Gilad Atzmon: I don't have any plans to go Israel, neither to visit nor to live there. I would be delighted to come back to a civilized place. I assume that when that happens it won't be Israel anymore – probably democratic Palestine.
nessie: How would you be treated?
Gilad: As we learn from the news, yesterday an Israeli soldier opened fire on another Israeli while in a demonstration against the emerging wall. Identifying myself with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian struggle, I would expect to be treated as a Palestinian. It isn't an experience one would look for …
Gilad: … I am fully familiar with the fact that some Zionists do not like me, and they manage to be pretty vocal about it. We have to remember that hatred is fundamental to Zionist thought and to Zionist people. First they hated the European Gentiles, then it was the Assimilated Jews, then the Arabs, and now it's me. This is exactly what I am saying about Zionists. They need to hate, but more than anything else they need to be hated …
nessie: What do you have to say to people who call you a "self-hating Jew", or a "pawn of the anti-Semites", or an "anti-Semite" yourself?
Gilad: Naming is very crucial in Jewish thought. God is called "A-Shem" in Hebrew which means "The Name". The Jewish circumcision ceremony is named in Hebrew "Brit Mila" which means "a covenant with the word". Jews, along their long history, have had very many names for their many many enemies only because their enemies define their segregated identity. In biblical times it was "Amalek", then the "Philistines", then the indigenous habitants of Canaan, then it was "Jesus" and his followers , then "Christianity". Then the Zionists came and improved the model. First it was the "Assimilated Jew", then the "Palestinians", then the "Arabs", then "Rabin", then the "European Union", then "SF Indymedia", then you, and now it's "Gilad", a jazz player from London, the "self-hating Jew", the "pawn of the anti-Semites". I say names, names, and names! I read your site and follow the Zionist verbal abuse. It is clear that those Zionists, who stand behind those provocations, enjoy the public contempt they manage to generate. They enjoy being ugly. We have to remember that the Zionist identity is defined by negative dialectic, by its opposition. In a way, both you and I are supporting some mentally psychotic creatures. We just have to remember that the brothers of those psychotic people are living in Palestine. They are fueled by very similar energies, and they turn the Middle East into a ticking bomb. They have hundreds of nuclear bombs, and they put our planet at a severe risk.
nessie: Your disparagers around here can't seem to decide whether you are a "self-hating" Jew, or even a Jew at all. What's wrong with these people?
Gilad: Judaism is all about differentiation (avdala). Differentiation between the sacred (Sabbath) and the "everyday", between the Jew and the Goy (Gentile), between the chosen and the inferior, between dairy products and meat ones, between Kosher and non-Kosher, and so on. In order to allow the Jew to cope with his self-imposed strange reality of segregation and prohibitions, every aspect in the Jewish daily life is supported by the Talmudic "grand theory". Rabbinical Judaism is a system of laws that create a form of correspondence between prohibitions and dated explanations, explanations that are far too short to satisfy any rational mind. (J. Lacan would say that it is the lack of satisfying explanation which portrays the depth of genuine religious conviction) Zionism, a secular movement, adopted this very rabbinical method. When it gets to criticism it would be categorically classified as anti-Semitism (as if anti-Semitism is a form of explanation). The Zionist would argue that all Gentiles are anti-Semites. It makes life very simple unless you really need the support of the Gentile. (For instance, when the Israeli needs the American aid, then the Americans stop being anti-Semites and become good Gentiles, at least temporarily). When it comes to criticism raised by a "Jew," Zionists get into a real problem. Because Zionism is supposed to be the "final solution" for all Jews, wherever they are, any criticism made by a Jew must be eradicated. As you, yourself, noticed, one popular way is to define the critical "brother" as a "self hating" Jew. The other method is to declare that the critical voice isn't actually a Jew or even not a Jew anymore. The later is obvious. If one isn't a Jew, he must be a Gentile; hence, an anti-Semite. No more explanation needed! The former is more interesting because "self-hating" is basically a form of psychotic mode. The Zionists actually admit that something went wrong in the process of Jewish reproduction. A member of the community "lost his mind". First, it saved the Zionists, themselves, from taking any criticism from a "mad man". Second, it warns the rest of the world not to take the criticism seriously, the man is apparently "mad". For many years this doctrine was pretty effective. Jewish anti-Zionists calls were successfully muted by the Zionist lobbies, but apparently this doctrine isn't effective anymore. The western world and Europe, especially, are far too tired of the Zionist victim blackmail. With Israeli atrocities on the TV screen night after night, people start to realize that the "mad," "self hating Jew" might have something crucial to say. We better listen to him. Haaretz published today that "nearly one in five Britons would oppose having a Jew as Prime Minister, and one in seven believes the scale of the Holocaust is exaggerated" (haaretzdaily.com 24.1.2004). The Zionist conspiracy to control world opinion is proved to be counter-effective. The British people start to show some real signs of severe fatigue. The French and the Germans are already really tired. If anything, the world is awaiting for the "self hating" Jews to open their mouth. Uri Avinery, Gideon Levi and Amira Hess are far more popular in SF-IMC than in Tel Aviv. When it comes to me, my racial identity isn't something I would like to share with the world. I have never spoken as a Jew or in the name of any Jewish people. I do not think it gives me any credentials. In the doomed reality created by Israel, being a Jew becomes something to hide rather than being proud of. I speak on behalf of myself. I speak as someone who was born in Israel and escaped as soon as he realised what being an Israeli is involved with. I wouldn't say that I hate myself, but I would admit that I find it very difficult to "love" those who claim to be my brothers."
["Human rodents?" "Rats?" The dehumanization of the non-Jewish Other is the foundation of Jewish racism, as exemplified here. Support the Palestinian struggle for human rights and this Jewish bigot calls you a "rat," an "animal." But Jews are beyond reproach because they control the terms of public discourse and have cowed all protest of their power and racism into total submission. Anyone who wrote such an article as this with a Jewish name replacing Arafat's would lose his job (at the very least) and be persecuted by the full, relentless force of the punishing Jewish Lobby which emphatically forbids this kind of commentary if the subject is a Jew. Note also that generic Europeans are expressly depicted below as murderous "anti-Semites," and also "rats" and "animals." Jewish "hate" takes in the full field of non-Jews -- whoever dares to shine the Light of Justice in their eyes.]
Gilad's rejection is his own decision.
It describes and ignores.
Judaism definitely needs to find again its spiritual and universal emphasis.
One thesis of the Burg book is that through either circumstance or choice, Israelis tend to think far more literally than figuratively now, more materialistic in what they can perceive and therefore seek; than characterizes Jewish thought historically.
What better for Witty's tombstone than: "He described and ignored."?
And the other tombstone: SOG's: "He described himself perfectly."
And what's going to be on your tombstone. "I took it up the ass and died smiling"?
See how SOG describes himself perfectly?