I had a wave of guilt today about this post, fearing that I was too casual about the idea of the end of Jewishness through assimilation. I edited the thing to alter the tone somewhat, and drove my wife to the train station and told her about my anxiety. One of the things my wife and I talk about is the assimilation of mainstream Protestants: that her parents' generation of gentiles was church-going, more or less, and no one in her generation in her family is. I said, "What if the Episcopalians disappeared, in your generation–your tribe. Would you feel grief about that?" She said, "No not really. Also, I would think that the best qualities of my people would be preserved by others." "Does that make you a progressive?" "Well in this area–I think people are making progress." I agreed. I told her about my pride watching Obama walking around the White House grounds with Steve Kroft, and pointing up at the windows where he and Michelle sleep, and work out, and how proud that made me as an American. My wife often makes me feel better.
you are lucky to have your wife! thanks for your posts and website here philip.. i admire what you are doing…
I thought you said your wife was Quaker.
The elements of Obama's character that are appealing, are appealing to liberal humanist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, anyone that values reason over shooting first, and compassion over reaction or anger.
I don't find assimilation appealing at all, in the sense of diluting in a sea of sameness. There is an element that is known, a seriousness that cuts through fantasy, self-image, distraction in sincere religious practise and association (a community of practise) that I find very appealing.
Serious commitment should be honored. Its not measurable by external political yardsticks, especially arbitrary ones.
The desparateness that led to Gaza excesses (whether incidents, intended, or habit) is not the same seriousness of those undertaking sincere self-inquiry.
But, trivial egoistic outrage isn't it either. WE have to change, to suggest any change on anyone else. That means YOU and ME, not abstractions.
Thank you Phil (and Mrs. Phil :)
"The desparateness that led to Gaza excesses (whether incidents, intended, or habit) is not the same seriousness of those undertaking sincere self-inquiry".
So, finally, Witty has got there and confessed to Gaza excesses.
Very nice post Phil.
I myself see no need for all differences, all aspects of religious difference, to disappear. Assimilation means taking the best from each and moving on. What makes Protestants, and, yes, Quakers, worth preserving is that have contributed something tangible to America, and they keep on contributing. What makes Jews less so is they have never managed to find a way to contribute anything that is not, ultimately, just an excuse for their own perpetuation.
Could America survive without any more Episcopalians? Perhaps, but I'm not sure it would be for our best. Could America survive without any more Jews? I certainly hope so, and I'll put another way–in order for America to survive I think there need to be no more Jews. We may have to make a choice as to whether it's more important for this cult to survive, or for our nation.
Speaking of which, this can't be true. Ultimately isn't it possible that all that angst about assimilation (not Phil's – that of the "tribe") has nothing to do with "Jewishness" and everything to do with "Zionism"? If the absence of Zionism (the fundamentalist kind, not this brand of Zionism), would assimilation be such a dirty word? [I'm not taking into consideration that defining the concept of assimilation is in itself quite a task.]
Typo: "In the absence of Zionism …"
Since I'm here, I would like to respond to Witty's "I don't find assimilation appealing at all, in the sense of diluting in a sea of sameness."
As I wrote above, it is not easy to define assimilation. It is a dynamic, dyadic and reciprocal process, with nothing ressembling "diluting in a sea of sameness" as the end game. In fact, there is no end game and that in itself can be exhilarating. It's not easy but there's a pot of gold to be found somewhere along the trip, some – the lucky ones – finding it sooner than later: our common humanity.
"…it is not easy to define assimilation. It is a dynamic, dyadic and reciprocal process, with nothing ressembling "diluting in a sea of sameness" as the end game. In fact, there is no end game and that in itself can be exhilarating. It's not easy but there's a pot of gold to be found somewhere along the trip, some – the lucky ones – finding it sooner than later: our common humanity."
Beautiful words Gene. I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you.
The typical Witty arrogance and ignorance on display above, describing goy culture as "a sea of sameness." I have news for you, Mr Witty: we differ amongst ourselves, in many respects, and I do not mean, we differ amongst ourselves in opinion, like fractious schoolboys; I mean, we differ in qualities, like you do.
I don't find assimilation appealing at all, in the sense of diluting in a sea of sameness.
Non-assimilation also requires a sameness — you must be the same as those from your own ethnic/religious group, and toe their line, for instance by only marrying within the tribe.
Assimilation, on the other hand, dilutes you into a society where you must excel in order to stand out. That's the kind of challenge I like.
Witty hasn't confessed to anything. That piece of shit will at most be vague and abstract.
He's mastered typing a whole lot without saying much.
Pretentious douchebag.
"I edited the thing to alter the tone somewhat, and drove my wife to the train station and told her about my anxiety."
Well that was stereotypically Jewish of you. ;)
Many of the comments were illuminating as were both posts.
You each repeated that you didn't know exactly what I said, but condemned it and me anyway.
No questions. No clarity.
And, stated as "dynamic, dyadic and reciprocal process". (I like that phrase. You are describing pluralism not assimilation. A reciprocal process values the diversity of Jewish commitment in a commercial world, as well as Quaker; and it values diversity within Jewish community, or Quaker).
I value diversity. You should as well. Assimilation is not diversity, by definition.
Use another word, if you mean something different.
@ Witty
"I don't find assimilation appealing at all, in the sense of diluting in a sea of sameness"
I was reared Roman Catholic and I am of Irish-German extraction. My wife was reared Jewish; her family
came from Russia.
We've been married a long time and are alternately amused and annoyed by our respective extended family's religious practices and communities. They display an unappealing (though fairly wide range of ) comfortable herd element characteristically lacking in any persistent self-inquiry deeper than their core assumptions, which they seldom dwell on or see as arbitrary; when they do they offer at most various prescriptions,
as it were, by the same small circle of doctors.
I agree serious commitment should be honored. That's why my wife and I remain married. Regarding
politics, at family affairs where both sides are represented, my wife or I
bring up an issue and listen to the anticipated opinions break forth–it's entertaining because they pretty much follow the invisible script, and pretty annoying for the same reason.
Our children write their own scripts and each blends and juggles daily; they are each unique in so many ways and the gray areas of life makes them that much more passionate about life in all its forms. One of them alerted me to this blog.
@ Witty
"I don't find assimilation appealing at all, in the sense of diluting in a sea of sameness"
"My aren't we special," said the Church Lady.
"Jim Haygood": What makes Jews less so is they have never managed to find a way to contribute anything that is not, ultimately, just an excuse for their own perpetuation.
Like Einstein, etc.? (Why am I even bothering to respond to this?)
"Jim Haygood": in order for America to survive I think there need to be no more Jews.
I think this is a despicable (Zionist?) troll posing as Jim Haygood. If it is so obvious that it wasn't even worth mentioning, my apologies. But if I were Phil, I would delete that post. And even my post acknowledging it, for good measure.
Yes, Witty, you are right that such a definition applies to 'pluralism' – I would add 'also'. Most of us exist in a pluralistic non-hierarchic environment, in constant flux rendered more acute by population movement across the continents, globalization and information technology.
But whether we like it or not, life in a pluralistic society does lead to assimilation in some form or another. The question is assimilated into what, as what? Real assimilation (I don't think it exists but let's say for the sake of argument that it does) certainly requires the presence of domination of one over the other. That is very problematic today! If there is assimilation, and surely there is to some extent, it can only be in pockets (small or large) of human groups, and then only temporary. World events and generational dynamics have a way of playing havoc with human certainties. That's why I said that there is no endgame.
But for Witty and those like him, there is an end-game: continuity, a form of vicarious immortality.
You're a good man, Philip Weiss. A good man.
it is a specious to compare episcopalianism to jewishness. the christian religion is inclusive, judaism is not. judaism is a tribe, christianity is not. the underlying misunderstanding is to posit judaism as a religion and then to compare it to other religions. this is false and misleading. judaism is a tribe, and as someone said , a cult. whatever you think of christianity as a religion , the fundamental idea is that it is about ALL people. judaism is about jews only.
Jim, this starts good and ends bad.
I myself see no need for all differences, all aspects of religious difference, to disappear.
…
Could America survive without any more Jews? I certainly hope so, and I'll put another way–in order for America to survive I think there need to be no more Jews. We may have to make a choice as to whether it's more important for this cult to survive, or for our nation.
How about making a difference between the religion and it's political exploitation? That for complex reasons now has moved to center stage of American politics and our attention? This is not about Judaism, this is about very specific influences in American politics.
Look, when I read this yesterday, I thought, what is the difference when Canada slowly expropriates Native American's from the little land they have left? Basically it is the logic of capitalism, we are all entangled in it. The "poor culture" has to give way to the richly sparkling one, that looks identical everywhere. The culture of the income quadruplicators on a yearly basis.
Gene,
If there's no end game then why object to Jews living definitively as Jews, not assimilating, or even only assimilating to the extent that they desire.
Why the condemnation?
I will answer for Gene:
Because there is an end game for zionists of any stripe.
It is easier for your wife to say so, she belongs to a group that are the majority where she was born. (I am not sure my English makes sense)