This is part eight of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.
There is some Presbyterian push-back on my divestment commentary. Do I, as a Jew, have a right to comment on Corporate Christianity? Some of the comments reference Jewish wealth. In the old parlance, Jewish money. It’s a slippery slope, for sure, but of course have at it. See how you can address the question. Karl Marx wrote about Jewish finance. He did so within the broader issue of political change. The Jewish finance class was a pillar of an unjust state. Christianity had the enabling state religion part. Marx was equally critical of that pillar.
The more serious comments have to do with putting our money where our mouths are. Can’t I understand the need for financial security, pension funds and the like? Besides, boat loads of money can be used for good. Economic leverage, political change. If we aren’t players in the larger scheme of things, we lose our power to help those on the margins. Perhaps.
Without having an answer, I am trying to think freely. I don’t excuse myself from the dilemmas I can’t solve. Yet the 7 billion dollar portfolio – again if I heard it right – still startles me. Especially when you balance it off the lilies of the field. I am not a Christian and don’t want to be. I have been around Christians who have never had pensions or have given them up. There is something about these Christians that I take seriously. Many years ago I spent a year with Dorothy Day at the Catholic Worker house in New York City. She lived among the pensionless. She didn’t have a pension.
When you are on the other side of power, even the power that seeks to rescue you, it must be difficult to understand the reluctance to give up everything to be of service to our neighbor. You can only feel this fully if you are in that position. Perhaps we’ve all been in that position in some aspect of our lives. I certainly have.
If I were a Palestinian listening to the Presbyterian votes on my fate – with the wonderful voting pad and colorful graphics showing the percentage of the votes cast – I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for others to come to my aid, even those with the best of intentions. Then to be betrayed by parts of your own Palestinian community, as is sometimes the case. Well, it must be somewhat like the Jews of Europe waiting on the world to act. Waiting on Jewish leadership to act. Often betrayed from within.
Remaining on the Presbyterian portfolio for another minute or two, what also struck me was how little control the Presbyterians had over their own finances. It seems that touching the portfolio is almost like tampering with the Gospels; it’s safely packed away so the whims of the Christians assembled can’t do anything rash. Like giving it all away. Or placing it all where justice is. As in any corporation, the foundational funds are out of anyone’s controls except the delegated financial managers. Their responsibility is to a different bottom line than what Jesus purportedly preached.
When religion goes corporate it should be analyzed in that way. Academically, the field is called the Sociology of Religion. The Sociology of Religion takes an atheological look at how religion functions. There are no sacred cows. I don’t believe that how religion functions is everything we need to know about religion but without it we are stuck in pieties. Prayers as another people’s fate is decided.
Having said all this, I note how far parts of Christianity have advanced. How far ahead they’ve pulled ahead of Jewish denominations! Or perhaps Christian and Jewish denominations are the same, split at the core, balancing money and commitment. When you’re elites, you’re elites. Few are willing to go the whole way. So Christians and Jews are in the same corporate boat. Like the home I passed with the American and Israeli flag flying. Missing is the Wall Street flag which, thank God, Jews and Christians can now fly together.
Yes, and now to the issue of “Jewish money.” Some ask how I can criticize Corporate Christianity when there is so much Jewish money floating around the world, doing what money does, especially funding politicians of all stripes who will do their bidding in America and Israel. Too much money held by any institution or person is corrupting, Christian or Jewish. So go at it!
As we know, the notion of “Jewish money” has a long slippery-slope reality in history. Jews who don’t know their place are legion and often they rub non-Jews the wrong way. Yet another slippery-slope in the historical arena. Maybe that’s why the Presbyterian divestment folks voiced their love for Israel – because the Jewish thing in Christianity isn’t really resolved?
Christianity has never had a real relationship with Jews or Judaism. We’ve either been devils or angels, either/or. Which we aren’t – devils or angels. Obviously. Loved or hated, Jews remain an unresolved issue for Christians. However, I do give many Christians tremendous kudos for trying. Why not admit that Christians are ambivalent about Jews? Then we can continue to work our relationship out in honest ways.
Jews are ambivalent about Christians, too. We should admit that. After this long, dark and entangled history, ambivalent is a pretty good start on a new era.
So no free rides for Christians in their new justice garbs! And no free rides for Jews as we shed our justice garbs!
Other than the Presbyterian engagement/push back, the silence is deafening. But it’s time to get over that. Any word now would be too late. It would only be a rear-guard action to deflect the necessary next step. As when Michael Lerner finally accepted that Oslo was dead after condemning anyone who didn’t support it. At any rate, Progressive Jews are over. Even the Progressive Jew within us. It doesn’t die easily, since that kind of Jewishness can have its cake and eat it too. It can accept our new found status in America, benefit from riding high in the economic sphere and spread the good word about us Jews being the great welcomers of all minorities and the best purveyors of justice in the history of the world. All the while, we can sponsor Jewish Renewal retreats that incorporate every Native American and Asian spiritual tradition – and you name it – into Jewish ritual. As if it is ours.
I’m not exempting myself, the Zen-sitter in training. I’ve been sitting for many decades but at least I’ve kept it private. I sit by myself. And I realize that I am a Jew sitting Zen, rather than a Zen practitioner. I don’t believe that Jewish ritual remains Jewish when it has become something else. Of course, most Jewish traditions also from somewhere else, they’re not home grown historically speaking. Mixing and matching isn’t something new.
Historically, Jews have crossed boundaries. Crossing boundaries has been necessary if only to make sure that the various Jewish establishments didn’t have the final say on what it means to be Jewish. The Jewish Renewal movement is just another example of how Jews survive the Jewish establishment and also create a Jewish way that is relevant to the time in which we live. So hats off the Jewish Renewal movement of a (still) previous time!
In this mixing and matching of cultures and spiritual traditions, Jewish Renewal folks felt that they were honoring other peoples. No doubt they were honorable in their intentions. In practice, however, they usurped these traditions for Jewish use. The Jewish spiritual well had run dry. It’s like Christian renewal movements after the Holocaust (re)appropriating their Jewishness to save them from their Holocaust credibility death knell. Some Christians now speak so lovingly about Jews and about Israel that as a Jew I can’t find myself anywhere in their (parallel) Jewish universe. I suppose this is the reason that many of the Presbyterians who spoke on behalf of divestment prefaced their comments by saying how much they loved Israel.
“Loving” Israel – that’s a remnant of the interfaith ecumenical deal. That divestment is supposed to break. Sort of. If Christians ever let go of their love for Israel – whatever love can possibly mean in relation to state – would they be back where they started, that is, with a fully shattered Christianity? In other words, would Christian credibility be verified only within their multi-billion dollar portfolios ?
To escape the barren confines of the Jewish establishment, the Jewish Renewal movement went native. Interestingly, they didn’t go Jewish indigenous. Jewish native. The unadorned, unritualized prophetic. Why did they go out when they could have gone deeper within?
When affluent and powerful cultures go native they expropriate the traditions they find so enhancing. Whatever their intentions, they ride roughshod over the native culture. The Jewish Renewal movement went colonial. They went colonial trying to escape the increasingly colonial attitudes of the Jewish establishment in Israel and America.
Colonial attitudes are found on the right and on the left. They are used to bury Others. They are used to rescue Others. Colonialism is used to distance us from Others and to bring the Other within. Regardless, Others are at our disposal. Colonial attitudes project outward because there seems to be little or nothing left within the culture that appropriates Others for its use.
As I’ve mentioned, there’s a new book coming soon – watch for it! – by the French author, Victoria Fontan, who is still traveling in the Congo. Her working title – Decolonizing Peace. Her theory – that the academic field of Peace Studies and peace and development agencies around the world, including the United Nations, are so thoroughly imbued with a colonial mentality that most of their work is thinly disguised Western missionary work.
Who does that missionary work benefit? That’s another billion(s) dollar question. Fontan’s answer: the West. Plus elites in non-Western societies. Anyway, the book is an indictment of “development” work in its various guises. Devastating stuff.
Right now Fontan is looking for a woman she met and spent time with during her last visit. The woman experienced the most harrowing reality of sexual violence most of us only read about in the newspapers. Real stuff. No pension plan.
Fontan draws on her experience with other Congolese women and features her other travels off the researchers beaten track as well. And, yes, as an inheritor of that French Republican tradition – also imbued with its own colonialism, of course – she doesn’t pull any punches.
I’ve already recalled her critique of the United Nations, and my favorites bear repeating in case the reader skipped over the passages as a lark. The first is United Nation troops being supplied with trafficked girls and boys. The companies involved, the truckers paid, the night club owners welcoming, there’s an entire matrix that hides the sex trade in broad daylight. It’s akin to the occupation of Palestine, every corporate entity in Israel seeks the business that comes with occupation. More or less, like any occupation – or war – corporate portfolios fatten.
It’s is a feat to behold. The double life there is amazing. Trafficked sex is for the night time. During the day the soldiers protect the populations. Another favorite of mine is the story of a prominent female diplomat sleeping with a local leader to resolve a dispute. He even waved her panties the following day to show how the resolution kept his dignity!
So Fontan sets out to decolonize Peace Studies and development work around the globe. Bon chance, Victoria! And, of course, since she admits to being a product of the colonial mentality, she is trying to decolonize herself. Not an easy task, even for an heir of the French Revolution.
But returning to the Jewish scene, how thoroughly imbued with colonial mentalities we Jews are – on both sides of the Empire Divide. We can laugh – and should laugh – at Netanyahu’s invocation of Thomas Jefferson. But have you ever read Michael Lerner on how Palestinians must guarantee Israel’s security? Or how Palestinians have to demonstrate to Jews how they have reformed their retrograde culture? My personal favorite is the demilitarized Palestinian state in a region armed to the teeth. To the query of who will protect the borders of the demilitarized Palestinian state, Lerner’s answer – you guessed it – the IDF!
If we wonder whether Netanyahu understands the implications of his July 4th invocation of Thomas Jefferson, how, then, can Lerner invoke Israel as the defenders of Palestine with a straight face? Indeed he does, which is a huge part of the problem. And even more, aside from my mostly unread writing, I have never read or heard this incredible assertion ever mentioned as a colonial sensibility right out of the annals of the White Man’s Burden.
The Jewish White Man’s Burden?
This is how acceptable colonial sensibilities are in the Jewish world. Not a peep from Jews of Conscience on this issue who admittedly might be so fed up with Lerner and Tikkun that they don’t want to hear his name. But, understanding that, the question still remains as to how deep the colonial is in Jewish identity, recognizing it and, depending on our explorations, what is to be done about it? It might be that the colonial is so embedded in Jewish identity that there is no way to get it out of our colonial mindset. If that is the case, which it might very well be, if we can’t jettison the entire worldview, then what we are going to do with our colonial Jewish identity?
Do you remember the song, “How Deep is Your Love?” Well the refrain on the colonial level might be – very.
An unjust state really should be boycotted with the aim of abolition. Like Apartheid South Africa was abolished.
See today’s CounterPunch article,”Boycotting Apartheid Israel”, at:
link to counterpunch.org
Mondoweiss might want to consider front-paging the article to stimulate discussion.
You asked: “Do I, as a Jew, have a right to comment on Corporate Christianity?”
Sure, you simply have a right as a member of society to criticize the phenomenon of “Corporate Christianity” where it exists- narrowly speaking I think such a term would mean Christian institutions that function as for-profit financial corporations.
Perhaps a better term for institutions that support a corporate system would be “pro-capitalist Christianity?” Anyway, it could be another oxymoron, like the “C.Z.” movement, since the early Christians had different positions on political questions than the ethnic nationalists of their time.
I would agree that in 19th century Europe, the main institutions of “Christianity had the enabling state religion part.” And this can be similar today when we think of certain religious groups that invent religious justifications like C.Z. ideology for state policies in the US. Now I am doubtful whether Christianity is by nature a state-enabling religion. It seems to me that early Christian ideology tried to set itself apart from state policies- rather than seeking government power, it created parishes as independent wealth-sharing communities, a concept that continues today in the form of monasteries separated from larger society.
To give an example, Christianity disagreed with slavery as seen by Moses bringing the people through the Red Sea from slavery, or from St Paul’s words that if people could buy their freedom from slavery they should. But at the same time, Paul told the slaves to obey their masters- so while there was a preference for freedom and escape from the state’s bad policies, Christianity wasn’t going to confront it in an organized political sense. So while major Christian institutions came to play a state-supporting role, early Christian ideology sought to be independent of the state and had a different preference. Another example could be the range of Christian attitudes toward imperial wars, ranging from complete pacifism to “Just War theory”, both of which we confront in Christian and “progressive” circles today.
RE: “Some ask how I can criticize Corporate Christianity when there is so much Jewish money floating around the world, doing what money does, especially funding politicians of all stripes who will do their bidding in America and Israel.” ~ Marc Ellis
MY COMMENT: And some Israelis ask how we Americans can criticize Israel when most of us are descendants of Europeans who colonized North America by forcing the Native Americans
off their lands and into “concentration reservations”? Not to mention that we (at least arguably) perpetrated a 95% effective genocide in the process. Also not to mention that we brought slaves from Africa to do a lot of the planting and harvesting of some of the very same crops that the Native Americans had so graciously taught us how to cultivate here in the “New World”.
Some Thanks(giving) that was! Not even so much as a ‘fare the well’ or a “would you guys like to work in our fields for a little pocket change and an occasional nip of our precious firewater?”
Chutzpah much?
The simple answer is that we humans all pretty much live (though perhaps to varying degrees) in “glass houses” (of various thickness, tints, etc). So if that disqualifies all of us from “throwing stones” (so to speak) then how can we possibly maintain even the semblance of a civilization? If we all recuse ourselves, then we are pretty much left with nothing but lawlessness and anarchy. Or perhaps even worse, being ruled/governed by the likes of sociopaths and psychopaths who are not conscientious/conscious enough to recuse themselves because “to their way of thinking” they have done absolutely no wrong whatsoever.
It simply is not possible for most of us to have hands as perpetually clean* as Jack Nicholson’s obsessive-compulsive character in As Good as It Gets (1997). Just ask Howie Mandell!**
But life goes on nonetheless.
* As Good as it Gets; OCD handwashing, locks, and lights [VIDEO, 01:05] – link to youtube.com
** Letterman Howie Mandel s OCD [VIDEO, 02:17] – link to youtube.com
Actually, I think the experience of the Native Americans can be used to an advantage and for understanding when talking with ethnic nationalists. We can preface some comments by drawing comparison to our own past in the way you have done to show a sign of humility and that we aren’t being judgmental. If the discussion takes place in the context of recognizing one’s people’s own problems it becomes emotionally easier to see comparisons and recognize them.
Yes, I agree.
but, if you’re going to connect with Native American experience, isn’t it important to stop using this phrase “tribe” in Jewish cultural life in US? The *name* “TribeFest” (outside of the content of the event) — is offensive in so many ways link to tribefest.org . It’s so not about what actual indigenous people are about or have experienced…When Peter Beinart pledges how deeply he feels & loves the “tribal” side — what on earth is he talking about? Isn’t he talking about ethnic experience of peoples who haven’t been “a tribe” for many millenia? This seems to me to be a very offensive “dancing with wolves” on the part of people who spend most of their time in affluent lifeways totally different from the politics, experience, connection to “place” of actual indigenous people…
betsy, tribe implies kinship (not necessarily biological..could be thru social/political bonding). there’s nothing offensive about the term and nothing suggesting it’s ‘indigenous’ per se. that’s my understanding anyway.
Annie — I hear you that that’s probably how many people use it & what they mean. But, I think that is not how most people who belong to groups who are officially classified as “tribes” would hear it. I’m not myself from such a group — but I will contact activists in such groups — because they can speak best on the issue. Here is my impression (which is tentative based on my experiences working with groups in India who proudly call themselves “tribal” — and with environmental justice groups which include Native Americans fighting mining corporations)
***ethnic group is a MUCH better word for kinship & cultural or linguistic networks that are strong enough to generate some sense of collective belonging. In an American context, it makes Jewish experience equivalent to all sorts of other immigrant groups. Why should Jewish collectivities be put into a different & special category? Isn’t that a bad road to go down? Why not use more typical American words?
***within modern nation-states, official status as a “tribe” is recognized by the nation-state. This is not just a quaint or legalistic category. It is the outcome of often heartbreaking struggles between States (ratified by international laws) & indigenous groups — whose self governance was pre-State — who were overwhelmed by the efficiency of nation-states in slaughtering others. Now, in the last two centuries, the vanquishing of these pre-State groups was often formalized with “treaties between nations” — e.g., giving a fig leaf of legal respectability to surrender — but in the last several decades there has been an important & sometimes successful struggle to use these treaties to claw back some sovereignty, reparations & rights to self-governance (according to pre-State political traditons) — e.g., in Canada, US & Australia. Some groups have not been able to get legal status as a tribe (even tho’ they think they are) — which means they lose out in significant ways. In addition, many countries formed in 20th century (like India) — established a special legal category for the large minority of people in India who are called “tribes” — this allows them to hold forests communally & all sorts of other rights. In short, for people involved in, or supportive of these difficult struggles which have big consequences for people & point back to major injustices & extreme violence – to me, it is weird to toss around such cavalier uses of ‘tribe’ — when ethnicity seems much more accurate.
***tribe suggests much more than shared cultural traditions. The formal definition in anthropology is that the political structures of a group are pre-State — that is forms of self-governance & sovereignty *not* based on the power structures of the State. Not to get too technical (ok — I’ll admit it — I’m an anthropologist & there are a lot of arguments in scholarly definition) But, scholarly squabbles aside – it’s something like that States have complex social heirarchies, institutional codified governance & laws, central control over the means of violence, writing (and interestingly, religions often based on sacred texts). So across cent’l & south america, are movements that are reactivating self-governance & sovereignty sort of outside, or alongside, States.
***Some Indigenous people don’t like the word tribe – because imperialists in 19th century gave bad connotations…
***tribe or Indigenous labels – suggest a certain kind of connection to land – it’s not just that they are “First Peoples” (as some like to say) – altho’ that’s part of it. But, in addition, most tribal groups tend to still have some connection to everyday means of subsistence which are dependent on local ecologies. Religions, cultural identities & often economic subsistence are still tied (in reality or symbolically) to particular places & ecologies & subsistence activities. Many Inuit communities might be using chainsaws or ATVs (or other parts of industrial culture) but are carrying on (in reinvented ways) economic connections. Of course, this is in flux – but the meanings of identity still at least evoke such in important ways. And, you break the people if you break the connections to land.
Ok…why does this matter? First, I think cavalier use of this term by American Zionists– effaces this struggle — as if folks aren’t paying attention to indigenous struggles in their own hemisphere — even while claiming rights of indigeneity in another hemisphere. If I were a Lakota or Dine activist, I would be offended. Is the “tribe” emerging from TribeFest aware of, or linked with, these other struggles or peoples?
Second, The political undertone of calling (largely middle class) Americans a “tribe” – is that it suggest indigenous connection to the land. Hearing it, I think it strongly implies Indigenous rights as First People – I guess in middle east? Doesn’t it thereby linguistically annhilate other people living in that area? But, tribe to me – strongly implies that one is outside of, or sovereign from, the State. e.g., the Lakota have sovereign rights as a nation, even when they are folded into US in many ways. Aren’t some of the key memes of anti-Semitism crucially bound up in imputed State-lessness of Jewish peoples? Is that a good road to go down?
Third, tribe also seems to me to be a kind of shell game. It simultaneously implies cultural, kinship, religious & political identities. So, it creates a very dangerous blurring of these realities – it ends up implying that there is one essence of “the Jews” – but isn’t accountable as to just what that is.
anyone saying ‘what the heck is the tribe in question’ – likely would get racial undertones (e.g., not just geneology, but a kind of unitary ‘blood’ essence) – but it’s not a clear statement (like “White Christian Nation” used to put it’s racialization out front).
But, if it’s primarily religious – then why not that? If it were a definable faith community – wouldn’t that create some clear lines of accountability & representation. As it stands now, self appointed spokespeople for “the organized Jewish community” can claim to speak for American Jews – without any voting, elections, rights to recall or impeach. As tortured & ineffective as Presbyterian self-governance is – at least it both forces faith community to periodically speak with unified voice but following clear lines of deliberation & judgement & transparency.
If it’s primarily cultural – then why not fit into that wacky & wonderful fabric of American ethnic celebration of ethnic identities, imaginatively (and often inaccurately) linked to ‘homelands’ – which we all find usually endearing & a sort of weekend activity. One of the virtues of this kind of cultural celebration is that you can invite anyone to it usually – it becomes a way to both claim difference & to build bridges across it. E.g., all the goofy behavior on St Paddy’s day. Or, if you want to see some wild reinvention of cultural traditions – try the the Highlander Games – where putative Scotch Americans dress up in kilts & do things that likely were never done in the old country, but well here are some photos link to gmhg.org
Isn’t there also a “Dancing with Wolves” danger? The romantic nationalism that escapes into a getaway – where one can pretend to be part of a premodern way of life? If this is just a fantasy that one goes out in the woods & does – fine. But, when Sikhs in London, or Irish Americans in Chicago – were sending money to violent nationalisms in their ‘homelands’ – it had real world consequences – extremely bloody ones with geopolitical disruptions. The folks sending the money weren’t facing the negative feedback loops that come from living within violence. (I’m bet Mondo World has explored this theme before I started to tune in – so ignore if I’m beating a dead horse)
Finally, why do it? What messages does it send to Americans in general? Wouldn’t it help to disarticulate these levels (cultural, kinship, racial, religious, political)– to weave them more obviously into the usual fabric of our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society – where we typically try to distinguish the boundaries more clearly? E.g., people who describe themselves as part of a “White Christian Nation” are rightly seen as kooky these days –
Anyway, it has offended me every time I’ve heard it – I’ll ask activists in Indigenous causes what they think.
[SORRY FOR THE LONG POST – I GOT CARRIED AWAY]
oh I forgot. “Tribe” also seems (to me) to put a linguistic veil over the “Israel Lobby” — which in many ways is an ethnic group USING a State to enact geopolitics benefitting another State. This is AN INTEREST GROUP! within global capitalism & a State with broad imperial reach. To speak of a “tribe” which one “loves” — as Beinart recently did — makes it something almost quaint & prepolitical & primordial & just there — like it sprung up naturally — it covers up the extent to which the Lobby is at a complicated modern confluence of forces which are totally caught up in politics of nation-states & empire & economic interests (e.g., the role of Big Oil in middle east) …
Yup. Christians, “whites” (of whatever ethnicity) can relate totally — the horror of complicity (even if unwitting or unintended) in the sins of “one’s people”. Even if one personally stands against it — one’s identity is stained & one too often benefits from structural injustice. So, accepting complicity in imperialism, ethnocide, bigotry, violent denial of other’s dignity (even when one personally commit such acts) — is something most Americans can relate to…Some people seem to think that awareness of the ugly & violent sides of Zionism might lead to an upsurge in bigotry against Jewish people. I disagree! I think it would do the opposite. I think most Americans (except the Christian Zionists — and who wants to make league would that ideology?) would respect & appreciate the example of overcoming racism & ethnocentrism & find it deeply “American” — isn’t our national narrative (at its best) about learning how to weave our national tapestry in ways that are ever more inclusive (Phil Weiss has some really good posts on this). Finally, I think that anti-Zionist remorse & rebuilding of an inclusive & welcoming identity — would be the best thing — for finally undoing what lingering shards of anti-Semitism there might be. Aren’t the cultural memes of anti-Semitism primarily about a) Jewish peoples operating outside, between & against nation-states or b) supersessionist Christian theology. Hasn’t mainstream Christianity thoroughly repudiated the latter? So, re/ a) wouldn’t the recognition that people messed up Jewish state-building in similar ways to how Americans messed up state-building (violent, racist, settler mentalities) — wouldn’t all of this be humanizing & intelligible. “Hello, my name is **** and I am recovering from Post-Settler Syndrome”, “WELCOME! Do we know what that feels like”, “and now let’s get to work together on healing the damage we’ve all done”
Betsy, yes I pray this is possible. People, I should say most people, have trouble understanding nuances in ethnic and religious identity. They like to paint people with a broad brush because it takes less brainpower than actually knowing people as individuals. I see this all the time. It’s not like I go fishing to hear inappropriate comments. I don’t think we’ve progressed much in society in terms of dealing with racism, regardless of who the current president is. I can only be in so many places at a time. I guess I’m like MJ Rosenberg’s Anti-Anti Semitism machine if I can allow myself this one compliment as I’m usually hard on myself. Look I know a kid who had predjudiced views towards Jews until he met me and started reading my status updates on Facebook about Israel’s crimes against humanity. In my bio 101 class he was telling a joke to one of his friends about “Einsteins in the Oven.” Get it, like the bagel company, but not really. He most likely heard a Jewish person making that joke so he thought he could repeat it. He actually is a highly intelligent guy with strong values and ethics who has a great job in the environmental science field. I think he was just tired of Jewish hypocricy on the Israel/Palestine issue. He recently wished me a Happy Birthday on my FB wall. I haven’t spoke to him in four years previously, but he took a moment to distinguish between regular Jews and the Ziobots. So maybe there is hope afterall. I’m in a positive mood today for a change.
@YoungMassJew — YES!
is the colonial really any deeper in jewish identity than in the american identity, or, for that matter, in the identity of westerners in general? some will say, of course, that americans have risen above their colonial prejudices, but if that’s so, how come whenever native-americans in wisconsin or oregon lay claim to their fishing rights (which are treaty based), all hell breaks loose, as their white neighbors refuse to acknowledge said rights. same goes for europe, where immigrants (mostly from that continent’s former colonies) are looked upon just like jewish israelis look upon palestinians? and what’ll undo the colonial mentality? occupying the world. permanently!
“…but if that’s so, how come whenever native-americans in wisconsin or oregon lay claim to their fishing rights (which are treaty based), all hell breaks loose, as their white neighbors refuse to acknowledge said rights…”
I can’t speak for Wisconsin, but in Oregon and Washington, the problem is that those ‘fishing rights’ were established before it occurred to anyone that fish populations might be a finite resource. Indians can use nets to decimate surviving runs of salmon, fish out of season when everyone else is under a moratorium to try to preserve what stocks remain, etc.
It doesn’t have anything to do with a ‘colonial mentality.’ It has a lot to do with one fisherman seeing another who can go out and keep fishing on account of the color of his skin, or an angler looking at just how few salmon make it past the nets at the mouth of the river.
“I can’t speak for Wisconsin, but in Oregon and Washington, the problem is that those ‘fishing rights’ were established before it occurred to anyone that fish populations might be a finite resource. Indians can use nets to decimate surviving runs of salmon, fish out of season when everyone else is under a moratorium to try to preserve what stocks remain, etc.”
Wow, talk about that ol colonial mentality, and it will appear. Right on schedule, leaping upstream toward the headwaters of the trivial to avoid coming to grips with the article.
And, sadly no, Colin. I don’t want to shock you, but overdevelopment, bad management practices, lack of reforestation and pollution have done more to ruin fishing in Washington than all the fishing Indians could if they tried. BTW, it’s their fish, too.
“might be a finite resource.” oddly ‘indians’ seemed to have known this for some time pace chief Seattles famous remark,
but i can see that it must be an outrage to traditionalist americans i mean breaking treaties that establish indigenous ‘rights’ is a cherished american tradition imagine actually having to live up to the legally binding documents you sign, its preposterous, and environmentally harmful in the fracking lands, and the sweet oil shale and opencast mines parks, those damn savages keep opening up, i think the colour of their skin remark kind of ruined your act, shame. after all brown people are just differently privileged, arent they, obviously there will be resentment.
however on the bright side the spontaneously arising (presumably as an expression of the innate arabian genius for oppression) sink of gross turpitude that is saudi arabia works eh! the salmon walk freely in the streets of riyadh. sorry not hounding you just fascinated by the act in an ethnographic sort of a way.
Sorry, double posted.
before the “deluge” of european settlers, when it came to fishing the natives had no competitors except, perhaps, for bears.
“It doesn’t die easily, since that kind of Jewishness can have its cake and eat it too. “
Excuse me, I haven’t all through the article yet, but what kind of expression is that to use? “have its cake and eat it too.”? Don’t see how it applies at all. Well, I’ll read the rest.
“another example of how Jews survive the Jewish establishment”
Huh? “survive the Jewish establishment“? Are you trying to say that the Jewish establishment doesn’t nurture, support and serve the Jews? Then why, big shot, is it called the Jewish establishment? I’m not sure I can get through this article.
I became involved in Jewish issues by tiny steps: Step One: went to Cleveland, where I used to live, to hear Walt & Mearsheimer discuss their book. I had lived in the “Jewish” neighborhood; we both worked with Jewish people, the kids had Jewish friends.
The W&M meeting was packed with two delegations, one from AIPAC, the other from a nearby synagogue. They lit into W&M and, in my opinion, behaved abominably. They didn’t act at all like the people who used to be my Shaker Heights neighbors.
Step 2. This is the ‘tippping point’ event. Late in 2007 a member of a local peace group passed along a flier about a talk to be presented by a “multi-faith coalition” including Iran Task Force, AIPAC, ZOA, ADL, 4 other Jewish groups, and a Christian minister who operated from an answering service. The flier had a flaming mushroom cloud on a black background and read: “Nuclear Iran: A Threat to Humanity!” The event’s purpose was to “educate your _____ neighbors about the threat Iran poses to the United States and the world.”
With three Jewish, one Catholic and a Quaker member of the peace group, I went to the speech. Code Pink was at the door protesting.
Pat Clawson of WINEP was introduced and gave a despicable, although predictable, presentation. One of our party, a retired physician, took exception to a statement Clawson made. He reached into his portfolio, pulled out a newspaper clipping and told Clawson he was wrong.
Clawson told the man to be quiet, it was not his forum.
That just made Dr. F. all that more insistent, so he started to speak again. At that point, a member of the event staff walked over to Dr. F (who was sitting next to me), took hold of his shoulder and told him that there was security in the room; if he spoke out again he would be removed.
I was stunned. I’d never been in a situation like that.
At the conclusion of Clawson’s remarks, the Iran Task Force representative presented the Action item: they sought the divestment of state teachers’ and other workers’ pension funds from a list of corporations that do business with Iran.
They had a list of target corporations; they formed delegations, hired buses and took groups to the state capital and to Washington, DC to lobby for divestment from companies doing business with Iran.
Iran Task Force (ITF) functions under the umbrella of the World Jewish Diplomatic Congress. WJDC receives its financial support from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Its mission is to support Israel. In other words, ITF is an agent for a foreign country. It is not registered as a foreign agent. It is acting in ways that may harm the interests of American citizens. Those American citizens are playing by the rules, but ITF was not. Nevertheless, the retirement funds of law-abiding citizens were impacted by ITF.
ITF’s flagship “success story” was that of California retirement system’s divestment from corporations doing business with Iran, ITF having persuaded then-governor Arnold Schwarzneggar that divesting was a good idea.
By 2010, as a slew of articles indicate, California’s pension system was approaching bankruptcy. A May 18, 2012 HuffPo article headline reads The Golden State Gone Broke.
Was that due to ITF’s involvement? A causal relationship is tenuous, and impossible to prove in any event. What is true without a doubt is that ITF, an unregistered agent for a foreign government, imposed a federal-level foreign policy action on a state-level institution, trampling over and ultimately harming the rights of the people who had a direct interest in and fiduciary responsibility for those funds.
Everything about that situation stinks. The fact that Israel was simultaneously trading with Iran through third parties; and that New York City collected a multi-million dollar windfall in “fines” on international banks who were “caught” doing business with Iran, did little to deodorize the atmosphere.
If Jews are concerned about support for Israel that is harmful to the Jewish people as a whole, there are plenty of specifically identified and identifiable places where direct pressure could be and should be applied to stop the harm. Max Blumenthal just identified one more major offender. The Presbyterian church pension fund is not one of them.
Marc, why are you willing to demand that Presbyterians voluntarily impoverish themselves, but you are not willing to demand that Israel-firster organizations abide by the rule of law? It seems to me you are seeking the easy way out, and demanding that someone else be a martyr — an innocent ram caught in the thicket — so that you are spared the pain of doing what a just god demands.
Your repeated mentions of “slippery slope” are meaningless. Make an argument, display some evidence, some facts, then we can talk about it. Thinly veiled charges of antisemitism hold no weight whatsoever.
“Marc, why are you willing to demand that Presbyterians voluntarily impoverish themselves”
Hey, maybe he know just how small the “eye of a needle is”. I’ve heard a camel won’t fit.
Speaking of needles, it is said that folks should mind their own knitting.
Awful, isn’t it. Start out by framing (no pun intended) your Savior, and now criticising Christians. Is there no end to the chutzpah?
Dear MondoWorld,
I promised to get back with you all, after I heard from the good people at the Presbyterian Foundation — about what criteria are for socially responsible investing in the church. I’m pasting & cutting in their response:
“Thank you for your email. I’ve read through the vigorous and extensive back and forth on the mondoweiss blog. Your interpretation of Presbyterian Foundation and Board of Pensions holdings was well presented and I don’t believe requires further explanation from us.
For your own studies, you may find helpful this information from the denomination regarding socially responsible investment: link to presbyterianmission.org. Presbyterian investment practices go beyond negative screens to include positive investment for good and shareholder action for change.
Thank you again for your concern and for the opportunity to respond.
Blessings,
For folks who haven’t been following this thread — I paste in below my summary that they said was accurate. I would just highlight that there are some companies in which they keep enough stock so that they can engage in shareholder advocacy — e.g., protest the company policies. But, there are other companies that are so bad, that they simply refuse to invest in them at all. I’ve sent in a further inquiry to ask if that is the case with CAT, MOT, HP — and with fossil fuel industry — & if there’s a climate change divestment underway. They’ve referred this question to the head of the Mission Responsibility Through Investment committee. It seems that the ‘technical’ people who handle the funds — are sort of like US military — they are under the overall command of the “civilian” leadership — which is democratically controlled through the self-governance bodies of the church. A separation of fiscal & spiritual leadership, that Marc’s description above doesn’t capture well. Darn it! I wish these Mondo conversations weren’t so interesting! I’m actually trying to get some work work done at my job job…Lot’s more I’d like to say but I’ll leave it at that cause I really am swamped… But, Marc’s points about our complicity in capitalism, oppression, imperialism, war, bigotry — are totally correct in so many ways.
Dorothy Day is/ was a saint — we NEED MUCH MUCH MORE of that kind of radical renunciation & commitment! It is most persuasive when it comes from someone who has themselves renounced worldly power & wealth.
And, there is, I believe, also a place for other kinds of justice work — radically rebuilding our collective structures for work, worship, etc. This reclaiming & rebuilding of institutions involves more, I think, than putting on sackcloth & ashes & going into the desert… I’m not entirely clear how Marc is recommending that we get actual leverage on shifting these macrostructures — but I’m eager to read his books!
Finally, I feel a bit like I’m standing on one side of a one-way mirror, folks — lots of looking at Presbys in detail — but remarkably vague & fuzzy picture of concrete mechanisms of governance & political economics in other faith communities. Not complainin’. Just curious…
here’s what I said in earlier thread about my church:
But, first, let me applaud your attention to the intersections of Presbyterianism & capitalism & wealth…Historically, rank & file Presbyterians tend to draw heavily from the middling & professional classes — e.g., the moderator of the Presbyterian church of Cameroon described this tendency to me several years ago in his country. But, in addition, in the 19th & early 20th century, the church had heavy representation from small town & urban industrial / mercantile elites. So, there ARE large endowments left from that era…that are in these funds [and they go back to late 1700s]. These are, of course, economic classes in economic decline under neoliberalism…. But, we do have much to atone for …
Second, these funds include the pensions for thousands of mission co-workers (formerly called missionaries), ministers, secretaries. Coming from 3 generations of PC(USA) mission workers — I could tell you in detail — up close & personal– the unaffluent & simple conditions of everyday life for these folks — especially when they hit retirement! …This is a communalistic safety net that provided much security (even if low budget) and puts one into community with fascinating, erudite people, full of passion for life & service, etc. etc. This is NOT just dabbling in the stock market by hypocrites — the pension funds are a communalistic effort to provide mutual support from within the economy we actually live in…
You, like many educators might be invested in TIAA-Cref retirement fund? on their website it says “TIAA-CREF serves 3.7 million active and retired employees and has $487 billion in assets under management (as of 3/31/12).” Ok, now PC(USA) has what, about 2.5 million members right now, with $7 billion??? You might want to do the math here…
Third — other funds are, I believe, endowments which have been set up to do good works for the world — not for personal profit. Unlike weekly offerings, endowments allow more long term, big picture planning — my experience is that some of the most radical, deeply justicey works of the church come at this level. …folks responsible for funds have done a huge amount of work on how to maintain a certain level of stability & profitability — while adhering to social justice principles. All sorts of justice filters have built up over the years…Summarizing this as mere CONFORMISM TO POWER or easy BENEFITS or COMPLICITY — is not fair. There IS serious risk — Presbyterians, in old age or infirmity, and endowments for good works are at risk — in a dicey macrostructural context.
Fourth, these funds are key for supporting staff & projects — above the local congregational level. In my opinion, the most radical & social justicey work & thinking tends to come from the national offices in Louisville KY & from the mission co-workers scattered all around the world. These are people (like the committee who wrote the divestment & other reports) who often start out ordinary Presbys — but who spend their lives living & working very closely in & with communities who are marginalized. (this would be much of my family — I know what I’m talking about). Presbyterians tend to emphasize things like security in water, food, land, housing, health — and disarmament, peace & education. This once made us seem pretty boring. But, it shows the barbarity of our times — that this almost always now brings one to the radical edge. So, these people go out, live in difficult situations, learn the local language & just try to help people keep a decent & dignified life. This is radicalizing. (Note how ‘left’ the mission co-workers votes were in the GA!).”
But, in the PC(USA) there has been a massive tendency to defund the central offices & these paid international staff & program — partly because of the onslaught we have been under by organized conservative movements, who have identified the ‘left’ tendency of the supra-congregational level. Partly it is because of a general American move since 1980s to devolution (“gummit is bad”, “local is good”) — this “democratization”, I think, has actually dramatically undercut the human & fiscal resources for what had been a powerful flowering of PC(USA) social justice work.
I can tell the subjects and comments are going to get into a lot of whataboutery.
Good luck everyone…LOL
Since Karl Marx talked about Jewish money this makes talking about Jewish money kosher? I don’t think so. Marx was no Jew lover. Converts to Christianity sometimes have empathy with the group left behind. (Didn’t Heinrich Heine convert, and wasn’t he sympathetic to the Jews?) But Karl Marx hated the Jews. If it’s helpful or necessary to talk about Jewish money in order to clarify or speak truth, fine. But don’t go looking to Karl Marx to make it kosher. Really.
YONAH- “But Karl Marx hated the Jews.”
Please pass that on to Max Ajl and Gabriel Ash.
“YONAH- “But Karl Marx hated the Jews.”
Nope, he’s decided come out as himself. No more “wondering”! yonah knows!
Did Karl Marx hate Jews? It is quite complicated. The writings of Karl Marx were quite acerbic about EVERYONE. About Jews, apparently he concluded that religious Jews do not make revolutionary element, and are devoted to Capitalism, which was in most cases correct. As far as I can tell, those who claim that Marx hated Jews do not even try to make the case that Marx was wrong, and bulk of Jews around 1870 were revolutionaries or at least quiet supporters.
Never mind, I’ll post after the italics gremlins have been tamed! I mean, I like italics, but. . .
ITALICS BE GONE! GO BACK TO WHEREVER THE HELL YOU CAME FROM! GIT! VAMOOSE! (OR IS IT JUST ME? OMG!)
funny. Even starting off with closed italics (the /i sign) doesn’t fix it.
MARC ELLIS- “Her theory – that the academic field of Peace Studies and peace and development agencies around the world, including the United Nations, are so thoroughly imbued with a colonial mentality that most of their work is thinly disguised Western missionary work.”
I don’t know if this qualifies as a “theory,” rather, it is simple common sense. One definition of power is the ability to control the narrative, to set the boundaries of discussion. A characteristic of virtually all empires is to control the discourse, to establish the mythology. When we talk about peace studies or human rights organizations or international aid agencies, or anthropological studies, etc, we are always talking about WESTERN organizations without even realizing it. Can you imagine the reaction to Chinese human rights organizations monitoring American elections? Or Iranian anthropologists studying US inner city black culture? The harsh reality is that the imperial doctrinal definitions of right and wrong, good and bad, worthy and unworthy have been imposed upon the globe. This is particularly troublesome in view of the Western Manichean mindset. We judge whether they are worthy or unworthy. They are not considered worthy to judge us. All of this is considered natural and goes unnoticed.
MARC ELLIS- “The more serious comments have to do with putting our money where our mouths are.”
Money is critically important, but we must have a macro, not a micro, perspective. In capitalism, money is power, economic power in fluid form, the primary instrument of social control. In the big picture, the “7 billion dollar portfolio” is chicken shit. Every day the global financial system engages in trades involving trillions of notional dollars. At this point in time, the global financial system, composed primarily of debt money, is inexorably driving the planet towards financial feudalism–a new form of global debt servitude–and/or financial collapse. The contradiction in financial capitalism is that compound interest is unsustainable in the long run, and currently we are at the end of financial sustainability. In the past, there were depressions and massive debt write downs. Apparently, the financial oligarchs have other plans now. How this will all play out is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the PRIVATE global financial system has destroyed even nominal democracy, has destroyed progressive liberalism, is in the process of destroying the environment, is pushing us towards war, and is headed for collapse. Forget the “7 billion dollar portfolio,” our rogue financial system renders it a moot point.
I went to a jazz concert in North Philadelphia (a historically black community – impoverished and one of the highest crime rates in the nation) this evening. The community, today, is just on the fringes of a gentrified neighborhood known as Fairmount (so much wealth coming in from the suburbs – homes are being rebuilt, new construction, businesses, etc.).
A Black woman who had grown up in North Philadelphia turned to me and said, “This neighborhood is changing quickly. I don’t imagine anything like this has happened since the colonization of America.” She isn’t aware of the US-Israeli colonization of Palestine.
The majority of the people at the jazz concert were well-off and white in this historically black neighborhood.
So I’m beginning to think that the ‘gentrification’ that we see in neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Harlem, Fairmount, West Philadelphia, San Francisco and Oakland, and across the country, is part of an American aesthetic. Is there anything deeper? Gentrification goes hand-in-hand with white supremacy. Is it the appeal of having whites in a neighborhood, or is it simply the entitlement of those who have more money?
I write all of this bearing in mind the 2010 census data: the mean wealth of a White resident of the United States is $110,729. The mean wealth of a Black resident of the United States is $4,995.
Again, I pose the question: is the appropriation and theft of the land and culture of peoples of color part of ‘American values’? As this post questions the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, can we really point to a prominent benevolence within the frame of the ‘Western’? Is there any subaltern who has not been punished by Capitalism and Zionism?
I’m curious as to what will happen when I use a blockquote.
lol, you’re just discovering this now?
I think Dickerson is referring to the unwelcome italics intrusion problem.
If anybody knows the ins and outs of block-quotes, it’s Dickerson! In fact, I won’t use them so there will always be enough for him. Besides, he uses them much better than I could, anyway.
Yes, everything in the lower part of these comments was in italics (until recently). Since blockquotes on Mondoweiss do not allow/contain italics, I was wondering if a using a blockquote, would remove the italics.
But it tuned out that the text in my blockquote [Testing: One, two, three!] was also in italics when I originally posted my test comment.
Of course, since the “italics gremlins” have now been miraculously chastened/vanquished, the whole issue has been rendered pretty much moot.
Nonetheless, I guess we would be remiss were we not to get down on our callous knees and thank Almighty G_d (blessed be he) for yet another of his many, many miracles!
My answer to Marc’s question is that a Jewish critique of Christianity, corporate or not, is entirely legitimate. The idea that the only critique of anyone is internal, marked by some kind of shared loyalty to the same cause, is wrong, restrictive and frightening. I accept that a critique based on determination to prove that my God is in those famous words bigger than your God is very dangerous and should not be entered into unless you think there’s really no alternative. But give and take critique, like yours Marc, is fine. Keep going.