BOOKS AND ARTS MARCH 9, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
“The concentration camps are a dangerous topic to handle,” the British critic A. Alvarez once wrote. “They stir mud from the bottom, clouding the mind, rousing dormant self-destructiveness.” This has perhaps never been more true for anyone than for Meyer Levin, the author of middlebrow Jewish-American novels such as The Settlers who is now better known, alas, for an obsession with the diary of Anne Frank that seems to have sent him over the edge of sanity. As Rinne Groff tells the story in her new play Compulsion, now playing at the Public Theater in New York, Levin (who appears in the play, barely fictionalized, under the name Sid Silver) was a promising writer and documentary film-maker who was one of the first to interview survivors of the newly liberated concentration camps. (I spoke at an event Monday night that included Groff, Francine Prose, and Nathan Englander.) After he read a French translation of Anne Frank’s diary, Levin was moved to contact Otto Frank, who became his friend and promised him the rights to adapt it for the stage. Levin may also have played some role in convincing Doubleday to publish the diary in English translation after it was rejected by numerous other houses.
Levin was initially happy to work with Doubleday in promoting the book, and even managed to place (at their suggestion) a front-page rave in The New York Times Book Review. What happened afterwards is murky, but it seems the publisher soon decided Levin was not the ideal writer for the dramatization. His draft of a script was rejected; the smash-hit Broadway version was written by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. In Levin’s eyes, these writers—non-Jews who were best known for their work on the Frank Capra Christmas film It’s a Wonderful Life—“de-Judaized” Anne Frank by transforming her character from a persecuted Jewish girl into a kind of universal victim. In this, he saw a communist conspiracy masterminded by Lillian Hellman, who was brought into the mix early on as a possible adapter, among others. Now, in Groff’s play, Levin comes across ultimately as a pathetic figure, blinded by his own arrogance, who spends decades torturing himself and his family with his all-encompassing fixation on controlling Frank’s legacy.
But Levin was right. Not necessarily about the communist conspiracy, although Ralph Melnick, in his book The Stolen Legacy of Anne Frank: Meyer Levin, Lillian Hellman, and the Staging of the “Diary,” came to support that conclusion. (Groff’s play is only the latest addition to a pile of texts about the turbulent Levin-Frank affair, which also include Levin’s own account, The Obsession, published in 1973, and another historical treatment more even-handed than Melnick’s, Lawrence Graver’s An Obsession with Anne Frank: Meyer Levin and the Diary.) Levin was right about the de-Judaizing of Anne Frank, which is apparent not only in the Broadway play but also in the presentation of her diary from the start. What he seems not to have realized, however, was the extent to which he too was implicated, with his prominent New York Times review stressing Anne’s “infinite human spirit” rather than her Jewishness.
The story of the reception of Anne Frank’s diary is a pungent case study of the way works of literature come to be understood as “universal”—which, as Francine Prose adeptly points out in her book about Anne Frank, had come to be used, in the publishing climate of the 1950s, as “the antonym of Jewish.” Levin writes in The Obsession that the problem centered around a passage in the diary in which Anne wrote with pride of her own Jewish identity. “Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now?” she wrote. “It is God who has made us as we are, but it will be God, too, who will raise us up again. … We can never become just Netherlanders, or just English, or just … representatives of any other country for that matter, we will always remain Jews, but we want to, too.” In the play, Anne’s emphasis on the particularity of Jewish suffering was erased. “We’re not the only people that have had to suffer,” her character says. “There have always been people that have had to. … Sometimes one race … sometimes another.” Levin was understandably apoplectic at what he called the “censoring” of Anne’s Judaism, an essential characteristic not only because of what happened to her, but also in terms of her own self-definition. Though his fixation would ultimately spin out of control, his outrage was initially justified.
But the flattening out of Anne’s Jewishness was not unique to the play. It started with Doubleday’s choice to present the diary with a preface by Eleanor Roosevelt—a shrewd marketing move, but one calculated for its appeal to a general rather than a Jewish audience. As Francine Prose notes, the words “Jew” and “Jewish” never appear in Roosevelt’s preface. Instead, it celebrates the book as “one of the wisest and most moving commentaries on war and its impact on human beings that I have ever read.” This elision cannot be explained as a matter of simple anti-Semitism, especially because the book was championed by a Jewish editor: Barbara Zimmerman, later Barbara Epstein, one of the founders of The New York Review of Books. (In fact, Prose said Monday night that, based on information she received after her own book appeared, she now believes Zimmerman was the true author of the preface.)
The “universality” question is bound up with the way we understand literature itself. The greater a work of literature is—so we have been taught to believe, at least—the more completely do the particulars of its plot and characters dissolve into the universal. Anna Karenina is not simply a novel about romantic intrigues among the nineteenth-century Russian aristocracy; it is an exploration of love and family, fundamental aspects of the human condition. Likewise for Jane Eyre, Madame Bovary, and virtually all the great novels of the nineteenth century. Things became more complicated in the twentieth century, as the novel form was used more and more often as a vehicle for communicating a social or political message. Can All Quiet on the Western Front, The Grapes of Wrath, and Beloved—to choose three fairly arbitrary examples—be appreciated separate from the particularities of their settings? Perhaps, but to do so seems to contravene the intentions of their authors. And it also robs these books of part of their special value: to broadcast the news of a catastrophe.
Of course, the diary of Anne Frank is not a novel, although Prose argues in her book that it has more in common with that form than is usually appreciated. (Anne Frank revised the diary heavily during her last months in hiding with an eye to its potential future publication, cutting some entries, clarifying and expanding others, and even writing new ones from scratch.) But, as a work of literature that strives to reach a general audience, it is subject to the same pressure as these catastrophe-novels: It must bear witness to an atrocity, yet—if the book is to be widely read—it must depict that atrocity in a way that will generate the greatest sympathy and understanding.
Levin understood this tension. His Times review seesaws between his understanding of Frank as a Jewish victim and his desire to present her as a young girl who was in many ways like any other. The word “Jew” appears early on, as Levin sets the diary’s scene: “the life of a group of Jews waiting in fear of being taken by the Nazis.” But he goes on to emphasize that this is “no lugubrious ghetto tale, no compilation of horrors.” Rather, “it is so wondrously alive, so near, that one feels overwhelmingly the universalities of human nature. These people might be living next door; their within-the-family emotions, their tensions and satisfactions are those of human character and growth, anywhere.” Anne Frank’s voice, Levin says, becomes “the voice of six million vanished Jewish souls.” But, in her crush on Peter, her squabbles with her sister, and her ultimate disillusionment with the romance, she is also an ordinary teenager whose feelings are “of the purest universality.” And, in his desire to emphasize the diary’s relevance to Americans, Levin goes even further in his universalism than the Broadway adapters later would:
This quality [the depiction of life under threat] brings it home to any family in the world today. Just as the Franks lived in momentary fear of the Gestapo’s knock on their hidden door, so every family today lives in fear of the knock of war. Anne’s diary is a great affirmative answer to the life-question of today, for she shows how ordinary people, within this ordeal, consistently hold to the greater human values.
Levin declined to quote the passage he cited in The Obsession in which Anne reflected on her Jewish identity. His review ends with the line: “Surely she will be widely loved, for this wise and wonderful young girl brings back a poignant delight in the infinite human spirit.”
Here, perhaps, is the root of Levin’s fury: his awareness of his own role in creating a vision of Anne Frank that would ultimately work against him as her dramatist. This role was hardly unique, either to him or to Doubleday: Both Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi acceded to their publishers’ pressure to emphasize the universal aspects of their memoirs. The fact that such impulses were motivated by considerations more literary than anti-Semitic does not necessarily make them easier to accept. Are human beings so fundamentally lacking in natural empathy that a Jewish catastrophe must be universalized in order to generate feeling? Do we really seek only ourselves in the books we read? If this is true, then Meyer Levin’s obsession with his own grievances might be the most universal tragedy of all.
Ruth Franklin is a senior editor at The New Republic.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
77 comments
RF seems to think that the idea that the universal/particular distinction is a zero-sum affair. I'm not sure why we should accept this. No one argues that "The Grapes of Wrath" should be "be appreciated separate from the particularities" of its setting. I do share RF's concerns here but it's a mistake, in my view, to equate the particular with the singular. A really interesting piece though ... makes me want to read her book.
- NR851651
March 9, 2011 at 8:42am
The repression and destruction of Jews under the Nazi's was horrible. I would think you'd want non-Jews to sympathise with that plight, and perhaps even realize such brutality sleeps within all of us. As does the possibility of becoming victims. I certainly hope you don't want to smack this book out of Gentile hands, saying "No! You can't read this, you can't sympathise, this is about Jews!". So acknowledging this has a universal appeal would be helpful. Having said that, I agree it is wrong to down-play Jewish suffering especially in this case, because this case was NOT about "universal" suffering but specifically anti-semitism. If the universal appeal is to understand Jewish oppression, fine. If the Jewish attribute is removed or downplayed to make it more "palatable" to Gentile audiences, that would be wrong.
- AllanL5
March 9, 2011 at 8:59am
Why do you have to be so special, why is your suffering more important than others? Don't you think it is going to start backfiring....again?
- MSA70
March 9, 2011 at 10:11am
It’s important for people to read Anne Frank’s book. When the Diary was first published many people in Europe and elsewhere didn’t wish to confront the Holocaust. By divorcing Anne Frank’s experiences from the mass murders they could read the book or see the play (and film) as the story of a unique family with a precocious daughter as just another event in WW2. For those who did know more about they could think of the Frank’s experience during the war as typical of most Jews. The Diary ends when the Franks’ are arrested. There are not scenes of physical brutality and no mention of Auschwitz or the gas chambers. Looked at as a document of the Shoah the reader needs to fill in a lot of the historical contexts which is necessarily left out. But the book can and should be read on two different registers simultaneously: first as the diary of a young girl growing up under difficult circumstances. This is her book. The Diary should also be read as a book about her fate which was the fate of millions of Jews who were sent to their deaths because of who they were and not because of what they did. These two registers are crucial and what make Anne Frank unique is that she became the face of the “enemies of the Third Reich.” This normal teenage Jewish girl is what the antisemitic regime feared. This is also why Holocaust deniers and antisemites in general couldn’t abide and tried to prove the diary “a fake.” To take out the particular historical and familial context is to misread the book. One of the best essays on the book I read was by the American poet John Berryman which was included in his “The Freedom of the Poet” It’s a collection of essays and short stories published posthumously in 1976. His essay on Anne Frank’s diary is entitled “The Development of Anne Frank.”
- arnon
March 9, 2011 at 12:16pm
AllanL5: "I certainly hope you don't want to smack this book out of Gentile hands, saying "No! You can't read this, you can't sympathise, this is about Jews!". So acknowledging this has a universal appeal would be helpful." Where on earth did she wrote anything approaching this stupidity? Instead, she wrote this: "Are human beings so fundamentally lacking in natural empathy that a Jewish catastrophe must be universalized in order to generate feeling? Do we really seek only ourselves in the books we read?" You're arguing with yourself.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 9, 2011 at 12:24pm
AllanL5: "I certainly hope you don't want to smack this book out of Gentile hands, saying "No! You can't read this, you can't sympathise, this is about Jews!". So acknowledging this has a universal appeal would be helpful." Where on earth did she wrote anything approaching this stupidity? Instead, she wrote this: "Are human beings so fundamentally lacking in natural empathy that a Jewish catastrophe must be universalized in order to generate feeling? Do we really seek only ourselves in the books we read?" You're arguing with yourself.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 9, 2011 at 12:24pm
AllanL5: "I certainly hope you don't want to smack this book out of Gentile hands, saying "No! You can't read this, you can't sympathise, this is about Jews!". So acknowledging this has a universal appeal would be helpful." Where on earth did she wrote anything approaching this stupidity? Instead, she wrote this: "Are human beings so fundamentally lacking in natural empathy that a Jewish catastrophe must be universalized in order to generate feeling? Do we really seek only ourselves in the books we read?" You're arguing with yourself.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 9, 2011 at 12:24pm
So sorry about the multiple posts. I swear, only only pressed save once! And what's annoying is there's no function to delete or edit once it's posted. MSA: I don't know you so I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. Perhaps your writing is too deadpan for the likes of me.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 9, 2011 at 12:26pm
The appeal of the Diary is as Levin described it in his review. It humanizes victims of the Holocaust. It is a symbol of promise and vitality rubbed out. (How could anyone read the diary and not wonder what happened to her?) At the time, it acted as a counterweight to antisemitism, by depicting a Jewish family as an "ordinary" family, recognizable to non-Jews. I don't think that the sin of the play is universality, as such. It sounds like the problem is that it goes out of its way to scrub Jewishness from the story, and, in so doing, to downplay the Holocaust. (As in, every race suffers at one point or another....) This is not a sin of universality -- every work that tries to be honest about its characters must show them as human, and therefore automatically appeal to universal humanness. It just sounds like plain-old antisemitism of the MSA07 variety.
- JakeH
March 9, 2011 at 2:51pm
My ancestors were “Jewish.” I have not felt much like a “Jew,” whatever that is. Is it a religion? I have never perceived the existence of “God,” whatever that is supposed to be. Is it a “race?” Although there seems to be some biological evidence of racial identity (which makes almost everyone uncomfortable), it seems to have little to do with intelligence or moral character. I am randomly fortunate in growing up in a time or place where I was not persecuted for my “supposed” “identity.” In the history of Judaism, the self-identity of an obscure tribe as the “chosen people” strikes me as a unfortunate error. I am not optimistic about the future of humanity, but if we have any future it seems to lie in removing ourselves from identities such as “white” or “black,” “Christian” or “Muslim” (and so on), heterosexual or homosexual, and so on. “Anne Frank” is indeed a moving story. The death of a young girl or( boy) in Armenia (Turkist genocide), Rwanda, Darfur, or anywhere is tragic. Life is tragic. We should strive to make it less tragic.
- skahn
March 9, 2011 at 8:27pm
Skahn: “My ancestors were “Jewish.” I have not felt much like a “Jew,” whatever that is. Is it a religion? I have never perceived the existence of “God,” whatever that is supposed to be. Is it a “race?” Although there seems to be some biological evidence of racial identity (which makes almost everyone uncomfortable), it seems to have little to do with intelligence or moral character.” No one said that that the death of a single Jew is more tragic than that of a single Rwandan? If you don’t consider yourself Jewish why do you even bring it up? The Shoah was a unique event in history for many reasons, but if you think that it was no worse than any other massacre, why do you even bother with articles dealing with books or articles dealing with the Holocaust? “… the self-identity of an obscure tribe as the “chosen people” strikes me as a unfortunate error.” Could it be that you harbor resentments of Jews that isn’t that different from the one Anne Frank’s persecutors held.
- TomLessing
March 9, 2011 at 10:13pm
Skahn: Let's see. What's to find repugnant about your post? For one, its contemptuous tone toward Jews who do care about their identities and take pride in their Jewish identities. The assumption that we can't be both Jewish and compassionate toward others. Here's another thing I disliked in your few and unredeeming paragraphs: Your dismissiveness of actual biology, which reveals that all Jew males, from the West and East, share a similar aspect of their mitochondria. If you can't see that we are a kind of group (that is, yes porous and no doubt includes ancestors who are not among the original tribes of Israel), you clearly are seeking deracination. Dare I say you must have some sort of self-loathing. But what's truly remarkable is your having to insert this insipid yet offensive point: The desire to take away from Ann Frank's tragedy. Every death of a child is tragic, especially so in genocide. But not all children of genocide are philosophical and literary prodigies. Anne Frank was. The loss of such a soul was a loss to the world. Furthermore, it is the desire to obliterate any Jewish sense of the tragedy--to make it an offense to feel particularly pained that six million of our brethren were murdered. This does not, as mentioned previously, prevent us from recognizing other horrors. I always find it strange when people try to deracinate tragedy. It's dehumanizing. We are all born of particular circumstances. That's our humanity.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 9, 2011 at 11:23pm
"Furthermore, it is the desire to obliterate any Jewish sense of the tragedy--to make it an offense to feel particularly pained that six million of our brethren were murdered. " I fear the rationale of those who wish to "universalize" Anne Frank's story is motivated by the opposite consideration. They fear that if readers associate Frank with Jews, their empathy and compassion for her may diminish. Skahn echoes Rosa Luxemburg's sentiment when she famously said: "Why do you come with your particular Jewish sorrows? I feel equally close to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations in Putumayo, or to the Negroes in Africa with whose bodies the Europeans are playing catch-ball... I have not a separate corner in my heart for the ghetto: I feel at home in the entire world wherever there are cloud and birds and human tears.” Gustavo Perednik (a Jewish author and educator residing in Israel) had this to say about Rosa's universal empathy: With hindsight, those Jews of the 1916 ghetto would have been happy to exchange their fate with the Putumayo workmen and Black Africans in Africa. As Irving Howe put it “even in the warmest of hearts, there is a cold spot for the Jews.” I have not read the article since I cannot bear to read such things anymore. But I'm familiar with the attempts to expropriate Anne Frank's story from the Jewish narrative and I am responding to the comments made.
- noga1
March 10, 2011 at 7:36am
Kahn: “Anne Frank” is indeed a moving story. The death of a young girl or( boy) in Armenia (Turkist genocide), Rwanda, Darfur, or anywhere is tragic. Life is tragic. We should strive to make it less tragic.” Most Jews in Europe between 1939 and 1945 would have exchanged places with Armenians in 1916 or Rwandans in the 90’s, or anyone in Darfur today. Their chances at survival would have been 90 percent higher. Kahn is an ignorant boy (and coward) who likes to talk about morality but has no sense of morality or history.
- nr106646
March 10, 2011 at 11:34am
"I fear the rationale of those who wish to "universalize" Anne Frank's story is motivated by the opposite consideration. They fear that if readers associate Frank with Jews, their empathy and compassion for her may diminish." Not in SKahn's case. Interestingly, his name has a rather Jewish ring to it. Though he feels no identification with his tribe, I doubt the Nazi's would have taken that into consideration.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 10, 2011 at 11:54am
"Not in SKahn's case. " I don't really care enough to figure out skahn's position or motivation. He or she has lost my attention as soon as I got to "My ancestors were “Jewish.” It is one thing to want to separate yourself from the "tribe", as you say. If you consider Jewish history there is very little recommend itself: hatred, blood libels, relentless slander, persecutions, massacres, expulsions. Quite another to try to liberate oneself from the tribe by suggesting the tribe doesn't exist, never existed. In other words, if there is no tribe then there can be no history to that tribe, can there? It follows then that Jewish history is all lies and fantasies of a bunch of schizophreniacs. If one wants to divorce from his ethnic origins let him at the very least do it honestly and openly. The first step, I imagine, is to betake yourself away from any environment where Jewish issues are discussed.
- noga1
March 10, 2011 at 2:22pm
I agree with most criticisms of skahn. But this comment struck me as amusing in its ignorance. “In the history of Judaism, the self-identity of an obscure tribe as the “chosen people” strikes me as a unfortunate error.” The Jewish people are “an unfortunate error?” What a ridiculous thing to say. The Jews are as much a tribe as their ancient enemies the Romans. The Jews haven’t been a tribe since the Babylonian exile. (Before that in Jewish writings they were a number of different tribes who came together to form a nation.) When exactly where they “obscure?” When the Babylonians conquered their land and exiled them to their lands? This “obscure tribe” left its imprint in ancient art: http://www.bible-history.com/ibh/Egyptian+Sculpture/Human+Figures/A+Figure+Recording+the+Conquest+of+Judea and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_stele This obscure tribe after returning from exile set up a Kingdom that took a number of Roman legions to subdue it: The Romans celebrated their victory: http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/titus/titus.html That obscure tribe inspired two major world religions. Its people after being in exile were a major asset in all tolerant countries in which the lived. They were the inspiration of major philosophical, scientific, and literary achievements in the 19th and 20th century. They also inspired hatred and fear based on resentment and those jealous of their accomplishments. Now an obscure Kahn tells us that Jews “were an obscure tribe.” I am glad you don’t consider yourself a Jew. The Jewish people don’t need ignorant people like you.
- arnon
March 10, 2011 at 2:24pm
Noga: Arnon says it best: "That obscure tribe inspired two major world religions. Its people after being in exile were a major asset in all tolerant countries in which the lived. They were the inspiration of major philosophical, scientific, and literary achievements in the 19th and 20th century. They also inspired hatred and fear based on resentment and those jealous of their accomplishments." This is what's to be proud of.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 10, 2011 at 6:18pm
noga: I understand that this comment: "there is no heart so warm that it doesn't have a cold spot for the Jews. ..." is attributed to Israel Zangwill. Am I wrong? Unfortunately for Rosa Luxemburg the world "did not feel at home" with her in it.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
March 10, 2011 at 6:40pm
Well mollysimon, I'm not trying to sell Judaism to such as skahn. He is probably beyond appreciating the gifts of the Jews. And who needs him anyway.
- noga1
March 10, 2011 at 9:18pm
I don't know, makover. I was quoting from an interview with Paul Berman, here: http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/gaza-and-after%253A-an-interview-with-paul-berman.html?print
- noga1
March 10, 2011 at 10:29pm
Noga: I had no intention of changing Skhan's mind. I'm thinking of my own children, and what a wiser person once told me: Your children are going to be Jewish no matter what. So they may as well be proud of the fact. I grew up on the East coast in the 70s and 80s in a very Waspy environment, and I wish I'd had that advice sooner--or at least been able to understand that advice sooner.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 10, 2011 at 11:05pm
Noga: I had no intention of changing Skhan's mind. I'm thinking of my own children, and what a wiser person once told me: Your children are going to be Jewish no matter what. So they may as well be proud of the fact. I grew up on the East coast in the 70s and 80s in a very Waspy environment, and I wish I'd had that advice sooner--or at least been able to understand that advice sooner.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 10, 2011 at 11:06pm
uggh, once again a double post. I swear I press that save button once.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 10, 2011 at 11:34pm
"... a wiser person once told me: Your children are going to be Jewish no matter what. So they may as well be proud of the fact" Make the best of the cards fate dealt you, even when those cards are rather lousy, like being born Jooish. And you call that an advice from a wiser person?
- noga1
March 11, 2011 at 7:53am
Thank you for the comments and replies to my comments. Several people seem to be perturbed by my comment and I am trying to make sense of what bothers them and to figure out what (if anything) they are demanding that I do or think. Should I start going to synagogue? My parents (who were not as far as I can tell, religious believers themselves) sent me to a synagogue for instruction when I was about ten years old. I did not find it inspiring or helpful and got out of attending any more by the time I was eleven. I was brought up with the idea that the foundation of Israel was a wonderful and heroic action. I read Anne Frank. If someone asks me, I tell them that my ancestors were Jewish. In my last job before I retired, I worked side by side with a Muslim from Morocco. Like me, he is fairly detached emotionally from his "tribe," and probably not a religious believer. It's hard for me now to think of the founding of Israel was all that wonderful, but it exists, it is not the cause of the problems in the Middle East, and the people in the area should try to learn to live together in some peace and cooperation. This is the current "present," and we need to live in the present and do the best we can with it. As a child, I was asked to write a report on the American founding father I most admired. I wrote about Roger Williams, the Puritan minister who made friends with Indians, founded Rhode Island, and helped put freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief into America's political culture. I am still not sure why some people are upset with my comments and what you want me to say or do. If there is to be any hope for humanity, I think in part it involves moving beyond "tribalism." This does not mean denying one's tribe, but the very act of praising and memoralizing a tribe involves dangers and costs. I have a web site you are free to ignore: https://collapseofcivilization.wordpress.com/ and an email which I use as a public contact point and ignore the spam, if someone has a coherent comment, demand, piece of advice or whatever they want to tell me besides this public (and probably about to stop being read) forum. I will reply politely to polite comments sent to me.
- skahn
March 11, 2011 at 9:48am
I am 67 and getting demented, probably so I forgot the email. The email you can contact me at or ignore is eman_modnar@yahoo.com. ("random name" backwards.) Again, I will reply politely to polite comments. I do not promise I will reply coherently to coherent or incoherent emails. Perhaps you want me to "convert" to Judaism? or to visit Israel? Let me know what you want.
- skahn
March 11, 2011 at 9:56am
"If you consider Jewish history there is very little recommend itself: hatred, blood libels, relentless slander, persecutions, massacres, expulsions."
- MOLLYSIMON
March 11, 2011 at 11:34am
To skahn: The enigma remains as to why, if you left your tribe behind and went on to greater, deeper and more universal understanding of humanity, why you bother to come to a place where Jewish problems are discussed by mostly Jewish commenters. You saw the light and I for one am very happy for you but why, if so, you need to come back to a place of darkness, or twilight, or whatever Judaism means for you, a place that you seem relieved that you left behind, and try to mock those who care deeply for and about their Jewish ethos and about Israel? Why are you still obsessed with Jewish matters if you decided to quite Judaism? Your story is not very impressive or even interesting, btw. You seem pretty sad, in fact.
- noga1
March 11, 2011 at 11:55am
Mollysimon: I was being ironic. Do you really believe that this is MY VIEW of Jewish history or Judaism?
- noga1
March 11, 2011 at 11:57am
Skahn, I have no opinion on what you should do or think. “Should I start going to synagogue?” Since I am not devout Jew I have no opinion on that either. If you find Jews to be merely a “tribe” then you should perhaps not bother with them. But if you want to know about the rich and often thrilling history of the Jewish nation and people, you might want to read some history on the subject. Here is on title you might want to consider “A History of the Jews in the Modern World” by Howard M Sachar. http://www.amazon.com/History-Jews-Modern-World/dp/1400030978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299865302&sr=1-1 There are good histories for each period of culture, religion, politics, etc. On the other hand, if you don’t wish to be Jewish it would be more honest of you to stop visiting websites on Jewish issues. As it is, it seems to me that your identity is of a “non Jew.” A negative identity can also be an identity.
- arnon
March 11, 2011 at 12:45pm
noga1: "The enigma remains as to why, if you left your tribe behind and went on to greater, deeper and more universal understanding of humanity, why you bother to come to a place where Jewish problems are discussed by mostly Jewish commenters." I subscribed to NR because it discusses politics and the state of the world in interesting and informative ways. Is it a "Jewish" publication? If so, what does that mean?
- skahn
March 11, 2011 at 4:54pm
Molly Simon: "What's to find repugnant about your post? For one, its contemptuous tone toward Jews who do care about their identities and take pride in their Jewish identities..." and so on. How is my tone contemptuous toward Jews who care about their identities? What is an "identity?' I am a human being. I am "white." My first girl friend in high school was "black." In my twenties as a high school teacher, I went through sensitivity training about racial minorities and was told by black people and Asian people and native American people that as a Jew I could not understand what people who were visible minorities experienced. Should I have been jealous because they felt their suffering was worse than mine? Later, a Vietnamese woman told me about being a boat person fleeing South Vietnam. A Sri Lankan friend told me about seeing people burned alive at the start of the civil war. The history of humanity is one of immense injustice and suffering, and in the end no one gets out alive. Religious belief seems to be a way to convince ourselves that there is a reason for our existence and that we do not die for no purpose. I am not contemptuous of people who take pride in their "identity" as Jews or anything else, but I think "identity politics" whether white or black or yellow or red is a very dangerous path to follow. I know a lot of very "mixed" people (in terms of their "races" or their religious beliefs and their abilities to speak a variety of languages, and even their sexual identities (my daughter is gay, and I know people who have undergone "sex change" operations. I don't think I am being disrespectful or contemptuous of anyone by saying that we all should work on discovering our identities as human beings.
- skahn
March 11, 2011 at 5:11pm
Skahn “How is my tone contemptuous toward Jews who care about their identities?” How about their history or culture? Do you know anything about their history or their culture? “What is an "identity?' I am a human being.” Jews are human beings, too. Or don’t you think so? Skin color is not in itself an identity. Black Americans have a distinct identity because they have a very rich culture and not because of their skin color. I have know many Black American whose skin was lighter than those of many white people. In any case you do seem to have an identity and it that of a “non-Jew.” You asked a lot of leading questions as if you wanted to know more about Jews, but you don’t do you? You just wanted another excuse to post your “there are no Jews” rant in support of your “non Jewish” identity.
- arnon
March 11, 2011 at 6:04pm
"I subscribed to NR because it discusses politics and the state of the world in interesting and informative ways. Is it a "Jewish" publication? If so, what does that mean?' There are tens of articles and threads on TNR where indeed "politics and the state of the world in interesting and informative ways" are discussed yet you choose to lend into this thread about a perfectly Jewish subject and about Jewish identity. That does not quite compute with your claim that you left your tribe behind and went on to greater, deeper and more universal understanding of humanity. Your very question is either unintelligent or disingenuous. If you have no interest in Jewish matters, why are you still here? Is it because you wish to parade your indifference to your former co-religionists? You know, like the poor boy that made good and comes back to slum in which he grew up to show off how far and high he has climbed in the world?
- noga1
March 11, 2011 at 6:44pm
Ah jeez skahn. Give us a break already.
- Sophia
March 11, 2011 at 9:41pm
As to Anne Frank - making her a universal symbol of human suffering is tempting but wrong. She was a victim of antisemitism, a very particular disease that has claimed millions. It will probably claim many more. There is nothing random about it, its very avoidability is part of the tragedy - millions upon millions of lives just ruined, completely destroyed because of bigotry.
- Sophia
March 11, 2011 at 9:43pm
My goodness, what a commotion has sprung up here. I was brought up by parents who were uncomfortable with their Jewish identity. As a small child, I complained because we did not have a Christmas tree. In my childish way, I thought if we have a Christmas tree, I will get presents and toys. My father told me it was not appropriate for Jews to have Christmas trees. I read Anne Frank and other books about the Holocaust. I read books about Jewish History. Like a tree that falls in the forest and no one hears, what does it mean to be a "Jew" who is not raised as a Jew? Is there something special about my genetics? That seems like a very dangerous path to go down. My best friend in that period (age 6-10 or so) was the son of German Jews who had emigrated to the United States before World War II. They told me, "A lot of German Jews thought Hitler was fine--the only thing wrong with him was that he picked on the Jews." They were frightened and they got their butts out of Germany and to the United States. After I grew up, I read books such as Blood and Soil a World History of Genocide. Human history is a chronicle of horror and suffering. For a while, I lived next door to a family of Cambodians who told me about losing many family members to the Khmer Rouge. During the Vietnam War, I thought (and still think) Communism is a bad and evil system. I had a student deferment; then I was called for my physical and passed, and then my daughter was born and I got a parental deferment. Many people in my generation went to Vietnam; many were killed and injured. I probably would have been the worst soldier ever drafted. I would have made Corporal Schweik look good. Should I feel guilty because I was not born in the time of the pogroms or the Holocaust? Should blacks today who benefit from the end of slavery and the end of segregation mourn that they don't suffer as their ancestors did? Should they mouth black power slogans every day today or should they just live their lives as American citizens as best they can? My next door neighbor is 1/4 Sioux Indian. His ancestors include the great warrior Crazy Horse. His father "passed" as white and then revealed his heritage when my neighbor was about 20. His house is decorated with arrows, bows, masks his father passed down to him. He is a patriot who served proudly in the military--one of his best friends was the first American pilot shot down and killed in Vietnam. He proudly flies an American flag next to his house. I know other people who consider the flag an insult to Indians. If you find pride and inspiration in an identity as a Jew, I don't know that is a source of a quarrel with me. I just think in the year 2011 the world is in a very perilous state, and we (human beings) are closer than we have ever been to the likelihood of destroying ourselves as a species. I am 67 and, I think, fairly reconciled to my mortality, and I try to conduct myself in an ethical and benevolent way. I have a "granddaughter" who is 7 years old and bright and charming so I worry about her. I put quotes around "granddaughter" because she is the birth daughter of my daughter's partner created with sperm donated by a college friend of my daughter and her partner--my granddaughter 1) is not genetically related, 2) my birth daughter is not "Jewish" because my wife is not Jewish and if it is a "race" it is passed down through the mother, 3) I call my granddaughter who is growing up with "two mommies" and "two daddies" (all of whom she knows and loves) my science fiction grandchild. As a child, I read Anne Frank and found it a horrifying history and made me wonder what it means to be a Jew and why this happened to my ancestors. I don't worry much about myself. I will die in a year or a decade or whatever. I worry about my granddaughter. I worry about the human race because I be one, though on the other hand, I am not sure we deserve to persist and carry on in our destructive way. I was an English major in college. The most searing words in all the books of literature I read: Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness, "The horror, the horror."
- skahn
March 11, 2011 at 11:52pm
Skahn, you have given us a pathetic compilation of self-pitying ignorance and nonsense. It’s obvious that you parents lived in a time of a lot of antisemitism and were afraid to be Jews. People don’t often wish to reveal their fear and rationalize their motivation by claiming to feel “uncomfortable” with their Jewishness. Genetics in and of itself does not make a Jew and it never will. There are many thousands of people in this country who embraced Judaism by choice such as Obama’s wife’s cousin. You rejected Judaism, fine, but be proud of your choice. I have no idea what you bellyaching about. In every posted comment of yours there is a nasty undertone of antisemitism. You said just now that “My best friend in that period (age 6-10 or so) was the son of German Jews who had emigrated to the United States before World War II. They told me, "A lot of German Jews thought Hitler was fine--the only thing wrong with him was that he picked on the Jews." They were frightened and they got their butts out of Germany and to the United States.” Who told you that? Your friend at age 6 or 10, or his family when you were 6 or 10? Most Jews in Germany did not think that “Hitler was fine.” This is libelous comment. They didn’t think that because the Nazis were active everywhere in Germany since the 1920’s and used to beat up Jews in the streets. You are either intentionally lying, or you were told an untruth. “my birth daughter is not "Jewish" because my wife is not Jewish and if it is a "race" it is passed down through the mother” This is religious and not racial notion. If it were racial than both parents would have to be Jewish which is not the case. Also your daughter could have become Jewish had she been brought up in a Jewish home and had studied with a Rabbi and gone to a Mikvah. I know some Jews who grew up in such homes and have no problem either being Jewish or being accepted as Jews. “I am 67 and, I think, fairly reconciled to my mortality, and I try to conduct myself in an ethical and benevolent way.” So you are a perfect human being. What do you want from us?
- TomLessing
March 12, 2011 at 12:46am
Well said, Tom Lessing. I have a sneaking suspicion that skahn is afraid he may have missed something and wishes someone would save him from his own mind numbing universal self-boredom.
- noga1
March 12, 2011 at 7:09am
BTW, I just visited skahn's blog in which he keeps mentioning that he is suffering from partial dementia. I don't know much about this illness but I think it has to do with memory loss. According to wiki, it is "not merely a problem of memory. It reduces the ability to learn, reason, retain or recall past experience and there is also loss of patterns of thoughts, feelings and activities ... " I'm not sure how this discussion with skahn can continue in light of this fact.
- noga1
March 12, 2011 at 11:37am
Do you have a link to S. Kahn's blog?
- arnon
March 12, 2011 at 12:19pm
https://collapseofcivilization.wordpress.com/ He provided it himself earlier on.
- noga1
March 12, 2011 at 12:30pm
"As to Anne Frank - making her a universal symbol of human suffering is tempting but wrong. She was a victim of antisemitism, a very particular disease that has claimed millions." Sophia: Your comment reminded me of something Hannah Arendt said: "If one is attacked as a Jew, one must defend oneself as a Jew. Not as a German, not as a world-citizen, not as an upholder of the Rights of Man, or whatever"; "A man attacked as a Jew cannot defend himself as an Englishman or a Frenchman. The world can only conclude from this that he is simply not defending himself at all." And I wonder if there is a principle here that we can attribute to this attempt to universalize Frank and blur out the fact that she was attacked as a Jew and killed being Jewish. Her legacy must be defended as Jewish. Since it was her very Jewishness that was directly the cause of her death, this attempt to forget or allow this factor to vanish from her story ought to appear extremely suspect. What kind of message, about Judaism, does it send to the world? The logic of the universalization of Frank is rooted in her innocence and death by persecution. Persecution for what? If her Jewishness is faded out, what are young people to make of her legacy? What lesson are they going to stake away from it?
- noga1
March 12, 2011 at 1:41pm
Thanks for the link, Noga. I missed it when I first read his bizarre comments about Jews. From his website: "Let’s see. If I remember correctly, I flipped a coin and it told me to post some bad news. This morning, I had an ominous feeling, and there were some mildly disturbing events, but I proceeded carefully through the day, and so far (it is 5:33 pm Pacific Standard Time), I am alive and still only partially demented." I wonder if this isn't another one of his "I have no identity" shticks. It's passing strange that a man suffering from dementia in its early stages should embrace it proudly. Earlier he quoted Joseph Conrad, he might have quoted from Beckett's absurd plays or even from "Alice in Wonderland."
- arnon
March 12, 2011 at 2:13pm
“And I wonder if there is a principle here that we can attribute to this attempt to universalize Frank and blur out the fact that she was attacked as a Jew and killed being Jewish.” Many proponents of Anne Frank as a “universal symbol” are Jews who mistake the idea of universality and concrete specific identity. They believe erroneously that universality contradicts specificity. But as Hegel noted the “universal is in the concrete.” In this case, Anne Frank’s Jewishness was the way the universal manifested itself.
- arnon
March 12, 2011 at 2:18pm
"It's passing strange that a man suffering from dementia in its early stages should embrace it proudly." Where exactly is this proud embrace? I see simply a man who has come to terms with, accepted, a debilitating disease and is trying to get as much out of life as possible. He goes to the gym, he maintains a website, he follows the news, he posts on TNR. Do you want to him lie in bed all day long depressed and mourning what he's about to lose? Furthermore, there's no reason to see his views of Jewish identity as being anything else but his views. No two dementias are alike. I know of one man who is completely with it, has an excellent memory, excellent physical health, but refuses to leave his assisted living facility except to have lunch daily with his wife. He is terrified of being in the outside world. Still, he's completely "with it," following the civil unrest in Libya, the middle East in general, the too-inflated stock market and the insurance mandate debate. He just happens to be living in terror. From the few clues Skahn has given us, he seems merely to be very forgetful--concerned about leaving his belongings at the gym. However, he can funciton socially well enough to get his blood pressure checked (seems like he may be well liked by employees at his gym), he can recall all sorts of things from his childhood, and obviously keeps up with the news. To me, he seems to be a bit of an eccentric, not someone who's gray matter is so degraded badly that he can't carry on a somewhat logical conversation. I don't agree with skahn, and I wonder, as Arnon points out, whether the period in which grew up affected his feelings about being Jewish, but I do admire him for not giving in to his disease. For continuing to live as full a life as he can. Not everybody is that strong. I think it's incredibly condescending, too, to dismiss opinions based on his dementia. You wouldn't have suspected a thing had he not been so open about it.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 12, 2011 at 3:19pm
Hmmm... Thank you to a few people who visitied my blog. At best, communication between and among human beings is very difficult. In the absence of cues such as facial expression, body language, and tone of voice, it becomes very close to impossible. Also, dietary deficits such as irony deficiency in the mental diet may cause serious breakdowns. I do appreciate the people who are explaining my family and community history to me. After all, you were there and I was not. Isn't that what happened? Here are some more corrections and improvements you can straighten me out on. It is my impression that there are five great religions in the world (out of the thousands that exist and have existed): Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have always thought of the first two as "hereditary religions" in the sense that most people practice these religions (not by someting literally in their genes) because their parents and community do. Maybe Judaism fits into this category also. On the other hand, I regard Christianity and Islam as prosetylizating religions, in that many participants feel a compulsion to "infect" other people (literally convert them) to spread the religion meme. This may be one reason why there is so much conflict between these religions; who likes competition?
- skahn
March 12, 2011 at 3:38pm
Not bad for a demented guy, huh? OK, terribly bad and incoherent. Maybe someone will take the trouble to explain all the errors and flaws in my attempt to explain religion in a (too long) message box. I will start with one obvious error. Tom Lessing said, "Genetics in and of itself does not make a Jew and it never will. There are many thousands of people in this country who embraced Judaism by choice such as Obama’s wife’s cousin." Evidently, Judaism is (or is becoming) a prosetylizing religion. Anyone want to place a bet on whether Tom will succeed in converting me to Judaism? OK, I am going to read some other articles now. NR is actually a pretty good magazine and it does talk about other topics besides religious myths.
- skahn
March 12, 2011 at 3:46pm
“It is my impression that there are five great religions in the world (out of the thousands that exist and have existed): Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have always thought of the first two as "hereditary religions" in the sense that most people practice these religions (not by someting literally in their genes) because their parents and community do. Maybe Judaism fits into this category also.” Judaism is both a religion and the culture of a people. This is what makes it different from some other faiths. Buddhism accepts people who want to practice that religion. Jews for the most part don’t proselytize but they do accept people who want to practice the faith and become a part of the Jewish people. I have no desire to convert anyone to Judaism. If you want to rejoin the Jewish people I am sure you know how to go about. You don’t sound like you would be very happy being Jewish.
- TomLessing
March 12, 2011 at 4:45pm
On another thread here, the great Khan the con artist said that he was being "ironic" which is what I thought. It's all a big joke to him, the Holocaust, the Anne Frank memoir, Jewish people. He is demented but not in the way he pretends.
- arnon
March 12, 2011 at 5:35pm
I think skahn does not understand irony, which is sometimes defined as a statement that rejects what it seems to say. What ironic statements did he make here? He was not ironic about his deracination from his Jewish roots. He was not ironic about being partly demented. He was not ironic about mocking people here about being too attached to their Judaism. He was unintentionally ironic when he declared that he is not interested in Jewish identity but still insisted on engaging in a discussion about Jewish identity. So what was he ironic about? I am waiting for an example of his irony from the poster who clearly outstrips us all when it comes to intelligence and comprehension.
- noga1
March 12, 2011 at 6:10pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5NRksR1trI&feature=player_embedded
- noga1
March 12, 2011 at 10:16pm
Tom, thank you for your comment. "Judaism is ... some other faiths. " I am trying to be unprovocative and concise. I am trying to imagine how that statement is possibly meaningful and rewarding. This is an attempt at empathic imaginative interpretation. It uses points I think are scientifically valid. It is not intended as an attack or a defense. You may take it as such if you wish. Humans, as mortal beings in a world that seems to have no meaning or purpose, create religious beliefs and embody them in ritual, myth, morality, and promise of transcendence. Humans are intensely social animals. For most of us we cannot thrive unless we are in a group. I am trying to stay in a message box, so I will stop here. Didn't quite make it. Ball is over the net. Your return if you wish.
- skahn
March 12, 2011 at 11:36pm
There is nothing to debate. You have you own faith and you have your "tribal" culture and its not Judaism. That is how you have given your life meaning. No more posts on this topic for me.
- TomLessing
March 13, 2011 at 12:16am
Yes, it's a baffling thing. What exactly skahn wants to achieve in this conversation is not at all clear.
- noga1
March 13, 2011 at 7:44am
Not clear to me neither. He sounds like a romantic rationalist and he is perhaps trying to convert us to his own belief system. For example: “Humans, as mortal beings in a world that seems to have no meaning or purpose, create religious beliefs and embody them in ritual, myth, morality, and promise of transcendence.” This is a naïve example of that way of thinking. (Creating meaning is not the same as creating “a promise of transcendence.”) It reads like a quote from Viktor Frankl’s “Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning.” It is also wrong. There has never been a lack of meaning in the world, if anything the opposite is true. We are born into too much meaning. Meaning is given to us from birth and people don’t have to search for it. (I for one don’t believe in religious transcendence. There is more than one kind of transcendence after all.) This idea doesn’t explain much nor does it account for the origins and development of religious belief. I am not arguing against skahn, since I am not obsessed with religion one way or the other and I am not searching for meaning.
- arnon
March 13, 2011 at 11:55am
Tom: OK. noga1: I am not sure what I am "trying to achieve" is not clear either. Another way of putting it is that all my life I have been baffled that many people find religious belief plausible and I mull it over. I also find the concept of "identity" (racial, religious, etc.) mysterious, paradoxical, perhaps essential, and quite dangerous. I post comments at tnr because I can and I have not been forbidden to do so and some of the people posting have intelligent and interesting comments, and some have irritating and not very bright ones. Put yourself and put me in either of those categories as suits you.
- skahn
March 14, 2011 at 12:20am
Arnon: I find your comment interesting, though not that persuasive. "Meaning" mostly strikes me as something human beings create. I would be interested if you can expand your assertion if you can in this short message medium. (This comment runs long.) A while back I wrote a satirical post (elsewhere) comparing the (supposed) "heat death of the universe" some cosmologists theorize about in astrophysics (I quoted one such comment in my blog today) with what I believe is happening to human beings. That is, I think meaning is something humans have created through means such as religion and myth and philosophy and that as mythic interpretations of meaning become less and less plausible in a materialistic universe, human culture is suffering a "meaning death of our culture." If I interpret Arnon's comment correctly he feels that he has sufficient meaning in his life without religious belief or transcendence. This is certainly possible; I am fairly happy with my life at the moment, but the accommodation I have achieved is 1) not what most people accept and 2) based on the fact that my life has gone pretty well and 3) ignores the fact that much of the human race (throughout history and throughout most of today's world) experiences tremendous suffering and misfortune. To be happy and mellow yet moral and caring is difficult, and strikes me as one reason people imagine "God" and "Heaven" and divine rewards and punishments. Arnon, I am interested in your accommodation which you have asserted but not explained.
- skahn
March 14, 2011 at 12:35am
Skahn, you are confusing meaning with well being, with self- fulfillment and with non religious missionary work. Meaning exists because we have brains/minds/imaginations that create significations. It's not about you or me. I find non-religious missionaries as dangerous as religious fanatics. They are always getting you to change your mind/life about something they consider important/dangerous. There is nothing dangerous about identity. Denying one's identity, or fighting against it (social, biological, personal) can be a dangerous illusion.
- arnon
March 14, 2011 at 2:10am
I also find the fight against personal identity (be it ethnic, religious, secular, etc.) quixotic. People don't live in the universal or abstract, they live in the here and now. Concrete existence is specific, it's not general. To see it as general is to remove oneself from one's existence, to see oneself as a universal abstract.
- arnon
March 14, 2011 at 2:36am
The error in skahn's understanding that annoys in its ignorance is the natural assumption that Judaism is just a system of belief in God. Well, it is not. It's not just a religion but an ethos. Remove the belief in God and you still have an edifice of intellectual content and ethical thinking and prescription of formidable substance and value. That is why there are many Jewish atheists who see no problem in calling themselves thus. In skahn's view this is an impossibility. Needless to say his is a diminutive, uninteresting and lazy way of regarding the matter of Jewish identity. "The Torah refers to four sons: One wise, one wicked, one simple and one who does not know how to ask a question. What does the wicked son say? "What does this drudgery mean to you?" To you and not to him. Since he excludes himself from the community, he has denied a basic principle of Judaism. You should blunt his teeth by saying to him: "It is for the sake of this that Hashem did for me when I left Egypt. For me and not for him. If he was there he would not have been redeemed." Now of course for someone of skahn's mental paucity, he would read the above as an injunction to believe in God. Many Jews do. Many Jews do not. They interpret it as a call to fulfill one's role and duty to the community, to acknowledge the connection and solidarity among fellow human beings. I consider the latter as much more pertinent to Judaism than the former. It is in this that Judaism is universal. It enjoins people to care about other people.
- noga1
March 14, 2011 at 6:51am
"The error in skahn's understanding that annoys in its ignorance " " In skahn's view this is an impossibility. Needless to say his is a diminutive, uninteresting and lazy way of regarding the matter of Jewish identity." "Now of course for someone of skahn's mental paucity, he would read the above as an injunction to believe in God." Hmmm... interesting statements from noga1. Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the following are true: 1) skahn is a person of very limited understanding. 2) Judaism is universal. It enjoins people to care about other people. Perhaps my understanding is so limited and deficient that I am not a "real" person? Perhaps noga is a person who regards me as a real person in spite of my limited understanding. His diction and rhetoric certainly are an interesting way of demonstrating the value and validity of his argument, and it certainly convinces me, if nothing else than by its tolerance and graciousness.
- skahn
March 14, 2011 at 12:51pm
Skahn, I too have a problem with your posts. I make no assumptions about you as a person or about your mental state. All I have to go on is your posts. This is what I got from your posts: You think for whatever reason that humanity is evil and that in the long run we will all suffer. You think that the best way to deal with the world is by being a "moral" person. You never defined "morality." You said that any identity people claim is superficial. Yet when you tell us stories about your friends and neighbors you identify them as one quarter Indian, or Moroccan, or some other such identity marker. You say your parents were Jewish but that you are not. Yet you spend a lot of your time justifying your not being Jewish. Finally you tell us that people are in a perpetual quest for meaning. Meaning, you seem to think is the same as personal fulfillment. All of these and other points I left out have been answered by different posters, yet you keep coming back and restating them. You can’t seem to accept that many posters here (including me) don’t agree with your views. Let it be. It might have been better had you written about how keeping a diary creates meaning, or about the kind of meaning a suffering humanity creates for itself. This is what puzzles me and perhaps others. Restating your claims in different words doesn’t advance your argument.
- arnon
March 14, 2011 at 1:15pm
You are mistaken, skahn. YOU are not my interlocutor and I do not aim to persuade you. Quite the contrary. You made that abundantly clear from your first post here, when you said: ""My ancestors were “Jewish.” I have not felt much like a “Jew,” whatever that is. " "Jewish"?? Can there be anything more demeaning that the suggestion that there is no such thing as a Jewish identity? As a Jewish people? As far as contempt and loathing for an entire people, it's on par with TS Eliot and his lower case jew. You have forfeited your right to expect civility and pity. "T.S., I got to tell you the emes --Bleistein here, pardon the cigar-- remember me, palms turned out Chicago Semite Viennese? Like I'm some kind of ape? You didn't like my baggy pants- now I'm here to take your measure- To prosecute is drek, but I got assigned. You think God don't have a sense of humor? It's punishment for you, but also me. I have to read these stinking lines you wrote about the Jews. Exhibit A: The jew squats on the windowsill, the owner Spawned in some estaminet in Antwerp- Squats, what's the matter? Did you owe your landlord rent? And spawned-- like shrimp in a tank- or in some dank cabaret after hours two Jew toads humping on a table? And what about that lower case j ? You must have hated us to break the rules of grammar, most bank clerkly of Englishmen.. Still I got to admire your style, the classy way you built those lines. The sounds kick back and forth: "jew" and "spawned," "owner" and "Antwerp," "squats"! You've got a delicate ear. The w sounds kiss word to word before they stick in the craw. But the lower case "jew" that spawned them all, that I don't forgive. You were a poet, T.S. you shoulda known better, a guardian of the tongue. That lower case j was a country club sign: No dogs or Jews allowed-- to keep us out of the poem or make us stoop to enter: Now here comes Exhibit B: Rachel née Rabinovitch Tears at the grapes with murderous paws; Me I'm an ape, okay. Look what you did to poor Rachel. A raccoon you made her- that gorgeous girl with the dark eyes-- she's dead now fifty years... "
- noga1
March 14, 2011 at 1:18pm
"I also find the fight against personal identity (be it ethnic, religious, secular, etc.) quixotic. People don't live in the universal or abstract, they live in the here and now." Exactly Arnon. You cannot escape what your parents and so on were. They, from their specifics, made you what you are. I suppose I could make a conscious effort not to respond to the world as a Jew, for instance, but that's madness. So much of it is unconscious. How do you completely deracinate yourself? And if you take Skahn's vision to its logical conclusion, we'd have no culture. We'd be automatons. In fact, there would be no Ann Frank to begin with. Nor would there be a Proust, a Roth, a Bellow. And from there, no Joyce, no "ethnic" writers, period (whatever that means). I have a feeling these points have been made, but I'm just adding my two cents. Being an anti-Jew is not the same as being not Jewish. It is not an absence of Jewishness. The Jewishness is there, or there'd be no anti-. Geez, I sound like a college sophomore.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 14, 2011 at 1:48pm
I am a slow thinker and it takes a while to (perhaps) practice what I think about how people should behave and communicate. I should say to noga1: Even if you think my understanding is lower than yours and that my values have little value, please practice what you seem to be supporting by speaking politely and respectfully.
- skahn
March 14, 2011 at 11:48pm
It is a while since I was an English major and reading T. S. Eliot. A quick Internet search brought up a web page with accusations of antisemitism such as: T. S. Eliot's anti-Semitism is not a new subject. It has been remarked upon and debated since the publication of his earliest poems and essays and been the subject of other recent critical studies. Yet, at least until now, Eliot's anti-Semitism has been routinely brushed off by almost all of Eliot's readers. What Anthony Julius's book helps to explain, then, is not so much the fact of Eliot's anti-Semitism but how Eliot and his readers explain away the anti-Semitism of his work. Eliot, writes Julius, was the kind of anti-Semite "who was able to place his anti-Semitism at the service of his art. Anti-Semitism supplied part of the material out of which he created poetry. I do not ask the biographical question: what made Eliot an anti-Semite? Instead, I ask: of what was Eliot's anti-Semitism made, and what did Eliot make out of anti-Semitism?" (p. 11). In the process, Julius also asks fundamental questions about our theories of poetry and of literature. These theories, which Eliot helped shape, stress the self-referential character and aesthetic objectivity of the work, and so disconnect literature from social and political issues, even those that appear in the work's own words. Such theories come in handy when readers wish to dismiss as irrelevant such things as a writer's anti-Semitism or misogyny or racism. https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/www/Julius.html
- skahn
March 14, 2011 at 11:52pm
OK, so let us say that T. S. Eliot was an Anti Semite. Your point is?
- skahn
March 14, 2011 at 11:55pm
Molly: And if you take Skahn's vision to its logical conclusion, we'd have no culture. We'd be automatons... I have often wondered about this. I think that the history of cultures such as Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, and WWII China indicate that most people if raised from an early age to be sociopathic monsters probably will. But some do not. In Nazi Germany, Boenhoffer for example resisted Hitler. (I think there was a recent article about him in TNR.) In the Soviet Union, Solzhenitsyn behaved quite honorably, though I have read that he was not a particularly likable person. You may know more about this than I do. How did these people (there are many other examples) rise above the behavior of others around them? This is a serious (and I hope non-offensive) question.
- skahn
March 15, 2011 at 12:03am
Sorry about the italic being out of control.
- skahn
March 15, 2011 at 12:04am
"by speaking politely and respectfully." I have spoken to you as politely and respectfully as you deserve to be spoken to, given your introducttion of yourself as "My ancestors were “Jewish.” I have not felt much like a “Jew,” whatever that is. " TS Eliot's contempt for Jews expressed itself by the way he refused to write Jew but insisted on "jew". His great poems contain the most brilliantly-written antisemitic images of Jews. You ought to try it. These are not "accusations". It's just what he was. His greatest fear were Jews such as I imagine you fancy yourself to be: "What is still more important [than homogeneity of culture] is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of freethinking Jews undesirable." But even he did not suggest that Jews were not a people, or that they were the product of some pathological fantasy. You have a right to discard your identity as you please but you have no right to tell the world that that the identity you discarded is not an authentic identity. You have a right not want to be somebody's friend. You have no right going about telling others that this somebody does not exist, that he bears a false identity, that he is not who he says he is. I have nothing but contempt for people like you. I would respect an honest antisemite more.
- noga1
March 15, 2011 at 7:00am
I have nothing but contempt for people like you. I would respect an honest antisemite more. I am not sure how to respond to these comments. I don't know if anyone else is still reading this thread, but if someone else has a suggestion, I will read it with interest. (At least I managed to turn the italic off.)
- skahn
March 15, 2011 at 9:26am
Italic off?
- skahn
March 15, 2011 at 9:27am
Preview says italic is off, but save says it is on. If an editor is reading this, feel free to delete any of my comments you wish to.
- skahn
March 15, 2011 at 9:28am
This is relevant, from Nick Cohen, notajew: http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/46559/what-does-ed-stand "It has taken me a while to realise that you can learn much about the characters of non-Jewish Jews by watching how we deal with soft and not-so-soft antisemitism. Writers and politicians from privileged backgrounds should be grateful. We have the opportunity to discover racism – to feel what being the target of racism means – denied to most of our contemporaries. A consistent opposition to prejudice in all its forms ought to follow. The alternative is to emulate Sam Finkler, Howard Jacobson's protagonist in The Finkler Question and try to divert the attention of racists and conspiracy theorists. Finkler's manoeuvre is to form ASHamed Jews, at whose meetings, celebrities and academics cry in effect, "I'm not the one you want!" Like the Milibands and me, you did not need to believe you were truly Jewish to attend. From The Finkler Question: "One among them only found out he was Jewish at all in the course of making a television programme in which he was confronted on camera with who he really was. In the final frame of the film he was disclosed weeping before a memorial in Auschwitz to dead ancestors who until that moment he had never known he'd had. 'It could explain where I get my comic genius from,' he told an interviewer for a newspaper, though by then he had renegotiated his new allegiance. Born a Jew on Monday, he had signed up to be an ASHamed Jew by Wednesday and was seen chanting 'We are all Hezbollah' outside the Israeli Embassy on the following Saturday." In contrast to his older and better brother, Ed Miliband is a Finkler. If he argued as part of a consistent leftist philosophy that the conscience of humanity demanded that Palestinians receive their own state, I would have nothing against him. But the squalor of Finklerism lies in its lack of consistency; in what it omits rather than what it includes. In his first speech as Labour leader, Miliband announced that Israel was the only obstacle to a "just and lasting peace" in Middle East. He offered no comment on Hamas, Hizbollah and their Iranian controllers, or about the hundreds of millions suffering under secular and theocratic dictatorships. The Arab revolutions did not merely catch him by surprise – they caught everyone by surprise – but revealed his parochialism: the selfish Little Englander hiding behind the progressive mask. The uprisings did not follow the Finkler script. They had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with tyranny and corruption. To the visible despair of those in Labour who still believe in internationalism and comradely obligations, Miliband responded by implying that anyone who asked for a no-fly zone over Libya was a "neo-con". As abroad, so at home. When David Cameron –admirably, I thought – said his government would stop funding Islamist groups that opposed democracy and the emancipation of women, the Labour leadership accused him of "writing propaganda" for the far right. To anyone who's located outside Finklerdom, it is nonsensical to cast opposition to misogyny, homophobia and anti-semitism as fascist. Inside the laager (defensive encampment), Islamism is a rational reaction to the provocation of Israeli and western conservatives, and hence it is "left-wing" to condemn critics of fascistic movements as fascists themselves."
- noga1
March 15, 2011 at 3:27pm
Figuring out what is Jewish can be puzzling: "Heidegger was certainly not the first to address the seeming tyranny of reason in Kant’s philosophy. Already at the end of the eighteenth century, Hölderlin had dubbed Kant “the Moses of our nation.” The comment was cryptic, but contemporaries would not have missed the point: that Kant’s philosophy got wrong the synthesis of freedom and necessity, spirit and quiddity, by placing man once more under the tyranny of “Jewish” law. In 1799, Hegel took a slightly different tack: Kant was not Moses but a Pharisee, standing among the enemies of Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount. For not only had Kant placed mankind under the moral law, he had also insisted that our empirical knowledge of things is restricted to their appearance, that the “thing-in-itself” always remains “an unknown something.” In such a philosophy, according to Hegel, “ideal does not come to terms with reality”; “the real remains absolutely opposed.” Hegel, like many of his readers in his day and after, had a name for this opposition: “The Jewish principle of opposing thought to reality, reason to sense; this principle involves the rending of life.”" http://www.tnr.com/print/article/books-and-arts/books/magazine/heidegger-cassirer-davos-kant
- arnon
March 15, 2011 at 3:29pm