Thanksginukkah

                                                                                                                                

That's right. Thanksginukkah. With an “n,” not a “v.” Notwithstanding the attempt to create a “Thanksgivukkah.” I know because my family has celebrated this very meaningful pseudo-holiday for several decades.ⁱ For us it's not a one-time affair based on an idiosyncrasy of the calendar, but an opportunity to unite traditions, and we prefer something closer to a more equal merging of names in the term since that characterizes it better and indicates their importance to us and the individuality of both celebrations.ⁱⁱ

It isn't a surprise, but there's a lot being written now about the coincidence of Thanksgiving and the first day of Hanukkah this year, and the rarity of the event. It won't happen, we're told, for another 70,000 years and most people can't wait. So this (almost) unique event is getting a lot of attention. But, in its current form, it's more a commercial phenomenon than a spiritual one. It's a gimmick whose primary purpose is sales – of newspapers, menorahs, cards, songs, and whatever some clever entrepreneurs can link to the occasion. Why let an economic keg like this go untapped?

On the other hand, why have we, as a family, been observing the occasion for so long? There's no denying that it provides us with the opportunity to meet and eat as a family – something difficult to do on other holidays when we don't travel – and a chance to observe a secular national holiday during a season leading up to a celebration revered by the majority national religion.ⁱⁱⁱ But there's more to it than that. The holidays reinforce each other, although there is a significant difference. And, in a way, they also bear a kind of similarity to another holiday – one which never coincided with either of them. But that's where I'll start.

There are many who relate Thanksgiving to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, a Fall^iv harvest festival,^v and there are reasons given as to the whys and the hows of Sukkot as the source of this American secular holiday.^vi While the concept of gratitude to G-d is the basis of both, it's probably not true that there is any relationship. There is, however, one similarity^vii that bears mention: in both cases we observe the fact that G-d fearing people fled from a place in which another system of religious observance than theirs held sway, and they went to a land where, whatever the other difficulties, they could follow their own beliefs. The sukkot are the huts in which the Israelites lived after they fled from Egypt, eventually settling in their own land. The Pilgrims, abandoned their country to escape the Church of England, which persecuted them for their beliefs. So in both cases a people fled from their homes in their motherland or in exile so as to gain religious liberty. It's a noble idea, but there are other approaches to the problem and Hanukkah exemplifies one of them – one which many of us admire. I'll note that soon.

The relationships between Thanksgiving and Sukkot, however, are probably more fanciful than actual. The two never coincide, and the Pilgrims (Puritans and Calvinists) who initiated Thanksgiving would probably not have modeled any celebration of theirs on a holiday observed by the Jews, even if they had taken note of it in Holland during their travels when they fled England.^viii It has a nice ecumenical ring – politically correct and all that – but there's no actual evidence that it's true.

Neither, of course, is there any relationship between Thanksgiving and Hanukkah, although they do coincide from time to time. Not often I admit, but far more than the once in 70,000 years which I cited above. That results from the fact that we're only discussing the occurrence of Thanksgiving on the first day of Hanukkah, which is an eight day holiday. It's more frequent, but not so often that it's a “natural,” although the two occur much closer together than Thanksgiving and Sukkot. Like the others, Hanukkah celebrates the quest for religious freedom, but there is an important difference. While Thanksgiving and Sukkot commemorate freedom achieved by flight, in the case of Hanukkah religious freedom was obtained when the Jews stood and fought. They didn't run. They didn't run from another religion, they ran towards their own. That's what makes this holiday so contemporary. The time has come for the Jews to stand and fight.

As Americans we give thanks for the freedom to practice our religion undisturbed. We're grateful for it, but it's not a “given.” As Jews we remember that the price of such freedom is high. The religious liberty upon which both Thanksgiving and Hanukkah are based exemplifies our heritage. The two ideas reinforce each other. But as for the “n” rather than “v,” Never Again. Never surrender to the villains. So as a family we'll observe the two traditions that govern our lives. But we'll never forget our own responsibility to defend the freedom earned by our ancestors through their valiant efforts. We cannot let the ancient Festival of Lights – a holiday that celebrates a dedicated people who fought for their beliefs – be swallowed by a relatively new one which resulted from the flight of some who suffered prejudice in their homeland. The Jews have been subject to such prejudice for thousands of years,^ix and from their homeland there is nowhere to run. The Jews of Israel have no place to go. They have to stand and fight. And we, as Americans and Jews, must never forget that they fight for us as well.

Next episode: “Not My Fault” – It's yours and you'll pay for it.

i         About five decades – half a century – although the name, Thanksginukkah, has only been applied for about fifteen years, since my sister-in-law came up with it.

ii       And it's a chance to reaffirm our determination to survive by adding to the emphasis on Hanukkah. But more later.

iii      The less religious among Jews tend to accept Christmas as a national holiday. The more religious either ignore it or schedule some competing event on the same day.

iv      Well, it's usually in the early Fall. For calendric reasons it took place at the end of summer this year – the earliest it's likely to happen for quite a while.

v       There have also been attempts to link Sukkot to other holidays as well. I leave it to the reader to evaluate two of them. You can do do so if you see http://brotherira.blogspot.com/2009/09/sukktoberfest.html and http://www.israelexperts.com/blog/thanksgiving-sukkot-and-shavuot%E2%80%99s-secular-connecti

vi      See http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2013/8/19/did-sukkot-help-shape-thanksgiving for example.

vii     And a fascinating one in view of the fact that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday.

viii    http://www.patricia-osullivan.com/2009/10/sukkot-and-thanksgiving.html.

“I would love to believe that Sukkot is the origin for the American Thanksgiving, but there are two glaring problems with this view. First, ... there is no clear date for when Thanksgiving began in the colonies and so to tie Sukkot to THE Thanksgiving is false. There was a harvest festival and there were days of Thanksgiving (remember these were fast days) but not a day that brought feasting and thanks together until about 1630. Second, while I find it entirely credible that the Pilgrims and even the Puritans would have used the Bible to help them establish many of their traditions, they would not have consciously taken a Jewish holiday and reworked it as a Christian one. In the 1620's most Englishmen, Anglicans, Catholics and separatists alike, were incredibly anti-Jewish. Even thirty years later, in 1656, when merchant Jews in London were allowed to stay after being 'outed' by their commercial and religious foes, politicians, preachers and public writers railed against the Jews, writing things like this:

"Therefore Jews are not fit for our land, not yet for our dunghills; but to be kept and cast out from amongst us, and trodden under foot of all true Christian men, while unbelievers.” - William Prynne A Short Demurrer to the Jews

ix      Antisemitism was largely a creation of the religion of “love” and has been turned into a major industry by one that achieved its significant status in the Middle East by the sword.

I Cannot Tell A Lie

                                                                                                           

When I was young, admittedly a long time ago,ⁱ I learned all about the cherry tree and the other important lessons that Parson Weems taught. It is generally agreed that President Washington was among our most important leaders, if not the best – which is what many consider him. His accomplishments, and the precedents he set, were key to making the United States the world power that it now is. But as with all famous people, myths arise that become part of what we view a history. And sometimes the false memories we have seem more real than the facts. Sometimes the aura is more important than the reality.

This idea comes to mind as we remember the assassination of President John Kennedy, which we'll be commemorating in a few days. It happened fifty years ago, on November 22, 1963. There are well-documented historical chronicles of the events of that day, but conspiracy theories still persist. They're far more interesting than what can be determined from the facts of the case.

But that's not surprising, for John Kennedy was far more interesting than the President. He is remembered with awe, and even those born after his death “know” how good a President he was. I'm not sure that the future and history will be quite as generous though. For now, however, he is remembered with great affection. Whether or not he was a great President, and I don't think he was, he was a great leader. Because of his youth, good looks, and rhetorical talents, he was extraordinarily popular. He made us feel good and confidant as a nation. We all believed he would lead our nation to new heights. Our country would be stronger than ever and would solve the problems that were plaguing us. His speeches were inspirational sermons. We would have derided themⁱⁱ had they been offered in a house of prayer, but in the public square they buoyed our spirits and inspired us to save the world through various volunteer programs like the Peace Corpsⁱⁱⁱ and VISTA. They were important parts of the New Frontier. Our beloved leader presented a picture of America as we wanted to see it, and, because we were so eager to live out the dream he personified, we suspended disbelief. And that was the man who was murdered.

As President, however, he accomplished much less. If he scared off the Soviet Union during the “missile crisis,” he frightened us as well. And that crisis arose only after the badly executed Bay of Pigs “invasion” which was disastrous not only militarily, but in terms of public relations and international diplomacy. And he laid the groundwork for the war in Viet Nam that drove his successor from office.^iv And during his term little was actually done, notwithstanding the fanfare. Even his fame as a promoter of civil rights was undeserved. No major legislation on equal rights resulted from his Presidency and, while he was in the Senate, he voted against the bill offered in 1957 which was designed to ensure the right of Negroes^v to vote. Eventually, before he was shot he publicly supported the idea, but it took a long time, and outside pressures, for him to reach that point.^vi

He was a great President though. Appearances are sometimes more important than accomplishments and what President Kennedy said and how he looked made us feel good about being Americans.

President Lincoln was also a great President, but not one about whom our memories are completely accurate. One hundred fifty years ago, on November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered an address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It is undeniable that his stewardship during the Civil War was both critical in keeping our nation together, and it was certainly damaging to his health. It was a war that has come to be viewed as the battle to eliminate slavery. Lincoln is remembered as a foe of such involuntary servitude and as the man who freed the slaves.

The war, however, was only peripherally related to slavery. It was a fight to save Union. Slavery was a secondary issue. In Lincoln's words:

“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”^vii

A few months later, on January 1, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But that proclamation didn't eliminate slavery. It freed slaves in states that were at war with the Union. It was a war tactic. “As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves who had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control. Lincoln pursued various plans to colonize free Blacks outside of the United States, but none of these had a major effect.”^viii It wasn't until 1864 that the President publicly endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and the end of slavery, and it wasn't until after his death that it was ratified and put into effect.^ix

He was a great President. He was a hero. But ignoring history and turning him into a saint does nothing to change the past. 

This week we remember two great men. In both cases, however, we remember the myths rather than the truth. But if we're commemorating people and events related to civil rights and an end to slavery, we should know the truth. For it will set us all free.

Next episode: “Thanksginukkah” – Bring on the turducken.

I       But long after President Washington's administration.

ii      If we didn't sleep through them.

iii     Interestingly, President Kennedy didn't introduce the idea, which had been around for decades. In fact, Senator Humphrey had offered legislation to establish such a service while Kennedy was still in the Senate.

iv     Because of the unpopularity which his execution of the war engendered, President Johnson knew better than to run for reelection.

v      That was the term used at the time.

vi      See http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-day-president-kennedy-embraced-civil-rights-and-the-story-behind-it/276749/ for more detail.

vii     Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

viii    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

ix     December 6, 1865

DABDA

                                                                                                                              

Like everyone else, especially the very young and the old, I've been thinking about death.

“And yet most of us live our day-to-day lives without focusing too much on our own mortality. For better and for worse, we do not live each day as if it could be our last; we do not make the fact of death a dominant reality in our everyday lives. When a loved one dies or some tragedy strikes, we are perhaps reminded of our mortal condition; we might imagine our children throwing dirt into our graves. But the immediacy of life quickly returns, and we live again, for a while, as if the horizon of the future were very long, if not indefinite.”ⁱ

Cohen and George are right. It's an intellectual exercise, not “a dominant reality in [my] everyday [life].” However unreal though, every now and then it comes to mind. For example, I was thinking about death while listening to a eulogy at a funeral I attended recently. I wondered about what would be said at my funeral. (Don't we all?) There are so many characteristics a person has, so many ideas he has about himself. How are these distilled by the speaker? How is a choice made about what to emphasize? What will be included in my obituary and what will be omitted? I know the aspects of my personality and my life that I'd want to be mentioned, but the decisions will be made by the speaker.ⁱⁱ And, if the funeral is typical, my virtues will be overblown. How can I fault that?

Of course I won't know what is said. I've constructed the same scenarios as everyone else for what death is like, and only the least plausible includes consciousness of the life I would have just left.ⁱⁱⁱ Nothing is more likely. Or, better said, “nothingness” is more likely.^iv Among the other possibilities is a kind of consciousness of the soul, and knowledge and participation in some form of “afterlife.” It's hard to imagine what this might be, but I treasure it as a possibility in order keep open the hope that the end of life is not the end. I can imagine dying. There may be pain, or there may not. I may be competent or unable to understand the world around me. Indeed, I may be insensate. But I cannot imagine death. I'll be alive when dying. There will always be a future for me, no matter how bleak. Unfortunately, as far as we know that is not the case with death. And that is what leads to fear.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross characterized the reactions to the expectation of death and to that fear: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance – DABDA.^v It's reassuring to think that ultimately I'll probably come to accept death, and knowing that, I've already worked out a form of rationalization of it. It doesn't tell me what death is like, only that I shouldn't be afraid of it.

I like to think of death as similar to what I experienced as a child. (And it's comforting to do so.) My parents forced me to take a nap or to go to sleep, and I fought it.^vi And that was especially true when something exciting, like a party for me, was planned for the other end of the sleep. But when I awoke, rested, it was clear they were right and the new “life” I was experiencing was better than anything that preceded it. Sadly, I didn't remember that the next time sleep was forced on me, so I feared it and fought it the next time.^vii

Even so, it is our understanding – right or wrong – that there are things worse than death. From Patrick Henry's perspective, and that of many of his fellow Founding Fathers, the most valid stance was “Give me Liberty or give me Death.”^viii And, in the words of Nathan Hale on the scaffold, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”

More recently the motto was “Better dead than red.” Catchy, if somewhat jingoistic. Some may have taken it seriously, but in all likelihood most considered it more a slogan than a policy. Most examples of self-sacrifice are probably impulsive.^ix That doesn't make them less heroic, for those whose instinct is to save others at the expense of their own lives demonstrate lifelong training in patriotism and in concern for others. Perhaps it's genetic,^x and is an evolutionary strategy for species continuity, but whatever the reason for giving one's life for others, it demonstrates that for those people death was preferable to the alternative.

Not so heroically, we all rush toward death. We don't think of it in those terms, but that's the reality. We live, as Cohen and George remind us, “as if the horizon of the future were very long, if not indefinite.” We're eager to reach the next milestone in our journey – a birthday, anniversary, new job, daughter's wedding, or retirement – for what we consider to be reasons of enjoyment. Or we're determined that some unpleasant task will be completed and we can move on. But all of these things will take place in a future which we seek earnestly. And all bring us closer to death, although that is never on our minds. Nor should it be. After all, there's no point in thinking about things like death. Even if others do. We won't have to worry about it for a long time.

That's denial. It's the first step.

Next episode: “I Cannot Tell A Lie” – My memory isn't good enough.

I        Eric Cohen and Robert P. George, “The Problems and Possibilities of Modern Genetics,” in Constitution 3.0, Jeffrey Rosen and Benjamin Wittes, editors. Page 186.

ii        Of course I won't hear it, but that doesn't keep me from wondering. Perhaps I'll prepare a résumé for the speakers in order that nothing I consider important will be unavailable. That, however, is no guarantee that it will be used.

iii       But since I cannot know what G-d has in store for us, the speculation is childish.

iv       See note iii.

v       On Death and Dying, 1969, Routledge.

vi      I didn't know what sleep was, and whether I would awaken. And even if I did, I'd miss so much.

vii     It may be fantasy, but it's reassuring. Moreso than believing, as many do, that nothing follows life but the rotting of the corpse. (If they're right they'll never know it.) And from my point of view,such a fantasy is no loss. In fact I will have been happier than I might have been. If they're wrong, they've spent a lifetime anticipating a nothingness of their own creation.

viii    That, of course, didn't prevent them from allowing slavery in the Constitution. Politics and all that. Henry, himself, condemning a strong central government along with condemning life in general under British rule, opposed the Constitution, but still owned the slaves he inherited. “I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them.” Inconvenience, apparently, was also worse than death.

ix      Suicide may also be impulsive, but that's not the subject here.

x       See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Me, Myself, And I

                                                                                                                   

The most famous exponent of self-interest was Narcissus. Perhaps he never existed, however it is from him that we get the concept of personal concern to the exclusion of anything else. But such an outlook is not unique. We've all experienced it.

As babies we were unaware that there was anything outside of ourselves. Our experience didn't include anything else. Even the few sights and sounds we experienced were only relevant to the extent that they affected us. Eventually, when we got older, we began to appreciate the world around us; only then did we recognize that there were others who were not part of us or answerable to us, and they saw us in the same light. We were becoming socialized.

Unfortunately, many never complete the process. Tom Wolfe coined the term “Me Generation” to refer to self-absorbed “baby boomers”ⁱ whose primary focus was themselves. And it was not a small number of people. There was a culture of narcissism that saw the world only as it related to them – individually. That was the prism for seeing, and then judging, everything around them, from politics to personal appearance to the “relevance” of college courses. It was a self-indulgent generationⁱⁱ that promoted the “sexual revolution” and anything else that felt good. Instant gratification and personal satisfaction took precedence over patience and community development. And, to a significant degree, such a perspective persists.

The more common “self-interest” though – the one on which most people focus – is that related to living our lives in a world that is not always to our liking. We need jobs and we seek advancement. We want what's best for us – the “good things.” We look for shortcuts around problems – at least those we choose to see or those we simply can't avoid. It isn't a matter of not recognizing others. Rather we are seeking to improve our own lot – even if it's at their expense. “What's in it for me?” That often involves negotiating with those around us – in the workplace, on the street, and at home. Our goal is to stay ahead of the Joneses. The Me Generation didn't care about others. We compete with them. Our world is a little larger than that of the narcissistic individual. Our kind of attitude probably predominates among most people. For some – the poor and starving, especially in the “Third World”– it's a matter of survival rather than advantage, and it's less focused on competition with neighbors. The focus is entirely on the self.

Another level is inhabited by those whose self-interest extends beyond their own time. For them, the future – and, specifically, the future of their own families – is their concern. They feel an obligation to provide for those who come after them. They, too, want to improve “their” lot, but it will be through their descendants. They are concerned for what follows, since it is an extension of themselves; they want to provide for their heritageⁱⁱⁱ – for their children and grandchildren. Like the self-interest that tells them they must beat out everyone around them – that they must win in the competition – this need is to be sure that their offspring are better off than anyone else's. It's selfish, but it's more forward thinking than a desire for personal gains.

Guilt elimination may be another need in the quest for self-interest. Thus, in addition to the premium placed on altruistic behavior by religions, regret and a (rational or irrational) feeling of responsibility, as well as the need to drive it away, are important factors in the generosity of these angels. Their interest in others may seem to be more widely aimed and selfless, but the source remains very personal. Too often it's a matter of self-interest, as perceived by the well-off.

That's not such a big surprise. We all have free will, and we exercise it in every decision we make,^iv even those that involve bad choices. When we choose the lesser of evils, we choose what we think will be less harmful to us. We decide what is in our best interests. And giving away money doesn't present people with unwelcome choices. In addition to fulfilling a religious precept or ridding ourselves of guilt, we enjoy basking in the admiration by others of our generosity. Win, win. Anonymous donations happen, but not very often.

But if we look at the total picture of self-interest, the actions of the majority of people whether rich or poor, we're not very different from the “lower” animals. You may be a Darwinian or a Creationist,^v but it's hard not to see people's actions as aimed at the continuity of the human species. However we reached the point we're now at,^vi the goal for all groups is making things better – for ourselves and our children. And if our designs work, the entire human race will benefit. That may not be our intent, but it is the likely result.

As humans, we're all^vii narcissists.

Next episode: “DABDA” -- I dare you to figure that one out. (Please forgive the terminal preposition.)

I       And the generations since. Nowadays people become so lost in their electronic devices that they have little time for others. Perhaps some use the devices as a way of shutting others out of their lives. In any event, they may spend so much time in this private reverie that they never learn the skills necessary to interact with others.

ii      You're thinking “There he goes again. Things were bad before that. They're no different from what they've always been.” That may be a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that behavior wasn't ideal in the past. But I really think personal behavior is worse now and we, and our predecessors, knew what was bad and we didn't flaunt our actions and lose ourselves in them as much.

iii     That seems to be a major consideration of Presidents. Some seem more concerned with how they'll be judged in the future than how they perform now.

iv      Of course some things are out of our hands. We don't decide when a flood is going to wipe us out, so we cannot act in our self-interest. But we always do so when given the opportunity. Those who choose an oath of poverty see it as in their interest to do so. No one gives away his possessions without a reason. Whether prompted by religion, guilt, or the tax codes, the giver considers it as in his best interests to do so.

v      Unless you're a hard line fundamentalist, the two are not incompatible. Evolution (Darwin's explanation of life's development) is a scientific description of a means. Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) speaks of an end. Most religious people do not view the Bible as a scientific text and accept the idea that some of its content is metaphorical. Many are willing to view evolution as G-d's means of producing life on earth.

vi      It's reasonable to assume that our current state results from the interest of our predecessors in their best-interests and in those of their children.

vii     Almost all. There are some who, like the Lorax (in Dr. Seuss's book of the same name) speak for others, but they, as is true of everyone else, have chosen to do so because they consider that a good choice among the possibilities available to them. From their perspective, it is in their best interests. They may even believe that it is in everyone's best interests, but their concern is really only regarding their own views. They will act for those who don't know better, but who, in their view, will benefit from moves designed to better the world. Whether the ones for whom they are acting like it or not. In a way, those who think they are idealists are actually narcissists. They're assuaging their guilt and fooling themselves.