Can We Talk?

Islamophobia is bad. It paints an entire population with the faults of some. If most Muslims favor Sharia law and the destruction of Western culture, that is their right. Criticism of their views, however, is not ours. In the United States if there is a verbal expression of anxiety over the fact of Islamic ideas it is considered “hate” speech. If someone labels a terrorist bombing or other incident as a terrorist bombing or other incident, it is viewed by many as Islamophobia and shifts guilt from the bomber to the one speaking. Academia has created “safe spaces” where students, purportedly in universities to learn the views of the world around them, can protect themselves from ideas they don't want to hear.

There is a German song, “Die Gedanken sind frei” – Thoughts are free. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, thought, and religion, but that only seems to apply if the concept you're considering is in fashion politically, and if it can be taken out of context to make a political point or to express something fashionable. You may decry whatever “common knowledge” has decided is evil, but not any thoughts you may have about some taboo topic. Thoughts are free but not their expression.

Muslims participated in slave trade long before it became a way of life in America. And most of the African blacks who wound up here were rounded up by black African leaders who made a great profit from the transactions. We don't talk about that – that part of history is of no interest to us. Rather we undo American history by desecrating and destroying as many as we can of those aspects of the slave trade and the Confederacy with which we disagree. They may have been blights on our heritage (irrespective of how they were viewed at the time), but the blight – and responsibility for indemnification and apology are ours, and not in any way associated with those who sold us the slaves. Vilifying America is virtuous – especially if accompanied by mass action. It is an expression of freedom of speech. But we are not free to question that point of view. We are bigots if we do so. The only thing we're privileged to discuss is what happened in our country, not elsewhere. Context is irrelevant. And discussion of context is forbidden in safe spaces.

Let's take another example. Antisemitism has been around for millennia. And that includes the United States where it can still be found. We don't talk about it. Prejudice against Jews and many other groups – is not a subject of conversation. There is no discussion of “Affirmative Action” anchored in the quotas of the past. It is of no interest to universities. And, of course, what happened to them in the past – history – is not our concern if it doesn't fit into the current narrative. What fits should be excoriated in the names of justice and free speech. What contradicts our current views is hateful and its discussion should be repressed, irrespective of the means necessary.

One more example: whatever is said against blacks or Muslims is hate speech. If it is mentioned at all in the media it is only to be condemned. Better – it should not be mentioned at all. Similar accusations against conservatives, however, are not only legitimate – whether false or true – should be shouted from the rooftops. And those having a different opinion are bigots. Our media tell us so.

Look at the New York Times on almost any day. (That paper is merely my example because I live in New York, but I suspect the pattern holds true in most homes of “liberalism” – the only truly American point of view.) The opinion section is almost entirely about the evils of conservatives and conservatism. It is heavy-handed and it rarely prints contrary ideas, no matter how important and logical the perspectives are – and it's only to provoke outrage among its readers. That's expressed in the letters they choose to print.

Worse. Conservative views are overlooked and even the “objective” articles are filled with the newspaper's opinion (advocacy journalism). Indeed, the choice of what “news” to cover seems to be based on a paper's editorial views, rather than its inherent worthiness.

In short, free speech seems to be limited to politically acceptable ideas. Anything contrary to them is beyond the pale and should be suppressed. In part it's about (political) fashion, but more important it's about the Constitution, and what students nowadays are taught is its meaning and that of the amendments.

Can we talk? Only if you say what I want to hear.

Conservative Liberals For Example

They are all-wise. They are the people. They understand all issues and can deal with them in the most intelligent way.

Right now they have evaluated the current administration and know it is wrong on every issue. And they lead others in protesting against it and them. Especially any change from what the previous administration decreed.

Health care, tax policies, administrative rules, military policies – all of what was passed in the past is better than any change that has been proposed, or might be offered by the opposition. They prefer the past to the present. Much like classic conservatives – only their standard for the past is the last administration and its bureaucrats rather than the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Both liberals and conservatives agree on the concepts of equality and liberty, only their definitions and points of reference differ. For conservatives equality was judged on the basis of opportunity, while liberals considered equality of results to be the Holy Grail; for conservatives liberty meant being left alone while for liberals liberty requires that the government attend to all your needs so you won't have to worry about them. But both rely on what is past. To that degree the liberals are also conservative.

The liberals often accuse their opponents of error and inconsistency, of bias and class warfare – of defending the rich and scorning the poor. And, in some respects they are right. Liberals, however, are similarly guilty. They are inconsistent when they promote diversity to the point of demanding housing at universities for specific racial groups while applauding interracial marriage which guarantees the mixing of heritages and a form of assimilation. And they don't seem to be concerned that their desire for race-specific college dormitories or other housing is another form of segregation – no matter how righteous they are about it.

Nor do they realize that providing “entitlements” to the poor is a patronizing act. Indeed, liberals scorn the poor as they favor the “middle class.” It's not the “rich,” who, they insist, are benefited by the conservatives, but it is not the poor. Many of the poor recognize the hypocrisy and vote for the conservatives. This is not to suggest that entitlements are unwelcome, but the building of industry and the provision of more jobs would be better for the individuals involved and for our country as well. Some of the liberals would increase the laws that add to entitlements and oppose any change in past offerings. But, after advocating for the past, they would oppose any recollection of those parts of our history that offend them. They favor statutes over statues, as long as those statutes fit their ideology. And as long as it is more fashionable to eliminate uncomfortable history than to explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider.

What they propose is to compensate for the prejudices of the past. The way they choose to do it, however, is equally problematic. Subjugation of one race while benefiting another is indefensible. Sadly, there are many, primarily conservatives, who continue to promote the same biases, biases which should never have existed, but they did and should be left in the past.

Unfortunately the compensation that many propose, and many institutions accept, is a tool of the past. It is the award of preference to the descendants of those who suffered discrimination in the past. It is affirmative action most prominently practiced in academia. The obvious problem with this practice is that it is another example of bias – one favoring groups that previously suffered discrimination, but a practice that discriminates against non-members of the preferred group. In this instance they mimic uncomfortable history rather than explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider; they imitate past practices rather than living up to the principles they claim to espouse. Moreover, the principle of affirmative action – the display of preference – extends beyond the universities.

Those who subscribe exclusively to their own precepts would countenance complete freedom to say and practice anything that promotes the cause. Some liberals are not merely conservatives, but libertarians – as long as their political theory is advanced. But so are some staunch conservatives. Indeed, some are forceful in promoting new ideas to advance their goals.

Actually there are two types of people, politically speaking. I'm not referring to liberals and conservatives. Together, the good ones – the majority – in both groups, notwithstanding the faults on both sides, make up one of the categories of which I speak. (When I've used the terms up to now I was emphasizing the “outliers” – the squeaky wheels, the vocal leaders of the fringes, and the fringes themselves.) While the majorities may differ in terms of methods and approaches to solving problems, both are concerned about the same problems – the fate of the country, its needy, and the rest of us.

The other group, however, is concerned with the same problems, but not as final goals – only as tools for helping them advance themselves, both politically and economically, and to their dream of gaining power. Thus, for them, the needy and the country are tools, not ends. And another motivating force among them is ideology, which is more important than accomplishment to help the electorate. Its main value is for public relations: to attract the interest of lobbies and the voters.

Most see the value of debate with those having a different viewpoint, of compromise in order to achieve progress toward correction of the issues that separate us. Admittedly they have dissimilar ideas about how that should come about, but they are eager to discuss them. The aim is accomplishment, not obstruction. Not everyone – often no one – is happy with the results, but there are results.

There is value in much of what has already happened, though we may disagree over what should be emphasized, and we are hopeful of what the future holds, recognizing that there will be changes of which we disapprove. There will always be outliers (and all too many outright liars) but they will be far outnumbered by the “inliers” who need to make their voices heard. The silent majority – whether liberal or conservative – are better representatives of public opinion than the grandstanders who promote disunity.

August 23, 2017

History

“History is bunk.” (Henry Ford)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)

And they're both right.

History is an indispensable part of our education but it's sometimes difficult to know what is true.

Let me add another perspective. “History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill is credited with that thought, although we all know it to be true. We see it every day in the media. The term we use currently is “spin,” and it reflects the way that some want others to “understand” and remember the facts. That's what the victors in battle did. And later generations passed on their views to us as an accurate reflection of what had happened. Sometimes it was true, but not always.

In his “Life of George Washington,” Pastor Mason Weems taught us many myths about our first president – myths that have come to be accepted as reflecting the character of George Washington, even if the “facts” may have been manufactured. Like the work of Thomas Bowdler, Weems goal was to teach morality, but it's been passed down as history.

The Russians made an art of spin. They rewrote history. But they had the power to do so. They could change the text of textbooks and present it to several generations as facts which were eventually accepted. George Orwell, in 1984, fictionalized that act, but his meaning was clear. If we don't know what tyrannies can do, and prevent them, they will deceive us again and again.

And despots, given the opportunity (and if not they'll take it anyway), will use twisted history to justify their own acts. Hitler blamed the Jews for undermining German war efforts and he set out to destroy them both before, and during, the war that he precipitated. History can be used as an excuse for evil.

But it can also be used positively, if that is the aim of those who cite it – even if the “facts” it uses are wrong. The Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av – a single date – commemorates disastrous events that occurred on different dates so as to obviate the need for additional fast days. No attempt is made to alter the other details of the events – only the days. The source of information is the Bible, admittedly written before factuality became an important part of history, although many accept its words at face value as the words of G-d.

Also problematic as history are the Gospels, written after Jesus's death by people who never met him. They were based on stories circulating at the time and have been accepted as accurate, notwithstanding the disputed historicity.

My words should not be understood as a denial of history. The vast majority of what we learn is probably true. It is based on artifacts which provide the facts on which history texts are based. But the historical record also relies on the accounts of those who lived at the time of those events, and their views may be based on ideology rather than truth. We see that with “spin.”

Quoting a Russian proverb, President Reagan said “ Trust but verify.” He was speaking of nuclear inspections, but he was using the words of a nation that had often covered up or altered history to further its position. They're good words, however, for understanding history. The record we have is a valuable guide for us, but it is strengthened, and more worthy of our reliance and observance when supported by reliable evidence.

Properly documented history is not bunk. But sometimes people knowingly make it so in order to aid their own agendas.

June 15. 2017

A Statue Of Hitler

Slavery is an evil institution. But it is one that has always existed. In recent days it has resulted in the toppling of Civil War statues in New Orleans. Prior to that there were denaming and renaming of buildings in academia because those whom they honored owned slaves. But I want to focus on history, because history is being rewritten, much as was done in the Soviet era, and much as we read about in George Orwell's 1984.

For the moment at least, and I've illustrated this already, everyone's attention is on slavery. It was a dark period in our nation's history, a period whose effects are still with us. And we're making efforts to correct them, and to remove the stain. But, I think, we're going about it the wrong way. Let me illustrate with a bizarre example.

I found the following question on the internet and both the question and the answer are deserving of thought.

In Georgia, recently there has been a dispute, wether [sic] or not the government should keep a monument to Stalin near the house were he was born (ONLY FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSE) [Is there a] public statue of Hitler (even in Nazi Germany)?

[The “Georgia” to which the questioner referred was, obviously not the American state but the eastern European nation.] And the answer:

There are no official statues of Hitler in Germany. ... The former dictator is essentially a persona non grata in Germany, so you would not want to honour [sic] him with statues.

But I suggest the erection of statues of Hitler (and Stalin) all over the world.

I view him as a devil, The Prince of Darkness. He was a murderous, anti-semitic, psychopath and merits our abhorrence for what he did. And he convinced his followers not only of his views but, often, their views as well, and to act on them. It is not underemphasis to suggest that he was one of the most evil men in world history, and his suicide saved him from human recriminations and punishment. Still I suggest his memorialization, for reasons I shall explain presently.

Let me begin the explanation by citing a view of “The Prince of Peace.” I've already mentioned “The Prince of Darkness” so it's only right. I'll first quote all he had to say about the institution of slavery:

“”

Nothing.

Avery Robert Dulles said that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In a paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that, while he often encountered it, "not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery."

Knowing that he witnessed slavery all the time, it is hard not to conclude that he either approved of slavery or didn't give it a second thought. It was a feature of the time and place – normal in the context of his times.

But in recognition of his lack of concern – his tacit approval – of slavery the question arises, in view of current opinions, as to whether all statues of Jesus – indeed, all statues of Christians – should be destroyed. The owning of slaves in our history was as much the exemplification of those times in our history as Jesus's disregard of slaves in his. Whether we agree with them or not, we wouldn't want to see all his words expunged, and the history of the times suppressed because of our disagreements with its priorities. And we wouldn't want the statues of him and all his followers toppled.

But why not? What was done doesn't reflect our views. What they did was wrong, and people suffered because of it. The answer is that it happened. As did the Holocaust and American slavery. And there are many more examples. We don't have to approve of them to acknowledge that they happened, and the more we know of history, the better we can deal with the future. History is not dogma, ideology, sentiment, or political correctness, and the more we separate it from those conceptions, the more accurate will be our image of the past – and the better will be our planning for the future.

Making history conform to our outlook doesn't change the past, although it may affect our knowledge of it. Ignoring the context of the times is deceptive. Obliterating what we don't like makes us more ignorant, not more virtuous. Centuries from now people will look back at us and disagree with some of what we've done. I hope they don't hide from it. I disagree with a lot that's happening, but it's happening and denying it or altering what we know of it will cripple them, as our denial of the past cripples us.

Back to Hitler. His acts were horrendous, and it's incumbent on us to remember them and take steps to make sure they aren't repeated. We are not a world of idealists and we can't rely on others to be so. Especially if we've made them ignorant of what has come before.

Don't destroy or remove statues. Build them, as part of museums which document what happened for the education of those who follow us. There will be plenty of room in the museum to explain what happened and why it was wrong (or, sometimes, right) to those who are unaware. Hitler, Stalin, the tyrants of the Middle East and Far East, the marauders and murderers of Africa, the drug dealers of Central and South America, and our own villains must be remembered and their wickedness described.

As was said by George Santayana

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

And those who hide or falsify the past are even more responsible for our ignorance.








May 19, 2017

*

What is the truth? Is it sometimes just the latest opinion? Is it changeable? (By the way, that's an asterisk. Not an asterik or an asterix, which are common mispronunciations. But more on the symbol can be found in the dictionary. You probably have one somewhere around.)

What is history? Is it simply the testimony of the victor or the view of the best writer? Where does mythology end and a true representation of the past begin? Can we change the past if we don't find it agreeable? How can we indicate any differences we may have, or any changes that may have occurred?

One of the biggest arguments in baseball, though it's obviously of no consequence when considering all of the world's real problems, regards the record for home runs in a single season. For a long time the record was held by Babe Ruth who, in 1927, hit sixty. The record held for quite a while and was revered by those who saw the Babe as the greatest hitter baseball had ever known. Then came Roger Maris, who hit sixty-one in 1961. (This all happened in the “old days,” before Mark McGwire hit seventy in 1998 and Barry Bonds hit seventy-three in 2001 – but we'll hold that discussion for now.) Ruth, however, hit his homers in a 154 game season, while the season, by 1961, had been extended to 162 games and it wasn't until after game number 154 that Maris hit his sixtieth and sixty-first.

Although the achievement was great (albeit fleeting – Maris soon disappeared from the scene), some sources chose to put an asterisk in their records to indicate that Maris didn't ”really” break the Babe's record. He just had more time. (Actually he hit sixty in fewer at-bats than Ruth.) The asterisk and explanation added some context to the information however, though it didn't affect the accomplishment. And that is the value of the footnote – however it is indicated. It offers the opportunity to comment on what is written without directly interrupting the flow of the text – and that can clarify what is written. For not everything written as history can be accepted at face value.

It's said that “History is written by the victors.” The concept is old, and the origin of the words uncertain. Some attribute it to Machiavelli, some to Nehru, some to Churchill, and others to a variety of authors. What it indicates, however, is that history is made by the one whose book you read. It's certain that Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” It would reflect his views and not those of someone with whom he disagreed. And that presents another reason for the inclusion of footnotes. In addition to context, such notes can offer some perspective on the reliability of the source and, perhaps, alternative understandings of the events portrayed, and why they are described as they are.

The stories about George Washington that Parson Mason Weems wrote in his Life of Washington weren't meant to be taken as the truth. They were “intended to provide a morally instructive tale for the youth of the young nation.” They still do. They are the fables we teach our children even today. But any reference on the subject will ensure that they are understood as “instructive tales” rather than fact. They're wonderful for “the youth of [our not so] young nation” as morality tales that would prove inspiring. But, though created from whole cloth (Parson Weems was a man of the whole cloth), fortunately their allegorical nature is well known.

Not so the work of Alex Haley. Only when his work on the origin of his family as slaves in the American south – a “history” that became a television mini-series – was shown to be a fabrication did he fess up. As Edward Kosner reported in the Wall Street Journal (December 27, 2015), when confronted about his work “Haley staged a dignified retreat. 'I was just trying to give my people a myth to live by,' he took to saying.” The “truth” may be more than a set of facts, but the reader is entitled to know what's “true,” and what's true.

How much of the history we “know” to be true should be foot-noted? How much is reported by someone with an ax to grind? The problem is less that particular views may be favored and considered as truth, but that other views are not always preserved. The Talmud, the compendium of Jewish law, was careful to preserve the arguments and minority opinions on the subjects it discusses, giving future generations an understanding of the various views and possibilities. Some of what were considered minority views have survived as traditions of particular groups and others, after further discussion by more recent sages, have been accepted as normative. The views of the “losers” were not suppressed by the “victors,” but preserved as intercalated “footnotes.”

Though short lived, the asterisk provided such additional information. Who remembers that what was once a “dead” baseball was livened when, in 1911, there was a shift to cork centers for the balls, and that Home Run Baker, who played primarily before the “jackrabbit” ball was introduced, never hit more than twelve homers in a season? (Or, for that matter, that tennis rackets used to be made of wood.) Who considers the fact that Josh Gibson hit over eighty home runs while playing in the Negro Leagues because he was excluded from the white man's domain? Who entertains the notion that home run numbers have been affected by changes in stadium sizes and shapes to increase their likelihood and the profits of the owners? None of this information changes the past, but it gives us the opportunity to view it with added perspective.

Whatever the subject, context and perspective are valuable. You can ignore them if you choose, but their absence cheats you. It robs you of the opportunity to understand what you are considering. It's a shame they're not used more often, and that they're often ignored when present.ⁱ

I        Aye, there's the rub. I used to footnote liberally but, fearing that the notes were never read, I switched to inserting some of the information into the text by the use of parentheses, quotation marks, and other devices.

Say It Isn't So

According to Reuters (and many other sources) “Princeton University has pledged to consider renaming buildings dedicated to former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in the latest U.S. campus effort to quell student complaints of racism.”

It's about time!

Students have pointed out, quite rightly, that those of the past have not lived up to our twenty-first century standards and should be held accountable.

And the New York Times agreed. “Student protesters at Princeton performed a valuable public service last week when they demanded that the administration acknowledge the toxic legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who served as university president and New Jersey governor before being elected to the White House.” If the Times says it, it must be true.

But the protests do not go far enough. We should begin by renaming our capital's most striking monument. George Washington was a slave owner all his life, only agreeing that they be freed after he died. In fact, we should rename the city itself. Racism is wrong and we cannot condone it, especially in the name of our capital. Instead we should switch to the District of Columbia – except Columbus oppressed Native Americans and took their land. (Indeed, we're obliged to change the name of the school which has hosted so many protests.) That won't do for a country as great of the United States of America. (Actually we'd better rename our great country since Amerigo Vespucci “captur[ed] some 200 Native Americans in the Bahamas to take back to Europe as slaves.” – check the internet and see http://ageofex.marinersmuseum.org/index.php?type=explorersection&id=166

Clearly this is a matter that the Democrats should discuss at their next Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner (both were slaveholders), and they should then rename the occasion – except I don't know to what.

Republicans can deal with the issue at their Lincoln Day Dinner (of course the Emancipation Proclamation was a political statement rather than a philosophical one, even though Lincoln favored a policy of no new slavery) after altering the appellation.

Changes in thought, beliefs, and preferences have occurred over time and we must not honor those who shared the views of their times if those ideas are now considered reprehensible. Those who favored expansion of our country at the cost of Native Americans, often breaking treaties with them, should be shunned; slaveholders and other racists should be reviled; religions that proscribe women as leaders cannot be tolerated, nor should we memorialize their members. (We can, however, ignore the fact that President Roosevelt turned away the St. Louis, and the founder of the New York Times was determined “not to have The Times ever appear to be a ‘Jewish newspaper.’” If we were to apply the same rules to anti-semitism we'd wind up with no one to honor. And, as that great philosopher Tom Lehrer said, “Everybody hates the Jews.” Always have, always will. Let's let that one pass.)

Our problems are that we're arrogant and we're revisionists. We're convinced that our principles are absolutes, and violation of them invalidates the rest of someone's life. We second-guess the past in the light of current beliefs and rip pages from the history books if they don't conform to our standards. We don't want to see and honor the past, we want to transform it into a prior present. Dogma trumps education and achievement.

But we shall be judged by the standards of others in the future as we judge those in the past. Perhaps our descendents will consider abortion to be murder, or our attitudes toward prostitutes to be too restrictive, or too lenient. Perhaps they'll feel that those who favor incarceration of criminals or the use of service animals are wrongly restricting the freedom of members of the animal kingdom. They might even consider protesters to be disrupting the freedom of others. And they may obliterate any reference to anyone holding such views, or tolerating those who do so. They might require a “donor's advocate” to defend the placing of a philanthropist's (or anyone else's) name on a university building, in order to prevent the pollution of future seekers of truth.

Or perhaps we should recognize that times and prejudices change, and that we only harm ourselves when we suppress the knowledge of what actually happened before, and when we deny honor to those who may have accomplished great things but who had opinions that differ from ours.

Condemned

On my way to synagogue each morning I pass the house of a chiropractor who always seems to have an old Chevrolet in his driveway. It's invariably one that needs work and I suspect that it is a hobby of his to restore them. I remember cars like them from my childhood and, I assume, he does as well. That it was his childhood too. We all remember those days fondly and, since our senses and learning ability were greater then, the images from the past are our strongest.

Nostalgia. “Those were the days my friend. We thought they'd never end.” But they did. So we recapture them any way we can. However we adapt to the tools of the present and future, however we observe the norms of our times, we live in the past. We remember the music of our childhood, and the dances, and the events – both personal and national. Just as our children will do.  They will reject the trappings of our youth as we spurned those of our parents. (And, like us, they would be unable to tolerate the way of life of the distant past.)

That spurning made sense. We were smarter than our parents and more “with it.” We knew that the world was changing and that we had to change with it. George Santayana was only one of many who said it, but he is the one most remembered for the idea: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Those are strong words. Especially “condemned.” It is clearly a pejorative, having the same root as “damned,” and we accepted the wisdom of the adage and its denigration of the past without protest. A variant, that lack of knowledge of the past has doomed us to repeat it, is no better.

With age comes experience and knowledge. And, very often, conservatism. In many cultures age is considered to be accompanied by wisdom. The knowledge we acquired when we were young has been replaced by the wisdom that we gained as the years passed. So sometimes we recognize that the changes of our New Age may not benefit us or our children. Some of our childhood experiences and some of the world in which we lived then were preferable to what exists now. Yet we are taught that change is always for the better. Indeed, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The implication is that no one in his right mind would want to repeat it.

Some of those past memories, though, aren't so bad. Nor are the realities they represented. Some of what has replaced them is of questionable value to many, and repulsive to some. We need parental controls on our television sets and on our computers to prevent our children from watching what we believe to be harmful to them, and to keep them from being attracted by individuals who might have a negative influence on them. We have movie and television rating systems that warn us of the threats in popular culture. We worry about our food and our environment, and we fear to let our children experience the world without proper safeguards.

But we can't stop the world and get off. What has happened over the years has come to be labeled “lifestyle creep.” However undesirable the changes that have occurred, they are now part of the scenery. They're background noise. We can't get rid of them. We can't go home again. And, according to Santayana and others, we are damned and doomed if we choose to do so.

The result is a naїve belief that things will get better – that the world of the future is certain to be superior to what we have already experienced. Perhaps that is the case, but accepting change for its own sake rather than learning from the past, is risky. Not all change is for the better. Sometimes it is better to relive a certain and well-defined past than to gamble on a future filled with unintended consequences.

To a degree, Santayana and those who shared his view were right. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned likely to repeat it.” But that's not always bad. There is no single solution or formula. What may have been the worst of times was also the best of times.

Next episode: “The Trouble With Israel” – And why the world hates her.

Past, Present, And Future

Arnold Toynbee, British historian (and well-known anti-semite: his most notable views expressed after the Holocaust were condemnations of Zionism and Israel for “the vicious disease of nationalism” and for committing atrocities on the Arabs, in addition to numerous references to “Judaic zealotry”) amazed by the longevity of the Jewish People, viewed it as anomalous. In volume 1 of A Study of History (1934), he wrote:

“There remains the case where victims of religious discrimination represent an extinct society which only survives as a fossil. .... by far the most notable is one of the fossil remnants of the Syriac Society, the Jews."

“Fossil” was one of the less pejorative terms Toynbee used, but Ezekial's prophecy was more accurate than Toynbee's history:

“I prophesied as I was commanded and the spirit entered them [the bones which represented Israel] and they revived. They rose on their feet, a very great multitude.”

That spirit has reentered the Jewish People, but the world is not happy about it.

Toynbee's bias, though shared by much of the world, was not universal. Eric Hoffer wrote,

“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Earlier, Mark Twain had written

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.”

“The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

“The Jew saw them all [and] survived them all.”

And even earlier, our first (and arguably our greatest) President wrote of the Jew

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

But I am afraid.

Since its founding, the United States has had what can only be viewed as a sympathetic relationship with the State of Israel, and one that is mutually beneficial. And there has been a great deal of identification with Israel by the American public. In Gallup Polls, there has been a consistent preference shown by our citizens for Israel over the Palestinians, with the edge shown in 2013 as 64% to 12%.

Foreign policy, however, reflects the preferences of the President, rather than the people. During World War II, the Roosevelt Administration denied Jews on the St. Louis the opportunity to save their lives by entering the United States, and Roosevelt refused to bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz – another course that would have saved Jewish Lives. On the other had, his successor, Harry Truman, recognized the State of Israel only a few minutes after it was proclaimed.

When Israel, in response to the request of Britain and France, joined in the effort to retake the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it, President Eisenhower threatened sanctions. But more recent Presidents have been increasingly sympathetic to Israel and have supported it. As Lord Palmerston said, however, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” In our country, those “interests” are decided on by the President, and our current President has decided that it is in our interest to side with Israel's enemies. As the President's Secretary of State put it, "We are gathered here because our leaders made a courageous decision to stop being prisoners of history." He spoke of Cuba, but it has been a hallmark of this administration to ignore past principles and seek “courageous decisions” which the President hopes will form a heritage for him. Agreements with Iran and other tyrannies in the Middle East, he feels, are among the “permanent interests” of our country. Our people's views and our history are irrelevant. Whether or not that history is principled, it is now inconvenient.

Perhaps the policy reflects his personal worldview, or perhaps it reflects a changing world – one in which the Muslim population, already very large, is increasing faster than others, a world in which there is extensive anti-Israel sentiment everywhere (especially among academics and their students), where antisemitism, one the world's few constants, is increasing in strength, as is the need for oil.

Our adherence to Palmerston's philosophy, however, is likely to make our other “friends” and “allies” nervous, since we have demonstrated that we place expedience over principle; we can't be trusted. And if Israel cannot rely on its most trusted ally, I am worried.

The Greater Of One Elvis

                                                                          

Several months ago I saw Elvis coming out of a music store. A guitar was slung over his shoulder, perhaps one he had just bought. The carrying case looked new. It was snowing out, but extending downward from his leather jacket and into the milky powder, I could see what looked like a white jump suit – with something that glittered embedded in the fabric, possibly sequins. He was headed in the direction of a drug store, but I lost sight of him before he entered.

He looked older than I remembered. But I know I looked older too. After all, it was over thirty-five years since he had left the public spotlight. As a matter of fact it was his seventy-eighth birthday, January 8, 2013.

Elvis never died.

Such is the power of belief. Although most people associate belief with religion, that is only one of numerous sources of belief. And some of the others have a stronger hold on the faithful than any religious tenet. Tell a child there is no Tooth Fairy, especially one who has just found money under his pillow, and there will only be expressions of disbelief – you might as well claim there is no Easter Bunny; confide to an adherent of homeopathy that he's wasting his money on water, and be prepared to be berated as a tool of the medical establishment; maintain that there are no UFOs, and someone who believes he was abducted by aliens will expound on your blindness and ignorance; and if you suggest that the Warren Commission got it right, that a lone gunman shot President Kennedy – if you question the idea that there were co-conspirators on a grassy knoll – you're likely to be considered as in denial of the obvious truth, the truth that “they” are withholding from you. And if you suggest to a militant atheist that there is a G-d, you had better be prepared for a diatribe on the evils of religion.

Virginia O'Hanlon knew there was a Santa Claus, even if she needed Francis Church and the New York Sun to confirm that obvious fact. Elwood Dowd, a friendly creature described by Mary Coyle Chase, had no doubt that he was accompanied by a six foot, three and a half inches tall rabbit, though some others (but not all) thought him crazy.ⁱ We're all familiar with the story that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and was quick to fess up to his transgression. While we may not accept Parson Weems's story as gospel, few question the Truth behind the story, and our first President is held in reverence by almost all Americans.

Every nation has its sagas; every civilization its heroes. Where would we all be if we lacked a faith in our heritage? And if some of that heritage, questionable as it may be in fact, turns into our “history,” all the better. The same is true for both verifiable facts and for beliefs. And those who accept as fact some things that we doubt, deserve our respect and appreciation. After all, maybe they're right. It is easy to dismiss what they say with the view that they live by the maxim “I believe because it is absurd”ⁱⁱ – the leap of faithⁱⁱⁱ – but there are many things that seem absurd but are true. For example, you can turn lead into gold, and you don't require a Philosopher's Stone, only radiation. At present it may not be worthwhile financially, but it is possible. And there are many other ideas of science^iv that seemed bizarre at the time and were rejected, but are now recognized to be basic facts.^v

The principal rule is that it is unwise to be too quick to condemn the ideas of another – however you may question them.^vi Belief is a powerful force, both personally and internationally. It's the basis for most of the world's contention, whether the beliefs are religious or political.^vii And the ideas you condemn may be true.

After all, Elvis is still alive, even if you choose^viii not to believe it.

Next episode: “Bette And Beyond” – The Davis philosophy.

i      Dowd, that is. All children have imaginary friends. Fortunately we don't all grow up and cast off those we love.

ii     “Credo quia absurdum” – Tertullian, from De Carne Christi

Crucifixus est Die Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;

et mortuus est Dei Filius, porsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;

et sepultus resurrexit, certum est; quia impossibile.

                                                                   De Carne Christi V, 4 ( cited by Wikipedia)

It's interesting that the quotation is, itself, a paraphrase of the text, and doesn't actually appear in the wording cited. Nonetheless, the idea that a belief is, by definition, irrational cannot be faulted. Were it provable it would become fact rather than belief. And some beliefs are, indeed, likely to be factual, even if not yet proved.

iii     Attributed to Kierkegaard although he apparently never used the term.

iv     And science fiction.

v      Of course there were also basic and accepted scientific concepts in the past that were later found to be nonsense. Science is often seen as the rationalist's answer to religion but in many respects it's just another religion, even if it claims otherwise.

vi     Some of the are, to be sure, nonsense, but that can be established without your help.

vii    Despite the claim of atheists, religion is not the cause of most deaths in war, nor are religious people. Hitler and Stalin caused far more deaths than occurred during the Crusades or in other religious wars. And tyrants who are hungry for power or wealth have no regard for others – especially when they have no belief in any kind of punishment for their actions.

viii   Wrongly.

Mixed Messengers And Messages

                                                                         

It was stated in the review of Jewish Law begun last week that although its primary source was the Torah, there were sometimes disagreements over what the words meant and what the law was in particular cases. Complicating this was the fact that there were different communities whose practices often did not coincide. These resulted from different opinions and rulings that occurred in communities cut off from each other. The experience didn't always parallel that of the translation of the Torah into Greek.ⁱ

And that's fine, because the control over the meaning of the Law was given by G-d to man.ⁱⁱ Man's word is law and to be accepted even if it seems to conflict with G-d's.ⁱⁱⁱ In addition, diametrically opposite conclusions are necessary for our understanding as long as the intent of the disputants is virtuous and meant to glorify the Law.^iv The same principle applies when a definitive ruling hasn't been made.^v

Yet not all those who fashioned themselves Jews accepted these interpretations. Several groups, including the Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and Karaites rejected interpretations by the Rabbis. They were, to different degrees, literalists or, to use current terminology, “fundamentalists,” for whom only strict observance of the words of the Torah was acceptable – not the ideas of interpreters. But there also were groups completely unaware of the oral law, having separated from Israel before it was fully formulated. They could never have rejected Rabbinic teachings because they never learned them. If they have not followed the Law as we know it, the cause is ignorance not arrogance, and they cannot violate what they never learned. (There is a somewhat similar situation in regard to those who were never taught Judaism's laws. Those raised without Jewish training – even if they are adults – are viewed as uneducated children rather than as sinners.)

Even those who accepted both the written and the oral law were sometimes forced to alter their view or practices. Anti-Semitic groups pressured the Jews to change portions of the Talmud that were viewed as heretical or insulting. Scrolls, books, and the wisdom and interpretations in them, were often destroyed, or sections deleted, with that portion of G-d's word often irretrievably lost. And forced conversions played a major role in leading Jews to accept teachings foreign to them, or at least to mouth, and sometimes eventually accept them, even if they tried to remain observant in secret. In those situations (and even moreso with voluntary assimilation) both G-d's words and man's interpretations of those words, were changed forever.

But for the most part, and for the majority, the word of the Rabbis was (the) law. The commonly held view was that everyone should study the Law, but the final word belonged to a select group. That wasn't always the case however. The Rabbis were cautioned not to enact ordinances that would not be followed. They had the right to do so because the prerogative of interpretation was theirs, but even though they “spoke” “the word of G-d,” they were careful not to decree what wouldn't be observed, for by doing so they would turn their fellow Jews into sinners. (From time to time it was necessary to rescind a Rabbinic ordinance^vi when it became clear that there were many who were not able to follow it.)

The current expression of this problem is the dispute between those who favor chumras^vii and those who favor kulas.^viii The latter fear that a strict interpretation will not be followed and the Law permits leniency, while the former are more concerned about, in addition to the specific law, the “slippery slope” which will lead to a lack of observance of the Law in general. In fact, they are convinced that a large number of Jews – indeed, the majority – have already lapsed into apostasy.^ix Certainly there are different streams in Judaism – even among the minority who consider themselves observant – and they are quick to question each other's opinions and practices. And they always view those who are less strict than themselves as moving away from the religion into which they were born.^x

But that's not all. There's also hero worship. Not literal worship – certainly not among observant Jews – but in terms of following the examples of those whom you admire. Often the goal is just to be in style or to be “in,”^xi but not always. Those who do so are usually seeking to improve their position vis-a-vis the others around them. They want to conform, even if it's to “the lowest common denominator.” It's not a practice to be followed.

A more “Torah true” version of this phenomenon, however, is based on the goal of improving themselves rather than their position. And it does not always require speech. According to some rabbinic legends, a talmid (student) can learn the will of Hashem merely by imitating his Rebbe. He is learning G-d's words and wishes by imitating the acts of the pious. It's a silent form of interpretation and teaching, but it's as valid an act of interpretation as one spoken or written. Even if “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” though, flattery is not the goal, and the imitation is seen as pursuit of the holy. Whether or not the legends have any substantial basis, they attest to the view that the one who is wise “learns from all men.”^xii In the words of Rabbi Hirsch, “it is primarily the knowledge of the Torah that stamps a person as wise.” And from whom is it better to learn Torah than your Rebbe? Whether by his words or his deeds.

Finally there is the anomaly that, as strange as it may seem, “Jewish Law” may be written by non-Jews. Certainly that is the case in terms of forced changes in the Jewish holy books, but it doesn't always require pressure. Dina d'malchuta dina – “the law of the land is the law” – has long been the doctrine we follow.^xiii And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes even supersede what the Rabbis have taught – they can be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem.^xiv

It's clear that the law, if not an ass, is certainly convoluted. And Jewish Law, believed to be the word of G-d – a law that has been interpreted by our predecessors, altered by the pressure of those who ruled us, and, on occasion, written by non-Jews – is especially complicated. At least the law we follow: the law decreed by our Rabbis. The Torah tells us that these rulings should govern our practice and, at least in part, it results from the principle that we honor conflicting opinions and consider them all the words of G-d. So that's what we do. Yet it makes many people uncomfortable and is for them an argument for rejection of the law or for fundamentalism. But those choices are even more asinine.

For that's the beauty of the Talmud. It preserves minority views, and considers all perspectives that have the goal of honoring  Hashem to be in conformity with His words and with His Law. So if your intent is righteous, your actions will be as well.

Next episode: “Silly Season” – This, too, will pass.

i      See endnote number xii in last week's essay.

ii     There are several statements of this principle, for example the Torah, in D'varim (Deuteronomy) 17.9, teaches us that we should obey the authorities of our own times and Bava Metzia 59b makes it clear that a majority of authorities is more important in deciding the law than a voice from heaven or miracles.

iii     That's not to say that anyone is free to make up the rules as he goes along. But when recognized authorities on Halakhah accept an interpretation or tradition at variance with prior teachings, the new ruling has to be taken very seriously.

iv     See Avot 5.20 (Babylonian Talmud). Only one side of the argument, of course, is correct but, as Rabbi Samson Hirsch pointed out: “ ... both views will have permanent value because ... both parties will have served to shed new light on the issue under debate ...” The actual decision, moreover, will result from the views of a majority of mortals, not on any divine perspective.

v      For example, in Berakhot 27a (Babylonian Talmud).

vi     In view of the idea that Hashem's laws are eternal, it does not seem in keeping with them that the Rabbis, who had the right, by their interpretations and rulings, to decide G-d's laws, could change or withdraw those rulings. Nonetheless, it is sometimes necessary.

vii    Stringencies

viii    Lenient interpretations.

ix     One of the problems with this approach is that it means that previous generations, those who preceded the new strict ruling and, thus, didn't observe it, violated was now considered to be “the word of G-d.”

x      And those who are stricter as fanatics, more interested in the letter of the law than its spirit.

xi     Some wear the sneakers of a sports hero, some mimic the political views of a favorite move star, some use the slang of their gang leader.

xii     Avot 4.1

xiii    According to Graff in Dina de-Malkhuta Dina in Jewish Law, the principle was first stated in the third century (CE) by Samuel, although it is likely that earlier statements by Jeremiah (29.7) and Nehemiah (9.37) played a part in it, as did Rabbi Hanina's declaration in Avot 3.2, “Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, men would swallow each other alive.” Although these statements were supportive of the government in general – and we still offer a prayer for the government as part of our Shabbat service – this support probably eventuated in a doctrine supporting individual laws of that government.

xiv    See, for example, Bava Batra 54b-55a (Babylonian Talmud) in which the validity of Persian law is affirmed even if in is in disagreement with Jewish law.