The UCU, perhaps embarrassed over continuing allegations that it harbors a culture of institutional anti-Semitism, has finally agreed to investigate complaints from Jewish members and a torrent of resignations by Jewish academics.
Just kidding! Actually, they just decided to redefine the meaning of anti-Semitism itself, rejecting the commonly held EUMC definition (which affirms the possibility -- though, of course, not the inevitability -- that criticism of Israel could constitute anti-Semitism) in favor of, well, it appears in favor of no definition at all. So I guess it's not a "redefinition" of anti-Semitism so much as an erasure of it entirely -- which, when you think about it, is at least more in line with the UCU's general practice.
The closest thing any of the resolution proponents came up with as a counter-definition of anti-Semitism is "hostility towards Jews as Jews". As was observed, this is a far narrower definition of racism than is applied towards any other group; indeed, it is one that scarcely encompasses any anti-Semitism at all (so long as the speaker can claim to have his one Jewish friend). "I don't hate Black people, just the uppity ones" is still racism. "I don't hate Jews, just the Zionist ones", apparently is not.
Some members complained that the EUMC definition was used inappropriately to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel. Some of these complaints were clearly bogus -- I'm sorry, Sean Wallis, but "refuted utterly" or not, what you said was anti-Semitic under any plausible definition of the term. But even to the extent there were some "bad" allegations made, as one of the few opponents of the motion observed, no definition can, in itself, prevent misuse. The only way we can evaluate the validity of a charge of racism is by assessing it on the specifics -- not by starting with a presupposition that the charge is made in bad faith.
The broader point is this. We have in the UCU a union which endorses a boycott of Israel while praising human rights luminaries like Venezuela, specifically invited a convicted hate speaker to talk up said boycott (and affirmatively refused to disassociate itself from his anti-Semitism), and, faced with a wave of Jewish resignations from the union, elected to celebrate the demise of "Zionist" influence rather than investigate the possibility of a culture of anti-Semitism.
Each day that the UCU continues down this path is a day Eve Garrard's demand becomes more undeniable -- the UCU is simply not an organization that anyone genuinely concerned with anti-Semitism can retain membership in. It is infected beyond salvation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
"I don't hate Black people, just the uppity ones" is still racism. "I don't hate Jews, just the Zionist ones", apparently is not.
Not the best analogy. A closer one would be "I don't hate Black people, just the ones who support Obama." You'd thereby be comparing political stances widely-held among the groups in question, rather than a purely subjective and inherently racist assessment of whether a Black person has failed to be "appropriately" humble. The closest cultural stereotype I can think of that compares to the Uppity Negro is the Pushy Jew, because it has a similar assumption that Jews have a certain place and shouldn't try to get out of it.
I think "uppity" does have political connotations -- historically, it was applied to Black people who didn't know their political place (not just an issue of temperament). A Black person who joined the NAACP was per se uppity, whether they were deferential in personal interactions with Whites or not.
"Blacks who support Obama" also isn't a good analogy, because while it is a stance held by most Black people, Obama isn't widely identified as a "Black institution," while Zionism is an identifiably Jewish institution. "Just the ones who support the NAACP" might be a little stronger.
But the broader point is that "hating Jews as Jews" or "hating Blacks as Blacks" is woefully insufficient as a definition of anti-Semitism or racism.
It is insufficient, but there's nothing per se anti-Semitic about hating Jews who are Zionists so long as you equally hate everyone else who is a Zionist, unless opposition to Zionism is itself anti-Semitic.
And "Zionism", as (effectively) Jewish nationalism, can only be opposed (w/out anti-Semitism) by someone who opposes "nationalism" writ large (not just Jewish nationalism) -- at which point, one should simply say one hates all "nationalists".
Of course, disproportionate hatred of Jewish institutions (or Black institutions) can also be anti-Semitic or racist, even if one can colorably claim to hate the general instantiation of the institution.
David in 2011:"The only way we can evaluate the validity of a charge of racism is by assessing it on the specifics -- not by starting with a presupposition that the charge is made in bad faith."
David in 2010, literally accusing Palestinians of simply playing the race card: "I'm not convinced that it [the I/P conflict] is viewed through a racial prism, at least independent of the utility that frame has in terms of international coalition building."
What do you mean by "nationalism"? I agree that it's clearly anti-Semitic to oppose Israel as the Jewish state while supporting, say, Pakistan as (one of) the Muslim state(s). But many nationalisms are not defined by belonging to a single religious or ethnic group. For example, someone from Quebec might coherently support Francophone nationalism ("we French-speakers ought to have a state") while opposing Islamic or Jewish nationalism, on the grounds that French-speaking is an acquirable skill that does not exclude knowing other languages as well, but the Abrahamic religions necessarily exclude holding other theistic beliefs simultaneously.
Many anti-colonialist movements have been deemed nationalist, yet I think some of those are reasonably distinguishable from ethnic and religious nationalisms. Indians' wanting to run their own country, rather than being ruled by a government thousands of miles away, seems to me a quite different rationale than Hindu nationalists wanting some sort of "pure" Mother India, or Muslim nationalists wanting a "Land of the Pure" in which to be the majority. Ditto the motives for American nationalism during British colonial rule.
You're being a little elusive with respect to the qualities of your more inclusive "nationalism". Is the linchpin that the identity be acquirable, as opposed to something immutable that you're born into (e.g., I can learn to speak French), or is it something that can be held in tandem with other identities of the same class (e.g., I can speak French and English)?
The former, obviously, Jewish nationalism meets perfectly fine -- one can convert to Judaism. The latter is more difficult (one can't be both Jewish and Christian -- although, the dual-track definition of Jewishness in Israel -- descent or conversion, actually does permit this), but many if not most nationalisms demand some measure of in-class exclusivity of the people they claim to represent. While nationalism could elect to accommodate dual-citizenship, for instance, it certainly doesn't have to -- it makes perfect sense for a state to say "Japan is a Japanese state, and you're either Japanese or you're not -- no halfsies." I can't imagine any sort of national identity that doesn't require that, to become a "person" the nation is supposed represent, a person either be born into the people, or take some conscious step to affirm membership in it. And I don't think it is particularly controversial that folks in the latter camp might have to promise exclusive membership in that group as against other potential memberships in the same class.
The problem with Jewish nationalism, in other words, is neither that its premised on an immutable characteristic (it's not, and here it is more inclusive than many other nationalisms), nor is on the grounds that you might have to give another identity up (that's non-unique). The problem is that the identity being transacted over (religion) is seen as a less acceptable medium of national exchange -- while few would contest the permissibility of forcing someone who wants to be a part of the French people (for purposes of a French state) cease identifying as part of the German people, some find problematic forcing one who wants to be part of the Jewish people to cease being Christian.
The problem is the asymmetry -- that Judaism is a people and a religion, whereas most other religions don't identify as a singular cohesive people. So to become part of the Jewish people, you have to give up something that one normally wouldn't have to give up (one's religion) -- though, in exchange, one probably doesn't have to give up one's national identity in order to become part of the Jewish people as applied to the Jewish state (one can be a "French Jew" and still consider Israel to be your state.
"They are an expansionist people" is, in fact, hating Jews for being Jews.
This is a sad day for Britain, once a proud nation, has now fallen to fascists...
And I don't think it is particularly controversial that folks in the latter camp might have to promise exclusive membership in that group as against other potential memberships in the same class.
I think it would be both controversial and ridiculous if Quebec identified its in-group not as "Francophones" but as "people who speak French and nothing else." (It would be particularly weird for immigrants to Montreal from former French colonies, who quite often don't speak English -- presumably the language the Quebec nationalist is particularly resisting -- but do speak Vietnamese, Khmer, Arabic, etc.)
And none of your reply addresses the nature of anti-colonialist nationalisms like that of the American Revolution. The point I was making is that it's possible to support certain nationalisms, particularly those not premised on ethnic/religious identity, without having to support all other nationalisms yet not be a bigot toward the groups involved in those other, unsupported nationalisms. I ought to be able to think Indians were right to want to end British imperial rule, without thinking Muslim Indians were right to divide the country into three (East Pakistan -- now Bangladesh, West Pakistan, and India), and yet not have this seeming disparity in support for "nationalism" be attributed to my hating Muslims.
What you're talking about isn't "nationalism" in any sense of the word -- it's just "democracy", that denizens of a political unit ought be in control of the governmental structure of the unit. I'm not sure why that should be considered a subset of "nationalism", and descriptively I don't think it generally is.
I also think the political ramifications of the position you appear to be elucidating are difficult to defend coherently. Obviously, the borders of any particular state (Israel, India, France, wherever) are morally arbitrary. The idea behind partition agreements is that, by altering prior political boundaries, we can better effectuate the democratic preferences of the diverse groups inside them. So instead of one big country in which Muslims are a minority, we have several smaller countries which instantiate both Muslim and Hindu self-determination.
The argument against it seems to be either (a) that the original borders are sacred, so it is immoral not to reform state borders in alternative ways, which strikes me as crazy, or (b) that there is something particularly wrongful about any sort of normative recognition or policy-making based on group-identity (e.g., something akin to a radical color-blindness position). Which I guess is coherently defensible, but only from the sort of radical cosmopolitan framework which I don't think is reconcilable with nationalism (though it is with democracy).
Quebec is an odd example (or at least strictly hypothetical) given its reputation for being more racist and xenophobic than the rest of Canada.
But I actually think it's less that Jewish nationalism is so different as that Jews are. (Tellingly, many of the supposedly unique features of Israel, such as a relationship with a diaspora/expat community, are quite common among nations.) India, here, is a perfect example. It's widely understood that Indians wouldn't want to be ruled over by others. Yet it's widely presumed that "wandering Jews" should be happy being tolerated.
Not wanting to be controlled by a foreign power is different from wanting democracy (see, e.g., Ho Chi Minh's political ideology).
"Encyclopaedia Britannica identifies the movement's genesis with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; other historians point specifically to the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution." -- Wikipedia. Various academics categorize the American Revolution as a "civic nationalist" movement.
If I had to give a definition of nationalism, I'd say it's wanting your "nation," however you perceive it, to be the same as your state.
Matt,
I just mentioned Quebec because it's a linguistic example. You can substitute Flemish nationalism if you prefer (though for all I know that's the more racist and xenophobic part of Belgium). Or the language wars post-independence in India.
India, here, is a perfect example. It's widely understood that Indians wouldn't want to be ruled over by others.
It's understood that Indians in India wouldn't want to be ruled by people not living in India. Being a colony always has a worse appearance than being an independent state, even (perhaps especially) to other former colonies; the U.S. government used to justify racism toward Indians partly by noting that they were a "subject people" of the British. Indians living in South Africa opposed British colonial rule there as well, but to my knowledge have not militated for a teeny-tiny state of their own within South Africa.
Because I'm temperamentally conservative, I tend to disfavor cutting up existing political units into new ones absent a strong justification. My relatives in India (and some in the U.S.) are all hot for Telangana separatism that would divide the existing state of Andhra Pradesh into two new states. Both of states would have a Hindu majority, speak Telugu and mostly grow rice, but pre-independence, one belonged to the princely state of Hyderabad and the other to the Madras Presidency. This just reminds me of Merlyn's remark in The Once and Future King: "If you keep on dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees."
"It's understood that Indians in India wouldn't want to be ruled by people not living in India"
But the borders between India and not-India are, however natural they might seem, politically determined.
But the borders between India and not-India are, however natural they might seem, politically determined.
Sure, but what constituted "the area that is 'British India' and would prefer to remove the 'British' part" in 1947 was fairly clear. Afghanistan, China, Tibet, Nepal (which actually helped the British repress prior Indian rebellions) and Bhutan definitely weren't part of it because they weren't British colonies. Burma was, but it didn't seem to have any fuzziness on its border with India (and anyway Burma was in its own post-WWII independence process simultaneous with India's). NOBODY in that region thought they ought to be bowing down to King George, no matter how well he'd gotten over that lisp.
So what happens when a bunch of Jews move to an area they feel an attachment to and decide that in that region they don't want to be ruled by others? What happens is people tell them that the state is a natural phenomenon and they just don't qualify to not be ruled by others.
So what happens when a bunch of Jews move to an area they feel an attachment to and decide that in that region they don't want to be ruled by others?
If you're referring to the British Mandate, I don't recall British imperialism in Palestine being deemed particularly superior to that in India (except possibly by Christian zealots who didn't want Jews or Muslims controlling the Holy Land but didn't care what happened in pagan territories). Like Americans did, the future Israelis used more forceful methods than satyagraha to end British rule, including terrorism and assassination of UN officials.
As was the case in many places. However, what concerns me is not the condemnation of those tactics (though they were not widely supported by Jews of the Yishuv or elsewhere), but more blanket condemnations. Consider this from Emma Goldman, criticizing her fellow anarchists who assert the rights of Palestinians to enforce borders. The position she criticizes doesn't flow from criticism of means (in fact, it's unlikely anarchists of that day would have) but from a very Blood-and-Soil-kind-of-place.
"In claiming the right of the Arabs to keep out Jewish immigration from Palestine, our good friend is guilty of the same breach of Socialism as his comrade, John McGovern. To be sure the latter makes himself the champion of British Imperialism while Reginald Reynolds sponsors Arab capitalist rights. That is bad enough for a revolutionary socialist. Worse still is the inconsistency in pleading on behalf of land monopoly, to which the Arabs alone should have the right.
"Perhaps my revolutionary education has been sadly neglected, but I have been taught that the land should belong to those who till the soil. With all of his deep-seated sympathies with the Arabs, our comrade cannot possibly deny that the Jews in Palestine have tilled the soil. Tens of thousands of them, young and deeply devout idealists, have flocked to Palestine, there to till the soil under the most trying pioneer conditions. They have reclaimed wastelands and have turned them into fertile fields and blooming gardens. Now I do not say that therefore Jews are entitled to more rights than the Arabs, but for an ardent socialist to say that the Jews have no business in Palestine seems to me rather a strange kind of socialism."
Post a Comment