CNN has a neat article up on the request by several major adoption-advocacy groups for the US to adopt more "color-conscious" policies regarding adoption. The current "color-blind" approach, which prohibits race play any consideration in deciding who the ultimate adoptive parents are, and also prohibits any special training for parents who are undergoing a trans-racial adoption, was designed to help reduce the inequality by which Black children languished in foster care for far longer than their White peers. The agencies want at least some consideration to be made encouraging same-race adoption (not a rule, just a preference), and, more importantly in my view, want to enact special training for parents adopting a child of another race.
A few years ago, I was at a meeting at the Black Student Union at Carleton where this precise issue was discussed. In fact, one of the students' parents worked at an adoption organization that specifically grappled with the issues of trans-racial adoption, and was very clear that it poses special problems under which parents might need a helping hand. One illustrative example, precisely because it is so mundane, has to do with hair-washing. The student mentioned that Black hair doesn't need to be washed everyday -- in fact, to do so is bad for the hair. Most people in the room (who were Black) nodded knowingly, but I was surprised -- it simply never occurred to me that hair-washing regimes would differ for straight versus kinky hair. And then he continued, as if he was talking about some exotic people, "apparently, White people need to wash there hair everyday," and now it was the Black students who looked surprised. It's no knock on any of us -- when's the last time you've thought to ask someone about how often they wash their hair? -- but it does illustrate the fact that there are things even well-meaning, engaged parents might need to be told with regards to trans-racial adoption.
The bigger problem particularly for White parents adopting Black children is getting them prepared to handle their child facing racism. Most Whites underestimate the amount of racism in the world, but having a Black child offers a rude awakening on that score. Knowing how to respond and give support to the child is absolutely essential, and is not something that necessarily comes naturally to White folks who do not experience racism daily.
All that being said, I recognize that there are dangers in raising screening requirements and onerous training burdens, and these shouldn't be overlooked. I merely want to raise the fact that these topics aren't as simple as we'd like, and problematize this lovely, idealistic notion that color-blind policy solves all ills.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Obama and the Racists
A bizarre meme that's been cropping up recently has been conservatives complaining that if they don't vote for Obama, they'll be called racists. Mark calls it "A theme I'm guessing will repeat somewhat tirelessly until November." Perhaps, though so far it's one I've only heard from conservatives complaining about it, which makes me suspect that it actually represents a struggle with their inner demons about what it means to vote against Obama. The social psychology research on these sorts of problems is fascinating.
But I digress. Of course it's possible to vote against Obama without being racist. There, are, of course, racist reasons to vote against Obama, and thus far it seems that much of the discussion on this issue has stemmed from examinations of cases where there is, in fact, good reason to suspect racism is playing a role in voting behavior (Appalachia, for example).
Some might say this is defensive behavior.
But I digress again! Some guy named Kender claims that, though he's not a racist, he's not voting for Obama. We know he's not a racist, because he says so: "I am not racist." My experience is that when people feel the need to presage their remarks with that comment, the likelihood they're about to say something racist increases exponentially. So why is Kender voting against Obama?
Alright then. I think it's fair to say that if you believe that "taxation is theft", then Obama is not your man (nor is McCain, really, but that's another matter). Nobody would say that this person's vote against Obama is motivated by racism. Motivated by extreme and inane views about economics and governmental legitimacy, perhaps, but those are different sins. I question who, upon encountering a voter such as this, would say "were Obama not Black, this guy would be voting Democratic!"
So quit the defensiveness. Nobody's calling you racist except yourself (and I suppose Freud, by extension). We know that the reason you're voting McCain is because you're off-the-rails crazy.
Everybody happy now?
But I digress. Of course it's possible to vote against Obama without being racist. There, are, of course, racist reasons to vote against Obama, and thus far it seems that much of the discussion on this issue has stemmed from examinations of cases where there is, in fact, good reason to suspect racism is playing a role in voting behavior (Appalachia, for example).
Pollster: It seems that racism played a major role in Obama's loss to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia.
Republican Voter: Are you calling me a racist!
Pollster: Umm...no. You're not a Democrat. And you're from New Mexico.
Some might say this is defensive behavior.
But I digress again! Some guy named Kender claims that, though he's not a racist, he's not voting for Obama. We know he's not a racist, because he says so: "I am not racist." My experience is that when people feel the need to presage their remarks with that comment, the likelihood they're about to say something racist increases exponentially. So why is Kender voting against Obama?
Now, I don't dislike obama because he's black. I dislike obama because he's a socialist and will lead this country down a very dark path, one we may not recover from, one that will destroy our economy, steal our freedoms and make us all slaves to the state.
Alright then. I think it's fair to say that if you believe that "taxation is theft", then Obama is not your man (nor is McCain, really, but that's another matter). Nobody would say that this person's vote against Obama is motivated by racism. Motivated by extreme and inane views about economics and governmental legitimacy, perhaps, but those are different sins. I question who, upon encountering a voter such as this, would say "were Obama not Black, this guy would be voting Democratic!"
So quit the defensiveness. Nobody's calling you racist except yourself (and I suppose Freud, by extension). We know that the reason you're voting McCain is because you're off-the-rails crazy.
Everybody happy now?
Walter Jones is a Piker
Though at the moment Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) is known as the most prominent Republican defector regarding the Iraq War, at one time he was best known as the man who brought "freedom fries" to the House cafeteria. It was a ridiculous display of jingoistic "patriotism", designed to insult the French for being, well, right, as we now well know.
But it could have been worse. Kathleen Bergin was reading some old newspapers and came across this gem that was proposed in Mississippi:
A fine tradition Jones continued (at least, thankfully, in diluted form).
Also, I'm 100% sure each Mississippi legislator who supported this bill was 100% the most qualified for their position.
But it could have been worse. Kathleen Bergin was reading some old newspapers and came across this gem that was proposed in Mississippi:
[T]humbing through the Dothan Eagle as I sometimes do, that is, the March 26, 1948 edition, I came across this headline: Mississippi Balks Move to Outlaw "Missouri Waltz." Apparently, lawmakers wanted to make it a felony to play or dance the waltz anywhere in the state. First offenders would receive a $1,000 fine and a prison sentence of not less than 5 years. Use a piano and the fine increased to $10,000 and life in prison. Gheeze.
The background here is that the measure was introduced after President Truman called on Congress to pass comprehensive civil-rights reforms, including "communistic measures" as the Southern Block referred to them, like anti-lynching and anti-poll tax laws. Truman was from Missouri.
A fine tradition Jones continued (at least, thankfully, in diluted form).
Also, I'm 100% sure each Mississippi legislator who supported this bill was 100% the most qualified for their position.
Memorial Day
Carleton doesn't give us days off for holidays, making it easy to forget they exist. Today is Memorial Day -- a day that takes on special meaning now, when our troops are out in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world. We pray for their safe return, while remembering the sacrifices of those who did (and will) not.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
When Gibberish Goes Wrong
The head of the Carleton Conservative Union sent me a link to a piece called The Post-Left: An Archeology and a Genealogy, calling it "provoking". For the sake of the college I am leaving behind, I can only hope he meant something other than "thought provoking", or if that's too much to ask, "provoking thought about how awful it would be to believe this is worthwhile scholarship", because otherwise I have serious fears about what my dear Carleton conservatives consider to be a compelling argument.
[Update: Thus far it appears my prayers have been answered, as all the responses from the CCU listserve I've received have been in agreement that this article is only "provoking" in the sense of making me want to throw something.]
The author of the piece is one Gabriel Noah Brahm Jr., and the outlet he published it in is known as Democratiya, a journal dedicated to book reviews. In their own words:
I give this brief prologue just to highlight all the more the ridiculous manner in which Brahm writes. Here is a sentence from his "review" (I never did figure out what precisely he was reviewing -- an observation which rapidly took on multiple layers of meaning as I muddled through). Not just any sentence either: the very first sentence:
And here is the first sentence of Part I ("Archeology of the Post-Left: The Case for Discursive Regime Change"):
"Common reader", indeed. Now, I like good old fashioned jargon as much as any fine leftist. And I know it when I see it. So tell me: Is there any doubt at all that Brahm is trying to mimic the very "obscurantist prose of contemporary academia", that of the very leftists (or post-left or whoever it is he's talking about -- more on that in a moment) he's reacting against?
So the review is a catastrophic failure of style (is this a political failure "of the first importance"?). Perhaps it can do better under the "thoughtful analysis" or "careful exposition" rubrics. It'd be an easier task for me to evaluate if I had any idea what Brahm is reviewing, but it is never specified -- Brahm appears to want to take on the entire "post-left" writ large. Not quite a "review" then, but still, maybe Brahm can make some insightful argument on what the "post-left" is, and why we should care.
Or maybe not. Brahm does, to his credit, give a reasonably (for an obscurantist academic, anyway) coherent list of six tenets held by the "post-left":
Hopefully that dispelled any doubts that my mockery of its style resulted from passages out of context! In any event, I read this section, and I am at once illuminated and confused. Illuminated, because I think I've got what Brahm means by "post-left". Someone is "post-left" if they think that America and Israel do everything wrong and are the supreme evils, that the "third world" can do nothing wrong, that we need a revolution to correct these corruptions and erase every vestige of them, in a narrative is totalitarian and all encompassing, and that the immediate political manifestation of the whole deal is an embrace of militant Islamism. None of these elements are cited anywhere, of course, despite the fact that the essay is footnoted.
Confused, because while I certainly can think of people who embrace some of these elements (though rarely in the cartoonish version Brahm lays out), and perhaps can conceptualize someone adhering to all of them, I am given no serious reason to believe that this nexus of views represents anything approaching a movement, much less an influential one, even amongst "the left". Though "post-left" would seem to imply something "beyond" or "after" the left, it is clear Brahm believes the ailment he so meticulously describes to be some sort of malignant sub-species of leftist discourse. At this point in my read, my feeling was that even if this argument was being robustly maintained, I have no idea what it has to do with "the left". Would it not be just as sensible to say that these "post-leftists" hate the "conventional(?)" left, and vice versa, and proceed from there? Not if the purpose is to engage in the academic S&M that constitutes supposedly liberal folks flogging "the left".
It's possible I am wrong, of course, and the "post-left" infestation is in fact running wild through left-wing circles. Already, however, there is reason to be skeptical on this accord. If the plague were so wide-spread, one would expect it would be easy to find examples -- and once found, they would be, you know, "left." Alas, this appears to be too much to ask. Of the three people he identifies as indicted under this model, only one can in any true sense be identified as of the left at all. Noam Chomsky is most certainly left-wing. Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer most certainly are not, unless neo-Realism is suddenly a leftist ideology. Why they are persistently lumped in with the left eludes me, save the fact that they nourish the idea that only leftists have problematic views with regards to Israel -- hardly sufficient reason for the categorization. There goes "intelligent analysis." But it was a flippant reference anyhow. Maybe if we keep going, we will see how post-leftism is a persistent thread throughout the theorizing of the left academy.
No, as it turns out, our original instinct was correct after all. To buttress his argument that the "post-left" as he describes it is a salient force, Brahm cites to ("engages with" would be far, far too kind) a grand total of four people (not including the aforementioned one-off for Chomsky, Walt & Mearsheimer): Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (who should really count as one since they co-wrote the book in question), Saba Mahmood, and the ever-present Judith Butler. It is not even worth our time to "address each in turn," for the simple reason that even if they all had co-written a book together arguing precisely this "post-left" ideology that Brahm says is so prevalent, four people are not enough to prove even a trend, let alone a worrisome one. In fact, from what little I know of them, I would not be surprised if both Hardt & Negri, and Mahmood, would fit roughly under Brahm's post-left frame. H&N are old-school Marxists, of course, and old-school Marxism has fallen somewhat out of style amongst the rest of the left, as Brahm might have noticed if he had stopped fighting the Cold War along with the rest of us. Mahmood I've been singularly unimpressed with when I've come across her, but that does not happen often. Regardless, even with this meager cast of characters Brahm does not actually link back the words of these authors to his six-element list of post-left tenets. One might think that if you're struggling that mightily to find a soul to fill your scarecrow, there might be larger problems afoot.
It's Butler, however, that deserve special mention here. The citation to Butler comes not to one of her academic texts, but to an answer she gave during a Q&A session after delivering a speech, as reported by a blog, so already we're on shaky terrain. This is the sentence Brahm devotes to her: "Judith Butler, professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley, and leading figure of the post-left, endorsed Hezbollah and Hamas as 'part of the global left'." (But are they "post-left"?) Now, recall Brahm's third element of what constitutes "post-left" -- that the third worlders (of which Hezbollah and Hamas are presumably a part) can do no wrong. Now, append the part of Butler's quote which he leaves out, but which is quite present in the blog post he links to in the footnote: "but [it] doesn't stop us from criticizing them."
Selective quotation is a grievous academic sin, particular when it leaves out such important modifiers like "but". In this case, the "but" seems to knock Butler conclusively out of the "post-left." The third world, it seems, can do wrong after all! Butler specifically says that their membership in the "left" (however defined) doesn't preclude that. In other words, her argument is the precise opposite of the typology Brahm puts her in. This is borderline academic misconduct -- though perhaps his peers will take into account the entirety of the article and conclude its actually parody. To be blunt, it's his only hope.
To be very, very kind, Brahm is shadow-boxing at a nearly non-existent foe (and losing). To be less kind, he's trying to smear a wide swath of "the left" via association to this phantom via a menagerie of dodgy argumentative practices. One of Brahm's early complaints about the "post-left" is that its "explanations are independent of and resistant to experience." Experience teaches us that virtually nobody is making the arguments Brahm is talking about, and that those who are possess virtually no influence. And experience has now continued to teach us that -- when writing and reacting to the arguments of the left in all its diversity and splendor -- we should look to brighter and more sophisticated thinkers than Gabriel Brahm.
[Update: Thus far it appears my prayers have been answered, as all the responses from the CCU listserve I've received have been in agreement that this article is only "provoking" in the sense of making me want to throw something.]
The author of the piece is one Gabriel Noah Brahm Jr., and the outlet he published it in is known as Democratiya, a journal dedicated to book reviews. In their own words:
Democratiya aims to be accessible to 'the common reader'. The discipline of the plain style, and a refusal of the obscurantist prose of contemporary academia, is today a political act of the first importance. We seek good writing, less adorned and more luminous, as well as thoughtful analysis, and a bit of style. Anyone seeking a model should look at Dissent. Careful exposition of the central arguments of the book under review is important. But so is the critical response of the reviewer. Authors will have a standing right of reply and reviewers a standing right of rejoinder.
I give this brief prologue just to highlight all the more the ridiculous manner in which Brahm writes. Here is a sentence from his "review" (I never did figure out what precisely he was reviewing -- an observation which rapidly took on multiple layers of meaning as I muddled through). Not just any sentence either: the very first sentence:
A synchronic (structural) and diachronic (historical) analysis of today's anti-Western left is sorely needed.
And here is the first sentence of Part I ("Archeology of the Post-Left: The Case for Discursive Regime Change"):
Post-left thought is an exercise in ressentiment unhinged from politics in the Aristotelian sense of politike, or the 'art of the common life.'
"Common reader", indeed. Now, I like good old fashioned jargon as much as any fine leftist. And I know it when I see it. So tell me: Is there any doubt at all that Brahm is trying to mimic the very "obscurantist prose of contemporary academia", that of the very leftists (or post-left or whoever it is he's talking about -- more on that in a moment) he's reacting against?
So the review is a catastrophic failure of style (is this a political failure "of the first importance"?). Perhaps it can do better under the "thoughtful analysis" or "careful exposition" rubrics. It'd be an easier task for me to evaluate if I had any idea what Brahm is reviewing, but it is never specified -- Brahm appears to want to take on the entire "post-left" writ large. Not quite a "review" then, but still, maybe Brahm can make some insightful argument on what the "post-left" is, and why we should care.
Or maybe not. Brahm does, to his credit, give a reasonably (for an obscurantist academic, anyway) coherent list of six tenets held by the "post-left":
1. Inverted Exceptionalism. Take the old 'exceptionalist' idea and flip it. America is unique among nations – just not uniquely good, that's all. The horrid US, with its crude consumer culture, unparalleled racism, and war-mongering politicians, is to blame for everything.
2. Post-Zionism. Ditto the above for Israel. One is the tool of the other in the US-Israel relationship, though it's not clear which is which. For Walt and Mearsheimer, Israel manipulates the US. For Chomsky, it's the reverse. In any event, Israel's right to exist is put in question (at best).
3. Third Worldism. The wretched of the earth ('multitudes,' whatever) are not just unlucky but morally superior to the earth's beneficiaries. Empowered by powerlessness to take the place of the proletariat in conventional Marxist doxology, the Third World Other can do no wrong. It's all 'resistance' whatever it is, up to and including terrorism. In this salvation myth, any two-bit despot – from Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hasan Nasrallah, even Osama bin Laden – can be seen to represent a salutary rebuke to American Capital and The West. So the millenarian imagination persists, after 'the end of history'.
4. Cultural Revolution. It's Manichean also. Because of #1 and #2, a complete transformation of consciousness is needed to wipe away all the micro-corruptions of US-led capitalism, and replace these with more salutary (revolutionary) habits of mind (to be discovered thanks in part to #3). Eventually, everything 'bourgeois', 'white' and 'male' will have to go. For now it can all be 'deconstructed'. Stir in to this 'methodology' heavy doses of Sixties-style antinomianism and Seventies-style New Ageism, and you have a heady cocktail: the mind slips its moorings.
5. Totalitarian Ideology. Ah, but moorings are so very reassuring when one finds oneself adrift! In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt outlined the closed-world world-view of the totalizing mind and its self-serving auto-validating procedures. She was talking then about Stalinism and Nazism, but it works for the post-left too (if that sounds like a harsh comparison, see #6 below). [4] For inside the cramped and airless theoretical space of the post-left one finds that (a) every question receives an exhaustive total explanation, situating the smallest detail of an argument within a vast theodicy with no outside and little room for ambiguity or surprise. Nothing escapes and no light gets in, while (b) such explanations are independent of and resistant to experience. The post-left's is an entirely 'a priori' structure of thought. And this inclusive, arbitrary narrative without a referent is also (c) ultra-consistent. Why not, when you're making it up as you go along? Not only does everything fit that gets in, and nothing gets in that doesn't fit, but the results are always the same: the same demons, the same victims. And finally (d) we find the ascription of collective guilt to 'enemies'. The condemned in the post-left scheme of things will be judged not according to what they do or say or think but what they are. The post-left, in short, offers its followers a tidy picture of a messy world, suitable for lazy and credulous minds.
6. Islamism. With #1-5, the nascent post-left prepared the way for the embrace of radical Islamism after 9/11 as a form of 'resistance', indigenous to the Third World (#3), aimed at a guilty US (#1) and Israel (#2), striking a blow for 'difference' (#4), that simply had to be good in some way (#5). And it was this final element, I suggest, that catalyzed the other ingredients to produce the post-left proper.
Hopefully that dispelled any doubts that my mockery of its style resulted from passages out of context! In any event, I read this section, and I am at once illuminated and confused. Illuminated, because I think I've got what Brahm means by "post-left". Someone is "post-left" if they think that America and Israel do everything wrong and are the supreme evils, that the "third world" can do nothing wrong, that we need a revolution to correct these corruptions and erase every vestige of them, in a narrative is totalitarian and all encompassing, and that the immediate political manifestation of the whole deal is an embrace of militant Islamism. None of these elements are cited anywhere, of course, despite the fact that the essay is footnoted.
Confused, because while I certainly can think of people who embrace some of these elements (though rarely in the cartoonish version Brahm lays out), and perhaps can conceptualize someone adhering to all of them, I am given no serious reason to believe that this nexus of views represents anything approaching a movement, much less an influential one, even amongst "the left". Though "post-left" would seem to imply something "beyond" or "after" the left, it is clear Brahm believes the ailment he so meticulously describes to be some sort of malignant sub-species of leftist discourse. At this point in my read, my feeling was that even if this argument was being robustly maintained, I have no idea what it has to do with "the left". Would it not be just as sensible to say that these "post-leftists" hate the "conventional(?)" left, and vice versa, and proceed from there? Not if the purpose is to engage in the academic S&M that constitutes supposedly liberal folks flogging "the left".
It's possible I am wrong, of course, and the "post-left" infestation is in fact running wild through left-wing circles. Already, however, there is reason to be skeptical on this accord. If the plague were so wide-spread, one would expect it would be easy to find examples -- and once found, they would be, you know, "left." Alas, this appears to be too much to ask. Of the three people he identifies as indicted under this model, only one can in any true sense be identified as of the left at all. Noam Chomsky is most certainly left-wing. Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer most certainly are not, unless neo-Realism is suddenly a leftist ideology. Why they are persistently lumped in with the left eludes me, save the fact that they nourish the idea that only leftists have problematic views with regards to Israel -- hardly sufficient reason for the categorization. There goes "intelligent analysis." But it was a flippant reference anyhow. Maybe if we keep going, we will see how post-leftism is a persistent thread throughout the theorizing of the left academy.
No, as it turns out, our original instinct was correct after all. To buttress his argument that the "post-left" as he describes it is a salient force, Brahm cites to ("engages with" would be far, far too kind) a grand total of four people (not including the aforementioned one-off for Chomsky, Walt & Mearsheimer): Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (who should really count as one since they co-wrote the book in question), Saba Mahmood, and the ever-present Judith Butler. It is not even worth our time to "address each in turn," for the simple reason that even if they all had co-written a book together arguing precisely this "post-left" ideology that Brahm says is so prevalent, four people are not enough to prove even a trend, let alone a worrisome one. In fact, from what little I know of them, I would not be surprised if both Hardt & Negri, and Mahmood, would fit roughly under Brahm's post-left frame. H&N are old-school Marxists, of course, and old-school Marxism has fallen somewhat out of style amongst the rest of the left, as Brahm might have noticed if he had stopped fighting the Cold War along with the rest of us. Mahmood I've been singularly unimpressed with when I've come across her, but that does not happen often. Regardless, even with this meager cast of characters Brahm does not actually link back the words of these authors to his six-element list of post-left tenets. One might think that if you're struggling that mightily to find a soul to fill your scarecrow, there might be larger problems afoot.
It's Butler, however, that deserve special mention here. The citation to Butler comes not to one of her academic texts, but to an answer she gave during a Q&A session after delivering a speech, as reported by a blog, so already we're on shaky terrain. This is the sentence Brahm devotes to her: "Judith Butler, professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley, and leading figure of the post-left, endorsed Hezbollah and Hamas as 'part of the global left'." (But are they "post-left"?) Now, recall Brahm's third element of what constitutes "post-left" -- that the third worlders (of which Hezbollah and Hamas are presumably a part) can do no wrong. Now, append the part of Butler's quote which he leaves out, but which is quite present in the blog post he links to in the footnote: "but [it] doesn't stop us from criticizing them."
Selective quotation is a grievous academic sin, particular when it leaves out such important modifiers like "but". In this case, the "but" seems to knock Butler conclusively out of the "post-left." The third world, it seems, can do wrong after all! Butler specifically says that their membership in the "left" (however defined) doesn't preclude that. In other words, her argument is the precise opposite of the typology Brahm puts her in. This is borderline academic misconduct -- though perhaps his peers will take into account the entirety of the article and conclude its actually parody. To be blunt, it's his only hope.
To be very, very kind, Brahm is shadow-boxing at a nearly non-existent foe (and losing). To be less kind, he's trying to smear a wide swath of "the left" via association to this phantom via a menagerie of dodgy argumentative practices. One of Brahm's early complaints about the "post-left" is that its "explanations are independent of and resistant to experience." Experience teaches us that virtually nobody is making the arguments Brahm is talking about, and that those who are possess virtually no influence. And experience has now continued to teach us that -- when writing and reacting to the arguments of the left in all its diversity and splendor -- we should look to brighter and more sophisticated thinkers than Gabriel Brahm.
That Would Have Been Bad
Headline from Ha'aretz: "Israeli warplanes almost shoot down Tony Blair's plane."
Blair, the former Prime Minister of the UK and now a mid-east peace envoy, was flying to Bethlehem from Cairo, Egypt. Unfortunately, his plane's communication equipment malfunctioned, meaning that it did not respond Israeli requests for identification when the plane crossed into Israeli airspace. Assuming the aircraft was a hostile, fighters were scrambled, but fortunately were able to establish contact with the plane before anything bad happened.
And how bad it might have been. The Israeli air force shooting down Tony Blair's plane? It'd have been a conspiracy theorist's wet dream!
Blair, the former Prime Minister of the UK and now a mid-east peace envoy, was flying to Bethlehem from Cairo, Egypt. Unfortunately, his plane's communication equipment malfunctioned, meaning that it did not respond Israeli requests for identification when the plane crossed into Israeli airspace. Assuming the aircraft was a hostile, fighters were scrambled, but fortunately were able to establish contact with the plane before anything bad happened.
And how bad it might have been. The Israeli air force shooting down Tony Blair's plane? It'd have been a conspiracy theorist's wet dream!
Hebrew University To Award MacKinnon Doctorate
The Hebrew University in Jerusalem will be awarding Catherine MacKinnon, one of the legends of feminist legal theory, an honorary doctorate in recognition of her work advancing woman's rights and human rights.
Take that, Washington University.
Take that, Washington University.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Quote of the Day: Rubenstein on the Holocaust
Richard Rubenstein, one of the most noted post-Holocaust Jewish theologians:
Richard L. Rubenstein, "Homeland and Holocaust: Issues in the Jewish Religious Situation," in The Religious Situation: 1968, Donald R. Cutler, ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968): 39-64, 50.
American Jews often regard Auschwitz as a temporary setback in the moral progress of the race. The shock induced by the awesome wound remains too great to be faced openly and directly. In Israel, on the other hand, the terrible lesson of Auschwitz has become the cornerstone of national psychology. Israelis are convinced that they can trust nothing save their own determination to fight to the last man should an enemy seek to annihilate them. No people has less reason to believe in abstract moral principles, human virtue, or international institutions than do the Jews. One of the supreme ironies of contemporary religious history is that the people who gave the world the prophetic vision of universal brotherhood and peace must effectively renounce its own heritage if it is to survive.
The first religious task of the Jews of Israel is survival in a world in which aggression between nations is deterred only by a balance of mutual terror. The death of God as a cultural fact is real and all embracing. There is no greater contrast than that between the fruitless God talk of the American-Jewish theologians and the actions of the Israelis. The death of God extends not merely to relatively inconsequential matters of whether the divine Thou encounters man in prayer or ritual; it reaches to the far more consequential matter of nuclear terror as the last remaining deterrent to acts of national annihilation.
Richard L. Rubenstein, "Homeland and Holocaust: Issues in the Jewish Religious Situation," in The Religious Situation: 1968, Donald R. Cutler, ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968): 39-64, 50.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Boxing Blogging: 5/23/08
Good Friday Night Fights card tonight, including a nice juicy upset win for Jose Luis Herrera. Also, tomorrow we have the Ricky Hatton/Juan Lazcano fight, which I hope to catch on Versus, and an incredible trash talk sequence between Nate Campbell and Joan Guzman. Sorry "Joanie", but Nate's better at it than you are.
But anyway, back to tonight's action:
Jason Estrada (13-1, 3 KOs) TKO7 Moultrie Witherspoon (14-2, 8 KOs)
Estrada, a former US Olympian, may not have much pop, but he was able to do as he pleased against the over-matched Witherspoon, whose record was wildly inflated. Estrada was landing combinations, particularly ones that started with a right uppercut that couldn't miss. Witherspoon occasionally sneaked in upper-cuts of his own, but by and large was content to get hit. A lot. The best thing you could say about him is that he never went down even after absorbing a lot of punishment (the referee jumped into stop it while Witherspoon was still on his feet). As for Estrada, well, he's still no puncher, but he showing a little more offensive-mindedness that is good to see from a young heavyweight prospect. We'll see if it translates against fighters who are slightly more a threat than Moultrie Witherspoon.
The stoppage raised an interesting question for a referee. It was clear that Witherspoon was getting battered around all night, and nothing was changing. But there wasn't any point where he was defenseless or even particularly dazed, just an endless march of gradual sustained punishment. That, of course, can be the most dangerous thing for a boxer -- the accumulation of punches is far worse for a fighter's health than one big highlight reel haymaker. So even though there was nothing particular dramatic happening when the ref stepped in, it's hard to protest the decision (though Witherspoon did, very briefly).
Henry Lundy (11-0-1, 6 KOs) UD4 Esteban Almaraz (7-1, 4 KOs)
This is the second time I've seen Lundy on a ESPN2 fight card, and my thought upon seeing this match-up was much the same as it was the first time around: why only four rounds? Two unbeaten guys (same as the last time), good pedigrees, fun to watch -- four rounds hardly seems sufficient. And this was a fight which really could have used a few extra stanzas to really establish who earned the "W". Almaraz knocked down Lundy in the first, but Lundy returned the favor later on in the same round and seemingly had Almaraz more hurt. So I (and Teddy Atlas, whose scorecard mirrored my own) scored it 10-9 Lundy. Round two was competitive but I thought Lundy won it as well. Round three was far and away the closest round of the fight, and I scored it even -- but either fighter could make a case for it. And in the last round, Almaraz knocked down Lundy again. It was a bit of a flash knockdown, and the rest of the round was relatively evenly fought, but still -- that's 10-8 Almaraz.
So Teddy and I both have the fight a 38-38 draw (just like Lundy's first ESPN fight, incidentally). To my mind, only the third round was in doubt, making any score from 38-37 Lundy to 38-37 Almaraz also acceptable. Almaraz thus has the right to be at least a little upset that Lundy won by unanimous decision, and a lot upset at the bogus 38-36 card, which only could happen by giving Lundy a 10-8 round one when Almaraz also scored a knockdown. Not Kosher.
But you know what? As Brian Kenny said: Rematch! Who wouldn't want to see them again -- this was a really entertaining fight. Just schedule it for a bit longer next time.
Jose Luis Herrera (16-4, 16 KOs) TKO5 Aaron Williams (17-1-1, 12 KOs)
When Allan Green was scheduled to fight Edison "La Pantera" Miranda, he derided his gaudy knockout ratio as being built up against "Columbia cab drivers." He was made to eat his words as Miranda knocked him down twice to win a wide decision victory and hand "Sweetness" his first (and thus far only) career loss.
Herrera is also a Columbian fighter, also nicknamed "La Pantera", and also with a rather impressive knockout ratio: not only have all of his wins come inside the distance, but so have all of his losses. As Joe Tessitore remarked, "either you knock him out, or he knocks you out."
At the start of this bout, it looked like talented prospect Aaron Williams would accomplish the former, scoring a knockdown and simply battering Herrera around the ring for much of round one, so much so that the doctor stepped in and demanded to look at Herrera. That proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Columbian, giving him the breather he needed to get out of the first frame and get his legs back under him.
By round four, Herrera was beginning to get some confidence, though Williams was still in complete control. But Williams was leaving his hands low, and Herrera was looking to make him pay for his cockiness. And in round five, Herrera finally landed a huge overhand shot that sent Williams reeling. He chased him down and battered him against the ropes, scoring a knockdown. Williams got up and signaled he wanted to continue, but only a few seconds later he went down without a punch landing to try and buy more time. At that point, the doctor took a look at him, and after a short conversation, recommended the fight be stopped. Apparently, Williams kept calling him "ref", and the doctor (not being the referee) took that as a sign of disorientation. Williams did not look happy about the stoppage, but then, that might have been bravado.
It was a big upset, to be sure -- Williams was considered one of the brightest prospects in the cruiserweight division, and Herrera had been knocked out in three of his last four (admittedly against good competition). But Herrera has, as Teddy likes to say (and I can't believe he didn't say it here) that "big eraser" -- his power. It's genuine, and he made Williams pay for his neglect of defense.
Herrera will never be a big player in the division -- he's too raw and too chinny. But his power will give him a punchers chance against anybody. Who wants to see him against Darnell Wilson? I do!
But anyway, back to tonight's action:
Jason Estrada (13-1, 3 KOs) TKO7 Moultrie Witherspoon (14-2, 8 KOs)
Estrada, a former US Olympian, may not have much pop, but he was able to do as he pleased against the over-matched Witherspoon, whose record was wildly inflated. Estrada was landing combinations, particularly ones that started with a right uppercut that couldn't miss. Witherspoon occasionally sneaked in upper-cuts of his own, but by and large was content to get hit. A lot. The best thing you could say about him is that he never went down even after absorbing a lot of punishment (the referee jumped into stop it while Witherspoon was still on his feet). As for Estrada, well, he's still no puncher, but he showing a little more offensive-mindedness that is good to see from a young heavyweight prospect. We'll see if it translates against fighters who are slightly more a threat than Moultrie Witherspoon.
The stoppage raised an interesting question for a referee. It was clear that Witherspoon was getting battered around all night, and nothing was changing. But there wasn't any point where he was defenseless or even particularly dazed, just an endless march of gradual sustained punishment. That, of course, can be the most dangerous thing for a boxer -- the accumulation of punches is far worse for a fighter's health than one big highlight reel haymaker. So even though there was nothing particular dramatic happening when the ref stepped in, it's hard to protest the decision (though Witherspoon did, very briefly).
Henry Lundy (11-0-1, 6 KOs) UD4 Esteban Almaraz (7-1, 4 KOs)
This is the second time I've seen Lundy on a ESPN2 fight card, and my thought upon seeing this match-up was much the same as it was the first time around: why only four rounds? Two unbeaten guys (same as the last time), good pedigrees, fun to watch -- four rounds hardly seems sufficient. And this was a fight which really could have used a few extra stanzas to really establish who earned the "W". Almaraz knocked down Lundy in the first, but Lundy returned the favor later on in the same round and seemingly had Almaraz more hurt. So I (and Teddy Atlas, whose scorecard mirrored my own) scored it 10-9 Lundy. Round two was competitive but I thought Lundy won it as well. Round three was far and away the closest round of the fight, and I scored it even -- but either fighter could make a case for it. And in the last round, Almaraz knocked down Lundy again. It was a bit of a flash knockdown, and the rest of the round was relatively evenly fought, but still -- that's 10-8 Almaraz.
So Teddy and I both have the fight a 38-38 draw (just like Lundy's first ESPN fight, incidentally). To my mind, only the third round was in doubt, making any score from 38-37 Lundy to 38-37 Almaraz also acceptable. Almaraz thus has the right to be at least a little upset that Lundy won by unanimous decision, and a lot upset at the bogus 38-36 card, which only could happen by giving Lundy a 10-8 round one when Almaraz also scored a knockdown. Not Kosher.
But you know what? As Brian Kenny said: Rematch! Who wouldn't want to see them again -- this was a really entertaining fight. Just schedule it for a bit longer next time.
Jose Luis Herrera (16-4, 16 KOs) TKO5 Aaron Williams (17-1-1, 12 KOs)
When Allan Green was scheduled to fight Edison "La Pantera" Miranda, he derided his gaudy knockout ratio as being built up against "Columbia cab drivers." He was made to eat his words as Miranda knocked him down twice to win a wide decision victory and hand "Sweetness" his first (and thus far only) career loss.
Herrera is also a Columbian fighter, also nicknamed "La Pantera", and also with a rather impressive knockout ratio: not only have all of his wins come inside the distance, but so have all of his losses. As Joe Tessitore remarked, "either you knock him out, or he knocks you out."
At the start of this bout, it looked like talented prospect Aaron Williams would accomplish the former, scoring a knockdown and simply battering Herrera around the ring for much of round one, so much so that the doctor stepped in and demanded to look at Herrera. That proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Columbian, giving him the breather he needed to get out of the first frame and get his legs back under him.
By round four, Herrera was beginning to get some confidence, though Williams was still in complete control. But Williams was leaving his hands low, and Herrera was looking to make him pay for his cockiness. And in round five, Herrera finally landed a huge overhand shot that sent Williams reeling. He chased him down and battered him against the ropes, scoring a knockdown. Williams got up and signaled he wanted to continue, but only a few seconds later he went down without a punch landing to try and buy more time. At that point, the doctor took a look at him, and after a short conversation, recommended the fight be stopped. Apparently, Williams kept calling him "ref", and the doctor (not being the referee) took that as a sign of disorientation. Williams did not look happy about the stoppage, but then, that might have been bravado.
It was a big upset, to be sure -- Williams was considered one of the brightest prospects in the cruiserweight division, and Herrera had been knocked out in three of his last four (admittedly against good competition). But Herrera has, as Teddy likes to say (and I can't believe he didn't say it here) that "big eraser" -- his power. It's genuine, and he made Williams pay for his neglect of defense.
Herrera will never be a big player in the division -- he's too raw and too chinny. But his power will give him a punchers chance against anybody. Who wants to see him against Darnell Wilson? I do!
Preference and Mistrust
An oft-heard argument against affirmative action is that the use of racialized preferences ends up hurting the beneficiaries because other people then question whether they're "really" qualified for the positions they've received, or are just "affirmative action hires." Even people who might have earned it "on their own" get caught up in this mistrustful sentiment, and by ultimately impugning the abilities of Black people everywhere, it shows that affirmative action, despite its good intentions, ultimately is harmful to the interests of Blacks.
This argument can come in several forms, and some would argue that even though the sentiment isn't just, it's there, and hence pragmatically affirmative action causes more problems than it solves. Unfair as that might be, it is a sentiment that needs to be grappled with in reality, not wished away by utopian hopes. This argument I think is at least a reasonable one, and though I don't think it ultimately shows that we should abolish affirmative action, it is one that needs to be addressed on its terms.
Another form, however, is to argue that the view really is just, and not racist. Blacks really are receiving a preference, this really does raise legitimate questions about their "actual" qualifications, which are masked by the use of preferences, and thus it is perfectly rational to have suspicions about the true ability of Black people hired in affirmative action practicing institutions.
This argument, to be blunt, is bogus. Even if we accept some rather shaky underlying assumptions that it rests on: that there is a stable, objective entity known as "merit" which can be measured, and affirmative action (or any sort of preference that is not explicitly "merit" based) means giving less meritorious applicants positions over more-qualified individuals, it would still be true that the way this argument plays out it racist.
How do I know? Simple. Nobody mistrusts the qualifications of White people even when there is significant evidence that they received their positions through non-merit based channels -- even and including race-based preference. The argument is only applied against Black people, and when a facially neutral argument only is applied in a manner harmful to Blacks, that's racism.
Now, I could argue that Whites today often gain significant advantages by virtue of White privilege that undoubtedly have some bearing on their current position, job, or class level. And I think that's true, and I think it's pretty clear that nobody wonders aloud about whether all White folks are "really" qualified for the positions they hold. But I don't even need to focus on the present, because we have a far more slam-dunk case: how White achievement was treated at the cusp of the civil rights movement.
Nobody, presumably, would disagree that prior to the civil rights movement, Whites had race-based "preferences" that gave them advantages in the workplace and society. And few would disagree (hopefully) that those preferences were immoral. But even during the civil rights era, there was not a broad based acceptance that individual Whites might not "deserve" to be where they are -- in their job, in their schools, in the neighborhoods, in their class, in their seniority rankings -- whatever. Insofar as the average White was referenced, it was to posit their "innocence"; that they hadn't done anything wrong, so all they had accomplished was perfectly meritorious. This belief was then used to block many integration efforts during the civil rights movement, as Blacks, paradoxically, were seen as taking positions from Whites who had "earned" them despite the fact that they clearly had been treated preferentially. That's why, from a personnel standpoint, very little changed after the civil rights "revolution". We often act like America had the equivalent of an oil change" after 1965, taking out our racist citizens and replacing them with purely color-blind people. But obviously, that didn't happen -- the same Whites who were benefiting from preferential treatment in 1960 had, by and large, their same jobs and same positions in 1970, and nobody considered asking whether or not they truly earned it.
So even though we concede those people got preferential treatment, and even though (unlike affirmative action) we universally agree that treatment was wrong, we still don't tell ourselves that their qualifications are suspect. Even retrospectively, we don't look back and wonder about whether they truly were the best men and women for their jobs. We don't ask ourselves whether our first 35 or so Presidents really were "qualified" for office. We don't ask whether or not the entire White middle class "earned" its place there. Clearly, preferential treatment does not have to entail mistrust about qualifications -- and it never has for any White person in the history of America. In fact, despite the theoretical neutrality of the argument, it is only applied against Blacks. That's racism, no matter how you slice it.
This argument can come in several forms, and some would argue that even though the sentiment isn't just, it's there, and hence pragmatically affirmative action causes more problems than it solves. Unfair as that might be, it is a sentiment that needs to be grappled with in reality, not wished away by utopian hopes. This argument I think is at least a reasonable one, and though I don't think it ultimately shows that we should abolish affirmative action, it is one that needs to be addressed on its terms.
Another form, however, is to argue that the view really is just, and not racist. Blacks really are receiving a preference, this really does raise legitimate questions about their "actual" qualifications, which are masked by the use of preferences, and thus it is perfectly rational to have suspicions about the true ability of Black people hired in affirmative action practicing institutions.
This argument, to be blunt, is bogus. Even if we accept some rather shaky underlying assumptions that it rests on: that there is a stable, objective entity known as "merit" which can be measured, and affirmative action (or any sort of preference that is not explicitly "merit" based) means giving less meritorious applicants positions over more-qualified individuals, it would still be true that the way this argument plays out it racist.
How do I know? Simple. Nobody mistrusts the qualifications of White people even when there is significant evidence that they received their positions through non-merit based channels -- even and including race-based preference. The argument is only applied against Black people, and when a facially neutral argument only is applied in a manner harmful to Blacks, that's racism.
Now, I could argue that Whites today often gain significant advantages by virtue of White privilege that undoubtedly have some bearing on their current position, job, or class level. And I think that's true, and I think it's pretty clear that nobody wonders aloud about whether all White folks are "really" qualified for the positions they hold. But I don't even need to focus on the present, because we have a far more slam-dunk case: how White achievement was treated at the cusp of the civil rights movement.
Nobody, presumably, would disagree that prior to the civil rights movement, Whites had race-based "preferences" that gave them advantages in the workplace and society. And few would disagree (hopefully) that those preferences were immoral. But even during the civil rights era, there was not a broad based acceptance that individual Whites might not "deserve" to be where they are -- in their job, in their schools, in the neighborhoods, in their class, in their seniority rankings -- whatever. Insofar as the average White was referenced, it was to posit their "innocence"; that they hadn't done anything wrong, so all they had accomplished was perfectly meritorious. This belief was then used to block many integration efforts during the civil rights movement, as Blacks, paradoxically, were seen as taking positions from Whites who had "earned" them despite the fact that they clearly had been treated preferentially. That's why, from a personnel standpoint, very little changed after the civil rights "revolution". We often act like America had the equivalent of an oil change" after 1965, taking out our racist citizens and replacing them with purely color-blind people. But obviously, that didn't happen -- the same Whites who were benefiting from preferential treatment in 1960 had, by and large, their same jobs and same positions in 1970, and nobody considered asking whether or not they truly earned it.
So even though we concede those people got preferential treatment, and even though (unlike affirmative action) we universally agree that treatment was wrong, we still don't tell ourselves that their qualifications are suspect. Even retrospectively, we don't look back and wonder about whether they truly were the best men and women for their jobs. We don't ask ourselves whether our first 35 or so Presidents really were "qualified" for office. We don't ask whether or not the entire White middle class "earned" its place there. Clearly, preferential treatment does not have to entail mistrust about qualifications -- and it never has for any White person in the history of America. In fact, despite the theoretical neutrality of the argument, it is only applied against Blacks. That's racism, no matter how you slice it.
Obama the Zionist
In the wake of my rather radical post on the ability of non-Jews to defend the Zionist project, I suppose I should note this article in the Jerusalem Post, by a former Bush-supporting Jew who has come out for Obama, in part because of this interview in the Atlantic.
So basically, much the argument I alleged non-Jews likely would not make in public discourse about Zionism. Obama's interview is, in fact, fantastic -- it hits every base I could have asked for. He called Zionism "just". He related it to anti-Semitism -- not just as something in the past, but as something Jews need to worry about today. And he seemed to truly "get" why the Zionist idea has such a hold on Jews -- not just intellectually, but in his gut and soul.
So, to an extent, I was wrong (admittedly, Obama is still the exception it seems). But what motivates Obama to be different?
One explanation (the optimistic one) is that Obama's experience as a Black man (and thus, as someone who has experience with marginalization) makes him more likely to "get" the reasons why Jews support Israel, rather than lazily adopt the majoritarian framing of the issue that does not take account of Jewish subordination. I wrote that last post in a rather radical mood -- normally, I'm much more optimistic about the ability of empathic approximating experiences to be a route towards coalition-building amongst oppressed people. Obama's superior grasp of why Jews are Zionist may be a function of that. Certainly, his relation of his own experience as someone "uprooted" to the Jewish history of exile indicates this might be the case.
Another explanation, more cynical, is that Obama was pressed into making this statement in order to shore up nervous Jewish voters -- a bloc that remains quite important to the Democratic coalition. Because he was "under suspicion", in part because of his association with Jeremiah Wright, in part because of broader concerns (mostly, but not entirely, off-base) about the degree to which the Black community supports Israel, he had to come back with more than the standard pro-Zionist fare in order to assuage Jewish fears. Remarking on Zionism's fundamental justness was a way to allay those concerns -- particularly since so much of the anti-Zionist argument we hear nowadays is centered around how morally atrocious and inherently unjust Zionism is.
In any event, what I gather from the interview is that Obama is likely to be the most pro-Israel -- in the best sense of the word -- President in a long time. Because his support is rooted in what makes Jews Zionist, it take seriously the conflict on the terms that matter to Jews. What some of our putative friends do not understand is that keeping Israel looked in perpetual, apocalyptic conflict (either with its neighbors or the Palestinians) is not in Israel's interests. It's a concept they don't get because their people aren't the ones who end up in the body bags from it. Nor is it consistent with the progressive Zionist ideal to maintain the occupation forever and prevent Palestinians from achieving their own self-determination. Obama's support for Israel means getting it out of the ultimately untenable position it is now, in a manner that maintains its security, respects its dignity, and affirms its legitimate and just place in the world community as a Jewish state.
There's nothing more I could ask for.
SENATOR OBAMA's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic represents some of the most reassuring words I have heard from the Democratic front-runner regarding his Middle East policy, and especially his support for Israel. Rather than only seeing Israel as a "strategic ally" or as the "only democracy in the Middle East" - the standard clichés of support - Senator Obama identifies with the "Zionist idea" and believes that a secure Jewish state is "fundamentally just."
Now, that is refreshing. When was the last time we had heard the word "Zionist" being used in a positive way and described as "fundamentally just" by a non-Jew? Senator Obama evoked the Zionist idea because he does not think of Israel only as a geopolitical ally, and does not base his support on a cost-benefit analysis of the "special relationship." Rather, his support for Israel is anchored in a true understanding of the need for the Jewish people to have a homeland where Jews "can take care of themselves no matter what happens," where we can feel rooted, where our culture can be preserved, and where the Jewish values of social justice can flourish. He especially identified with Zionism's quest "to start over and to repair the breaches of the past."
Obama's connection to Israel is much more personal and, therefore, much stronger, genuine and uncompromising than your traditional candidates. It is not a support based on interests, politics, or a quid pro quo with the Jewish state. It is a support based on identity, on a genuine understanding of the needs of a people to have self-determination, and a conviction that regardless of day-to-day policies, the idea of a Jewish state is fundamentally just.
This is much more reassuring than a candidate that repeats the traditional catch phrases of "strategic ally" and "only democracy in the Middle East." These phrases always make me feel like I constantly have to "make the case" for Israel because, if I cannot prove Israel's "worthiness" to the US, then support will diminish. On the other hand, Obama's rationale for supporting Israel is much simpler. He respects, understands and identifies with the desire of the Jewish people to be a fulfilled and independent nation in their own homeland. In his eyes, Israel and the Zionist idea are important and fundamentally just in their own right.
So basically, much the argument I alleged non-Jews likely would not make in public discourse about Zionism. Obama's interview is, in fact, fantastic -- it hits every base I could have asked for. He called Zionism "just". He related it to anti-Semitism -- not just as something in the past, but as something Jews need to worry about today. And he seemed to truly "get" why the Zionist idea has such a hold on Jews -- not just intellectually, but in his gut and soul.
So, to an extent, I was wrong (admittedly, Obama is still the exception it seems). But what motivates Obama to be different?
One explanation (the optimistic one) is that Obama's experience as a Black man (and thus, as someone who has experience with marginalization) makes him more likely to "get" the reasons why Jews support Israel, rather than lazily adopt the majoritarian framing of the issue that does not take account of Jewish subordination. I wrote that last post in a rather radical mood -- normally, I'm much more optimistic about the ability of empathic approximating experiences to be a route towards coalition-building amongst oppressed people. Obama's superior grasp of why Jews are Zionist may be a function of that. Certainly, his relation of his own experience as someone "uprooted" to the Jewish history of exile indicates this might be the case.
Another explanation, more cynical, is that Obama was pressed into making this statement in order to shore up nervous Jewish voters -- a bloc that remains quite important to the Democratic coalition. Because he was "under suspicion", in part because of his association with Jeremiah Wright, in part because of broader concerns (mostly, but not entirely, off-base) about the degree to which the Black community supports Israel, he had to come back with more than the standard pro-Zionist fare in order to assuage Jewish fears. Remarking on Zionism's fundamental justness was a way to allay those concerns -- particularly since so much of the anti-Zionist argument we hear nowadays is centered around how morally atrocious and inherently unjust Zionism is.
In any event, what I gather from the interview is that Obama is likely to be the most pro-Israel -- in the best sense of the word -- President in a long time. Because his support is rooted in what makes Jews Zionist, it take seriously the conflict on the terms that matter to Jews. What some of our putative friends do not understand is that keeping Israel looked in perpetual, apocalyptic conflict (either with its neighbors or the Palestinians) is not in Israel's interests. It's a concept they don't get because their people aren't the ones who end up in the body bags from it. Nor is it consistent with the progressive Zionist ideal to maintain the occupation forever and prevent Palestinians from achieving their own self-determination. Obama's support for Israel means getting it out of the ultimately untenable position it is now, in a manner that maintains its security, respects its dignity, and affirms its legitimate and just place in the world community as a Jewish state.
There's nothing more I could ask for.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Principal Resigns Rather Than Allow Gay/Straight Alliance Club
The principal of Irmo High School in South Carolina (a school I'm familiar with -- I used to debate against them back in the day) has resigned after being order to allow a chapter of the gay/straight alliance to form in his school. The principal cited his "religious and professional beliefs" as demanding he oppose the group's formation. He was not threatened, terminated, or otherwise forced out -- it was a voluntary decision after the district ruled that the GSA had to be allowed in his school.
Obviously, I find the principal's argument against the GSA very wrong-headed -- particularly his apparent belief that the GSA is equivalent to a sex club. The inability of many people to separate homosexuality from homosexual sex remains very disconcerting and a major barrier to equalization efforts. However, I will refrain from judging too harshly, because I think the principal made the right move in resigning. In the debates over "conscience exemptions" for pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth controls, one of the arguments I heard (and agree with) is that if your religious convictions prevent you from doing your job, you have to get a new job. I believe in accommodation to some extent (indeed, a larger extent than most people) but at the end of the day you have to be able to do your job.
This principal decided that, because of his religious beliefs, he could not perform his job as a principal. That is his prerogative, and I respect him for it -- far more than if he had tried to stay in his position and corrupted it to harass the GSA and other people/groups that he would like to see marginalized.
Holy Bullies has more -- making roughly the same point.
Obviously, I find the principal's argument against the GSA very wrong-headed -- particularly his apparent belief that the GSA is equivalent to a sex club. The inability of many people to separate homosexuality from homosexual sex remains very disconcerting and a major barrier to equalization efforts. However, I will refrain from judging too harshly, because I think the principal made the right move in resigning. In the debates over "conscience exemptions" for pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth controls, one of the arguments I heard (and agree with) is that if your religious convictions prevent you from doing your job, you have to get a new job. I believe in accommodation to some extent (indeed, a larger extent than most people) but at the end of the day you have to be able to do your job.
This principal decided that, because of his religious beliefs, he could not perform his job as a principal. That is his prerogative, and I respect him for it -- far more than if he had tried to stay in his position and corrupted it to harass the GSA and other people/groups that he would like to see marginalized.
Holy Bullies has more -- making roughly the same point.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Boxing Blogging: 5/21/08
It's been awhile, but I feel like it's worth commenting on tonight's edition of Wednesday Night Fights. The event, hosted at a Marine base in Jacksonville, Florida, featured three ex-champions trying to see how much they had in the tank. It was not a great night for the old lions, two taking knockout losses and one winning a dominating decision over a nothing foe.
Johnnie Edwards (14-2-1, 8 KOs) TKO7 Freddie Norwood (42-3-1, 23 KOs)
This, to my mind, was the most intriguing fight on the card. Norwood was unbeaten in his first 39 fights, winning the WBA featherweight title twice (he was once stripped for failure to make weight) until he was stopped in the 11th round by Derrick Gainer. After that fight, he took a six year layoff (including some time in prison) before launching a comeback in 2006. He won his first four fights against mediocre competition before facing off against Edwards, losing for only the second time in his pro career via disqualification (low blows).
Edwards, for his part, is a former Marine who won the gold medal in the armed services boxing tournament before turning pro (so fighting in front of the home crowd tonight). When we last saw him (in the fight immediately after his first bout with Norwood), he was blitzed by super-prospect Yourkis Gamboa in one round -- a fight in which Edwards seriously damaged his knee. Wearing a knee brace, he came back just three months later to fight this rematch against Norwood. A bona fide prospect (lots of very good fighters are going to be obliterated by the force that is Gamboa) against a former champ who had only been decisively beaten once before -- count me excited.
But at first, the fight was ugly. Lots of clinching, grabbing, wrestling -- you name it, this fight saw it. Norwood went down in round three, but it didn't seem too bad, and then it was back to the wrestling match. But in the seventh, Edwards went downstairs/upstairs with a gorgeous left hook combination that left Norwood sprawling. He couldn't beat the count, and Edwards has far and away the best victory of his young career. Unlike the other two old hands in the ring tonight, Norwood had not shown himself to be shot yet. This was a very good win, and I'd be quite happy to see Edwards again in the near future.
Arthur Williams (44-15-1, 30 KOs) UD6 Clarence Moore (5-4-1, 5 KOs)
The 43-year old "King" Arthur certainly reigned tonight against an opponent tailor made for him in Clarence Moore. Moore, who himself is 33, got a late start to the game and his folks have been putting him right in the wolf's den early in his career. He's no world-beater, but he wasn't quite the soft touch that folks were making him out to be. His last six opponents prior to Williams had a combined record of 38-3-1 (he fought one of them twice), and he had a respectable 3-2-1 record against them. So no push over, and at least some pop with all his wins coming by knockout.
That being said, he was no match for the former champion Williams, who knocked Moore down twice in the second and arguably should have garnered a stoppage at that point. Williams looked like he was genuinely having fun in the ring, showing movement and hand speed that belied his age. Much of this, of course, is due to him being in front of guy like Moore, and I don't deny that. Teddy Atlas was right that these are the sort of fights that are dangerous for older guys like Williams, because they make them believe they can still do things that they can't. But there was one statistic that I think belies that analysis, and that was punch output -- Williams threw over 100 per round. Older veterans who use their wiles to win fights, but don't have much left in the tank, do not through punches in bunches. Some of Williams punches were range finding jabs, but he maintained a healthy clip of activity, and that's a good sign. It's more than enough to beat Clarence Moore's, but we know from Williams' recent activity it isn't enough to win at anything approaching an elite level. But as far as I'm concerned, his skills have not retrograded to the point where he needs to retire. Maybe put him in fights that are at least a little more competitive, though?
Edner Cherry (24-5-2, 14 KOs) TKO10 Stevie Johnston (42-6-1, 18 KOs)
Johnston, on the other hand, needs to quit. He has not looked good in recent fights, particularly when he was torn apart two years ago by Vivian Harris. Cherry is not a particularly big puncher, but he put down Johnston three times this fight, and the knockout blow was devastating. Johnston has a heart for ages and was a great champion in his time, but the time clearly has come for him to quit. Always a smaller man, "Lil' but bad" looked tiny in comparison to Cherry, and was muscled around the ring all night long. He simply doesn't have the body, chin, or legs to overcome that size disadvantage anymore, and he never was exactly iron-fisted.
Johnston career was a great one, including 4 years spent at the top of the lightweight division. But he's lost three of his last six, all under the distance, and he's running the risk of getting seriously injured. Like Chris Byrd last week, I really regret that we had to watch him go out this way. But it is time for him to retire.
Cherry, for his part, did his thing, and certainly has come back nicely from his loss to now-titlist Paulie Malignaggi. Don't let his record deceive you -- Cherry has been matched very aggressively as a young pro, and has proven he can hang with the best. He has victories over Daniel Alicia, Wes Ferguson (twice, the second by knockout), Monty Meza Clay (his first loss), and former title challengers Jamie Rangel and Antonio Davis. Two of his losses were early in Cherry's career, the other three were to Malignaggi, former title challenger Ricky Quiles, and uncrowned lightweight champion Jose Armando Santa Cruz. Cherry can fight, and his new found aggressive streak suits him very well.
Johnnie Edwards (14-2-1, 8 KOs) TKO7 Freddie Norwood (42-3-1, 23 KOs)
This, to my mind, was the most intriguing fight on the card. Norwood was unbeaten in his first 39 fights, winning the WBA featherweight title twice (he was once stripped for failure to make weight) until he was stopped in the 11th round by Derrick Gainer. After that fight, he took a six year layoff (including some time in prison) before launching a comeback in 2006. He won his first four fights against mediocre competition before facing off against Edwards, losing for only the second time in his pro career via disqualification (low blows).
Edwards, for his part, is a former Marine who won the gold medal in the armed services boxing tournament before turning pro (so fighting in front of the home crowd tonight). When we last saw him (in the fight immediately after his first bout with Norwood), he was blitzed by super-prospect Yourkis Gamboa in one round -- a fight in which Edwards seriously damaged his knee. Wearing a knee brace, he came back just three months later to fight this rematch against Norwood. A bona fide prospect (lots of very good fighters are going to be obliterated by the force that is Gamboa) against a former champ who had only been decisively beaten once before -- count me excited.
But at first, the fight was ugly. Lots of clinching, grabbing, wrestling -- you name it, this fight saw it. Norwood went down in round three, but it didn't seem too bad, and then it was back to the wrestling match. But in the seventh, Edwards went downstairs/upstairs with a gorgeous left hook combination that left Norwood sprawling. He couldn't beat the count, and Edwards has far and away the best victory of his young career. Unlike the other two old hands in the ring tonight, Norwood had not shown himself to be shot yet. This was a very good win, and I'd be quite happy to see Edwards again in the near future.
Arthur Williams (44-15-1, 30 KOs) UD6 Clarence Moore (5-4-1, 5 KOs)
The 43-year old "King" Arthur certainly reigned tonight against an opponent tailor made for him in Clarence Moore. Moore, who himself is 33, got a late start to the game and his folks have been putting him right in the wolf's den early in his career. He's no world-beater, but he wasn't quite the soft touch that folks were making him out to be. His last six opponents prior to Williams had a combined record of 38-3-1 (he fought one of them twice), and he had a respectable 3-2-1 record against them. So no push over, and at least some pop with all his wins coming by knockout.
That being said, he was no match for the former champion Williams, who knocked Moore down twice in the second and arguably should have garnered a stoppage at that point. Williams looked like he was genuinely having fun in the ring, showing movement and hand speed that belied his age. Much of this, of course, is due to him being in front of guy like Moore, and I don't deny that. Teddy Atlas was right that these are the sort of fights that are dangerous for older guys like Williams, because they make them believe they can still do things that they can't. But there was one statistic that I think belies that analysis, and that was punch output -- Williams threw over 100 per round. Older veterans who use their wiles to win fights, but don't have much left in the tank, do not through punches in bunches. Some of Williams punches were range finding jabs, but he maintained a healthy clip of activity, and that's a good sign. It's more than enough to beat Clarence Moore's, but we know from Williams' recent activity it isn't enough to win at anything approaching an elite level. But as far as I'm concerned, his skills have not retrograded to the point where he needs to retire. Maybe put him in fights that are at least a little more competitive, though?
Edner Cherry (24-5-2, 14 KOs) TKO10 Stevie Johnston (42-6-1, 18 KOs)
Johnston, on the other hand, needs to quit. He has not looked good in recent fights, particularly when he was torn apart two years ago by Vivian Harris. Cherry is not a particularly big puncher, but he put down Johnston three times this fight, and the knockout blow was devastating. Johnston has a heart for ages and was a great champion in his time, but the time clearly has come for him to quit. Always a smaller man, "Lil' but bad" looked tiny in comparison to Cherry, and was muscled around the ring all night long. He simply doesn't have the body, chin, or legs to overcome that size disadvantage anymore, and he never was exactly iron-fisted.
Johnston career was a great one, including 4 years spent at the top of the lightweight division. But he's lost three of his last six, all under the distance, and he's running the risk of getting seriously injured. Like Chris Byrd last week, I really regret that we had to watch him go out this way. But it is time for him to retire.
Cherry, for his part, did his thing, and certainly has come back nicely from his loss to now-titlist Paulie Malignaggi. Don't let his record deceive you -- Cherry has been matched very aggressively as a young pro, and has proven he can hang with the best. He has victories over Daniel Alicia, Wes Ferguson (twice, the second by knockout), Monty Meza Clay (his first loss), and former title challengers Jamie Rangel and Antonio Davis. Two of his losses were early in Cherry's career, the other three were to Malignaggi, former title challenger Ricky Quiles, and uncrowned lightweight champion Jose Armando Santa Cruz. Cherry can fight, and his new found aggressive streak suits him very well.
The War on Dumb Acronyms
Whatever else there is to say about Justice Scalia, I can't not approve of this:
It won't stop them, of course, but at least someone is fighting the good fight.
1) Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion [in United States v. Williams], was apparently unamused by Congress's penchant for titling statutes with an eye towards descriptive acronyms (compare the USAPATRIOT Act). He said that Congress "produced legislation with the unlikely title of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 650. We shall refer to it as the Act."
It won't stop them, of course, but at least someone is fighting the good fight.
Can Zionism Be Defended By Proxies?
Zionism is, at its essence, the national liberation project for Jews as applied to creating a Jewish nation-state in Israel. Its object and purpose centers around Jews. Since Israel has been established, Zionism today means just that one thinks creating Israel was a pretty good move and it should stick around (a definition inspired by, if not outright plagiarized from by virtue of not being able to find a link, Phoebe Maltz). Consequently, being a Zionist doesn't mean supporting any given Israeli policy. It does, however, mean affirming Israel's right to exist, be treated fairly and equally in the global community, and be secure.
In America (and throughout the world, but let's just stick with America) most defenders of Zionism as I define it are not Jews. This is not because Jews aren't Zionists (by and large, they are), but just because because most figures with a national audience are not Jews. With the possible exception of Joe Lieberman (who spends most of his time today talking about how peachy things are in Iraq), pretty much of all the national figures who explain why America should support Zionism are non-Jewish. These people -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, whomever -- are what I mean by proxies. They are non-Jews who are all out there in the public arena defending Zionism.
My thesis is that Zionism cannot be (or at least, is not) effectively defended by proxies. This is not meant to be churlish towards these supporters. Jews tend to accept help when they can get it, and with some exceptions I don't disagree. I just mean that the type of discourse employed by non-Jewish figures tends to differ dramatically from the reasons Jews themselves support Israel, and that disjuncture leads to problems. There are, I think, three major arguments the proxies use when trying to explain their support for the Zionist project (the right uses all three, the left only the latter two). All are problematic, though some more than others, and none really grasps why Zionism is important for Jews.
The first argument is the evangelical Christian perspective that wants Jews in Israel so we can hasten the coming of the Messiah (and then all convert/die, but that part is usually left off the brochure). This argument is growing in influence as the Christian Zionism continues to flourish and increase its ties with several mainstream Jewish organizations. It is on its terms not a "Jewish" argument (as its conclusion indicates), but it does give Israel a very powerful ally in the Christian religious right.
The second argument is the strategic claim that "Israel is America's strongest ally", either in the world or in the region. I have no idea if that's true as a technical matter (are we actually more important than England or Saudi Arabia?), but no matter -- it's clearly true that Israel contributes material things (trade, technology, intelligence) that are important to America. It is, however, once again not all that concerned with the Jewish perspective -- I'm glad that Israel's relationship with America isn't parasitic, but it's not why I wanted Israel established in the first place.
The third argument is the moral claim that Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East -- sometimes described in religious terms as Israel being a "light unto nations". With the possible exception of Turkey, this is true, at least relatively: Israel certainly is more liberal and democratic than the Arab states around it. As a Jew, I'm proud of that fact, and certainly don't want Israel to cease being liberal or democratic (and indeed, could do an even greater commitment to both). But again, this is not quite getting at why I, as a Jew, wanted Israel to be around.
The missing justification, the one that both actually motivated Israel's creation and still explains its support amongst Jews today, is quite simple: safety. Jews didn't try and establish Israel so that we could die in the rapture, or so we could share neat-o technology with America, or even to prove that we can build a better nation than everyone else. Jews founded Israel because Jews understood -- through painful experience -- that we needed a place where we weren't at the mercy of others, where we were in charge of our own destiny, where we would be the ones who got to decide whether to let fleeing refugees in. In short, we needed a place to flee in case the world decided to start Pogroming again.
This is the defining feature of Jewish Zionist discourse. But it is largely absent from the proxy discussion. This is not surprising. Barack Obama can't get up and give a speech justifying his support for Israel because "at any moment, I might start killing you folks again." That would be absurd. But it would cut to the heart of the matter, and reveal the essential truth that undergirds Jewish Zionism: our insecurity in a gentile world.
The shift of the discourse away from actual Jews and to proxies has several negative effects. Each of the preceding three arguments I think recasts the Zionist question in an ultimately harmful way. The first argument is the one I find most despicable, because the relationship between Jewish Zionists and Christian evangelicals is one based on mutual contempt. The evangelicals think we're deluded hell-bound sinners who will get what's coming to us during the apocalypses. The Jews think the evangelicals are illiterate country bumpkins, and honestly take delight in taking advantage of it (if Christians are going to go crazy in favor of Jews for once, hey, why not?). It's unseemly all around, and it should abandoned. But more generally the Christian Zionist argument, like the other two, emphasizes ultimately marginal elements of the Jewish experience to the detriment of the community as a whole. It exaggerates the Jewish link with Christianity in the west, making easy pickings for those who want to lump Jews as part of a broad "Judeo-Christian" oppressive colonialist movement running roughshod over the rest of the world.
The second argument does much the same thing: it over-emphasizes Jewish power and encourages the view that Israel, despite being the size of Vancouver Island, is really this titanic behemoth that can be America's best friend (and the Arab World's worst nightmare). Moreover, shifts the debate away from remedying anti-Semitic oppression (indeed, by making Israel out to be a hyperpower, it violently lurches it away from that field by making it seem absurd that Jews could be oppressed) in favor of simple cost-benefit analysis about whether Israel (and by extension Jewish lives) is really giving us enough to make it worth it. And from there, we get folks like Walt and Mearshimer who say, no, it isn't. Since I don't believe that the marginalized have to earn their lives through trade, I don't find this line of reasoning compelling, but its where we go when we make Zionist advocacy center around whether Israel is a good ally or not for the United States.
The third argument is the most complicated. Again, I'm very happy that Israel is a relatively liberal democracy. I support efforts to make it yet more liberal and yet more democratic. At the same time, I recall Irving Greenberg's telling statement: "If Israel proves to be 10 percent better ethically than the rest of the world, it will be 'a light unto the nations.' If it proves to be 25% better, it will bring the Messiah. If it is 50% better, it will be dead." Hinging Zionism on Israel being awesome means holding it to higher standards than everyone else. I don't object to higher standards per se, although as Greenberg notes, the risk is that setting them too high means that we get killed trying to leap the bar.
The argument also strikes me kind of as an extension of the "politics of respectability" efforts by Blacks in the Civil Rights era -- if we just act good and pure enough, then people will have to accept us. The problem is threefold: first, there's no guarantee of that, second, while we're waiting for people to make that determination our commitment to "purity" makes us very vulnerable, and third, it does nothing for the people who aren't Gandhi-like superhumans, but just regular Joes (or Josephs). Jewish liberation means that all Jews, not just our Gandhis, have a right to be safe. Jews shouldn't be allowed to get away with unjust activity any more than anyone else, but even the human members of our community have a right to be treated fairly and equitably. When Israel commits a wrong, it deserves to be called on it, but not subject to the hyperbolic screaming fits and flagellations that come its way from the international community.
The light unto nations argument thus corrupts the discourse again by shifting the discussion away from Israel's purpose as a haven for Jews and over to a very specific and exacting critique of its behavior. To critics, this makes any ethical failing by the state a facial indictment of its existence -- a standard under which no nation could survive. To defenders, this same dynamic forces them to be overly-zealous in defending Israeli policies. Because Israel only deserves defense insofar as it is perfect, defending Israel means not conceding that it can do any wrong doing. This is a terrible debate for those of us in the Jewish community -- the vast majority of us -- who want Israel to do right, recognize that it can do wrong, but have realistic expectations about what it can do at all.
Even beyond the shortcomings of the specific arguments made by the proxies, there are other problems caused by the absence of the distinctly Jewish voice in defending Zionist ideology. For one, it obviously diminishes the public consciousness of the degree to which Jews still feel and are marginalized in American and worldwide, leading people to think that the problem of anti-Semitism has been solved and stifling discussion on its persistence. The difficulty so many people have in accepting that Jews aren't just paranoid maniacs, that there really are folks out to get us, and that there really are barriers to our full inclusion in society (Western and otherwise), is proof positive of this dynamic.
Second, our silence occurs as part of a broader paradigm of exclusion by which Jews are presumed to be spoken for and hence Jewish inclusion is unnecessary. Even if the proxies could perfectly defend Zionism from a Jewish perspective, it is not at all clear they could do the same on other issues that are of importance to Jews. Again, the hegemony of the "Judeo-Christian" acts to marginalize Jewish voices and block our full participation in the public arena. On a great many issues (most notably Church/State, but also any normative discussion that deals with the values of the Jewish community), it's very important that Jews have an independent platform to articulate our needs, wants, and arguments free from outside domination. That goal is undermined when the public does not feel the need to hear the Jewish voice because it wrongly assumes it is already part of the deliberative stream.
Third, the lack of a consciousness about what Jews actually think about Zionism breeds mistrust about our motives and allows anti-Semitic theories to run rampant. When the real Jewish motivation behind Zionism -- as a response to oppression in Europe and in the Muslim world -- is not heard, people replace it with their own theories -- inevitably negative ones. Zionism is an extension of European colonialism, or is a recasting of the crusades, or is the natural extension of an unquenchable Jewish thirst for power. It is only by stripping Zionism from its foundation rooted in the actual lived experience of the Jewish community that these theories can gain sustenance.
The upshot is not that Jews need to be more vocal as to why they're Zionist. Jews are already speaking on the subject, at length. It's the world that is not listening; that does not see our contribution to the discourse as relevant, "objective", or meaningful. This is the failing that needs to be acknowledged, and that needs to be remedied. The proxies only have to speak for us because nobody cares to listen to the Jews. So long as that continues to be the case, Zionism -- insofar as it is defended at all -- will continue to be defended from a vantage point that ultimately does not act against Jewish subordination.
In America (and throughout the world, but let's just stick with America) most defenders of Zionism as I define it are not Jews. This is not because Jews aren't Zionists (by and large, they are), but just because because most figures with a national audience are not Jews. With the possible exception of Joe Lieberman (who spends most of his time today talking about how peachy things are in Iraq), pretty much of all the national figures who explain why America should support Zionism are non-Jewish. These people -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, whomever -- are what I mean by proxies. They are non-Jews who are all out there in the public arena defending Zionism.
My thesis is that Zionism cannot be (or at least, is not) effectively defended by proxies. This is not meant to be churlish towards these supporters. Jews tend to accept help when they can get it, and with some exceptions I don't disagree. I just mean that the type of discourse employed by non-Jewish figures tends to differ dramatically from the reasons Jews themselves support Israel, and that disjuncture leads to problems. There are, I think, three major arguments the proxies use when trying to explain their support for the Zionist project (the right uses all three, the left only the latter two). All are problematic, though some more than others, and none really grasps why Zionism is important for Jews.
The first argument is the evangelical Christian perspective that wants Jews in Israel so we can hasten the coming of the Messiah (and then all convert/die, but that part is usually left off the brochure). This argument is growing in influence as the Christian Zionism continues to flourish and increase its ties with several mainstream Jewish organizations. It is on its terms not a "Jewish" argument (as its conclusion indicates), but it does give Israel a very powerful ally in the Christian religious right.
The second argument is the strategic claim that "Israel is America's strongest ally", either in the world or in the region. I have no idea if that's true as a technical matter (are we actually more important than England or Saudi Arabia?), but no matter -- it's clearly true that Israel contributes material things (trade, technology, intelligence) that are important to America. It is, however, once again not all that concerned with the Jewish perspective -- I'm glad that Israel's relationship with America isn't parasitic, but it's not why I wanted Israel established in the first place.
The third argument is the moral claim that Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East -- sometimes described in religious terms as Israel being a "light unto nations". With the possible exception of Turkey, this is true, at least relatively: Israel certainly is more liberal and democratic than the Arab states around it. As a Jew, I'm proud of that fact, and certainly don't want Israel to cease being liberal or democratic (and indeed, could do an even greater commitment to both). But again, this is not quite getting at why I, as a Jew, wanted Israel to be around.
The missing justification, the one that both actually motivated Israel's creation and still explains its support amongst Jews today, is quite simple: safety. Jews didn't try and establish Israel so that we could die in the rapture, or so we could share neat-o technology with America, or even to prove that we can build a better nation than everyone else. Jews founded Israel because Jews understood -- through painful experience -- that we needed a place where we weren't at the mercy of others, where we were in charge of our own destiny, where we would be the ones who got to decide whether to let fleeing refugees in. In short, we needed a place to flee in case the world decided to start Pogroming again.
This is the defining feature of Jewish Zionist discourse. But it is largely absent from the proxy discussion. This is not surprising. Barack Obama can't get up and give a speech justifying his support for Israel because "at any moment, I might start killing you folks again." That would be absurd. But it would cut to the heart of the matter, and reveal the essential truth that undergirds Jewish Zionism: our insecurity in a gentile world.
The shift of the discourse away from actual Jews and to proxies has several negative effects. Each of the preceding three arguments I think recasts the Zionist question in an ultimately harmful way. The first argument is the one I find most despicable, because the relationship between Jewish Zionists and Christian evangelicals is one based on mutual contempt. The evangelicals think we're deluded hell-bound sinners who will get what's coming to us during the apocalypses. The Jews think the evangelicals are illiterate country bumpkins, and honestly take delight in taking advantage of it (if Christians are going to go crazy in favor of Jews for once, hey, why not?). It's unseemly all around, and it should abandoned. But more generally the Christian Zionist argument, like the other two, emphasizes ultimately marginal elements of the Jewish experience to the detriment of the community as a whole. It exaggerates the Jewish link with Christianity in the west, making easy pickings for those who want to lump Jews as part of a broad "Judeo-Christian" oppressive colonialist movement running roughshod over the rest of the world.
The second argument does much the same thing: it over-emphasizes Jewish power and encourages the view that Israel, despite being the size of Vancouver Island, is really this titanic behemoth that can be America's best friend (and the Arab World's worst nightmare). Moreover, shifts the debate away from remedying anti-Semitic oppression (indeed, by making Israel out to be a hyperpower, it violently lurches it away from that field by making it seem absurd that Jews could be oppressed) in favor of simple cost-benefit analysis about whether Israel (and by extension Jewish lives) is really giving us enough to make it worth it. And from there, we get folks like Walt and Mearshimer who say, no, it isn't. Since I don't believe that the marginalized have to earn their lives through trade, I don't find this line of reasoning compelling, but its where we go when we make Zionist advocacy center around whether Israel is a good ally or not for the United States.
The third argument is the most complicated. Again, I'm very happy that Israel is a relatively liberal democracy. I support efforts to make it yet more liberal and yet more democratic. At the same time, I recall Irving Greenberg's telling statement: "If Israel proves to be 10 percent better ethically than the rest of the world, it will be 'a light unto the nations.' If it proves to be 25% better, it will bring the Messiah. If it is 50% better, it will be dead." Hinging Zionism on Israel being awesome means holding it to higher standards than everyone else. I don't object to higher standards per se, although as Greenberg notes, the risk is that setting them too high means that we get killed trying to leap the bar.
The argument also strikes me kind of as an extension of the "politics of respectability" efforts by Blacks in the Civil Rights era -- if we just act good and pure enough, then people will have to accept us. The problem is threefold: first, there's no guarantee of that, second, while we're waiting for people to make that determination our commitment to "purity" makes us very vulnerable, and third, it does nothing for the people who aren't Gandhi-like superhumans, but just regular Joes (or Josephs). Jewish liberation means that all Jews, not just our Gandhis, have a right to be safe. Jews shouldn't be allowed to get away with unjust activity any more than anyone else, but even the human members of our community have a right to be treated fairly and equitably. When Israel commits a wrong, it deserves to be called on it, but not subject to the hyperbolic screaming fits and flagellations that come its way from the international community.
The light unto nations argument thus corrupts the discourse again by shifting the discussion away from Israel's purpose as a haven for Jews and over to a very specific and exacting critique of its behavior. To critics, this makes any ethical failing by the state a facial indictment of its existence -- a standard under which no nation could survive. To defenders, this same dynamic forces them to be overly-zealous in defending Israeli policies. Because Israel only deserves defense insofar as it is perfect, defending Israel means not conceding that it can do any wrong doing. This is a terrible debate for those of us in the Jewish community -- the vast majority of us -- who want Israel to do right, recognize that it can do wrong, but have realistic expectations about what it can do at all.
Even beyond the shortcomings of the specific arguments made by the proxies, there are other problems caused by the absence of the distinctly Jewish voice in defending Zionist ideology. For one, it obviously diminishes the public consciousness of the degree to which Jews still feel and are marginalized in American and worldwide, leading people to think that the problem of anti-Semitism has been solved and stifling discussion on its persistence. The difficulty so many people have in accepting that Jews aren't just paranoid maniacs, that there really are folks out to get us, and that there really are barriers to our full inclusion in society (Western and otherwise), is proof positive of this dynamic.
Second, our silence occurs as part of a broader paradigm of exclusion by which Jews are presumed to be spoken for and hence Jewish inclusion is unnecessary. Even if the proxies could perfectly defend Zionism from a Jewish perspective, it is not at all clear they could do the same on other issues that are of importance to Jews. Again, the hegemony of the "Judeo-Christian" acts to marginalize Jewish voices and block our full participation in the public arena. On a great many issues (most notably Church/State, but also any normative discussion that deals with the values of the Jewish community), it's very important that Jews have an independent platform to articulate our needs, wants, and arguments free from outside domination. That goal is undermined when the public does not feel the need to hear the Jewish voice because it wrongly assumes it is already part of the deliberative stream.
Third, the lack of a consciousness about what Jews actually think about Zionism breeds mistrust about our motives and allows anti-Semitic theories to run rampant. When the real Jewish motivation behind Zionism -- as a response to oppression in Europe and in the Muslim world -- is not heard, people replace it with their own theories -- inevitably negative ones. Zionism is an extension of European colonialism, or is a recasting of the crusades, or is the natural extension of an unquenchable Jewish thirst for power. It is only by stripping Zionism from its foundation rooted in the actual lived experience of the Jewish community that these theories can gain sustenance.
The upshot is not that Jews need to be more vocal as to why they're Zionist. Jews are already speaking on the subject, at length. It's the world that is not listening; that does not see our contribution to the discourse as relevant, "objective", or meaningful. This is the failing that needs to be acknowledged, and that needs to be remedied. The proxies only have to speak for us because nobody cares to listen to the Jews. So long as that continues to be the case, Zionism -- insofar as it is defended at all -- will continue to be defended from a vantage point that ultimately does not act against Jewish subordination.
Libertarian Feminism
A really interesting essay that seeks to reinterpret libertarianism in a feminist (really, radical feminist) light. I wouldn't say I agree (after all, I'm not a libertarian), but I approve of the instinct -- the authors engage with feminist theory in a genuine and respectful fashion.
Via
Via
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Spam Phone Call
*Brrring*
"Hello?"
"Hello, this is Michelle calling about your current credit card account. There is no problem, but we would like to steal money-." [click]
They didn't actually state that last part, but it was implied. What is with the rise in phone phishing that I've been experiencing lately?
"Hello?"
"Hello, this is Michelle calling about your current credit card account. There is no problem, but we would like to steal money-." [click]
They didn't actually state that last part, but it was implied. What is with the rise in phone phishing that I've been experiencing lately?
Corker and Alexander Decry Attack on Obama's Wife
A short while back, I predicted that Michelle Obama would become the latest target for GOP attackers desperate to slow her husband's momentum. The Tennessee GOP quickly verified that hypothesis by running an attack ad questioning her patriotism.
To their credit, both of Tennessee's Republican Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, have come out against the ad. Corker explicitly calls for it to be taken down, Alexander is more tepid, merely saying that "There are probably better ways to communicate our pride in America, and we need to focus on those."
Corker already has had run-ins with controversial GOP ads, particularly the infamous "call me" ad put out by the RNC in his 2006 senate race against Harold Ford (an ad which he also opposed). And this the second foray the Tennessee GOP has already made this cycle into sleazy campaign tactics: the first being a mailer entitled "anti-Semites for Obama" featuring him in "Muslim" (actually traditional Somali) garb. That ad was taken down only after repeated efforts by Senator Alexander.
To their credit, both of Tennessee's Republican Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, have come out against the ad. Corker explicitly calls for it to be taken down, Alexander is more tepid, merely saying that "There are probably better ways to communicate our pride in America, and we need to focus on those."
Corker already has had run-ins with controversial GOP ads, particularly the infamous "call me" ad put out by the RNC in his 2006 senate race against Harold Ford (an ad which he also opposed). And this the second foray the Tennessee GOP has already made this cycle into sleazy campaign tactics: the first being a mailer entitled "anti-Semites for Obama" featuring him in "Muslim" (actually traditional Somali) garb. That ad was taken down only after repeated efforts by Senator Alexander.
The Tragedy of Left-Wing Zionist Advocacy
I identify as a progressive Zionist. This means both that I try to support Zionist ideals in a manner consistent with broader progressive obligations (particularly the need to be fair to groups not my own -- Palestinians being the obvious ones), but also that my support for Zionism itself stems out of left-wing, anti-subordination theory.
The argument that Zionism is ultimately a theory "of the left", and that, more importantly, we have to analyze anti-Zionism from a perspective that takes account of the subordinated status of Jews and the entrenched nature of structural anti-Semitism world-wide, is a claim I often make in the comments of the various feminist blogs I read, such as Alas, a Blog and Feministe. Recently, the latter had a post up on Israel's 60th birthday, and I went to work in the comments.
I comment at Feministe because I feel like, by and large, I'll get a respectful hearing and that most of my interlocutors, though not necessarily agreeing with me, will make good, meaningful points and grapple with my analysis (some are idiots, but you get that anywhere). This session wasn't different -- in fact, it was more successful than most. I got Jill to put a disclaimer at the top of this post noting that the claim that an Israeli official was threatening Palestinians with a new Holocaust was based off a mis-translation of the Hebrew. I also got a nice message from Feminist Gal basically telling me to keep up the great work. So that felt good.
But I still can't shake the feeling that there is a sense in which I struggle in vain. My goal in these threads is to argue from an aggressively and self-consciously progressive standpoint to defend Israel and the Zionist project (conceptually -- not always as applied) from their attackers on the left. In my head, I see it almost territorially: I'm not willing to cede the terrain of anti-subordination to those who I think would do my people harm, and reify my oppressed status. The hope is that, by showing how Zionism actually flows from progressive principles, I can convert them to the light: you're a progressive, Zionism is progressive, hence, you should be Zionist.
But yet, it doesn't work that way. People rarely allow ideology to trump deep-seated moral or political beliefs -- and the belief that Jews should be permanently barred from joining them family of nation-states certainly qualifies as deep-seated. Even if I did manage to make a facial case that Zionism is part of the progressive panoply of ideas, I'm not sure it would do much good. Theory doesn't trump practice, and I suspect that my argument is more likely to cause my targets to disavow leftism than to disavow anti-Zionism.
What I mean by that isn't that the folks I'm talking to are so committed to Jew-hatred that, when faced with the prospect of supporting Zionism, they'll run screaming all the way back to neo-conservatism. What I mean is that they'll use this opportunity to prove that they're iconoclastic. "I may be a leftist, but I'm not one of those types of leftists." Ideology bends to experience, and experience tells these people that they can never support the Zionist project. If Zionism is of the left, then it's the left that has to give way.
I'm not saying I'm making that perfect, uber-argument that forces people into this position. But if that's the horizon of my efforts, it hardly seems to be a fight worth continuing.
On the other hand, there is still my "cede the terrain" point. Even if I can't convince folks to give up anti-Zionism, I sure as hell don't want them claiming their position is the progressive one. The ground of anti-subordination is ground that matters to me. I will not be driven off it by fundamentally illiberal, reactionary, anti-Jewish forces without a fight.
The argument that Zionism is ultimately a theory "of the left", and that, more importantly, we have to analyze anti-Zionism from a perspective that takes account of the subordinated status of Jews and the entrenched nature of structural anti-Semitism world-wide, is a claim I often make in the comments of the various feminist blogs I read, such as Alas, a Blog and Feministe. Recently, the latter had a post up on Israel's 60th birthday, and I went to work in the comments.
I comment at Feministe because I feel like, by and large, I'll get a respectful hearing and that most of my interlocutors, though not necessarily agreeing with me, will make good, meaningful points and grapple with my analysis (some are idiots, but you get that anywhere). This session wasn't different -- in fact, it was more successful than most. I got Jill to put a disclaimer at the top of this post noting that the claim that an Israeli official was threatening Palestinians with a new Holocaust was based off a mis-translation of the Hebrew. I also got a nice message from Feminist Gal basically telling me to keep up the great work. So that felt good.
But I still can't shake the feeling that there is a sense in which I struggle in vain. My goal in these threads is to argue from an aggressively and self-consciously progressive standpoint to defend Israel and the Zionist project (conceptually -- not always as applied) from their attackers on the left. In my head, I see it almost territorially: I'm not willing to cede the terrain of anti-subordination to those who I think would do my people harm, and reify my oppressed status. The hope is that, by showing how Zionism actually flows from progressive principles, I can convert them to the light: you're a progressive, Zionism is progressive, hence, you should be Zionist.
But yet, it doesn't work that way. People rarely allow ideology to trump deep-seated moral or political beliefs -- and the belief that Jews should be permanently barred from joining them family of nation-states certainly qualifies as deep-seated. Even if I did manage to make a facial case that Zionism is part of the progressive panoply of ideas, I'm not sure it would do much good. Theory doesn't trump practice, and I suspect that my argument is more likely to cause my targets to disavow leftism than to disavow anti-Zionism.
What I mean by that isn't that the folks I'm talking to are so committed to Jew-hatred that, when faced with the prospect of supporting Zionism, they'll run screaming all the way back to neo-conservatism. What I mean is that they'll use this opportunity to prove that they're iconoclastic. "I may be a leftist, but I'm not one of those types of leftists." Ideology bends to experience, and experience tells these people that they can never support the Zionist project. If Zionism is of the left, then it's the left that has to give way.
I'm not saying I'm making that perfect, uber-argument that forces people into this position. But if that's the horizon of my efforts, it hardly seems to be a fight worth continuing.
On the other hand, there is still my "cede the terrain" point. Even if I can't convince folks to give up anti-Zionism, I sure as hell don't want them claiming their position is the progressive one. The ground of anti-subordination is ground that matters to me. I will not be driven off it by fundamentally illiberal, reactionary, anti-Jewish forces without a fight.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Freedom For All
An oldie but goodie from Fareed Zakaria:
That was back in 2004. It's still true.
This is the party's dilemma -- it wishes to spread liberty to people whom it doesn't really like.
That was back in 2004. It's still true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
