History Hub聽 permalink
Shlomo Sand's Jewish people.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd December 2010
As promised to U-number 211 in a discussion on another thread I started to read the English version of the original in Hebrew and if I recall it well then in French translation of the book of Shlomo Sand "The invention of the Jewish people" ? Now at page 236 of the some 300 pages.
The author starts with the difficult concept of the words "people" and "nation".
I made already a thread on the 麻豆约拍 messageboards from before 2005 about "people, nation and nation-state" and know already from then how difficult it is to give the concept of the word "people", French: "peuple", German: "Volk", Dutch: "volk".
Just tried for the empteenth time to search for definitions on Google and when I returned the complete message was gone. The 麻豆约拍 filter? It is months since I lost a message that way.
As Shlomo I find it essential that before starting the discussion one has to agree on the concept of such essential words He discuss it from page 24 till 39.
For me I stick to the definition for "people" as : "a body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life," in the sense of identical in French, German and Dutch. Perhaps also in the sense of the Russian "narod" (Ounupa?)
Will test now my concept with that of the book.
Page 24: Shlomo agrees to my vision about difficulty.
Difficult also in Hebrew. The author expand over several pages..."ethnos" would be a combination, a blending of cultural background and bloodties....
I am a bit warry of that concept of "ethnos" since it implicates "bloodties". In my opinion you don't need "bloodties" to have a "people, peuple, Volk, volk, narod"? The Frenchman 脡tienne Balibar seems to say the same as I.
Then it goes further about "nation" If I understand it well it is the term "territory" added to the former "people"?
Before going further waiting for some comments, especially from U-number...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 23rd December 2010
Paul
The question of "nation" goes right to the heart of the post-1918 attempt to create a peaceful and civilized world in place of the dangerous balance of powers act that had led to the Great War.
The concept of "the nation" found vibrant expression in the French Revolution and the idea of one "National Assembly" that would speak for the whole nation in accordance no doubt with Rousseau's concept of the "General Will"-- a view that somehow became preponderant within a body of people living and working together.. This, of course, was not possible within the "separate development" traditions of the French monarchist state.
The idea of a new connection between "THE people" and the State which ruled them by serving the "greater good" and perceiving the "General Will" had attractions. Not the least because it was something that Rousseau thought could only be achieved by a great philosopher ruler. The people would be largely interested in ENDS, like Liberty, Equality, Frathernity and the Pursuit of Happiness, without actually understaning what means would best achieve them. The idea therefore was attractive to the owners of material and intellectual capital who could claim political credibility because their ownership made them "Yes we can " people- and therefore people who could promise to deliver.
Both kinds of owners produced people who developed the politics, economics and history of Nations, so that Woodrow Wilson, University Academic, could see the world as being made up of these building blocks, which wer as real as John Dalton's Atoms- and similarly irreduceable. But there was a clear problem because as old multi-national, faith, and cultural Empires fell asunder from 1917 onwards, the problem of moving from the "status quo"- the disordered flood of change- made the ultimate marriage of "nations " and territories difficult if not impossible.
Nevertheless in a world people by "men of goodwill" who wanted an end to all wars, it would suffice if each "Nation" had a State with a voice in the League of Nations, that would speak up for the interests of the Nation wherever they were found.
By the 1930's, when no-one really believed that these means could achieve the desired ends- and it is debatable just how many thought so outside of narrow cliques of intellectuals in 1919- Hitler was to use these powers, outside of the remit of the now useless and ignored League of Nations, to insist on the right of the new post-Versailles German State, vastly shrunk, to still speak on behalf of those of the German Nation who found themselves as "persecuted" or exploited minorities in other countries.
And we all know what that led to.
But , with my French wife, and my half French children, I am not sure that the situation in the modern world is not even more complex.. For those of us interested in cricket there is, as Norman Tebbitt famously said, "the cricket test".. In the recent Text Match in Australia it was obvious that a large number of the Australians were actually British ex-pats who have made a private decision to live in that country, but whose loyalties still lie with this country..
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 23rd December 2010
I am me. I am not one of any particular squad of 'people'. I am an individual.
I may have been born around 53 N, 3 W (I had no say in the matter) and my parents may have come from elsewhere, before I popped out. So I'm supposed to be a loyal subject of somewhere? Why? It's all bonkers.
Researching my family tree, it seemed that my ancestors were Jews. Jews, already, oy veh! Corks! - I thought, fancy that! Maybe sadly, it turned out to be untrue. But never mind! I can live with the disappointment.
I will not be included in any of these generalisations. I am me. That's it. -
Message 4
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 24th December 2010
I would feel the same, Jak, but alas most of our fellow 'humans' feel that need to 'belong' - to 'Nation', 'People', 'Tribe', 'Religion', 'Football Club', 'Scout Troop', you name it. So they invent that 'something' in whatever likeness they feel best with.
For instance, 'Irishness' means something different to every 'Irishman' - even to a 'Noo Joisey' Irishman called 'Wojicynski', whose Great-Granny was a Murphy from West Cork. For 'Irishman', read any of the list above - a lot of Football fans have died for their cause as well, just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It has cost a lot of lives in a lot of wars, revolutions, persecutions, and outside a lot of pubs, but - what the hell, fighting is what we do best! -
Message 5
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 27th December 2010
i guess Jesus is descended from lots of people like Rahab the harlot and others who werent from Abrahams ur
-
Message 6
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 4th January 2011
Paul,
Happy New Year. I hope you had a good holiday.
Thanks for reminding me of our arrangement to discuss Sand's book.
I'll dig it out and get back to you tomorrow.
Perhaps we can agree a list of "central issues"?
I would like to spend some time on DNA and genetics of "nationhood" and the mode of transmission of religious ideas.
Are those topics you would regard as relevant here?
With best regards,
U32 -
Message 7
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 5th January 2011
Paul,
You say that Sand..
starts with the difficult concept of the words "people" and "nation".聽
He does indeed, but on page 24 he notes that, in Israel, almost all history books use the word 'am' (meaning people) as a synonym for le'om (nation).
Thus the Hebrew language merges meanings which remain distinct in English, thanks, perhaps, to the larger vocabulary of English.
So we might well agree on a definition of the words 'people' and 'nation', and agree that they are far from synonymous, but if they are synonymous in Hebrew we have a problem.
Your definition:
"a body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life,"聽
Is OK, but I get a bit queasy with references to "inherited" conditions of life.
I think Sand does too, but it takes him a further 280 pages before he lays his cards on the table.
On page 308 he gets to the nitty gritty when he asserts: (quoting from para 3)
The myth of the Jewish 'ethnos' (italicised in original) as a self-isolating body that has always barred, and must therefore go on barring , outsiders from it is harmful to the State of Israel...聽
So, I don't think we need to proceed with quite such caution, if our purpose here is to provide and discuss our thoughts about his book.
I agree with what Sand says on page 308 (above). I share his distrust of "ethnos" and a unique inheritance, in this context.
Best regards. -
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Re: Message 2.
Cass,
thank you very much for the extended reply. I read it with great interest and excuses for the late reply. Excuses that I will explain in my message to U-number.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Paul
It is always pleasant to think that someone has read something with interest..I look forward to a more productive debate than some others as you and U-sef have at least agreed a common core/theme for this thread.
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Re: Message 6.
U 32,
excuses for the late reply. My wife had a small accident on 26 December and something more serious needing urgent admission in the hospital on 6 January. Hectic days and no much time for the boards. Now it seems all again under control...
I am now at page 257 of the book but I am obliged to deliver it in the library before 13 January because it is borrowed from another library in Antwerp. I will try to read the rest before I give it in.
As for the subjects I let you the choice and will try to answer your questions. I will give some quick appreciation of the book in a reply to your other message.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Paul
Sorry to hear of your problems.. You have my sympathies. My wife has not been well for the last few weeks. But fortunately nothing requiring hospital admission.
Best Wishes
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Re: Message 7.
U 32,
"He does indeed, but on page 24 he notes that, in Israel, almost all history books use the word 'am' (meaning people) as a synonym for le'om (nation).
Thus the Hebrew language merges meanings which remain distinct in English, thanks, perhaps, to the larger vocabulary of English"
As to the larger vocabulary of Dutch: "volk, natie", German: "Volk, Nation", French: "peuple, nation", Russian: "narod, natsia" (but in Russian it is perhaps also a bit difficult, you have also the French "patrie" with "rodjina" with the same "rod" core (rod (generation)). If some Russian speaking one can elaborate? OUNUPA, Suvorovetz?
And yes, if it is the same concept of word in Hebrew for peuple and nation, we have a problem.
"Your definition:
" "a body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life,""
Is OK, but I get a bit queasy with references to "inherited" conditions of life."
I mixed the definition from other definitions or perhaps was it one definition that I picked up from some dictionary, don't remember it. But with "inherited condition of life", and I come further back on it, I mean, and it was also the meaning of what a French historian said in an interview that I saw about the "book": as for instance in the case of the men and women all over the world, who consider the Jewish "habits" as part of their "background" life inherited from the family.
On the French messagebords I compared it in the Western countries with the "Christian" background that many of us, even sometimes without knowing it, have still in their "thinking world". I said even that we in the West have some "background" in our thinking that relies on the recent history of the "human areligious" common denominator of the recent Western thinking. With "inherited" I certainly don't mean something that has from far something to do with the "queasy" thoughts of "bloodties".
"On page 308 he gets to the nitty gritty when he asserts: (quoting from para 3)
"The myth of the Jewish 'ethnos' (italicised in original) as a self-isolating body that has always barred, and must therefore go on barring , outsiders from it is harmful to the State of Israel..." "
I read the context on page 308 and yes that's the core of the difficulty for the "State"! of Israel and I mentioned it already in a discussion with Nordmann about the Israeli "citizenship". If they agree with Israeli citizens, who aren't Jewish, at some moment the Jewish content of the Israeli state will be watered down to a multi-cultural and multi-religious state, which will steer with the votes the Israeli state in a direction not wanted by the momentary majority of the nowadays citizens. It is a difficult choice and I understand in some way why they act as they act ...
A provisional conclusion about the reading of the book of Shlomo Sand. If you look at the rethoric of some Jewish side, for me is the book a moderate approach to a difficult question about some concepts "adhered" up to now. About some critics from the historians as in France about the Kazhars and other historical events I have the impression that Shlomo put question marks and show some possible directions without sticking to them as "the truth", but mostly they go against the "adhered" concepts of up to now.
I read from Arthur Koestler "Bricks of Babel" (a summary about his life, even some 1,000 pages if I remember it well, but what a life). I didn't read "The Thirteenth Tribe" about the Kazhars, but there is still a lot in discussion as if it was the elite, who converted to the Jewish faith or the whole people? And that was, if I remember it well one of the arguments about the bias of Shlomo, but as I read the book he only starts the questions and lets the rest for further investigation?
Of course my concept of the word "Jewish people" will never be the concept of the Israeli state or of those who critic in that sense the book of Shlomo Sand...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 11th January 2011
Addendum to message 12.
U 32,
I read this morning the last fifty pages of the Sand book and now understand why there is so much fuss about it. Shlomo Sand goes to the core of the problems of the State of Israel as the Arab Israeli minority and the genetic studies of Jewiness....
I read it already on these boards some years ago about Zionism and the return of the European Jewish people to the homeland, but I wasn't aware that as Shlomo explains in detail that the European Jewishness passed through the same evolution of the Jewish people forming with social Darwinism and all that? They seem to have done exactly what others did in Britain, Germany, France in their 19th century and early 20th century?
And as the nowadays "genetic" enthusiasts they seem to have the same at Jewish and American universities? It is as if I read about the blood of the Vikings and some discussions about the Celts...here on these very same boards...I had some thread on these boards and on a French board about "eugenics" and also that is mentioned in detail in the Sand's book...?
As a Belgian I read the history of the "Flemish people" and if it wasn't that Belgium was such a mix of "peoples" while it was at the crossroads of many population moves, I think the Flemings would also start to speak about a "volk" (people in one! of the senses I explained above) in genetic terms to prove they were "one" entity. With the start of the "invention" of the Flemish people in the 19th century and the growing awareness of that Flemish people in the 20th century, the Walloons started also with an "invention" of a Walloon people, but they have some difficulties with Brussels. With all these growing "peoples" identities we have now some problems in Belgium for the moment. But I think that we can tackle it in the near future, while there is still a consensus to work together on a broad groundswell...I think...
Someone asked it on a French messageboard: Nowadays, we are flooded with "genetic" information, not only from "pseudo-historians, but also from real scientists, who at their turn contradict each other...and we "poor ignorants" aren't able to discern what is "real science" and what is "camelote" (trash, rubbish)...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 11th January 2011
Paul
Actually I thought of bringing up the ongoing questions/problems associated with the State of Israel on the "Invasion of Poland " thread.. because surely this is one of the ongoing problems thrown up by Disraeli's "Eastern Question"--i.e. the problems that emerged in the second half of the Nineteenth Century when two multinational, multi-ethnic, multi-religious Empires of long-standing were collapsing- the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman- while the resulting "power-vacuum" produced expansionism in the new German Empire and the newly modernising Russian Empire- along with the ambitions of much smaller groups to achieve independent "Nation" status- and "national sovereignty"..
As Dr. Huxley wrote in 1941:
"Everybody knows by now that unrestricted national sovereignty is the central problem of international politics today, and perhaps the main cause of the failure of the League of Nations. ..The insistence of the small states of Europe on their sovereign right to neutrality ...was a major cause of Hitler's extraordinary successes in the spring of 1940.
The sovereign right of Nations to do as they liked about their internal affairs allowed the Nazis to upset the whole civilized world by the persecution of the Jews and liberal-minded "Aryans".
The formation of Israel was the product of the Eastern European "crucible", and the insistence of the Government of Israel on its sovereign right to be a law unto itself, while surrounded by for the moment militarily weaker countries, surely goes to the heart of the matter.
Cass -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Re: Message 14.
Cass,
thank you very much for your extending of the question. Perhaps it will return further in the discussion.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 16
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Addendum to message 13.
U 32,
As about the fear of the Jewish majority in the state of Israel to lose their majority and to not be able anymore to decide about their Jewish indentity....
I attended a discussion on a French forum about the recent questions of the French indentity and what it represented. Aren't there some parallels? And yes France isn't so threatened in their national identity as for instance Israel? BTW. I haven't a direct solution for the Israeli problem. Only perhaps for the immediate future the Gen猫ve peace plan made by the intellectuals of both the Palestinian and Israeli side...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 17
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Paul - with the greatest possible respect - I have to wonder what is wrong with these people.
Jewish identity? French identity? Or in my own case - Scottish identity? Fife identity? Kirkcaldy (a town in Fife) identity? Smith Street identity?
Can't they all be happy - simply as individual human beings?
Do they really feel they need to belong to a group?
I think I've already mentioned about our visit to Ghent. Met these nice young people in a bar - very neat, clean & tidy, good singers etc. (Unlike students hereabouts, and initially, quite wonderful to meet.) But they were so aggressively insistent on being "Flemish" as opposed to being "Walloon". So eventually we tiptoed away, thinking: "I bet Nazis in Germany were a bit like that, before 1933". Very sad: such good young folk, but quite obsessed by all this nationalist, racist (or whatever it is) nonsense.
As Samuel Johnson said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - and I think he was right.
"See us lot? We're better than you lot!" All bonkers. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 13th January 2011
Re: Message 17.
Jak, old friend (at least older than I),
yes, I remember very well your example from Ghent (I even did research (during at least two hours) to find what students they were....
Jak, you as I are the same. But there are millions of others, who let impregnate them with propaganda. Propaganda, which uses fear as promotor...
I read on the French messageboards about imposing the religious rules from a minority about separate hours for both sexes in swimming pools, about hallal food in big enterprises that the producer indiscriminately had to distribute in hallal while it was too difficult and costly to serve it otherwise in the factory restaurant. That are only two examples of the many...So some start the fear... if the minority grows it will be a danger for the French "indentity"....
If I see my wife and many others (I suppose also a lot of men) looking to the advertisements, which, in my eyes, are all lies or at least half-truths and see them follow these advertisements as proved in the real sales figures...
And yes I even think that there are many individuals, who are sectarian on their own and don't need a "group" to emphasize their beliefs.
And Jak you and I and many others are also a "group"....
Perhaps some will say that we are Communists, because we say that the whole world is our village...but in a village even neighbours sometimes...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul.
PS: Some older Germans that I met still said to me that they at the time they were soldier during WWII they were thinking they were fighting for the right cause. But afterwards with the contra-propaganda in post-war Germany... -
Message 19
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 13th January 2011
Paul,
I've just checked the "Hub" again and see that the topic is still current.
Sorry to learn of your recent problems and I trust your wife is now well?
I shall read the growing backlog of posts and respond on the topic of Sand's book tomorrow.
Best regards,
U32 -
Message 20
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Paul,
I have read your messages 10, 12, 13 and 16 with interest and with growing confidence that we can agree about most of Sand鈥檚 book. I found the text to be well-researched, even meticulous, although a full bibliography would have helped.
In message 10 you say:
As for the subjects I let you the choice and will try to answer your questions. I will give some quick appreciation of the book in a reply to your other message.聽
Thank you. But since we agree on the key concepts this will be easy.
In message 12 your raise the issue of language as it shapes the understanding of both group identity and 鈥榥ationhood鈥. I accept your formulation. You are the better linguist.
The important point, for this discussion, is that we share the realisation that when discussing modern Israeli self-concept (or 鈥榠dentity鈥 or sense of 鈥榥ationhood鈥) the un-translatable gaps between our languages and Hebrew will lead to difficulties.
And yes, if it is the same concept of word in Hebrew for peuple and nation, we have a problem.聽
Further on in M12, you say, re: the issue of 鈥渋nherited conditions of life鈥
for instance in the case of the men and women all over the world, who consider the Jewish "habits" as part of their "background" life inherited from the family. 聽
My understanding is that it is the 鈥榞enotype鈥 which is 鈥榠nherited鈥, while 鈥榟abits鈥, customs and culture are acquired by learning and imitation in the milieu of the family, school and place of work. If someone said to me that 鈥淛ews inherit a fondness for Kosher food and restful Staurdays鈥 I think the appropriate response would be:
鈥淥K, then, show me the relevant gene, what does this gene code FOR, what is its mode of action, which proteins are synthesised by this gene, what is their role and form of expression in the phenotype?鈥
Sand (rightly) mocks the overly biological and determinist view of 鈥榝aith鈥 on pages 270-281 in the book. He also provides an excellent review of how and why science and popular understanding have gradually drawn apart. For example, while Boas and later, Fishberg (2007) have demolished the idea of a uniform inherited 鈥淛ewishness鈥 (鈥淭he Jews: A Study of Race and Environment鈥) , many within the Israeli public cling to a Zionist myth of a biological link to the land of Palestine which goes back 3,000 years. The absurdity here is that most northern Europeans, of all faiths and none, have biological links to hominids once wandering through 鈥業srael/Palestine鈥 over 200,000 years ago. Since both of us, and most others reading this, carry at least 2% Neanderthal DNA:
You go on to say:
With "inherited" I certainly don't mean something that has from far something to do with the "queasy" thoughts of "blood-ties".聽
Good. We agree on that most important fundamental.
On the specific issue of para 3, page 308 we agree, once again:
I read the context on page 308 and yes that's the core of the difficulty for the "State"! of Israel聽
Well put.
You continue M12 with a discussion of Koestler鈥檚 鈥淏ricks of Babel鈥. I have read about the conversion of the Khazars and I agree with Sand on the conversion story, but I have not read Koestler鈥檚 book, alas.
Concluding M12 you say:
Of course my concept of the word "Jewish people" will never be the concept of the Israeli state or of those who critic in that sense the book of Shlomo Sand...聽
Yet again, we agree.
On to your M13鈥
You have clearly understood the essence of the book when you say:
I read this morning the last fifty pages of the Sand book and now understand why there is so much fuss about it. Shlomo Sand goes to the core of the problems of the State of Israel 聽
Exactly. There are a number of problems for the Zionist claim that Israel is naturally and historically 鈥淛ewish鈥 land.
1) The time line. In what sense can a claim to land ownership extend, without challenge, through two millenia of non-residence? (Can the British have France back, please?)
2) If European Jews were settled in Poland, Russia and Belarus for well over 1,000 years. See: how can they legitimately claim a land they have never been to? Surely a Jew settled in Poland for 900 years is a Pole, not an Israeli 鈥榠n-waiting鈥. How many nationalities can a single individual claim?
3) The Israeli 鈥楲aw of Return鈥 is clearly a farce. It assigns residence rights to incoming settlers whilst refusing to allow the return of the displaced Palestinians who were driven-out of their land in 1947/1948.
4) Sand shows that 鈥極ld Testament Bible history鈥 correlates poorly, if at all, with actual history. The Exodus story cannot be literally true, since population movements described fail to match the historical record
But I鈥檓 sure you realise that what we two might agree on here will seem incendiary talk to Zionists who hold that Jerusalem is wholly, and exclusively, 鈥淛ewish forever鈥, despite UN judgments to the contrary.
There is a brief passage in your M13 I do not quite understand:
You say: I wasn't aware that as Shlomo explains in detail that the European Jewishness passed through the same evolution of the Jewish people forming with social Darwinism and all that? They seem to have done exactly what others did in Britain, Germany, France in their 19th century and early 20th century?聽
I鈥檓 not sure what you mean by social Darwinism in that context?
But I find your thoughts about Belgium as an analogy for a land with competing 鈥榠dentity鈥 claims most relevant here: esp.
With the start of the "invention" of the Flemish people in the 19th century and the growing awareness of that Flemish people in the 20th century, the Walloons started also with an "invention" of a Walloon people, but they have some difficulties with Brussels. With all these growing "peoples" identities we have now some problems in Belgium for the moment.聽
But I share your optimism for the future.
Finally, my comments on your M16.
You relate some issues in modern Belgium and France to the Israel/Palestine crisis. The crisis in Belgium and France is psychological, I think, whereas the crisis for Israel/Palestine is already military and thus far more dangerous.
As for the future, who knows? More war would seem inevitable as no one now takes the two-state solution seriously. An American funded and armed Israel cannot be defeated by any Arab State. Nor can Israel ever feel safe if it clings to its present policy of denial of Palestinian rights. Obama has failed to bring Israel to the table and Lebanon will soon resume a civil war with a more powerful Hezbollah likely to increase its influence, now that the government collapsed earlier this week.
My only hope for peace is a 鈥榦ne-state鈥 solution. An Israeli state which recognises the truth about its short past, and learns to accept that Arabs and Christians can be full Israelis too. What I call the 鈥榦ne state solution鈥 is discussed fully in 鈥淕aza in Crisis鈥 (2010) chapters 5,6,7,8. by Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky.
For the moment Israel is only interested in 鈥榝acts on the ground鈥, more Jewish settlements and the gradual displacement of Arabs from East Jerusalem. This guarantees that the next Middle East war will spread way beyond Israel鈥檚 borders and affect the wider region.
See 麻豆约拍 correspondent Jeremy Bowen:
Like you, I found Sand鈥檚 book a most interesting read. If you would like to debate it some more, shall we talk about the nature of Judaism and its mode of transmission, and the issues of faith, genes and national identity more generally?
Best regards,
U32 -
Message 21
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th January 2011
Re: Message 20.
U 32,
""Further on in M12, you say, re: the issue of 鈥渋nherited conditions of life鈥
" for instance in the case of the men and women all over the world, who consider the Jewish "habits" as part of their "background" life inherited from the family. "
My understanding is that it is the 鈥榞enotype鈥 which is 鈥榠nherited鈥, while 鈥榟abits鈥, customs and culture are acquired by learning and imitation in the milieu of the family, school and place of work."
Yes, you have to be careful with the word "inherit" I meant of course "learned". But you can also "inherit" an old chair from your family, or a rich amount of money or a villa at the Californian seaside...
But I said also:
"You go on to say:
" With "inherited" I certainly don't mean something that has from far something to do with the "queasy" thoughts of "blood-ties"."
Good. We agree on that most important fundamental."
And yes, we both agree that as Shlomo Sand says and as I explained somewhere in my messages, even if they agree on the Gen猫ve peace plan, they have in their eyes still the growing Israeli Arab minority within their borders, which they can't allow in their thinking full Israeli citizenship for fear of the decreasing Jewishness of the Israeli state....
""I wasn't aware that as Shlomo explains in detail that the European Jewishness passed through the same evolution of the Jewish people forming with social Darwinism and all that? They seem to have done exactly what others did in Britain, Germany, France in their 19th century and early 20th century?"
I鈥檓 not sure what you mean by social Darwinism in that context?"
The Zionist intellectuals had exactly the same thoughts as their English, French, German confraters of that 19th century. After all they were English, French, German in their intellectual environment....
With social Darwinism I meant what I described in my message from November on the Ancients board: "Darwin and Social Darwinism" the 麻豆约拍 number ends with "7837494" and you can search it with the new search engine. I will give the URL when I have finished this message...(for fear to loose my message if I search for my thread...)
The Zionists for instance were also in Germany and perhaps in France (Poland?) too searching for the eugenic amelioration of the "race" as the rest of some of their compatriots. Also the separation by "physiognomy". I havent the book anymore, but they will buy it in my own local library of Bruges Belgium I think due to my insistence....
Yes, the situation in Belgium and France and perhaps in Britain too is completely otherwise as in Israel, but the "ground" idea is perhaps the same "fear"...?
As for further exchanges of thoughts about the book I would rather want to wait till they have bought the book in my own library, while I can borrow it then as many times as I want...excuses, but is not easy to discuss the book while not having it at hand....
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul.
PS: If you understand French I can lead you to the French discussion about Shlomo Sand's book.... -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th January 2011
Addendum to the former message.
U 32,
the thread I mentioned about "Darwin and Social Darwinism" is:
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 23
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 16th January 2011
Paul
Mention of Social Darwinism has prompted me to look out some quotes that I took from an article by Dr. Julian Huxley entitled "Race in Europe" (1939)
Here is a link:
I think it makes points about the importance of group sentiment for our species survival that previous assertions by other posters that they are just themselves, and belong to no group brought to mind.
Regards
Cass -
Message 24
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Very interesting, Cass, and thanks!
I'm a member of various groups of like-minded folk who have hobbies and interests similar to my own, but I hope I will never be suckered into the notion that I have to support my local team simply because of where I happen to live.
I may live close to where Shakespeare came from, or Isaac Newton, or James Watt, but as I can't write plays or poems, or make scientific discoveries, or invent anything, I can't bask in their reflected light and feel proud that I'm somehow connected with them. It's only geography.
Having grown up in the belief that my ancestors were all Scottish, a little digging into the family tree produced some surprises. And only a very little travelling to foreign lands produced more surprises: once past the language barrier the idea of "typical" Germans or Frenchmen just seems to evaporate.
Julian Huxley's team-mate on the old 麻豆约拍 radio programme 'The Brains Trust', Prof. C.E.M. Joad, wrote a small book - "The Myth of National Character" or some such thing. It was a good read and I must dig it out again. -
Message 25
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Jak
I can quite understand that you have no sense of belonging to the mechanisms that you depend upon.. It is one of the dangers of the extreme interdependence of the modern industrial age which came with a great wave of alienation..
That dependence gave Mr Brown's government no option but to bail out the banks. A modern world with no money, would be like a modern world where electricity did not work in any of its man-made applications. But alienation creates a hostility to the bankers on whom we depend.. It is a bit like the rebellious teenagers being angry about their parents.
It was to counter the chaos that this sense of not-belonging and alienation, fundamentally potentially self-destructive (as people fear in Tunisia at the moment) that the book-based efforts to artificially and deliberately create collective/ group consciousness in the nineteenth century spawned the kind of ideas that Julian Huxley dealt with.
We are all in bondage. and most of us are given just enough rope to hang ourselves if we misuse it or get it wrong, as apparently can happen in sex games.
Cass -
Message 26
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Paul (re 21 and 22)
On the meaning of "inherit".
I accept the word has several uses. One can certainly 'inherit' money or goods but in a biological context we both agree that acquired and inherited characteristics need to be distinguished.
Although not mentioned by Sand, there is still one appalling use of a pejorative term for a population sub-group and that refers to the lowest Hindu 'Caste'. The term 'Dalit' is reserved for people 'crushed' by their circumstances. They do the filthy jobs such as latrine cleaning and the reality is that their low-status is regarded as 'inherited', but this type of "inheritance" is hopelessly muddled with complex Hindu theology.
In my experience Hindus are remarkably coy about discussing this concept which has officially been outlawed in modern India, yet still exists in reality. I believe fragments of a 'caste system' still exist in Japan?
On Israel's demography you say:
the growing Israeli Arab minority within their borders, which they can't allow in their thinking full Israeli citizenship for fear of the decreasing Jewishness of the Israeli state....聽
Well put.
On Darwin and Social Darwinism, I now better understand your position and I have read your message on the other site. Alas, the links there seem now to have been removed or encoded in some way.
I found this on Wikipedia and I doubt there is anything in the article we would wish to challenge:-
For our purposes Darwinism is generally regarded as true (by scientists, at least) while social Darwinist ideas are regarded as potentially dangerous analogies often used to justify the persistence of gross social inequality.
By the way, the film "What Darwin Did Not Know" is up on youtube at:
On the issue of national identities and the stresses and strains of multiculturalism, as found in Belgium, France, Germany and UK, I agree with you that where found, such strains are in large part based on fear. But in Israel anti-Arab sentiment is also partly stoked by clearly racist beliefs. Consider the attempt by Jews to prohibit dating between Jews and non-Jews.
There is even tension between different types of Jews in the private educational system there.
Sand touches on some of this in the introduction to his book. In my view, that well-argued introduction is one of the key parts of his text?
I realise you had to return the book and for that reason a detailed discussion of the text is no longer feasible. But if you do manage to borrow it again and would like to resume our dialogue, please let me know.
Finally, you ask:
If you understand French I can lead you to the French discussion about Shlomo Sand's book....聽
By all means.
I read French very slowly, no faster than General de Gaulle used to speak it. But with 'Babelfish', anything is possible.
Best regards,
U32 -
Message 27
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Re: Message 23.
Cass,
thank you very much for the link. I found it very educational and learned from it. I am glad that the thoughts confirmed all what I read and discussed already.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Re: Message 26.
U 32,
your first paragraph: yes the term Dalit. Coincidentally it just happens that I am reading a very interesting and fair history of India. I would mention the title and author but it is in Dutch...Yes, I read also something about a remaining caste system in Japan. If I have time it is a subject for research...
"By the way, the film "What Darwin Did Not Know" is up on youtube at:
www.youtube.com/watc... "
About the broken down links of my message 1 in the thread "Darwin and Social Darwinism" read my messages 29, 30 and 31 in the same thread and it will become all clear....
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 29
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Addendum to previous message.
U 32 and others understanding French,
to reach the thread I mentioned:
Google:
passion histoire (passion history)
forum: histoire transversale (transversal history)
sub-forum: histoire globale (global history)
thread from 11 February 2010: "Comment le peuple juif fut invent茅" from Shlomo Sand (How the Jewish people was invented)
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 30
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Paul,
I shall follow your directions to the French-speaking site. Many thanks.
In your earlier message you referred to a 'Dutch book' but you did not give the title.
I have many relatives in Holland (Nijmegen, Breda, Amsterdam) and I can speak a bit of "simple" Dutch. So I'm happy to try to translate the original, AUB.
Best regards,
U32 -
Message 31
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Re: Message 30.
U 32,
about the Dutch language book concerning India:
Try google with the search term:
een geschiedenis van india w. m. callewaert vanstockum
(a history of India by W.M. Callewaert)
It is the first entry on the first window...I tried it also with google UK and it gives the same position of entry and window as google belgi毛 that I use...
Both authors Winand M. Callewaert (1943) and Idesbald Goddeeris (1972) are professors at the Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain) Belgium.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 32
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Paul,
The link works. (Some fine illustrations)
Many thanks.
Best regards,
U32 -
Message 33
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Addendum to message 16 and other messages of this thread.
About the fear of foreign and even compatriot groups.
I promised once, years ago, to Priscilla, the lady on the balance of two continents, Europe and India (perhaps also Tas on the balance of three continents), to elaborate on her question about how other new groups distinguished from the "usual" national group are seen.
And perhaps is Europe in that matter, (but I am not sure of it, due to my ignorance of the local American situation) more "nationalistic" than the US?
And I can even, to be honest, not speak about Europe, but only to a certain limit about Belgium. I think the fear for non Western style groups is prompted by perhaps an image influenced by propaganda, but also by real fear from word of mouth about complete other attitudes of these other groups? If a member of some group is dressed the Western way, act as in the Western way, speaks the local language then already a lot of barriers are demolished.
As for personal experience I heard from three families where the western women could not adapt to rules of another more "male" culture and divorced after some family fights. But there are also a lot of divorces in "national" families....
About the same theme I discussed with Minette, also years ago, about why we didn't rent a house to some groups, who live on complete other manners, as staying in groups outside in the street till midnight, and who have complete other attitudes to life than "national" people. And as we heard from people, who rent to these groups what trouble there was with these groups... But I said also to Minette, that we had sometimes with "autochtones" also a lot of trouble....
As I read the message again...I hope I didn't ramble too much...but it is such a difficult subject to seize...and that complex with that many facets...
Kind regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.