A Response to Being Black and Jewish

For class today, I read a piece called Being Black and Jewish out of The Multicultural Experience by Naomi Zack. Zack outlines a series of problems with having this cultural and racial montage.
I'd like to first state that I am neither black nor Jewish and if one has to know I descend from a line of Italian (check out the last name) and Irish parents who themselves no doubt have intermarried through other cultures to create this half-baked melting pot called me. So I cannot speak from experience as Zack does but at the same time the whole basis of Zack's argument is centered around a need for a common enemy. Zack states that,

...in fighting with each other in public, blacks and Jews are in effect addressing an audience that each side may hope is the real enemy of the other side alone but that is almost certainly the enemy of both sides.

To me, the word 'enemy' in addressing the white population is rather strong. The problem with such articles on race and racism is that it falls into the very trap it is describing and usually usually attacking by making such broad strokes. There is a commonly held notion among many a pleb and philosopher that man needs a common enemy, Zack apparently believes that race and a race war is the answer to this equation. While I will not deny that throughout history people are brought together and often are closest when they are opposing some common 'evil' whether it is another nation or a whole race, this being best exemplified by the Nazis in every way. I think that this common enemy is totally dependent on the education of either the leader or the common populace. Granted, it has been shown that many of the most educated are still willing to commit the most heinous crimes I feel that education in itself is a broad strokes term, it involves practical education as well as some kind of moral education - whether that is philosophy, general ethics or religion is up to the individual. So such common enemies I think can be divided into almost a pyramid, the lowest being race followed by religion and then ideology.
Race is a baseless attack made by casual observance of your opponent or your simple need for a reason to exploit him/her. Religion is really more introspective, one looks at his own religion which he perceives as flawless and compares it to what he perceives as the heresy of another. I only place religious attacks above race because it requires at least a little more thought. Ideology, good or bad, does require one to put together his own ideology in the process of attacking another.

Zack also mentions the need for the Jews to have a homeland. To guarantee that someday someone sends me a reply to all that I have stated I thought I would seize upon this as well. I disagree. At the very least I disagree on the locale. The Zionist movement was a secular movement and Palestine as a home was a mistake. Without being a Biblical scholar I hesitate to back this claim up but in passing reference I think that the Jews could only lay claim to Palestine as long as a Canaanite does not happen to come along. But on a practical level I feel that by choosing Palestine the Jewish inhabitants alienated their sole refuge at least since the Ottoman Empire. I back this claim up by simply stating that after Jewish expulsion from Western Europe, the Jews fled to Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, Muslims treated the Jews like Christians as 'people of the book'. But this is an argument for another time so I think I'll stop here.

This was simply my little soap box and it is very possible that I may change my mind as quickly as I came up with my opinion on the matter. I do hope in the future to post more comments on my individual research, be it history or otherwise.

Summer

Its hard to believe but in just a week the semester will be over and I will enter into a three month long break. My goal is to avoid the trappings of such a break and stay active. So far I've wasted my Thanksgiving, Christmas and Spring breaks. There are a ton of books I'd like to read and undoubtedly more I need to read before the summer is over. Moreover, I've relocated from a small town of 3,000 to a decent sized metropolitan area and though I have been to several of the attractions in St. Louis before, I have not gone to one museum since I moved here back in August.
I'd like to go to the gym at least 3 times, ideally 4/5 times a week, I also hope I can get through many of the Enlightenment Philosophers, among others, in preparation for my Modern Philosophy class in the Fall.
Each break is like a new year, each time I make a resolution - here's hoping I stick to this one.

Liberalism

In this country (U.S.) I feel its relevant to discuss the true meaning of the political ideology, liberalism. Do not take this little soap-box tangent to be a defense of either political party.

Classical Liberalism emerged around the same time as Nationalism in Europe. Enough time had progressed between the horrors of the French Revolution and the fall of Napoleon for intellectuals to start looking at reform once again. They were, like the Founding Fathers and like the French Revolutionary Republicans, inspired by many enlightenment thinkers. For the Liberals of the mid-19th Century it was John Locke and his Second Treatise on Government. These Classical Liberals believed in a separate church & state doctrine; they believed in the right to life, liberty and property; elected representative assembles; limited government; and in many ways the British model of representative government.

Where the Democrats and Republicans of today disagree is at least a hundred years old. The latter half of the 19th Century and the social problems that come with an industrialized capitalist society were being increasingly commented on by many of the same intellectuals. Out of such social upheaval (poverty, illness, rights of labor) began to form a new liberalism. Welfare State Liberalism came out of this - the name sounds like it should be included in a Republican stump speech, no? Thus, the two divided and they remain divided throughout Europe and America.

I tend to be rather Painite so I guess I fall under the latter liberalism but it should be remembered that liberal is not a horrible term and both sides are liberal. Those in either party who stay true to their respective liberalism should receive some respect from both sides; they share a common heritage.

Research Journal

I've decided to post my journals after completing these two assignments since I was so preoccupied with research, I promise to do better this time (Though in respect to this blog I guess I'm promising myself).

On a separate note, I listened to a presentation regarding Polish author/poet, Czeslaw Milosz today. He attended law school and spent a year in Paris with his uncle Oscar. The presenter described how Milosz is different from other poets in regard to his distinct poems with distinct places in contrast to abstract poetry. His political views forced him to keep a 'low-profile' during World War II. Eventually he moved to California. Milosz's autobiographical poem, The Issa Valley, he composed during this era was incredibly detailed. The demonic mentioned in The Issa Valley may have been Stalin or Russia - not a huge leap for the presenter regarding Russian-Polish relations over the last two hundred years. Milosz personally dictated the history of Polish literature to his secretary when he realized there wasn't one available. Milosz spoke of the concrete and the personal. Milosz won the Nobel Prize in 1980 for Literature. His lecture encompassed topics as far reaching as history, style, memory, childhood, genocide, etc. He was notably irritated by the ignorance of Polish suffering during the Holocaust. Milosz retired in 1978, he eventually moved back to Poland after the fall of the Iron Curtain - he was forced out during the ascension of communism. Milosz died August 15, 2004.