Posted By simmons on October 21, 2013
America-Israel Friendship League Hosts 7th Annual Israel Day On Monday, Oct. 21, the America-Israel Friendship League (AIFL) and a delegation of Israeli and American CEOs will visit the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) t...
Link:
America-Israel Friendship League Hosts 7th Annual Israel Day - Video
Posted By admin on October 21, 2013
IDF Uncovers Hamas Terror Tunnel near Gaza Border On October 7, 2013, the IDF uncovered the opening of a Hamas smuggling tunnel in Israeli terriory.
Go here to read the rest:
IDF Uncovers Hamas Terror Tunnel near Gaza Border - Video
Posted By admin on October 21, 2013
Iran #39;s leader : Global Zionism network, US main enemies of Muslims Islamic Republic of Iran ?????? ?????? ?????. By: Iran Today
See the rest here:
Iran's leader : Global Zionism network, US main enemies of Muslims - Video
Posted By admin on October 21, 2013
Hamas admits digging Gaza terror tunnel into Israel with the aim of kidnapping Israeli soldiers The military wing of the Gaza #39;s ruling Hamas said on Monday it was behind the recently uncovered tunnel running into Israel meant to kidnap Israeli soldiers. By: JewishNewsOne
Posted By richards on October 20, 2013
Henry Louis Gates is on a mission to change how race is taught in America.
The Harvard professor of African and African-American studies is among the most public thinkers on the issue of race in the nation; his stature is only set to grow with the PBS series Many Rivers to Cross, which begins airing on Oct. 22. The six-part series considers the black experience in America from many angles, starting from the beginning of the North American slave trade.
Gates intends the series to help teach race in what he considers to be an utterly ineffective school system; hes quick to cite studies indicating that black history is not being taught well in schools. Indeed, in a conversation with Salon, Gates indicated that he believes certain states ought to mandate black history education in schools.
But the real conversation Gates wants to be having is one about class. He spoke to Salon about the degree to which the end of legal segregation led to the splintering of the civil rights movement as well as to further inequities on a national level, and what the government needs to do to ensure a fair shot for all citizens. Heres a hint its not a conversation on race of the sort convened after Gates was arrested trying to enter his Massachusetts home. In fact, he hates the term. A meaningful conversation, Gates told Salon, can only happen if nobody uses the worlds conversation about race.
I really enjoyed watching the first episode.
You know, I just watched it myself, with my girlfriend. And I really liked it.
Were you surprised that you liked it? Do you sometimes not like things that youve done as much?
No, no; I always like them. But I always wait. You know, I write the script, Im the host, Im the narrator. But seeing the final package is always a completely different experience. This one I put it off, put it off, put it off and finally said, OK, Im going to watch it. So my girlfriend and I watched it this morning, in preparation for you and I was really delighted. It was just great.
Im kind of curious the degree to which you think we as a nation especially students are at risk of forgetting slavery. I wonder if this series has to exist and things like it have to exist to remind people?
I think of this as a black history series for your generation. A generation that didnt see Roots when it was being shown every night creating a national phenomenon. A very cosmopolitan generation, technologically savvy. Less concerned about race as an individual basis than any generation before it. And more integrated socially integrated, whether its images on television or as the definition of American popular culture adds the African-American element as its lingua franca.
More here:
Henry Louis Gates: “Since slavery ended, all political movements have been about race”
Posted By admin on October 20, 2013
Israel telephones Gaza citizens to slam Hamas for wasting building supplies on terror tunnels Residents of the Gaza Strip have said they have received telephone calls from Israeli soldiers, who accused the Hamas group of not taking care of the local c... By: JewishNewsOne
Posted By richards on October 20, 2013
Joe Biden's 'Jewish Pride' Should Be a Guide
getty images
Bidens Support: Vice President Biden who spoke at the years J Street conference has said that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that its fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage.
If youve read my previous columns, you know I believe in the centrality of Israel in Jewish civilization, that in the past few decades, Israel has transformed from being a project of world Jewry into becoming its beating heart, and that the future of Jewish creativity, confidence and influence are going to happen primarily in Hebrew and in the Jewish homeland.
But what if I didnt believe that? What if I believed, as many still do, that the Diasporas future is to be found if it is not to wither away in the inherent strengths and unique energies of the Diaspora itself? That American Judaism should offer a compelling alternative to Zion, rather than accept the latters eventual supremacy? What would that look like?
This question was posed to me by my editor at the Forward over a bowl of soup in Lower Manhattan a few weeks ago. Here is my answer.
About 15 years ago, I was just starting out as an Israel-based writer and editor, and I paid a visit to Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine and one of American Christianitys foremost public intellectuals. We spoke of various magazines and trends at the time, and I kept noticing his tendency to use the word Jewish in ways I hadnt considered. The phrase the Jewish press kept coming up, and it took me awhile to understand that he wasnt referring to the Brooklyn-based tabloid by that name, or to the more benign local or national publications such as the Forward. He was referring to what American Jews tend to call the secular media: The New York Times, Time magazine. And so on.
Jewish press? My first instinct, of course, was to be offended. But getting offended is often the best way to miss a vital learning opportunity, and he was a gracious host. So I thought the following: If I were a Christian of strong and outspoken faith, I could very well understand coming to a similar conclusion. After all, there are places in America in which a Christian is comfortable speaking and writing about faith. And then there is the secular sphere, where he or she really cant. And it happens that every time you look at the mastheads or rolling credits in the secular world, you see a highly disproportionate number of Jewish names. How can a faithful Christian be blamed for seeing it as somehow, well, Jewish?
Fast-forward to 2013. Vice President Joe Biden gives a lengthy address marking Jewish Heritage Month, in which he goes far indeed.
The truth is, he revealed in his revelatory Joe Biden way, that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that its fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage. Then he upped the ante. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before me. Speaking of such progressive causes as civil rights and same-sex marriage, Biden added this zinger: Think behind of all that, I bet you 85% of those changes, whether its in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense; the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good, he said.
See the original post here:
American Jews Should Own Their Success!
Posted By richards on October 20, 2013
TK By David Hazony Published October 20, 2013, issue of October 25, 2013.
f youve read my previous columns, you know I believe in the centrality of Israel in Jewish civilization, that in the past few decades, Israel has transformed from being a project of world Jewry into becoming its beating heart, and that the future of Jewish creativity, confidence and influence are going to happen primarily in Hebrew and in the Jewish homeland. But what if I didnt believe that? What if I believed, as many still do, that the Diasporas future is to be found if it is not to wither away in the inherent strengths and unique energies of the Diaspora itself? That American Judaism should offer a compelling alternative to Zion, rather than accept the latters eventual supremacy? What would that look like? This question was posed to me by my editor at the Forward over a bowl of soup in Lower Manhattan a few weeks ago. Here is my answer. About 15 years ago, I was just starting out as an Israel-based writer and editor, and I paid a visit to Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine and one of American Christianitys foremost public intellectuals. We spoke of various magazines and trends at the time, and I kept noticing his tendency to use the word Jewish in ways I hadnt considered. The phrase the Jewish press kept coming up, and it took me awhile to understand that he wasnt referring to the Brooklyn-based tabloid by that name, or to the more benign local or national publications such as the Forward. He was referring to what American Jews tend to call the secular media: The New York Times, Time magazine. And so on. Jewish press? My first instinct, of course, was to be offended. But getting offended is often the best way to miss a vital learning opportunity, and he was a gracious host. So I thought the following: If I were a Christian of strong and outspoken faith, I could very well understand coming to a similar conclusion. After all, there are places in America in which a Christian is comfortable speaking and writing about faith. And then there is the secular sphere, where he or she really cant. And it happens that every time you look at the mastheads or rolling credits in the secular world, you see a highly disproportionate number of Jewish names. How can a faithful Christian be blamed for seeing it as somehow, well, Jewish? Fast-forward to 2013. Vice President Joe Biden gives a lengthy address marking Jewish Heritage Month, in which he goes far indeed. The truth is, he revealed in his revelatory Joe Biden way, that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that its fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage. Then he upped the ante. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before me. Speaking of such progressive causes as civil rights and same-sex marriage, Biden added this zinger: Think behind of all that, I bet you 85% of those changes, whether its in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense; the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good, he said. Yes, you might add that. Because without that, it reads remarkably like an American Jews nightmare speech. Most Jews, of course, are fully aware of the facts cited by the vice president. But they would never talk that way in public. You dont hear Jack Lew or Joe Lieberman deeply identifying, observant Jews talking like that. Not in public. Maybe in synagogue. Thats because the fundamental survival strategy for If Joe Biden can see Jewish influence everywhere, why are we so afraid to? Jews in the past century has been based on very deliberately not saying the things that Biden said straight out the things that Neuhaus took for granted. The glaring, gutsy, but obviously true proposition that The New York Times, Hollywood and a huge part of the secular public sphere in America are not just a Jewish creation, but also a Jewish achievement. I can already hear the ruffling feathers. Woody Allen and Jerry Seinfeld and all the others dont consider themselves acting on behalf of some Jewish people, so why call it Jewish? The simple answers: 1) Jews dont mind owning Einstein and Hank Greenberg, so why not Seinfeld and Groucho Marx? And 2) if Biden and Neuhaus say it, why shouldnt Jews themselves? This latter point, however, needs some unpacking. In the past century, Jews in America have built a magnificent liberal, progressive, secular public space in the middle of the most religious country in all of Christendom. They have made a place where Jews could function in total equality and, together with Catholics like Biden, muster their considerable educational habits to help their children succeed. It is no surprise that today the Supreme Court, which is the citadel protecting that secular sphere, is all Catholics and Jews. But theres one big difference between Catholics and Jews. For while Catholics for centuries had a lot of countries of their own, even empires, and therefore a highly honed sense of sovereign pride, Jews were everywhere the permanent minority, and they developed a fear-wracked instinct to hide their Jewishness whenever they really succeeded that famous Haskala line of being a Jew in the home and a human being when you go out. Zionism, of course, was one answer, offered by people who believed that only a state of their own would give Jews the tools they really needed to survive. Yet the fact remains that while Catholics in America descend mainly of people from Catholic countries, like Italy and Ireland, Jews in America are not descendants of Israelis quite nearly the opposite: descendants of people who chose against the Zionist answer to the Jewish question. Obviously, support for Israel has long eclipsed the anti-Zionism that prevailed among Jews a century ago, but it hasnt fully erased the deep-seated fears of brutal anti-Semitism, expulsion and even extinction that have always set the contours of Diaspora life. Much of American Jewry still lives under the belief that the key to their long-term survival is to succeed as Americans rather than as Jews, to take all the incredible things Jews have done and not call them Jewish. Except, of course, when theyre talking to their kids. Few Jewish parents will hesitate to take pride in Jewish successes or blanch at Jewish failings in the presence of their children. Im sure the bit about Jewish Nobel laureates is well known to most Jews who have heard it from their parents. Its not like there are any non-Jews out there who have failed to notice Jewish success. Some nefarious; others, like Biden, quite praiseful. So why shouldnt Jews own up to it in public, as well? Why not talk like Joe Biden, after all? American Jewry is in free fall, with Jewish knowledge and identification plummeting, and with the traditional denominations failing to attract. Might it have some connection to the fact that Jewish leaders and bodies consistently refuse to take credit for the astonishing achievements of our people? That while non-Jews stand back and either admire or seethe at the Jews immense influence in America, a Jewish kid growing up in the United States is taught to think twice before saying, Yes, we built that? The alternative, I suggest, is what I call Own-It Judaism. Hollywood? Yeah, we built that. The New York Times? Network television? Yup, ours, too. Facebook? Google? Yo. Big chunks of the popular music industry? Of course. In culture, in letters, in politics, of course in finance and banking, weve been there in numbers, pouring our best talents to make the country a better and more prosperous place not just for Jews, but also for African Americ
ans, for Catholics, for gay men and lesbians, and for all other minorities. And, yes, it has been one of the most impressive Jewish achievements in history the building of America as a thriving, progressive, tolerant land. Secular America is nothing less than one of the Jewish peoples crowning achievements. As a people. Maybe if Jewish leaders would just own it, taking real sovereign pride, their own kids would be much more interested in keeping alive the flame of Jewish identity. But then again, what do I know? I am, after all, in the Israeli-centered camp, and this was just a thought experiment. David Hazony is the editor of The Tower Magazine and is a contributing editor at the Forward.
View post:
Own It!
Posted By simmons on October 20, 2013
Israel Figures War with Iran Israel Figures War with Iran. By: Above Science
Read more from the original source:
Israel Figures War with Iran - Video
Posted By richards on October 20, 2013
Five years before the beginning of the Civil War, Robert E. Lee future commander of the Confederate States of Americas Army of Northern Virginia wrote a famous letter to Franklin Pierce, the profoundly inept outgoing president. After praising Pierce for his pro-Southern policies, Lee wrote: There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. (That phrase was likely meant as a mild rebuke to Pierce, who may not have felt that way.)
This letter has long struck historians as significant because of its apparent paradox: A few years later, Lee would command hundreds of thousands of young men to kill and die for a cause he personally believed was immoral, a cause his great adversary, Ulysses S. Grant, would describe as one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. Lee was of course not the first white American to be pinioned by this paradox, which was written into our Constitution, with its oblique references to other persons existing in certain states who were to be counted as three-fifths of a human being. Nor was he the last.
How are we to understand the Confederate battle flag waved by a demonstrator from Texas outside the White House last week? Some shutdown supporters, fearing media blowback, tried to suggest it was the work of a liberal agent provocateur, or simply a symbol of rebellious high spirits and Southern heritage. But the meaning of that particular flag, outside the home of our first black president, in the middle of a conflict loaded with not-so-hidden racial messaging, is not difficult to grasp. It strikes me as evidence that the heavy historical weight of slavery, and what Jimmy Carter has called the burden of white supremacy, has not yet been lifted. We ignore it, or agree to overlook it, at our peril.
In that light, I think Steve McQueens riveting film 12 Years a Slave is one of the most important works of mainstream cinema to reach wide release in recent years. Based on the true story of Solomon Northup (played by the Afro-British actor Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free-born African American from upstate New York who was abducted and sold into slavery in 1841, 12 Years a Slave was made by a black director and a black writer (the novelist and screenwriter John Ridley), with a black star. But it also reaches us under the aegis of Hollywoods biggest male star, Brad Pitt (who produced the film and plays a crucial supporting role). Its subject is the complex weave of Americas racial history, which has never been a straightforward or simple dichotomy, and its intended audience is all Americans and indeed the whole world. It is not a movie about white guilt, whatever that would even mean in the 21st century. I not only had slave-owning ancestors, but am descended on my mothers side from a family in the French port city of Nantes who owned slave-trading ships, which might be even worse. I do not remotely feel responsible for their crimes; the only historical obligation those long-ago rich assholes have conferred on me is not to avoid the truth.
Speaking of avoiding the truth, I can see you coming, Confederate apologists. Robert E. Lees letter is sometimes employed as indirect evidence that the Civil War was not really fought over the issue of slavery, but of course it demonstrates no such thing and anyway in 2013 that dog just wont hunt anymore. Despite more than a century of whitewashing and euphemizing about states rights and the Southern way of life, its perfectly clear how white Southerners saw the conflict at the time. And a great many of them did not agree with Lee.
As Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens put it in his Cornerstone Speech of March 21, 1861, the brand new constitution of his brand new breakaway republic has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions African slavery as it exists among us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. The anxiety felt about slavery by Thomas Jefferson and other conscience-stricken slave-owning founders, Stephens went on, had been misguided. Such men had believed that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested on the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
Ideology aside, Stephens (who was played by Jackie Earle Haley in Steven Spielbergs Lincoln) had the reputation in rural Georgia of being a benevolent slave master. During his years as a lawyer, he once successfully defended an enslaved woman charged with attempted murder, and after the Civil War ended (and Stephens returned from imprisonment in Boston) many of his emancipated slaves reportedly remained on his plantation as hired hands. Of course we cant now ask any of those people why they stayed. The post-war situation in the South was extremely chaotic, and a job with ones former master was in some cases preferable to no job at all. Its also important to remember that all the historical accounts of that era, including the narratives of former slaves, have been filtered through a white perspective tinged with unconscious or semi-conscious apologetics.
But lets assume, for the purpose of argument, that Stephens was a kind and decent person in his private life, who also became the public spokesman for the virulently racist official ideology of the Confederate States of America and the author of the one text that neo-Confederates would most like to sweep under the historical carpet. If thats the case, he becomes a perfect example of the toxic effects of Americas peculiar institution, exactly the issue explored in 12 Years a Slave. That same poisonous influence drove the anti-slavery Lee to lead the Souths armies into a war that would kill more than a million people (about 3 percent of the U.S. population, or the equivalent of 9 million today).
Its the same poison that we see corrupting both the benevolent and well-intentioned Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the depraved and brutal Epps (Michael Fassbender), the principal slave-owners depicted in McQueens film. They are wealthy men of property and privilege who believe themselves to be free, but with respect to the institution of slavery they are not free to resist it or control it. Indeed, it controls them, as in the scene when Ford tells Solomon that he cannot hear the latters protestations that he is in fact a free man from the North. While the slave-owners do not suffer the physical pain and psychic degradation that the persons who are their human property do, they also are shackled to an evil economic power. Ford is the kind-hearted capitalist, the reformer who seeks to ameliorate and humanize the inherent contradictions of his business. Epps is the capricious tyrant who embraces the sadistic logic of slavery to the fullest, an unforgettable Deep South antihero closely akin to Joseph Conrads Colonel Kurtz.
I want to get back to Robert E. Lee in a moment, because theres a sense in which he saw all this happening. But first we can note that 12 Years a Slave, like Steve McQueens two previous films, is a formally rigorous work that is about more than its apparent narrative or official subject matter. McQueen was a prominent British visual artist before he turned to cinema with the extraordinary Hunger in 2008, in which Fassbender p
layed IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. Then came Shame, in which Fassbender played a contemporary New Yorker, surrounded by bland and sterile corporate spaces, who is hopelessly addicted to anonymous sex and pornography. Along with displaying Fassbenders much-admired physique, these three movies on apparently unrelated topics all concern the human body as a form of economic and political capital, as the ultimate and universal commodity in Anglo-American commercial society. Slavery is an extreme example, but far from the only one. (I think the anomalous character played by Alfre Woodard, the black wife of a white slave-owner a rare but not unknown phenomenon sends the signal that even in the slave economy power sometimes trumped skin color.)
Continued here:
Slavery, the Rebel flag and the shutdown
Proudly Powered by WordPress | Theme by The Cloisters | Entries RSS Comments RSS
