Uncategorized
What I learned about antisemitism from a remarkable new archive about Jewish Civil War soldiers
(JTA) — Max Glass, a recent immigrant from Hungary, had an unhappy Civil War.
Tricked out of his enlistment bonus when he joined the Eighth Connecticut Infantry — recent arrivals were soft touches for scam artists — Glass was then “abused for reason [sic] that I never understand” by men in his regiment. “It may have been,” he speculated,
becaus I did not make them my companions in drinking, or as I am a Jew. If I went in the street or any wher I was called Jew. Christh Killer & such names. I also had stones, dirt thrown at me.
He complained to his commanding officer, begging to be transferred, because “no man that had feeling could stand such treatment,” but to no avail. Finally, Glass fled his regiment, hoping to receive better treatment if he enlisted in the Navy. Instead he was tried as a deserter and sentenced to hard labor.
Glass was not the only Jewish soldier to be cruelly mistreated when serving in the Union Army. But as the new Shapell Roster of Jewish Service in the Civil War demonstrates, his experience was far from typical.
I explored the Shapell Roster while working on my new book, on the experience of Jewish soldiers in the Union army. What I learned from the vast collection of documents and data was that indifference, benign curiosity and comradeship appear to have been much more common than conflict for the majority of Jewish soldiers in the Union army.
For every Max Glass there was a Louis Gratz. Born in Posen, Prussia, Gratz scraped by as a peddler before the war. Enlisting in April 1861 — just days after the war started — he took to military life. By August he had become an officer. As he proudly wrote to his family,
I have now become a respected man in a respected position, one filled by very few Jews. I have been sent by my general to enlist new recruits so I am today in Scranton, a city in Pennsylvania only twenty miles from Carbondale, where I had peddled before. Before this no one paid any attention to me here; now I move in the best and richest circles and am treated with utmost consideration by Jews and Christians.
In contrast to Max Glass, his letters whisper not a word about prejudice. As my new book on the experience of Jewish soldiers in the Union army demonstrates, Gratz’s experience was not unusual.
Max Glass ultimately escaped his sorry start in the army through the intercession of General Benjamin Butler. After reading Glass’ tale of woe, the general pardoned the hapless Hungarian. In doing so, Butler seemingly followed Abraham Lincoln’s lead when confronted by antisemitism within the Union army. The president, after all, had quickly countermanded Ulysses S. Grant’s General Orders Number 11 expelling Jews from the districts under his command, the “most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history,”
But alas this story does not have a redemptive ending. Beyond the rank and file, Jews felt the sting of prejudice. The damage done in wartime left a legacy of antisemitism that continues to this day.
For even as General Butler was pardoning Max Glass, he was locked in a heated public exchange that reveals how wartime warped attitudes towards Jews. The imbroglio began when Butler took special note of the fact that a small group of smugglers, recently detained by the Union army, were Jewish. When challenged, the combative general refused to apologize. Instead, he countered that deceit and disloyalty were among the defining characteristics of Jews, and that avarice was a particularly Jewish avocation. According to his logic, Jews could never become loyal Americans because they preferred profit to patriotism.
An 1877 cartoon from the satirical newspaper Puck illustrates the antisemitic practices of the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga, New York. The cartoon compares the corrupt gentile clients favored by the hotel, center, with respectable (albeit stereotypical) Jewish figures, including Jesus. (Library of Congress)
Butler’s corrosive claims reflected a steady drip of acid on the home-front that began in 1861. In the first year of the war, Jews felt the sting of prejudice as the “shoddy” scandals captured the public imagination. Military contractors were publicly accused of fleecing the army by supplying substandard uniforms and gear, even as soldiers shivered in the field for want of decent clothing.
In seeking to explain the profiteering and corruption that attended the rush to war, the press summoned the specter of the venal and disloyal Jew. Cartoonists delighted in identifying Jews as the archetypal cunning contractors, who not only refused to enlist but also actively undermined the war effort. Jews were also imagined as the speculators who profited at the expense of the common good and as smugglers who traded with the enemy. Butler, in other words, was drawing on calumnies that became common currency during wartime.
The contractor, smuggler, speculator and shirker, however, were more than just figures of scorn. Jews and other “shoddy aristocrats” came to be seen as the creators and beneficiaries of the new economic and social order produced by the war. This “shoddy aristocracy” — whose morals and manners marked them as undesirable, whose profits were ill gained, and whose power derived from money alone — was imagined to lord it over a new and unjust social heap summoned into being by the chaos and disruption of war.
Even as the heated rhetoric of the war years receded after 1865, these ideas remained primed for action. They were returned to service in the Gilded Age.
It was no coincidence that the episode traditionally identified as initiating modern antisemitism in America — the exclusion of Joseph Seligman by Henry Hilton from the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga Springs on May 31, 1877 — had at its center a man who had made a fortune as a contractor and banker during the Civil War. Seligman, a friend of President Grant, was viewed as an exemplar of the new capitalism that was remaking America.
Henry Hilton slandered Seligman as “shoddy—false—squeezing—unmanly,” a social climber who “has to push himself upon the polite.” Hilton drew upon themes familiar from wartime antisemitism: the Jew as speculator who trafficked in credit and debt; the Jew as obsequious ingratiator who attached himself to the powerful; the Jew as profiteer who advanced by improper means; the Jew as vulgarian who flaunted his (and her) obscene wealth and did not know his (or her) place; and the Jew as overlord whose money allowed him (or her) to displace others. In short, the “Seligman Jew” was the “shoddy aristocrat” by another name.
In an age of inequality and excess, the antisemite imagined the Jew as embodying all that was wrong with American capitalism. And during an age of mass immigration from Romania and the Russian Empire, they soon added another theme familiar from General Butler’s wartime diatribe: The Jew could not be trusted to become fully American.
Sadly, even as Louis Gratz, Max Glass and many other Jewish soldiers became American by serving in the Union army, the Civil War produced a range of pernicious ideas about Jews that have proven remarkably durable. We have escaped the everyday torments that afflicted Max Glass, but are still haunted in the present by the fantasies of Benjamin Butler and Henry Hilton.
—
The post What I learned about antisemitism from a remarkable new archive about Jewish Civil War soldiers appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
This Jewish philosopher would have called out the Trump administration’s b.s. in Minneapolis
Last week, the Trump administration immediately defended the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, insisting that the ICE officer who shot her acted in self-defense after she had tried to run him down. That same night, the city’s mayor, Jacob Frey, replied to the administration’s claims: “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly, that is bullshit.”
Frey’s language shocked some Americans, but perhaps reminded others of the word’s philosophical lineage. Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the publication of Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit, which became a surprise bestseller, blasting past Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink and Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics to the top of the Times nonfiction list. But the Gray Lady spelled the title as On Bull—-, which exemplified, as yet another philosopher wryly noted, “what Frankfurt has castigated in his text.”
“One of the most salient features of our culture,” Frankfurt warns at the start of the book, “is that there is so much bullshit.” But the philosopher, whose book was published before the explosions of the internet, social platforms, AI, and Donald Trump descending the escalator at Trump Tower, had no idea just how much more bullshit could fill the world.
Yet, in light of events in Minneapolis, Frankfurt’s exploration of bullshit has now become, quite literally, deadly relevant. Frankfurt observes that the liar and truth-teller have something in common: Both acknowledge the existence of truth. The former, who tries to hide it, along with the latter who seeks to state it, recognize that truths abound in the world.
Not so, though, for the bullshitter, who simply ignores what is and is not true. He does not, as Frankfurter writes, simply “reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all.”
This leads to the heart of our present predicament. “The one thing the bullshitter does hide,” he remarks, “is that the truth values of her statements are of no central interests to her.” For this reason, Frankfurt concludes, “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
This claim should give us pause. After all, we honor those mythic figures who never tell a lie, be it George Washington or Horton the elephant. At the same time, we are shocked by those who honor Machiavelli, who famously advised the prince to “be a great liar,” observing that “a deceitful man will always find plenty ready to be deceived.”
Frankfurt salvages the reputation of the Machiavellian liar, reminding us that liars at least understand they are lying. In turn, this means they understand that there are truths hidden behind the lies. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected; as Mark Twain quipped, “Truth is the most precious thing we have. Economize it.”
Bullshitters are another matter altogether. In fact, they are truly dark matter because such people are ignorant of or indifferent to truth. Standing behind a podium in the White House press room or in front of ICE agents while wearing a 50-gallon cowboy hat, such individuals, Frankfurt explains, launch unhesitatingly into “a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes.”
This frees them from submitting to the constraints that a common understanding of morality imposes on us. In terms of foreign policy, Trump summarized this new standard of morality in his marathon interview with the Times last week. When asked if he recognized any limits on his use of power on the world stage, he replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
The same worldview is now on display in the aftermath of the murder of Renee Good. The sole constraint on the behavior of the administration and its agents are their own minds — minds that, to paraphrase John Milton, are their own places, busy turning reality into a hell of their own making.
The funny thing about bullshitters is that they might just as easily utter a truth as a lie. Trump displayed such inadvertent truth-telling during his press conference following the attack on Venezuela, when time and again he emphasized its rationale. It was not to bring democracy, liberty and prosperity to the country, but instead to bring oil out of Venezuela and to him. But he does not care when he happens to stumble across a truth. “It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth,” writes Frankfurt, “this indifference to how things really are, that I regard as the essence of bullshit.”
It is tempting to say that when Frankfurt’s book was published in 2005, we had a glimpse, thanks to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, of the real-world consequences of bullshitting. My guess, though, is that Dubya and his cabinet still recognized and, in a way, valued truth. (Consider Dick Cheney’s deathbed denunciation of Donald Trump.)
But those days now seem halcyon compared to the hell we now face, one where both epistemological and moral truths have been tossed into the woodchipper. Perhaps one step we can take to resist this state of affairs is, like Mayor Frey and Harry Frankfurt, to start calling the Trump administration’s lies what they really are.
The post This Jewish philosopher would have called out the Trump administration’s b.s. in Minneapolis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
After facing backlash, California congressional hopeful Scott Wiener says Israel is committing ‘genocide’
(JTA) — After declining to say whether he believed “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza” during a debate last week, California congressional candidate Scott Wiener has announced that he does, in fact, believe Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide.
Wiener’s demurral during the Wednesday debate, during which his two Democratic opponents endorsed the genocide charge without hesitation, elicited jeers from the audience. Afterwards, Wiener said he thought the lightning-round format was inappropriate for such a complex question but said he believed Israel’s actions in Gaza represented “an absolute moral stain.”
Facing ongoing criticism over his stance, Wiener — a leader of the Jewish caucus in California’s legislature — issued a video statement on Sunday saying that he had come to a clear conclusion.
“For years, I’ve condemned Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” he wrote on X, introducing his statement. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”
Wiener is running for the seat being vacated by Nancy Pelosi, a pro-Israel stalwart. His comments mean that all three Democratic candidates for the seat have firmly taken the position that Israel is committing genocide, a charge that Israel and the United States reject.
In the video, Wiener elaborated on his thinking.
“As a Jew, I am deeply aware that the word genocide was created in the wake of the Holocaust, which was the industrial extermination of 6 million Jews. For many Jews, associating the word genocide with the Jewish state of Israel is deeply painful and frankly traumatic,” he said. “But despite that pain and that trauma, we all have eyes, and we see the absolute devastation and catastrophic death toll in Gaza inflicted by the Israeli government. And we all have ears, and we hear the genocidal statements by certain senior members of the Israeli government. And to me, the Israeli government has tried to destroy Gaza and to push Palestinians out, and that qualifies as genocide.”
Wiener’s statement comes as harsh criticism of Israel becomes de rigueur among Democrats amid a bottoming-out of support among Democratic voters. Anti-Israel sentiment is on the rise among Republicans, too, shattering a decades-old consensus on the right about support for Israel.
Wiener has faced sustained protest from pro-Palestinian activists over his liberal Zionist stances. He has also long faced right-wing scorn as well as antisemitism-laced criticism over his stance on transgender rights, which he supports.
The post After facing backlash, California congressional hopeful Scott Wiener says Israel is committing ‘genocide’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran threatens to attack Israel if Trump strikes Tehran over crackdown on protesters
(JTA) — Iranian leaders say they could attack Israel if the United States strikes Iran over its response to a sweeping anti-government protest movement.
“Let us be clear: in the case of an attack on Iran, the occupied territories as well as all U.S. bases and ships will be our legitimate target,” Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a former commander in the country’s Revolutionary Guards, said on Saturday. Iranian officials use “the occupied territories” to refer to Israel, which the Iranian Islamic Republic regime has sworn to destroy and attacked repeatedly.
Qalibaf was responding to U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated comments signaling potential U.S. retaliation against Iran in the event that Iranian officials begin killing anti-government protesters who have been demonstrating with increasing strength since late last month.
On Monday, Qalibaf reportedly escalated his threats at a pro-government rally in Tehran, saying Iran would deal Trump “an unforgettable lesson” if he follows through on his continued threats to intervene. Agence France Presse reported that he spoke in front of banners reading “Death to Israel, Death to America” in Persian.
Trump has openly said the United States is considering weighing in against the Iranian government. “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before,” he wrote on Truth Social, his social media network, on Saturday. “The USA stands ready to help!!!”
On Sunday, amid reports that the Iranian regime had embarked on a bloody crackdown, Trump said again that he was considering “very strong options” against Iran, though he also said Tehran had reached out to negotiate. Amid reports that he expected to be briefed on military options against Iran on Tuesday, Trump indicated that the United States could act sooner.
“Iran wants to negotiate, yes. We may meet with them — I mean a meeting is being set up,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One late Sunday. “But we may have to act, because of what’s happening, before the meeting.”
Protest leaders said hundreds if not thousands of protesters had been shot to death in Tehran on Sunday, though official numbers were much lower and impossible for independent news organizations to verify in part because of an internet blackout that the government put in place last week.
“There seem to be some people killed that aren’t supposed to be killed,” Trump said. “These are violent — if you call them leaders, I don’t know if they’re leaders or just if they rule through violence. And we’re looking at some very strong options. We’ll make a determination.”
The potential for armed conflict between the United States and Iran, Israel’s sworn enemy, has prompted sharp concerns in Israel, which last year waged a 12-day war with Iran that ended under U.S. pressure following a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on Sunday to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Reuters reported that Israeli intelligence officials said the country was on “high alert.”
At least one Israeli official has indicated that Israeli agents are active on the ground in Iran during the swelling protest movement, fueling criticism from Tehran that the protests have been stoked by foreign actors.
Demonstrations in support of the Iranian protesters, who are responding not only to the country’s repressive religious leadership but also an economic crisis, took place in cities around the world over the weekend. Some of the protests included Jewish Iranian expats and expressions of support for Israel.
The post Iran threatens to attack Israel if Trump strikes Tehran over crackdown on protesters appeared first on The Forward.