Uncategorized
From ‘how to’ to ‘why bother?’: Michael Strassfeld writes a new guide to being Jewish
(JTA) — “What the son wishes to forget the grandson wishes to remember.” That’s known as Hansen’s Law, named for the historian Marcus Lee Hansen, who observed that while the children of immigrants tend to run away from their ethnicity in order to join the mainstream, the third generation often wants to learn the “old ways” of their grandparents.
In 1973, “The Jewish Catalog” turned Hansen’s Law into a “do-it-yourself kit” for young Jews who wanted to practice the traditions of their grandparents but weren’t exactly sure how. Imagine “The Joy of Cooking,” but instead of recipes the guide to Jewish living had friendly instructions for hosting Shabbat, building a sukkah and taking part in Jewish rituals from birth to death. Co-edited by Michael Strassfeld, Sharon Strassfeld and the late Richard Siegel, it went on to sell 300,000 copies and remains in print today.
Fifty years later, Rabbi Michael Strassfeld has written a new book that he calls a “bookend” to “The Jewish Catalog.” If the first book is a Jewish “how to,” the latest asks, he says, “why bother?” “Judaism Disrupted: A Spiritual Manifesto for the 21st Century” asserts that an open society and egalitarian ethics leave most Jews skeptical of the rituals and beliefs of Jewish tradition. In the face of this resistance, he argues that the purpose of Judaism is not obedience to Torah and its rituals for their own sake or mere “continuity,” but to “encourage and remind us to strive to live a life of compassion, loving relationships, and devotion to our ideals.”
Strassfeld, 73, grew up in an Orthodox home in Boston and got his master’s degree in Jewish studies at Brandeis University. Coming to doubt the “faith claims” of Orthodoxy, he became a regular at nearby Havurat Shalom, an “intentional community” that pioneered the havurah movement’s liberal, hands-on approach to traditional practice. He earned rabbinical ordination from the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College when he was 41 and went on to serve as the rabbi of Congregation Ansche Chesed on the Upper West Side and later the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, the Manhattan flagship of Reconstructionist Judaism.
“To be disrupted is to experience a break with the past and simultaneously reconnect in a new way to that past,” writes Strassfeld, who retired from the pulpit in 2015. This week, we spoke about why people might find Jewish ritual empty, how he thinks Jewish practices can enrich their lives and how Passover — which begins Wednesday night — could be the key to unlocking the central idea of Judaism.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: I wanted to start with the 50th anniversary of the “Jewish Catalog.” What connects the new book with the work you did back then on the “Catalog,” which was a do-it-yourself guide for Jews who were trying to reclaim the stuff they either did or didn’t learn in Hebrew school?
Michael Strassfeld: I see them as bookends. Basically, I keep on writing the same book over and over again. [Laughs] Except no, I’m different and the world is different. I’m always trying to make Judaism accessible to people. In the “Catalog” I was providing the resources on how to live a Jewish life when the resources weren’t easily accessible.
The new book is less about “how to” than “why bother?” That’s the challenge. I think a lot of people take pride in being Jewish, but it’s a small part of their identity because it doesn’t feel relevant. I want to say to people like that that Judaism is about living a life with meaning and purpose. It’s not about doing what I call the “Jewishly Jewish” things, like keeping kosher and going to synagogue. Judaism is wisdom and practices to live life with meaning and purpose. The purpose of Judaism isn’t to be a good Jew, despite all the surveys that give you 10 points for, you know, lighting Shabbat candles. It’s about being a good person.
So that brings up your relationship to the commandments and mitzvot, the traditional acts and behaviors that an Orthodox Jew or a committed Conservative Jew feels commanded to do, from prayer to keeping kosher to observing the Sabbath and the holidays. They might argue that doing these things is what makes you Jewish, but you’re arguing something different. If someone doesn’t feel bound by these obligations, why do them at all?
I don’t have the faith or beliefs that underlie such an attitude [of obligation]. Halacha, or Jewish law, is not in reality law. It’s really unlike American law where you know that if you’re violating it, you could be prosecuted. What I’m trying to do in the book is reframe rituals as an awareness practice, that is, bringing awareness to various aspects of our lives. So it could be paying attention to food, or cultivating attitudes of gratitude, or generosity, or satisfaction. My broad understanding of the festival cycle, for example, is that you can focus on those attitudes all year long, but the festivals provide a period of time once in the year to really focus on, in the case of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, for example, saying sorry and repairing relationships.
In “Judaism Disrupted: A Spiritual Manifesto for the 21st Century,” Michael Strassfeld argues that the challenge of each generation’s Jews is to create the Judaism that is needed in their time. (Ben Yehuda Press)
Passover is coming. Probably no holiday asks its practitioners to do so much stuff in preparation, from cleaning the house of every trace of unleavened food to hosting, in many homes, two different catered seminars on Jewish history. Describe how Passover cultivates awareness, especially of the idea of freedom, which plays an important part thematically in your boo
The Sefat Emet [a 19th-century Hasidic master] says Torah is all about one thing: freedom. But there’s a variety of obstacles in the way. There are temptations. There’s the inner issues that you struggle with, and the bad things that are out of your control. The Sefat Emet says the 613 commandments are 613 etzot, or advice, that teach us how to live a life of freedom. The focus of Passover is trying to free yourself from the chains of the things that hold you back from being the person that you could be, not getting caught up in materiality or envy, free from unnecessary anxieties — all these things that distract us or keep us from being who we could be.
The Passover seder is one of the great rituals of Judaism. We’re trying to do a very ambitious thing by saying, not, like, “let’s remember when our ancestors were freed from Egypt,” but rather that we were slaves in Egypt and we went free. And at the seder we actually ingest that. We experience the bitterness by eating maror, the bitter herb. We experience the freedom by drinking wine. We don’t want it just to be an intellectual exercise.
Unfortunately the seder has become rote. But Passover is about this huge theme of freedom that is central to Judaism.
I think some people bristle against ritual because they find it empty. But you’re saying there’s another way to approach rituals which is to think of them as tools or instruments that can help you focus on core principles — you actually list 11 — which include finding holiness everywhere, caring for the planet and engaging in social justice, to name a few. But that invites the criticism, which I think was also leveled at the “Catalog,” that Judaism shouldn’t be instrumental, because if you treat it as a means to an end that’s self-serving and individualistic.
Certainly rituals are tools, but tools in the best sense of the word. They help us pay attention to things in our lives and things in the world that need repair. And people use them not to get ahead in the world, but because they want to be a somewhat better person. I talk a lot these days about having a brief morning practice, and in the book I write about the mezuzah. For most Jews it’s become wallpaper, but what if you take the moment that you leave in the morning, and there’s a transition from home to the outside and to work perhaps, and take a moment at the doorpost to spiritually frame your day? What are the major principles that you want to keep in your mind when you know you’re gonna be stuck in traffic or a difficult meeting?
And a lot of traditional rituals are instrumental. Saying a blessing before you eat is a gratitude practice.
But why do I need a particular Jewish ritual or practice to help me feel gratitude or order my day? Aren’t there other traditions I can use to accomplish the same things?
Anybody who is a pluralist, which I am, knows that the Jewish way is not the only way. If I grew up in India or Indonesia and my parents were locals I probably wouldn’t be a rabbi and writing these books.
But a partial answer to your question is that Judaism is one of the oldest wisdom traditions in the world, and that there has been a 3,000-year conversation by the Jewish people about what it means to live in this tradition and to live in the world. And so I think there’s a lot of wisdom there.
So much in Jewish tradition says boundaries are good, and that it’s important to draw distinctions between what’s Jewish behavior and what’s not Jewish behavior, between the holy and the mundane, and that making those distinctions is a value in itself. But you argue strongly in an early chapter that that kind of binary thinking is not Judaism as you see it.
Underlying the book is the notion that Rabbinic Judaism carried the Jewish people for 2,000 years or so. But we’re living in a very different context, and the binaries, the dualities — too often they lead to hierarchy, so that, for example, men matter more than women in Jewish life. And we’ve tried to change that. We are living in an open society where we want to be more inclusive, not less inclusive. We don’t want to live in ghettos. Now, the ultra-Orthodox say, “No, we realize the danger of trying to live like that. We don’t think there’s anything of value in that modern world. And it’s all to be rejected.” And it would be foolish not to admit that in this very open world the Jews, as a minority, could kind of disappear. But I think that Judaism has so much value and wisdom and practices to offer to people that Judaism will continue to be part of the fabric of this world — the way, for example, we have given Shabbat as a concept to the world.
You know, in the first 11 chapters of the Torah, there are no Jews. So clearly, Jews and Judaism are not essential for the world to exist. And that’s a good, humbling message.
OK, but one could argue that while Jews aren’t necessary for the world to exist, Judaism is necessary for Jews to exist. And you write in your book, “If the Jewish people is to be a people, we need to have a commonly held tradition.” I think the pushback to the kind of openness and permeability you describe is that Jews can be so open and so permeable that they just fall through the holes.
It certainly is a possibility. And it’s also a possibility that the only Jews who will be around will be ultra-Orthodox Jews.
But if Judaism can only survive by being separatist, then I question whether it’s really worthwhile. That becomes a distorted vision of Judaism, and withdrawing is not what it’s meant to be. I think we’re meant to be in the world.
Your book is called “Judaism Disrupted.” What is disruptive about the Judaism that you’re proposing?
I meant it in two ways. First, Judaism is being disrupted by this very different world we’re living in. The contents of the ocean we swim in is very different than in the Middle Ages. But I’m also using it to say that Judaism is meant to disrupt our lives in a positive way, which is to say, “Wake up, pay attention.” You are here to live a life of meaning and purpose, and to continue as co-creators with God of the universe. You’re here to make the world better, to be kind and compassionate to people, to work on yourself. In my mind it is a shofar, “Wake up, sleepers, from your sleep!” “Judaism Disrupted” says you have to pay attention to issues like food, and justice, and teshuva [repentance].
You were ordained as a Reconstructionist rabbi. Do you think your book falls neatly into any of our current denominational categories?
[Reconstructionist founder] Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan’s notion of Judaism as an evolving religious civilization is the one that I feel closest to. But I feel that the denominational structure isn’t particularly useful anymore. There’s basically two categories, Orthodox and the various kinds of liberal Judaism, within a spectrum. The modern world is so fundamentally different in its relationship to Jews and Judaism that what we’re seeing is a variety of attempts to figure out how to respond. And that will then become the Judaism for the next millennium. It’s time for a lot of experimentation. I think that’s required and out of that will come a new “Minhag America,” to use Isaac Mayer Wise’s phrase for the emerging custom of American Jews [Wise was a Reform rabbi in the late 19th century]. And we don’t need to have everybody doing it one way. As long as people feel committed to Judaism, the Jewish tradition, even if they’re doing it very differently than the Jews of the past, they will be writing themselves into the conversation.
—
The post From ‘how to’ to ‘why bother?’: Michael Strassfeld writes a new guide to being Jewish appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
John Roberts will not save us — but we might just able to save ourselves
One of the many virtues of Leah Litman’s lucid and blistering new book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes is that it, as the title suggests, reads almost like a pulpy crime story. But unlike most whodunits, we know at the very start of Litman’s tale who dun the crime. No less unusual, Litman ends her story with what can be dun by Americans who wish to resist this state of lawlessness.
Litman is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan, and co-host of the popular weekly legal podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” which subjects the decisions made by SCOTUS to scathing wit and surgical analysis. (In Litman’s wide-ranging criticism of SCOTUS, she lambastes the hypocrisy of the Republican-majority’s skepticism on abortion cases presented by Jewish plaintiffs who argue that their religious faith compels them to perform, provide, or access abortion care. As she notes, this skepticism is a decidedly unusual response from a court that is usually keen on expanding, not retracting, religious exemptions from law.)
When I spoke to Litman over Zoom, she expanded on the Roberts court’s cultural grievances, crackpot theories, and overall “bad vibes,” a term she says she uses to draw a distinction between “what some people think of as law,” i.e. “something that’s objective or determinate.” Instead, it becomes something based on feelings and what “triggers them and what upsets them,” which she sees as reflective of the “talking points and zeitgeist of the Republican Party.”
In our conversation, Litman traced the historical origins of bruised feelings and bad vibes that passes itself off as conservative jurisprudence. We can see today, she emphasized, a reaffirmation of the Lost Cause movement following the Civil War, “this firm commitment to restoring and entrenching white conservative political power and shutting out racial minorities from the political process and treating the inclusion of racial minorities in the polity as an affront to white conservatives and as a form of discrimination against white conservatives. And these same ideas seed, you know, the opposition to the modern Voting Rights Act.”
“Bad vibes” is, of course, not a term often found in the footnotes of law review articles. Yet while Litman acknowledged the term is kind of “loosey-goosey,” she sees it as the driving force behind SCOTUS’ legal reasoning. One of the many problems with vibes, Litman observed, is that “while everyone has feelings, my feelings don’t govern what other people can do. I am allowed to have feelings and views about the world. But that doesn’t mean I get to declare that everyone must make me feel good.”
In the case of the court’s conservative majority, Litman says, this means that they get to feel good about expressing their cultural and social grievances. They can, like Martha-Ann Alito, do so by, say, flying an upside-down American flag outside their house in support of the men and women who invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6. But, more importantly, they can also bring those grievances to their legal reasoning and turn our constitution upside down. (Something that Mrs. Alito’s husband has done time and again as one of our nation’s nine sages.)
Yet, though the Roberts Court — which Litman refers to in her book as “the guys (and Amy)” — might be consumed by grievance, they are not blind to the need to garb these bad vibes in the guise of theories. This is the case for originalism, a seemingly neutral method to decide cases based on a literal reading of the Constitution. Yet, the absence of any mention of women in our founding document has allowed the Supreme Court, even after the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, to continue to deny equal rights to women.
Hence the importance of the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. As Litman drily observed, originalism offers conservatives and reactionaries a way to speak about issues without acknowledging the actual stakes involved. It provides a kind of plausible denial from positions that, in effect, declare, “Yes, we should take away women’s birth control pills, force them to go through childbirth, and not allow them to get divorced.”
Meanwhile, as Litman remarked, the Roberts Court often dons the guise of another supposedly objective theory, institutionalism. Her critique is particularly unsettling for those of us who would like to think that Chief Justice John Roberts is an institutionalist who, like the deus ex machina in ancient Greek tragedy, will suddenly appear over the stage set and lift us free of our tragic and fatal predicament.
On one level, Litman said, “anyone looks like an institutionalist when compared to Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. That John Roberts is more along the spectrum toward the median American voter than either of them is just obviously true and doesn’t tell us that much about whether John Roberts is actually a moderate or median. There are just so many examples where decisions by John Roberts have undermined our institutions and delegitimized our institutions.”
Consider all the decisions written or signed onto by Roberts on campaign financing, presidential powers, partisan gerrymandering, or voting rights to illustrate her claim. Clearly, Litman is not waiting for the Chief Justice to save us. “Look at all the things that Donald Trump is doing that defile our institutions and degrade our democracy. Those are things that John Roberts made perfectly clear that the president is constitutionally entitled to do. And there’s just nothing our lawmaking institutions like Congress or the federal courts can do about that,” she said.
What, then, are we to do? In her book, Litman urges the reader to “make them fight for their nihilism and obtain it at a cost.” In our conversation, she eagerly expanded on this call to action. The forces of democracy and decency cannot win this fight overnight, she told me. “There is no magic fix that will work. Instead, we need to make the case to our fellow citizens and our future elected leaders that in order to get ourselves out of this mess…and shore up our democracy so that we don’t run the risk of sliding back into autocracy and authoritarianism, we need to reform and democratize the Supreme Court.”
It is not what we might hope to hear, but it is the message we need to hear. In fact, as Albert Camus insisted, there is no reason for hope, but that is never a reason to despair. Or, as Litman concludes in her book, “the nihilistic take would be to throw up our hands and do nothing because it all seems too difficult. They’ve stolen a Court and they are practically daring anyone to challenge them. It’s time to call their bluff.”
The post John Roberts will not save us — but we might just able to save ourselves appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
New book discusses the issue of racism in American Yiddish culture
װען ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן זײַנען געקומען קײן אַמעריקע פֿון מיזרח־אײראָפּע מיט העכער װי 150 יאָר צוריק, איז אײנער פֿון די גרעסטע חידושים געװען דאָס באַגעגעניש מיט אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער. שלום־עליכמס מאָטל פּײסי דעם חזנס איז געװען פֿאַרשטױנט װען ער האָט געזען אַ פּאָרפֿאָלק אין ניו־יאָרקער סאָבװײ: „משונהדיקע ברואים. מוראדיק גראָבע ליפּן. גרױסע װײַסע צײן און װײַסע נעגל.“
פֿאַרן הײַנטיקן לײענער איז שלום־עליכם באַשרײַבונג פֿול מיט ראַסיסטישע סטערעאָטיפּן. אָבער װער איז דאָ שולדיק: דער פּערסאָנאַזש אָדער דער מחבר?
די דאָזיקע פֿראַגע װערט באַהאַנדלט אין אַ נײַ בוך פֿון גיל ריבאַק (אוניװערסיטעט פֿון אַריזאָנע), װאָס האָט מאָטלס װערטער אינעם קעפּל: „משונהדיקע ברואים: פּנים־אל־פּנים מיט די רעפּרעזענטאַציעס פֿון שװאַרצע מענטשן אין דער ייִדיש־קולטור“. ריבאַק באַמערקט, אַז מאָטלס װערטער פֿעלן אין הילל האַלקינס ענגלישער איבערזעצונג, אַ סימן, אַז הײַנט שעמט מען זיך מיט אַזאַ מין לשון.
ריבאַק איז ניט דער ערשטער פֿאָרשער װאָס נעמט זיך אונטער די דאָזיקע קאָמפּליצירטע און דעליקאַטע טעמע, אָבער זײַן צוגאַנג איז דער סאַמע אַרומנעמיקער און אױסשעפּיקער צװישן אַלע אַנדערע. ביז לעצטנס איז מען געװען נוטה צו באַהאַנדלען די באַציִונג פֿון ייִדן צו אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער מיט זהירות. מען האָט באַטאָנט די פּאָזיטיװע אַספּעקטן און פֿאַרשװיגן די ראַסיסטישע סטערעאָטיפּן, װאָס מען געפֿינט אַפֿילו בײַ די לינק־געשטימטע ייִדישע ליטעראַטן װאָס האָבן אַרויסגעוויזן מיטלײַד צו זײער ביטערער דאָליע.
מען דאַרף אָבער האָבן אין זינען , װאָרנט ריבאַק, אַז די אימאַזשן און װערטער, װאָס קלינגען נעגאַטיװ און באַלײדיקנדיק הײַנט, האָבן ניט געטראָגן אַזאַ מין מײן בײַ די לײענער מיט אַ הונדערט יאָר צוריק.
דער סטערעאָטיפּ פֿון די שװאַרצע אַפֿריקאַנער װי „װילדע חיות“ האָט זיך אױסגעפֿורעמט אין ייִדיש און העברעיִש נאָך אין דער אַלטער הײם, כאָטש דאָרט האָט מען קײן מאָל ניט געזען קיין אַפֿריקאַנער. די עיקרדיקע השפּעה איז געװען פֿון דער אײראָפּעיִשער קולטור, אָבער דער דאָזיקער סטערעאָטיפּ האָט װאָרצלען אױך אין די טראַדיציאָנעלע ייִדישע מקורים. למשל, אין דער פּאָפּולערער ייִדישער איבערטײַטשונג פֿונעם חומש „צאינה וראינה“ שטייט למשל אַז די קינדער פֿון נוחס זון חם װעלן זײַן „פֿאַרשװאַרצט“ און „פֿאַרפֿינסטערט“ פֿאַר זײַנע זינד.
װען די אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע זשורנאַליסטן האָבן געפּרוּװט צו דערקלערן זײערע לײענער די ראַסע־פּראָבלעם אין אַמעריקע, האָבן זײ צומאָל באַטראַכט דעם אַמעריקאַנער דרום דורך אַ מזרח־אײראָפּעיִשן שפּאַקטיװ. זײ האָבן פֿאַרגליכן דעם מצבֿ פֿון אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער מיטן מצבֿ פֿון רוסישע פּױערים. ייִדישע סאָציאַליסטן האָבן געטענהט, אַז די ביטערע דערפֿאַרונג פֿון שקלאַפֿערײַ האָט זײ כּלומערש געמאַכט „טעמפּ“, „גראָב“ און „פֿױל“. די בײדע גרופּעס זײַנען באַפֿרײַט געװאָרן בערך אײנצײַטיק, אין די 1860ער יאָרן.
אין אַמעריקע, שרײַבט ריבאַק, איז דער אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער געװאָרן אַ מין גילגול פֿון אַ רוסישן פּױער. און אַבֿרהם כּהן האָט פֿאַרגליכן די דרומדיקע װײַסע מיט פּױלישע פּריצים: זײ זײַנען ברײטהאַרציק און העפֿלעך צװישן די אײגענע, אָבער זײ האַלטן ניט זײערע שקלאַפֿן אָדער פּױערים פֿאַר מענטשן.
אַפֿילו װען די פּראָגרעסיװע ייִדישע זשורנאַליסטן און כּלל־טוער, אַזעלכע װי ברוך װלאַדעק אָדער אַב קאַהאַן, האָבן פּראָטעסטירט קעגן געװאַלד לגבי אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער אין דרומדיקע שטאַטן, האָבן זײ סײַ װי גענוצט ראַסיסטישע סטערעאָטיפּן. די דאָזיקע סטערעאָטיפּן זײַנען ספּעציעל בולט אין פֿילצאָליקע קאַריקאַטורן אינעם הומאָריסטישן זשורנאַל „דער גרױסער קונדס“.
ייִדן און אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער זײַנען צומאָל געװען שכנים אין די גרױסע שטעט. אין האַרלעם, ניו־יאָרק, בײַם אָנהײב 20סטן יאָרהונדערט, זײַנען ייִדן געװען די אײנציקע װײַסע תּושבֿים צװישן די אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער. אָבער קײן פֿרײַנטשאַפֿט איז צװישן די בײדע גרופּעס ניט געװען, און אין יאָר 1930 זײַנען כּמעט קײן ייִדן אין האַרלעם ניט פֿאַרבליבן.
דער פּרינציפּ פֿון ראַסן־גלײַכקײט איז געװען װיכטיק פֿאַר ייִדישע סאָציאַליסטן, אָבער למעשׂה האָבן זײ געהאַט קנאַפּע דירעקטע קאָנטאַקטן מיט אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער. זײ האָבן אָנערקענט, אַז די אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער זײַנען געװען קרבנות פֿון דיסקרימינאַציע און רדיפֿות, אָבער אָפֿט מאָל געקוקט אױף זײ מיט ביטול װי “ייִנגערע און שװאַכערע ברידער”.
די דאָזיקע אַמביװאַלענץ לגבי אַפֿראָ־אַמערקאַנער האָט זיך אָפּגעשפּיגלט אױך אין די װערק פֿון אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע שרײַבער װי שלום אַש, יוסף אָפּאַטאָשו און ברוך גלאַזמאַן. זײ זײַנען געװען קעגנערס פֿון ראַסיזם, אָבער די פּאָרטרעטן פֿון אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער פּערסאָנאַזשן אין זײערע װערק נעמען כּסדר אַרײַן ראַסיסטישע סטערעאָטיפּן. דאָס זעט מען בפֿירוש אין די באַשרײַבונגען פֿונעם פֿיזישן אױסזען, זײערע פּנימער און העװיות, װי למשל אין אָפּאַטאָשוס באַקאַנטער דערצײלונג „לינטשערײַ“. דאָס שאַפֿט אַ סתּירה צװישן דעם פּראָגרעסיװן עטישן וועלטבאַנעם און דעם נעגאַטיװן עסטעטישן אימאַזש, פֿאַרסך־הכּלט ריבאַק.
ריבאַק האָט דורכגעמאַכט אַ גרונטיקע פֿאָרשערישע אַרבעט. זײַן בוך איז פֿולגעפּאַקט מיט לעבעדיקע פּרטים פֿון טױזנטער פֿאַרשײדענע מקורים אױף ייִדיש, העברעיִש און ענגליש. להיפּוך צו דעם רובֿ הײַנטיקע ייִדיש־פֿאָרשערס, באַהאַנדלט ער ניט נאָר די מוסטערן פֿון דער „הױכער“ קולטור און פּראָגרעסיװער זשורנאַליסטיק, נאָר ער נעמט אין באַטראַכט די גאַנצע ייִדישע מאַסן־קולטור.
אַזאַ אַרומנעמיקער צוגאַנג האָט ריבאַקן דערמעגלעכט צו אַנטפּלעקן די גאַנצע רײ פֿון קאָמפּליצירטע און צומאָל סתּירותדיקע פּאָזיציעס פֿון מזרח־אײראָפּעיִשע אימיגראַנטן לגבי דעם ראַסן־ענין אין אַמעריקע אין די ערשטע דרײַסיק יאָר פֿונעם צװאַנציקסטן יאָרהונדערט.
די פֿילצאָליקע בײַשפּילן שטיצן זײַן אַרגומענט, אַז ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן זײַנען װײַט ניט געװען פֿרײַ פֿון ראַסיסטישע פּניות. אין דעם אַרגומענט שטעקט אַ שטיקל פּאָלעמיק קעגן דער טענדענץ אין הײַנטיקער ייִדיש־פֿאָרשונג װאָס באַטאָנט בלױז די פּראָגרעסיװע, אַנט־ראַסיסטישע טענדענצן אין דער אַמעריקאַנער ייִדיש־קולטור.
מען קען זאָגן, אַז די צואײגענונג פֿון ראַסיסטישע קלישעען בײַ ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן איז געװען אַ שריט אױפֿן װעג צו אַמעריקאַניזירונג. דאָס האָט זײ געלאָזט פֿילן זיך װי עכטע „װײַסע“ אַמעריקאַנער, װאָס איז געװאָרן שטאַרק אַקטועל אין יענער תּקופֿה פֿון דער שטאַרקער קסענאָפֿאָביע און אַנטיסעמיטיזם אין דער אַמעריקאַנער געזעלשאַפֿט. דאָס האָט זיך געביטן אין די 1930ער יאָרן, װען לינקע ייִדן האָבן אָנגעהױבן צו באַטראַכטן די אַפֿראָ־אַמעריקאַנער װי פּאָטענציעלע מיטקעמפֿער פֿאַר סאָציאַלער און עקאָנאָמישער יושרדיקײט.
The post New book discusses the issue of racism in American Yiddish culture appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish teens see a generational split in their own families over Mamdani
This article was produced as part of the New York Jewish Week’s Teen Journalism Fellowship, a program that works with Jewish teens around New York City to report on issues that affect their lives.
Sixteen-year-old Chase, who lives on the Upper East Side, is close with his grandparents. They talk about school, work and national politics, but there’s one topic he avoids discussing with them: the New York City mayoral election.
He and his grandparents, who are all Reform Jews, have split views on the 34-year-old democratic socialist frontrunner, Zohran Mamdani. Chase, who did not want his last name included so his views would not be searchable to the public, has positive feelings about the candidate, while his grandparents are strongly opposed to him.
Though Chase thinks Mamdani has “good intentions and questionable execution,” he thinks he would probably vote for Mamadani if he could.
His grandparents, on the other hand, have called Mamdani antisemitic — though they don’t go into much detail beyond that, Chase said. While he thinks their perspective lacks nuance, Chase recognizes that his grandparents faced antisemitism when they were growing up in Brooklyn in the 1950s and 1960s, and were sometimes afraid to be openly Jewish. They see Mamdani’s support of Palestine and harsh criticism of Israel as a rejection of Jews. “To them, Israel is supposed to be a bastion against antisemitism,” Chase said.
Chase’s family is just one example of the generational divide among Mamdani’s supporters and detractors. A poll conducted earlier this month by Beacon Research and Shaw & Company Research found that 73% of voters under 30 support Mamdani compared to just 15% for Andrew Cuomo. For voters in the oldest bracket, 65 and older, Cuomo led Mamdani by 43% to 27%.
For New York City Jews, Mamdani’s candidacy also laid bare divisions. An October 29 poll by Quinnipiac University found 60% of Jewish voters supporting Cuomo and 16% of Jewish voters supporting Mamdani. A different poll from July by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions found 43% of Jews support Mamdani with the other votes spread across all other candidates. Mandani’s support in this poll came primarily from younger Jews, with two-thirds of Jews aged 18 to 44 supporting Mamdani compared to just a quarter of older Jews.
At issue for many of New York’s Jews is Mamdani’s commitment to anti-Zionist views, which some classify as a threat to Jews. Mamdani has ties to the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) movement, and started the first Students for Justice in Palestine chapter at Bowdoin College, where he graduated in 2014. During his campaign for mayor, he has claimed Israel committed genocide, and that while he believes Israel has a right to exist as a state, he is “not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else.”
Mamdani’s stances on Israel are a quandary for many liberal New York City Jews, many of whom support his domestic policies, like building affordable housing and raising the minimum wage, but are concerned about Jewish safety and the future of the state of Israel.
Sam Rosberger, a 16-year-old Jew from Harlem who sees himself “in the middle” between Reform and Conservative, supports Mamdani’s domestic policies. “I think generally all his ideas are good, I think rent control is good. The 2% tax on people [making] over a million [dollars] is good,” he said. Although Rosberger admits that some of Mamdani’s statements about Israel have been “possibly troubling,” he does not believe the candidate is antisemitic.
However, his parents had a different first impression of Mamdani. They were “worried about him being antisemitic,” based on information and opinion pieces that circulated online, Rosberger said. Once they started listening directly to Mamdani and his messaging, their views began to change. “I don’t think it was something in specific,” Rosberger said. “They saw his actions and they saw what he said, watching debates and hearing his voice [directly].”
Rosberger’s parents also disliked the other candidates running. They thought former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was “not an appealing person on a personal level,” he said, and they have contrasting policy priorities to Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, the radio personality and founder of the Guardian Angels. As a result, Rosberger said his parents supported Mamdani in the primary, and he thinks they will likely vote for him in Tuesday’s general election.
Gershon Leib, a junior at a Manhattan Jewish day school, said his older brother is an anti-Zionist who has canvassed for the Mamdani campaign, something that Leib said his parents are not happy about.
“There was definitely some tension in the family over his decision to do so [to canvas], I could definitely feel that,” Leib, 16, said.
Leib, a former New York Jewish Week Teen Fellow, said both of his parents disapprove of Mamdani. While his stance on Israel-Gaza is part of the problem, he said they are primarily concerned by the state assemblyman’s lack of experience and policy platform, which they disagree with.
Leib, on the other hand, sees Mamdani as “the least bad option.” He’s encouraged by what he sees as the success of other progressive mayors such as Boston’s Michelle Wu — who has implemented free buses and expanded free pre-k — to be a positive sign for Zohran’s policies.
Leib said his parents are concerned that his brother has not done enough research into Mamdani’s policy platform and is only supporting Mamdani because of his anti-Zionist stance.
In the Leib family, the generational divide extends upward to the grandparents as well. Like Chase’s grandparents, they are concerned with Mamdani’s history with the BDS movement. The whole dynamic “has been causing some friction, even at the dinner table,” Leib said.
With the election one day away, the situation with his brother is still a bit of an open wound. “Obviously they [Gershon’s grandparents] did not shut him out entirely,” Leib said, “but I could see tension boiling over who he was willing to support.”
—
The post Jewish teens see a generational split in their own families over Mamdani appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.