martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/18/84)
To: martillo The Mailer-Demon is currently not working on rochester so that I can only reply to David Sher via the net, but others might be interested in the reply. David: If you researched the issue, you would find that these little kippahs which people wear to affirm Jewish identity in the U.S.A. (and now in Israel) are something specifically American. In Eastern Europe, a Jew would probably have worn a skullcap inside a building (considerably larger than these tiny American ones). When he went outside, he put on a real hat over it. The Hasidim in the USA dress exactly as I describe. When I see these little ones on college students, I have the impression the wearer is uncomfortable because American custom is to go bare-headed, the wearer wants to go bare-headed too, but since he wants to identify with Judaism he will wear a head-covering but as little as possible. I sense embarrassment that he cannot be just like the other Americans, and I do not like this attitude and I consider it groveling. I simply do not understand embarassment at being different. Diversity makes the world rather more interesting. As for development in the face of historical change, I accept this point. My gripe is that when Ashkenazim were faced with the advent of modernism, different groups of Ashkenazim made different choices but all the choices they made were wrong and disastrous for all the Jewish people not just Ashkenazim. I hope in Israel they will get over these disastrous mistakes. The eventual dominance of the Sefardi community gives hope because the Sefardic leaders show much less mental rigidity. Mapam was calling the Soviet Union a Jewish homeland into the early 60's. In the United States I see all the fossil remnants of Jewish ideologies which only made sense (and not much) before WWII. As for word choice, I dislike this clinging to Yiddish just as a German peasant clings to his dialect. The Jewish tradition is a highly intellectual tradition; for Jews, ideas were always much more important than the language in which they are expressed. It happens (thanks to the Rambam) Jewish ideas are much more easily and naturally expressed in Hebrew than any other language. When the Ashkenazim began clinging to Yiddish, they began to drop out of the Jewish world becoming members of the socialist or communist communities. I view Yiddish as an impediment to being Jewish. If Sefardim were engaging in the same sort of stupidity, I would dump on it too. Yarmulke is in fact from leshon Kodesh but it is only Yiddish so that I would not use it. I would not use takeika (yarmulke in Ladino) either. When I hear gut shabbes, I always wince at the inappropriate combination of German and Hebrew which typifies the mental confusion of the Ashkenazi community. We would never say buena shabbat. -- Who wouldn't break for whales? Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/05/84)
> In the article that I am replying a few statements >made by Yehoyaquim Martillo that I believe need to >be further discussed in this newsgroup. >One comment by Yehoyaquim goes as follows: > "My gripe is that when Ashkenazim were > faced with the advent of modernism, > different groups of Ashkenazim made > different choices but all the choices > they made were wrong and disastrous > for all the Jewish people not just > Ashkenazim....." > "....In the United States I see all the > fossil remnants of Jewish ideologies > which only made sense ( and not much ) > before WWII." > These are very broad statements to say the least. >Where are the actual, specific instances? Specifically >how were and are the reform and conservative movements >disastorous for all of Judiasm? What are the the fossil >remnants of Jewish ideologies which only made sense before >WWII? How were and are Reform and Conservative "Judaism" disastrous? Most obviously both of these intellectually empty movements lead to a real decline in Jewish learning. No one even argues about this point. I have seen lack of Jewish national sense and increasing assimilation and intermarriage attributed to this type of ignorance. What are the fossil ideologies? The most obvious fossil ideologies are reform, conservative "Judaism," Neo-Orthodoxy (Hirschian variety), and secular socialist Labor Zionism. Less important but still existent ideologies are Bundism and Jewish communism. Most do not know the history of Reform. Reform began as a movement which claimed that German Jews really were Germans who practised a Mosaic religion and that German Jews really had no more in common with a non-German Jew than a Bavarian Catholic had with a Polish Catholic. Later events in German history showed this attitude wrong even though in fact the intermarriage rate between Germans and Jews (Ashkenazim not Sefardim -- relatively few German and Austrian Sefardim involved themselves with this movement) by the 1920's was higher than it is now. Reform chucked all Jewish ritual assuming these strange Jewish ways were upsetting the Germans. In fact, the existence of Jews upset the Germans. Maintenance of Jewish ritual is often viewed of a specific denial of Jesus (because he had fulfilled the Law) but at this point the Germans were not so religious. In fact the rejection of ritual seems to have made the Germans more suspicious (if I read 19th century German anti-semitic propaganda properly). The Jew who maintained ritual was being honest. The Germans seemed to wonder what the assimilated Jew was up to. After all he was denying what he was (a Jew) to try to be what he was not (a German). Such behavior was inherently suspicious. Immense antisemitic propaganda was directed at the Rothschilds, Bleichroeders, Reuters, Rathenaus and other wealthy and powerful Ashkenazim who sought this type of social acceptance and mobility. Very little propaganda was directed toward the even more wealthy de Sinas, Fallacis, Kedouries, Sassoons and Hardoons who were relatively uninterested in acceptance by the elite of gentile society. D`Israeli was subjected to such antisemitic attacks but his family's behavior is much closer to the sychophancy and social climbing of the Ashkenazim than to the aristocratic reserve and confidence of the Sefardi elite. Assimilationists, Conservative "Judaism", neo-Orthodoxy, and left Zionism all made fundamental assumption of the superiority of modern Western culture. While the achievement of the West in terms of technology in undeniable. At the level of social interaction, law and ethics, the Jewish scholars were far ahead of Western thinkers. Further, Jews tended to implement their programs with the effect that typically Jews were better educated less violent and more productive than neighboring non-Jewish populations. I assume that the Jewish leaders in Europe were so blinded by the achievements of the West in technology and conquest that they ignored the flaws which could bring forth a Stalin or a Hitler. Zionism rejected traditional Jewish culture because the Zionists held traditional Jewish culture responsible for the problems of Jews in Eastern Europe. A more reasonable cause for the problems was the antisemitism of the majority non-Jewish population. I suppose assimilation makes sense if one truly believes the target culture for assimilation is truly superior to one's own -- hardly an admirable position. In World War II, the Axis acted like animals and the allies did all they could to prevent refugees from fleeing Nazi controlled territories. Not only does this behavior make the superiority of Western culture seem dubious (especially because most Jewish groups considered German culture not American culture the highest expression of human civilization) but there is something shameful about the assimilation of Jews into a society which did so little when the Germans were slaughtering Jews. > Not only should specific examples be provided >to justify the above comments, but also one further question >should be answered: When faced with the advent of modernism, >how did the Sephardic Jews respond, and why were their >choices correct? Unfortunately, since the Labor Zionists embarked on a program of extermination of traditional Sefardic and oriental culture and since the religious Ashkenazim did nothing to help the Sefardic and oriental communities to resist (and in fact encouraged the destruction of these communities) we shall never know. I would guess that Yemenites and Tunisians might have come up with a better response. > My point is that one can find many faults with "Ashkenazim >responses to modernism". In fact the easiest thing to do >is to find faults with other ideas, ideologies, etc. It is >another thing to examine the historical and specific >circumstances that resulted in these "Ashkenazim responses" >and explain what would have been better and more viable >alternatives. > Vis a vis Yehoyaquim's criticism about Yiddish: > "When the Ashkenazim began clinging to Yiddish, > they began to drop out of the Jewish world, > becoming members of the socialist and communist > communities. I view Yiddish as an impediment > to being Jewish." Genuine decadence set into the Ashkenazi communities at the beginning of the 19th century. Previously there were a whole set of characteristics which set all Jews off from the non-Jews around them. Suddenly Ashkenazim defined themselves not in terms of fundamental Jewish characteristics but in terms of the mishmash of minor characteristics which they picked up from the non-Jews among whom they lived. Yiddish, the trash which Ashkenazim eat (probably constitutes hilul hashabbat), and hassidic dress as expressions of Jewishness are signs of this decadence. Yiddish was the most insidious of this disease symptoms because communities in Europe are often defined linguistically. Once Ashkenazim defined themselves in terms of Yiddish and a Yiddish literature came into being, Ashkenazim became much less familiar with the traditional literature which united all Jews. The oriental source of Judaism became much less immediate to the Ashkenazim and they began to conceive of themselves as first members of the Yiddish culture sphere and their children thought of themselves as Poles, Czechs, Russians, Hungarians or some other type of Slav. >Again a broad and sweeping allegation. Is Yehoyaquim implying >that Shalom Alachem was a communist? That Issac Bashevis Singer >is more concerned with socialistic and communistic communities >than he is with the Jewish community? I find it hard to believe >that all the Jewish men and women I hear or have heard speaking >Yiddish are all more directly linked to socialist and communistic >communities than they are to Jewish communities. I know the history and you do not. As an intellectual language Yiddish is primarily the language of Jewish socialism and Jewish communism. About 80% of Yiddish literature is so oriented. Therefore my statement still stands. By the way Shalom Aleichem (which I am able to read in the original) was an assimilationist -- most of his children and all of his grand-children intermarried. The language of his house was Russian. Most of his stories are subtle attacks on Jewish religion and Jewish particularism and propose assimilation into the modern world as a solution to the Jewish problem. I suggest reading Der Nes fun Hoshannoh Rabboh to see both the subtlety and the ideology. Most religious Ashkenazim will not touch them with a ten-foot pole. >Perhaps it would be a good idea if the readers in this newsgroup >would list what they consider to be the major works written >in Yiddish. From such a list, it would then be possible to >see how Yiddish is "an impediment to being Jewish". Since most on the net are probably as Yiddishly illiterate as they are Hebrew illiterate, this procedure would not produce a true answer. If there is real interest, I will forward this discussion to Professor Ruth Wisse who is one of the top Yiddishists and ask her for comments. Sorry this reply took so long. When I changed jobs, I seem to have gone through a time-warp as well as a name change. Yaqim Martillo An Equal Opportunity Offender