Live data from Hacker News

Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

newyorker.com

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#101

This article reads like a glorification of the kind of ethnocentrism and tribalism that most here categorically condemn when it's engaged in by white people. Seeing as HN is supposed to be rational, pro-science, and skeptical, it's pretty strange to see an article on the front page so sympathetic to a religion--especially one that has infant genital mutilation as its core sacrament: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar…

HN isn't "supposed" to be anything. At best we could hope that it's smart people talking about what interests them. Don't put us in boxes.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#102

This article reads like a glorification of the kind of ethnocentrism and tribalism that most here categorically condemn when it's engaged in by white people. Seeing as HN is supposed to be rational, pro-science, and skeptical, it's pretty strange to see an article on the front page so sympathetic to a religion--especially one that has infant genital mutilation as its core sacrament: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar…

That religion also spawned the first Hacker culture. If you can circumvent god and men law with logic - you are a rabbi.

It's not circumventing law, it's carefully sculpting it. In general, those hacker loopholes come from (1) over-broad policies made by ancestor rabbis to "build a wall around the Law", and (2) a desire to shrink the walled area, without (3) disrespecting the judgment of ancestors.

Do you think the US Supreme Court circumvents the Constitution and laws?

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#103
post #54

I've always been idly curious as to what happened in Israel (as in the geographic area) between, say, 35 A.D. and 1948. It seems, though, as if everybody who might have some insight there also has an agenda that makes any concrete information they might have to share indecipherable.

Mostly 1,400 years of Muslim rule besides a short period of Catholic rule during the crusades.

That leaves 500 years unaccounted for.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#104
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend this book (by a French author), which covers the years 70 AD to 1943, so not far! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Abraham_(novel) I don't know if some would call it biased, but it made a strong impression on me as a young adult. I am not Jewish, but it is fascinating in and of itself.

I just read the plot summary on wikipedia - and it seems that this book focuses on a family that leaves Israel pretty early on during these 2000 years.

Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#105
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because "whiteness" is an invented category. There are no historical threads that bind together just the people you think of as "white" that don't include many others that you exclude based solely on a modern historical understanding of "white". Write a history of the Irish diaspora, Sweden, the Balkans, or Russia and nobody is going to call you racist. Claim some sort of tribal group that incorporates all of…

> That's because "whiteness" is an invented category. This is a common narrative now, and it seems malicious (or at least, misguided) to me - it's an attempt to deconstruct the generalized European identity as formed through ethnogenesis on the North American continent as different groups of Europeans intermarried. Can someone who hails from sixteen different European countries really make any claim to "belong" to an…

Put simply: Fuzziness is a real thing.

Fuzziness not only in the topic here but in the meta discussion of the topic.

Yeah, there's something about white, American Christians to be discussed historically… boiling it down to "white" is probably better done by going with "European" but that's probably my own intellectual biases from my experiences of the language.

The thing about being Jewish is that it simply has been significantly different (even as there are parallels) to most other ethnic discussions. There are genetic similarities (read: inbreeding) within the primary Jewish ethnicities where other groups show more diversity. There's a weird tie between culture/religion and ethnicity.

I often make the analogy to being Cherokee or something. You don't just decide to believe some religious things and it makes you Cherokee, but they do have traditional beliefs and the idea of true adoption as a Cherokee isn't crazy. The Jewish religion is sorta like that where they discourage converts, and conversion is like getting adopted by a different ethnic group. That's quite different from Christianity and Islam that promote conversion.

For this and many other reasons, Jews stayed distinct in their own weird way.

Talking about "whiteness" and "white people" is actually more like "blackness" and "black people" where dark skin can come from a range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Lumping all dark-skinned people together makes little sense except for how it's treated (self-fulfilling prophecy somewhat) in our world in reality.

You may recall people remarking that our first "black" president was not only mixed-race but his African father was really African and not a descendant of American slaves. But obviously he still lived his life in a way that had him be a part of the American (slave ancestry) cultural reality.

So, yeah, fuzziness. But Jews really have had ties going back generations that the various conglomerations of "white" Americans have not… even as you can draw some analogies and questions.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was born Jewish and was pretty religious for most of my life, but even when I was religious I never understood why we should be proud of this, or why this is a good thing in and of itself. I would be really interested if you could explain more your way of thinking about it, because to me when my father explains that we should be proud of having the same meal our ancestors did Xthousand years ago I don't feel impres…

>I really just can't understand this frame of thinking that says Judaism is good because it's been going on for long. Im not a rabbi or in kiruv or anything, so take this with a grain of salt...but I would point to Jordan Petersons position about the longevity and survival of the bible stories and his response to atheists around it all sounding made up. There is a reason these stories survived through the ages. There…

> It's just too shallow to dismiss it as superstitious ancestors who werent as smart as us.

This is commonly misunderstand point, as you hint at.

Our ancestors were about as smart as we are -- some smarter, some not, but on average they were far more ignorant of how the world works. There were plenty of brilliant ideas wrapped around less sure knowledge.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#107
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because "whiteness" is an invented category. This is a common narrative now, and it seems malicious (or at least, misguided) to me - it's an attempt to deconstruct the generalized European identity as formed through ethnogenesis on the North American continent as different groups of Europeans intermarried. Can someone who hails from sixteen different European countries really make any claim to "belong" to an…

"White" was invented (by "White" people) to mean "everyone who isn't systematically oppressed under under local law and cultural practice". That's the only unifying thread. Irish, German, Jewish, Greek, etc became "White" wherever and whenever "White" people stopped discriminating against them. Scandinavian? European? Anglo? Western European? Eastern European? Fine. "White"? No.

Doubling down on a narrative that is severely lacking in historical evidence. Please, do, show me where all the white people got together and decided on this definition? Let me know where I'm supposed to get updates on who is, and who isn't? I must have missed my subscription to this topic.

I'm aware that various groups may not have been afforded every accomodation in the past by the dominant cultural groups in Europe and North America. This is an unfortunate legacy that is slowly being healed. I don't think individual white people alive today need to take on personal culpability for such (in a "sins of the father" sense), nor does it follow that White does not exist as a category merely because it has shifted in definition over time.

About all you can really say is that the definition is subject to further change in the future. Fair enough, but this doesn't mean the group doesn't exist.

> "White"? No.

You're very close to practicing "cultural erasure" by implying that people who identify as white (and there are hundreds of millions of such) don't exist, or are somehow mistaken in their own views about what they identify as. If this same tactic is used on literally any other group (whether it's racial, religious, ethnic, national i.e. Tibet, sexual i.e. LGBT groups, etc) it's viewed as a tremendously offensive act.

Why, then, is it okay to do against White people? Pray tell me why this group is the only one which you are not only permitted, but encouraged to deconstruct and deny the existence of?

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the words of Benjamin Disraeli "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon"

How is that any different from saying, "while [black person]'s ancestors were throwing spears at each other, mine were respectable businessmen"?

It's not. It's maybe even worse than racist, because most of Disraeli's ancestors probably weren't even members Solomon's kingdom, they likely were mostly Europeans who converted and then adopted the ancestry.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the words of Benjamin Disraeli "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon"

How is that any different from saying, "while [black person]'s ancestors were throwing spears at each other, mine were respectable businessmen"?

Because the person who says that is part of the oppressed minority, not the other way around.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because "whiteness" is an invented category. This is a common narrative now, and it seems malicious (or at least, misguided) to me - it's an attempt to deconstruct the generalized European identity as formed through ethnogenesis on the North American continent as different groups of Europeans intermarried. Can someone who hails from sixteen different European countries really make any claim to "belong" to an…

Put simply: Fuzziness is a real thing. Fuzziness not only in the topic here but in the meta discussion of the topic. Yeah, there's something about white, American Christians to be discussed historically… boiling it down to "white" is probably better done by going with "European" but that's probably my own intellectual biases from my experiences of the language. The thing about being Jewish is that it simply has been…

> Talking about "whiteness" and "white people" is actually more like "blackness" and "black people" where dark skin can come from a range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Lumping all dark-skinned people together makes little sense except for how it's treated (self-fulfilling prophecy somewhat) in our world in reality.

I agree with this - but it's also very clear that Black people, especially in North America, have some amount of shared history that crosses their ethnic lines, and absolutely have shared interests. Can one really pretend Black people don't exist? Can one say that it should be deconstructed, and that we should talk about Ethiopians and Nigerians, etc - and if so, which sort, because within country borders there are still many different groups? How do we label an African American who can trace their history back to sixteen different countries? What do they identify as? I can tell you, it's an easy answer if you actually ask them...

Not only is this clinal (fuzzy), labels are also applied at different levels of granularity. There's still value in speaking about finer levels of granularity, and the shared history/values/goals/problems that apply at one level of granularity may not apply when you move up to the superset, but some still do.

It's those shared issues that highly coarse groupings are concerned with. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

Post reply on HN