lecture 18, "the dark years: vichy france"
john merriman
-------------
the fall of France, and collaboration
1936, again, possibly a time when Hitler could have been stopped in the Rhineland.
all of this has to be seen, in France, in the context of World War I and its legacy--there was a strong feeling, Wilson, etc., that wars were bad things done by evil people (and this was implicit in the resolution of the Treaty of Versailles, of course)
no one wanted another war, but Hitler had been agitating for one from the outset.
there was a feeling that another war would be unthinkable, in France. have to remember the tremendously traumatizing effects of WWI.
-------------
Hitler had of course been building military capacity in Germany, re-arming the nation, etc. Hitler's advisors had been expecting a war to begin, though, in 1940/1941--as we all know, the war actually begins on the 1st of September, 1939, when Hitler invades Poland (he takes power in 1933).
militarily, why does France fall so rapidly?
their respective troop strengths were relatively equal at the time of the invasion of France in May 1940. in tanks, the allies actually had superiority, though German tanks were lighter and faster (and they were used in divisions, which gave them an advantage).
Germans had a clear superiority in fighter power (and they had tried them out in Spain, don't forget)
how had the British and French been planning? they believed that it would be another war of attrition--a long, drawn-out battle in which a strong, defensive line would be critical.
the Germans, by contrast, believed in rapid attack--the "blitzkrieg"
the French are assuming that the forests in N. France and E. Belgium will be physical impediments to the German invasion, but did not prove to be this. 10 tank divisions pour through the forests and they simply waste these French tanks. in four days they're way inside France. the German High Command thought it would take 9 days--and it took 4!
Hitler does make one mistake, prof argues, which is he refuels, allowing the evacuation of French and British troops at Dunkirk.
you have refugees, and German fighter planes picking them off as they fled.
------------------
a new French government, then, collaborates with the Germans--Vichy France is born. (France is divided in two zones; the "collaborationist" government has its capital in Vichy.)
involves people who actively assist the Nazis in achieving their goals, acting on their aspirations. by the end of 1943/1944, if you were a French collaborator and you find graffiti with the word "K" on your door, you were toast--because it meant that the Maquis (or the resistance) was confident enough to make that kind of threat.
again, it's not only France--in Belgium, for example, the right-wing Flemish were more likely to collaborate, and it remains a tension. in Budapest, way you see a goulish shoe-memorial to Jews and Communists gunned down by Hungarian collaborators.
----------------
the historiography and history of collaboration is fascinating, prof is saying.
there's a myth of universal resistance, perpetuated by people who had actively collaborated and also by Charles De Gaulle (he needed people to forget the Communist resistance, and lead the French people to identify with his person and leadership--part of the mantle he'd assume.)
there was a movie from 1953-1954 about the Jews arrested in Paris in 1942--taken away, put in a transit camp north of Paris. in the film you see French guards--so what they do is they photoshop it, effectively.
three series of crucial events have jolted this myth, prof is arguing:
(1) the film called "the sorrow and the pity", which is 4.5 hrs long. what the producer does is he goes to one single town and he looked at what happened there in collaboration--some of the best documentary scenes about intentional forgetting, etc,--where teachers forget about their Jewish friends/colleagues. it was only shown in one theatre. made for French TV, but not shown until 1981/1982. why? because it told the awful truth, which was that lots of people believed better Hitler than Blum.
(2) "vichy france," by bob paxton in 1972. it cut through the intentional forgetting to look squarely at collaboration--bob paxton, actually, didn't have the right to french archival documents (the 50 year rule, and a "troublemaker"). but when this book came out, it had a very powerful effect. here was a great historian saying it "wasn't like what you learned in school."
(3) the trials--as collaboration came to be something that people wanted to know about--then people with bad histories were tracked down. one of the first was Touvier, who was involved in the torture of resisters, deportations of jews/communists. he was hidden by right-wing groups (bounced from monastery to monastery). but finally tracked down and tried. at this trial, Paxton became an "expert witness." and there was a trial of Barbi, as well, who had tortured people in Lyons. and then there was Maurice Papon, a functionary who signed the death-certificates of hundreds and hundreds of Jews. he went on to a very successful career in the fourth and fifth republic. and they caught up with this very very old man, and there was the question of whether he ought to be tried (in 1998, 1999 -- at one point he escapes, and they find him at a fine restraunt in Switzerland; he insists, "I was a good bureaucrat.") he used the "shield argument"--that if it wasn't for me(/we), thing would have been even worse. he was found guilty, and sent to jail.
"the Vichy syndrome."
so, from having no official memory of Vichy--only bits that had to do with the resistance--France underwent this re-evaluation of its relationship to the regime. and that was important for people who had lost their family members, for Jews (some 75,000 Jews never returned to France after Vichy). the big round-up in June 1942, for example, was not done by the Germans, but by the French police. one of the worst institutions of all was the milice (the militia), created in January 1943, to get tough on the Jews, the communists, the resistance.
remember, the militia's tactics required very personal forms of betrayal--people sending letters to the police, etc. (in the days after war, almost 10,000 collaborators were executed)
----------------
voting left superimposed on a map of de-christianization and there would be remarkable similarities, as prof said before. that is not true of collaborationists--this is not regional, or from one social class (this is the case in Belgium, though.) of course you're more apt to have people from the middle-classes collaborate, but it's difficult to generalize (you have working-class collaboration).
what about religion? the role of the Pope in all of this, professor is saying, is nauseating. the Pope knew, but did nothing. zero. the Catholic Church hierarchy was generally very collaborationist.
Roosevelt and these people knew (they knew before they did anything, prof reminds us), but their dilemma is trickier (can you bomb death camps? train tracks?)
the Church got what it wanted, during Vichy France--no divorce, two people executed for abortion. (though he is also insisting that it is not this open and shut)
-----------------
now, what did the people who collaborated want? a couple of themes
(1) argument made by Petain after the war. by collaborating with the Germans, you were saving the French State. but, as Paxton says, "they may have been saving the French state, but they were destroying the French nation."
(2) the xenophobia that characterized the French right, before the occupation, was obviously a prevalent theme during the collaborationists. no Italians, no Spanish (especially no Marxists).
(3) anti-semitism--the French Vichy regime (it's only in November of 1942 that the Germans occupy the Vichy zone, because the resistance is mobilizing) puts in laws depriving Jews of rights that the Germans didn't even ask them to do. in some ways even harsher than the infamous Nuremberg laws of the Reich.
-----------------
Petain, for the fascists, will be an answer for:
(1) the "decadence" and "feuding France" of pre-Vichy France
(2) the restoration of the earthly power of the Church. restoration of the soul of France; the old, Catholic/Christian values. a return to the "moral order"--when things are passed down from the "moral orders."
(3) nationalism, of a new sort--away from the legacy of the French revolution, towards a nationalism of patriotism and values. and, of course, with this comes an exclusionary ethic.
(4) authority--not the dirtiness of "democracy"; authority flows from the top, down.
(5) peasantism. "true France," not the France of Jews, striking workers, communism, etc., virtue is found in the soil (Joan of Arc is a peasant girl, remember--she becomes a symbol of all this). cities are places where Jews and workers hang out. the true France is the France of peasants on the soil.
(6) corporatism--they've read about Mussolini and Italian fascism, making the argument that workers and bosses have the same interests. and you can resolve these conflicts in the idea of the Nation--strong, marching, plutonic warriors
Showing posts with label anti-semitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-semitism. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
lecture 9, "general boulanger and captain dreyfus"
john merriman
--------
today, two very well-known crises in the third republic (Boulanger and Dreyfus affair). the latter is perhaps more poignant given that dreyfus' granddaughter died at auschwitz.
Boulanger affair portends the rise of the far-right in France--parallels the rise of the far-right in austria, etc.
--------
the background to all this, of course, is the rise of anti-semitism.
in a way, WWI released the demons of the twentieth century, to a great extent. for adolph hitler, it transformed his anti-socialism/anti-communism into a frenzy, but it added this dimension of anti-semitism.
but, of course, anti-semitism was already out there. not invented by the third republic, either.
but, certainly, the political dimensions of anti-semitism in the 1880s and 1890s made these two affairs so salient (it preoccupied dinner-table discussions, etc.).
the continued growth of anti-semitism also needs to be explained in the context of two further dynamics: (1) there was the question of revenge--the re-capture of Alsace-Lorraine from the german empire; by the end of the 1880s, this is an important part of French discourse; (2) the perceived weakness of French republicanism; in order to protect France from further Caesarism, they create a constitutional framework that vested a lot of authority in the Chamber of Deputies (and this chamber is basically a "political club", of swinging door ministries and the same people--the accomplishments are rather "pale," prof is arguing).
----------
All this frustration gave rise to an anti-parliamentarian movement--and a temptation to find a strong man who will right these wrongs, and re-attach Alsace-Lorraine to France. Impression that the Republic was at the end of its rope.
In May of 1882, the League of the Patriots is created--an anti-parliamentarian, ultra-nationalist movement. Quickly has 180,000 members(!). With this began the rapidly rising career of General Boulanger, born in 1837. He was a veteran of four campaigns (Africa, Italy, Vietnam/Indochina). He was a brave, heroic figure, and wasn't associated with the reprisals after the Paris commune as he had been injured earlier. Lots of energy/bravery, though not many brains.
He fit the image of what many people believed France needed. He was sent to the US to celebrate the centennial of the revolution (and caused a stir by refusing to get off the boat until the German flags were taken down)--this makes him the darling of the press (right-wing press, which dominates the newspapers). On good terms with Georges Clemenceau, an electoral leader of the Radical Party--both had graduated from the same high school. Boulanger had an anti-clerical streak, which he would have to temper later as he sought right-wing support. Saw the civilian population as meddlesome, prof is saying. Took every possible opportunity to be seen in front of his troops--it was his idea to paint all the sentry boxes red, white, and blue.
In 1886, during a miners' strike, he said that French soldiers were sharing their rations with workers--so he gave the impression of a kind of Napoleonic figure who had broad interests at heart. People start writing songs about him (General "Victory"). Tensions with the German empire increase his popularity; Bismarck himself was aware of Boulanger, and he uses Boulanger's popularity for his own support. One of the few ways the Reichstag could reign in the authority of the Kaiser.
This begins to worry people--Jules Grevy says that he's got to go. But this threatened to make Boulanger a martyr. He is not allowed to run for office--but as a write-in candidate, he gets something like 39,000 votes. So they opt to send him away, away from Paris--huge crowds block the tracks of the train on which he's on (singing the Marsellaise--a mix of people...)
In the early days he got some votes from the Left, and a lot of money from the Right and the Monarchists).
Clemenceau, then, dumps Boulanger as a friend.
---------
This is the stage at which the crisis re: Grevy's son-in-law takes place (trafficking medals of honor). And who comes along to become President of France, but Sadi-Carnot, who will be assasinated in 1894 (elected by the deputies). Arguably voted in because he was the stupidest(!).
The contrast between Boulanger and the impotent republic, then, become more and more marked. One thing leads to another, but it comes down to the fact that he's sitting in a restraunt in Paris, in 1889 (he's already a member of the chamber of deputies)--and there's a crowd that gathers in the street, shouting for him to take action. To go out, greet his adorers, and who knows? To end the impotent republic, perhaps. But he just sits there--finishes his elaborate meal. And then goes upstairs with his mistress. And the opportunity is passed. (And while he hesitates, his enemies do not--the electoral procedure that allowed him to be elected is eliminated). He flees to Belgium, which makes him seem less brave/dashing.
There's a committee working for him in France, but he remains aloof. His mistress, whom he loves, dies in 1891, after a long illness--on the 30th of September, 1891, he goes alone to her grave, and blew his brains out.
The republic emerged strengthened, by this crisis. But that's only one aspect--what's very interesting, is what was happening to the Right, at this time.
The crisis (and response to it), prof is arguing, is one of the best examples of this new world of mass politics. The question of how the message got out? How did people know about Boulanger, in different regions across France. For centuries, one of the only ways in which people imagined religious/military/political events, was by reading "comic strips"--they would show you pictures of Saints, Generals, etc. These were peddled to villages, through an elaborate distribution network. And so Boulanger is plugged into this popular library, at a time when most people could read, anyway--and his pamphlets, etc., get distributed via these networks (and, of course, assisted by trains). These images just inundated these places.
---------
Two things are particularly interesting, then, about the Boulanger affair:
(1) origins of the modern right.
(2) the beginnings of mass politics, even in rural areas. (and we see, with Boulanger's images, the beginnings of an enormous propaganda campaign against Jews--departments without Jews used to denounce this "Other." They flood the countryside with images, messages, etc.).
This anticipates the 1920s and 1930s in the sense that this is the first time that the Right is out in the streets--Paris is changing, with this, it's no longer the Paris of the radical sans-culottes. Until 1968, the big demonstrations are of the right (for the canonization of Joan of Arc, for the end of the Republic in 1934).
Of course, you can't always look through hindsight--if you want to explain Auschwitz, or the arrests of Jews in Paris in 1942/1943, but we can, at the very least, say that this was all out there. It was part of the mythology of Boulanger, of course.
----------
The Dreyfus Affair--more obvious, in some senses, than the Boulanger affair--reflects the anti-semitism that had been exacerbated by the economic crisis that begins in the mid-1870s. Where it was easy to blame it on the Jewish bankers, etc.
Edward Drumont's newspaper had been at the forefront of denouncing the scandals of the Republic (arguing that it was inherent in the structure of the Republic, and that the Jews were prominent). He had published a book in which he had argued that Jewish financiers were conspiring to dominate France.
He is at the forefront of this affair, which pits the Right, the Church, and the Army against the Republicans, Socialists, etc. (who supported Dreyfus). He was the son of an old Jewish family from Alsace--his family had been peddlers, and became textile manufactures. But they were well assimilated, and considered themselves French. But, in 1871, of course, they move to Paris, to a wealthy part of the city.
At this time, you have a huge contrast between assimilated Jews and poor immigrants from Russia/Poland, etc., who settle in Paris (And some of the former don't want the latter, because they "fit the stereotype").
In 1894, evidence surfaced that someone was passing secret information to the Germans, about German military operations on the new frontier. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Dreyfus (looked like his handwriting). Presented him with a pistol! He said, "it's not me." But a court-martial found him guilty of treason--sent to Devil's Island, off the coast of South America.
However, more documents were leaked in the aftermath of his sentencing. The new chief of army intelligence, Picard, came to the conclusion that it wasn't Dreyfus. That the handwriting was the same--he was an unlikely hero, actually, because he himself was a vicious anti-Semite. He comes to the conclusion that they were penned by another immigrant, a Hungarian. BUT: high-ranking officers come together, and argue that it's better to have this Jew, imprisioned, than to admit we made a mistake. The Right and the Catholic Church say the same thing; he's a Jew, and he's guilty. Picard is sent to Tunisia.
At this point, Zola takes up the case. He writes a famous article on the cover-up. This is where the controversy explodes.
Soon, some more documents are "discovered." A man called Henry had forged them, actually, to try and make it more clear. Finally, however, Henry slits his throat, where he had been condemned for this forgery. They bring Dreyfus back, however. And find him guilty! Send him back to Devil's island.
He's finally pardoned in 1899/1900, but not fully exonerated until 1906. Reinstated in the French army, left after his health deteroriated in 1907--but returned to serve during WWI!
This was another moment for the anti-Republican right, who had convicted him essentially on the basis of his Jew-ness. Dreyfus retreated to his own life; amazingly forgiving for all that had happened (and one of the ironies, of course, is the fact that his granddaughter dies at Auschwitz).
john merriman
--------
today, two very well-known crises in the third republic (Boulanger and Dreyfus affair). the latter is perhaps more poignant given that dreyfus' granddaughter died at auschwitz.
Boulanger affair portends the rise of the far-right in France--parallels the rise of the far-right in austria, etc.
--------
the background to all this, of course, is the rise of anti-semitism.
in a way, WWI released the demons of the twentieth century, to a great extent. for adolph hitler, it transformed his anti-socialism/anti-communism into a frenzy, but it added this dimension of anti-semitism.
but, of course, anti-semitism was already out there. not invented by the third republic, either.
but, certainly, the political dimensions of anti-semitism in the 1880s and 1890s made these two affairs so salient (it preoccupied dinner-table discussions, etc.).
the continued growth of anti-semitism also needs to be explained in the context of two further dynamics: (1) there was the question of revenge--the re-capture of Alsace-Lorraine from the german empire; by the end of the 1880s, this is an important part of French discourse; (2) the perceived weakness of French republicanism; in order to protect France from further Caesarism, they create a constitutional framework that vested a lot of authority in the Chamber of Deputies (and this chamber is basically a "political club", of swinging door ministries and the same people--the accomplishments are rather "pale," prof is arguing).
----------
All this frustration gave rise to an anti-parliamentarian movement--and a temptation to find a strong man who will right these wrongs, and re-attach Alsace-Lorraine to France. Impression that the Republic was at the end of its rope.
In May of 1882, the League of the Patriots is created--an anti-parliamentarian, ultra-nationalist movement. Quickly has 180,000 members(!). With this began the rapidly rising career of General Boulanger, born in 1837. He was a veteran of four campaigns (Africa, Italy, Vietnam/Indochina). He was a brave, heroic figure, and wasn't associated with the reprisals after the Paris commune as he had been injured earlier. Lots of energy/bravery, though not many brains.
He fit the image of what many people believed France needed. He was sent to the US to celebrate the centennial of the revolution (and caused a stir by refusing to get off the boat until the German flags were taken down)--this makes him the darling of the press (right-wing press, which dominates the newspapers). On good terms with Georges Clemenceau, an electoral leader of the Radical Party--both had graduated from the same high school. Boulanger had an anti-clerical streak, which he would have to temper later as he sought right-wing support. Saw the civilian population as meddlesome, prof is saying. Took every possible opportunity to be seen in front of his troops--it was his idea to paint all the sentry boxes red, white, and blue.
In 1886, during a miners' strike, he said that French soldiers were sharing their rations with workers--so he gave the impression of a kind of Napoleonic figure who had broad interests at heart. People start writing songs about him (General "Victory"). Tensions with the German empire increase his popularity; Bismarck himself was aware of Boulanger, and he uses Boulanger's popularity for his own support. One of the few ways the Reichstag could reign in the authority of the Kaiser.
This begins to worry people--Jules Grevy says that he's got to go. But this threatened to make Boulanger a martyr. He is not allowed to run for office--but as a write-in candidate, he gets something like 39,000 votes. So they opt to send him away, away from Paris--huge crowds block the tracks of the train on which he's on (singing the Marsellaise--a mix of people...)
In the early days he got some votes from the Left, and a lot of money from the Right and the Monarchists).
Clemenceau, then, dumps Boulanger as a friend.
---------
This is the stage at which the crisis re: Grevy's son-in-law takes place (trafficking medals of honor). And who comes along to become President of France, but Sadi-Carnot, who will be assasinated in 1894 (elected by the deputies). Arguably voted in because he was the stupidest(!).
The contrast between Boulanger and the impotent republic, then, become more and more marked. One thing leads to another, but it comes down to the fact that he's sitting in a restraunt in Paris, in 1889 (he's already a member of the chamber of deputies)--and there's a crowd that gathers in the street, shouting for him to take action. To go out, greet his adorers, and who knows? To end the impotent republic, perhaps. But he just sits there--finishes his elaborate meal. And then goes upstairs with his mistress. And the opportunity is passed. (And while he hesitates, his enemies do not--the electoral procedure that allowed him to be elected is eliminated). He flees to Belgium, which makes him seem less brave/dashing.
There's a committee working for him in France, but he remains aloof. His mistress, whom he loves, dies in 1891, after a long illness--on the 30th of September, 1891, he goes alone to her grave, and blew his brains out.
The republic emerged strengthened, by this crisis. But that's only one aspect--what's very interesting, is what was happening to the Right, at this time.
The crisis (and response to it), prof is arguing, is one of the best examples of this new world of mass politics. The question of how the message got out? How did people know about Boulanger, in different regions across France. For centuries, one of the only ways in which people imagined religious/military/political events, was by reading "comic strips"--they would show you pictures of Saints, Generals, etc. These were peddled to villages, through an elaborate distribution network. And so Boulanger is plugged into this popular library, at a time when most people could read, anyway--and his pamphlets, etc., get distributed via these networks (and, of course, assisted by trains). These images just inundated these places.
---------
Two things are particularly interesting, then, about the Boulanger affair:
(1) origins of the modern right.
(2) the beginnings of mass politics, even in rural areas. (and we see, with Boulanger's images, the beginnings of an enormous propaganda campaign against Jews--departments without Jews used to denounce this "Other." They flood the countryside with images, messages, etc.).
This anticipates the 1920s and 1930s in the sense that this is the first time that the Right is out in the streets--Paris is changing, with this, it's no longer the Paris of the radical sans-culottes. Until 1968, the big demonstrations are of the right (for the canonization of Joan of Arc, for the end of the Republic in 1934).
Of course, you can't always look through hindsight--if you want to explain Auschwitz, or the arrests of Jews in Paris in 1942/1943, but we can, at the very least, say that this was all out there. It was part of the mythology of Boulanger, of course.
----------
The Dreyfus Affair--more obvious, in some senses, than the Boulanger affair--reflects the anti-semitism that had been exacerbated by the economic crisis that begins in the mid-1870s. Where it was easy to blame it on the Jewish bankers, etc.
Edward Drumont's newspaper had been at the forefront of denouncing the scandals of the Republic (arguing that it was inherent in the structure of the Republic, and that the Jews were prominent). He had published a book in which he had argued that Jewish financiers were conspiring to dominate France.
He is at the forefront of this affair, which pits the Right, the Church, and the Army against the Republicans, Socialists, etc. (who supported Dreyfus). He was the son of an old Jewish family from Alsace--his family had been peddlers, and became textile manufactures. But they were well assimilated, and considered themselves French. But, in 1871, of course, they move to Paris, to a wealthy part of the city.
At this time, you have a huge contrast between assimilated Jews and poor immigrants from Russia/Poland, etc., who settle in Paris (And some of the former don't want the latter, because they "fit the stereotype").
In 1894, evidence surfaced that someone was passing secret information to the Germans, about German military operations on the new frontier. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Dreyfus (looked like his handwriting). Presented him with a pistol! He said, "it's not me." But a court-martial found him guilty of treason--sent to Devil's Island, off the coast of South America.
However, more documents were leaked in the aftermath of his sentencing. The new chief of army intelligence, Picard, came to the conclusion that it wasn't Dreyfus. That the handwriting was the same--he was an unlikely hero, actually, because he himself was a vicious anti-Semite. He comes to the conclusion that they were penned by another immigrant, a Hungarian. BUT: high-ranking officers come together, and argue that it's better to have this Jew, imprisioned, than to admit we made a mistake. The Right and the Catholic Church say the same thing; he's a Jew, and he's guilty. Picard is sent to Tunisia.
At this point, Zola takes up the case. He writes a famous article on the cover-up. This is where the controversy explodes.
Soon, some more documents are "discovered." A man called Henry had forged them, actually, to try and make it more clear. Finally, however, Henry slits his throat, where he had been condemned for this forgery. They bring Dreyfus back, however. And find him guilty! Send him back to Devil's island.
He's finally pardoned in 1899/1900, but not fully exonerated until 1906. Reinstated in the French army, left after his health deteroriated in 1907--but returned to serve during WWI!
This was another moment for the anti-Republican right, who had convicted him essentially on the basis of his Jew-ness. Dreyfus retreated to his own life; amazingly forgiving for all that had happened (and one of the ironies, of course, is the fact that his granddaughter dies at Auschwitz).
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
falwell, robertson, and fundamentalisms:
Falwell's flock didn't laugh. They nodded. He talked of "the evil men, those who deny the existence of God, thus have no authority, no code of ethics." They stared. "One hundred 42 million have died as a result of Marxist Leninism," he reported, "because men do not know the principles of truth and have been seduced by the "evil man." He smirked. "I think of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Castro is nothing but the stooge of Brezhnev, exporting revolution through Nicaragua." Thus, he warned, Satan has "come dangerously close to our borders."
(...) Falwell also opined: "the Antichrist is probably a Jewish man alive today." Anti Semitic? No way, says Falwell who backs Israel -- especially Israel's attempts to enlarge its borders.
(...) He shares his pro-Israel and anti-Semitic penchant with fellow televangelist Pat Robertson. International Jewish bankers conspire to overthrow the U.S. government, claimed Robertson in his book, The New World Order. Robertson who founded and hosts the Television Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club" accused Jews and Freemasons of plotting to use occult finance to control Christians.
(...) After all, the theological progeny of Falwell and Robertson decided recent elections. Logically their elite members populate the Bush government; political payback and ideological obeisance. For the more desperate of these zealous Christians, Bush has less than two years to deliver Armageddon and of course The Rapture. Falwell and Robertson turned out their massive and programmed flock to canvas. They turned out millions of voters to vote the way Jesus would have voted.
Falwell's flock didn't laugh. They nodded. He talked of "the evil men, those who deny the existence of God, thus have no authority, no code of ethics." They stared. "One hundred 42 million have died as a result of Marxist Leninism," he reported, "because men do not know the principles of truth and have been seduced by the "evil man." He smirked. "I think of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Castro is nothing but the stooge of Brezhnev, exporting revolution through Nicaragua." Thus, he warned, Satan has "come dangerously close to our borders."
(...) Falwell also opined: "the Antichrist is probably a Jewish man alive today." Anti Semitic? No way, says Falwell who backs Israel -- especially Israel's attempts to enlarge its borders.
(...) He shares his pro-Israel and anti-Semitic penchant with fellow televangelist Pat Robertson. International Jewish bankers conspire to overthrow the U.S. government, claimed Robertson in his book, The New World Order. Robertson who founded and hosts the Television Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club" accused Jews and Freemasons of plotting to use occult finance to control Christians.
(...) After all, the theological progeny of Falwell and Robertson decided recent elections. Logically their elite members populate the Bush government; political payback and ideological obeisance. For the more desperate of these zealous Christians, Bush has less than two years to deliver Armageddon and of course The Rapture. Falwell and Robertson turned out their massive and programmed flock to canvas. They turned out millions of voters to vote the way Jesus would have voted.
Friday, April 27, 2007
iranian jewry:
But despite what appears to be a dwindling minority under constant threat of persecution, Iranian Jews say they live in relative freedom in the Islamic Republic, remain loyal to the land of their birth, and are striving to separate politics from religion.
(...) "If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not," says Ciamak Moresadegh, chairman of the Tehran Jewish Committee. "We have common problems with Iranian Muslims. If a war were to start, we would also be a target. When a missile lands, it does not ask if you are a Muslim or a Jew. It lands."
(...) Historically, say Jewish leaders, anti-Semitism here is rare, a fact they say is often lost on critics outside, especially in Israel, where many Iranian Jews have relatives. Still, the Jewish community has thinned by more than two-thirds since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, to some 25,000; the largest exodus took place soon after the Islamic Republic was formed, though a modest flow out continues. "Our problem is that the Israel issue is not solved, and that affects us here," says one Iranian Jew who asked not to be named.
(...) "The relations between Jews and Muslims, between 70 million Muslims and 30,000 Jews, are very good," says Mohaber. "In Israel, the situation for Iranian Jews is quite misunderstood." "[The Islamic regime] made very good respect for me all the time, and did not care about my religion after the revolution," says Mohaber, who avoided a general purge of Jews from the officer ranks after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
(...) But some episodes have shaken those who remain. In 1999, charges of spying for Israel were brought against 13 Jews in Shiraz and Isfahan, sparking a new exodus and widespread fear. Amid a welter of international criticism, 10 of those charged were handed sentences – later shortened – that ranged from four to 13 years in prison. Jews in Tehran at the time told the Monitor of their fears that "Zionist groups connected with the US" were hurting their cause by using the issue against Iran. Today, all 13 are free, and remain living in Iran.
(...) He notes "some difficulties," including restrictions on government employment, but says that Mr. Ahmadinejad's questioning of the Holocaust, while very unwelcome, "has no effect on our daily life." The president's fierce anti-Zionist speeches culminated with Iran hosting a controversial Holocaust conference last December.
(...) "There is always [talk] outside the country that religious minorities are under pressure," says Mr. Motamed. "It is important to say that what people say about minorities is completely wrong," "Jews here have great Iranian roots – they love Iran," says chairman Moresadegh. "Personally, I would stay in Iran no matter what. I speak in English, I pray in Hebrew, but my thinking is Persian."
But despite what appears to be a dwindling minority under constant threat of persecution, Iranian Jews say they live in relative freedom in the Islamic Republic, remain loyal to the land of their birth, and are striving to separate politics from religion.
(...) "If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not," says Ciamak Moresadegh, chairman of the Tehran Jewish Committee. "We have common problems with Iranian Muslims. If a war were to start, we would also be a target. When a missile lands, it does not ask if you are a Muslim or a Jew. It lands."
(...) Historically, say Jewish leaders, anti-Semitism here is rare, a fact they say is often lost on critics outside, especially in Israel, where many Iranian Jews have relatives. Still, the Jewish community has thinned by more than two-thirds since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, to some 25,000; the largest exodus took place soon after the Islamic Republic was formed, though a modest flow out continues. "Our problem is that the Israel issue is not solved, and that affects us here," says one Iranian Jew who asked not to be named.
(...) "The relations between Jews and Muslims, between 70 million Muslims and 30,000 Jews, are very good," says Mohaber. "In Israel, the situation for Iranian Jews is quite misunderstood." "[The Islamic regime] made very good respect for me all the time, and did not care about my religion after the revolution," says Mohaber, who avoided a general purge of Jews from the officer ranks after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
(...) But some episodes have shaken those who remain. In 1999, charges of spying for Israel were brought against 13 Jews in Shiraz and Isfahan, sparking a new exodus and widespread fear. Amid a welter of international criticism, 10 of those charged were handed sentences – later shortened – that ranged from four to 13 years in prison. Jews in Tehran at the time told the Monitor of their fears that "Zionist groups connected with the US" were hurting their cause by using the issue against Iran. Today, all 13 are free, and remain living in Iran.
(...) He notes "some difficulties," including restrictions on government employment, but says that Mr. Ahmadinejad's questioning of the Holocaust, while very unwelcome, "has no effect on our daily life." The president's fierce anti-Zionist speeches culminated with Iran hosting a controversial Holocaust conference last December.
(...) "There is always [talk] outside the country that religious minorities are under pressure," says Mr. Motamed. "It is important to say that what people say about minorities is completely wrong," "Jews here have great Iranian roots – they love Iran," says chairman Moresadegh. "Personally, I would stay in Iran no matter what. I speak in English, I pray in Hebrew, but my thinking is Persian."
martin kramer and academic freedom:
Kramer claims in Ivory Towers that US Middle East scholars have repeatedly made predictions that did not come true. His accusations are sometimes on target, though he is rather selective. He does not, for example, take his colleague Daniel Pipes to task for inaccurately predicting in the early 1980s that Islamist activism would decline as oil prices fell. Nor, in his writings since the Iraq war, has he faulted Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies -- who is a favorite of the Bush administration -- for claiming that all Iraqis would enthusiastically welcome US occupation. More broadly, Kramer’s fixation on accurate prediction as the chief (or even sole) gauge of good scholarship is itself highly questionable. Most scholars do not in fact seek to predict the future or think they can do so; they try to interpret the past, discern and explain contemporary trends, and, at most, tentatively suggest what might happen in the future if present trends continue, which they very often do not. Of course, governments want accurate predictions in order to shape and implement effective policies, but Kramer’s insistence that the primary goal of scholarship should be the satisfaction of that desire tells us a great deal about his conception of intellectual life and of the proper relationship between scholars and the state.
(...) It is, for example, striking that at the very end of Ivory Towers Kramer explicitly lays out a political and moral judgment rooted in his own (theoretical) vision of the world: his insistence that a healthy, reconstructed Middle East studies must accept that the US "plays an essentially beneficent role in the world." He does not bother to tell readers why they should accept this vision of the US role in the world as true, nor does he even acknowledge that it may be something other than self-evidently true. The assertion nonetheless undermines his avowed epistemological stance and graphically demonstrates that it is untenable.
(...) More broadly, Congress should hold hearings "on the contribution of Middle Eastern studies to American public policy," with testimony not only from academics but from government officials, directors of think tanks and others as well. While such steps might help, Kramer concludes, ultimately the field will have to heal itself by overcoming its irrelevance and its intolerance of intellectual and political diversity. Its new leaders will have to forge a different kind of relationship with "the world beyond the campus," based on the aforementioned principle that "the United States plays an essentially beneficent role in the world." Such lines are the basis of worries within and outside academic Middle East studies that HR 3077, the bill which resulted from the June 2003 hearing Kramer called for, is an attempt to stifle critical voices and diminish the autonomy of American institutions of higher education and long-established principles of academic freedom.
(...) Throughout the flap, defenders of Campus Watch ridiculed critics who used the word "McCarthyism" to describe the website’s self-appointed mission to expose "the mixing of politics with scholarship." But, speaking at right-wing activist David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in November 2003, Pipes hinted that Campus Watch has its own trouble keeping them separate: "I flatter myself perhaps in thinking that the rather subdued academic response to the war in Iraq in March and April may have been, in part, due to our work.
(...) In April 2003, for example, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced plans to introduce legislation that would cut off federal funding to American colleges and universities that were deemed to be permitting faculty, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, since Santorum seems to regard all such criticism as inherently anti-Semitic. Meanwhile, Santorum’s colleague Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) proposed the creation of a federal commission to investigate alleged anti-Semitism on campus -- again defined rather broadly to include virtually all criticism of Israeli policies.
Kramer claims in Ivory Towers that US Middle East scholars have repeatedly made predictions that did not come true. His accusations are sometimes on target, though he is rather selective. He does not, for example, take his colleague Daniel Pipes to task for inaccurately predicting in the early 1980s that Islamist activism would decline as oil prices fell. Nor, in his writings since the Iraq war, has he faulted Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies -- who is a favorite of the Bush administration -- for claiming that all Iraqis would enthusiastically welcome US occupation. More broadly, Kramer’s fixation on accurate prediction as the chief (or even sole) gauge of good scholarship is itself highly questionable. Most scholars do not in fact seek to predict the future or think they can do so; they try to interpret the past, discern and explain contemporary trends, and, at most, tentatively suggest what might happen in the future if present trends continue, which they very often do not. Of course, governments want accurate predictions in order to shape and implement effective policies, but Kramer’s insistence that the primary goal of scholarship should be the satisfaction of that desire tells us a great deal about his conception of intellectual life and of the proper relationship between scholars and the state.
(...) It is, for example, striking that at the very end of Ivory Towers Kramer explicitly lays out a political and moral judgment rooted in his own (theoretical) vision of the world: his insistence that a healthy, reconstructed Middle East studies must accept that the US "plays an essentially beneficent role in the world." He does not bother to tell readers why they should accept this vision of the US role in the world as true, nor does he even acknowledge that it may be something other than self-evidently true. The assertion nonetheless undermines his avowed epistemological stance and graphically demonstrates that it is untenable.
(...) More broadly, Congress should hold hearings "on the contribution of Middle Eastern studies to American public policy," with testimony not only from academics but from government officials, directors of think tanks and others as well. While such steps might help, Kramer concludes, ultimately the field will have to heal itself by overcoming its irrelevance and its intolerance of intellectual and political diversity. Its new leaders will have to forge a different kind of relationship with "the world beyond the campus," based on the aforementioned principle that "the United States plays an essentially beneficent role in the world." Such lines are the basis of worries within and outside academic Middle East studies that HR 3077, the bill which resulted from the June 2003 hearing Kramer called for, is an attempt to stifle critical voices and diminish the autonomy of American institutions of higher education and long-established principles of academic freedom.
(...) Throughout the flap, defenders of Campus Watch ridiculed critics who used the word "McCarthyism" to describe the website’s self-appointed mission to expose "the mixing of politics with scholarship." But, speaking at right-wing activist David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in November 2003, Pipes hinted that Campus Watch has its own trouble keeping them separate: "I flatter myself perhaps in thinking that the rather subdued academic response to the war in Iraq in March and April may have been, in part, due to our work.
(...) In April 2003, for example, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced plans to introduce legislation that would cut off federal funding to American colleges and universities that were deemed to be permitting faculty, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, since Santorum seems to regard all such criticism as inherently anti-Semitic. Meanwhile, Santorum’s colleague Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) proposed the creation of a federal commission to investigate alleged anti-Semitism on campus -- again defined rather broadly to include virtually all criticism of Israeli policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)