Figuring Out China: The Struggle Continues

Orville Schell
Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China
Relations at the Asia Society in New York, and a
former professor and Dean at the University of
California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Orville Schell wrote about US-China relations in The New York Times last week. (See "Can the U.S. and China Get Along?", July 9, 2015.) It was a good reminder that US people would do well to think seriously about China.

(In fact, just about any time Schell puts his pen to paper, it's a good reminder to think seriously about China. I was similarly inspired last October by another Schell piece.)

China is new and different and complicated. Thinking seriously about it may require more of our brains than we have been prepared to devote to it. We may have to get used to ideas that require more than 140 characters to express. And we may need to reclaim some of the time that we've been devoting to sports, fashion, celebrities, food, and (fill in the blank).

I've been trying to think about China for nearly 40 years now and continue to be stymied by how hard it is to "figure out." (I had a reminder of this in the last few days as I read about a major decline in the stock market in China. I remembered sitting in a coffee shop in Rochester, NY, in the fall of 2010, thinking about how overvalued assets in China were, and thinking there was going to be a crash "any day now.")

Schell put forward recommendations in his New York Times piece - a series of "previously unthinkable" options we should start thinking about. I noticed quite a bit of alignment with ideas I have been trying to develop in posts in the past few years:

Giving climate change at least as high a priority as democracy and human rights in the management of our relationship with China; (!!! see How Do You Say "Suicide Narcissus" in Chinese? on Scarry Thoughts)

Acknowledging that China is entitled to some kind of “sphere of influence” in the South China Sea, just as the United States has in the Caribbean, without completely yielding to all of its territorial claims; (see SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs on Scarry Thoughts)

Imposing new limits on flyovers by American military intelligence aircraft near China’s coastal waters; (see Boeing: Where There's Trouble . . .  on Scarry Thoughts)

Openness to discussing terms for the end of arms sales to Taiwan;

Guaranteeing that, if Korea unifies, the United States will place neither troops nor nuclear weapons in the North; (see The Cynical American Scapegoating of Korea as a Cover for Nuclear Terror on Scarry Thoughts)

Exploring new ways of giving China a greater governing role in the International Monetary Fund and other institutions of global governance; (see Democratize International Economic Institutions (WTO, IMF, IBRD) on the World Beyond War website.)

Investigating how the United States could actively support Mr. Xi’s new economic reforms to spur domestic consumption, as the success of those policies is also in our national interest. (Hmmm ... this seems to be in conflict with the first point - see China and USA - Like a Moth to the Flame on Scarry Thoughts)

Schell had some recommendations for China, as well, including, "Allowing Hong Kong more autonomy to work out its timetable for attaining universal suffrage." (see Empire, Chinese Style ("Why the Leung Face?") on Scarry Thoughts)

Schell's piece served to remind me that, though my attempts often feel like a struggle, I have been making some progress toward at least getting into the right universe of ideas about China, and about what the relationship of the US to China is and could be.

All of which seems to suggest we can figure this out. We should make the effort to try to "figure out" China . . . or at least try to get part of the way, and meet China halfway.


A possible follow-up piece by Orville Schell (or by me!): what might be different if the US and China were able to adopt a non-provocative posture toward each other, and toward the rest of the world?


Related posts

"Although we know the end from the very beginning," says Walker, "the story is no less compelling to watch." A man, gloriously alone (except for his own reflection) on an ice-covered lake; the soothing pastel colors of the distant sky; and what seems surely to be a circle he is digging around himself with a pick-axe. A perfect parable for our headlong rush toward climate crisis?

(See How Do You Say "Suicide Narcissus" in Chinese?)

Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

Just as it did in 2001, the U.S. has had another close dangerous encounter between one of its surveillance planes and a Chinese fighter in the air near the coast of China.

Like the 2001 event, it's making a lot of people ask what the hell the U.S. is doing provoking China where they live.

(See Boeing: Where There's Trouble . . . )



So there are these terrible things called nuclear weapons, and it just turns out that they hover around the Korean peninsula, as if "Korea" and "crazy nuclear terror" belonged together. And I thought to myself, "Where have I heard this before?"

(See The Cynical American Scapegoating of Korea as a Cover for Nuclear Terror )



 

The United States may set the standard for human desire -- for the mindless pursuit of the bright and shiny object -- but, heaven knows, China is not to be outdone.

(See China and USA - Like a Moth to the Flame)








In the days and weeks ahead, we have an enormous opportunity to better understand how people in one of the most important places in the world think and operate. What would be truly valuable would be for us to convene many more conversations about the underlying issues, and the big emerging directions.

(See Empire, Chinese Style ("Why the Leung Face?") )



Could I point to some analogous concepts and practices that I felt characterized the Chinese approach to being in the world? I rolled the idea around in my mind for a while, and then landed on the word "cultivation."

(See "Puja" in India; "Cultivation" in China )

Where Do Leaders Get Integrity? (Can the People Help?)

"David and all Israel were celebrating with all their might before the
Lord, with castanets, harps, lyres, timbrels, sistrums and cymbals."

I'm noticing an interesting contrast in tomorrow's lectionary readings.

First, some context: I've been thinking about my work with World Beyond War, and, in particular, pondering a statement by one of our social media supporters during the past weeks: "As a growing number of people are recognizing the insanity of militarism and militaristic solutions in our world, pressure will increase irresistably to force the leaders to end imperialism and to demilitarize." (Kenneth Ruby)

"As a growing number of people are recognizing the insanity of militarism
and militaristic solutions in our world, pressure will increase irresistably
to force the leaders to end imperialism and to demilitarize."
(Kenneth Ruby - see World Beyond War July, 2015, social media campaign)

It made me start to wonder: what does it look like when we "force the leaders to end imperialism and to demilitarize" -- or, for that matter, force leaders to do anything?

Salome: you lobby your way, I'll lobby mine

The story of the beheading of John the Baptist in Mark 6:14-29 is a great example of the behavior we can expect from leaders most of the time. (Hey, what's the point of being king if you can't use your power to grab your brother's wife, and flirt with your new step-daughter, and . . . ?) It's a perfect negative example to be featured in the Gospels (and/or in an alternative sacred book, perhaps to be called "NOT the Good News . . . !"), and it's no wonder that Oscar Wilde had success with the play, and Richard Strauss succès de scandale with the opera.

The leadership exercised by David in bringing forth the Ark of the Covenant (described in  2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19, and suggested in Psalm 24) seems to me to be the exact opposite of that of King Herod. To prioritize the worship and listening to the author of the universe, to the exclusion of all other distractions is not something that a leader can be lobbied into; (s)he has to figure it out on his or her own from the totality of discernible reality.

(David, of course, could make bad decisions, too; and with minimal encouragement. Herod, on the other hand, seemed only to go from bad to worse. Discuss.)

Which comes first, anyway: the power of the people? or the integrity of the leader?


Related posts

The decision about whether to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation is our decision. And that is why the entire country is mobilizing for mass action for nuclear disarmament in 2015. Are we capable of making sure the messengers -- Obama, Putin, the other agents of government -- hear their instructions from us clearly?

(See NEEDED: Heroes to Bring About Nuclear Disarmament )

Why is the U.S. in a permanent state of war? More than anyone else, the beneficiaries of permawar are the politicians who thrive on the power to make and control wars.

(See J'ACCUSE: The Beneficiaries of Permawar)

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")

"Puja" in India; "Cultivation" in China

from Puja: Expressions of Hindu Devotion

In 1996 I attended an exhibition in Washington, DC, at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery -- the Asian Art museum within the Smithsonian Institution -- called "Puja: Expressions of Hindu Devotion."

The exhibition was an illumination of the Indian spiritual practice of puja, which is a ritual calling forth of one or another god. Puja is about coming into communion with the divine.

Part of the Sackler exhibition was a 12-minute video. I thought the video (also entitled Puja: Expressions of Hindu Devotion and available online) was a marvelous crystallization of Indian culture for someone like me, who perhaps had awareness of several threads from Indian music, art, religion, and other aspects of popular culture, but had never had a way to synthesize them.

I bought a copy of the Puja: Expressions of Hindu Devotion video and brought it back to Chicago with me and watched it over and over.


So what about China?

This video -- this wonderful 12-minute crystallization of culture -- and the larger exhibition associated with it started me wondering: what would the analogous concept for China be?

Having spent years studying Chinese language and culture, living surrounded by hundreds of books about China, and having traveled back and forth across China doing business for the previous decade, I felt the strange sensation of being surrounded by trees and not being able to perceive the forest. I felt like I understood something clearly about India -- a place I'd never been and a culture I'd barely experienced. Could I point to some analogous concepts and practices that I felt characterized the Chinese approach to being in the world?

I rolled the idea around in my mind for a while, and then landed on the word "cultivation."


Seven ways of knowledge, seven kinds of "cultivation"

It seemed to me that if, indeed, "cultivation" was the right concept for summing up diverse aspects of how Chinese culture encourages people to be in the world, there should multiple expressions of it. At the time, I was very interested in Howard Gardner's notion of multiple intelligences, and so it occurred to me to wonder if there were multiple notions of "cultivation" in Chinese culture that might touch on multiple intelligences.

And so my system for understanding began to unspool itself . . .

Students practice calligraphy (Source: Temasek Secondary School, Singapore )

Linguistic - Clearly, it seemed to me, the place to start was "linguistic intelligence" - using words effectively. In China, the hallmark of a scholar is a cultivated knowledge of Chinese language, and a love of Chinese characters, especially including skill at poetry, knowledge of classic works, and adoring creation of artistic calligraphy.

Tai Chi practitioners on the waterfront in Shanghai -
a frequent early morning sight during my travels there.

Bodily-kinesthetic - China has a highly developed tradition of achieving cultivation through bodily-kinesthetic activity - e.g. Tai Chi and other martial arts practices.

But in this category I would also count certain sensory pursuits.  For instance, the cultivation of tea connoisseurship -- and for that matter, many forms of gastronomy -- are highly valued in China.

Interpersonal - China has a particular approach to interpersonal intelligence, known as guanxi (often translated as "connections").

I was deeply impressed by the Chinese sociologist, Fei Xiaotong, who said that Chinese people conceptualize themselves as located within a "web" of relationships.  He contrasted this with the Western conception of concentric circles of relationships, which may incline Western people more frequently to make assumptions about interpersonal matters based on relative "relationship distance."

The "cultivation of relationships" is a concept known in every culture; in China, cultivating guanxi is raised to the status of art.

Intrapersonal - "Intrapersonal intelligence" involves knowledge of self. A selection from the Great Learning, on of the Four Books (Confucian classics), comes to mind:

"Heart" - Chinese calligraphy

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the world, first ordered well their own States.
Wishing to order well their States, they first regulated their families.
Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons.
Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts.
Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts.
Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost of their knowledge.
Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete.
Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere.
Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified.
Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated.
Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated.
Their families being regulated, their States were rightly governed.
Their States being rightly governed, the entire world was at peace.
From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.

Could there be a more all-encompassing statement of the importance of self-cultivation?

A painting from a series of brush paintings by Qing Dynasty artist 
Sun Wen, depicting the garden from the novel Dream of the Red Chamber.

Visual-Spatial - To me, the love of gardens -- including flowers, landscaping, and architecture -- is where "cultivation" meets "visual-spatial intelligence" particularly strongly in Chinese culture.

For anyone who doubts this, perusing Maggie Keswick's book, The Chinese Garden: History, Art and Architecture, will clear the matter up.

A friend recently reminded me that, for several years, I was quite insistent that the City of Chicago should install a huge Chinese garden -- one designed to painstakingly replicate the garden that figures centrally in China's most famous novel, The Dream of the Red Chamber, in the Chinatown area.

Musical - I am tempted to relate this discussion to learning classical Chinese instrumental music - the zither or lute, for instance - or to the cultivation of knowledge of Chinese opera.

But I think what is much more central is the way people enormous numbers of people cultivate their "musical intelligence" via the expressive use of spoken Chinese language, including all the possibilities provided by the musicality of the tones featured in Chinese speech.

Logical-Mathematical - I will reserve comment on this subject for another day. I feel, perhaps along with Joseph Needham, the need to immerse myself in more of the facts of the scientific and technological history of China before I can assess the centrality of any form of "logical-mathematical cultivation" to Chinese culture at large.


Sharing

Back at that time, I couldn't resist sharing my insights. I wrote a letter to the director of the Sackler, Milo C. Beach, telling him how inspiring I had found the Puja exhibit, and explaining my thinking about a parallel China exhibit. I was very gratified to receive from him a warm response to my suggestion, and an invitation to come discuss it further with him and his colleagues in Washington, DC. (Which I did, soon afterward.)

Closer to home, I took the opportunity to do a series of children's events at the Chicago Public Library during Asian Cultural Month - a session on calligraphy, one on tea, etc.


I wonder if others will find "cultivation" a helpful unifying theme for understanding Chinese culture?


Related posts

The fourth thing Cloud Gate had going for them was that they operated a dance school. (This seemed marvelous to me at the time -- babe in the woods that I was -- though now I guess I understand that that's de rigeur for a dance company.) Invited/challenged by some of my (female) classmates to come check it out, I rode the bus up to the Cloud Gate studio northeast corner of Taipei, and thus began my short-lived career as a student of modern dance.

(See Taiwan Kinaesthetics: Cloud Gate Dance Theater )











"Zhang’s performances always involve his body in one way or another, usually naked, occasionally involving masochistic actions. For example, an exhibited photography showed him as "a naked man, his head half-shaved, sitting in a prisonlike space. His skin was wet and covered with flies. His face looked blank but tough, as if he were trying to meditate his way through pain."

(See The New Face of Social Protest In Hong Kong )

"Cigarettes" . . . "Liquor" . . . "Tea" . . . "Candy" . . . in the film Still Life also all contain the promise of connectedness. They are the social lubricants that enable people who find each other across the vast space of China -- and dwarfed by the gargantuan Three Gorges environment -- to grope toward some small bit of connection. They are small things, to be sure, but they are accessible to anyone and can be deployed in order to gain establish a lifeline, no matter how foreign the circumstances.

(See Long Life, Connected Lives)

REMEMBERING ZION: What It Means for Peace and Justice Advocates Today

Album cover for Climbing! (detail),
debut album by the band Mountain.

In an article I recently wrote for the Chicago Monitor, I said that Christians are working hard to becoming more knowledgeable and more discerning about current affairs in Israel/Palestine.  This includes:

Separating biblical “Israel” from the modern State of Israel — Part of the weekly “media” that churchgoers are exposed to consists of readings from the Old and New Testaments. In the course of a year, there are dozens of Sundays when lessons including reference to “Israel” and/or “Zion” are included. This is leading church leaders at all levels to recognize the need to be explicit about the difference between biblical Israel and the modern State of Israel. As one leader recently put it, “What God’s promise to the people of Israel in the Old Testament means for us today is that God wants peace and security for ALL of the people of that part of the world.”

(See "Chicago-area Lutherans Resolution Widens Conversation About Palestine Throughout the Church")

In my mind, this is essential to what Pastor Mitri Raheb means when he challenges churches to stop providing the "software" of the Occupation.

Here's a case in point: this Sunday, July 5, 2015, includes two lectionary readings that focus on the notion of Zion and the kingship of David over Israel.  How will Christians across the country and across the world hear these lessons?

from 2 Samuel 5

Hebron, by Munir Alawi

5 All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “We are your own flesh and blood. 2 In the past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel on their military campaigns. And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler.’”

3 When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.

4 David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. 5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. . . .

9 David then took up residence in the fortress and called it the City of David. He built up the area around it, from the terraces[a] inward. 10 And he became more and more powerful, because the Lord God Almighty was with him.


Psalm 48

1
Great is the Lord, and most worthy of praise,
in the city of our God, his holy mountain.

2
Beautiful in its loftiness,
the joy of the whole earth,
like the heights of Zaphon[b] is Mount Zion,
the city of the Great King.

3
God is in her citadels;
he has shown himself to be her fortress.

4
When the kings joined forces,
when they advanced together,

5
they saw her and were astounded;
they fled in terror.

6
Trembling seized them there,
pain like that of a woman in labor.

7
You destroyed them like ships of Tarshish
shattered by an east wind.

Mormon temple - visible from DC beltway.

8
As we have heard,
so we have seen
in the city of the Lord Almighty,
in the city of our God:
God makes her secure
forever.

9
Within your temple, O God,
we meditate on your unfailing love.

10
Like your name, O God,
your praise reaches to the ends of the earth;
your right hand is filled with righteousness.

11
Mount Zion rejoices,
the villages of Judah are glad
because of your judgments.

12
Walk about Zion, go around her,
count her towers,

13
consider well her ramparts,
view her citadels,
that you may tell of them
to the next generation.

14
For this God is our God for ever and ever;
he will be our guide even to the end.


What do we remember when we remember Zion?

So, clearly, Sunday, July 5, 2015, is a day when many Christians are going to get a healthy helping of "Israel" and "Zion." Is it any wonder that many of them will think that the day's lessons are an affirmation of the State of Israel and of Zionism?

Part of the reason that we need to be careful is that most people in our society don't know much about the Bible, and so the meaning of "Israel" and "Zion" is up for grabs.

Personally, I was probably most familiar with the word "Zion" because of a version of the song "By the Rivers of Babylon" performed by The Melodians on the soundtrack for the film The Harder They Come. "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion." (Psalms 137:1)

Wikipedia explains that Zion "is a place name often used as a synonym for Jerusalem. . . . It commonly referred to a specific mountain near Jerusalem (Mount Zion), on which stood a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David and was named the City of David. The term Tzion came to designate the area of Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and later became a metonym for Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and "the World to Come", the Jewish understanding of the hereafter."

"Zion" has a particular set of meanings for Mormons (members of the Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Zion, 1903, by the Zionist art nouveau
designer Ephraim Moses Lilien.

Well, clearly the term covers a lot of territory, and means different things to different people. Whole books have been written on it -- see, for instance, More Desired than Our Owne Salvation: The Roots of Christian Zionism, by Robert Smith. Another book on the way terms like "Zion" have been appropriated to fit diverse people's aspirations is The Bible and the Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour by Barbara Tuchman.

As Wikipedia further explains, "The term "Zionism" coined by Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, was derived from the German rendering of Tzion in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) in 1890. Zionism as a political movement started in 1897 and supported a 'national home', and later a state, for the Jewish people in British Palestine. The Zionist movement declared the re-establishment of its State of Israel in 1948, following the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Since then and with varying ideologies, Zionists have focused on developing and protecting this state."

In fact, there is an excellent resource called Zionism Unsettled: A Congregational Study Guide, available from the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

As indicated above, the lessons being read from church lecterns can be confusing. But there are plenty of resources available for un-confusing congregations, and plenty of opportunities to clear the air (starting with the sermon that follows the lessons).

This Sunday, what will church leaders be doing where you live to be explicit about the difference between biblical Israel and the modern State of Israel?


Related posts

Can there be any more clear illustration than the one at left to remind us that the work of the Church is liberation?

(See Christian "Church"? How about Christian "Liberation Organization"? )









There is a need for a much broader effort to tackle the issue of Palestine, particularly among faith communities (congregations). Why not start in December, when all eyes turn toward Bethlehem?

(See Faith Communities Need to Get Active Working for Justice in Palestine)







The big takeaway for me from this panel was the message conveyed by Ali Abunimah: people in Gaza say now that there is a ceasefire, and the summer 2014 massacre in Gaza is behind us, please don't let up on your advocacy. Don't drop it! I left convinced that Christian congregations -- including congregations of the ELCA, of which I'm a member, as well as others -- are one of the key places that continued faithful attention to issues of peace and justice in Israel / Palestine must be carried out.

(See PRAY, LEARN, ACT: Congregations Need to Stay Engaged on Palestine )


I believe that once the Church comes out of the closet -- that is, once we start speaking quite openly about the difference between the world as we find it and the world as we believe God wishes it to be -- there is no way this old world will be able to stay the same.

(See Let the Church Out of the Closet )
 

Independence Day - from WAR and VIOLENCE!

In recent years I've begun to take a hard look at the Fourth of July: what the hell are we celebrating, anyway?

Three years back I was feeling hopeful because of the growth of the movement against drone warfare and surveillance. (See Independence Day - from DRONES!) Although we haven't stopped the drones completely, that movement has continued to grow and strengthen, and it has forced serious discourse on what our government is doing.

Just one year later we were enjoying another moment of hope: the Snowden revelations. (See Independence Day - From SURVEILLANCE) We certainly haven't put an end to government surveillance, but we have had some victories. (See, for instance, "U.S. Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply Limited")

Earlier this week, a friend of mine, Rivera Sun, was sharing an image of her holiday banner and asked the question, "I'm curious, who feels more like protesting on the Fourth of July than parading?"

Rivera Sun's holiday banner:
"It's July 4th - do you know where your democracy is?"

It reminded me that the patriotic thing to do on Independence Day is to start a conversation about something really important to our country (and the world), like stopping war and militarism.

Start a REAL conversation at the Fourth of July BBQ this year:
I support ANTI-WAR candidates! (Know any?)

The most obvious entry point into that conversation seems to be election 2016 and the question of whether we have any antiwar candidates.

But I can't help thinking that there's a deeper question we should be discussing, namely, "Can we have a successful antiwar movement without an all-out commitment to nonviolence?"

The answer makes a difference, because there are two separate campaigns that are making big strides right now: World Beyond War and Campaign Nonviolence. They have many shared aims, and are mutually reinforcing. (See, for instance, the sections "Nonviolence: The Foundation of Peace" and "Nonviolent Direct Action Campaigns" in World Beyond War's A Global Security System: An Alternative to War.) But where should the main emphasis be placed? When it comes to ending war and ending violence, does one come before the other? (If so, shouldn't we start there? Otherwise, isn't there a risk of effort being expended inefficiently? Have we got any effort to spare?)

Heaven knows I have seen this on a local level in my work in the city of Chicago. Young people we counsel to eschew violence come right back at us, saying, "That advice is hard to swallow, considering we live in a country whose answer to every conflict is to call in an air strike . . . . "

"What comes first: independence from war? or independence from violence?"

I can't help feel that there could be nothing more important than getting as many people as possible to care about the answer to this question, and to act on it.

Your comments on this post would be greatly appreciated. And the more people you can share it with, the better.

Talk to your people! Maybe the best place to start IS that Fourth of July BBQ . . . .


Related posts

I believe an enormous number of people will conclude that, if they really believe "we can choose to abolish war," then what's required is to speak it.

(See "We can choose to abolish war" (The rest is just details) )

I wonder if the outrage that many Muslims seem to feel at the suffering of other Muslims doesn't put us Christians to shame.

(See Fighting Back: It's alright as long as you're a Christian, right? )






In a composition suggestive of a yin-yang symbol, a woman in a burka (but wearing audacious red glitter platform heels) is surrounded by genie-ish tableaus of the many male obsessions/pastimes that some of us rail about frequently -- sexualized pop singers, professional sports -- as well as some that we probably should rail about more (such as patriarchy in religion and political violence).

(See VIOLENCE: " . . . and the women must live with the consequences . . . " )







The Last Supper is a staggering collection of 600 plates that the artist Julie Green has painted with images and notations about the last meals of people put to death in states across the US.

(See Communion of a Different Sort: "The Last Supper" at the Block Museum )



"We will discuss replacing the violence of militarism with a community of peacemaking that will not channel our children into the service because they are poor. We will speak of using budgets at every level of government to ensure fairness and equality – two of the cornerstones of peace."

(See the Remedy for Violence website)

The End of the Myth of Monolithic Jewish Support for the Actions of the Israeli State

The full-page ad that I saw in The New York Times the other day was just one more reminder that we need to keep hammering away on that Venn diagram.

In reporting on recent votes by Lutheran synods on US financial aid to the state of Israel, I said:

Members of Protestant denominations are deeply concerned about what our Jewish brothers and sisters think. We are learning that “Jewish” is not equivalent to “pro-Israel.”

I noted that "our Jewish brothers and sisters" includes Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization including "~200,000 online activists, Rabbis, academics, cultural workers, over 60 member led chapters across the country and an Advisory Board comprised of numerous prominent Jewish thinkers and artists”, has said, “U.S. military aid to Israel must be suspended until the occupation ends, since the occupation itself is in violation of [the U.S.'s own] guidelines. . . ." (See "Chicago-area Lutherans Resolution Widens Conversation About Palestine Throughout the Church" in the Chicago Monitor.)

I have been thinking a lot about this since the Steven Salaita controversy here in Illinois - which forcing us to speak quite openly about three rather distinct things that get treated (incorrectly) as if they were the same thing: the state of Israel (and whether you criticize it or support it); the ideology of Zionism (and whether you criticize it or support it); and the religion of Judaism (and whether or not you share in its values and beliefs). (See "What good is a tweet?" (The Packing and Unpacking of Meaning and the Steven Salaita Case) )

Chicago, August 2015: "Another Jew against the Israeli occupation"
"Jews oppose Israel's war on civilians and the seige of Gaza."

Now comes the full-page ad from Michael Steinhardt in The New York Times on Saturday, June 27, 2015. I think this is a great way for people to study the way in which some Jews claim to speak for all Jews, when in fact they only speak for a rapidly dwindling population of Jews who unconditionally support the actions of the Israeli state.

For instance, Steinhardt volunteers "the Jews" as the constituency that US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power expressed concern about: "At an event held at UC-Berkeley, you seemed to suggest that America may need to force a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of  'a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [i.e. the Jews]." (Note: this section of the print ad is not reproduced on the website of worldvalues.us.)  Wouldn't it have been far more accurate for Steinhardt to volunteer the suggestion "i.e. Jews who unconditionally support the actions of the Israeli state"? or even "i.e. people who unconditionally support the actions of the Israeli state, including Jews who do so"? 

"Another Jew supporting divestment"
JVP members at 2015 UCC synod during divestment vote.

In the second paragraph of the print ad (also omitted from the online version), Steinhardt poses as someone who speaks for all Jews: "At the request of our mutual friend, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, founder of The World Values Network, who admired your strong activism against genocide and championed your cause in the Jewish community in the face of unrelenting opposition, I agreed to have Jewish activists hear you out and clarify those comments." Again, wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "I agreed to have Jewish activists who unconditionally support the actions of the Israeli state hear you out and clarify those comments"? I don't imagine that Steinhardt took any of the 200,000 members of Jewish Voice for Peace -- including the many prominent Jews who have become activists for justice for Palestinian people -- to that meeting.

Just imagine the effect of qualifying the usual blanket statements about "what Jews think" or "what Jews say" with specifics about which Jews are under discussion.

I believe 2015 will turn out to be the year that people everywhere begin to tease apart the the notions of "Jewish" and "unconditional supporter of Israel."

See the version in The Chicago Monitor.

Update March 17, 2016

Rabbi Brant Rosen took on the conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as it is occurring in the massive University of California system: "Anti-Zionism Isn't a 'Form of Discrimination,' and It's Not anti-Semitism" in Haaretz. "Blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism muddles the definition of anti-Semitism to the point that it becomes meaningless. . . . This conflation is irresponsible and harmful and invariably draws our attention away from real anti-Semitism, whether it be the targeting of Jews, the vandalization of synagogues and cemeteries or the proliferation of hate groups at home and abroad. . . . Certainly all forms of racism should be called out in no uncertain terms. But erasing the lines between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism only makes this task more difficult."


Related posts

Steven Salaita has forced us to speak quite openly about three rather distinct things that get treated (incorrectly) as if they were the same thing: the state of Israel (and whether you criticize it or support it); the ideology of Zionism (and whether you criticize it or support it); and the religion of Judaism (and whether or not you share in its values and beliefs).

(See "What good is a tweet?" (The Packing and Unpacking of Meaning and the Steven Salaita Case) )

Rabbi Brant Rosen read from his book, Wrestling in the Daylight: A Rabbi's Path to Palestinian Solidarity, and engaged us in a conversation about justice in Israel/Palestine. He dealt in particular with the moment when he finally said, “It’s time to take a stand.” (December 28, 2008, to be exact – the day he wrote a blog post about the Israeli operation called “Cast Lead,” carried out against the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza.)

(See WGME Hosts Rabbi Brant Rosen Describing His "Path To Palestinian Solidarity" on the Working Group on the Middle East (MCS, ELCA) website)









I think the 3-part framework Ilan Pappé has set out -- BDS, Palestinian identity, Israeli opinion -- usefully defines priorities to which those working for justice in Israel/Palestine should attend.

(See Ilan Pappé's Vision of the Broad Shape of Change in Israel/Palestine )




Related stories

"On the Iran deal, American Jewish ‘leaders’ don’t speak for most Jews" by Todd Gitlin and Steven M. Cohen in The Washington Post, August 14, 2015: "Plainly, the idea that American Jews speak as a monolithic bloc needs very early retirement. So does the canard that their commitment to Israel or the views of its prime minister overwhelms their support for Obama and the Iran deal. So does the idea that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads, or represents, the world’s Jews. So does the notion that unrepresentative 'leaders' speak for American Jews generally on the urgent matter of nuclear arms in the Middle East."

US Mayors "Get It": The Nuclear Threat Must Be Stopped

US Mayors "get it": Ban nuclear weapons! #uscm2015
(Please retweet this message and follow @scarry on Twitter!)

The US Council of Mayors just met in San Francisco in June and adopted a strong position for the abolition of nuclear weapons.(See "U.S. Conference of Mayors takes action for 70th anniversary of nuclear bombings" on the Abolition 2000 website.)

It should come as no surprise that it is the mayors of our cities who have the most acute understanding of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. (See What Would a Nuclear Weapon Do to Chicago?)

In this summer that marks the 70th anniversary of the first and only time that nuclear weapons were used against people -- the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945 -- it is time for us to eliminate these weapons of mass terror.

Thank a mayor today.


TAKE ACTION

Thank the sponsors of the 2015 

US Conference of Mayors resolution.

Remind all the 2015 conference

attendees to keep working for

nuclear disarmament.

Talk to the mayor of your

city or town about joining

the call to end the nuclear threat.

Related posts

Perhaps most startling of all, the area affected by 3rd degree burns would extend far beyond the city limits to encompass towns as far north as Waukegan, as far west as St. Charles, and as far south as Crete, and as far east as Gary, IN.

(See What Would a Nuclear Weapon Do to Chicago? (Go ahead, guess . . . ) )







That's right . . .  just take a map of your local metropolis, spread it out on the floor, and put the whole family to work learning the geometry of nuclear strike using high quality wood-crafted educational aids.

(See Obscene Geometry: The Hard Facts about Death and Injury from Nuclear Weapons )

Let's dedicate June, July, and August this year to recognizing the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 and 9, 2015). . . AND let's do something about it: make a nuclear ban a reality.

(See TIME FOR A NUCLEAR BAN? On the 70th Anniversary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki )

"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima -- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain the horror of this."

(See FIRE AND BLAST: A Curriculum that Confronts Nuclear Danger?)