hey y'all,
At kvutza seminar I mentioned that I was taking a class on Jewish Experience in China and as part of that course we have been discussing in depth the concept of cultural memory from both the Chinese and Jewish sides. In the spirit of bringing this part of my current life into the kvutza fold, I'd like to share with you all this essay my Professor wrote on looking at the holocaust and the Nanjing massacre. I find it super interesting, and it also ties in with what some people in the kvutza have been doing in relation to a Shoah choveret. so here is the link, I'm probably violating a copyright law doing this, that's true love: file:///Users/afriedland/Downloads/eres_0712093344_001_1.pdf . Hopefully the link works <3 you all, Av'H,
Abigail
Showing posts with label Poland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poland. Show all posts
Monday, March 31, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
The Secret of the Movement's Strength - Zivia Lubetkin
The second question is from where did the pioneer movement derive its strength? The Zionist pioneering youth movements took on the responsibility of all Jewish public life, a bit too late perhaps, during the most difficult days. I believe that one does not have to probe too far to find the answer. It would be wrong, painfully wrong, to assume that the resistance displayed by the youth during the stormy days of destruction was the response of a few individuals, of Yitschak, or Zivia, or Mordechai, or Frumka. We have lived and still live with the conviction that our fate would have been very different had we not been members of the Movement, if we had not absorbed the values that it gave us from childhood.
This is the real secret of the movement’s strength. The Movement always knew how to demand everything from its members. The Movement’s goal had always been to educate a new kind of man, capable of enduring the most adverse conditions and difficult times while standing up for the emancipation of our people, of the Jew, of mankind. It was our movement education which gave us the strength to endure.
I don’t know if I succeeded in describing how much we tried to live up to those values. I did mention how we were almost obsessed at times with preserving the unblemished personal morality of each of our members as individuals, and of the movement as a whole….
What gave us this moral strength? We were able to endure the life in the ghetto because we knew that we were a collective, a movement. Each of us knew that he wasn’t alone. Every other Jew faced his fate alone, one man before the overpowering, invincible enemy. From the very first moment until the bitter end, we stood together as a collective, as a movement. The feeling that there was a movement, a community of people who cared about each other, who shared ideas and values in common, made it possible for each of us to do what we did. The greatest tragedy was that the Jews did not know what to do. From the very first days of demoralisation in the ghetto until the final days of destruction and death, they did not know what to do. We knew. Our movement values showed us our goals and how to achieve them. This was the source of the strength to live. It is the very same source which keeps the survivors alive even today.
This is the real secret of the movement’s strength. The Movement always knew how to demand everything from its members. The Movement’s goal had always been to educate a new kind of man, capable of enduring the most adverse conditions and difficult times while standing up for the emancipation of our people, of the Jew, of mankind. It was our movement education which gave us the strength to endure.
I don’t know if I succeeded in describing how much we tried to live up to those values. I did mention how we were almost obsessed at times with preserving the unblemished personal morality of each of our members as individuals, and of the movement as a whole….
What gave us this moral strength? We were able to endure the life in the ghetto because we knew that we were a collective, a movement. Each of us knew that he wasn’t alone. Every other Jew faced his fate alone, one man before the overpowering, invincible enemy. From the very first moment until the bitter end, we stood together as a collective, as a movement. The feeling that there was a movement, a community of people who cared about each other, who shared ideas and values in common, made it possible for each of us to do what we did. The greatest tragedy was that the Jews did not know what to do. From the very first days of demoralisation in the ghetto until the final days of destruction and death, they did not know what to do. We knew. Our movement values showed us our goals and how to achieve them. This was the source of the strength to live. It is the very same source which keeps the survivors alive even today.
The Rebel - Albert Camus.
What is a rebel? A man who says no: but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes as soon as he begins to think for himself. A slave who has taken orders all of his life suddenly decides that he cannot obey some new command. What does he mean by saying "no"?
He means, for instance, that "this has been going on too long", "so far but no farther","you are going too far', or again "There are certain limits beyond which you shall not go." In other words, his "no" affirms the existence of a borderline. You find the same conception in the rebel's opinion that the other person is "exaggerating", that he is exerting his authority beyond a limit where he infringes upon the rights of others. He rebels because he categorically refuses to submit to conditions that he considers intolerable and also because he is confusedly convinced that his position is justified. It is in this way that the rebel slave says yes and no at the same time. He affirms that there are limits and also that he suspects-and wishes to preserve-the existence of certain things beyond those limits. He stubbornly insists that there are certain things in him which are "worth while..." and which must be taken into consideration.
In every act of rebellion, the man concerned experiences not only a feeling of revulsion at the infringement of his rights, but also a complete and spontaneous loyalty to certain aspects of himself. Thus, he implicitly brings into play a standard of values so far from being false that he is willing to preserve them at all costs. Up to this point he has, at least, kept quiet and, in despair has accepted a condition to which he submits even though he considers it unjust. To keep quiet is to allow yourself to believe that you have no opinions, that you want nothing, and in certain cases it amounts to really wanting nothing. Despair, like absurdism, prefers to consider everything in general and nothing in particular. Silence expresses this attitude very satisfactorily. But from the moment that the rebel finds his voice-even though he has nothing to say but no-he begins to consider things in particular. In the etymological sense, the rebel is a turncoat. He acted under the lash of his master's whip. Suddenly, he turns and faces him. He chooses what is preferable to what is not. Not every value leads to rebellion, but every rebellion tacitly invokes a value. Or is i really a question of values?
An awakening of consciousness, no matter how confused it may be, develops from any act of rebellion and is represented by the sudden realization that something exists with which the rebel can identify himself-even if only for a moment. Up to now this identification was never fully realized. Previous to his insurrection, the slave accepted all the demands made upon him. He even very often took orders, he baled. He was patient and though, perhaps, he protested inwardly, he was obviously more careful of his own immediate interests-in that he kept quiet-than aware of his own rights. But with loss of patience-with impatience -begins a reaction which can extend to everything that he accepted up to this moment, and which is almost always retroactive. Immediately the slave refuses to obey the humiliating orders of his master, he rejects the conditions of slavery. The act of rebellion carries him beyond the point reached by simply refusing. He exceeds the bounds that he established for his antagonist and demands that he should now be treated as an equal. What was, originally, an obstinate resistance on the part of the rebel, becomes personified. He proceeds to put self-respect above everything else and proclaims that it is preferable to life itself. It becomes, for him, the supreme blessing. Having previously been willing to compromise, the slave suddenly adopts an attitude of all or nothing. Knowledge is born and conscience is awakened.
He means, for instance, that "this has been going on too long", "so far but no farther","you are going too far', or again "There are certain limits beyond which you shall not go." In other words, his "no" affirms the existence of a borderline. You find the same conception in the rebel's opinion that the other person is "exaggerating", that he is exerting his authority beyond a limit where he infringes upon the rights of others. He rebels because he categorically refuses to submit to conditions that he considers intolerable and also because he is confusedly convinced that his position is justified. It is in this way that the rebel slave says yes and no at the same time. He affirms that there are limits and also that he suspects-and wishes to preserve-the existence of certain things beyond those limits. He stubbornly insists that there are certain things in him which are "worth while..." and which must be taken into consideration.
In every act of rebellion, the man concerned experiences not only a feeling of revulsion at the infringement of his rights, but also a complete and spontaneous loyalty to certain aspects of himself. Thus, he implicitly brings into play a standard of values so far from being false that he is willing to preserve them at all costs. Up to this point he has, at least, kept quiet and, in despair has accepted a condition to which he submits even though he considers it unjust. To keep quiet is to allow yourself to believe that you have no opinions, that you want nothing, and in certain cases it amounts to really wanting nothing. Despair, like absurdism, prefers to consider everything in general and nothing in particular. Silence expresses this attitude very satisfactorily. But from the moment that the rebel finds his voice-even though he has nothing to say but no-he begins to consider things in particular. In the etymological sense, the rebel is a turncoat. He acted under the lash of his master's whip. Suddenly, he turns and faces him. He chooses what is preferable to what is not. Not every value leads to rebellion, but every rebellion tacitly invokes a value. Or is i really a question of values?
An awakening of consciousness, no matter how confused it may be, develops from any act of rebellion and is represented by the sudden realization that something exists with which the rebel can identify himself-even if only for a moment. Up to now this identification was never fully realized. Previous to his insurrection, the slave accepted all the demands made upon him. He even very often took orders, he baled. He was patient and though, perhaps, he protested inwardly, he was obviously more careful of his own immediate interests-in that he kept quiet-than aware of his own rights. But with loss of patience-with impatience -begins a reaction which can extend to everything that he accepted up to this moment, and which is almost always retroactive. Immediately the slave refuses to obey the humiliating orders of his master, he rejects the conditions of slavery. The act of rebellion carries him beyond the point reached by simply refusing. He exceeds the bounds that he established for his antagonist and demands that he should now be treated as an equal. What was, originally, an obstinate resistance on the part of the rebel, becomes personified. He proceeds to put self-respect above everything else and proclaims that it is preferable to life itself. It becomes, for him, the supreme blessing. Having previously been willing to compromise, the slave suddenly adopts an attitude of all or nothing. Knowledge is born and conscience is awakened.
Zionism as a Constant Revolution - Shlomo Avineri
The essence of Zionism, when it was originated, was to change the abnormal status of the Jewish people. This was a goal which many of the Zionist philosophers believed to be impossible without a state.
Being Jewish from the time of the Exile until the Emancipation, was not just a matter of belief and mitzvot, but also belonging to a community, a congregation. A Jew alone was simply not a Jew (eg minyan, shochet, synagogue, mikve and wedding witnesses.)
Post-Haskala, Secular Jews had to find a new communal meaning to their existence: Zionism restored the public norm aspect to the Jewish people, after the dismantling of the religious public aspect.
What is the difference between Israel and other Jewish concentrations? Other communities are gatherings of individuals, but their place of their togetherness has no intrinsic meaning. On the other hand, Israel's collective existence bears a moral and normative significance. The state of Israel is the public expression of the Jewish people. And as such, it replaces the traditional communal religious boundaries that preserved the Jewish people.
This success has meant that the most unifying factor today across the Jewish world is the State of Israel. More than religion. More than any distressed Jewish community in any state the in world. Over the years world Jewry's relationship to the Zionist movement became similar to the relation that Irish or an Italian immigrant has to their homelands. And even more so, considering the involvement of North American Jewry in Israel is greater than that of an Irish Americans in their homeland. This is a glorious success considering that the Zionist movement began as an insignificant minority within the Jewish people.
Life in the western diaspora was characterized by high percentages of Jewish involvement in middle classes: economically, intellectually, culturally, etc. But when the Zionist revolution began one of its objectives was to turn Jews into a 'normal' nation that included a full range of occupations. This has since changed. Furthermore, materialism, privatization, consumerism, and a 'survival of the fittest' culture are now thriving in Israel. But if Israel shall be only a mirror to world Jewry, if it shall be just another western country, if it shall be just a New-York on the middle east coast, it will stop being such a large center of identification as it is today.
The Zionist revolution is a constant revolution. A revolution aiming to bring the Jewish people into a situation of self-providing both economically and socially. A situation in which the nation is responsible for its own destiny. No longer an abnormal congregation living on the fringes of other nations, dependent on their kindness. Zionism is a constant revolution in the Jewish people's tendency to seek a good existence, by dealing with need of building a national society whose purpose is providing the communities needs, and not a sole concern for the individual. The Zionist revolution is necessarily a social revolution concerning all aspects of life. Therefore, Zionism will not survive if there will be no constant revolution in the Jewish way of life, always seeking the mold itself while updating to reality.
For many years, the greatest struggle of Zionism was the physical existence of the State of Israel. This constant threat was the immediate cause of identification with Israel. Today, Zionism is required to continue its revolution, by forming a unique just and moral society, thus influencing both the whole Jewish and wider world.
Being Jewish from the time of the Exile until the Emancipation, was not just a matter of belief and mitzvot, but also belonging to a community, a congregation. A Jew alone was simply not a Jew (eg minyan, shochet, synagogue, mikve and wedding witnesses.)
Post-Haskala, Secular Jews had to find a new communal meaning to their existence: Zionism restored the public norm aspect to the Jewish people, after the dismantling of the religious public aspect.
What is the difference between Israel and other Jewish concentrations? Other communities are gatherings of individuals, but their place of their togetherness has no intrinsic meaning. On the other hand, Israel's collective existence bears a moral and normative significance. The state of Israel is the public expression of the Jewish people. And as such, it replaces the traditional communal religious boundaries that preserved the Jewish people.
This success has meant that the most unifying factor today across the Jewish world is the State of Israel. More than religion. More than any distressed Jewish community in any state the in world. Over the years world Jewry's relationship to the Zionist movement became similar to the relation that Irish or an Italian immigrant has to their homelands. And even more so, considering the involvement of North American Jewry in Israel is greater than that of an Irish Americans in their homeland. This is a glorious success considering that the Zionist movement began as an insignificant minority within the Jewish people.
Life in the western diaspora was characterized by high percentages of Jewish involvement in middle classes: economically, intellectually, culturally, etc. But when the Zionist revolution began one of its objectives was to turn Jews into a 'normal' nation that included a full range of occupations. This has since changed. Furthermore, materialism, privatization, consumerism, and a 'survival of the fittest' culture are now thriving in Israel. But if Israel shall be only a mirror to world Jewry, if it shall be just another western country, if it shall be just a New-York on the middle east coast, it will stop being such a large center of identification as it is today.
The Zionist revolution is a constant revolution. A revolution aiming to bring the Jewish people into a situation of self-providing both economically and socially. A situation in which the nation is responsible for its own destiny. No longer an abnormal congregation living on the fringes of other nations, dependent on their kindness. Zionism is a constant revolution in the Jewish people's tendency to seek a good existence, by dealing with need of building a national society whose purpose is providing the communities needs, and not a sole concern for the individual. The Zionist revolution is necessarily a social revolution concerning all aspects of life. Therefore, Zionism will not survive if there will be no constant revolution in the Jewish way of life, always seeking the mold itself while updating to reality.
For many years, the greatest struggle of Zionism was the physical existence of the State of Israel. This constant threat was the immediate cause of identification with Israel. Today, Zionism is required to continue its revolution, by forming a unique just and moral society, thus influencing both the whole Jewish and wider world.
To Remember the Future - Gerry Stahl
"after Auschwitz, poetry cannot be written" - Theodor Adorno
The technological development in the field of nuclear weapons has brought humanity to a state which the danger of total extinction is hovering above it. This brings us to the question - who will suffer the loss of human beings lives if they themselves annihilate these lives? Answer: not a single soul. Total annihilation is not a loss for there can be no loss without there being a loser. Therefore, we must search for the meaning of extinction only in human beings expectation of it, the very same expectation that corrupts their very own lives (according to Jonathan Shell).
Just as the meaning of the past is only fully understood in the present, the meaning of our acts in the present seek for their full understanding in the future. The threat of self extinction of humanity therefore redefines the face of the moral world we live in today. It is commonly considered that a single event that occurs in the present may lead to several different results in the future. This may also be looked upon from the opposite perspective - our acts in the present, in part, are a suggestion as to shaping the future a certain way. In other words, the future which we are preparing ourselves has a role in shaping the present we are operating in now.
The current policy of nuclear threat is in a way a suggestion to a general behavior that portrays a refusal by principal to the possibility of the existence of a moral world, one of a moral time and space, without such there is no moral existence to the world.
If an end shall come to man in the same threat of mutual suicide, history will then come to an end. If our present is the past of the future - it now has a new meaning from the one we thought. One of the ways in which our acts in the present get their meaning is from our own conception - the way we imagine the future. Self extinction of humanity is a denial of any possible future, and in that it is in fact denial of any meaning of the present.
Today denial of human respect is no theoretical threat - it is an existing reality that is well instilled in us. We are living in the present, in a world that chooses to continue what was invented in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Hiroshima. Today, human traits are no longer a source of great honor. Degrading behavior is no longer surprising or upsetting, insult and disrespect have become integral parts of our world.
If indeed justice is with sustainers of the nuclear threat there is then no alternative to this world of degraded honor: we are - in Albert Camus' words - "the victims and the executors" all at once.
Is it possible to create a present based on a positive memory of the future and not that of annihilation?
The answer is in the hands of man!
The technological development in the field of nuclear weapons has brought humanity to a state which the danger of total extinction is hovering above it. This brings us to the question - who will suffer the loss of human beings lives if they themselves annihilate these lives? Answer: not a single soul. Total annihilation is not a loss for there can be no loss without there being a loser. Therefore, we must search for the meaning of extinction only in human beings expectation of it, the very same expectation that corrupts their very own lives (according to Jonathan Shell).
Just as the meaning of the past is only fully understood in the present, the meaning of our acts in the present seek for their full understanding in the future. The threat of self extinction of humanity therefore redefines the face of the moral world we live in today. It is commonly considered that a single event that occurs in the present may lead to several different results in the future. This may also be looked upon from the opposite perspective - our acts in the present, in part, are a suggestion as to shaping the future a certain way. In other words, the future which we are preparing ourselves has a role in shaping the present we are operating in now.
The current policy of nuclear threat is in a way a suggestion to a general behavior that portrays a refusal by principal to the possibility of the existence of a moral world, one of a moral time and space, without such there is no moral existence to the world.
If an end shall come to man in the same threat of mutual suicide, history will then come to an end. If our present is the past of the future - it now has a new meaning from the one we thought. One of the ways in which our acts in the present get their meaning is from our own conception - the way we imagine the future. Self extinction of humanity is a denial of any possible future, and in that it is in fact denial of any meaning of the present.
Today denial of human respect is no theoretical threat - it is an existing reality that is well instilled in us. We are living in the present, in a world that chooses to continue what was invented in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Hiroshima. Today, human traits are no longer a source of great honor. Degrading behavior is no longer surprising or upsetting, insult and disrespect have become integral parts of our world.
If indeed justice is with sustainers of the nuclear threat there is then no alternative to this world of degraded honor: we are - in Albert Camus' words - "the victims and the executors" all at once.
Is it possible to create a present based on a positive memory of the future and not that of annihilation?
The answer is in the hands of man!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)