A persistent commenter on the Forward’s Web site dependably complains whenever I write a column that does not deal explicitly with matters Jewish. As he puts it, “Being a Jew in America and viewing events from the point of view of a Jewish identity is a Jewish experience. Being an American in America and viewing events from the point of view of an American identity is not a Jewish experience. In even simpler terms, being a Jew is not the same as being an American.” And then, “I understand that for most American Jews, American identity is a much more substantial identity (‘primary’) than their Jewish identity (‘secondary’).” And the purpose of a newspaper that calls itself “Jewish” is to address the “secondary” identity of its readers.
He raises a serious question, one rooted in an important misunderstanding of the Jewish experience.
The story’s told of a clever rabbi who was introduced to a visitor from a distant land. The visitor, he was told, was “half-Jewish.” “Well then,” said the rabbi, “ask him whether he is divided vertically or horizontally — and if horizontally, which is the Jewish half?”
American Jews are divided neither vertically nor horizontally. They are not two-thirds American and one-third Jewish. Their Jewish identity is not a costume they wear on special occasions. They are people of a mixed or amalgamated or merged identity. They are, in short — and as is to be expected — American Jews. When they dream of mountains, it is more likely the Rockies or Vermont’s Green Mountains they see in their mind’s eye than the mountains of Moab or the Gilboa; their rivers are the Mississippi or the Monongahela rather than the Jordan. That is not only how it is; that is as it should be. It is quite different, I imagine, from the Jewish experience in the Pale of Settlement, though even there, where Jews were not invited to the national table, the surrounding culture tinged their weltanschauung.
The fact that we are American Jews means we are different from Israeli Jews. War, for example, is a distant experience for most American Jews, whereas it is a central experience for almost all Israeli Jews. Or, more pertinently, casual pluralism comes naturally to American Jews, as also casual religiosity, while neither is (yet?) embedded in the Israeli Jew. Yes, once we were Americans and Jews. But our story is no longer the story of a people transplanted from the Old World to the New and, having learned the language and habits of their new home, then discarded their ancient understanding. We have hardly been content to memorize America’s teachings verbatim; instead, we have rewritten them along our way. Ours is a story of synthesis.
That is what makes the American Jewish experience so fascinating, so complicated, so confusing — and so authentic. We are no longer strangers in a strange land. We are not merely in America; we are of America.
That does not denigrate our association with the Jewish people or with the Jewish state. It means only that we live at a time and in a place where the fact of our being Jewish is expressed differently from the way it was — and is — in other places, at other times.
None of this, however, directly responds to the question of why a Jewish newspaper is an appropriate venue for columns that deal with matters not Jewish. I don’t know that there is a general rule that applies. I do know that it is exceedingly difficult, in this connection, to define just what we mean by “Jewish” and “non-Jewish.”
One example: I believe that the radical income inequality that characterizes America these days is a Jewish issue. (During the first six years of this new century, 70% of all income gains went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.) Am I wrong to wish that the Jewish community had been as indignant about the unequal distribution of wealth and income as it has been about Bernie Madoff? I am confident that Jewish sources frown on actions, such as the Bush tax cuts of 2003 and the simple greed that infects so much of corporate America, which helped bring us to this ugly condition. Am I required to footnote the sources that establish a formal Jewish connection to this matter? Shall the debate over this kind of thing be reduced to which side can come up with the more authoritative footnotes from Jewish texts? How tedious and trivializing our debate would become. It would be as if participation in a serious discussion of the treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens by the Jewish state were limited to scholars conversant with classical Jewish texts.
No, it is not quite so simple as all that. A Jewish newspaper is not a congenial home to any subject under the sun. At the same time, it need not feel constrained to cut itself off from the great debates that rage in the larger society. Perhaps, then, it comes down to this: A writer who writes principally about matters internal to the Jewish community but who chooses now and then to step outside the Jewish precinct to address issues that affect Jews even as they also affect others is not leaving home. He is merely opening a window.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Magen Tzedek, Ethical Kosher Seal, Stalled Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
Google Earth for the 16th Century Mapmaking Set
You've successfully signed up!
It's very frustrating to debate with someone, only to discover that you don't even agree on the definitions of terms. For me, a Jewish identity stands in its own right, and it would be distinct from an American or a Polish identity. Mr Fein explains that "ours is a story of synthesis", hence it might be "exceedingly difficult, in this connection, to define just what we mean by 'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish'." So, perhaps, this somewhat explains why an article on American politics would be a topic of "Jewish" interest. Indeed, it is a different definition of Jewishness.
The term "synthesis" is meant to cast aside the more blunt terminology of "primary" and "secondary" identities. "Synthesis" remains undefined, of course, and therefore outside the realm of a value judgment. It is whatever it is, and the clever rabbi joke ("which is the Jewish half?") then brushes away the issue of analyzing the Jewish part or content of this synthesis. Is it substantial or it is trivial? I understand that calling Jewish identity in America "secondary" is bothersome for Mr Fein. Indeed, if it is a sociological fact of life, then it is an indication of a type of failure in the Jewish experience.
For most of history and in most countries where Jews lived, Yehuda would have a point. A Jewish identity was distinct from other national identities - Russian, Polish, German, etc.
But the United States is different than those other countries. The United States allows and encourages multiple identities, and being a "hyphenated" American is categorically different than being a Jew in Poland.
For many American Jews, the primary-secondary paradigm is not applicable. American identity is primary and Jewish identity is also primary, or maybe both are secondary to the amalgamated American-Jewish identity.
The sad aspect of Yehuda is that under the banner of distinct Jewish identity he expresses unbelievable callousness. After receiving Mr. Fein's fully fledged article in response to a persistent talkback-critique which is in fact anonymous and does not deserve any reply, Yehuda appears again and starts his comment with "It is frustrating…". Yehuda did not start his comment by "Thank you, Mr. Fein, for your response to my criticism". Mr. Fein does not owe Yehuda anything; he showed respect to a persistent polemicist and after a gesture of magnanimity, he received reprimand as if Yehuda would be a Chief Spanish Inquisitor on a mission in the Netherlands, looking whom to punish. However, here lies something informative. It is highly probable that Yehuda feels his reprimanding attitude reflects the true Jewish angle and identity. May be he is right, to a point, and Jewish indeed means persistent intimidating intolerance, and wounding callousness. Best wishes to Yehuda in his pursuit of such a true Jewishness – he will surely find many truly authentic Jews who will share his predilections. This company would surely grant him true pleasure. They would definitely not need the Forward in order to feed their inspiration, even with the Forward's Jewishly-oriented articles.
Yehudah,
If and when we in America are lucky, every American brings the entirety of his/her personality to bear on the discussion of each important issue. Every such issue is a Christian-American, Jewish-American, Baha’i-American, African-American, Native-American, Polish-American, Japanese-American, etc., issue.
We hope that every Italian-American will bring his/her knowledge of world conditions, of American and world history, of the experience of his/her ethnicity, and of the history and ethical insights of his/her church to these discussions. This is particularly the case for Jewish-Americans when an issue touches on Israel’s future, such as the enthusiastic response of our youth to President Obama’s program, the subject of Dr. Fein’s article "The Politics of Yesterday, and of Tomorrow".
Most of us rejoice in the openness and inclusiveness of our society.
I hope that this comment helps you to understand the American Jewish community.
Joel Levitt - The world that you are describing is a world based on a common American denominator ("Christian-American, Jewish-American, Baha’i-American, African-American..."). There is another possible world view: The Jews are an ancient people, and throughout their long history Jews everywhere maintained a distinct identity. It is perhaps futile and pointless to protest the process of Americanization since it has already taken place, but Yehuda's protest shouldn't be interpreted as a misunderstanding of the American Jewish community.
Qo1 – I believe that there is no conflict between the picture of America that I presented above and any group maintaining its own “distinct identity”. In fact, if groups don’t maintain their identity, then their histories and wisdom are likely to be lost to American civilization.
Since we Jewish-Americans are citizens, we are able to participate in evolving American civilization as individuals and as members of the Jewish community. To me, the best illustration of our opportunity to participate as a community is that the rulings of a Beit Din have often been recognized as creating a legal presumption by the government’s courts in cases subsequently brought before them. The one limitation on groups is that final political authority belongs to the government.
In America any group that wishes to isolate itself from the others has the right to do so, no matter the great cost to itself and its children. But, I believe that it is appropriate that we are proud of our continuing Jewish contribution and that we are grateful for the contributions that other groups have made to us.
Joel A. Levitt - You present the possible loss of a distinct Jewish identity as a loss of history and wisdom to American civilization. Such a presentation views Jewishness from an American perspective, not from a Jewish perspective. This is simply another way of declaring American identity as primary, and Jewish identity as secondary.
Independent Jewish identity is rooted in collectivity that since the times of Yokhanan ben Zakkai cannot ensure survival for its members on its own. It is either a medievalist obscurantist group that refuses to study anything besides the Talmud (and condemns its members to unjustified pain), or it is a messianic group seeking to wage conflict around its borders (with terrible results for the in-group members), or it is a group identified by foes. The novels "A Guest for the Night" and the "Brothers Ashkenazi" indicate this very clearly. Time to open eyes and to read novels.
A "medievalist obscurantist group" translates into "the haredi communities". Being a haredi Jew, dedicated to Talmudic study, is a normal and common expression of Jewish identity. It's just as legitimate as Sholomo's reading novels. The "messianic group" is to be translated into "the Israelis", another rather normal and common Jewish identity that strangely Shlomo finds worthy of condemnation.
Drei nisht kum meyakh, Qol