Every Jewish American at one time or another has asked--and similar questions have been asked by every other minority here--
What does it mean to be an American Jew?
Do I attach more priority, immediacy, or importance to one identity/commitment over the other?
Is it I who chooses or is it the larger culture?
What are the political and cultural trip-wires, the public debates, that seem to force the questions?
How and when did I first become aware of these questions?
Some of us, of course, initially wondered about this over Israel and Near East Policy. Those of us inclined to walk these intellectual and emotional tightropes have been reflecting on this for decades. The current administration's out-of-box approach to what has been pretty intractable for past administrations has not instigated the initial fundamental questioning among thoughtful Jews. We've been asking for a long time. American Jews, the brightest among us, know that when the shrillest voices ask "When You're Down To It, Are You For Israel or For The United States?" they're drawing false rhetorical distinctions for venal domestic political ends. The bully's question has no anchor in our reality.
Yet there's a question American Jews asked themselves a generation ago that is reality-based and was not posed for a base purpose. It was posed genuinely and it resonates over time. I'm prompted to ask it now, again, because it's the time of year when I make my very modest donation to the American Civil Liberties Union. I read again this past week of the death last year of the ACLU's Burt Joseph, the free speech legal specialist largely responsible for a controversial case well-known to most Jews (and many other Americans).
Should Jews in the late 1970s have supported the right of the American Nazi Party to march at Skokie, Illinois, then home to many Holocaust survivors and their descendants? The case centered on whether or not the initial denial of a marching permit violated the free speech clause of the first amendment to our Constitution. Many Jews left the ACLU over its decision to take up the case. I have some sympathy for them even as I think they acted in a short-sighted, self-defeating manner. They were wrong about the law and its purpose and its effect. The great majority of the ACLU's Jews stayed. As it turned out, the Court determined that the first amendment had been violated and the permit was granted but the American Nazi Party decided, in the end, to march in Chicago and not at Skokie.
* *
* *
Many Jews at the time excoriated Mr. Joseph for pressing the case in favor of granting the permit and damned even more David Goldberger, the attorney who handled the matter at the Court. And there were many other Jews, including me, who applauded the decision to represent the first amendment despite the fact that anti-Semitic thugs were the ostensible clients. Of course, the far-Right thugs were secondary; the ACLU's client (as it always is) was the Bill of Rights.
That was the first time in my life I asked myself in a comprehensive way the questions I pose here. I always believed--and I believe now--that when the law pushes potentially violent bigots underground we reward them. We're not only granting them a kind of dim martyrdom, the publicity, and recruiting tools they crave, but we force their schemig even further into the dark. That's always more dangerous whether the immediate concern's Nazis, Klansmen, right-wing militias, or violent religious zealots.
I want to know more, not less, about what my enemies are up to.
But that is secondary.
Primary is what I want my Constitution to do. I want American Law to honor the first amendment no matter who claims it, even if those claiming it would, were they ever to gain sustained, serious, nationwide political power, try to bury it (and me with it). I want the first amendment to be meaningful; that means it has to work even for pin-headed thugs bent on upsetting elderly Holocaust survivors. If first-amendment rights are denied to them they'll certainly be denied to me, to other Jews, and to other minorities, religious, racial, sexual.
If you think that's a stretch, imagine the denial of a marching permit to neo-nazis being used as a precedent to deny Jews or LGBT citizens a similar free speech right. Couldn't happen? Really?
We Jews and other American minorities are sustained, in fact we often thrive because of law that on occasion does result in circumstances that are remarkably obnoxious. Over the range of history it's a pretty small price to pay.
* *
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Poor Woman
Chicken Mãâàn
Dianne Schuch - Lindsey
nerd cred
jmac1949
Deborah Méndez Wilson
Salon.com
Comments
Nevertheless, I have never had an issue w "Jew"; I don't shy from it simply bc some have misappropriated it for bigoted intent. They don't determine how I use language.
I agree, totally, with the "ish" thing. Excellent post!
It's important for all to understand this concept, otherwise, we'll lose our freedoms..
Finally!
Reminds me of that old adage about sunshine being the best disinfectant.
Rated.
No, as much as I dislike fascism and its supporters, they have the right to be heard , so long as I or anybody else does. What they do not have is a right to escape counter speech. Unfortunately, I also know the difference between theory and reality.
So all your gonna get now is: Good post!
Thanks so much. :)
It's why I say I want my enemies in the light.
The Constitution protects us more than any desire to push neoNazis underground could.
Thanks!
They had free speech and they used it to kill 6 million Jews and to attack other countries, eventually starting orld War II that killed millions more and disrupted countless lives. When you look at this you realize that the entire issue lays not just with allowing free sheech but expecting those who speak to abide by the rights of others as well. If free speech is used as a weapon to hurt others, one can't consider the free speech in isolation. You have to look at the entire thing that is going on. In the case of the Nazis I would allow free speech that advocated any ideas they had, but I would stop them when they started advocating hurting other people.
You can see that plan in action today on the small scale. When a drunken person in a bar becomes belligerent, obnoxious and threatening to other patrons, he is bounced out of the bar before he can start a fight.
Merely to repeat "free speech" and allow any consequences is simplistic and is akin to putting ones head in the sand. We said "never forget" after Naziism, Hitler, the holacost and WWII. Now we have to learn the right way to handle events that lead to it happening again.
Great piece, friend, I learn always from your writing.
R♥
I am very sensitive to the Skokie experience. I was a recent college grad in 1978. In 1977, I was just a year back from Austria and visiting Mauthausen. Many, many of my friends lived in Skokie and much later (mid 80's) our business was in Skokie for 14 years. The experience for the survivors during this was difficult. There was a movie made about it that was fairly theatrical but honest. The thing is so many people said never again that while some writhed in pain over it, many felt compelled to try and do something violent in reaction. The nazi group got the reaction they were looking for. They did inspire pain, conflict amongst the Jews and remembrance. It, the war, was then not that long ago, many people could still feel great, incredible pain over it all. They did inspire that. What I think they also inspired was a shocked reaction, that how could this happen here. For that inspiration, we did rely on the work of the ACLU and good people, defenders of the constitution and our beliefs about freedom. We freshly minted our resolve that this country would be a free nation of many things, including speech. In the end they did not march in Skokie and I don't know how it might have ended had they. I think I might have been very conflicted, even as I had just recently taken constitutional law and understood the case. However, emotionally I was very angry, indignant and conflicted. Living in the moment of history is very different than reading about it or being distanced in some way. I had made a promise to take up arms after Mauthausen and I think I might have had to keep that promise in someway.
I am not a Jew but as an American I felt that I could be, I represent the kind of American that feels we are one people, label less, my empathy allows me to assume the role of the persecuted and react to to their significant injustice, it allows me to fight for what this country is supposed to stand for.
Of course, if the march might have persuaded some citizens ( which I sincerely doubt) there is cause for concern.
I hate the word minorities I really do. To me and we are all one and the same and it is time some people get this in their heads.
HUGGGGGGGGG
Supporting someone's right to demonstrate doesn't stop an even bigger group from counter demonstrating, which is ultimately what would have happened if the Nazi's had marched in Skokie. While it would have been awful for residents of the area, especially survivors, it would not have led to the embrace or spread of Nazi ideology, and a victory against the demonstration would have been a hollow one, with the Nazi's claiming it only proved their point about Jewish influence.
I do not know anything about Skokie,but in my opinion,
the holocaust survivors should be protected against any action coming from NNs.
The worst offend had been to deny the holocaust altogether.There must be a lot of ignorant illiterate ,using their arguments as tactic to officially be heard and taken "seriously".
Because Jews have been persecuted,and mainly because of the holocaust,people are shy about using the definition"Jew".
I wish we could stop labeling people,and take them for what they are:Human Beings
Cockroaches are avoiding the daylight.
In the daylight they have to run for their lives.
Light is what keeps them under control.
Of course you are right.
I appreciate your souvereign grip on it.
True democracy is what all people are hoping for.
We stand at the verge of a new era.The Arab spring is enough proof.
Rated
Sie geben hierfür öffentlich +1. Rückgängig machen
Jacques Lusseyran (1924-1971) was a blind French author and political activist. Lusseyran was born on September 19th, 1924, in Paris, France. He became ...
Off the record though, I'd have advised the citizens of Skokie to stage a counter demonstration that left the marchers unharmed, but in no doubt they were unwelcome, there.
rated
Thought-provoking, and an excellent post. R
I came across this piece of yours, and felt that I just HAD to respond to it (yes, I know it's a few months old already, but unfortunately I didn't see it until now -- I hope you're even still reading comments to it). You had this to say:
"If first-amendment rights are denied to them they'll certainly be denied to me, to other Jews, and to other minorities, religious, racial, sexual.
If you think that's a stretch, imagine the denial of a marching permit to neo-nazis being used as a precedent to deny Jews or LGBT citizens a similar free speech right. Couldn't happen? Really?"
"Certainly be denied"? No, sir, that most certainly has NOT been proven as fact -- not by a long shot. This is an argument from hypothetical evidence, not reality. May I remind you that the United States is the only Western Democracy that doesn't place limits on hate speech. Yet, I'm not sure I'm seeing the sky falling in these other countries (for minorities or for the population at large) nor do I think that things in this country are so perfect (also for minorities, or for the population at large). In fact, the countries of Western Europe are by any objective measure seen as having more egalitarian societies than the United States, which implies that minorities are doing better in these countries relative to the majority, not worse. Is there, for example, some holocaust against Jews or some other minority taking place in Canada that I'm just not aware of?
Could Jews be denied a free speech right, and, presumably, suffer devastating consequences as a result? Sure, it COULD happen. But bad things COULD happen as a result of almost anything. That being the case, maybe we also shouldn't have universal healthcare, because if we do, Sarah Palin’s death panel scenario COULD happen. Maybe the NRA is right and we shouldn't have any gun control, for if we do, the Government COULD take advantage of an unarmed populace and put its people into concentration camps. In fact, maybe we should just be like Somalia and not have a government at all. No government, no risk of government dictatorship, right? There comes a point, though, at which you can’t base all of your policies on avoiding completely hypothetical bad things that COULD possibly happen. What you guys do is come up with a purely theoretical construct for how something COULD work and then take it as a given that it DOES work that way. However, plenty of countries have universal healthcare and do not have death panels, plenty of countries have strict limits on gun ownership and are not putting people into concentration camps, and plenty of countries restrict hate speech while allowing non-hate speech.
In short, your argument could easily be generalized as "if the Government is able to draw lines, it may one day draw a line that I don't like. Therefore, Government should draw no lines." Which is basically an argument for anarchy (you know, "once you give the government the power to ban murder, it can ban..."). But I'm willing to live with the fact that Government could one day draw a line that I don't approve of. To me, it's called the cost of living in a society.
-Mark
PS. If the "marketplace of ideas" you people worship is so great, shouldn't it be trusted to silence the "wrong" voice (Nazis), but not the right voice (Jews/LGBT)?