Showing posts with label Cunning of History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cunning of History. Show all posts

Sunday, November 20, 2016

18 November 1830: Death of Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati

On 18 November 1830, Adam Weishaupt (b. 1748), founder of the Illuminati, died, age 82. Rarely does the modest achievement of a man stand in such disproportion to his historical reputation: the Illuminati stand at the center of one of the world's most enduring conspiracy theories, stretching from the debates over the French Revolution to today's popular culture. (Look it up yourself: it will be a good exercise in information literacy, i.e. separating real historical knowledge from bullshit.)

What I am sharing here is the title page of a little treasure from my personal library: the second edition of the second volume of Weishaupt's Apology of Discontent and Dissatisfaction (1790) a rather tedious (by modern standards; the readers of the eighteenth century were made of hardier stuff) dialogue about religion, philosophy, social change, and the meaning of life: at 366 pages. The book is unbound and remains in its worn blue interim paper wrapper, as issued.


What makes it special to me is actually less the authorship (though that is important) than the ownership: the title page bears the signature of the Friedrich Christian, Hereditary Prince of Augustenborg, in Denmark. In 1791, he granted the great German poet Friedrich Schiller a three-year pension to support him during a period of ill health. Schiller expressed his gratitude by setting forth his evolving ideas about aesthetics in a series of letters to the Prince, which formed the basis for his influential philosophical treatise, On the Aesthetic Education of Mankind (periodical publication, 1795; book edition, 1801).

Friedrich Christian reigned as Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg from 1794 until his death in 1814. The stamp of the famous Fyens (=Funen) Diocesan Library of Odense appears on the title page and inside cover, and a manuscript note on the latter indicates the book passed to that institution in 1816.


Created in 1813, the library reflected the theological needs of the clergy but was dedicated to "maintaining the scientific spirit and increasing the sum of knowledge for anybody in the province who loves science." By the 1830s, the Citizen's Library operated out of the same building. In the course of the twentieth century, the collection was merged first with that of the Odense Central Library and then the Library of the University of Southern Denmark.

The theological volumes (3,000 out of the total collection of 30,000) passed to the Library of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1948. (This volume appears in the 1902 catalogue under the category of Christian Morality, subheading Mixed Moral Writings.)



* * *



Wednesday, June 8, 2016

8 June 1794: Robespierre Presides Over the Festival of the Supreme Being

On 8 June 1794, Maximilien Robespierre presided over the Festival of the Supreme Being, the inauguration of a new civil religion that was to be a high point of the remaking of France in accordance with the principles of revolutionary reason. Instead, it proved to be a foreshadowing of his downfall.


a belief in some divine presence was essential to the philosophical and social order

Contrary to the popular stereotype, Robespierre was not some bloodthirsty monster: in fact, he tried to rein in the "enragés" and "terrorists" who, oblivious to political reality, insisted on implementing ultra-radical policies and carried out murderous and indiscriminate retribution against any presumed "counterrevolutionary" elements of the population. For Robespierre, the so-called "Terror" was just "prompt, severe, inflexible” justice unique to revolutionary situations.

Part of his opposition to the "enragés" also derived from their radical atheism, which struck out against religion, the religious, and monuments of religious cultural heritage alike and did not scruple at the casual murder of priests and nuns. Although Robespierre had no use for the traditional church, he condemned  the radical "de-Christianizers" and upheld freedom of worship. For him, as a disciple of Rousseau, a belief in some divine presence was essential to the philosophical and social order, which, he believed, rested on the moral and spiritual certainty of reward and punishment.

"The day forever fortunate has arrived, which the French people have consecrated to the Supreme Being"

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen appended to the radical French Constitution of April 1793 acknowledged the existence of Supreme Being. Attempting to address the twin crises of the Revolutionary war and the internal divisions of the Revolutionary camp the following spring, Robespierre sought to institutionalize this belief. He delivered a Report to the National Convention on the Connections of Religious and Moral Ideas with Republican Principles, & on National Festivals on 18 Floréal, Year II (7 May 1794).

The day forever fortunate has arrived, which the French people have consecrated to the Supreme Being. Never has the world which He created offered to Him a spectacle so worthy of His notice. He has seen reigning on the earth tyranny, crime, and imposture. He sees at this moment a whole nation, grappling with all the oppressions of the human race, suspend the course of its heroic labors to elevate its thoughts and vows toward the great Being who has given it the mission it has undertaken and the strength to accomplish it.

Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice?
He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.
It is He who implanted in the breast of the triumphant oppressor remorse and terror, and in the heart of the oppressed and innocent calmness and fortitude. It is He who impels the just man to hate the evil one, and the evil man to respect the just one. It is He who adorns with modesty the brow of beauty, to make it yet more beautiful. It is He who makes the mother's heart beat with tenderness and joy. It is He who bathes with delicious tears the eyes of the son pressed to the bosom of his mother. It is He who silences the most imperious and tender passions before the sublime love of the fatherland. It is He who has covered nature with charms, riches, and majesty. All that is good is His work, or is Himself. Evil belongs to the depraved man who oppresses his fellow man or suffers him to be oppressed.
The Author of Nature has bound all mortals by a boundless chain of love and happiness. Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!
Republican Frenchmen, it is yours to purify the earth which they have soiled, and to recall to it the justice that they have banished! Liberty and virtue together came from the breast of Divinity. Neither can abide with mankind without the other.
O generous People, would you triumph over all your enemies? Practice justice, and render the Divinity the only worship worthy of Him. O People, let us deliver ourselves today, under His auspices, to the just transports of a pure festivity. Tomorrow we shall return to the combat with vice and tyrants. We shall give to the world the example of republican virtues. And that will be to honor Him still.
[source]
Following the political and philosophical exposition, the Report set forth a 15-point decree on the cult and its festivals.


    First Article.

      The French people recognizes the existence of the Supreme Being, and the immortality of the soul.

    II.

      It recognizes that the manner of worship worthy of the Supreme Being is the practice of the duties of man.

    III.

      It places chief among these duties: to detest bad faith and tyranny, to punish tyrants and traitors, to assist the unfortunate, to respect the weak, to defend the oppressed, to do all the good that one can to others, and to be unjust toward no one.

    IV.

      Festivals shall be instituted to remind men of the Deity and of the dignity of their state....

It concluded with the outline of a Festival of the Supreme Being, proposed by the artist Jacques-Louis David, to be held on 20 Prairial Year II (June 8, 1794)


On 4 June 1794, Robespierre was elected President of the Convention (=legislature), and on 8 June, he presided over the Festival of the Supreme Being, according to the aforementioned mise-en-scène.

Festival of the Supreme Being, from Charles François Gabriel Levachez, and Son, and
Jean Duplessi-Bertaux, Tableaux historiques de la Révolution Française, 1798-1804
(folio engraving; image size: c. 190 x 250 mm)

Unlike the more shallow, who felt the need to prove their revolutionary bona fides through ostentatiously "populist" dress and demeanor, Robespierre saw no contradiction in combining the most radical principles with traditional sartorial propriety: he was a fastidious dresser who still wore a powdered wig and silk stockings. A contemporary account described him as presiding over the festival "dressed in a sky-blue coat, with exquisite ruffles of lace, and holding a bunch of flowers, fruit, and ripe wheat in his hand."

The hostile image below, from a nineteenth-century history, conveys the stereotypical view of him: murderous monster as fastidious prig.


from the first French edition of Alphonse de Lamartine's Histoire des Girondins (History of the Girondists--the moderate left-center faction in the Revolution). The work ran to 61 "books" divided among 8 volumes, whose publication (Paris: Furne et Cie.,1847-50) coincided with the outbreak of a new revolution, in which the Romantic poet and liberal politician himself briefly played a key part. It was accompanied by 39 steel engravings of Revolutionary figures, along with a portrait of the author. The plates, drawn by Denis August Marie Raffet (1804-60), engraved by various artists, and printed by Plon, were issued separately in 13 installments costing 1 franc each, from 1848 to 1850 (sheet size: c. 19.5 x. 25.7 cm). This engraving is by one Bosselman, active in the first half of the nineteenth century.


All did not go as planned, either. When he symbolically set fire to the statue of Atheism to reveal the statue of Wisdom rising form its ashes, the latter emerged rather scorched. Whereas Robespierre viewed the Festival as a crucial last attempt to reinvigorate the Revolution, both contemporaries and modern scholars have seen it as one of the factors that contributed to his downfall. It alienated both de-Christianizers and more traditional deists; critics accused him of megalomania and seeking to set himself up as  a new "pope" or "Mahomet" (Muhammad).

When despite the new military victory of Fleurus (26 June), which seemed to secure the Republic's fate, Robespierre insisted on ratcheting up the Terror against internal enemies, both left and right, he found that he longer had a base of support and fell victim to his foes on both extremes a month later. The radical Revolution died with him.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Is Your Restaurant Breeding Bolsheviks?

When we visited Boston earlier this fall for a little family gathering, we stayed, for sentimental as well as practical reasons, at the classic Parker House (now, technically, Omni Parker House).


As I had my breakfast and glanced across the room at a couple of the friendly and accomplished restaurant staff, I could not help but wonder what brought them here and where they might end up in 20 or 30 years.


Home of . . .?

The Parker House, founded in 1855 and now celebrating its 160th anniversary, is famous for many things, from the foods that it introduced to the American table (Parker House rolls, Boston Creme Pie, Boston sc[h]rod) to its distinguished clientele: from the "Saturday Club" of Emerson, Longfellow, Holmes, Agassiz, Dana, et al., to occasional visitors such as Charles Dickens.

However, I could not help but think of the famous figures who worked there long before they attained world renown: namely, two of the most influential radicals of the twentieth century. Future Vietnamese communist leader Ho Chi Minh worked there as a baker from 1911 to 1913, and in the early 1940s, Roxbury resident Malcolm Little worked there as a busboy. It was only after going to prison in 1946 that he converted to Islam and became Malcolm X.


A kind of long but indeterminate period of time which will live in infamy?

Because it's December 7 today: Admittedly, the Omni Parker House website screws things up, saying, "Malcolm X was a busboy in the early 1940's during the Pearl Harbor invasion." Sorry: there was a Pearl Harbor attack on one Sunday morning, but the Japanese invasion--as I thought everyone knew--failed to materialize. There is after all a reason that we still use FDR's phrase, "a date which will live in infamy." Not a week or a couple of months or several years. A date.


"So Ho Chi Minh conceivably could've baked a Boston Cream Pie?"

Just before Thanksgiving, even CBS News alluded to the political connection:
"Malcolm X was a busboy," he said. "Ho Chi Minh worked in the bake shop."

"So Ho Chi Minh conceivably could've baked a Boston Cream Pie?"

"Yes, he could." And Malcolm X presumably could've cleaned up after somebody that had just eaten one.
Who's biding his or her time in the restaurant that you patronize, while dreaming of greater things? Treat them respectfully and tip generously. It's the right thing to do. And besides: who knows?



Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Un-bombs (1)

Ever since Isaiah had a vision of men beating their swords into ploughshares, it has been pleasant to imagine or witness other examples of the tools or symbols of war being converted into those of peace. I've posted a few examples over on the Tumblr.



Books, not bombs


Monday, October 15, 2012

My Two Cents' Worth for Columbus Day. A Postage Stamp as Metaphor


12 October

This year, the United States celebrated the legal Columbus Day (Monday) holiday on October 8, but the historical date of the holiday—corresponding to the explorer's first sighting of land in the "New World"—occurred on October 12, an occasion first marked in 1792.



[enlarge image]

It's the familiar Romantic scene from old engravings and textbooks (perhaps no longer familiar to the current generation), based on the 1847 "Landing of Columbus" in the US Capitol by John Vanderlyn: European arrivistes (illegal immigrants?) variously grateful or militant, kneel or exult, as indigenous Caribbean Americans (left foreground; background) are torn between cowering and curiosity. And the small crosses on the banners in the center have vanished (though the coat of arms on Columbus's remains). Whether reflecting the pragmatic needs of the engraver's burin or some more deliberate decision, the resultant horizontal lines at least implicitly suggest the flag of the new American nation.

This postage stamp, retrieved from my childhood collection, has had a rough time of things since it was first issued. Thankfully, though, what is a bane to the collector can be grist for the mill of the cultural historian. As if an omen, a seemingly unnecessary and heavy, cloud-like blot of ink from the cancellation (could the letters at left represent Springfield, betokening my future New England life?) neatly and nearly obliterates the figure of the heroic explorer. At some point (presumably since then), the stamp acquired a crease and tear that cut him in half and seem, like a lightning bolt, to pierce his vitals. Today, that stamp looks fussy and outdated, in more ways than one.

It could all be a metaphor for the fate of poor Cristoforo Colombo himself since that apogee of his reputation.

Pity him—and the hapless Italian-Americans, too. Already back at the time of the great Columbian Exposition of 1893, the assault of the Scandinavian-Americans from my native Midwest had begun, for the latter provocatively sailed a replica Viking ship up to the fairgrounds in Chicago. (In our day, it poses a challenging problem of historic preservation. 1, 2.) 75 years later, as chance would have it, Leif Erikson had earned his own postage stamp, after it became clear that Columbus had not been the first European to reach the New World. (And he in any case of course never set foot on the North American continent, whose existence he was not even aware of.)


For a while, the theory that Columbus was a Jew was in vogue in some circles, but by the time the 500th anniversary of his first voyage rolled around, in 1992, when he was increasingly associated only with conquest, forced conversion, enslavement and genocide, rather than "discovery" and heroism, no one in America of any ethnicity seemed particularly eager to claim him. He had become, in the phrase just coming (back) into vogue in that decade, "politically incorrect." (1, 2, 3, 4)

from my office door: humorous take on Columbus as villain, 1992
Anyway, as Newsweek noted in its coverage of the non-celebration in that anniversary year, the fellow who popularized the original "Jewish" theory was a Spanish fascist of the Franco era, and among the "evidence" he cited was Columbus's love of gold. Nuff said. A far more sophisticated variant of that theory (which has its own more respectable antecedents) based on putative further evidence has resurfaced in the last few years, but emphasizing Columbus's alleged desire to find a refuge for "his" persecuted "people," and thus giving his ventures a political-moral motive in keeping with modern sensibilities rather than emphasizing the traditional "discovery" in the service of empire. (e.g. 1, 2, 3)..

It is always fascinating to sit on the elevated shores of historical scholarship and watch the shifting tides of opinion ebb and flow. As I teach my students, history, like literary criticism, is a science of evolving interpretation. And because so many individuals and communities have a stake in it, the historical discipline tells us as much about ourselves as about the past. History, as we nowadays understand it, is about scholarship (as objective as we can make it, though recognizing the unavoidable limits of our necessarily limited perspectives), but also about public consciousness and the inevitable appropriation of the past for present purposes. Thus the rise of fashionable "memory" studies alongside history as such. Not surprisingly, Columbus looked very different to the Americans of 1492, 1792, 1892, and 1992.

Regardless of political persuasion, most historians nowadays would agree: whereas previous generations tended to venerate Columbus by accentuating the "modern" as well as the positive (and we do not wish to take away from his navigational skill and courage), we nowadays tend to see him (like some other figures of that "Renaissance"—or as we more commonly say in the profession—"early modern era") as more complex: more medieval and more transitional, less "modern": less the bold rationalist admiral of the ocean sea, and more the mystic and crusader.

I'll list just one example from this year's more substantive political controversies:

Over at Good, in "Rethinking Columbus: Toward a True People's History, Bill Bigelow explains:
This past January, almost exactly 20 years after its publication, Tucson schools banned the book I co-edited with Bob Peterson, Rethinking Columbus. It was one of a number of books adopted by Tucson's celebrated Mexican American Studies program—a program long targeted by conservative Arizona politicians.

The school district sought to crush the Mexican American Studies program; our book itself was not the target, it just got caught in the crushing. Nonetheless, Tucson's—and Arizona's—attack on Mexican American Studies and Rethinking Columbus shares a common root: the attempt to silence stories that unsettle today’s unequal power arrangements.
For years, I opened my 11th grade U.S. history classes by asking students, "What's the name of that guy they say discovered America?" A few students might object to the word "discover," but they all knew the fellow I was talking about. "Christopher Columbus!" several called out in unison.

"Right. So who did he find when he came here?" I asked. Usually, a few students would say "Indians," but I asked them to be specific: "Which nationality? What are their names?"

Silence.

In more than 30 years of teaching U.S. history and guest teaching in others' classes, I've never had a single student say "Taínos." So I ask them to think about that fact. "How do we explain that? We all know the name of the man who came here from Europe, but none of us knows the name of the people who were here first—and there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them. Why haven't you heard of them?"

This ignorance is an artifact of historical silencing—rendering invisible the lives and stories of entire peoples. It's what educators began addressing in earnest 20 years ago, during plans for the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the Americas, which at the time the Chicago Tribune boasted would be "the most stupendous international celebration in the history of notable celebrations." Native American and social justice activists, along with educators of conscience, pledged to interrupt the festivities.

In an interview with Barbara Miner, included in Rethinking Columbus, Suzan Shown Harjo of the Morning Star Institute, who is Creek and Cheyenne, said: "As Native American peoples in this red quarter of Mother Earth, we have no reason to celebrate an invasion that caused the demise of so many of our people, and is still causing destruction today." After all, Columbus did not merely "discover," he took over. He kidnapped Taínos, enslaved them—"Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold," Columbus wrote—and "punished" them by ordering that their hands be cut off or that they be chased down by vicious attack dogs, if they failed to deliver the quota of gold that Columbus demanded. One eyewitness accompanying Columbus wrote that it "did them great damage, for a dog is the equal of 10 men against the Indians."
(Arizona's policies in areas ranging from border enforcement to education have raised charges of bias against legal immigrants and other members of the Latino@ population. The Amherst Select Board in 2010 approved a boycott of Arizona based on its in our view discriminatory immigration law.)

As in past years, students at Hampshire College vented their rage against Columbus by reducing the above argument to provocative but ultimately simplistic (and of course harmless) denunciations:

Fuck Columbus, Celebrate Indigenous Resistance
Columbus Slavery
Columbus Genocide
(and once more, for good measure) Fuck Columbus, Celebrate Indigenous Resistance
Bill Bigelow's point is well taken, but the reductionist chalk slogans on sidewalks cannot capture the complexity of either his critique or Columbus's achievement and legacy, which were necessarily more mixed and nuanced. The so-called "discovery" was fraught with moral shortcomings and consequences, short-term and long-term, of which we are nowadays all too aware. At the same time, it was of epochal significance on a historical, cultural, and even biological level. It is not simple to separate the two categories.

Already back in the 1970s, for example, in the great novel, Terra Nostra, the celebrated Mexican author and diplomat Carlos Fuentes argued that Latin America could not be made whole until it fully acknowledged its Spanish as well as indigenous roots: or, as he put it, erected a monument to Cortes as well as Montezuma. He and Octavio Paz managed, controversially, to come together on that general point on the occasion of the 1992 anniversary.

History may indeed be in many ways (to cite Gibbon paraphrasing Voltaire) "the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind," but to reduce it to that would be to render it one-dimensional.

A three-dimensional rendering of Columbus from the heyday of his popularity was also in the news on the occasion of the holiday. Whereas the artist Christo calls new attention to familiar sights by "wrapping" them, Japanese artist Tatzu Nishi achieves a similar effect by "fabricating domestic environments around artworks and public monuments." His latest project, sponsored by the Public Art Fund: construction of a living room around the 1892 Gaetano Russo statue of the explorer that, atop a pillar, dominates New York's Columbus Circle.




Visitors who ascend the scaffolding enclosing the monument can thus behold it at eye-level rather than from 70 feet below. (The scaffolding also serves a practical purpose: when the exhibit closes, conservation of the monument, at a cost of one million dollars, will begin.) Nishi's purpose, he said, involved art, as such, rather than history and politics:
"It's not my intention to say something about Columbus; rather, I want to change the sculpture from public sculpture into a completely different thing," Nishi said.
Others saw it differently. I was surprised (though perhaps I should not have been) to see that an Italian-American organization, rather than applauding the attention (not to mention, the originality of the artistic conception), chose to criticize the installation:
Rosario Iaconis, chairman of the Italic Institute of America, commented on the project before it opened.

"Columbus was a man of the Renaissance, an exemplar of that civilization. This, is foolishness. This is not art. If it's his particular vision, it's a skewed vision, so I, again with due respect to Mr. Nishi, I think he stumbled on his project. 
He was not alone:
“Why did they have to choose such a beautiful and symbolic landmark for such a trivializing display and then obfuscate its absurdity by calling it 'art'?” asked Andre’ DiMino, president of the One Voice Coalition, an Italian-American non-profit dedicated to combating discrimination within the community.

“It just adds insult to injury to cover it up on Columbus Day – a day of national pride,” he said.

While the Consul General of Italy is personally interested in this exhibition, she understands that some people won’t embrace it.

“It's normal,” said Natalia Quintavalle. “It happens every time when you have a sort of expression of contemporary art like that which intervenes on something old which represents much for Italians and Italian Americans in New York."

Others argue that from a civic participation point of view the exhibit is out of character artistically with the area.
“Covering it up entirely obscures it from people walking by who wish to see it on the street,” said Frank Vernuccio, a board member of the Enrico Fermi Cultural Committee, a Bronx non-profit that promotes Italian culture. Vernuccio does not intend to visit the exhibit and he encourages the city to take it down as soon as possible.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg disagrees with the objections. “You can't see it from the street and here you can get your eyes 10 inches away,” he said at the opening preview in September. “We would have had to cover it to do the restoration anyways.”
It's somehow fitting: even on a purely aesthetic plane, a reminder of the earlier veneration of Columbus cannot escape controversy—even if it now comes from his admirers.


* * *

Resources

The result of the Spanish and Portuguese conquests of the Americas, as brutal and thorough as they were, was not a matter of the mere obliteration of one culture and "imposition" of another. One way to experience and understand the resultant fusion of indigenous and European cultures is through the music. Herewith a small selection:


Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Monday, August 29, 2011

So, how's that rampant free-market capitalism thing working out for you?

"Ghosts With Shit Jobs": A little satirical piece on the consequences of globalization, outsourcing, and the decline of the US economy.



Hat tip:  The Propagandist

Saturday, January 1, 2011

1 January 1788: Jews in the Austrian Empire Required to Assume German Surnames

On this date in 1788, Jews of the Austrian Empire were required (by a decree of the preceding August) to assume permanent given names and surnames and maintain communal vital records in the German language. It was a portentous step in more ways than one. It embodied all the contradictions of enlightened absolutist policy (and by extension, Enlightenment doctrine itself). On the one hand, it implied equality of citizens and broke down the old barriers of both parochialism and exclusion. On the other hand, it made clear that the price was adherence to a unitary norm and a forced assimilation to the dominant culture.

Most Central and Eastern European Jews had no stable surnames, referring to themselves in the traditional religious manner as son of so-and-so, identifying themselves by place of birth/residence, or both. (Thus, for example, the great German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelsssohn was originally known as Moses Dessau—after his hometown—and even his secular surname or pen name, literally, "son of Mendel," was a Germanization of the Hebrew patronymic: his father was known as Menachem Mendel Dessau). One can readily understand why this situation would prove vexing for a centralizing state intent upon exercising an ever greater and more homogenizing authority over the lives of its subjects. The name law was part of the series of comprehensive reforms enacted by Emperor Joseph II.

Emperor Joseph II (detail of copper engraving; Frankfurt, 1781)
A friend once told me he had heard a German remark that the Jews got all the loveliest German names. It is true, for example, that many such names relate to gemstones and the beauties of nature: sapphire (Saphir), diamond (Diamant), gold (Gold, Goldfarb, Goldstein, etc.), ruby (Rubin, Rubinstein, etc.), amber (Bernstein), field or valley of flowers (Blumenfeld, Blumenthal), valley of lilies (Lilienthal), roses (Rose, Rosenblum, Rosenfeld, Rosenthal), and so forth.

In fact, of course, the Jews also got some of the most comical or unattractive names: Galgenholz (gallows wood), Pulverbestandteil (component of powder), Maschinendraht (machine wire), Saumagen (sow's stomach), Wanzenknicker (bug cracker), Hungerleider (starvling), Wohlgeruch (good smell), Fresser (glutton), Einhorn (unicorn), Mist (manure), Küssemich (kiss me), Groberklotz (rough block of wood), etc. etc.

There have been many assertions about the nature and consequences of the Josephine name decrees. As tradition has it, unsympathetic and mercenary officials assigned Jews names depending on whim or the applicant’s ability to pay.

When I was in college, the great German-Jewish historian (and inveterate ironist) George Mosse once said, in a lecture:
And there was some poor little Jew from the ghetto who stank to high heaven, and they named him "Tülpenfeld" [field of tulips] or "Veilchenduft" [fragrance of violets] and thought it was hilarious.
It's like an old German-Jewish joke from Central Europe:
The decree is issued that Jews must take on German names.
The husband comes back from the naming office.
The wife, with curiosity: "So, what are we called now?"
The husband: "Shirthead."
The wife: "Vey iz mir! Couldn't you have chosen a more respectable name?!"
The husband: "What do you mean, 'chosen,' with this band of thieves? I paid 50 Gulden extra for the 'r' alone!"
It is puzzling at first sight. The law and its subsequent additions did not speak of assigning names, although they did prohibit the use of place names or common or distinguished German surnames. (A list specified only acceptable given names.) Surprisingly, there was long no authoritative explanation of how the policy actually worked, and most of what passes for accepted fact is merely received wisdom that has to be viewed with a certain skepticism.

The Austrian Empire, from Conrad Malte Brun, Atlas Complet (Paris, 1812). Galicia is the yellow-bordered region to the northeast



To the extent that we now better understand the actual origins and patterns of Jewish names in Galicia (home to the largest Jewish population in the Empire), it is thanks to the outstanding work of Alexander Beider (2004), which follows on his pioneering studies of Ashkenazic given names and Russian and Polish Jewish surnames. Beider, who eventually inventoried some 25,000 Galician names, notes that he was originally reluctant to take up the topic: The names of Polish and Russian Jews reflected their own choices and life-ways as well as intriguing multilingual etymologies that begged for decoding. The creation of Galician Jewish names,” by contrast, “was due principally to the whim of Austrian Christian officials,” and developing an inventory presumably “would be equivalent to copying a German dictionary.” To his surprise, he found that there was more than met the eye, and not just because Galicia produced “a large body of notables in Jewish culture” whose legacy deserved to be commemorated (the more so, as many names had disappeared, whether through extermination, assimilation, or adoption of new identities in Israel). The names, contrived as they may be, constitute “an important link between generations” and, by permitting “geographic localization,” serve as a crucial resource for genealogists and historians exploring the deeper past. And, it turns out, the patterns that originated here “heavily influenced those used later during the mass surnaming procedures in other European countries.” (vii-viii)

Beider reproduces as well as analyzes the only detailed description of the naming process, written a century after the event by Austrian man of letters Karl Emil Franzos (1848-1904). Although the lengthy piece is more literary than scholarly and contains a few obvious errors, Beider concludes that it is too detailed and precise to be “purely the fruit of the author’s imagination.” (11) Because the policies prohibited Jews from taking common German surnames yet insisted that each family in a locale have a distinct surname so as avoid duplication, the naming commissions strove for diverse and unusual names. Some Jews resisted the new regulation, either out of fear of additional civic burdens or simple reluctance to give up their “sacred” names. Some also may not have been able to understand the law or communicate their intentions adequately in the new language. In such cases, the commissions were empowered to assign names. Franzos offers numerous examples, and observes, “One can really, therefore, not be astounded that the specific auditor let his fantasy roam free, and when it was starting to flag, he stimulated it with curious leapfrogs, so that eventually, anti-Semitism, barrack humor, as well as greed often found their expression.” (78)

As Beider shows, the records allow us to determine the “When” and “Where” of surname origins, but the “What, How, Why, and Who” remain a matter of judicious inference or speculation. The Jewish names derive mainly from common words, given names, and less commonly, place names (the prohibition on the latter notwithstanding). The Jews were largely free to propose their own surnames, although what happened after that could vary considerably, as it might involve the approval or intervention of a Jewish or an Austrian Christian official. (17-20)

Most modern Jewish names are “artificial,” i.e. not based on the personal attributes of the first bearer, and Galicia displays the highest proportion of such names in Jewish Europe (ranging from 62 to 82 percent, depending on the district). (27) Many of these artificial names were presumably the choice of an official rather than the applicant. Still, one must be cautious in drawing conclusions. As an example, Beider explains that the name “Gold” could be an artificial name, or it could be derived from the occupation of the head of household (goldsmith) or even the name of the mother (Golde). We simply cannot generalize with any certainty.

Beider’s rigorous method allows him to debunk some of the received wisdom regarding artificial names: For example, it is commonly asserted that the more attractive names could be obtained only through a steep payment—and thus reflected the higher socio-economic status of their bearers. Bribes played a role, but one that seems to have been exaggerated. Statistics show that derogatory surnames are “rare exceptions” and the supposedly elite “surnames derived from the names of flowers or precious stones” are in fact “the most common” throughout the region. (12) Myth busted.

Among perhaps the most striking points in the 624-page book is a matter of established background rather than new conclusions. As Beider explains, one reason the subject initially did not attract him was that “these names were of little interest to their bearers; viewed by them simply as official labels.” “a majority of Jews, until the beginning of the 20th century (and most orthodox Polish Jews until World War II), paid no particular attention to the surnames imposed on them by Christian officials.” (vii, 12-13)

The whole naming process, then, raises intriguing questions. As Avital Feuer puts it, “The Jews’ linguistic history is characterized by di- or heteroglossia and multilingualism.” That is, Jews used Hebrew only as a sacred language or language of internal official affairs, while, in their day-to-day lives, they spoke one or more languages of the surrounding society as well as a vernacular of their own such as Yiddish. They moved readily between several languages and cultures. The fact that they clung to their Hebrew or Yiddish names therefore speaks volumes about their sense of identity as they negotiated multiple cultural worlds.

One is thus also tempted to wonder about similar cases in other contexts. First and foremost, one thinks of African-Americans. They were deprived of their history and liberty in ways that even the Jews were not, yet members of both groups operated in multiple cultures, acquired new names, and then experienced emancipation in the course of the “long nineteenth century.” Has anyone explored this? Are there any deeper parallels?

A final irony: although the Jews may at first have been indifferent to the new German names that the external world imposed upon them, many came to feel a deep attraction to and identification with the German world, which for them represented the pinnacle of civilization.  More on that in a forthcoming post.

What's in a name?  A great deal of history, and a bit of mystery.


Resources

• A genealogical website posts the German and Polish texts of the first Josephine decree here, with English translation of the latter and explanation of the extension of these regulations to West Galicia.

• Alexander Beider,  A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from Galicia (Avotaynu, 2004)


Update

And what, by the way, are the most common Austrian and German names today?

Austria

Gruber
Huber
Bauer
Wagner
Müller

Germany

Müller
Schmidt
Schneider
Fischer
Meyer


Friday, July 2, 2010

Fun With Hamas, Hizballah, and History

The political world is atwitter with rumors that the US is secretly negotiating with Hamas, fueled by a growing stream of articles citing experts and others who urge that the government do just that. The advice fuels the rumors, and the rumors confirm the advice (1, 2, 3, 4 ). It’s a perfect feedback loop. The latest accelerant, in the June 30 Foreign Policy, was Mark Perry’s article on a report by the “Red Team” of CENTCOM planners, advocating engagement with both Hamas and Hizbullah as the key to Middle East peace.

Some highlights:
• support for integration of Hamas into the security forces of the Palestinian Authority and of Hizballah into the Lebanese armed forces, respectively, which currently “represent only a part of the . . . populace.”
• “while Hizballah and Hamas ‘embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies,’ the two groups are ‘pragmatic and opportunistic.’”
• "Putting Hizballah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid," [a senior officer] said. "I don't know any intelligence officer at CENTCOM who buys that."
It’s an appealing idea to a desperate world and it might be compelling—if it rested on valid assumptions. The assumptions are that all groups and states are driven by the same motivations and calculus and susceptible to the same stimuli of reward and punishment. The point is not that states occasionally have to engage with unsavory interlocutors for tactical and pragmatic reasons; few political realists would disagree with that. Rather, the question involves strategies and long-term expectations.  The ultimate assumption, put bluntly, is that the radicals are not serious about what they say, and that their stated goals are not real goals. It’s therefore about gambling on their willingness to compromise on their fundamentals as well as incidentals. Not everyone is willing to take that gamble. This is where history comes in.

This is the same mistake that most politicians, unable to see that they were confronted with something qualitatively new, made in dealing with Nazism (disclaimer: no further parallel implied). Western liberals assumed that the Nazis were basically dissatisfied rational actors who could be appeased, co-opted, or controlled. The dogmatic left assumed that Nazism was a stalking horse for traditional reaction and material interests—the last gasp of monopoly capitalism—rather than what it said it was: namely, a revolutionary movement, based on a mystical notion of national death and resurrection, ideologically anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, and anti-Marxist at once.

This is not to say that these movements are “irrational” if the implication is that they have no internal consistency. It’s just that their “rationality” rests on an utterly different foundation. Peter Drucker captured the problem in a nutshell in his End of Economic Man, neglected when it appeared in 1939 and not fully appreciated even after it was reprinted more than a generation ago. He recalls how he suddenly understood the fascist mentality when he heard a Nazi at a rally declare: "We don't want lower bread prices, we don't want higher bread prices, we don't want unchanged bread prices — we want National-Socialist prices." In other words, it was about a comprehensive worldview, a symbolic rather than practical politics, total ideological saturation rather than material gain.

I can just imagine the scenarios that would have transpired, had “experts” and statesmen in earlier ages applied the "Red Team" logic to problems in their own world.

 a cozy coffee with a "pragmatic and opportunistic" rejectionist:
Sudeten German leader Konrad Henlein in London, 1938

* * *
The Court, at Rome, February 1519
To His Holiness, Pope Leo X

We humbly submit that Your Holiness was premature in dismissing the affair of the 95 Theses as nothing but another monks’ quarrel. Clearly, the problem is real and will not go away. However, persecuting Dr. Luther would risk making a martyr of him and radicalizing more people, especially the young, thus increasing the number of his potential recruits.

To be sure, many of his statements are extreme, but he uses them mainly in order to stir up his German followers, who are motivated by resentment of Rome. True, he refuses to recant, but in our estimation, this is just a negotiating stance, intended to wring from us further concessions. We therefore cannot believe that he will continue to cling to his maximalist position. To challenge the supreme pontifical authority would be to destroy the Church itself, which even he must realize is folly. Many of his other demands are legitimate and should be addressed.

He is crude, but above all, pragmatic and opportunistic, more interested in power and the pleasures of this earth than spiritual rebellion. We suggest: First, take action against the more visible forms of corruption: Deprive him of the most popular grounds for complaint, and his movement will collapse like a soap bubble. Second, rather than condemning him, bring him into the ecclesiastical hierarchy: grant him a bishopric, perhaps. That should satisfy his ego, fill his belly, and stop his mouth.

You should rather have him inside the church passing water outward, than outside, making water upon its holy precincts (if you will pardon the earthy expression). Place your faith in this counsel, for we are convinced that it will secure for you success.

May God grant a favorable issue; and now farewell in the Lord.

Hieronymus Rothgespann, Doctor, by the grace of God, Apostolic Prothonotary

* * *
Washington, D.C.
October 20, 1859

Dear Mr. President,

We hate to say, “we told you so,” and yet, indubitably, undeniably, such we did.

Had you followed our advice and arranged to put Mr. Brown in charge of the Harpers Ferry (or even Springfield) Armory, this tragedy could have been averted. To be sure, he would no doubt have clung to some of his more fevered views. However, losing his outlaw status would have deprived him of a platform for them.

Once placed in charge, Mr. Brown would quickly have had to learn responsibility or face the prospect of losing both his position and his access to firearms. It is easy to clamor for guns when you have none. It is far harder to manage an armory, clean and inspect the weapons, arrange for the emptying of the ash cans, procure victuals, and meet payroll. One is simply too busy for “activism.” Over time, Mr. Brown would have come to appreciate the limitations within which the federal government must operate and learned patience and self-control in both politics and personal life.

Unfortunately, you did not permit yourself to put our expert advice to the test. We say this with malice toward none and charity for all. Trusting that you will have more faith in our recommendations next time, we remain, with deepest respect, and in anticipation of many years of remaining mutually serviceable,

Yours very truly, etc., etc.

Elihu Redding & Co.
* * *
Washington, D.C.
[n.d.; presumably, April 1861]

Dear Mr. President,

Just as we opposed the violent tactics of Mr. John Brown some two years ago, so, too, we now condemn the recent attack by southern rebels on Fort Sumter. The excesses of one side do not justify those of the other, for they just perpetuate the cycle of violence.

Although it would no doubt be tempting to retaliate against the rebels with the full weight of the Federal Army, we urge you to ponder carefully the consequences of any action. To use force would be to fall into the trap that the radicals have set: their aim is to disrupt the tenuous peace and goad you into responding disproportionately, thereby radicalizing southerners, and especially slaveholders, who already feel themselves to be without hope.

Slavery is an idea, and you cannot destroy an idea by force of arms. The path of wisdom is instead to encourage the moderate elements among the Secessionists . . .

[rest of document missing]
* * *
Washington, January 1933

Dear Mr. President,

In our opinion, the only solution to the political and economic crisis in Germany is for President Hindenburg to bring Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP into the government.

Though this may at first sight seem controversial, it is based on incontrovertible logic. To be sure, Herr Hitler and his Brownshirts say some pretty frightening things, but their views and behavior are a response, albeit, an extreme one, to the frustrations that they feel. Truth be told, they have many legitimate grievances: the Versailles Treaty, the lack of self-determination for Germans in other lands, economic hardship, and the threat of the vastly more dangerous communists.

As disgruntled spoilers, they are a force for instability, but one cannot destroy them and one cannot ignore them. The current situation is simply not sustainable. Once forced to assume responsibility—to wear a suit instead of a uniform, to conduct the affairs of state and make reparations payments—rather than merely protest and speechify, Herr Hitler will perforce moderate his words and ways. He will be too busy dealing with the economic crisis to rant about the Jews or threaten his neighbors.

Of course, we cannot bring stability to the state without bringing stability to the military. It makes no sense for the national armed forces to represent only a part of the German populace. We thus further recommend integration of the Storm Troopers (SA) and SS into the Reichswehr. True, this would require a revision of the Versailles Treaty, but the small costs would be repaid many times over: We would be righting a moral wrong by softening its unjust provisions and we would thereby deprive extremists of one of their main arguments. The SA and SS, for their part, would learn proper military discipline and loyalty to the state rather than the party. In fact, they could become the best guarantee for long-term stability and moderation of the regime.

In our assessment, there are only two possible scenarios: either Hitler will grow more moderate and become a responsible and successful leader, or he will fail and promptly be forced from power, ending his political career. It’s a win-win situation.

We are confident of the correctness of this view, and as always, thank you for your confidence in our services and us.

Very sincerely yours,

Red Team Associates, Inc.
* * *
Berlin November 1933

Dear Mr. President,

Herewith, the promised update, based on our latest analysis of the situation in Germany.

On the surface, to be sure, Herr Hitler seems to be consolidating his power without moderating his tone or policies, but this in no wise invalidates our earlier prediction. Indeed, it merely proves the correctness of our assumptions. To those who are still concerned over the seemingly bellicose Nazi rhetoric regarding the European peace, the racial question, and the like, we cite the assessment of our expert on the scene:
Are these statements really complete evidence of National Socialist aggressiveness in foreign affairs or do they merely strike an attitude which is designed to attract patriotic Germans to the movement and give it a popular hold on conservative opinion, which might otherwise be alienated by the radical character of the movement? I think there is some justification for believing that a great deal of the Nazis’ war talk, superman talk and posing is simply designed to impress their own followers and should be heavily discounted.
Trusting that this reassures you, we remain at your constant disposal.

Very sincerely yours,
Red Team Associates, Inc.
* * *
London, April 1,1938

Dear Mr. Prime Minister

It is true that the Nazi regime has now been in power for some five years, during which time it has eliminated all other political parties and persecuted political dissenters, passed discriminatory racial laws, abrogated the Versailles Treaty, rearmed, withdrawn from the League of Nations, and found itself at the center of various international crises. However, this in no wise invalidates our earlier assessment. Indeed, it merely proves the correctness of our assumptions. We have repeatedly put Hitler to the test and made him accountable for his actions by forcing him to acquire his territorial gains without violence.

There remains but one obstacle to a just and lasting peace. The current situation in Czechoslovakia is unsustainable and destabilizing Europe as a whole. Czechoslovakia cannot lay full claim to the title of the only democracy in the region as long as it rejects the Sudeten German demands for self-determination, and we for our part cannot credibly preach democracy to others as long as we are seen as supporters of the Czechoslovaks; this is rapidly becoming a foreign-policy liability for us.

The leader of the Sudetendeutschen, as you know, is Herr Henlein. He seems rather a good chap, and a man we can do business with: quiet, well mannered, a former bank clerk. Some are hesitant because Hitler has adopted the Sudeten cause as his own. To be sure, both Herr Henlein and Herr Hitler speak the language of aggrieved minorities and the right to self-determination, but this is the extent of the connection. There is no evidence whatsoever that Henlein and his Blueshirts are a proxy for Nazi Germany. This is just the tired refrain of the alarmist Czech nationalists, who seek to entangle us in their conflict. As one of our experts explains, “Putting Henlein and Hitler in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid. We don’t know any intelligence officer who buys that.”

Some say that yielding to Henlein’s demands would be to give in to coercion and set a dangerous precedent. On the contrary, refusing to engage Herr Henlein may have the reverse effect of tightening his bonds with Nazi Germany, precisely the result we wish to avoid. Hitler is able to exploit the issue as long as it is unresolved. We may not approve of dictatorships, but there they are. You cannot remove them. We have to live with them. We should take any and every opportunity to remove any genuine and legitimate grievances that may exist.

We therefore need to encourage and mainstream the moderate elements among the Sudeten German separatists. If you don’t deal with Henlein now, you will have to deal with Hitler later. It’s that simple.

Herr Hitler has said that, after this, he will have no more territorial claims on his neighbors. If, as scarcely seems conceivable, he breaks his word, then he will have fallen into our trap and it will be plain for all to see that we hold the moral high ground.

Yours very truly, etc., etc.
Red Team Associates (UK), Ltd.
* * *

Note:

• The analysis from November 1933 is taken from an actual dispatch by the US commercial attaché in Berlin: Douglas Miller, “Hitler and the Stability of Eastern Europe,” in his Via Diplomatic Pouch, (New York, 1944), 81.

• The 1938 comments about living with dictatorships and satisfying their legitimate demands come from a speech by Neville Chamberlain at Birmingham on April 8.

• Henlein, it was definitively proven after the war, had been in the pay of the Nazis since 1937, but  had been under strict orders to deny the association in his dealings with the western powers.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

17 June 1775: Bunker Hill; winners and losers

What a nice feeling it is when everything comes together serendipitously. And the essay or the web and the world of the hyperlink is often the perfect venue for the kind of lateral thinking that perhaps originated with Montaigne.(What couldn't he have done with a blog?)

I recently spoke of modern war being fought more than ever as a battle of perceptions, though I noted that the phenomenon is of course much older.  As chance would have it, this week brought two perfect illustrations, one old, and one new—and fate moreover conspired to conjoin them.

Most of us here were thrilled when Team USA pulled off a tie against the vaunted English in early World Cup action. We had been told we'd never get this far.  Naturally, the New York Post could not contain its pride:


The headline caused quite a stir, and some of our English friends took umbrage at it.

Actually, I thought the notorious Post (not unlike the Sun, though a cut or two above that) got things more or less right here:  They just had to be triumphalist somehow, knew it was no outright victory but could nonetheless count as one, and picked the proper historical reference.  They knew that the famous Battle of Bunker Hill was not a military success.  I rather doubt that many students or even the average adult would know that.

Far from operating out of jingoism and iignorance (as some outraged commentators charged), the writers at the Post moreover displayed (I think) a nice sense of self-deprecating humor; they could use a bit more of that.

The timing was actually fortuitously good, if not perfect, for the match came less than a week before the anniversary of the Battle.


For those of you in need of a little refresher, here's last year's post.

Everything's relative, right? I mean, if Dunkirk can count as a major success (only because it wasn't a total disaster), then why not Bunker Hill and a 1-1 World Cup Tie?

Saturday, June 5, 2010

5 June 1967: Outbreak of the "Six Day War" in the Middle East

On this day, the Six Day War (as it is known in the west) broke out when Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched air attacks against Egypt in response to a series of mounting military provocations. It was a doctrine that Israel's socialist politician and military leader Yigal Allon called the pre-emptive counterattack:  When the enemy's hostile intentions are clear, the smaller power, lacking large forces and strategic depth, needs to maximize its qualitative edge and the element of surprise, strike first, and carry the war onto enemy territory. Tensions had been rising with Syria (allied with Egypt in a military pact since 1966) over shelling of Israel's northern agricultural settlements and disputes over the demilitarized zone.  Egypt's movement of troops into the Sinai (following the expulsion of UN observers stationed there in the wake of the 1956 war) was a further provocation, and its closing of the Straits of Tiran—an international waterway—to Israei shipping constituted a clear act of war.

Although both politicians and scholars now agree that Israel struck first, the thesis that it did so as part of an aggressive and premeditated plan of expansion is, as historian (and current Israel ambassador to the US) Michael Oren has shown, a chimera.  All the evidence suggests that the war was the result of a miscalculation on the part of Egypt and Syria, goaded on by their Soviet patrons who wanted to stoke the tensions for geopolitical reasons of their own but not precipitate full-scale armed conflict (intercourse without orgasm, as one analyst of the period trenchantly put it).  And, far from being the masters of some comprehensive plan of aggression, the Israel leadership was shaken at the prospect of what many considered a new existential threat.

The result is well-known: Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the territory between the 1949 armistice lines and the Jordan River (so-called "West Bank") from Jordan. Ironically, of course, Jordan attacked even though Israel had urged it to stay out of the war, and thus, today's most contentious issues—the issues of "borders," "settlements," and "refugees," and the "question of Jerusalem"—all in a sense arose from this fateful decision. It is tempting to speculate as to what would have happened absent this colossal blunder on the part of the diminutive Hashemite monarch:  would the result have been a relatively simple negotiation over territory, leading to peace, or rather, would the conflict have festered even longer? One likewise wonders what would have happened, had the Arab states, when presented with an Israeli offer of peace, had not responded with the "three no's" of Khartoum. Or, for that matter, what would have happened had the Israel government heeded the advice of some of its own intelligence and security staff and established a Palestinian state on its own without waiting for the Arab states to negotiate. For better or worse, historians generally confine themselves to what was and why, rather than what might have been.  It is among the great ironies that what did happen was that the great Israeli victory and subsequent occupation of the captured territories (lasting longer than many of the parties perhaps dreamed) was perhaps the greatest impetus to a new Palestinian nationalism and a seemingly interminable rather than definitively resolved conflict.

The fighting in June 1967 was in many ways the last "classic" modern war:  a swift war of movement, fought by regular forces of recognized states, with traditional weapons.  Although air-to-air missiles played their role, planes still relied on cannon in close combat. Some of the tanks (e.g, the British Centurion and Soviet T-34) dated from World War II.  The popular music of the conflict, no less than much of the political rhetoric, was of a type that would not return. It was the end of an era in the sense of both an older, more straightforward form of war, and more generally, a kind of moral, military, and political innocence.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Investigative Journalists: As South African Judge, Goldstone Condemned more than Two Dozen Blacks to Death

New information on the career history of Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the controversial report on the Gaza conflict of 2009:
Judge Goldstone's dark past

Yedioth Ahronoth investigation reveals man preaching human rights, who authored scathing report against Israel's operation in Gaza, sent at least 28 black defendants to gallows as South African judge under Apartheid regime

Tehiya Barak, Tzadok Yehezkeli
Latest Update: 05.06.10, 23:55 / Israel News
. . .
A special Yedioth Ahronoth investigation reveals Richard Goldstone's dark side as a judge during the Apartheid era in South Africa. It turns out, the man who authored the Goldstone Report criticizing the IDF's actions during Operation Cast Lead took an active part in the racist policies of one of the cruelest regimes of the 20th century.

During his tenure as sitting as judge in the appellant court during the 1980s and 1990s sentenced dozens of blacks mercilessly to their death. . . .

Yedioth Ahronoth's findings show that Goldstone sentenced at least 28 black defendants to death. Most of them were found guilty of murder and sought to appeal the verdict. In those days, he actually made sure he showed his support for the execution policy, writing in one verdict that it reflects society's demands that a price be paid for crimes it rightfully views as frightening. (read the rest)
The report goes on to detail other instances in which he upheld racist or oppressive laws, on one occasion handing down jail sentences to youths for mere possession of tapes by ANC leaders, while on another, exonerating white police officers "who had broken into a white woman's house on suspicions that she was conducting sexual relations with a black man."

Goldstone's defense was a not unexpected but nonetheless problematic one: though he had personally opposed the system and its laws, he was duty-bound to work within it and apply them as fairly as he could. In another interview, he added that Nelson Mandela had no problem appointing him as a judge. Naturally, this proved to be a rather unsatisfying answer for many, in light of both historical precedent and Goldstone's own moralizing stance since that time.

Critics, from US lawyer Alan Dershowitz to Israel's conservative Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, were quick to note, with Schadenfreude, the similarity to the excuses of Nazi officials and war criminals:

"Goldstone took a job as an apartheid judge. He allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed," Dershowitz told Channel 2 TV.

"You know, a lot of people say we just followed the law, German judges… That's what (German SS officer and physician Josef) Mengele said too. That was Mengele's defense and that was what everybody said in Nazi Germany. 'We just followed the law.' When you are in an apartheid country like South Africa, you don't follow the law," Dershowitz added.

In one sense, Goldstone's record does not bear on the significance of his Report, which will stand or fall on its merits. But given that the document prompted widespread charges of bias, the investigation may yet prove to be pertinent to a new reading. Already we are hearing suggestions that Goldstone's opinions there (but presumably in other recent endeavors, as well), far from representing a set of neutral analyses, in fact reflected a sort of perverse overcompensation for a blemished moral past about which he preferred to keep silent. In the words of Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon, "This so-called respected judge is using this [Gaza] report in order to atone for his sins and gain international legitimacy.”

I am very curious to see how this all plays out. In the meantime, it is interesting to see the Nazi analogy used somewhat more judiciously than is often the case. It remains provocative here, too, but generally within bounds (admittedly, I could have done without the gratuitous and inaccurate reference to Mengele). No one is accusing Goldstone of committing crimes like the Nazis. Rather, the charge is that he is rationalizing his complicity in the policies of a racist regime on the same grounds that they did. This reminds us of a moral dilemma that all of us should contemplate, and not only in this context.

Postscript: thus far, the story does not seem to have had any play in the mainstream western media.