Our class discussion about “Masada” reminded me of a discussion about myths and rituals in another class. We talked about Eliade’s and Malinowski’s notions of them. Malinowski believed that myths explain or give meaning to the rituals. In addition to accepting that, Eliade stated that myths and rituals are important for people since through them, people are able to identify themselves with the divine, Gods or mystical figures, or go back to the sacred time by re-enacting them.

To me, the Masada myth seemed to confirm Malinowski’s concept of myth. As we have talked about in class, there were four phases of ritual activities related to Masada: the trial trips of the youth, pilgrimages by Jewish people, educational field-trips, and religious or national ceremonies. And throughout the phases, the mythic narratives of the stories also changed. First, as resistance without mentioning of the suicide, later, identification of Masada with Holocaust from the perspective of resistance, then suicides were included, claiming as heroic deaths, and finally, after archeological excavations, the traditions of ancient defense was incorporated into military forms. Thus, the Masada myth was altered along with the activities practiced at the Masada.

I think Eliade’s notion of myth can also be applied to the myth of the Masada. In my opinion, Jewish people are trying to re-enact the myth through all of these ritual activities so that they can be identified with the Jewish people of the myth time and feel the power of them through these rituals.

However, I feel that although Malinowski’s theory might still be applicable after Masada becomes like an economic resort, Eliade’s concept may no longer work. Even if people’s intention of the visit remains the same, the convenient trip may make the purpose of re-enacting of the myth no longer as feasible as before.

When I watched the video clip about the Jewish women not being allowed to pray in front of “the Western Wall,” I was really surprised and a little bit disturbed by it. Especially when Professor Staub mentioned that it was based on the belief that women voices can be sexually alluring for men. More so by a man’s analogy of women and donkeys in the video, and by the police judgment of deciding that it was women’s fault to provoke this conflict.

After watching the video, I found the author’s description of the Western Wall in the article “Pilgrimage and Creating Identities” as “a salient visual image in the ideology of Jewish nationalism” very ironic. As the author mentioned in the pilgrimage article, if these visits are for Jewish teenagers not only to explore their Jewish identities, but also to reinforce them, wouldn’t allowing the Jewish women to pray in front of the Kotel make them feel partially alienated or rejected by the identity that they were trying to connect to? Wouldn’t the purpose of the trip to reinforce the Jewish identity of the American teenagers be negatively affected if these young women feel rejected the denial of men to let them pray in front of the Kotel?

From my understanding, both Jewish men and women visit the Kotel hoping that they will feel some sort of connection to their Jewish identities by these visits. Since I am neither Jewish nor American, I am not sure how the American Jewish women would feel about it. Since they grew up in an environment where the equal rights are emphasized a lot, would they still feel that they belong to a tradition or an identity which would not allow them to perform one of the seemingly simple actions? Personally, I think I would feel very alienated.

However, my perspective as an outsider may be totally different from what the American Jewish women really feel about this issue. Maybe, there are some parts of Jewish laws that I did not know or understand which are against women saying prayers and are accepted by both men and women. Since some women are still fighting against that rule, obviously there must be other women who are not against that rule or who just do not simply care about it nor affected by it. Therefore, I am just curious what the reaction of American Jewish women who found out about this rule was like, or of those who visited the Western Wall and actually experienced it.

Our class discussion about holocaust made me consider about how things are presented can influence on how the audience perceive of them. That led me to think about a controversial topic in the history textbook of Thailand. Thailand had a very bad history with Burma, especially after the destruction of the city of Ayudhya by the Burmese people. Therefore, Thais of earlier generations really hated Burmese people and they attempted to maintain the severity of the hatred by using the history text books. They attempted to constantly remind their people of this past by emphasizing and magnifying the damages that the Burmese army had done in the city of Ayudhya in the lessons of the history textbook. Moreover, the city was never rebuilt and left as a memorial place.

Can I then say that the way the government manipulated the degree of the severity of the text had some influence on the perception of Thais on Burmese people? The later generations who were taught less severe version of text obviously seemed to view the Burmese in less negative way. Or was it really the influence of the text that was changing the Thai people’s opinions?
Maybe, like some of us mentioned in the class during the discussion of the Holocust, the later generations can no longer connect themselves to this event even though the ruined city stood right in front of them. Maybe, they no longer hear the severe version of the story from their older generations because the later older generations, themselves, were only acquainted with the modified version of the destruction of Ayudhya city.
It has always been a debatable topic whether it was the right decision to change the history texts like that. Personally, I think it was the right decision. Even though it is important for the people to know the history of Ayudhya, it is also important for them to move on. What good would history do if it makes one country hates its neighbor?

When we discussed about ‘Childbirth and Magic,’ I was fascinated by the controversial biblical figures. It was the first time I have ever heard about ‘Lilith.’ While I was reading the chapter, she was ‘a witch who strangles children’ as it was portrayed in it. However, during our class discussion, I was surprised to learn that she is used as an explanation for the two creation stories. Then, she is viewed from a different perspective by the feminists. And, all those amulets made to protect babies from being killed by her!
It was also interesting how King David who was a great and religious king and yet, who also had an infamous personal life became the most righteous and devoted man midrashic literature. The six-pointed star, the “Shield of David,” was even identified as the “primary symbol of Judaism.” Jacob who tricked his father also became like the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.
But then, these figures reminded me of all those controversial  figures in history of other religions. In the Hindu epic, ‘The Ramayana’, Dashanan is portrayed as a completely bad person who would not think about good or bad consequences and would do anything to get what he wanted. However, in some modern literature, some scholars and writers turned that character of his into something that should be admired for and that the real hero of the story was him and not Rama.
The life story of the sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso, is also a debatable story. Even though he was not considered as the right leader and capable of performing his duties as the Dalai Lama by some people, especially by Chinese people, Tibetan looked at his actions from a different viewpoint and his songs and poems are one of the most popular in Tibet now.
Although these may not have that much of a connection to our course materials and discussions, it was just fascinating for me how different aspects of various religions can be related not only on the doctrinal level, but also on mythical and historical level.

When we talked in class about some people who identify themselves as Jewish not being accepted by other Jewish communities, I thought it was very confusing.  From the interviews, I found out that all my interviewees are pressured to a certain extent by their families or communities to marry someone who is also Jewish. They told me that because Jewish population is small, intramarriage is important for maintaining their Jewish identities. They also mentioned that most of the Jewish families have at least three to four children which is also for the same purpose.
If that is the case, why won’t other Jewish communities accept people who identify themselves as Jewish if maintaining and spreading Jewish identity is obviously important for them. While we read and discussed about chapters in Lowenstein, there are many variations in regional cultures or traditions among the Jews in different places around the world. There apparently are different types of Jews. Then, why would one Jewish community not accept another because of their different practices? At least, they have been practicing Jewish traditions that are based on similar beliefs all their lives.
Also, that made me think what is the criteria for one Jewish person to accept another as a Jew. During the interview, one of my interviewee mentioned that he was excited to come to Dickinson because he knew that there are other Jewish students here. Maybe, to him, anyone who identify him/herself as Jew is Jewish. I still haven’t had a chance to clarify that. Since most of the people we interviewed said they are ‘secular Jews,’ would they accept anyone who identify themselves as Jewish and yet, who grew up in very different Jewish communities compared to theirs as Jews? If they do, why will they do so and if they don’t, why won’t they? If they don’t, then, it will not be so true to assume being Jewish as an ethnicity as one of my interviewee mentioned.
Moreover, in this case it will be like what Lowenstein mentioned in “The Jewish Cultural Tapestry,” Jewish people are united and separated at the same time by their Jewish identity. Maybe, their identities unite them only on communal level and, separate them if all of them are taken into consideration. But then, why would my friend be excited about coming over to Dickinson because he knew there would be some other Jewish students here? So, maybe, even if they feel separated, they must also feel connected to other Jewish people at the same time.

I have never heard of the terms “secular or cultural Jew” until I did the interview for the fieldwork assignments. At first, I did not even understand what that meant.  When one of my interviewees told me that it is more like an ethnicity or nationality to her, I remember feeling thoroughly confused. I grew up believing ‘being Jewish’ as a ‘religious identity’ just like being Buddhist or being Christian. Then, two of them told me that they do not believe in God! Only then, I realized that I would have to revised my whole notion of Jewish identity.
But then, what is the boundary between being a “secular Jew” and “religious Jew?” I was just wondering about that because they said they celebrate Jewish holidays or follow some Jewish traditions and rules. As far as I know, they are all based on the biblical history which I consider as a religious background. Just out of curiosity I asked them if they have children, how the would tell them what being a Jewish is if they want to take out all the religious components out of it. Not surprisingly, they could not give me a specific answer. All they agreed to was it is really hard to set the boundary between the two.
Then, I thought I might get a somewhat clear answer from class readings and discussions. Yet, it was interesting to learn that there is no definite answer for it and our discussions could go on and on with whatever topic we were talking if we try to related it to Jewish identity. Not only that, if you want to identity something like cuisine or music as Jewish, you have to think about its content, context, purpose and … and still, you can debate about it. It never occur to me that something I always assumed as a simple religious identity can be this controversial and complicated and I love the fact that I am learning about it.
Then, the other day, a friend of mine told me that someone told him Buddhism is not a religion, and asked me whether that is true or not. Again, it has always been a religion to me. So I asked him why his friend told him it is not a religion and he was not sure. But that question bothered me for quite sometime. I was trying to imagine Buddhism without its religious aspects. And, all those reminders of being a ‘true Buddhist’ by my grandparents and parents came back to me. I was not sure what that really meant yet, I knew that believing in law of karma is an important aspect of it. But then, this law of karma sometimes does not seem like a religious doctrines sometimes. It seems more like a natural phenomenon. Then, maybe in some aspects, Buddhism, also is not just a religion.
I still do not have a definite answer for it and all I could say was it depends on which aspect of Buddhism you look at and, what part you believe and practice. I realized that if I break down various aspects of being Buddhist and think about them, I can get different viewpoints about it, just like I did from studying what ‘being Jewish’ is.