Near the end of class this afternoon someone mentioned how they worry that the way the Holocaust is portrayed today might lead to the desensitization of future generations. We also discussed how the United States’ perception of the Holocausts differs from that of Europe in that it focuses the event on the losses of the Jewish people while in some ways downplaying those of other groups. From these two points, I could not help but think of a discussion I had with a friend a few years ago who was pointing out the many ways he thought Jews exerted power in the United States. He discussed Jewish influence in politics, though that would be considered more specifically an Israeli influence, and also within Hollywood and the media, stating that if you played a Jew in huge production Holocaust movie you were automatically a “shoe in” for an Oscar but if you did an amazing job playing a Nazi your chances at getting an award were quite low. Another point he made was how the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust was “over publicized” in the US, ignoring other groups that suffered.

I think many people would consider my friend an anti-Semitic but I would disagree. Our class seemed to share a few of his ideas though perhaps in a more sensitive and politically correct way. Nevertheless, pulling from the article we read today “Lest We Forget!” by Jonathan Webber, it would make sense that the US perception of the Holocaust is focused on Judaism. Webber writes that the Holocaust has become a way to identify oneself as Jewish within secular Judaism. This form of identification has not been so much associated with God or rabbinic forms of Judaism, thus resulting in conflicts between the Secular and Rabbinic Jewish community regarding their individual stance on this historical tragedy.  Organized and popular reform and secular Jewish communities mainly exist in the United States. Webber focuses his article on the subject of the Holocaust myth however, the idea outlined above already provides insight on why the Holocaust “belonged exclusively to Jewish history” in America (Webber 107).

Today’s class sparked many thoughts for me. Ilana Pardes’ discussion of the birth of Israel, as we discussed in class, attempted to view the Bible without any preconceptions of its meaning, purpose, or direction. Rather, she viewed it as a piece of literature. As a result, I was reminded of a course I took in high school, “The Bible as/in Literature.” This was a course taught in the English department and taken by students from various backgrounds. We studied the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament. But rather than learning the Bible’s Stories as factual or as God’s message to humans (this was, after all, public school), we looked at God as a character, sought meaning through literary devices like symbolism and metaphors, and, most importantly, studied the purpose of each story (for instance, what lesson was its writer attempting to impart?). This fascinating course was made all the more so when one studied the attitudes of its students, both before and after the course. For many, it confirmed their belief that religion is “made-up” for the purpose of giving people a point of reference, or to explain extraordinary phenomenon that can otherwise be explained by science. However, for many, the course served to reinforce their religious beliefs. This is somewhat surprising, because the course would seem to prove the Bible as a means to establish a secure and uniform culture, rather than to teach religion. I think that this results from the sense of community that many religions rely on. By learning about a common history and sharing knowledge of something with others (in this case, Bible stories), one is drawn into a community who shares such understandings. For many of the students, learning about the Bible as a young adult served to reinvigorate beliefs that they learned as children. When I finished reading the Pardes piece, I wrote a note to myself: “how do conservative Jews feel about such a reading of the Bible?” This question was actually rhetorical, my point being that I am sure that conservative Jews would not like such a reading. However, upon reflecting about my experiences in high school, I think that this question is a lot more complicated than I initially thought.

I was also very interested by Professor Staub’s question regarding our view of Ancient Israeli culture as being factual or as an imagined culture. Last year, I took “Nationalism, Consumerism, and Gender” with Professor Sweeney. In this course, we discussed the creation of national identities, and many academics suggested the idea of a common history or common origin was a common characteristic of nations. Many characteristics or practices that we assume to be indigenous to a given culture have actually developed from something from very different over time. Others have been consciously created in order to promote a sense of unity. My favorite example is kilts, which most of us understand as a traditional article of Scottish clothing. In reality, the kilt only became a national icon in the nineteenth century. It was worn in the sixteenth century by men and boys in the Highlands, but was popularized following Scottish Diaspora in the early nineteenth century as a symbol of national identity. Kilts serve as an example of how objects or practices that we understand as meaning something today may have had a very different meaning in the past. Although I am not familiar enough with the research performed by scholars to judge the validity of our current understanding of Ancient Israeli culture, my education has taught me to be wary of accepting our common perceptions as truth.

I also just wanted to mention The Red Tent, by Anita Diamant, an interesting novel that reexamines the story of Jacob and the life of his daughter Dinah, as well as those of Leah, Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah. Although I read it years ago and cannot remember many details, I think it is an interesting example of how people can have different understandings of Biblical texts.