Jewish Voices Against Genocide

I am blessed with many Jewish friends, and have been cautious about raising my voice in criticism of Israel, because I know that many of them identify with that nation.  

But, considering that the disproportionate power that Israel has in that region, the reality that this power comes directly from the United States ---and the reckless, often inhumane way in which they employ it, it has been hard to not scream in rage.  

It is gratifying to hear that many of the most outspoken voices calling attention to the ongoing genocide in Gaza are Jewish, including American Jews, it is time now (if not long ago) that we add our voices to that chorus.  

This Israeli woman is courageous, and correct, in her characterization of what is going on there.  

It is indispensable that Jewish voices take a lead in expressions of outrage, in order to draw a clear, bold line between themselves and the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity.

Churchill is often credited with the phrase, "History is written by the victors".  That might be better phrased as "History is written by the survivors".  The world is unfamiliar with the history of the Punic Wars, from the perspective of the Carthaginians.  And we have had few sources to learn the perspective of the indigenous people of North America of their conquest by European settlers.  

It is an all-too familiar story; a group of Europeans leave to find a new home; whether to escape religious intolerance, establish their own religious intolerance, to escape oppression, or to write their own new chapter in history.  When they 'discover' their new home, the people who already live there are seen as obstacles, to either be removed, slaughtered, or placed on reservations - which tend to not be on the best land, and shrink over time, or if resources are found on the rez.  If the indigenous people find the conditions intolerable, and rebel, they are labeled ''renegades', or 'terrorists', and whatever actions they take when they 'go off the reservation', are treated as though that's where the trouble began.  Often these actions are used as a justification to steal even more of their land, leaving them in even more dire circumstances - and to characterize them as more savage, and less deserving of even the substandard conditions that drove them to that desperation. 

The choices for indigenous people are the slow-motion genocide of privation and starvation, or the more rapid genocide that follows acting in rebellion.  

Scopes Trial Centenary

With all the monkey business constantly flooding all lanes of media, it would be easy to overlook significant milestones from the past.  

The trial of Tennessee science teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution was wrapping up a century ago this weekend.  Tomorrow will be one hundred years since defense attorney Clarence Darrow called, as his only witness, prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, and choreographed a self-destruction of possibly the most prominent religious fundamentalist of that age.  

Scopes Monkey Trial

Though the trial is viewed by history as a victory of science over the teaching of folklore as literal reality, the defendant was actually found guilty, and the law was not overturned until decades later.  Stranger yet, there are still many in this country that would, given the chance, reinstate such laws.  

'Illegals'

ILLEGALS

Here's one of my late Father's favorite riddles;
"What's the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal?' "

Unlawful means 'against the law', and illegal is a sick bird."  

They're actually both adjectives, and as such, they are meaningless when not referencing a noun.  Without a noun, the adjective just hangs there like a wet paintbrush with nothing at the business end to describe or modify.  

This is more than bad grammar or poor English -- though it very much is these.  It can also be intentional, with the intent of diminishing or hurting another.  

Using a bare adjective to describe a human being is intended to dehumanize them.  When a person is identified only by an adjective--particularly one with a demeaning connotation--it makes it easy to ignore our sin when we treat them as less than human.  It is not the husband, father, hard worker, or desperate refugee who is being kidnapped, and sent to a concentration camp; it is an 'illegal', and by ridding our streets of them, we become more, for want of a better term ...  'legal'.  Viewing them in this way helps us feel like we are righteous, and we feel no shame when we then sit in a pew the next Sunday, praying to a God who very explicitly condemns treating humans this way.   

Though this kind of reductionist language is intended to diminish the target of our grammatical omission, it is we who are reduced.  

So, to borrow from my Father's old riddle, what's the difference between a sick bird, and a cruel, not-too-intelligent redneck?