Klarinet Archive - Posting 000340.txt from 2005/11

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Re: Mahler, et. al.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:22:47 -0500

I had hoped that this painful topic was closed, painful because
there are so few who understand the central issues involved, and
instead of speaking from historical knowledge they change the
subject to one of self-identity.

With respect to what Mahler and Mendelssohn thought about
themselves, there is no question regarding their peception of
what they were. Following his conversion to Catholicism at 26 (I
think), he spoke of himself as a Catholic, as should have done.

Following Mendellsohn's conversion to Lutheran Protestantism at
12, he always identified himself with Christianity as he should
have done.

The self-image of both men as shown in their correspondence was
that of practicing Christians.

We are not speaking, and we were not speaking about how these
people saw or identified themselves. If we had been talking
about that, there would not have been any discussion.

What we were talking about is how OTHER PEOPLE saw Mahler and
Mendelssohn, referring to them incorrectly as Jews.

As for Danyel's note, I answered her privately, because she also
has not gotten to the heart of the issue, as Oliver did not. That
problem is not about a person's view of himself but rather
society's view of him. The fact that the society in Germany
during 1934-1945 would not even play the music of these two men
shows how this problem is not one of self-identification. It had
risen to an issue of what was acceptable to the state, and the
former faith of these two men was found so repugnant as to
presume that their conversions never happened. Their Jewishness
was a disease that could not be given up.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Seely [mailto:oseely@-----.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:47 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: [kl] Re: Mahler, et. al.

My experience of teaching a diverse university student body all
these
years is that students want very much, and on occasion will
demand,
to be identified first and foremost as themselves and then
perhaps
some distance from that, near or far, will identify themselves as
a
member of some group.

Migration of identity can take place quickly or over a
lifetime. Immigrants to the U.S. have been known to forbid their
children to speak the language of the old country because they
are
"now Americans," whereas others cling to the language and customs
of
the old country.

My brother-in-law's grandparents were orthodox Ashkenazi Jews.
His
parents were conservative. He said on many occasions that the
words
he had to speak for his bar mitzvah meant nothing to him and over
his
lifetime he migrated to something else -- his own identity, which
gave him his own personal and unique character: not exactly
Jewish,
certainly not any other religion, just my favorite brother-in-law
Herb.

My son-in-law's family immigrated to the U.S. from a Sephardic
community in Tunisia via Israel. Are they Jewish? Well, yes,
indeed. Maybe. Somewhat. But they identify themselves very
personally as a family and as individuals first and members of a
group at some distance from that.

An African American student I had many years ago came to me for
academic counselling on his Chemistry major. I said in passing
that
I was sorry there weren't any faculty members of "his group." He
became angry and said that he wasn't at all interested in
speaking to
anyone from "his group," but that he wanted to know something
about
what it meant to be a chemist. That was the last time I let that
phrase slip through my lips.

If Mahler or Mendelssohn or Bruch said of themselves that they
were
Jewish, I figure that would be my criterion for their
identification. If they said they were something else, then I
would
take that at face value, and to hell with all the rabbis,
priests,
ministers and shamans of the world. In my opinion their opinions
aren't worth diddly squat as regards others' identities.

Oliver

At 07:41 PM 11/22/2005, you wrote:
>Dan, the believe that conversion or baptism doesn't count in
terms of being
>Jewish is actually the standard point of view of rabbinical
wisdom. Hence I
>wouldn't call it racist. It dates back to a time, when many Jews
were, alas!
>forced by the christians and other cretins to converse (cf.
Muranos etc).
>Hence the rabbis decided that, even though baptism might be
disgusting and
>deliberate conversion a sign of mental impediment, it is just
totally
>irrelevant in terms of the person's obligations derived from the
mizwot
>burdened upon the chosen people. Baptism is thus not recognized
as a
>religious act at all but one of profanity like many other silly
acts
>committed by Jews on a daily basis.
>Moreover: "The baptismal process is instantaneous and
permanent" -- how
>about circumcision and Bar Mizwa? Why should those rites be
"washed away" by
>another one of much more dubious character?
>
>Shalom,
>danyel

-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
http://www.woodwind.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org