Colonialism – dzx2.net – Daniel D. Z. Zylbersztajn

Answer to Melanie Phillips: Studying only classics as the source of civilisation per se and the main reference point that matters is the problem.

February 9, 2021February 13, 2021by Daniel Z. Zylbersztajn-Lewandowski

Having read Melanie Phillips “How studying the classics became racists” is one of many works of her I read that are filled with arguments, that are simply unacceptable. This is a response to the comment she wrote in The Times on 9th of February 2021.

Photo by Mike van Schoonderwalt on Pexels.com

“Classics” have indeed been quoted within the West as the main source of relevance. There is too much obfuscation of equal Chinese, Arab and wider Indian sources, and civilisations beyond that. That defines “civilisation” as a project supposedly owned by Europeans (though even that would be misreading Antiquity, as it was far more interwoven with the wider East and South than what is given credit).

Phillips parallelization of “white racists” vs “Black racists” and her mentioning that there were Black colonialists and Black slave states are arguments that are borderline to Nazi ideology. If you enter Nazi discourse, as I once have, you quickly hear how “Africans are just as bad”, “look they sold their own people,” and” look how they kill each other in war.” Is that how Phillips likes to argue? Firstly, one does not excuse the other.

Secondly, many studies have shown that slavery in African societies, whilst no state of pride in any society, for sure, was mostly very different to the transatlantic system of slave trade, less brutal and less big in scale, and not so racially defined. For most, except in the trans-Sahel trade towards Arabia, slaves were not displaced on a scale as they were by the Europeans, nor were their lives as discardable as in the Transatlantic version. That, what some call the African Holocaust, was unique in its scale and its brutality.

Crucially, as in most slaveholding systems in human civilisation worldwide, slaves, usually captured in war, could become part of a group by integration into the family of the “winners” of that local war or conflict.

To take the other point Phillips made, whilst racism by some black people or black groups exists, there is an important difference between being in power for centuries and not being in power. The development per se of modern black anti-white racism can be ugly (just read former Black Panther Leroy Eldridge Cleaver as one example) but is usually directly responsive to systemic discrimination against Black people for many generations. It does not excuse it, but it clearly contextualises it. There can in many ways be hardly a comparison. Looking at the mass-incarcerations, the lynchings, the Jim Crow system, slavery, it is evident where we need to look for systemic perpetrators.

Further, to make a general point, British colonialism is not equal to other colonial states elsewhere (in history). That is because we live in an era where we can still see the effects of that last European colonial enterprise, and where many intentionally refuse to take account of it, (European) colonial history and slavery are brushed out of the public discourse and conscience and marginalised.

It is perverse to accuse those who want to talk about the legacies of the (European/British) Empire(s), colonialism and slavery by those who are supposedly offended as somehow being obsessed or wishing to rewrite or edit history. It is likewise perverse to answer the call for recognition and adequate mentioning of the crimes of European modern society with a brisk “but look at them.”

The “editing of history,” in fact, was performed for the last 200 years at least by those who hold power in the UK and other European nations, and who still control often the history books and lessons of or children in school, or the decisions over what statues people must honour day by day, despite strong evidence that some particular persons do not deserve such special honour, because their character was, simply put, nothing but criminal and evil. A person who willingly sold and profited from the sale of other human beings who involuntarily entered into the transaction, that is, they were forced to, does not deserve honouring by putting that person in the form of a statue in a prominent location (it does, however, deserve mentioning and not forgetting (of the crimes).

The debate is one, where justice can be done, simply through acknowledging that human civilisations, knowledge and achievements go beyond just the shores of Europe and however remarkable, the philosophies of a Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Cicero et cetera. In a global world that recognises this, we must count on equal terms the civilisations of Chinese speaking people, of the Arabic speaking Islamic world, of the Indian sub-continent, of the Incas and Aztecs, Ethiopians, of Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, the Horn of Africa, or the Turks, Mongols, Native Americans, and Hebrew Commentary, and so many other. To focus only on Greek and Roman classics, whilst a totally valid subject in its own right, and not to be discarded, is to narrow and shut down minds. We need to expand the sources of our knowledge beyond that. Again, I like to stress, this is not a call to abolish (the study of Classics), as so many falsely claim this would be. I think I made the point that Greeks and Romans are valuable to study, but not as the only or main source of civilisation and only or main valid philosophical debate within general education.

And I give Phillips a point in one area. When we engage in the exercise of looking at all of humanity, we will discover that both civilisation and human genius, as well as the potential for human evil, have been omnipresent and are universal human attributes (though there are questions regarding scale and degrees).

We can then perhaps somewhat relativise the undertakings of European colonialism and slavery as coming out of the capacity of humans to engage in evil acts, though to start with, those crimes relating to the body of European inheritance must be acknowledged, if not atoned for first.
Of course, perpetrators and their descendants often have no interest to do so, especially not, if they never were humiliated for it (as the Germans were, who look inwardly over the Third Reich).

And that is the core of this debate in which the “glory of the nation” remains a largely untouched and unquestioned subject. The status quo is being defended in parliament, as if politicians were the guardians of history. They are only the guardians of simplified notions of nationhood, essentially footnoting the worst crimes. I tend to say these days, it was World War II that safeguarded British identity. The fact that they won the war against a vicious Nazi State is why it is so insisting on its memorialisation, because it also cleanses British conscience from that, which was before, or so they may think.

But true “glory” of humanness comes only from introspection and understanding clearly where previous generations have totally, offensively and murderously been wrong. It comes from the understanding that there has been an attempt to brush over this huge sore of history as if it never was as horrible, terrible and ferocious as it was. To refuse to acknowledge this means Black lost and infringed upon lives, other human beings’ lives, did not matter and continue to not matter, not even for the sake of chronicling these lives, the places from which these people came from as worthy for consideration as a source of study in human civilisation, as worthy as the study of the classics.

The upkeep of the focus of only a narrow vision and sources that keep a non-questioning identity that often carries non-entitled degrees of egocentric arrogance in place, is continuing with the structures of that era, which disable, not enable people to move on, grow and become more globally aware. It is a betrayal of who we really are as humans, which includes the obligation to understand human civilisation on Earth as a whole – all its people, contributions, achievements and failures. It is a pillar for a world beyond the narrow towards a world that serves all, perhaps with less conflict and less inequality in a wider sense.

Photo by Andrea Vera Sasso on Pexels.com

Uncategorized

On Zionism, Israel and Palestine, on colonialism and Mbembe.

May 3, 2020May 4, 2020by Daniel Z. Zylbersztajn-Lewandowski

There have been many posts on Zionism, antisemitism, Israel and Palestine, Mbembe (in Germany), colonialism and post-colonialism in the last month. This is because the Israeli independence day coincided with the coalition between Netanyahu and Ganz which made some frustrated, and in Germany, a dispute started about a passage by the Cameronian philosopher Achilles Mbembe, which some argued was antisemitic.

I fear, I kept somewhat out of the debate. I feel that all attempts are too short a string. As some will know, the discussion is close to my former doctoral studies (non-completed) at UCL and Univ. of Leeds, which goes atop my previous studies at SOAS and Goldsmiths. I also worked in a Jewish – Palestinian organisation for six years (Wahat al-Salam – Neve Shalom) and was CEO of Meretz-UK a left progressive Zionist organisation.

The points below are somewhat fragmented, but I nevertheless wanted to lay them out, rather than say nothing at all. If not in this style, they would have required a far lengthier response, over many pages, and that would have taken a while. I wanted to allow this to be available faster and hence the format.

On the topic, I wanted to begin with questions rather than with lengthy passages, some answered, and end with some observations, they make the reading and transmission of ideas faster:

) Is Zionism colonial in the way that European colonialism was, in going to a country or place unrelated to the arriving? What about the Jewish presence that never, in fact, ended, only expanded? What about the centrality of the land in Jewish religion and the very concept of return to Zion?

2.) If Zionism is constructed, what about all other constructed identities all over the globe? The meta-analysis of that destroys all national prescribed identities if one looks closely. It, therefore, can not be applied only to Zionism alone.

3.) In comparison with the broader region, how does tolerance of difference fair? Jewish, Christian and other non-Muslim people in Arab and Persian speaking lands have a story to tell here, Kurds, Beduines, African migrants another (or rather the same).

4.) Was Palestine a land empty of people? Was land gained only by honest ways and never by force and causing fear and expulsions? How can wrongs be addressed?

5.) What can be said about questions of violence and human rights infringements and despotic regimes in the broader region in the last 150 years? Is Israel really the worst of all? What is being kept from being reported? What role does scapegoating play? Jews, they have been a minority in many societies for millennia and therefore representing “the other”, have been historically and conveniently blamed for problems of the majority that had nothing to do with them.

6.) What role does religious faith have in the conflict? How can the cities of Jerusalem and Hebron a.o, be shared so that all feel they are equal and respected shareholders? Have not all faiths been too protective, obstructing access and should not all be more open to sharing, in the name of the one God they all believe in, and concerning basic fundamental human rights? What work is being done on that account, and how wide-spread is it?

7.) How many resources enabling good life for all are wasted in the region in the attempt to fight the imaginary or real other? How can people on all sides be taught to co-operate and invest instead in health, jobs, schools, care and businesses?

8.) Who drew the principle borders in the region? The answer points straight to Europeans who did so with little regard to locals, arbitrarily and to their own advantage.

In the interest of peace, Israel is asked to concede some territories gained in armed conflict repeatedly. But why are other countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon never part of any equation of conceding land, to let go of some areas assigned to them by the line drawing of European clerical officials (now defended as supposed sancto-sacral international law)? If all worked together, more space and security could be created in and for a dense and explosive region for all, both for Jews and Palestinians.

9.) Jewish Israelis have rightly been reminded to protect Palestinians and other non-Jewish minorities and ensure they have full equality under the law and representation. How can that be done whilst guaranteeing that Jews remain in charge of their self-determination within a democratic state? From the Jewish perspective, the last 2000 years have not been good experiences of living in countries in which Jews are not the majority. The last 130 years or so have also not been great for Palestinians. Does that requirement mean that only a federal or two-state solution is viable rather than a one-state solution?

10.) What can be said about the difference in treatment for Palestinians and non-Jews in Israel compared to Jews? nd what can be said bout how Palestinian society at large treats minorities of any kind? How can it be improved further?

11.) If Palestinians should be given all guarantees within Israel (and rightly so), what safeguards exist for the possibility of a future Jewish minority to live in a future Palestinian administered independent Palestinian majority state side by side the Jewish majority state of Israel?

12.) How much of the land acquisitions since the 19th. century have been totally fair? How can ownership and claims be addressed between Jews and Palestinians in a way that is agreeable to all parties?

How does one relate to the frequent change of ownership in periods of conquests by successive powers over millennia? This is a question that goes back to biblical days and needs explicit acknowledgement, compromise and agreement. If the wider context is not considered, it will come back and back again.

13.) Who can be trusted to be fair to Palestinians and Israeli Jews as a neutral body? Both sides claim that they suffer from macropolitical bias from different forces.

14.) How does one address the loss of lives on all aiswa, over the last centuries and draw a line?

15.) How do both states and societies, in general, protect themselves against interference by fanatics within in a peace process? How can they deal with atrocities and violent incidents designed to derail any befriending and change of the status quo?

16.) In a possible one-state scenario for the future, some suggest this, how can safety and security be warranted for all. What limits to religious and political expression are required from all in such a situation?

On Achilles Mbembe colonialism and slavery:

The above questions already show the complexity of the situation of Zionism and Israel and Palestine. However, I like to raise a few points specific about the issue of colonialism and comparisons to black movements and Zionism.

Black Liberation Movements were informed and inspired by early Zionists, including figures like Marcus Garvey. There are other examples in this regard also. On the other hand, sometimes Jews were used as others (Nation of Islam and early phase of Elhajj Malik Al-Shabazz, when he still called himself Malcolm X in particular).

The relationship between Israel and African politics is complex. It ranges from relationships and training of the armed wing of the ANC by Israel, early relations between Israel and new independent African states, to Israel’s later relations with Apartheid South Africa (at the same time Jewish ANC supporters at risk were able to receive refuge in Israel), the rejections and deportations of African migrants and the treatment of African migrants (particularly pressing in the case of Darfurian refugees) within the country. It also encompasses the comprehensive agreement of African countries to side with calls of some North-African states to boycott Israel (a curious state of affairs given few other countries were ever boycotted).

In its relationship to the European majorities and their othering, Jewish people share the position with Black people (and people of Muslim faith). It is, of course, both different and related. But nationalist liberation movements responded to the racism and marginalisation in both wider cases.

After slavery, the countries of Liberia and the city-state of Freetown in today’s Sierra Leone were both creations that are not dissimilar to Israel in the way that these states provided sanctuary and a new beginning to people of the African diaspora after the catastrophe of their enslavement by Europeans. Settlements in Ghana (following Garvey and Blyden) and Ethiopia (following Rastafarianism) can also be mentioned within this regard. The first “homecomings” in Liberia and Sierra Leone were met with stiff resistance and opposition by regional locals – people were amongst others murdered. The dichotomies of difference were a factor in the respective civil wars there. Sierra Leone Creole’s (Kreo-) community has more or less been out-populated and it struggles to upkeep its cultural distinctiveness. This illustrates that some basic rules to specificity and protection of particular groups are necessary (if one considers again the one-state option that some suggest for Israel / Palestine).

Israel’s maintenance of the status quo of the West Bank is an issue of concern that can be rightly criticised, but it can not be understood without context. The relationship of Jewish people to Israel is totally different to the relationship of the average European seeking to conquer and cultivate colonially acquired territories. That said, the continued expansion and land-acquisitions without due and fair process is and was a reality and victimised Palestinians. Some land was inhabited by Jews, in deed there’s were Jewish cities like Zfad, Jerusalem, Hebron and others where Jews represented a considerable part of society even before Jewish people from elsewhere were considering a larger return (The “returns” were happening for different reasons, one that is strikingly different from European Jews is the migration of Yemenite Jews.)

Jewish acquisitions for settlement expansion (also refered to as the yishuv) were gained through legal agreements, sponsorship collections and allocation, whilst others were in deed gained in conflict, through fear, or indeed occupations, taking advantage of power balances. In the Jewish case, there are references to biblical presence, which allow for the argument of return or reclaim, but undoubtedly many areas were no longer in Jewish possession for a couple of thousand years, with other people having taken custody and ownership of land, often subject to armed conflicts and conquests century after century. Any return must have been negotiated on the basis of taking account of that, and even in its best and most amicable scenario would have yielded tensions, in my view.

At the same time the question of the near-total expulsion of Jewish populations from Arab and Persian speaking lands, not to speak of teh shoah in Europe, requiring somewhere to live, complicates this issue to the detriment of Palestinians. Politically motivated hate of Jews in countries such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others intended to help Palestinians, In reality it aggravated the situation. It did that because there were both new requirements to accommodate Jewish refugees, as well as the possibility of Jews living in countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Syria becoming an impossibility.

This also complicates the option of Jews living in a future Palestinian country or even now under the auspices of the PA as. minority (side by side Israel). On what basis, should Jewish people put their trust and need for essential security with the PA? The fact that neighbouring countries showed themselves to be totally hostile to the extend that Jews were not tolerated in their midst and that wars were fought together against “the Jews” (to wipe the “infidels” and “invaders” off the “holy land” and into the sea) meant that Israel’s defensive ethos was also solidified.

Such points are hardly considered in the wider discussion. They are however elementary. The expulsions of non-European Jews are for example rarely raised, despite their effect being totally devastating and amount to complete ethnic cleansing over huge territories. In the creation of Israel, this occurred at most partially to Palestinians, nevertheless just as devastating for those concerned. But many, of course not all Palestinians, are still living inside Israel and there with rights, albeit not perfect, and in the West Bank, and Gaza where life is not free of Israeli control, a circumstance that Palestinians rightly object to and which, the longer it remains also harms the moral integrity of Israel.

The conditions in Gaza and the West Bank and in Israel proper can certainly be better, and should lead to a Palestinian state side by side Israel, federal or independent, but for that, the narrative that one can exist only if the other does not must cease. The doctrine of Hamas is an example of such ideology.

Zionism is as controversial as any nationalist movement. It has winners and losers. Zionism is a response to European nationalism and the rejection of Jews. It is a movement also of liberation from oppression. It was merely one of competing ideas before 1933 (one other was for a Jewish autonomy, or the status of official recognition in Poland, for example) but then gained huge importance due to the genocide against Europe’s Jews, that left little other options.

Nationalist liberation in the Black and African context is a complex matter for different consideration in the ways of the methods used and who can partake and against whom it is led. In Zimbabwe Mugabe lived out his fight against white oppressors. His legitimate fight for liberation, in the end, led to the destruction and self-destruction of Zimbabwe. In that sense, any nationalist and freedom movement has its time and place and its ability to liberate and self-destroy as well as destroy others. If it can not adapt and provide for inclusive change and widening towards greater human goals, it derail in its inability to consider others and because it fails to lay down arms in an eternal state of defence and elimination of weakness. This is not a healthy state of affairs to any group, let alone a state. In Israel this has led to the growth of a part of society following ultra nationalism, sometimes interlinked with religious metaphysical sentiments, which is just as troublesome as similar ideologies in any one country, when they begin to disregard the existence of others, and their human rights. You do not need to look very far to find a counterpart of the very same, just across the border amongst Palestinians.

It is to be remembered that in the Israeli – Palestinian context these days, as before, two nationalist movements stand opposite each other. Both are potent and can kill. Whilst one is clearly locally the stronger force, controlling the other, on a wider geographical scale the dice looks different, and Israel becomes a singular state of “others” with a significant religious and ethnic difference in a wider Islam -dominated non-sympathetic geographical sphere, against which it has to sustain itself. This is not just due to the difference of religion, but also due to cunning and deliberate misdirection by successive regimes in the area that steered deliberate hatred against Israel and Jews in general, not infrequently also borrowing from antisemitic schools of thought. As both sides can be deadly to each other, there is huge need to try to discharge wall building and bring the conflict down to a human(e) level, where conflict is argued over with words, rather than with arms, negotiated and agreed upon, and only the results of that (a peace settlement of sorts) eventually protected and heavily guarded.

Therefore, nothing easily compares to the specificity of Israel and Palestine. Allegories to colonial projects on the African continent or Apartheid are useless, therefore. The situation must be understood within its own context and challenges. Everything, of course, needs to be done to overcome hurdles and work towards an approximation that makes life possible and liveable and dignifying for all concerned.

Last but not least, I do not call Mbembe an Antisemite, someone who explicitly hates Jews. The conditions of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict are far-reaching and complex. Arguments can be, in fact must be had. But we we must all also remember to dedicate our efforts to support exchange, conflict reduction projects, and any initiative that allows Palestinians and Jews to meet, exchange and encounter each other, ideally over long sustained periods and on equal footings. It is the consideration of many of these points and the discourse and negotiation between that, which leads to something transformational, in a way that both can find a way and will to live in the region side by side and together in a shared destiny of common resolve and purpose that can leave the past behind without forgetting its warnings.

commentary, English works, Uncategorized

Quite the country’s Christian tradition, Dave!

December 24, 2015December 24, 2015by Daniel Z. Zylbersztajn-Lewandowski

When the prime minister of Great Britain states,what religion the country has, you must wonder. We heard such definitions before from his predecessor and yet he went to a war that reaped long-lasting injustice and chaos.

When Cameron now states that Britain was Christian from the beginning, you must wonder when one starts counting ? Celts and early Romans were certainly not Christian.

It makes one remember the intensity with which some early colonialists imagined themselves as new keepers of Jerusalem, and talking of which those who sent in part brutal knights for similar causes hundred of years earlier. Or perhaps those who called for the Jews of York to be killed? They surely were all Christian? Or the wars fought and people killed, tormented and tortured during in the struggles of which Christian faith was in deed the correct one? The king and nation serving faith or the Rome serving faith? Once they assured themselves to have the correct version they went to force it upon the parts of the world they occupied and exploited. Stealing with one arm and preaching with the other. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and the gracious King or Queen, long live he or she! Or the token Christianity that thrived on holding the poor of this country in deep misery for centuries?

Secondly him advising to talk about refugees is a bit of shoe polish on a partially rotten shoe. He is not the one who has a proud record on welcoming refugees when compared with all other European neighbouring countries, and then there is his governments appalling record on Calais, his inability and unwillingness to trash the right wing press and parties into the bin of bigots.

In deed, if this was a Christian country, what would Jesus do? And then there is his record on how he treats the poor and sick, his lack of sufficient policy to guard the environment and his selectivity into which causes he steers his lot to save. One wished Britain was a Christian country actually, the kind of deep philosophical, humble way of submitting oneself to do only good, help the poor, sick and needy and share the riches of society for the betterment of all. Token Christianity for the sake of cheap nation building is the tool of politicians who use religion to better their own ends. It has been abused to justify anything from slavery to war to hang people at the gallows of Tyburn and elsewhere. I don’t think the current prime minister fails that tradition.

Perhaps Mr Cameron would care to invite some Syrian refugees, some disabled and poor, some London homeless and impoverished students to his table this Christmas, and perhaps he could make permanent assurances to them and take the lead on what being Christian ought to mean?

TAZ (Die Tageszeitung)

Bob Geldof’s Missionary Feathers – Geldofs Missionsfedern

November 21, 2014January 12, 2015by Daniel Z. Zylbersztajn-Lewandowski

Dieser Bericht wurde im Index des Perlentaucher gelistet und auf taz-mixtape gesendet! Danke!

In meinen Bericht in der Taz http://www.taz.de/!149941/ gehe ich das Problem der Vision Afrikas in den Köpfen des Westens und anderer Länder an. Auf dem Rücken einer immensen Krise werden drei von Ebola betroffene Länder in einen patriarchalischer Rahmen gezwängt, alte Stereotypen sollen wohl Geld lockern. Das ganze geht auch ohne all dem. In diesem Fall war der song “Do they know it’s Christmas time?” sogar persönlich verletzend, denn meine angeheiratete Familie stammt aus Sierra Leone.

http://www.taz.de/!149941/

In this report in the German taz, I deal with the paternalistic and falsifying attitude of Geldof’s Band Aid. It was something that wss also deeply personal, as the family of my wife is Sierra Leonean. Hopefully something will be learned out of this affair.

http://www.taz.de/!149941/

commentary, correspondent report, Deutsche Arbeiten, German, Kolumne, London, Newspapers and Magazines, TAZ (Die Tageszeitung)