Posts
My plan is to blog about John McWhorter’s Losing the Race
every day that I read it, but I often feel that I should hold off on
commenting before I finish the book and read other perspectives, since I
don’t know enough to comment. This is especially the case regarding
the following issues:
1. McWhorter asks why prominent African-American leaders don’t “pool
their resources and provide start-up loans” so that African-Americans
can start businesses in their neighborhoods, rather than complaining
about Korean businesses there (page 43). I can’t comment on this, for I
don’t know what prominent African-American leaders do or don’t do when
it comes to supporting African-American enterprise. I read that Michael
Eric Dyson defends Al Sharpton in his book about Bill Cosby, so it will
be interesting to see how Dyson believes that Sharpton helps the
African-American community.
2. McWhorter states that African-Americans who defend O.J. Simpson
do not give a positive impression of African-Americans’ intelligence to
outsiders, for it is obvious from the evidence that O.J. Simpson was
guilty of murder. Well, my copy of Andrew Hacker’s Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal has a chapter on the O.J. Simpson verdict, and it will be interesting to see what he has to say.
3. McWhorter appears to take a swipe at the welfare state on page
70, arguing that African-American employment in New York City was
actually on the rise when welfare “was expanded there”, and that welfare
was expanded for African-Americans out of white guilt. McWhorter
states that “an influential cadre of white leftist activist
intellectuals became convinced that to expect blacks to work their way
out of poverty was reminiscent of debt peonage in the South and thus
unethical” (page 70).
I have read conservatives make that sort of argument: that a number
of African-Americans were fairly successful before the Great Society
came along. I don’t discount that African-Americans had businesses
prior to the Great Society, but I am skeptical of any claim that
African-American poverty was not a problem in the 1960′s (not that
McWhorter says this explicitly); on page 196 of Stephan and Abigail Thernstroms’ America in Black and White—-a
book that McWhorter uses—-we see the proportion of African-American
families to white families with incomes at least double the poverty line
from 1940 to 1995: in 1940, it was one African-American family with
such an income level to twelve such white families; in 1970, the figure
was 39 to 70. I doubt that the 1960′s were much better for
African-Americans than the 1970′s were. McWhorter himself acknowledges
that the 1950′s-1960′s were times of racism against African-Americans,
particularly when he argues that things have improved by the 1990′s.
I do not mean to imply that McWhorter is against welfare, for he
does say on page 70 that “Certainly our country needs a welfare program
of some kind to assist those helpless, down on their luck, or
disabled.” McWhorter on page 43 calls enterprise zones in the
inner-city, an idea that a number of conservatives support, “misbegotten
but at least proactive”, so he does not swallow conservative
talking-points. Wikipedia quotes
McWhorter’s description of himself as a “cranky liberal Democrat.” I
see that McWhorter later in the book has a section about Lyndon Johnson, so it will be interesting to read what he says there.
I can give more examples, but I’ll stop here.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Dependence on God: Why's It Work When It Does?
At church this morning, the pastor told a story about a biographer
and a politician. The biographer submitted his first draft of his
biography to the politician, and the politician asked, “Is that the best
you can do?” Realizing he could do better, the biographer went back
and worked on another draft. Each time, the politician asked him if
that was the best that he could do, and the biographer would keep
writing drafts. When the biographer submitted his ninth draft, the
politician asked if it was the best that he could do, and the biographer
answered in the affirmative, with frustration. The politician then
replied, “Okay, now I will read it!”
I felt bad for the biographer. The politician hadn’t even read those previous drafts? How infuriating! But the pastor derived from this the lesson that God wants us to do our best. Do our best at what? The pastor said we should do our best at depending on God.
I’ve been depending on God as of late. I was recently thinking about people I really disliked, and I asked God to help me not to hate them. Immediately, I felt better. My feelings of resentment and bitterness lessened. Granted, I may have to pray that again, maybe several times a day, on some days. But my prayer actually worked then.
Why didn’t it always work in the past, though? Was I especially tired of my resentment last night, and thus I was willing to let go and let God rather than trying my best to force my grudge out of my system? I don’t know.
I felt bad for the biographer. The politician hadn’t even read those previous drafts? How infuriating! But the pastor derived from this the lesson that God wants us to do our best. Do our best at what? The pastor said we should do our best at depending on God.
I’ve been depending on God as of late. I was recently thinking about people I really disliked, and I asked God to help me not to hate them. Immediately, I felt better. My feelings of resentment and bitterness lessened. Granted, I may have to pray that again, maybe several times a day, on some days. But my prayer actually worked then.
Why didn’t it always work in the past, though? Was I especially tired of my resentment last night, and thus I was willing to let go and let God rather than trying my best to force my grudge out of my system? I don’t know.
Losing the Race 1: Income Disparities
For my first blog post about John McWhorter’s 2000 book, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America, I’ll use as my starting-point some points that McWhorter makes on pages 9-10. McWhorter is arguing against the idea that “Most Black People Are Poor“, maintaining instead that “most black people are neither poor nor close to it.”
According to McWhorter, only one-in-five African-Americans lived in ghettos in 1995. In 1996, 26.4 percent of African-American families were in poverty. In response to the argument that 41.5 percent of African-American children were in poverty as of 1995, McWhorter states that this is due to the “high birthrate of unwed inner-city mothers.”
McWhorter then addresses the statistic that “In 1995, the median income for black families was $25,970, while the figure for whites was $42,646.” He states that what is dragging down the median income for African-American families is the “low income of unwed mothers living on welfare”, and that “The median income of black two-parent families is about $41,307, as opposed to about $47,000 for whites.” McWhorter does not believe that racism is the primary culprit behind lower wages for African-Americans, for 56 percent of African-Americans in 1995 lived in the South, where wages are lower. McWhorter continues to state that “as often as not today, black two-parent families earn more than whites—-they did in about 130 cities and counties in 1994, and in the mid-90s, their median income was rising faster than whites’ was.”
McWhorter’s references on income are Stephen and Abigail Thermstrong’s 1997 book America in Black and White and John Perazzo’s 1998 book The Myths That Divide Us. His reference on the child poverty statistics is Orlando Patterson’s 1997 book The Ordeal of Integration. His reference for his claim that one-in-five African-Americans lived in ghettos in 1995 is the U.S. Census Bureau.
I found pieces of the Thernstrongs' 1997 book on Google Books. See here. McWhorter cites pages 196-197 of that. The book looks conservative, for the Thernstrongs are senior fellows with the Manhattan Institute, which is a conservative think-tank (see here and here). I don't want to dismiss their argument on account of that, but it is something to keep in mind. One point that the Thernstrongs make is that the median income for white families is higher than that for African-American families because over 80 percent of white families are headed by married couples, whereas only 47 percent of black families are; this is not necessarily a moral judgment on the Thernstrongs' part, for the reason they give for why many two-parent families make more money is simply that both parents are working, and are thus bringing in two incomes. The source that the Thernstrongs cite for the median income of African-American and white two-parent families is Money Income for the U.S.: 1995. I should note that this table also compares African-American and white families headed by single-mothers: the income for whites in 1995 in that case was $22,068, whereas the income for African-Americans was $15,004.
I did a quick Google search to see what later statistics indicate. This article from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services talks about the findings of the 2010 census, and other statistics. McWhorter makes the point that 56 percent of African-Americans lived in the South in 1995; the census report that the HHS article cites states that it was 55 percent in 2010. On economics, the article states: “According to the 2010 Census Bureau report, the average African-American family median income was $39,988 in comparison to $67,892 for non-Hispanic White families. In 2010, the U.S. Census bureau reported that 27.1 percent of African-Americans in comparison to 10.6 percent of non-Hispanic Whites were living at the poverty level. For 2011, the unemployment rate for Blacks was twice that for non-Hispanic Whites (15.8 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively). This finding was consistent for both men and women.”
Regarding two-parent African-American families, this article, citing 2012 census figures, states that 43.9 percent of African-American families are two-parent, and that the median income for this group is $65,914. I cannot find what it is for white two-parent families, but for all of the two-parent families in the U.S. it is $76,035.
I'll leave the comments on to get your feedback. I'm sure there are factors in this post that I have not considered.
According to McWhorter, only one-in-five African-Americans lived in ghettos in 1995. In 1996, 26.4 percent of African-American families were in poverty. In response to the argument that 41.5 percent of African-American children were in poverty as of 1995, McWhorter states that this is due to the “high birthrate of unwed inner-city mothers.”
McWhorter then addresses the statistic that “In 1995, the median income for black families was $25,970, while the figure for whites was $42,646.” He states that what is dragging down the median income for African-American families is the “low income of unwed mothers living on welfare”, and that “The median income of black two-parent families is about $41,307, as opposed to about $47,000 for whites.” McWhorter does not believe that racism is the primary culprit behind lower wages for African-Americans, for 56 percent of African-Americans in 1995 lived in the South, where wages are lower. McWhorter continues to state that “as often as not today, black two-parent families earn more than whites—-they did in about 130 cities and counties in 1994, and in the mid-90s, their median income was rising faster than whites’ was.”
McWhorter’s references on income are Stephen and Abigail Thermstrong’s 1997 book America in Black and White and John Perazzo’s 1998 book The Myths That Divide Us. His reference on the child poverty statistics is Orlando Patterson’s 1997 book The Ordeal of Integration. His reference for his claim that one-in-five African-Americans lived in ghettos in 1995 is the U.S. Census Bureau.
I found pieces of the Thernstrongs' 1997 book on Google Books. See here. McWhorter cites pages 196-197 of that. The book looks conservative, for the Thernstrongs are senior fellows with the Manhattan Institute, which is a conservative think-tank (see here and here). I don't want to dismiss their argument on account of that, but it is something to keep in mind. One point that the Thernstrongs make is that the median income for white families is higher than that for African-American families because over 80 percent of white families are headed by married couples, whereas only 47 percent of black families are; this is not necessarily a moral judgment on the Thernstrongs' part, for the reason they give for why many two-parent families make more money is simply that both parents are working, and are thus bringing in two incomes. The source that the Thernstrongs cite for the median income of African-American and white two-parent families is Money Income for the U.S.: 1995. I should note that this table also compares African-American and white families headed by single-mothers: the income for whites in 1995 in that case was $22,068, whereas the income for African-Americans was $15,004.
I did a quick Google search to see what later statistics indicate. This article from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services talks about the findings of the 2010 census, and other statistics. McWhorter makes the point that 56 percent of African-Americans lived in the South in 1995; the census report that the HHS article cites states that it was 55 percent in 2010. On economics, the article states: “According to the 2010 Census Bureau report, the average African-American family median income was $39,988 in comparison to $67,892 for non-Hispanic White families. In 2010, the U.S. Census bureau reported that 27.1 percent of African-Americans in comparison to 10.6 percent of non-Hispanic Whites were living at the poverty level. For 2011, the unemployment rate for Blacks was twice that for non-Hispanic Whites (15.8 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively). This finding was consistent for both men and women.”
Regarding two-parent African-American families, this article, citing 2012 census figures, states that 43.9 percent of African-American families are two-parent, and that the median income for this group is $65,914. I cannot find what it is for white two-parent families, but for all of the two-parent families in the U.S. it is $76,035.
I'll leave the comments on to get your feedback. I'm sure there are factors in this post that I have not considered.
Book Write-Up: Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel
Jon D. Levenson. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
A prominent scholarly narrative is that the concept of the resurrection of the dead is absent throughout the vast majority of the Hebrew Bible, which largely maintained that all of the departed go down to Sheol, the underworld. According to this narrative, the idea of resurrection emerged in ancient Judaism due to Zoroastrian influence, as the Jews were under Persian authority in the late exilic and post-exilic periods. An impetus for the incorporation of resurrection into Judaism was the persecution of faithful Jews during the Hellenistic period, as the martyrdom of righteous Jews called into question the traditional notion that God rewards the righteous in this life, leading to the idea that the righteous would be rewarded in the afterlife. This prominent scholarly narrative affirms that the Sadducees went with the traditional idea that there was no bodily resurrection, whereas the Pharisees adopted the newer concept. Nowadays, within much of Judaism, there is not much of a belief in the afterlife, as many Jews hold that living this life fully is an essential aspect of their religion.
Jon Levenson calls much of this scholarly narrative into question. While he does not wholly deny Zoroastrian influence or the role of Hellenistic context in the acceptance of resurrection within Judaism, he does not believe that they are sufficient to account for it. For one, whereas Daniel 12 presents some of the dead as people who are asleep and are waking up, Zoroastrianism did not use the metaphor of sleep in its own depiction of resurrection. Second, Levenson notes that there was an awareness or a motif of righteous people being unjustly killed prior to the Hellenistic period. Within the Hebrew Bible, Cain killed Abel, Jezebel killed the prophets of the LORD, and she also had Naboth killed.
Levenson’s own belief is that the concept of resurrection within Judaism was, at least in part, an outgrowth from prominent themes that were in pre-exilic strands of Israelite religion, themes that were about God bringing life out of death.
Does that mean that Levenson is arguing that the idea of the bodily resurrection of individuals was within pre-exilic Israelite religion? Well, not entirely. He does not think that we see in the Hebrew Bible the idea that everyone went to Sheol after death, for he argues that people who went to Sheol were either wicked or died prematurely or tragically. The righteous, by contrast, lived long and had lots of progeny, living on through them, in a sense. The reward of the righteous who were unjustly put to death was God’s punishment of the murderer. There was also a view that one could experience immortality, at least temporarily, by participating in worship at the temple, as one encountered the world of eternity. The restoration of Israel is also likened to resurrection within the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, there was a concept of resurrection even within Israel’s ancient Near Eastern context, for Baal came to life after dying, and that meant fertility for the land. Levenson also contends that the view of death in ancient Israel was rather fluid, for it could encompass disease and attacks by enemies, both of which would lead to literal cessation of life, unless God intervened; thus, God delivering people from death in the Hebrew Bible could mean deliverance from disease or peril, not necessarily actual death. While Levenson is arguing that the theme of God bringing life out of death is prominent throughout the Hebrew Bible, that often does not entail righteous individuals literally rising from the dead, as far as Levenson is concerned.
But there are exceptions, or at least possible exceptions, Levenson notes. Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead. In addition, God “took” Enoch and Elijah, and the Psalmist sometimes asked God to take him as well (Psalm 49:15-16; 73:23-28). Levenson does not dogmatically proclaim that this means, according to the biblical tradition, that Enoch and Elijah never died, or that the Psalmist had a notion of an afterlife for the righteous, but Levenson does not appear to dismiss that possibility, either. On page 105, he states, “Although some—-perhaps most—-are ‘sent down’ to Sheol (e.g., I Kgs 2:9), others God ‘takes’ himself, continuing even at or beyond death his reliable protection of those who find refuge in him.”
The book is excellent in that it thoughtfully addresses the sorts of questions I have had over the years. I have wondered: if the Hebrew Bible believes that everyone will eventually die and go to Sheol, then why does it emphasize the theme that the righteous will live, whereas the wicked will die? What is the reward for righteousness, according to this theme, if everyone dies in the end, anyway? I have also been somewhat skeptical about the argument (or the implication) that Israel did not notice that the world was unfair and that righteous people died prematurely or unjustly, until the Hellenistic period. How, then, could prominent strands of ancient Israelite religion, which made their way into the Hebrew Bible, still hold fast to a notion of justice in this life: that God punishes the wicked by killing them, while prolonging the lives of the righteous and giving them offspring? Levenson apparently takes a stab at this sort of question on page 193, where he states:
“For God’s vindication of the oppressed could be realized after the latter’s death, quite without objection (however inadequate this may seem to us). The opposing view, that people receive in their own lifetime only and exactly what their deeds warrant, is in the nature of an intellectualistic and schematic formula useful (then as now) for moral exhortation but hardly the unanimous view of the culture. It exerted a profound appeal in certain theologically self-conscious circles, but biblical narratives are generally more subtle, more lifelike, and more cognizant of tragedy.”
If I have any criticism of this book, it is that I wish that Levenson had gone into more detail about this particular issue. Otherwise, the book was excellent. There were times when Levenson was exploring various aspects of a question and I was wondering where exactly he would land, but I found those discussions to be meaty and satisfying. Plus, he often summed up his arguments, anyway, so I was not lost as a reader.
A prominent scholarly narrative is that the concept of the resurrection of the dead is absent throughout the vast majority of the Hebrew Bible, which largely maintained that all of the departed go down to Sheol, the underworld. According to this narrative, the idea of resurrection emerged in ancient Judaism due to Zoroastrian influence, as the Jews were under Persian authority in the late exilic and post-exilic periods. An impetus for the incorporation of resurrection into Judaism was the persecution of faithful Jews during the Hellenistic period, as the martyrdom of righteous Jews called into question the traditional notion that God rewards the righteous in this life, leading to the idea that the righteous would be rewarded in the afterlife. This prominent scholarly narrative affirms that the Sadducees went with the traditional idea that there was no bodily resurrection, whereas the Pharisees adopted the newer concept. Nowadays, within much of Judaism, there is not much of a belief in the afterlife, as many Jews hold that living this life fully is an essential aspect of their religion.
Jon Levenson calls much of this scholarly narrative into question. While he does not wholly deny Zoroastrian influence or the role of Hellenistic context in the acceptance of resurrection within Judaism, he does not believe that they are sufficient to account for it. For one, whereas Daniel 12 presents some of the dead as people who are asleep and are waking up, Zoroastrianism did not use the metaphor of sleep in its own depiction of resurrection. Second, Levenson notes that there was an awareness or a motif of righteous people being unjustly killed prior to the Hellenistic period. Within the Hebrew Bible, Cain killed Abel, Jezebel killed the prophets of the LORD, and she also had Naboth killed.
Levenson’s own belief is that the concept of resurrection within Judaism was, at least in part, an outgrowth from prominent themes that were in pre-exilic strands of Israelite religion, themes that were about God bringing life out of death.
Does that mean that Levenson is arguing that the idea of the bodily resurrection of individuals was within pre-exilic Israelite religion? Well, not entirely. He does not think that we see in the Hebrew Bible the idea that everyone went to Sheol after death, for he argues that people who went to Sheol were either wicked or died prematurely or tragically. The righteous, by contrast, lived long and had lots of progeny, living on through them, in a sense. The reward of the righteous who were unjustly put to death was God’s punishment of the murderer. There was also a view that one could experience immortality, at least temporarily, by participating in worship at the temple, as one encountered the world of eternity. The restoration of Israel is also likened to resurrection within the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, there was a concept of resurrection even within Israel’s ancient Near Eastern context, for Baal came to life after dying, and that meant fertility for the land. Levenson also contends that the view of death in ancient Israel was rather fluid, for it could encompass disease and attacks by enemies, both of which would lead to literal cessation of life, unless God intervened; thus, God delivering people from death in the Hebrew Bible could mean deliverance from disease or peril, not necessarily actual death. While Levenson is arguing that the theme of God bringing life out of death is prominent throughout the Hebrew Bible, that often does not entail righteous individuals literally rising from the dead, as far as Levenson is concerned.
But there are exceptions, or at least possible exceptions, Levenson notes. Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead. In addition, God “took” Enoch and Elijah, and the Psalmist sometimes asked God to take him as well (Psalm 49:15-16; 73:23-28). Levenson does not dogmatically proclaim that this means, according to the biblical tradition, that Enoch and Elijah never died, or that the Psalmist had a notion of an afterlife for the righteous, but Levenson does not appear to dismiss that possibility, either. On page 105, he states, “Although some—-perhaps most—-are ‘sent down’ to Sheol (e.g., I Kgs 2:9), others God ‘takes’ himself, continuing even at or beyond death his reliable protection of those who find refuge in him.”
The book is excellent in that it thoughtfully addresses the sorts of questions I have had over the years. I have wondered: if the Hebrew Bible believes that everyone will eventually die and go to Sheol, then why does it emphasize the theme that the righteous will live, whereas the wicked will die? What is the reward for righteousness, according to this theme, if everyone dies in the end, anyway? I have also been somewhat skeptical about the argument (or the implication) that Israel did not notice that the world was unfair and that righteous people died prematurely or unjustly, until the Hellenistic period. How, then, could prominent strands of ancient Israelite religion, which made their way into the Hebrew Bible, still hold fast to a notion of justice in this life: that God punishes the wicked by killing them, while prolonging the lives of the righteous and giving them offspring? Levenson apparently takes a stab at this sort of question on page 193, where he states:
“For God’s vindication of the oppressed could be realized after the latter’s death, quite without objection (however inadequate this may seem to us). The opposing view, that people receive in their own lifetime only and exactly what their deeds warrant, is in the nature of an intellectualistic and schematic formula useful (then as now) for moral exhortation but hardly the unanimous view of the culture. It exerted a profound appeal in certain theologically self-conscious circles, but biblical narratives are generally more subtle, more lifelike, and more cognizant of tragedy.”
If I have any criticism of this book, it is that I wish that Levenson had gone into more detail about this particular issue. Otherwise, the book was excellent. There were times when Levenson was exploring various aspects of a question and I was wondering where exactly he would land, but I found those discussions to be meaty and satisfying. Plus, he often summed up his arguments, anyway, so I was not lost as a reader.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Hobby Lobby and Observant Jewish Employers: Apples and Oranges?
Starting in March, I will put on hiatus my usual practice of blogging
through books. I will still write book reviews, but I probably won’t
write a series of posts about a given book that I am reading. Rather,
I’ll just write single posts about entire books. I’ll explain my
reasons for this in March.
That said, since I won’t be blogging about what I read in a given book on a given day, as part of a series, the question that arises is: What will I write about each day? Well, one option is current events. I can comment about an article that I read. In this post, I’ll be practicing that.
I try to read a conservative Townhall column each day. Today, I read Mona Charen’s “The Little Victims of the State,” which is about the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby does not want for the health insurance that it provides to its employees to cover forms of birth control that it considers to be abortifacients, in violation of the Health and Human Services mandate. It faces stiff fines for failure to comply. That is why it is going to court to challenge the mandate.
Mona Charen argues that the Obama Administration’s stance can become a slippery slope. She states: “It’s also a worrying precedent. As the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs urged in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, if the Hobby Lobby can be forced to provide abortifacients, then observant Jewish employers (if incorporated) could be forced to open on Saturdays, serve non-kosher food or engage in other practices that violate the consciences of the owners.”
I’m puzzled about how that could happen, for I think that the two things are apples and oranges, myself. I do not believe that an employee’s health care should be subject to the whims of her employer’s religious beliefs. In that case, the employer’s religious beliefs are affecting the employee in a significant way. I don’t see how that is the case if a Jewish employer chooses to be closed on Saturdays or serve food that is not kosher. Well, then again, maybe I can: employees would be deprived of extra income that they need if the stores are closed on Saturdays. I can’t think of any reason why the government would force a Jewish employer to serve non-kosher food, though.
Well, I’m off to a good start, aren’t I? I make a statement, contradict my statement, then agree with part of my original statement!
What do you think? Can you conceive of any reason why the government might want to force stores to be open on Saturdays or to serve non-kosher food?
That said, since I won’t be blogging about what I read in a given book on a given day, as part of a series, the question that arises is: What will I write about each day? Well, one option is current events. I can comment about an article that I read. In this post, I’ll be practicing that.
I try to read a conservative Townhall column each day. Today, I read Mona Charen’s “The Little Victims of the State,” which is about the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby does not want for the health insurance that it provides to its employees to cover forms of birth control that it considers to be abortifacients, in violation of the Health and Human Services mandate. It faces stiff fines for failure to comply. That is why it is going to court to challenge the mandate.
Mona Charen argues that the Obama Administration’s stance can become a slippery slope. She states: “It’s also a worrying precedent. As the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs urged in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, if the Hobby Lobby can be forced to provide abortifacients, then observant Jewish employers (if incorporated) could be forced to open on Saturdays, serve non-kosher food or engage in other practices that violate the consciences of the owners.”
I’m puzzled about how that could happen, for I think that the two things are apples and oranges, myself. I do not believe that an employee’s health care should be subject to the whims of her employer’s religious beliefs. In that case, the employer’s religious beliefs are affecting the employee in a significant way. I don’t see how that is the case if a Jewish employer chooses to be closed on Saturdays or serve food that is not kosher. Well, then again, maybe I can: employees would be deprived of extra income that they need if the stores are closed on Saturdays. I can’t think of any reason why the government would force a Jewish employer to serve non-kosher food, though.
Well, I’m off to a good start, aren’t I? I make a statement, contradict my statement, then agree with part of my original statement!
What do you think? Can you conceive of any reason why the government might want to force stores to be open on Saturdays or to serve non-kosher food?
Psalm 145
Psalm 145 is an acrostic Psalm, which means that it is arranged alphabetically, according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
The Masoretic Text for Psalm 145 does not have a verse that begins with the Hebrew letter nun, however. The Septuagint of Psalm 145 has what may have been the nun-verse that would later drop out. It states: “The LORD is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works” (Brenton’s translation). According to Leslie Allen, this also appears in the Syriac and 11QPs-a (which has “Elohim” for God rather than “YHVH”), and E.W. Bullinger states that it is present in the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Vulgate, and a Hebrew codex. Meanwhile, the Targum, apparently following what would become the MT, lacks the nun-verse.
There is discussion within rabbinic literature about why the nun-verse is absent from Psalm 145. I learned about this from Chaim Pearl’s “The Theology of Psalm 145: Part II,” which appeared in the Winter 1991-1992 Jewish Bible Quarterly. This discussion is in Babylonian Talmud Berachot 4b. A reason that was advanced for why there was no nun-verse in Psalm 145 was that Psalm 145 is a positive Psalm, so it was deliberately omitting Amos 5:2, which starts with a nun. Amos 5:2 conveys a message of apparent hopelessness: “The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up” (KJV). The verse starts with the Hebrew word naphelah, “she fell.”
According to Pearl, an epilogue to the Talmudic discussion stated that David included v 14 to compensate for the absence of the nun-verse. Psalm 145:14 affirms: “The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down” (KJV). Psalm 145:14 contains the word n-ph-l (“fall”), yet, whereas Amos 5:2 paints a picture of Israel falling and neither getting up nor having someone to lift her up, Psalm 145:14 says that God supports those who fall, and raises up the bowed down.
How could the rabbis have repudiated Amos 5:2, which was God’s word? Did they believe that God had changed his mind about permanently casting down Israel? Did they see Amos 5:2 as hyperbole, yet they believed that David was excluding it from Psalm 145 to avoid giving the impression that Israel’s downfall was permanent, and to avoid spoiling the positive, upbeat Psalm of praise that is Psalm 145?
The Masoretic Text for Psalm 145 does not have a verse that begins with the Hebrew letter nun, however. The Septuagint of Psalm 145 has what may have been the nun-verse that would later drop out. It states: “The LORD is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works” (Brenton’s translation). According to Leslie Allen, this also appears in the Syriac and 11QPs-a (which has “Elohim” for God rather than “YHVH”), and E.W. Bullinger states that it is present in the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Vulgate, and a Hebrew codex. Meanwhile, the Targum, apparently following what would become the MT, lacks the nun-verse.
There is discussion within rabbinic literature about why the nun-verse is absent from Psalm 145. I learned about this from Chaim Pearl’s “The Theology of Psalm 145: Part II,” which appeared in the Winter 1991-1992 Jewish Bible Quarterly. This discussion is in Babylonian Talmud Berachot 4b. A reason that was advanced for why there was no nun-verse in Psalm 145 was that Psalm 145 is a positive Psalm, so it was deliberately omitting Amos 5:2, which starts with a nun. Amos 5:2 conveys a message of apparent hopelessness: “The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up” (KJV). The verse starts with the Hebrew word naphelah, “she fell.”
According to Pearl, an epilogue to the Talmudic discussion stated that David included v 14 to compensate for the absence of the nun-verse. Psalm 145:14 affirms: “The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down” (KJV). Psalm 145:14 contains the word n-ph-l (“fall”), yet, whereas Amos 5:2 paints a picture of Israel falling and neither getting up nor having someone to lift her up, Psalm 145:14 says that God supports those who fall, and raises up the bowed down.
How could the rabbis have repudiated Amos 5:2, which was God’s word? Did they believe that God had changed his mind about permanently casting down Israel? Did they see Amos 5:2 as hyperbole, yet they believed that David was excluding it from Psalm 145 to avoid giving the impression that Israel’s downfall was permanent, and to avoid spoiling the positive, upbeat Psalm of praise that is Psalm 145?
Introduction: My Project for Black History Month 2014
February is Black History Month. I have often done something on my
blog for that. Or more accurately, at least for three years, I have
written a post for Black History Month on every day of February. In
February 2010, I blogged about movies pertaining to African-American
history, such as Roots. In February 2011, I read and blogged about W.E.B. Du Bois’ The Souls of Black Folk, as well as Booker T. Washington’s Up from Slavery. In February 2012, I blogged through Dean Kotlowski’s Nixon’s Civil Rights, a book about President Richard Nixon’s civil rights record.
I did not do anything on my blog for Black History Month in February 2013, for I was busy with My Year (or More) of Nixon. I decided to do something for February 2014, however, for there are three books that I have long wanted to read, yet I have not gotten an opportunity to do so. In this month, I will read and blog through them.
The first book is John McWhorter’s 2000 book, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. McWhorter is an African-American and an academic, and you can read more about him here. From what I have read of the book so far, its thesis seems to be that African-Americans have made significant progress beyond where they were in the 1960′s, that—-while racism still exists—-it is on the wane as a significant barrier to African-Americans, and that African-Americans are only holding themselves back with their victimology.
The second book is Andrew Hacker’s 1992 book, Two Nations, Black and White: Separate, Hostile, and Unequal. An African-American student recommended this book to me in the year 2001 because I naively asked him if racism was still a problem. I was also parroting to him my understanding of what someone told me that McWhorter said in Losing the Race (we’ll get into that in my next blog post), and that actually kept this student up that night. He recommended this book to me so I could learn that racism is still a problem that is holding African-Americans back.
If I read thirty pages a day of these books, I will have them both finished by February 18. There will then be ten days left of Black History Month. How shall I spend that time? Well, I will spend it reading Michael Eric Dyson’s 2005 book, Is Bill Cosby Right?: Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind? I first heard Michael Eric Dyson speak back when I was an undergraduate in the mid 1990′s, and I did not care for him because the university was requiring all students to go hear him speak, he was bashing my conservative heroes, and I thought that he came across as rather arrogant. About a decade later, I was flipping through channels and came across a discussion on C-Span between Dyson and the program’s host, an African-American woman, about Bill Cosby’s controversial 2004 speech. Wikipedia states in its article about Cosby’s speech: “In it, Cosby was highly critical of members of subsets of the black community in the United States. He criticized the use of African American Vernacular English, the prevalence of single-parent families, the emphasis on frivolous and conspicuous consumption at the expense of necessities, lack of responsibility, and other behaviors.” The white conservatives whom I knew were cheering Cosby on, and Dyson’s comments were the first criticism I actually encountered of Cosby’s speech. I was intrigued by what Dyson had to say. As I look at the description of the book on Amazon, I see that it is not just about Bill Cosby, but it concerns the divide between the African-American middle class and the African-American poor. Notwithstanding the negative reviews of it on Amazon, I would like to read it.
The way that I will do my blog posts is that I will mention any points that I found interesting, either from the thirty pages that I read that day, or from my previous reading of the book. As I said near the end of My Year (or More) of Nixon, there are times when I may encounter a number of interesting points one day, and then the next day I read nothing that I want to blog about. Why, then, should I confine myself to blogging each day about that day’s thirty pages that I read? I won’t do that!
I’m seriously debating whether or not I should allow comments. On the one hand, I do want to hear what people have to say and to learn from their experiences. This is especially true because the books are relatively old: McWhorter’s is fourteen years old, Hacker’s is twenty-two, and Dyson’s is eight. I don’t want to buy different books, yet I want to know what the latest is on the issue of racism. On the other hand, doing a project of this sort as a privileged white person can leave me vulnerable to trolling and personal attacks on my blog. I am open to learning. I am not open to being put down, to feeling as if I have to walk on egg shells as I try to express myself, and to being attacked on a point by someone who is not interested in following up his or her argument after I ask him or her questions. That said, I will play by ear whether or not I allow comments.
I did not do anything on my blog for Black History Month in February 2013, for I was busy with My Year (or More) of Nixon. I decided to do something for February 2014, however, for there are three books that I have long wanted to read, yet I have not gotten an opportunity to do so. In this month, I will read and blog through them.
The first book is John McWhorter’s 2000 book, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. McWhorter is an African-American and an academic, and you can read more about him here. From what I have read of the book so far, its thesis seems to be that African-Americans have made significant progress beyond where they were in the 1960′s, that—-while racism still exists—-it is on the wane as a significant barrier to African-Americans, and that African-Americans are only holding themselves back with their victimology.
The second book is Andrew Hacker’s 1992 book, Two Nations, Black and White: Separate, Hostile, and Unequal. An African-American student recommended this book to me in the year 2001 because I naively asked him if racism was still a problem. I was also parroting to him my understanding of what someone told me that McWhorter said in Losing the Race (we’ll get into that in my next blog post), and that actually kept this student up that night. He recommended this book to me so I could learn that racism is still a problem that is holding African-Americans back.
If I read thirty pages a day of these books, I will have them both finished by February 18. There will then be ten days left of Black History Month. How shall I spend that time? Well, I will spend it reading Michael Eric Dyson’s 2005 book, Is Bill Cosby Right?: Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind? I first heard Michael Eric Dyson speak back when I was an undergraduate in the mid 1990′s, and I did not care for him because the university was requiring all students to go hear him speak, he was bashing my conservative heroes, and I thought that he came across as rather arrogant. About a decade later, I was flipping through channels and came across a discussion on C-Span between Dyson and the program’s host, an African-American woman, about Bill Cosby’s controversial 2004 speech. Wikipedia states in its article about Cosby’s speech: “In it, Cosby was highly critical of members of subsets of the black community in the United States. He criticized the use of African American Vernacular English, the prevalence of single-parent families, the emphasis on frivolous and conspicuous consumption at the expense of necessities, lack of responsibility, and other behaviors.” The white conservatives whom I knew were cheering Cosby on, and Dyson’s comments were the first criticism I actually encountered of Cosby’s speech. I was intrigued by what Dyson had to say. As I look at the description of the book on Amazon, I see that it is not just about Bill Cosby, but it concerns the divide between the African-American middle class and the African-American poor. Notwithstanding the negative reviews of it on Amazon, I would like to read it.
The way that I will do my blog posts is that I will mention any points that I found interesting, either from the thirty pages that I read that day, or from my previous reading of the book. As I said near the end of My Year (or More) of Nixon, there are times when I may encounter a number of interesting points one day, and then the next day I read nothing that I want to blog about. Why, then, should I confine myself to blogging each day about that day’s thirty pages that I read? I won’t do that!
I’m seriously debating whether or not I should allow comments. On the one hand, I do want to hear what people have to say and to learn from their experiences. This is especially true because the books are relatively old: McWhorter’s is fourteen years old, Hacker’s is twenty-two, and Dyson’s is eight. I don’t want to buy different books, yet I want to know what the latest is on the issue of racism. On the other hand, doing a project of this sort as a privileged white person can leave me vulnerable to trolling and personal attacks on my blog. I am open to learning. I am not open to being put down, to feeling as if I have to walk on egg shells as I try to express myself, and to being attacked on a point by someone who is not interested in following up his or her argument after I ask him or her questions. That said, I will play by ear whether or not I allow comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)