Tag: Charlottesville

How we memorialize the past

The most recent racist conflagration in the United States was ignited, ostensibly, by the removal (or threatened removal) of Confederate commemorative statues and plaques. We say ostensibly because it seemed some people were just itching for a fight and this issue popped up.

Each community, or each society, must determine who and what it commemorates. It is understandable that African-Americans, among others, would be offended by statues and other historical monuments that adulate those who defended slavery in the U.S. Civil War. Those who decry their removal as an “erasing of history” seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of libraries and museums, which are among the foremost repositories of history. Remembering history is different from venerating it. For example, a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in front of a courthouse is an affront to equality before the law. The same statue in a museum could provide an opportunity for reflection and discussion.

Outside Budapest is a curious outdoor museum featuring dozens of statues and monuments from the communist era. It is a kitschy museum but it invites guests to ponder the propaganda of earlier eras, even admire some of it from a perspective of artwork, but it is decidedly not a place of veneration. It is a clear statement that such works, if they are to be publicly displayed, should be positioned in a way that does not esteem the ideas that inspired them, but instead invites observers to reflect on their meanings and the often catastrophic outcomes of their ideologies.

Similarly, the preservation of Auschwitz and other places of Nazi terror was not done in honour of that terrible time and the evil that defined it, but for the opposite reason: to ensure that future generations face the reality of that history and to inspire people to seek a better future. Context is crucial.

While Americans battle their demons, some Canadians have taken issue with our history and how it is commemorated. The government of Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, was responsible for implementing the residential schools system, a past with which most Canadians are only now beginning to grapple. Last month, the Ontario elementary teachers’ union said MacDonald’s name should be stripped from the nine schools in that province that are named for him. By that logic, we would eliminate his visage from our $10 bills and remove his statues and other likenesses from our public spaces.

Should we? Well, if Canadians had a thoroughgoing national discussion on the subject and a consensus clearly emerged that what was bad about MacDonald outweighs that which was good, then yes. But we should not jump in willy-nilly, thoughtlessly applying the values of today upon people of the past. To be clear: the residential schools system was an atrocity and a national disgrace; we know this now. How we attempt to rehabilitate our country and make amends for this awful history is a discussion in which we are immersed. The veneration of figures who were party to that history invites a legitimate and thoughtful reconsideration – neither those whose knee-jerk reaction is to tear down statues, nor those who reflexively balk at the very idea, are exhibiting the sort of approach we need. Ontario’s elementary school teachers, for example, may have missed the mark. If ever there were a teaching opportunity, it would be to engage young Canadians in critical thinking about why their school is named for the first prime minister, why some people think that’s problematic, and how empathy toward minorities is key to a better future.

But we should be careful in determining the measuring stick we apply. In considering the legacies of any public figure who lived more than a couple of decades ago, we would be hard-pressed to find one who would measure up to today’s standards on the rights and roles of Canadian indigenous peoples, Jews, women, gay people, or really any minorities. One might even argue: Who are we to judge? Are we assuming this generation has reached the moral summit of civilization? The state of the world today suggests we have much left to do to advance tikkun olam. Future generations will not likely give us any great kudos for perfecting humanity.

In the end, we cannot fathom how our descendants will view us and our behaviours. If, as now seems tragically inevitable, human-created climate change wreaks havoc on our world, future generations may look at our car driving, energy consumption and jet vacations as the direct cause and remove the names and likenesses of even the best of our generation from their schools and public squares.

By all means, we should consciously consider representations of our past and whether they are appropriate or inappropriate for our times. It is a discussion worth having, but we should have that discussion before we go racing around tearing down monuments and renaming schools.

 

Progress on anti-racist front

An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people showed up at Vancouver City Hall Aug. 19 to protest a planned racist rally. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

A week after the tragedy in Charlottesville, Va., British Columbians faced the prospect of a clash between racist, anti-immigrant and neo-Nazi activists and their opponents.

An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people showed up at Vancouver City Hall Aug. 19 to protest a planned racist rally. Among those at the counter-rally were members of the Jewish community, including several wearing kippot and at least one draped in an Israeli flag.

For those in attendance, it was an odd and strangely uplifting time. As it turned out, most attendees never came in contact with those they came to protest. Many left the event thinking that the other side never showed up. For all intents, they didn’t. Apparently, a couple of extremists appeared at one point but their voices were quickly drowned out. The counter-rally turned out to be the main event.

Since the sound system at the gathering was terrible, most of the crowd couldn’t hear the words of the pro-diversity speakers. For the record, the event was organized by an ad hoc group and the speakers included Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, Ravi Kahlon, the parliamentary secretary for sport and multiculturalism in the new B.C. government, several indigenous representatives and people from a range of faith and multicultural organizations, including Independent Jewish Voices. (Anyone complaining that their own particular views were not represented on the official roster of speakers should bear in mind that we are all free to organize our own rallies, as this ad hoc group did, and those who organize such events are free to invite whoever they like to speak.)

There were concerns by some that the sort of anti-Zionist (and arguably antisemitic) undertones that pervaded some “progressive” events in the United States recently might pop up here, but there appeared to be nothing of the sort. One speaker – one of the few who could be heard, because she led the group in a boisterous chant – specifically identified Jews as brothers and sisters. It was reassuring and welcome.

The crowd was wonderfully diverse, including people of apparently every culture, religion and identity, milling about enjoying witty and positive handmade signs and running into old and new friends. It is probably safe to say that those who attended left feeling encouraged by the show of solidarity in the face of hatred, while social media responses suggest those who did not attend believe the crowd of thousands made the province and the country proud.

A similar event – on an even grander scale – was taking place at roughly the same time in Boston, with roughly as positive an outcome. Elsewhere in America, however, wildfires of hatred fanned by winds directly from the West Wing of the White House continued to spread, with one incident of particular concern to Jews.

Richard Spencer, one of the emerging leaders of white supremacism in the United States, told an Israeli TV interviewer that his “white nationalism” is essentially the same as Zionism.

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, writing online at the Forward, summarized the stupidity of this comparison.

“Richard Spencer’s movement is based on hate, racism, negativity and exclusion,” wrote Greenblatt. “Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people in the Jews’ historic homeland, is based on providing for equal opportunity for the Jewish people, like others, to have sovereignty in their land while still fully protecting the rights of minorities who live within Israel. At its core, Zionism is a positive movement and is not intended to be ‘against’ anyone.”

Of course, as Churchill said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. The equation of Zionism with racism is an idea we have been battling for four decades. Originating from the Muslim bloc at the United Nations, it has been happily incorporated by many organizations of the left.

But things are changing quickly. In just the past week, while the U.S. president has effectively endorsed the Charlottesville racists (or, at the very least, equivocated between good and evil), a new urgency has emerged among anti-racist advocates.

Sometimes, something good comes out of something terrible and, as we said last week in this space, Charlottesville may be a turning point.

In another example, the March for Racial Justice – potentially one of the most significant such rallies in recent U.S. history – has been scheduled for Washington, D.C., on Yom Kippur. The sadness, disappointment and anger expressed by Jews over this timing resulted in what appears to be a deeply heartfelt, apologetic and, honestly, beautiful response from organizers, including the observation: “Our mistake highlights the need for our communities to form stronger relationships.”

This incident is a reminder, much needed, perhaps, not to write off potential allies. We are experiencing an unprecedented lack of moral leadership from what was once deemed the leadership of the free world. That moral vacuum will be filled. As the battle for space in this time of change proceeds, we must continue to make the case for our place in a multicultural society and for Israel’s place in the world.

נגד השנאה והגזענות

למזל בודדים השתתפו בהפגנת ארגוני הימין הקיצוני נגד ההגירה לקנדה, ביום שבת מול בית עיריית ונקובר. מולם עמדו כארבעת אלפים אזרחים שהגיעו למחות נגדם. (צילום: Cynthia Ramsay)

ראשי הקהילה היהודית בקנדה פרסמו בימים האחרונים הודעות פומביות המגנות נחרצות את השנאה והגזענות בקנדה, ארה”ב וספרד. זאת לאור האירועים האחרונים שהתרחשו בצפון אמריקה ובאירופה.

יו”ר מועצת המנהלים של הפדרציה היהודית של אזור מטרו ונקובר, קרן ג’יימס אמרה בהודעתה: “אנו מקפידים להביע גינוי נגד כל הביטויים של אפליה, שנאה, גזענות, שנאת זרים, הומופוביה ואנטישמיות בחברה שלנו. הם מאיימים על החברה הרב-תרבותית שלנו שהיא מסבירת פנים, אוהבת ומגוונת. ובמיוחד הם מתנגדים למחויבות שלנו לקבל ולהכליל שהם הערכים שהקהילה היהודית תמיד דוגלת בהם. אנו מביעים דאגה עמוקה ביותר מהאירועים שאורגנו על ידי הארגונים התומכים בעליונות הגזע הלבן והמתנגדים להגירה, בונקובר. צריך שיהיה ברור שאנו מגנים בצורה חד משמעית את העצרת הגזענית הזו. הקהילה שלנו יודעת היטב, כי כל ביטויי השינאה המכוונים למיעוטים בסופו של דבר מאיימים על החברה כולה. צריך לגלות אפס סובלנות לכל הביטויים הגזעניים בחברה שלנו. עלינו לזכור שקנדה אינה חסינה מאתגרים של אפליה, שנאה, גזענות, שנאת זרים, הומופוביה ואנטשימיות. בואו נעבוד ביחד כדי להבטיח שכולם ירגישו רצויים בעיר שלנו”.

מנכ”ל הפדרציה היהודית של אזור מטרו ונקובר, עזרא שנקן, אמר בהודעתו: “אני חייב קודם כל לנצל הזדמנות זו כדי לגנות את אירועי האלימות בשרלוטסוויל ובספרד בשבוע שעבר. אני בטוח שאתם מזדעזעים כמוני על השנאה והגזענות, הרצח חסר הטעם של הת”ר הייר בשרלוטסוויל ושל שלושה עשר האנשים בספרד, כאשר עשרות נוספים נפצעו. אפשר להרגיש זאת בקלות גם בקנדה, בזמן שאנו מתגאים כל כך במרקם הרב תרבותי של ארצנו, ואנחנו גם מתחלחלים מעצרות שנאה כמו זו שהייתה בשרלוטסוויל. למרבה הצער אנו לא חסינים לגמרי וכפי שאתם יודעים התקיימה עצרת של הימין הקיצוני ביום שבת האחרון מול בניין עיריית ונקובר. הפדרציה שלנו בשותפות עם המרכז לענייני היהודים וישראל בקנדה פרסמנו הודעה המגנה את עצרת הימין הקיצוני. אנו תמיד נשמיע את קולנו במחאה כאשר אנחנו רואים גזענות ושנאה, ואנו גם שמחים לראות שגם ראש העיר של ונקובר, גרג רוברטסון, היה קולני בהתנגדותו ואמר כי לשנאה ולגזענות אין מקום בעיר הזו”.

למזל בודדים השתתפו בהפגנת ארגוני הימין הקיצוני נגד ההגירה לקנדה, ביום שבת מול בית עיריית ונקובר. מולם עמדו כארבעת אלפים אזרחים שהגיעו למחות נגדם. כוחות מתוגברים של המשטרה נכחו במקום והם תארו את האירועים “כידידותיים”. בסך הכל רק חמישה מפגינים נעצרו על ידי המשטרה ושניים נוספים הובלו אל מחוץ לאזור ההפגנה.

מנכ”ל המרכז לענייני היהודים וישראל בקנדה, שמעון פוגל, אמר בהודעתו בין היתר את הדברים הבאים: “אנו מזועזעים מן הדימויים העולים משרלוטסוויל. תצוגה של נאצים והתומכים בעליונות של הגזע הלבן מזעזעת ומגעילה, את כל בני הרצון הטוב. עבור הקהילה שלנו, ובמיוחד עבור ניצולי השואה זה במיוחד צורם ומזכיר לנו את הרגעים האפלים ביותר בהיסטוריה שלנו. עבור אלה שמחוץ לקהילה היהודית, שרלוטסוויל צריכה לשמש תזכורת נחרצת לכך שהאינטישמיות היא אמיתית, הרסנית וקשורה קשר הדוק עם צורות אחרות של גזענות ושנאה. הקהילה היהודית מכירה היטב את השפעת השנאה הזאת. גם במדינה פלורליסטית כמו קנדה, היהודים נותרו הקהילה הדתית הממוקדת ביותר לפשעי השאה. ברור שאנו לא חסינים, אבל אנחנו לא לבד. קנדה היא בין המקומות הטובים ביותר בעולם להיות בו יהודים. יש לזכור שהמצב הביטחוני שלנו בקנדה לא השתנה גם היום”.

Charlottesville a turning point?

(photo by Ryan M. Kelly via cbc.ca)

Last weekend, in Charlottesville, Va., hundreds of white supremacists, Ku Klux Klanners, neo-Nazis and other racists and antisemites rallied and brought violence to the hometown of Thomas Jefferson.

The images that emerged are bone-chilling. Men (mostly) carrying torches, swastikas and Confederate flags, screaming the ugliest epithets imaginable against African-Americans, gays and Jews. When the city of Charlottesville eventually ordered the racists to disperse (the racists were authorized to rally until things got violent), one of them got in his car and rammed it through a crowd of counter-demonstrators, killing one young woman and injuring many. The violence could have been infinitely worse, it should be noted, as scores of racists in battle fatigues were seen carrying combat weapons on their way to the rally, as is their Second Amendment right in that open-carry state.

Anyone who spent any time on social media or watching cable news in the succeeding days knows that the events and the issues raised by the rally and the preceding march through the University of Virginia have been assessed from multiple angles. The delayed and impotent response of President Donald Trump has been singled out as among the more worrying aspects.

The president of the United States responded by blaming “many sides” for the violence, an appalling equivocation that diminishes the office even further than the depths to which he has debased it in the past eight months. Items of Trump paraphernalia, notably “Make America great again” caps, were prominent among the racist ralliers and some commentators think the president’s remarks were tempered so as not to upset a political base that includes the very worst elements in American society.

David Duke, the former head hood of the KKK, said the rally was a step toward fulfilling Trump’s promises and, after Trump’s bland statement on events, Duke crowed that, essentially, his guy is in the White House. Meanwhile, Maxine Waters, an African-American congresswoman and outspoken critic of Trump, dubbed it the White Supremacists’ House.

The American Civil Liberties Union advocated for the right of the racists to express themselves and, while Canada has different laws and customs around this, we would not contest the idea of racists expressing themselves peacefully, primarily because suppression can metastasize bad ideas the way mold grows in darkness. The answer to bad speech, we have been arguing in this space for decades, is not no speech, but more speech. Indeed, many Americans and others have been motivated by their revulsion at events in Charlottesville to recognize the racial and cultural problems it represents, and have engaged in the civil discourse on the side of good.

We admit, though, that free speech works best when decent people are in leadership. So, for instance, when white supremacists and neo-Nazis rally and murder, a U.S. president should arouse the country’s best instincts as the leading voice for unity in diversity and basic human decency. That didn’t happen after Charlottesville.

Also, police preparations may have been inadequate. When African-Americans have peacefully marched in recent years, militaristic counter-measures have been put in place, as in Ferguson, Mo., after the shooting death of Michael Brown. In Charlottesville, gun-swinging, fatigue-festooned, swastika-waving white people were met with limited police presence, to the extent that they were permitted to physically attack counter-protesters.

An additional factor – perhaps the only one not adequately hashed over – is the subdued reaction to the antisemitism permeating the event. The poster for the rally featured a Magen David about to be smashed by a sledgehammer. A recurring chant at the rally, premised on the idea of white culture being subsumed, was “You will not replace us … Jew will not replace us!” Seig heil salutes and chants of “blood and soil,” a Nazi slogan, were part of the show.

The president notwithstanding, most American leaders have condemned the racism of the event, but condemnations of antisemitism in particular have been far less prominent in the aftermath. Hopefully, people feel that their statements against bigotry encompass antisemitism; less optimistically, perhaps there is a feeling that, while other forms of hatred are anathema to American ideals, displays of antisemitism are less surprising and, therefore, less requiring of explicit denunciation. This is something that needs further consideration and discussion.

If, as former president Barack Obama was fond of saying (quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice,” Charlottesville may turn out to be a positive turning point in a long and tragic history of racism, antisemitism and xenophobia in America. Optimists among us hope that the political awareness of erstwhile apathetic Americans will be awakened by the sight of torch-wielding Nazis in American streets – and spurred to action by the fact that this reality doesn’t elicit swift and strong condemnation from the most powerful person in the country and, indeed, in the world.

As Canadians, we have our own shameful history of racism and antisemitism to reckon with and should not allow ourselves any smugness when assessing our neighbour’s current spasm of hate. The passing of German-Canadian Holocaust-denier and Nazi-sympathizer Ernst Zundel this month in Germany – to which he was extradited in 2005 and convicted for inciting racial hatred – and a scan of Canadian web commenters around these subjects remind us that we remain far from some bigotry-free beacon to the world.

Still, it is only when these things are out in the open that they can be challenged and debunked. So, as debilitating as it may be to see and hear these ugly ideas and actions, it gives us the opportunity to counter them – if, unlike the president of the United States, we choose to do so sincerely.