Let’s face it, the Jews have long been a troublesome people for the rest of the planet. Of course, that topic or virtually anything to do with Jews is a minefield of issues especially since the Jews control the media and the banks and a speck of dust on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. For most people, their latent anti-Semitism is a barely a tic on their panoply of biases and disaffections. But there is that crucial and volatile problem which is, of course, the state of Israel and its right to exist. And more to the point the claims made to reify that right together with oil imperialism, the clash of civilizations, and again the millenia-old contempt for the the Christ killers—all of which have dovetailed into the great cauldron of dilemmas we know as the Middle East.
New York City may be the American megalopolis hated by outlanders and flyover-zone residents (in part because apparently that’s where that unfortunate rubric originated), but L.A. seems to draw more negative commentary. Artists like Jack Kerouac and Alejandro Jodorowsky have called it “the loneliest city on the planet.” I harbor no such feelings, though I am amused by the metaphor that has N.Y.C. as the opening of the U.S.A.’s alimentary system and L.A., you guessed it, at the terminal end.
While I have every confidence that all manner and mode of ideas and activities now labeled with the ungainly appellation “old school” will not suffer the fate of road apples (which is to dry up and become dust in the wind), I do fear that, for example, the study and profession (as an avowal of faith or belief) of history will be relegated to a cloistered sect of astigmatic priests, occupying the rarified heights of the ruins of some ivory edifice. In part this anxiety stems from the torrential shit-stream of what is generously labeled “information,” clotting the collective memory and vision of all sentient beings living in this 365/7 world. While arguably not a necessary agent in the indisputable dumbing down of our species, this infoglut is a self-evident contributor to a pandemic of advanced stages of attention deficiencies. Which is why I am encouraged by the publication of books like Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary (HarperCollins) by Stanford mentor Bertrand M. Patenaude.
Since I don’t go out much I can’t tell if there is a lot of hoopla around the publication of the Greil Marcus and Werner Sollors-edited A New Literary History of America (Harvard University Press) —although I do take exception to a use of “America” that is exclusive to the United States—looking at this titanic tome’s web site one might infer such.
Given the prodigious and intense scholarship devoted to all manner of subjects—central and tangential—to the Holocaust (or “Shoah” as some Jews prefer to call it), it is an encouraging sign that new information or new ways of looking at what we know are still being unearthed.In order to understand the whole course of development that leads us to the Holocaust, I think it’s very important to see what influential sectors in the United States were doing. And in the case of higher education, it’s a very shameful record of complicity and indifference to atrocities committed against the Jews from 1933 onward—and actually a lot of collaboration, in terms of participating in well-organized student exchange programs, participating in well-orchestrated Nazi festivals in Germany, sending delegates to those and ignoring protests.How this came to be is no surprise as Norwood elaborates:
They just didn’t care very deeply about Jews and anti-Semitism because they were themselves involved in maintaining quota barriers against Jewish students. There were very, very few Jews on the faculties of American universities throughout the entire inter-war period. And there are whole fields that were basically off-limits to Jews.This tome is being touted as “the first systematic exploration of the nature and extent of sympathy for Nazi Germany at American universities during the 1930s”—which falls into the “better late than never” category of inquiry. —Robert Birnbaum
Former Boston Globe and Pulitzer Prize-winning scribe Fred Kaplan (who also writes for Slate) can be forgiven for the hyperbolic claim of the subtitle in 1959: The Year Everything Changed (Wiley), as there are at least two other books that pretty much claim the same thing—and, after all, overheated rhetoric has not yet been made a crime (though it would be fitting to give law and order types a taste of what they ladle out). Plus, I personally hate to quibble with a fellow admirer of the greatness of Miles Davis’s landmark recording Kind of Blue.