MO Rabbi notes importance of Thanksgiving as bulwark against multiculturalism
November 26, 2009 Jewish Community, Modern Orthodox
As some of you are probably aware, I do not approve of the way Beyond BT is soft on the RWUO who seek to deny Thanksgiving, and personally believe the question of Thanksgiving should be one of those questions that should be used to evaluate whether or not a BT institution (and the movement it is affiliated with) is fundamentalist.
Thanksgiving was supposed to remain a lifeline with my Before Teshuva world. At first, I stubbornly held on to New Year’s, defiantly rationalizing that we live by the secular calendar, too. But in truth, I’d long been uncomfortable with the idea that we kept our dates by their relation to the death of the Christian deity. (That’s pretty weird for a supposedly secular country.) Halloween was no great loss with the introduction of Purim. And, on Fourth of July, I usually serve my family something sweet and patriotically decorated and take the kids to a quiet spot to watch fireworks.
Then I lost Thanksgiving.
Rabbaim have poskuned that Thanksgiving has non-Jewish roots. Someone unhelpfully provided us with a pamphlet spelling out the problem. And since no one in the kids’ yeshivas does it, and, more importantly, I’ve lost my rebellious spirit in the realization that no matter how much I bristle, the frum way is usually best, after all…we don’t celebrate Thanksgiving either.
And now I feel a loss on that late November Thursday.
Rabbi Student, however, writes,
R. Jonathan Sacks argues that multiculturalism is destroying Western countries. When everyone clings exclusively to their ethnic heritage, there is no common culture to bind all members of the country together. There is no common language that everyone speaks and universally accepted morality that everyone observes. There is no cohesion between social groups.
To solve this problem, R. Sacks suggests that we need a covenant, an agreement to work together for mutual benefit because otherwise society will collapse. Part of this covenant is a national culture that includes a basic language of morality and patriotism. Before multiculturalism, there was a monoculturalism. Everyone had to either assimilate into the majority or remain an outsider to society. That model will not work anymore. Instead, what we need is a bare-bones national culture that transcends, and does not clash with, individual ethnic cultures to facilitate social cohesion.
Part of creating, or reviving, a national culture is promoting non-sectarian holidays, universal celebrations that tell a story about the history and values of the country. These facilitate the shared morality and language, and promote loyalty to the country and to those who are part of the shared culture.
In other words, celebrating Thanksgiving and what it stands for is part of conquering multiculturalism and reestablishing a basic morality in this country. So eat up that turkey and enjoy the cranberry sauce.
It is good to see a patriotic take on this holiday coming from an important RWMO rabbi and writer. What a shame that certain LWUO bloggers don’t see the need to do their part. I believe that Beyond BT’s administrators want the best for our country, but they also clearly feel that must be deferential to those haredi communities and leaders who could care less about what is good for the U.S.
The ultra-Orthodox must be pressured to demonstrate more patriotism, and teach it to their youth. Celebrating Thanksgiving would be a welcome start.
21 comments
I’ve lost my rebellious spirit in the realization that no matter how much I bristle, the frum way is usually best, after all
Right away, you can see where she’s coming from. Even the commenters told her it’s a matter of opinion. This is one of the (many) problems in that world – they have the BT’s so frightened that they seek out and obey the most stringent opinions, issued by the rabbis who are at the top of the “not getting it” list.
Also, as one of the comments mentioned, Jan. 1st as the start of the new year wasn’t a Christian invention; it goes back to the Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1). The month was named for Janus, their god of beginnings and endings (who may not have had a personal relationship with Avraham Aveinu, but he wasn’t telling people to kill one another over liturgical differences, either).
Speaking of rabbis who don’t get it, here’s a link to that article about Rabbi Sacks I sent you the other day, in case anyone is interested: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....abbi-sacks
Of course, someone will imagine seeing a tiny insect on a cranberry, then there goes the whole thing.
You cannot both be a good ultra orthodox Jew and an American patriot. The best one can hope for an ultra orthodox Jew is to keep US law. But then most tourists keep US law when visiting the USA.
Just as it would be considered a bit odd and smack of insincerity if Swiss tourists set down for a thanks giving dinner (or a Seder come to that) so it would be a bit creepy of the Ultra orthodox did so.
There is a big difference between being law abiding, which the Ultra orthodox generally are (though not as much as Swiss tourists) and being patriotic. A symbolic turkey meal once a year will cannot hide the fundamental philosophic problem the Ultra Orthodox have with the revolutionary anti clerical ideas which gave rise to the the land of the brave and the home of the frei
The best one can hope for an ultra orthodox Jew is to keep US law.
I would gladly settle for law abiding. But law abiding includes not blaming “anti-semitism” for community members crimes.
In that sense, and frankly, in other ways as well, the RWUO have a problem.
There is a big difference between being law abiding, which the Ultra orthodox generally are
Only if we exclude white collar crimes.
Just as it would be considered a bit odd and smack of insincerity if Swiss tourists set down for a thanks giving dinner (or a Seder come to that) so it would be a bit creepy of the Ultra orthodox did so.
There isn’t much they do that isn’t creepy.
I’ve been wondering for years why anybody who’s not a white, male Protestant of Anglo background could / would celebrate that day as those were the only people the Founding Fathers considered humans. Then again, the whole story was revisionistly glorified for ages, and that is what people actually celebrate. It’s just like that even most Christians don’t know that theologically, on Christmas they don’t celebrate the birth of “baby Jesus” but the possibility of divine revelation to and eventual salvation of his creation. (It was not uncommon for “enlighted” – not “assimilated” – Western Jews to have a Christmas tree and exchange gifts.)
“as those were the only people the Founding Fathers considered humans”
I think that’s a little harsh Sarah, can you back that up with some facts?
The founding fathers had no hand in Thanksgiving. Also, the only revision I’ve heard of done to the Thanksgiving story was the triefe menu: they had New England lobster instead of turkey.
Certainly. You’ll find that info in history books. I’ll look up the titles over the next few weeks (re-organising my books here as I got new bookshelves, and there literally are thousands of books), but I’m aware we explicitly covered that during the history classes of “Cultural Studies US” at university as well as that American school education only recently has begun taking a more nuanced, as in historically accurate, approach to the story of the Pilgrim Fathers and Thanksgiving, e.g. on how they treated the Native Americans and later on the Quakers (who were pacifists but Puritans did not permit non-Puritans in their settlements and even used violence against others).
The founding fathers were those who framed the constitution. The pilgrims had no slaves, and in fact relied heavily upon native Americans as their benefactors. So the Thanksgiving story- aside from the cuisine – is true. The mayflower pilgrims did indeed feast with the native Americans who taught them how to properly fertilize the land.
However, the socialization between the two groups ceased as more settlers came over, and the small group of initial settlers expanded into a more self sufficient network.
Which by the way, is not to say that those who followed were so nice to the Native Americans.
Here: http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=1524201
it’s a very interesting story.
Actually, the role of the Native Americans and how the Puritans treated them has been compared to that of slaves. Puritans saw slavery validated in the Bible.
The Mayflower Compact was an agreement between those deemed worthy. That kind of attitude lasted the US quite some time. I recall a (contemporary) caricature one of my professors brought to class, which showed Jefferson’s grave behind a fence. The first line of the Declaration of Independence was carved into the tomb, and a sign on the gate to the cemetery said (paraphrasing) that black people were not permitted to enter the premises.
No need to haul out the “actually.” Nothing I just pointed out runs contrary to your thoughts except for the conflation of the founding fathers,” and the pilgrims, and the fact that the Thanksgiving story actually did occur. I didn’t say the pilgrim were against slavery. They were just too nebacle to acquire them. That’s why they had to make nice with the Native Americans. Hence, Thanksgiving.
The Declaration of Independence was written 155 years later. Don’t conflate the pilgrims with the founding fathers.
I didn’t. That line of thought had a tradition that has developed well into recent US American history. Also, Thanksgiving only became a public holiday way later that the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers, yet even the one who made it an official holiday, Abraham Lincoln, did not question the historicity of the event.
than*
“Thanksgiving” doesn’t mean the pilgrims “made nice” with the Native Americans. For all we can know now, it was a far cry from nice, at least for the Native Americans.
Just picked up this popular history book “Don’t Know Much About History. Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned” by Kenneth C. Davis from one of my shelves.
I’d like to quote from “What was the Mayflower Compact?” in the chapter “Brave New World”:
Davis writes about the Pilgrims:
“Yes, these nonle-minded pioneers slaughtered Indians with little remorse, kept servants and slaves, and treated women no differently from cattle.”
According to Davis, the Pilgrims’ achievement in trying to create a colony different from typical British colonies [that is not what the Mayflower Compact explicitly says, however, but that rules shall be made for the good of the colony; if you familiarise yourself with Puritan theology, you'll see that divine grace is believed to show in economic / financial success and there's little not permissable in achieving that "success"] should be seen alongside their “flaws”.
Davis doesn’t excuse the Pilgrims, but by contrasting them to other British colonies in only one but not the other aspects leaves the bad taste of minimising in my mouth.
noble*
I was speaking to the meal, Sarah. Obviously Native American-settler relations grew beyond stuffing-diplomacy. Whose arguing that?
The meal appears to be nothing more than a well-groomed, kitschy legend.
Not legend. The meal happened. See the NPR report.
I’ve read several history factbooks that say that a meal happened, but not in the kitschy legend version with the Native Americans as guests of honour out of gratitude for their help.
Leave a Comment