The Forward's Past

Does biblical literature get any better than Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)? Well, maybe for action the books of Samuel can’t be beat and for pick-up lines there’s none better than Song of Songs (especially if the love of your life deeply appreciates being compared to one of Pharaoh’s horses. I tried this once but it got me nowhere.) As to Ecclesiastes (a Jewish form of Stoic Greek philosophy) I particularly enjoy the message of Chapter 1 verse 9 which reads in the original, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (Only that shall happen which has happened, only that occur which has occurred; there is nothing new beneath the sun.)

I was reminded of the truth of this piece of eternal wisdom while perusing the Forward, my second favorite Jewish newspaper. Not only does one find news about Jews unavailable elsewhere, editorials that cheer the soul or boil the blood, a personals column that smokes, but there’s that section which picks and summarizes a story from 100, 75, and 50 years ago.

One hundred years ago this was a story in the Forward: The workers’ strike of the 200 ladies shirtwaist makers at the Rosen Brothers factory in New York turned into an all-out war, with “professional brawlers and rented bums” attacking the striking workers on a daily basis. Numerous workers with bandaged heads and limbs were plainly visible. The piece goes on to tell grizzly details. And today? Well, being by trade an historian I first see things in the past. I’m reminded of events of 20 years ago, when Nicolae Ceausescu, the last remaining Communist leader outside of the Soviet Union was being challenged by democracy advocates. As a last ditch effort he brought in coal miners from the provinces, high on whiskey and propaganda to beat up those who wanted to change the outlandish system which had governed the country since the end of the Second World War. So that’s 100 years ago and 20. Today there are those in the minority who do not want to change the way medical care is administered, who gin up the folk with outlandish stupidities that the president and Congress intend to see the euthanasia of America’s elderly, that people won’t be able to choose their own physicians. Some in the mob are lobbyists; others are dupes of the insurance companies who stand to lose while citizens gain. This calling out the troops drugged on hyperbole is the last toss in a lost game, but sometimes it works. But let’s not pretend that this disruption of town meetings is democracy.

Seventy-five years ago there was a man named Benno Karpeles who drew the attention of the Forward. His story in sum: He started out as an Orthodox Viennese Jew, became a Socialist, then a Communist, then a Jesuit priest and finally, by 1934 a fascist. And of whom does this remind? Well, if there’s a better example than the rabbis caught up in the New Jersey corruption sting, I can’t think of one off hand. Raised pious they abandoned the teachings of Judaism and reached deeply into the slime of greed, participating without apparent scruples in money laundering, organ selling, smuggling and God knows what else. Rabbis indeed! In the next world may they meet Benno Karpeles and share his quarters. (Walter O’Malley is probably in the next room.)

Fifty years ago a stormy debate took place in Lebanon’s parliament, during which it was alleged that the country’s 7,000 Jews are more loyal to Israel than to Lebanon. It was also claimed that Israel plans to take over all Arab countries by military force or by other means. Jewish assertions of loyalty were ignored. And today? Well, today there are no Jews in Arab countries, none to speak of anyway, because they’ve been expelled or killed or seeing the writing on the wall they’ve chosen to emigrate. Yet still the calumnies persist, a classic example of anti-Semitism without Jews. Israel is a war-mongering nation; it intends to control the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates; the settlements are the problem; the Jews are the problem.

Ah, Kohleth had it right. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Howard Lipsey

The motto of the Rhode Island Supreme court is in Latin which translates as “Not by man but by God and law.” As a devout though shul-going secularist I’m not sure I agree that this is appropriate, but Howard Lipsey is not so offended. In fact on the doorpost of his office in the Garrahy Judicial Complex, there hangs a mezuzah. Howard, we have to talk, I said, and so began a series of conversations on how being Jewish affects his thinking on the bench, presiding over disputed divorce cases in family court.

My theory is that since the motto is behind the heads of the justices, they don’t see it. Howard reminds that it’s in Latin so no one understands it anyway. We agree that the 10 Commandments in the Alabama courtroom were over the line, and then choose to disagree on the Rhode Island court’s motto or his putting the mezuzah on his office doors.

Does your being Jewish ever interfere with your judicial thought process? I asked. He gave me a copy of his decision in a disputed custody case. The father, a good man who had moved to Ohio wanted custody of his son. The mother, who had subsequently remarried, wanted to keep him here. Oh, the mother’s new husband hung Nazi flags in the house and participated in WWII re-enactment battles where the Nazis always won. Apparently the mother saw no harm in this. So, how to decide? The Jew in the judge wanted to get the kid out of there, but the case law dictated otherwise. He awarded custody to the mother. (I picture him holding his nose as he rendered this verdict, though I’m sure he would deny that that was the case.)

So you are a strict letter of the law guy? No, he said. One can’t live by sechel (intellect) alone. Fairness is the Jewish element that comes into his decision making. When I asked him if putting fairness before the black letter of the law isn’t what got Judge Sotomayor in trouble with Republicans in the Senate, he said “no.” When the law is clear, it’s clear, but when it’s ambiguous there is room for latitude. We are all products of our upbringing and experiences, but we can’t allow that to substitute for law. But on the Supreme Court principles of justice are allowed to penetrate. He cites cases like Brown v. Topeka which declared school segregation unconstitutional despite precedents to the contrary.

We studied some of the 613 mitzvot as catalogued by Maimonides dealing with how the law should operate. With some he was in obvious agreement as are all regardless of religion—“A judge must not pervert justice” and “judge righteously,” and “Judges must not accept bribes.” But one injunction reminded him of a case he regarded as his most significant success—though it didn’t start out that way. Maimonides warns against using circumstantial evidence. Howard once did. The case concerned an infant with bones broken symmetrically on both sides of her body. The people at Hasboro Hospital reported the circumstance to DCYF who wanted to take the child from her parents. The circumstantial evidence was that the girl had these multiple fractures and that only the parents were ever with her. The parents claimed that there was a medical reason for what had happened to their daughter and had an expert testify to that effect. Other physicians said this was not the case. As a judge Howard found for the DCYF and placed the little girl with her paternal grandparents allowing only supervised visits from the parents. That’s the way the issue stood until another physician using medical tests not available at the time of the first trial demonstrated that the little girl’s condition was indeed medically induced. With this new testimony Howard, in effect, overruled himself and ordered the child to be returned to her parents. DCYF appealed to the state supreme court and lost. For the past 10 years the re-united family sends Howard a Christmas card with photos showing the girl’s progress. A success based on recognizing that circumstantial evidence, as Maimonides had pointed out 900 years before, ought to be used with caution if at all.

---

This is the first in a series of occasional columns I’m planning on how Jews (and in one case a former Jew) in unique positions in Rhode Island discuss how their being Jewish impacts on what they do, how they think in their professional capacity. Each is or will be asked a variation on the question “If there is such a thing as a Jewish soul, how do you think yours affects your perceptions—or does your career and current status work to dampen Jewish instincts?”

Responses from those who read the spiked 7/24 column

1- I liked it. It may be irreverent, but it's not objectionable (from local Jew)

2- I love it! ...particularly:

People sometimes ask the question “What would Jesus do?” I’m not sure I know the answer, but two guesses relative to what he wouldn’t do are “buy a Hummer, and pack heat.” (from local Jew) But then it was followed the next day by:

2a- Back to the issue of whether or not your column should have been printed in the Voice/Herald, or any Jewish publication. As I emailed you upon first reading, I loved it. But I have read it several times more and, in spite of my admiration of your column, I find myself gradually coming around to the conclusion that the right decision was made not to publish it in a Jewish outlet. I know you worked hard to inoculate yourself from criticism by establishing your own Christian creds, so coming from you it would not be offensive. Unfortunately, the Voice/Herald cannot slip on the same robe. It is a Jewish organ, and to publish a column critical of a Christian cleric for his faulty interpretations of Christian teachings is not in good taste, and could easily offend the Christian partner in a Jewish/Christian mixed marriage. It could also open the paper up to criticism from the Christian community.

On the other hand, if you were commenting on a Christian cleric's activities or pronouncements which affected Jewish interests or were directed in any way at the Jewish people, that would be another story. (No pun intended.) Fortunately, thank g-d, that is not the case here. Be comforted that you still wrote a brilliant piece. You might consider re-writing it for submission as a letter to the editor or guest column to the ProJo or the CSM epaper, where it would have even more validity and impact. Then, all your friends on your email list will know the true identity of the author. (If they hadn't already figured it out.)

3- In response to your colleague: "Of course this should be printed. There are three bureaucratic entities involved - the United States government, Judaism and Christianity. The U.S. government supports free speech and is founded upon working through dissent. In the Jewish tradition, scholars constantly disagree to get a more understandable solutiuon. In fact, in the Old Testament, man is allowed to argue with God (and win!). Christianity, unfortunately, survives purely on faith and following blindly without questioning. If you want to be a better Christian, perhaps the article is too blasphemous. But I don't think that is your intent." (from a distant Jew)

4- Read the article...a good one... (from a local Catholic)

5- I was raised a Christian and still consider myself to be one based on my understanding of the teachings although many within the church would not consider me so. In my view this is exactly the kind of article which should appear in a religious publication be it Jewish, Christian or any other faith. It is difficult to understand the editor's concern. My advice to editor ..."Be not afraid...". My advice to the writer ... submit the offending piece to the New York Times. (from a local Protestant)

6- I would not print the column. I would suspect many Christians would be insulted. The gun bearing pastor does not speak for all Christians. There is also a distinction between not believing and disbelieving. Last, it just doesn't do the Jewish community any good. So, no, I would not print it. (from a local Jew)

7- I liked the column, but then I'm not Christian, Jew, Muslim, or even, as I tell my students, a reformed Druid. I do believe, however, that we (whoever that may be) are allowing the fundamentalist jerks of the world freedom to publish their rants while we (again?) restrain ourselves, or are forced to by editors real and metaphorical. It's time that we use our power to oppose sloppy thinking. And if the 2nd amendment won't allow us to ban guns, then let's ban the bullets! (from a distant person born Christian)

8- I don't understand why the article wasn't printed. It reminds me of an editorial (for lack of a better word) that was printed in The Walrus a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember the writer's name, but -- if I recall correctly -- he was posing as a conservative Christian arms enthusiast who believed that God was cool with guns. To support his theory, he alluded to the wisdom enshrined in a favourite Country and Western song: "His Finger's on Your Trigger (And It's Itchier Than Hell). "If I weren't so lazy, I'd try to track it down (the article -- not the song). (from a distant Protestant)

9- Hard to know what the Jewish press would have done, but I'd like believe (in fact I do believe) it would have been printed. I cannot for the life of me see anything unprintable in this. (from a local Jew)

10- Mmmn. Maybe you should try a Christian paper? I'm thinking there must be still be a few surviving Jesuits on the left side/social justice focused part of the Catholic church; maybe they have a good underground paper.

11- I don’t see why this column was nixed. For my part, this is unwarranted censorship which should especially concern Jewish newspapers. Where is your friend located on the West coast? LA, SF, Seattle? What newspaper. The curious want to know. Maybe even his name. (from a distant Jew)

12- My 2 cents. The editor used good sense. It is a fine article for a secular paper like the NY Times but not for a Jewish community paper. (from a local Jew)

13- As for your friend's article I agree with the editor that pulled it out of a Jewish paper
1) Why should a Jewish paper make such a big deal about Christian ethics. I am sure there are wiser Rabbis that can refute their beliefs better than the writer.

2)Of what interest is there for Jews to learn about the teachings of Jesus in a Jewish newspaper ?

3) and finally coming from the South (Florida ) I can see no harm in taking guns to Church [ but not the Synagogue ] The overwhelming number of gun-slingers are Goyim and so you need guns to go to church in the South (from a distant Jew)

14- After having read this, I enjoyed today's homily even more than usual and as best as I could keeping my 22 month old daughter entertained in the church's reading room. Our priest, a caring and thoughtful Pole with a thick accent, spoke about vocations, and that the basis of all vocations was found, among other places, in the most often quoted prayer of St. Francis of Assisi "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace." He said the entire prayer for those of us, such as myself, who were in need of a refresher, which made the message all the more powerful, and reminded me of my theology classes that I took at Providence College.
Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
In part I was also struck by the Beatitudes, which I sang in Latin several months ago during chapel service. They are increasingly a forgotten piece of faith, perhaps because of their simplicity. They do not mince words and there is no room for interpretation and are as close to the original sayings of Jesus and the Q document as biblical studies can achieve.

It is in this that I found the written piece so valuable, for it reminds me of how ever present the forces within my own religion, and all religions, have the potential to be so wrong, destructive and hateful. (I have always found it a paradox that we, the collective mob we, are fighting fundamentalists in Iraq and Afghanistan while fomenting fundamentalist behavior here with our own faiths.)

Any article which challenges the paths of fundamentalist religion should be welcomed. I have encountered in even here in New England and found it truly disturbing; the collecting of ammunition, stock piling weapons, voices of hatred against "Osama Obama." Truly disturbing; but perhaps a prelude of the next presidential race? Of course, it is here in this point of depressing thinking and forshadowing that the Beatitudes and the prayer of Saint Francis consoles me.

It should have been printed, but that is coming from me, a liberal Catholic whose grandparents subscribed to "The Catholic Worker" and voted the progressive ticket.

Thank you for sending this along,

15- It was perhaps a little bit of a controversial article - maybe that’s why the editor declined to publish it. It really called to light the level of hypocrisy and insanity reached by the fundamentalist Christian right. It appealed to me - even though I am a Christian - albeit a "bad" Christian who doesn’t believe in the historical accuracy of the bible but rather that the teachings are sound and true. Does the article maybe appeal to the wrong audience? Is it too "left" leaning?

Liberals as Fascist? Bah, nonsense!

Recently I was told to read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism so that I would know the truth at last. Well, I’ve looked at it and at the National Review on line and seen the video of Goldberg speaking at the Heritage Foundation and I am convinced. The right wing is in panic mode.

Until recently Carl Rove was predicting a permanent Republican majority. But then George W. Bush happened and most of the people weren’t fooled most of the time anymore. Now Republicans have lost the House, the Senate, the White House and are within a confirmation of losing their majority on the Supreme Court. Republicans now hold only 22 governorships and in Rhode Island no Republican currently seems willing to run.

Rather than asking themselves what went wrong, the radical right now in control of the party that once boasted of Javits and Rockefeller and Eisenhower, Edward Brooke and the two Chafees, is constantly in attack mode. I’m reminded of French general Robert Nivelle before his disastrous assault on unassailable German lines in April 1917. When asked how he intended to break through, he responded with “Violence, brutality, rapidity” to which some had added stupidity. Attack is all they know. Goldberg’s nonsense is just another manifestation of the Nivelle mentality.

In a nutshell, Goldberg argues that as Hitler and Mussolini started out as Socialists, their fascism retained Socialist elements shared by modern Liberals. Nazis and Fascists had some progressive social ideas, it is true, but that is not what defined them. Liberalism comes from the Latin for free; it has a long tradition from at least the writings of John Locke and Roger Williams. Liberals believe that all men are created equal; conservatives of the south, at least, and Nazis and Fascists in Europe, disagree; they believe that there is a superior race; they take Darwin’s concepts and distort them to “prove” the superiority of our race (whoever “our” is) over all others. In America this was justification for segregation disguised as an appeal to states’ rights. In 1980 Ronald Reagan, the paragon of the American conservative movement opened his presidential candidacy by going to Mississippi, to the very neighborhood where Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were brutally murdered because they were black and white trying to register black voters. He chose to announce there, there of all places, that “I believe in states’ rights ... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.” And then later as president he went to Bitburg cemetery and paid homage to Nazi soldiers buried there. Liberals were outraged; nevertheless Reagan said of the German war dead, “They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps,” a visit to which he chose not to make.

Goldberg clouds his case with so many irrelevancies and unsubstantiated innuendos that I cannot cover them all in the 700 words allotted me. But race, race won’t go away. The Nazis were racists and so were the conservatives whose dogs attacked protesters in Mississippi and Alabama; when president Johnson signed the 1964 civil rights act he knew that we was signing away the south for generations, but he did it anyway and in 1968 Nixon’s Southern Strategy brought him to the White House as surely as the Willy Horton advertisement swept in the first president Bush in 1988.

Goldberg tries to separate conservatives from Nazis by suggesting that conservatives don’t send inferior races to their deaths. That’s true; so far. (See how innuendo works? Like that.)

They used to call Liberals commie pinkos; during the recent election they tried to make us congruent with terrorists; that didn’t work, so now they seek the roots of Liberalism in fascism. Hitler tried to end Christianity and substitute Teutonic gods, Goldberg informs. Do any of the Liberals you know worship Thor? But many of my liberal friends attend church or synagogue; Hitler was in favor of euthanasia. Are liberals? None that I know of. Who is against gay rights, Nazis, yes; conservatives, yes; liberals, no.

It’s not only the Nazis use the big lie technique.

This column was spiked. I like it though

If you can believe it, I’m an even worse Christian than I am a bad Jew. This may take some explaining. I’m a bad Jew despite going to shul twice a day, seven days a week to say kaddish for my father, and my long-suffering wife and I maintain a kosher home, and she lights candles and I say the Shabbat blessings, but I don’t for a moment believe that any of it is ordained by God, the master of the universe (the diameter of which is roughly 27 billion light years). I’m a worse Christian because even though I’ve read the New Testament and have studied the beliefs of Catholics and a variety of Protestants past and present, and while I believe that much good can be found coming from the mouth of Jesus, especially from the Sermon on the Mount, and that Christianity, like the ancient Greeks and Jews is a cornerstone of western civilization, I’ve not been baptized, I don’t go to church, and I don’t believe that Jesus is God or the Second Person of the Trinity made flesh, or a prophet.

The Socialist in my DNA loves the statement that Jesus makes to a rich man who wants to know how to achieve eternal life. “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The man is naturally hesitant and Jesus tells him that “...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Take that, you greedy Wall Street S.O.Bs!

But it’s the Sermon on the Mount that I want to discuss in relation to some current events. He begins: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Not bad, eh? So I begin to wonder. Who are these peacemakers? Seems obvious on the surface, but to some, at least there is confusion. Let me take you from the mountain in the Holy land to Leitchfield, Kentucky. In that unholy land the pastor of the New Bethel church, the Rev. Ken Pagano, staged what the Christian Science Monitor dubbed “a Saturday night special.” People were invited to attend a special event described as “not a service” at his church bringing their unloaded guns with them. I cannot explain why the pistol-packing-preacher insisted on this. In fact, one member of the audience expressed the fear that the Obama administration, even if it didn’t take away guns would limit access to bullets. Sweet Jesus, say it ain’t so. No bullets? How can we protect ourselves? Can you imagine such mishagas is a civilized country, like England or France?

In perusing the web for stories on this event I saw this caption on msnbc.com: “About 200 church members brought their unloaded handguns for a one-day celebration of the Second Amendment which stipulates the right to bear arms.” I wonder if any of these bible thumpers have read either the bible or the Constitution. When Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers” I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean the Colt .45; when the founders wrote the Second Amendment they stipulated that the right to bear arms was to maintain a well regulated militia. Today we call the militia the National Guard and we supply it with tanks and machine guns. And the Christian bible? Need I repeat the Beatitudes above? People sometimes ask the question “What would Jesus do?” I’m not sure I know the answer, but two guesses relative to what he wouldn’t do are “buy a Hummer, and pack heat.” Rev. Pagano and his flock are fundamentalists when it comes to their misunderstanding of the Constitution while the words of Jesus they are willing to ignore completely. I began by saying that I was an even worse Christian than I am a Jew. Well, maybe the Rev. Pagano is an even worse Christian than I am.

Acts of bravery and cowardice

As I write on Father’s Day Iranians are on the verge of rebellion. The odds are against the insurgents; they have neither the guns nor the organization, just Twitter and Facebook. They do have the moral authority, and sometimes that’s enough. I wish president Obama were more forthright in his support, just as I wished that president Reagan had been more forthright in his support of Filipinos when they took to the streets following their rigged elections in 1986, and I wish that president Bush (41) had come to the defense of the Tiananmen Square democracy advocates, but that didn’t happen either.

I envy the Iranian (and before them the Filipino and Chinese) protestors courageous enough to face the armed police without themselves resorting to violence. But it embarrasses me to see the brave of Teheran demanding an honest recount while in America we stood idly by as our presidential election was stolen in 2000. Yes, in Florida there were protests (Mary Matalin famously denigrated them as Jesse Jackson’s rent-a-riot) but the rest of us who were in the plurality did nothing. What a fiasco that election was. Buchanan won votes from myopic Jews of Palm Beach instead of to Al Gore their intended recipient; remember the hanging chads, and the confusion of the butterfly ballot, and the uncounted ballots, and the disenfranchisement at black polling places, and the fact that one candidate’s brother was in charge of the farce? Florida should have become the epicenter of a mass protest; instead one person (and four of his colleagues) gave the election to Bush, the fellow with the fewer votes, and what a swell job he did. And we did nothing as government became a shambles and the Afghanistan war was abandoned before victory was attained, and Osama bin Laden still taunts, and we still cower. Congress should have discussed scuttling the anachronistic 18th century Electoral College and substituting direct elections or some other way of approximating reality, but it too did nothing. In America, the self-styled land home of the brave we dared not oppose the coup. In Teheran, they are daring.

In shul last week we read about the ten spies Moses had sent into Canaan along with Joshua and his doggedly honorable friend Caleb. Yes the land was beautiful and flowed with milk and honey, but the people are giants, the ten wailed, and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves and so we must have looked like it to them, they groveled. And despite the contrary testimony of Joshua and Caleb the people refused to believe in themselves, refused to believe that they had the power to overcome the obstacles, refused to believe in God, if you will. The lesson of the Hebrew spies is that failure to do the right thing, the moral thing, failure to have confidence in oneself can be a recipe for disaster. I wish I had been braver in 1961 and again in 1967 when each time I had the opportunity of doing the right thing, but didn’t. In 1961 I didn’t join the Freedom riders as they boarded their integrated busses and headed southward. In 1967 I didn’t fly to Israel to work the fields or factories. I live with the shame and try to make up for it.

Then I read of Jihad Jaara who orchestrated the murder of an unarmed 71 year old American turned Israeli during the second Intifada, ironically a man who’d befriended Arabs. Jaara was part of the murderous crew trapped in the Church of the Nativity in the spring of 2002. After a five weeks’ siege U.S. officials of the Bush (43) administration arranged for the European Union to take the killers. Jaara was flown to Dublin where he cowers in fear of Mossad or CIA attack. When a reporter from the New York Times found him he was shocked and afraid. His physician told the reporter, “You must give up the name of the person who gave you this address. Jihad is terrified because his security has been so easily breached.” “You must help us," Jihad said, angry, moving toward [the reporter]. "They want to kill me.” Shakespeare put into Julius Caesar’s mouth the sentiment that cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once. Jihad Jaara, who conspired in the murder of innocents now fears inevitable retribution and dies his thousand deaths one by one, day by day. Poor Jihad.

Filming the aftermath of the Rwanda Genocide

In a previous column I wrote of my friend Mark Grashow who has dedicated his retirement years to furnishing school children in Zimbabwe and Tanzania with books and school supplies and teachers. Now let me tell you about my step-nephew-in-law, Taylor Krauss.

A Yale graduate, Taylor began his professional life working for documentary film maker Ken Burns. On assignment in post-genocide Rwanda, he saw something that struck a chord. As a student at Yale he’d visited the Fortunoff Video Archive of Holocaust Testimonies. But in Rwanda, where during 90 days of hell, at least half a million minority Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu were killed by fellow Rwandans, no one was recording testimonies, or even providing social services for survivors. He worried that the mistake of not listening to survivors of the European holocaust was being repeated, with potentially devastating results. After all, if the story was forgotten, it could happen again, there or elsewhere. So he founded “Voices of Rwanda,” to record on film survivors’ testimonies about the destruction of their families during the genocide, and of the lives they’d lived before.

This is psychological and historical aid he brings. It’s not food or school books, such as Mark is providing, but on another plane it’s just as vital. It’s an opportunity to make sure that no one forgets, that unlike our holocaust, which is denied by Nazis and their sympathizers. Now, while stories are still fresh they can be recorded, and by recording, perhaps the victims will achieve some sense that what they went through was something the world will care about. It’s therapy for us too; we can’t just ignore Rwanda, tucked away there in the middle of nowhere, as we tend to view central Africa, but it’s a land where savage murder occurred on a massive scale, one “master race” of blacks perpetuating it on another, as one “master race” of Europeans perpetuated it on us.

The parallel isn’t lost on Taylor. Unlike the Holocaust, after which survivors mostly fled to Israel or the United States, in Rwanda, he says, “you’re living next to the killer who killed your family. There’s no space to tell stories,” which must be told. Here’s where he, the outsider, the Jew, comes in. “The reason I can be doing this work is because I am a Jew.” Krauss graduated from a Catholic high school in Phoenix, in 1998. He says that being in such an environment forced him to confront his own Jewishness because he had to represent a whole religion. When he would explain to Rwandans that he was a Jew, they would respond, “Oh, OK, you understand.” His being Jewish made it easy to relate to the survivors, and easier for them to tell him their stories. He said that in some regard, they feel that there is a shared history. And obviously so does he.

Taylor and his colleagues sit for as long as each story takes, sometimes more than 12 hours, and they have collected hundreds of hours of testimonies. But numbers don’t matter, he says. “Even one testimony is priceless. The more people share their testimonies the more I realize the importance of being there. The act of listening is the most important thing.”

I don’t know if it’s fair to say that Taylor has a credo, but if it does it might be this: “If you care about these issues [man’s inhumanity to man], then you have to make changes in your life.” He believes that it is a Jewish obligation to be listening to survivors in Rwanda. “We will be committing the same mistakes if we are not listening. The retelling of the [Rwandan] Holocaust is exactly the reason I am here.”

I was reminded of all this while reading president Obama’s recent speech—the one at Buchenwald.

“To this day,” the president reminded, “there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened... This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts; a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history. This place teaches us that we must be ever vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the false comfort that others’ suffering is not our problem and commit ourselves to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests.”

It is exactly in this spirit that my nephew Taylor is working in Rwanda, because he is a Jew.

You can read more about Taylor and his activities on his website: voicesofrwanda.org

President Obama’s comments can be found in their entirety at http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/06/05/1005677/obama-at-buchenwald