Recently I saw a Facebook post by Ryan Bellerose. Ryan is an Indian of the Metis tribe who lives in Canada, an activist for indigenous (aboriginal) peoples – all of them, including the Jewish people.
He wrote:
I side with my people before everything else. I can count on one hand where I sided with a non indian over an indian (the indian had to be really really wrong) but I would never side against my people on anything of real importance and I will never stand with anyone who stands against my core beliefs. why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Family. Clan. Tribe. Nation. Country. in that order, no exceptions, that’s how loyalty should be. family first last and always. nuff said.
Most people today agree about loyalty to their family. The other stuff, it depends. When I was in school in the 1950s, we learned about Stephen Decatur Jr., the American naval officer and hero of the wars against the Barbary Pirates, who was reported to have said “Our country! … may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.” This was presented as an admirable example of patriotism. Later, in the late 1960s, it became for many an example of chauvinism or jingoism, something not at all admirable (and after the turn of the millennium, Barry Rubin reported that it seemed as though education in the US was aimed to develop precisely the opposite position, that America was always wrong).
Since 1945, tribalism and nationalism have officially fallen out of favor. The World Wars of the 20th century were blamed on nationalism, and the UN and EU were founded to keep a lid on it. Countless international institutions in those frameworks were created in order to erase or blur national differences and boundaries. Those who express sentiments like those of Bellerose, Decatur, and me, were considered throwbacks, pitied for their atavistic inability to grasp the equal value of all humanity, to understand that everyone has the same human rights. Zionism, which is nothing more or less than Jewish nationalism, got a bad rap.
Although the one-worldism of this period didn’t appeal to me, at least it was consistent. Every human had the same rights.
But then something else happened in the ideological space: post-colonialism appeared. Thanks to writers like Franz Fanon and Edward Said (and the KGB’s psychological warfare machine), it began to be popular to think that although in theory everyone should have the same rights, that entity known collectively as “the West” or “Whites” had for centuries systematically abused and exploited “the Third World” or “People of Color;” and now, in the name of human rights and fairness, it became necessary to compensate the formerly colonized peoples.
This compensation takes multiple forms, from actual monetary reparations to the descendants of slaves, to excusing violence on the part of “colonized” peoples. Because Palestinian Arabs are supposedly “occupied” by Israeli “settler-colonialists,” they are permitted – they will even argue (wrongly) that they are allowed by international law – to employ terrorism against them. When a 17-year old Jewish girl is killed by a remote-controlled bomb, as happened Friday, the PLO will not condemn the act, and Hamas will celebrate it. It is, they say, their right.
Indeed, the acceptance by the international community of systematic war crimes committed by “oppressed third world” movements like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other similar militias is, or should be, a scandal.
In the post-colonial model, tribalism and nationalism are still anathema, except for the formerly or currently “colonized,” particularly the Palestinian Arabs, whose own nationalism – not to mention misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, and extreme propensity for violence – are all excused as the legacy of the colonial past.
In its milder form, post-colonialism informs the political correctness that plagues American campuses. “People of color” have victimhood rights that “whites” do not, including the right to impose segregation, to decide what topics can be discussed and who can have opinions about them, and so forth. Violation of these “rights” constitute “racism,” which is punished severely by ostracism and often loss of employment.
The difference between the idealistic postwar emphasis on human rights and the postcolonial era, which dates more or less to the 1970s, is striking. The language, which often refers to human rights, is similar, but in practice the exercise of these rights is limited to favored groups.
The contrast between the two periods is illustrated by the 1947 UN decision to partition the Palestine Mandate in a way intended to be fair to both its Jewish and Arab residents, versus the later, biased decisions of the UN, of which the 1975 General Assembly Resolution 3379 declaring Zionism to be a form of racism was a prime example.
Today postcolonialism is firmly ensconced in international institutions in the academic world, and in the media. The contradiction between the emphasis on human rights – for some groups – and the denial of self-determination for the Jewish people (who are never included among those who are considered victims of colonialism) is especially evident in Europe. Zionism, despite the UN’s repeal of Resolution 3379, is still considered “racist” by many, even though they don’t bat an eyelash at Palestinian nationalism – which includes the explicit intention to ethnically cleanse a Palestinian state of Jews.
But there does not need to be a contradiction between human rights and the older conception of nationalism. Prioritizing family, clan, tribe, nation, and country, as Ryan Bellerose does, does not necessarily imply denying rights to others. You can believe, as is stated in Israel’s declaration of independence and her recently passed Nation State Law, that the State of Israel is a Jewish state – that is, a state of, by and for the Jewish people – without denying the civil rights of non-Jews that live in it. This is what it means to be a Zionist.
Those of us who feel this way also understand the concept of national or tribal honor, and its importance. We understand that perhaps Israel had a reason to refuse to permit her enemies Tlaib and Omar to enter the country over and above the calculation of whether it would be better or worse PR than letting them in: national self-respect.
President Trump’s remark about Jewish loyalty might have been unfair to all of the Democratic Party. It might have represented the kind of poor boundaries sometimes attributed to Trump. But it certainly wasn’t antisemitic. And it wouldn’t hurt for American Jews to engage in more than a little introspection on the subject.
@ Peter Dale:
The Coast Indians are notable for differing in appearance from all other Indians. My recollection is that those called Eskimos came first and Haida (also called Eskimos) came after, but with their own, different culture.. it’s really only a matter of the different waves of Mongolian nomadic “invaders”.. I recall an impassioned speech on TV years and years ago, where a Haida vehemently objected to being renamed as a Haida , preferring the generic “Eskimo”… They likely intermingled like the Metis.
The differentiations are partly political, and concern “rights” to govt. goodies more than asserting national pride.-although it was the time (around the 1960s) when people and PC cultures began to proliferate. ..except for the Metis, who are proud of their origins and history. I am aware of the fight for separate recognition.
I was not questioning your credentials, merely asking where you were stationed, as my personal experiences were confined to British Columbia, where I was and am living. There were times when much exposure of the disastrous conditions of the Reserves were revealed, and it seemed cyclic. on the hopeless conditions of the reserves, which , contrary to your assertion are not all the same across Canada. There was a time when they were, having been treated abysmally by the Can. Govt. A world disgrace equivalent to Bartolome De Las Casas’ description of the destruction of the Indian Races by the Spaniards. For several years I worked long Skid Row, (Hastings St. area) in Vancouver and became personally cognisant of the pathetic conditions of the local Indians, some of whom I knew. Sad Sad. I tried to start an excellent business involving Indian partners, but it failed to get off the ground through alcohol.
However, regrardless of who claims what, the facts are that the Metis Nation originated from the intermarriage and intermingling of Indian and French-European, etc on a comparatively large scale. They, individually are at liberty to claim either or both sides as their progenitors of choice. Don’t we have a case in the coming US elections where Sen. Elizabeth Warren, claims Indian status, because she is 100th Indian…Propaganda I know but…….
The subject can become tangled, based on preferences, personalities, facts, and perceived assumptions.., (even though it occurred in historical times), and there’s no point in flogging a horse to death just to win an irrelevant argument.
This all evolved from my innocent remark on your criticism of Bellerose, which I felt was unfounded, (and not relevant), as he is a staunch ally of the Jewish People.
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar: I did not do any research on the internet at all. I am Canadian with three degrees: one in history and political science and the other two in political science. I am fully aware of the Riel Rebellion and its suppression by the MacDonald government.
I am also fully aware that Indian Bands differ across the country. My experience was on the West Coast. And, if you read the Canadian papers or keep in touch with Canada through the CBC news site, you will read of the deplorable conditions on reserves across the country. Lack of basic necessities such as housing and even potable water is not confined to one location or geographical area. Nor is spousal or child abuse.
You raise a very interesting question about identity. You say that your Metis friend is who he says he is. How would you treat someone who is not a Jew coming to Israel and three days later saying ‘I’m a Jew’. Would that person be a Jew in any meaningful sense? My answer would be no. Your identity is much more than simply saying so.
As for your final point about supporting your People and Israel. No criticism there.
Oh, I forgot. My Haida acquaintances would not take kindly to your description of them as Eskimo-like. Indeed, the word Eskimo is now not used. The word is Inuit.
@ ketzel:
Ketzel: The point was terminology. If you claim that you are Metis, you are not Indian. You are not recognized as a status Indian by the Government of Canada. For years, the Metis got the short end of the stick. Their claims for recognition went unheeded by both government and the Indian bands. They have struggled for over twenty years to gain recognition as a separate grouping entitled to the same treatment as Indians by the Canadian government. And they have been successful. If Mr Bellrose claims he is Metis, as he does, then his people are Metis and not Indian. And a great many status Indian bands would tell him so.
Peter Dale: your comments about our friend and ally Bellerose remind me of the
Khazar slur about Jews. Some Jews and Indians are part European. So?
@ Peter Dale:
I really don’t see any reason for your criticism of Bellerose. The Metis were intermingled Indian and European as you saw, when you likely looked it up on the internet. Mainly French voyageurs, hunters and pioneer settlers as I recall. So what difference does it make which identity he assumes,. If he claims Metis, maybe he has the right to. You don’t know differently. If he claims Indian that’s also his right. The most likely fact is that he is of mixed blood and can claim either or both -and does, depending on the situation. .
You may have worked in an Indian settlement, it depends where…as Canadian Indians vary from the Haida, Eskimo-like, to the 5 (6) Nation Confederacy in Eastern Canada, spilling over from Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, into New York State, who look like the American Indians we always see in pictures.
I myself made a deep study of the Metis and the Louis Riel Rebellion , the setting up of the independent nation and government, stemming from the Red River area. None of this matters. I had a Meti friend in Kelowna B.C. for many years. He is what he says he is, ether or both. What difference does it make …? The important thing is that regardless of the violent abuses that you undoubtedly witnessed, he sticks solidly with his related people, and tries to make it better. For us, the importance is that he supports unswervingly, Israel.
I lived in Israel for nearly 14 years,. My fiance and I went there to get married, as a mitzvah, and stay. We were not more than traditionally religious, but 100% Jew. We eventually HAD to leave, not because of money, or lack of opportunity or anything like that. It was the massive corruption, and swindling, and that my new car, imported travel trailer(the 1st ever in Israel) and 5 room apartment chock full of enough household goods to outfit 4 homes, for (4) children we hoped to have, (and did have). All these were trashed, torn to pieces, even our photographs, hundreds of vinyl 10-12″ records broken, fantastic sound system smashed to rubble, piled nearly 2 feet high in the living room. 1.5 dozen linen sheets torn to shreds stuffed down the toilets,, and….and…
I could stand on it and touch the over 8 ft. ceiling, and I am only 5’7-8″ tall. I dumped over 40 large cartons of smashed goods, china, glassware cutlery, and 140 odd valuable musical instruments(intended for Music Academy) Over 1000 valuable out of print, many 1st ed. books destroyed. Cost about $250,000, minimum. PLUS, the theft of all our building materials for our projected 300 sq. metre villa… And much much more.
All this during a 3 month absence visiting wife’s family in Canada. I have mentioned some of this in past posts on this site. I hate to be reminded of it.
YET…..I’m solidly for my People and for Israel…as you might have noticed from my past posts.
Victor: Mr Bellrose is being disingenuous in assimilating the term Metis to that of Indian. If he is Metis, then he is not Indian. Metis is a term which designates a person of mixed parentage: one is an Indian; one is not. Mr Bellrose may really be saying that he identifies with the culture of one parent rather than that of the other parent.
There are of course many exceptions to his hierarchy of loyalty and not enough has been said at all. I spent three years working on an Indian reserve ( the American term is reservation) and I could give you many examples of youngsters beaten, abused ( sexually and otherwise) by their families. Why would you,if you experienced that, be loyal to them? Likewise for the other groups mentioned by Mr Bellerose.
What should command loyalty is the set of principles, first articulated by the Jews, that are the basis of Western ethics. Not family, tribe, nation or anything else.
@ Bear Klein:
Of course not. I see nothing in my posts that accuse YOU of “hot air” and I still don’t know how you though so…. My casual comment was because at the very end of your criticism (well deserved) of an article, (possibly the same article where I pointed out what Trump was getting at) you mentioned… ( I think the Dems hysteria on Trump)…. as “hot air”… That’s all. We were both on the same page.bout Israel, and usually are, -as you may have noticed.
I’m just short on research because I’m very computer ignorant, but long on common-sense and logic, both of which you may have noticed.
@ Edgar G.:I understood that you said my comment was “hot air” You are saying that was not the case, so good!
@ Bear Klein:
BEAR……..Bear, I really don’t know what you re talking about. I understood your comment to a “tee”, and everything you’ve just repeated, is contained in my post above.. We are just saying the same thing with slightly different syntax and synonyms..
I was making only a very casual, throw-away mention of your hot air” comment, referring to Democrat emissions in their deliberately, politically impelled, artificial hysteria.. It never occurred to me that you might read something into my post which was not there…OR, more to the point, NOT see what was really there. After all I recognise that you are a serious thinker.
SO…. what’s going on with your intake “apparatus”
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar, you misunderstand my comment I believe.
I think Trump was correct and I agree with his sentiment. However in his imprecise language he gave his enemies room to attack him. He was not going to win converts to the GOP with his remarks. Elsewhere not on Israpundit I have defended Trump and his remarks over a two day debate with a lot of Democrats on the Facebook feed discussion.
Trump is not at all anti-Semitic and he is the most Pro Israel POTUS ever.
His enemies are always looking to attack him and unfortunately he sometimes by his imprecise language gives them ammo.
So sorry you missed the main point of my comment which was not about Trump but that far left wing Jews seem to no longer care first and identify first with the Jewish people and Israel.
@ Bear Klein:
Bear, when the remark was made by Trump, and during the resultant “the sky is falling” hysteria. I posted here that Trump was quite right,. That I understood that the disloyalty he talked about. was that those referred-to Jews, (Democrats I’m sure) were disloyal to the US, because of the “bipartisan” policy of the very closest of ties with Israel, compounded by their real lack of support of Israel.
.It seemed so obvious, and the mass- psycho-babble was so clearly “politics as usual by the Democrats..
There was not scrap of that anti-Jew accusation of double-loyalty so beloved of American Anti-Semites.
There was no comment on my post, which was swept away by the furore, all HOT AIR, a perfect example of your “hot-air” comment.
I have been thinking about this subject quite a bit lately. As a child of Holocaust Survivors and parents who were proud Jews I have always a very strong identity with being part of the Jewish people (AM Yisrael). It is why I explored Aliyah and made Aliyah to contribute to and be part of the Jewish people.
Some of the leftists Jews in particular the far left apparently no longer strongly identify with the Jewish people as the most important part of their core identity. That is why the Peter Beinart’s of the world can take the side of those wishing to destroy the one and only Jewish State.
I understood what Trump was saying (even though not very well and perhaps ill advised as a non Jew) that Jews in the US are voting for those who are willing to hurt Israel instead of voting for those who are helping Israel. He was not wrong at all.
Israel is the home of the Jewish people whether they live there now or in the future. It is a refugee for Jews who because of circumstances (many times because of antisemitism) need to find a welcoming place to live. All Jews should support Israel, if they care about the Jewish people. Without a strong Israel there will no more than remnants of the Jewish people within a generation or two.
judaism is both a religion and a nationality or family. When someone converts to
judaism, he is adopted into the family. However this family has to be loyal to each other based on the torah of Moses which tells the story of the jewish people. If it is not based on this it can be corrupted