
Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write - diodorus
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/26/why-jewish-history-is-so-hard-to-write
======
DanAndersen
Anyone interested in this topic should definitely check out Darryl Cooper's
"MartyrMade" podcast, which had a Dan-Carlin-style series of episodes about
early modern Zionism and the origins of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
[http://www.martyrmade.com/fear-loathing-in-the-new-
jerusalem...](http://www.martyrmade.com/fear-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem/)
It does a great job of being even-handed and emotionally connecting the
listener with the motivations of the people in history.

The history of the Jews (and the Jewish diaspora in particular) is
fascinating. Between the typical opposing endpoints of
assimilation/integration and separation there is this curious in-between state
that seems both chaotic and stable over time -- the state of being "in a
place" but not always being "of that place." The aforementioned podcast
describes well the urge to assimilate or to remain distinct, positions held by
both those in the Jewish community and those outside of it. The modern revival
of the Hebrew language into a living tongue, both as a method of crystallizing
identity and distinctiveness, is one example. Also interesting to consider how
even small differences in "rules" between societies (like allowing usury or
not, and to whom) leads to complex social consequences over time -- sort of a
cellular automata analogy. Historical patterns of Jewish expulsion from
various societies also make for interesting microcosms to understand tribe-
based interactions: when the Jewish people were invited or allowed into a
region, who was behind that change in policy and why? When pogroms or
expulsions happened afterward, what were the causes and which segments of the
population were the catalyst and why? It's an endlessly dynamic system that
resists our efforts to create a simple static narrative -- and I suppose if
anything it helps reveal that all of history is like that.

~~~
Pigo
On a side note ...and I know I'll be sacrificing some points for this
comment... I can't seem to get what everyone likes about Dan Carlin. I really
enjoy history, and appreciate color commentary, but I've found the couple that
I've heard didn't hold my interest very long. I started the Khans and one on
the Romans, after hearing the non-stop praise on JRE. I really wanted to like
it, which is why I was shocked that it seemed slow and light on the history
despite being hours-long.

This is just, like, my opinion, man. I'm not trying to talk bad about it, I've
just been curious if anyone else was disappointed or knows a better episode I
should check out. I'm fascinated by Genghis Khan though, so I'm not sure how
another topic could be more intriguing.

~~~
DanAndersen
The World War 1 episodes might be slightly more enjoyable, because I think
those deal a bit more with "history" in the sense of events and blow-by-blow
of what happened. But it may be that Dan Carlin's stuff just isn't your style.
Carlin's approach tends to be more of a discussion where he uses the backdrop
of a historical event to ponder some aspect of the human condition. There is
also a lot of repetition and redundancy and rambling when he talks, so some of
the appeal is people who just plain like the sound of Carlin's voice and enjoy
hearing someone talk about something interesting. I tend to divide up my
podcasts into mental categories of "those I listen to at normal speed" and
"those I listen to at 1.5x or 2x speed." Carlin's stuff fits into the first
category for me.

Are there other history podcasts you've enjoyed? I think something like The
History of Rome might be more of your style.

------
commandlinefan
I've always been idly curious as to what happened in Israel (as in the
geographic area) between, say, 35 A.D. and 1948. It seems, though, as if
everybody who might have some insight there also has an agenda that makes any
concrete information they might have to share indecipherable.

~~~
guelo
Mostly 1,400 years of Muslim rule besides a short period of Catholic rule
during the crusades.

~~~
jsharf
Just separating it based on religion is weird. I feel like in a 1-sentence
tl;dr you should at least mention the Ottoman empire from 1299-1923 (ended in
WW1).

------
oyvey
Wow amazing how the bound of religion and ethinicy can led people to survive
thousands of years and still maintain an identity.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Indeed, this fact this makes me proud to be a Jew. (A happy Passover to all
whom it may concern).

As a young boy my father used to take me to the Pergamon museum in Berlin -
one major exhibit is the Babylonian street of processions (it dates to the
neo-Babylonian empire) He used to say - here you see our heritage, we were
around the show when Berlin (and all the other great capitals of the world)
were still a swamp.

~~~
throwawayjewish
I was born Jewish and was pretty religious for most of my life, but even when
I was religious I never understood why we should be proud of this, or why this
is a good thing in and of itself.

I would be really interested if you could explain more your way of thinking
about it, because to me when my father explains that we should be proud of
having the same meal our ancestors did Xthousand years ago I don't feel
impressed in the least.

Instead, it just feels like a long streak of spreading a meme.

People often get surprised when I tell them I don't consider myself Jewish
anymore or that I don't intend to bring up any children I have Jewish. They
often cite their surprise to the fact that Judaism has a long ancestral
history. And I really just can't understand this frame of thinking that says
Judaism is good because it's been going on for long.

So I would be interested if you could explain why this impresses you :)

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Its a personal thing, I am not in a position to persuade anybody. I think that
our present is explained by the context of the past, and that you can't
understand the present without looking at the past. Now the past is a complex
thing that can't be reduced to some simple formula, I still believe that you
can still learn out of it, because human nature didn't change to much
throughout the ages. Our reality may be quite different from what it used to
be, but we are not essentially different from our ancestors, so we can still
learn from them (hope that helps). Our experience is similar to the experience
of our ancestors, we are part of the same process - it may be distant, but it
is still relevant (in my opinion), the accumulated experience of past
generations is of great value (because we tend to repeat the mistakes of the
past)

I know that I did repeat the same statement several times with variations, but
it is as far as I can get.

Also: If something prevailed throughout time, against all odds, then that's
pretty impressive to me.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
> " _Also: If something prevailed throughout time, against all odds, then that
> 's pretty impressive to me._"

This is dangerous logic, because you're not comparing it to anything. For
instance one argument I've seen for the existence of a god was the fact that
many constants and other seemingly 'magic numbers' of our universe are set
just as is required to maintain life as we know it. The problem there is that
assuming this is true, it's still meaningless since the only way we could ever
come to observe this fact was if it was true. This observation is known as the
anthropic principle [1].

Basically considering the merit or probability of something happening when you
would be unable to observe it not happening is impossible. You could say
you're comparing it against the failure of other groups, but this is probably
somewhat disingenuous as I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that the
oldest persistent ethnic group is likely some group within Africa neither you
or I have ever heard of, and you'd probably be unlikely to praise their
longevity and persistence in and of itself, even if it too was likely ripe
with strife throughout time.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

~~~
bradfordarner
I'm not sure the Anthropic principle can be applied here. There is a broader
data set than that which is relevant for that principle, based on my
understanding.

"Against all odds" would seem to be the key words here. There are countless
other ethnic and religious groups that were integrated into the larger Muslim
culture when Islam was first spreading. The same is the case for Christian
Europe. In fact, the Romani people may be a good example of what we would
expect to naturally happen to a dispersed and oppressed ethnic group. They
have no singular culture, principles, or beliefs; they assumed most aspects of
the surrounding culture's mode of life and beliefs.

It isn't a stretch to call the survival of the Jewish people an unexplained
historical exception. There are countless historians (Jewish and non-Jewish)
who have researched and written on the topic.

Or, am I misunderstanding the application of the Anthropic principle as you
are applying it in this context?

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Who are you comparing Jews to? This is the point. I don't think there's any
reasonable comparison. Judaism's pairing of extreme insularity with great
economic success in most 'host nations' leaves them without any other group to
compare against. Powerless minority groups are certainly not a reasonable
comparison.

Oppression and dispersion takes on a different meaning for those of means,
even more so when the shared genetic lineage also happens to provide a
substantially higher IQ than average for the vast majority of the group.

~~~
davemel37
I was taking you seriously until you wrote this, "Judaism's pairing of extreme
insularity with great economic success" and this, "Oppression and dispersion
takes on a different meaning for those of means"

I really think there is an undertone to this perspective that is colored by a
narrative that is false at best and possibly something much worse.

I dont think there is any factual basis to claim Jews had great economic
success or were of means outside of false narratives perpetuated by their
enemies. Even if you can point to specific eras or individuals that had
success, you certainly couldnt demonstrate it existed propritionately more so
than others, or that it existed in all the periods where they were persecuted
and oppressed...

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Your post display an impressively poor knowledge of even the most basic facts
of history, of which you then speak on authoritatively. And then you try to
attack my character based on your lack of knowledge. Dear sir, I can only
applaud your narcissism. It is impressive!

[https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/usury-and-
moneylend...](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/usury-and-moneylending-
in-judaism/)

~~~
davemel37
How does this article support your claim that Jews survived because they "had
means"??? Showing a disproportionate amount of jews in finance in the last 500
years in a few limited instances...in no way shape or form speaks to the means
of the vast majority of Jews nor does it to speak to 3000 years of
persecution.

You wrote a previous comment about jews distinctive physical features and now
you speak of their means and share an article about rotschild and than view a
Jew who calls you out on your false narrative a narcissist?!

Ascribing a few peoples wealth on a group of millions is the very definition
of anti-semitism... I refrained from calling you out sooner to try to give you
the benefit of the doubt...but the fact is the wealth on one person or a few
people lending money hardly reflects on the entire Jewish people...it is a
dangerous stereotype not based on actual facts...just a stereotype based on a
fraction of a fraction of the population...

Your belief that jews arent poor or oppressed minorities without means
throughtout history is patently false! Even if you can point to a few
exceptions to the rules.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/banking-and-
bankers](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/banking-and-bankers)

Or you can search for literally any source. The extreme success of the Jewish
communities throughout time is extremely well documented. This success, paired
with insularity, was often one of the big motivations for their oppression
throughout history. Expulsions would generally involve direct or indirect
confiscation of material possessions. Between the 13th and 16th century Jews
were expelled some 15+ times, in some cases multiple times from the same
places (such as France) where they would be expelled, invited as their absence
proved problematic, expelled again, and so on.

The reason Jews have distinctive features is because today about 75% of Jews
are Ashkenazi - a very distinctive group with a variety of distinct features,
both physical and nonphysical. For instance Ahskenazi individuals show an
average IQ average nearly a standard deviation above the mean. The reason for
the genetic relationship is that historically Judaism was far more insular
than it is even today. For instance interfaith marriages is an extremely new
phenomena. Pair a religion that makes it extremely difficult to join (and was
only more difficult in the past) with extreme restrictions on things like
marriage, and you end up with strong genetic similarity. It's not dissimilar,
in effect, from geographic isolation which yielded most distinctive traits of
various groups today.

------
olivermarks
I read Adam Kirch's review 'Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write'. Perhaps
it is because no one can ever seem to agree on what 'Jewish' actually is, as
evidenced by some of the discussion threads here...

~~~
throwawayjewis2
Fair point. I guess in that sense it's like "big data" or "blockchain", both
concepts that I'm sure exist but I'm not quite sure how to define.

Anecdote: I was once in a conversation with a fellow who was a rabbi and this
topic came up. He said, "well...the way I think of it is, if you can think of
ten characteristics that are 'Jewish', anyone who has any six of them can
claim the title." I guess that's one way to be flexible.

------
aaron-lebo
Schama who the article discusses produced a similar series that's on prime:

[https://www.amazon.com/In-the-
Beginning/dp/B00J97O91Q/](https://www.amazon.com/In-the-
Beginning/dp/B00J97O91Q/)

~~~
dizzy3gg
If you're UK based then it's on iPlayer:

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0398rkj/the-story-
of-...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0398rkj/the-story-of-the-
jews-1-in-the-beginning)

I actually started watching last night after never really been taught (or
remember being taught) much about them.

------
golemiprague
There are much earlier archaeological artefacts including stone writing from
much earlier than 457 B.C. This is the time after the destruction of the first
temple by the Babylonians who dispersed the Jews around the area. Since then
there were Jewish communities all over the middle east including in Egypt. I
don't understand why the writer of the article is so baffled about this. Just
as an example, the Merneptah Stele is the first to mention the name Israel and
is dated to 1203 BC. Ahab and Omri the Israeli biblical kings are mentioned in
the Kurkh Monoliths and the Mesha Stele from 850 BC so to start to research
Jews just from 457 BC looks a bit too late in the game.

~~~
jrumbut
From other things I've seen from Schama I think he starts the book there
because he is fascinated with the episode, not because he thinks it's the
first solid evidence of Jews.

He sees Elephantine as countering widely held beliefs about ancient Jewish
life (that it was all in Israel, homogenous, etc), containing interesting
analogues to the present day, and being an altogether interesting story.

It can be more difficult to spin a good yarn from the older material.

------
blah389405
how is this relevant to hacker news?

~~~
mfringel
To the simple son, you will say "Because enough people upvoted it."

~~~
googlemike
For those curious: This is a passover reference.

------
Zenst
History is not hard to write, it is just hard for many to read it correctly.

~~~
zpatel
great point..

