Identidades ocultas y afirmadas: de la Inquisición al Holocausto

Esta es la charla que di por invitación del Centro de Estudios Sefardíes de Caracas sobre lo que he llamado la conciencia dividida y la identidad judía. Sinopsis: La idea de abandonar el judaísmo ha estado presente en la historia, desde los tiempos de los Macabeos, las conversiones en España y Portugal en el Medioevo o los movimientos asimilacionistas en la Ilustración europea. Sin embargo, en estos tiempos de identidades fluidas, donde hay quienes que se reclaman sefardíes para obtener la ciudadanía española o portuguesa, y quienes redescubren su pasado judío que sus padres trataron de enterrar, las opciones sobre cómo recordar u olvidar su judaísmo se multiplican. ¿Cómo entender estas identidades fluidas cuando todo fluye: el género, las etnias, la misma concepción de la familia? Aunque no haya respuestas claras, en esta charla abordamos el tema con una perspectiva amplia.

Racialized arguments that are almost racist: my letter to The Conversation

No Conversation in The Conversation Canada

Scott White, Editor -in-Chief of The Conversation Canada, ignored this letter regarding a mischaracterization that one of his editors made of a public letter that I co-signed with other colleagues defending academic freedom. His behaviour is not an example of being “open, transparent and accountable,” and certainly not a good journalistic practice. Here is my letter:

February 9, 2021

Scott White

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

The Conversation (Canada)

Dear Scott,

Judging people’s opinions based on their race should be considered racist. No? Well, it depends who you ask. If you think you have the “right” opinion or the “right” theory, then your judgment won’t be considered racist, even if it looks very much like that. 

Let’s take the following statement: “Last fall, a group of 34 university professors wrote a letter in support of the use of the n-word in classrooms. Every single one of the letter writers was white. Why is this conversation still happening? Why do white and non-Black people insist on uttering that word, the n-word? And when asked not to use it, why are they fighting for control of it? (published in The Conversation as a teaser for the podcast Don’t call me resilient by Senior Editor and Producer, Vinita Srivastava) (see screenshot of a similar teaser that was emailed to the portal’s readers).

Or read this one (originally in French commenting a public letter signed by 579 professors and lectures from Québec): “I told myself that I had to look at the evidence, and it took me hours to find the photos of the 579 professors and lectures to know how many whites and non-whites signed this letter. The result is terrifying, but not surprising. From those 579 signatories, 97.2% are white persons. That means that only 2.8% are racialized people. From that small number only 0.5% are black.” (published on the website Ricochet by Will Prosper) 

In both cases, the authors of these statements pretend to judge or disqualify the opinions of those who wrote the respective texts because they were “white.” We can call these “arguments” ad ethnicity (the equivalent of ad hominem but racialized). They are very weak but also very dangerous. They are based on impressions and prejudices, since the persons who wrote those statements don’t know the people who signed the op-eds. And what being “white” means according to them? For example, I am one of the 34 professors from the University of Ottawa who signed last fall an op-ed (in French) supporting part-time professor Lieutenant-Duval and defending academic freedom. Am I “white?” It depends, again, who you ask. I am a Venezuelan Sephardic Jew who was born in Tangier, Morocco. Should I consider myself a Latino? My mother tongue is Spanish. I grew up in a Latin American country. Am I the typical “white” (whatever that means) who migrated to Canada? The other 33 colleagues who signed the public letter have different origins and backgrounds, and the languages they speak, their religions (or lack of), their skin colour should not be used to invalidate their views on the issue of academic freedom.

But there is even a more troubling issue in these statements. They represent an inquisitorial mindset looking for the “pure” and the “tainted,” as the Spanish Inquisition used to do when persecuting the heretics and the crypto-Jews. They also convey a new rhetoric of stigmatization under the disguise of “social justice” and egalitarian aim. Historically, the “good causes” (i.e. the salvation of the souls) have ended in terrible tragedies and crimes.

As you can see in these statements, there is a very thin line dividing the “racialized” and “racist” discourses. Those using the racialized rationale to disqualify the opinions of other people should remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.” Amen.   

I hope you will publish the entire content of this letter in The Conversation. I consider this a matter of editorial fairness and good journalistic practice. 

Cordially, 

Isaac Nahón-Serfaty

Associate Professor

University of Ottawa

About Adolf Hitler being elected in Namibia: Should I be offended?

Herero chained during the rebellion against 

German colonial power in 1904

I don’t know. Some friends told me, “no.” Why be offended? Adolf Hitler won a local election in Namibia. Actually, his full name is Adolf Hitler Uunona. He was elected as a councillor for the Ompundja constituency. But why I should not be offended? In this era of generalized “offensiveness”, there is always a good reason to be offended (and also, to apologize when someone claims that you offended her/him). 

Adolf Hitler Uunona told to the German newspaper Bild that he has no intention of dominating the world (what a relief!). Mr. A.H. Uunona thinks that his father was not aware of Hitler’s ideas and deeds when decided to name his son after the founder of the Nazi regime. He also explained that he grew up in total innocence about the implications of having that name. "It wasn't until I was growing up that I realised: This man wanted to subjugate the whole world," said Mr. A.H. Uunona. 

He won his seat in the local council with 85% of the votes. He ran under the banner of the Swapo party, the one that led the independence of the country from South Africa and fought colonial and white-minority rule. It could be said that the party of Mr. A.H. Uunona is anti-racist. 

A BBC report reminds us that Namibia was a German colony between 1884 and 1915 (as part of a territory called “German South West Africa”). The German Empire killed thousands during the revolt of aboriginal Nama, Herero and San people, of what has been called “the forgotten genocide.” Namibia refused 10 million euros offered by Germany for reparations. The Namibian government continues to negotiate for a “revised offer.”

With such a sombre past marked by massive killings and racism, one could expect more sensibility from the part of Mr. A. H. Uunona. For example, he could have dropped the “Hitler” particle of his first name. Maybe his father didn’t know, but Mr. A.H. Uunona has no excuse. He should know about Hitler’s responsibility in the persecution and killing of millions of human beings, the biggest genocide in human history. 

What about of those who voted for Mr. A.H. Uunona? Maybe they are too young to know, or maybe they don’t give a damn, or maybe they have other priorities in their lives that caring about Hitler’s nefarious record. But Mr. A.H. Uunona could have used his name as a “pedagogical opportunity” to educate Namibians about the relatively recent criminal past of Nazi Germany, its allies and accomplices. To be named Adolf Hitler in an educational context is not the same as to use that name in a rally of a neo-Nazi party. No?

Mr. A.H. Uunona prefers to keep his name in full. His wife called him just Adolf. 

Should I be offended? No. Stupidity is equally distributed among the racist and among those who claim to be anti-racist. 

Un país para el olvido: mi nueva novela corta

El Papel Literario de El Nacional publicó los dos primeros capítulos de mi novela corta Un país para el olvido. Los puedes leer haciendo click aquí. 

Pueden bajarse la novela completa aquí.

"El cartel decía: «No se acerque a este país. Es mejor que dé la vuelta y se vaya». El gran anuncio era negro. Las letras resaltaban en blanco. Lo volvió a leer. Pensó en retornar a donde había partido y cumplir el mandato del enorme letrero. ¿Sería en serio?"

Un país para el olvido

About my own experience: Discussing Nazi ideas in the classroom

I would like to contribute from the point of view of my own experience as professor at University of Ottawa to the current debate about academic freedom and racism. I used to do an exercise with students in the master seminar on Public Communication Campaigns that I’ve taught for several years. I proposed the students to read 10 principles of propaganda, drafted by one of the fathers of these persuasion techniques, and translate them into the language of modern advertising and marketing. Before doing the exercise, I did not disclose the name of the author of the 10 principles. After discussing these principles and their connection with advertising and marketing, I disclosed the name of this person: Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi ministry of propaganda, an anti-Semite that contributed with his speech and action to the extermination of Jews, Roma people, gays, human beings with disabilities, political dissidents, among others. 

Some of the students were surprised to discover the connection between Nazi propaganda and modern persuasion techniques. Some others were not as surprised. We discussed the ethical, theoretical and practical implications of this connection. But I never was denounced as a “Nazi” for bringing Goebbels’s principles to the classroom in the context of an analytical and critical exercise. Nobody accused me of being a “traitor to the Jews” (being myself Jewish) or even a “Nazi” for bringing into the classroom the ideas of Goebbels. The discussion was always respectful, rational and constructive. 

Someone would say that I was “allowed” to bring Nazi ideas into debate in the classroom because I am entitled to do so as a Jew. This is nonsense. I don’t have a privilege to talk in exclusivity about Nazism, anti-Semitism or even Judaism or the Jewish experience because my identity (that is actually a little more complex because I was born in Morocco, raised in Venezuela, moved to Canada, speak Spanish, etc.). On the contrary, I would like others (non-Jews) to study and understand the Jewish perspective, and talk about it. I don’t have that privilege, even if I’ve experienced anti-Semitism and fought against discrimination and hate speech all my life as a journalist and professor. 

Reason should prevail in the current debate. The incitation to violence, hate speech, bullying, intimidation should be denounced. Academic freedom should be protected.  Racism and discrimination should always be condemned. 

¿Cómo suena Venezuela?

Trato de responder a la pregunta ¿Cómo suena #Venezuela? Lo hago con un texto que salió publicado en @Analitica y con sonidos que pueden leer y escuchar aquí.

Simetría 2020

La sospechosa belleza

De sus cifras circulares

Son esferas que coliden

Lanzando chispas naranjas, destellos

 

Navegan lentamente

De derecha a izquierda

Dejando gotas de tinta

Que caen de sus plumas afiladas

 

Tratan de volar

Mas el peso del metal

Gravita en sus entrañas

Como polos magnéticos

 

Se arrastran por el tiempo

Cargando el fardo del pasado

Sus bocanadas de futuro

Terminan en los velos del ahora

 

Creen que todo ha terminado

Pero el Uno retorna

Cual ardor en sus rostros

Con máscaras de luz, de fuego