You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ex_libris_volantes 's review for:
challenging
medium-paced
This book lives up to exactly what I think it was intended for, as it will assure those who already believe the author’s viewpoints that they are “right,” and even give themselves a pat on the back for “being sympathetic to the poor Palestinians” while blaming all the hardships on poor [Arab] leadership over the decades. But what this book, and author Tishby fail to acknowledge are the Problems at the inception of the Zionist project that put the lie to everything this book claims as fact. Tishby mocks contemporary supporters of the Palestinian Freedom Movement worldwide for being “duped” into rooting for the underdog. She claims that seeing the Palestinians as underdogs is an uninformed position to take, but never seeks information from a source that isn’t biased as either familial, or sources approved by the Israeli state. But then she takes the position that Israelis and Jewish diasporees that sought refuge in a homeland of Israel in the early 1900s should be praised as true underdogs. Tishby consistantly rags on Palestinian movements for claiming to be refugees generations removed from the incidents they claim their refugee status as a result of. But she never reckons with the fact that Israelis claim their right to exist and have a safe homeland in the state of Israel as a result of their own “refugee status” post World War II and the holocaust, and grant that right of citizenship retroactively and perpetually to any descendent, even thousands of years removed from that ancestry. She in many ways refuses to acknowledge that the refugee crisis of Jewish people repositioning to Israel after the holocaust was in and of itself a major refugee crisis that unsettled the standard operation within the Palestinian lands of the time, regardless of her claims that Palestine wasn’t an official country at the time, which seems to be her justification that Israel itself has not done anything wrong as a state, systematically speaking, because there was no government or nation that they were “stealing” from. It’s this inability to acknowledge the true definition of indigenous, or generational attachment to a land, that is a fundamental aspect of Tishby and the Israeli government‘s position. This is why “leftist movements“ regularly describe Israel as a setter-colonial institution. The Israeli position operates from an assumption that they are a more industrialized, and are somehow smarter, more intelligent, and thus more entitled to make the “best“ use of the land; and therefore, since they did not perceive the people that inhabited the region prior to the movement to establish the state of Israel, there, as smart enough, intelligent, enough, or “civilized“ enough, those people have no real right to claim the land as their own. Just because the peoples that existed their prior did not have what is seen in contemporary terms as a “acceptably governed state“ does not invalide or preclude them from their rights as human beings to the lands they have spent hundreds of years cultivating and navigating. this is one reason why many indigenous communities of the United States, First Nations, and Native American peoples find camaraderie with the Palestinian cause. The Native communities of the Americas were treated in this exact same manner. They were assumed to be “savage“ and “uncivilized“, and somehow that invalidated them as human beings in the eyes of the settlers of the American continent, and excused entreating them right out of their lands to create the Modern Americas we have today. But this has been a long overlooked/ignored crime, and long unacknowledged genocide. This mentality is why groups that oppose the concept of fundamental Zionism stick to the label of settler-colonialism, because that is effectively the treatment that Israel applies to the “Arab“ peoples that occupied the lands prior to the end of World War II, and the subsequent establishment of the state of Israel.
Tishby, and the Israeli government, seem incapable of actually empathizing, and seeing the pre-Nakba situation from the Palestinian viewpoint, which causes Tishby in this book to outright invalidate the Palestinian cause. This shows a lot in chapter 10 when she describes her disagreement with the focus and goals of the BDS movement. Many times throughout the book Tishby makes claims that all the Palestinian leaders needed to do was agree to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, and prior to the initial breakout of war resulting in the Nakba, and then everything could have proceeded smoothly from there. She blames them repeatedly for making the mistake of not accepting the Jewish state and conceding to take the offered “Arab state” at the time, as the root-origin of disgression. As I described already, this was a mass invasion of Jewish refugees into an area that regardless of her claims of how well the land was being put to use, was still inhabited by people. Purchasing the land off of absentee landlords, and subsequent western government approved strategies of gaining “ownership“ of the land, does not mean that those “agreements“ or “land ownership transfers“ [i.e. false treaties to draw a comparison to American genocide of the indigenous populations of Turtle Island] should be assumed legitimate from the perspective of people’s who lived on those lands “unregulated” by the absentee landlords that transmitted ownership to European or Asiatic emmigrating Jews with their own resources and motives beyond the scope of the majority populations of the lands of the Palestinian and greater Middle East and North African (MENA) region. those leaders at the inception of the state of Israel, and the start of the Zionist movement (I.e. Theodor Herzl et. al.) did not democratically speak for the entire region. What they were doing, may be seen as “legal” under western ideas of statesmanship, but it was not representative of all of the peoples of the region in that timeframe. It was the actions of a well resourced minority speaking toward policies that would uproot the way of existence of an entire region. This is the “refugee crisis“ that began an entire now century-plus of “conflict“.
A Long-standing flaw of western government conflicts on the world stage, stems from not wanting to spend additional resources after aggravated conflicts on the education of the masses, to ensure the types of ideas that started those conflicts in the first place were shut down as not viable toward a truly Democratic society. Just as the United States after the Civil War chose to act as though the conflict was over, and allow former slave owners to maintain leadership and institute laws that led to the Jim Crow era south, foundational ideas that formed the way Nazi Germany treated the Jews in World War II and the holocaust, so are these the same type of ideas that have led to the situation today. Instead of cutting out the rot of antisemitism that plagued European and other western societies, the easier solution, just like the American response to the end of slavery that has resulted in systemic racial tensions to this day, was to do the even more antisemitic solution, of taking the easy road, of just letting the (many/most, not all) Jews just leave from their establish countries and communities so that the world did not have to actually institute an expensive policy of empathetic training and acceptance, but instead displace the problem to somewhere else and “fix” it later when inevitably the solution of forcing a Jewish State into an already inhabited region resulted in conflict with peoples who understandably were unsettled by an outnumbering influx of refugees that would establish themselves as a ruling class in the area.
Tishby, viz-a-vie Israel, take it as assumed fact that Jewish people fleeing the antisemitism of Europe and Russia and the aftermath of the holocaust “deserved” to inherit the land of Israel on those terms, that the land was “undeveloped,” and thus available to be claimed. That is the mentality of a settler colonial statesman. She proves the Palestinian cause through her adamant insistence of the righteous cause of the establishment of Israel as a refugee state in 1948. This is why the Palestinian refugee claim is claimed unto and through the future-born generations of Palestinian refugees of the Nakba, and why the enforcement of the UN establishment of the state cannot be forced on the people without acknowledging and rectifying the right of return to the living descendants of displaced peoples. Whether Israelis want to pretend no country existed, and thus no refugees of a non-existent land should have claim to return, because it is somehow “too late” to rectify what was criminally neglectful to enact in the first place, is where the situation perpetuates from into the hostilities today. In that chapter on the BDS movement, Tishby is unable to come to terms with the reasoning behind the movement’s boycott of the SodaStream company, because she sees herself, and the Israeli influence, as a type of savior to the “poor Palestinian peoples“. She argues that only by accepting, acknowledging, and cooperatively working with organizations and companies, like how the SodaStream company came to exist in an occupied, West Bank village, is the only way forward toward cooperative dual-state existence between Israelis and Palestinians. That’s fine, to her, and from those who share her perspective as the “savior“ Power in that scenario. But it does not take the effort to identify with a Palestinian mentality that just because you can bring money here does not mean that the peoples of the region either needed, or even wanted a “savior“ to begin with. This is akin to the settler colonial mentality of the American treatment of native peoples, where the mentality was taken to “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.“ this mentality that went on to influence the boarding school movement, the genocide and atrocities committed against native children and families, and the suppression of culture, is exactly the kind of mentality that Palestinians rightfully resist. Forcing a people that a “civilized“ society views as “less than“ to conform and adhere to “developed” ways is an unjust view on humanity. To assume one’s views as “better-than” on the grounds of capital interest and productivity is a harmful assumption of the settler-colonial project that has somewhat changed direction in America (has pivoted, but the problem persists), but has yet to catch up to in Israel. Here we have the privileged and well-funded “superior” class of self-declared “more civilized” Israeli citizens attacking Palestinians for their “backward” Sharia-law influenced ways (the resurgence of which is a product of organized resistance to the inequity enforced upon oppressed peoples, and did not pop into existence without dire circumstances calling for a perceived need to seek a sense of fundamentalist ideological unification); and insisting the peoples of Palestine just accept a new way without any effort to educate in community from the ground up of why that way is “better.” You cannot just shove your “greater knowledge” down the throats of people operating a way you see as “less fit, less civilized, less deserving to exist,” and not expect those people to choke on and resist the enforcement of change that is not in lines with their cultural way of being. I’m not implying that the “right” path is to support “terrorism,” (I won’t get into how preemptively designating anyone one that disagrees with you as a terrorist, using western influence to economically choke out that resistance so that their only path forward ends in violence that retroactively “proves” that epithet, or we’d be here for a year discussing still). Violence need not be the way, but fundamentally insisting that Palestinians get over their claims toward a right of return, and should just agree to the loss because the UN gave Israel permission to exist, and therefore their cause is righteous, is a joke, because the UN did not make that decision democratically. It was a decision made by outside forces to resolve an outside conflict, and was never actually a democratic representation of the inhabitants of the lands AT THE TIME, whom would come to be effected by the decision. It was a decision imposed upon people who did not have the organizational ability to resist outside of the acts of resistance Tishby reports as “immediate attacks on the state of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.” But being that the existence of that state depended on the demographic replacement of a population by Jewish immigration to the area, whether envisioned as a return to their “rightful homeland” or not, it is still an attempt to deny the rights of Arab refugees (who now choose to unite under a banner of Palestinian cause regardless of the state “officially” existing prior) in order to insist that Jewish refugees have a just reason to exist instead, in that same place, with the imposed condition that this invasion of outsiders be accepted without contest. That Jews generationally removed have an inherent right to Israeli citizenship while refugees of the Nakba and their descendants do not have inherent rights as refugees is the inherent contradiction that puts a lie to these claims.
Tishby argues that Zionism is founded on liberal and progressive ideals, but no matter how liberal and hopeful the cause might have been, it is based in wrongful determination of one minority group as “better” than another minority group. It is built on a foundation that as progressive as it may claim to be, is inherently not “leftist,” not “Just,” and not “democratic.” As liberal as Tishby may claim her ideals to be, they are still based in a sense of self-superiority that is not aligned with the actual definition of democracy. Jewish people are a minority in the world, and from a population standpoint are a lesser quantity than the Arab minority population of the world, BUT the Zionist portion of that minority has systematic power through the style of western governance that place them at an advantage over their less industrialized, and non-nuclear powered opponents, and so since the cause of the Arab minority is not treatied with as having an equal claim by the empowered world governments (which currently resides as power behind the US government and its allies, including Israel), then Israel has never treated fairly or in good faith from the get go, with whom they only see as “hostile” Arab neighbors that have been at odds with decisions that have been enforced with an iron fist from without since the inception of Zionism in the late 19th century, and have never been given democratically recognized equity prior to efforts to change the demographics of the region and subsequent resulting efforts to build the region as it would be convenient for western advanced society to deal with, rather than what is truly, equitably in the best interests of all, and not just those in a position to benefit from ownership of resources and capital influence over the MENA region at large. The issue is far larger than just Israel existing, but rather why capital interests feel entitled (through colonialist expansion) to what is deemed the greater “economic good” prioritized over the social good and morally just rights to self determination without outside interference and influence that Palestinians deserve. The Jewish Refugees of the holocaust were an outside influence. No matter what ‘justification’ is derived from the real horrors they were fleeing, this does not give them inherent right to claim superior dominion to a land of their ancestors over a thousand years removed, based on a case that because the inhabitants were sparse, and thus not effectively making use of the land in a way westernly civilized parties felt was worthy of democratic acknowledgement and cooperation with at the time, made it available for the taking.
In the end, Tishby argues that Israeli society has made room for Palestinians to thrive within the Israeli state, then lists off some “Palestinian friends” that are Israeli citizens, then says “and Don’t treat this like I’m just claiming not to be racist by saying ‘look at my *insert black/racially other friend.’” Insisting that this is not the case, but never proposing to treat in fairness with someone who disagrees with her, only her “Palestinian friends,” who for whatever reason have chosen to exist within a state they have no power to change since demographically they would be a minority [now] to argue otherwise; thus they are working to the best of their ability to get along within a system they have no choice but to either live within or chose to suffer if they oppose, is not a democratic choice. It’s a choice to settle for what is offered, or leave, and so understandably some will acquiesce, some will even learn to support that which is the only way they know how to be in the 75+ years since the status quo came to be, but some will never back down from standing up for their own rights, no matter what hardship must be suffered to be returned and “made reasonably whole” after generational displacement and systemic oppression. No matter how much she claims to not be “racist,” in this case anti-Palestinian, and no matter how much Tishby self-identifies as “Pro-Palestinian,” she is only ever as pro-Palestinian as what allows her to keep the benefits allowed to herself and her ancestors, the benefits that allowed her a life of ease so westernized that she self-admits to feeling an ease of identity among the American social class, a class built on inequality and systemic injustice, and a class that systematically refuses to repair the damage done in its institutional aims to exist over the rights of those displaced to make room for industrial and technological advancement over the rights of the ways of life of those historically in the way of that expansion. By clinging to the position of “oops, that [British and French policies such as the Psyches-Picot agreement and the later League of Nations unilateral declaration of support for a Jewish state regardless of consideration to a decades-long illegitimate process of land “acquisition”] was probably mishandled, but we’re here now [Israel] so move on already” Tishby invalidates any claim she has to being “pro-Palestinian,” as she is only in support of those who acquiesce to a social class that puts them at the disadvantage because her cause provides for no restitution for parties harmed. She in fact only stands for acceptance of the current status quo with a demand for “no more demands” and termination of any claims of those done an injustice, because that injustice is at odds with her Zionist self-ideology of Jews being a “more deserving victim” generationally speaking at the time. But you cannot solve an injustice by inflicting another injustice on another minority group. You cannot claim your own right to exist by punching down on somebody else’s. Her viewpoint makes sense to her, and is the easy “pat-yourself-on-the-back-you-good-person-you” stance to take because it requires her to give up nothing. The so-called “greater good” as she sees it is allowing her the comfort of a home, original key-holding Nakba refugee be damned because “that’s all in the past.” It’s kind of infuriating that Tishby really sees things so tidy from the point of view of only looking back so far as is convenient to her own way of life not being impacted. She sets the starting line at “Israel was given the right to exist, and there’s no going back,” and no matter how much pity she has for Palestinian civilians right now, as long as they never supported Hamas, she still never has been an true ally. She has never been pro-Palestine, only pro-anyone who just lets Israel be, and puts fingers in ears because anything before 1948 is only table dressings, and only valid if it is comfort stories of her hardworking immigrant grandparents that contribute to her own worldview that she “earned” the right to be by their stewardship of the land. Now that she has the comfort of a majority population (of refugees) behind her, its her (Israel’s [implied better]) way, or the highway, which is probably an underdeveloped apartheid separation road like how most roads Palestinians are allowed access to in the West Bank are.
In chapter 11, Tishby tells a pretty interesting story about her views and observations of different groups within Israeli society. What caught me as particularly pertinent was Tishby’s description of the Charedi community. At first, I felt a bit put off because she very much describes them as the lowest of low in the eyes of a majority of Israeli society, and the words come across as viewpoints she on some level seems to share a bias towards. Due to their unique status allowed by Israeli governmental policy, Charedi peoples are exempted from military service due to their strict religious beliefs and ideological pursuits. Apparently they also ‘generally’ live off of supplemental government income (everyone else’s taxes) Instead of joining the “greater capitalist project“ of the rest of the state of Israel. But after the harsh description Tishby gives of the Charedis, and her critique of their policies of not teaching secular topics in their education system, Tishby tells of the growth of feminist influence, and small portions of the Charedi community that are beginning to speak up for the rights of the community to learn higher education topics, and potentially build a “better“ life for themselves. What stands out to me from this story is that Tishby is willing to make space for the Charedi community because they are Jews. On some level she sees them as, even though they have had “backward“ ways from her viewpoint, after decades under the “advantages and protections“ of living under the Israeli state as an almost a specialized, revered, and in someways privileged [in not having to serve in the mandatory armed services, even though their circumstances are perceived closer to poverty] class, some Charedis are finally learning that greater knowledge and contribution to the community is important, and are, in her view, “changing for the better.” It seems relevant that space can be made for peoples, a people seen from within Israeli Society as “odd” if not fundamentally inept, but they were given space and state support over generations that have eventually learned to start coping and meeting with the more “sophisticated” ideals of Israeli society that Tishby more identifies with. It’s particularly telling how this attitude was not how the Palestinian peoples have ever been treated at large. The greater Israeli society treats Palestinians, at least those in Gaza and the West Bank, as inhuman, animalistic, and savage. They are treated as incapable of change, being inherently hateful and combative, and are right now being subjected to war crimes of genocidal collective punishment for what? the crime of “having bad Arab leaders?” (Tishby’s words, not mine).
I take the entirety of the penultimate chapter [12] with a grain of salt. Unfortunately a list of the great contributions of Israel to the world does not prove the state of Israel to be a respectable institution. While many of these achievements are admirable, they amount to the soft power manipulations of what is still arguably an imperial influence to overpower and destroy a way of life, and then sugarcoat the aftermath by playing the role of virtuous savior. The lie (not directly of Tishby, but of the state of Israel as it presently exists) has shown through in the years since this book was published, as Tishby starts the chapter with a segment on the medical contributions of Israeli hospitals for refugees of the Syrian Civil War, but in the recent months of 2024-25, Israel has proven those acts of IsraAID were not acts of virtue, but mere cover for contributing to the continued destabilization of the Syrian State, proven through the continued bombing, occupation, and militarization of Syrian territory since the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s totalitarian regime. This entire chapter is just a list of Israeli Propaganda Top40 hits, and the motivations for any acts of generosity are unfortunately, rightfully questionable. The aid and contribution is less an act of kindness if it’s done in hopes of masking, or pulling focus from other acts of perpetual harm. A tagline in the end paragraph to “not take this as a list of propaganda points,” is seriously comical, because that’s exactly how it reads.
The final chapter opens on a *scoff; “what’s with the obsession, world?” A joke, and a flippant, self-centered claim at that, “Why does ‘the whole wide world’ hate Israel?” The culprits are the ‘seedy’ BDS movement, the entire rest of the world not being properly educated enough to know that Israel is in the right (oh, except the US government, which received praise as the only government that will never let Israel down), and the subversive Anti-Zionist movement that is in Tishby’s opinion, an inherently antisemitic movement at its very notion, and thus through and through abject discrimination. This chapter begs the question of why the world seems to only target Israel (or at least targets it more strongly than other world states that to Tishby’s argument are causing “actual” harm (or in other words, far worse atrocities); why is Israel Singled out…..? Well the main reason is that of all the world powers out there causing hardships toward other oppressed groups (irregardless of how arguments can rightfully be made that antisemitism of the world makes Israel an “inherently” oppressed group as well), Israel is frankly the loudest, and the most involved in any social and economic way with the rest of the western world powers. While there are definitely other world powers more at odds with the Westernized way of doing things, and many that are a greater long term threats to western hegemony in general, most of those powers do not get in the face of the average American or other societies. Those atrocities of Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc, are done much more outside the general view of western media besides a headline or two here or there, or when politically convenient to cast them as villainous. But the situation in Israel/Palestine is so volatile, and far more draining of the American/Western tax dollar to support as a supposed Ally State. Sure, some of those who speak out against a Zionist state are going to be doing so with direct antisemitic intent, but to thusly label the entire concept as such because you think Israel is uniquely targeted is an intentional short-sighted and miopic way to view it. You cannot on one hand agree that things have been done worthy of criticism, but call “antisemitism” anytime someone speaks against Israel from a position outside of it, and louder than you’d like. It fosters more negative sentiment to be brought into the interaction by trying to place critics of Zionism/Israel on the defensive rather than addressing those topics worthy of criticism and correction.
Personally, I do not consider my self an anti-Zionist, per se. Antisemitism, to me, has always made no logical sense (which it really doesn’t, as Tishby accurately describes it as based moreso in a long-standing conspiracy theory than anything worth valid consideration) And thus I would say I have an initial instinct via my upbringing to see those who have devout religious identity (whether secularized or more traditional) with a certain awe and respect, but I am furthermore drawn to see a greater picture, and a FAR more intersectional one at that. Bordered, nationalist agendas foster separation, and tension rather than community, social compassion/empathy, and true democratic unity. By placing a border, and specifically a wall, you force out those you deem unworthy, and you give yourself permission to see yourself as better than others, or at least more fortunate. This perpetuates the development and exacerbation of class divides, and discomfort with that which is “alien” or other, when that “other,” is a valid human identity, just as entitled to respect and dignity as any other. Look not with pity on those “beneath you”, the “less fortunate,” or otherwise “less privileged,” for your pity marks a sickness in the way you see them as lesser than-. Seek out through your heart in empathy, and how you would wish to be treated in their place, given your knowledge attained through privilege that others ‘less fortunate’ may not have the benefit of learning. If you see yourself as “more educated” than others, then it is your job to use that knowledge to treat them with humility, to meet as equals, not flaunt and inflict your views from the vantage point of a savior, but to create a better way in action by engaging in community with and embracing diverse ways as simply different, not inherently better or worse, but as a part worthy of consideration in the whole. Do no Harm, essentially, which means slowing down and considering the consequences and suffering that might result for EVERYONE who will be impacted.
I know this is incredibly idealistic, and thus wildly unlikely of a sentiment to catch on quickly, but in my own neurodivergent hyper focused perception, that’s the way I interpret the world, and I kind of wish others were able to see beyond themselves to a more Radically InterSectionally Empathetic way. That we could all RISE to the occasion, as it were ;p. But I’m not naive to think that will happen quickly, if ever, if certainly even in my lifetime, so I’ll stick to the material at hand for now.
You can’t claim to be socialist if you’re only a socialist when the majority agrees with you. Tishby laments the socialist ideals of her grandparents as Pioneers of the Israeli state, but those ideals were only convenient once the Jewish community became a majority voice, and thus the voice of the developing status quo that was never about socialist coexistence, because community with the “proto” Palestinian peoples was never even up for consideration. It was an afterthought after Israel became the self-proclaimed victim of hostile neighbors, when Israel is the proverbial Tick suckling at the Arterial heart of a region in turmoil. The establishment of a state of outsider refugees is causing the problem by sucking up all the oxygen in the proverbial room while trying to legitimize its existence. The World’s Jewish peoples DO deserve dignity and respect, but demanding it through acts of subjugation, and demands to adjust and accept its authority through force are not the way, and the explosion started with the Zionist influence taking advantage of the horror of antimsemtic destruction through the holocaust, to enact a plan to recapture the holy land of their ancestors as a site of refuge was maybe the wrong way to go about things. They very likely didn’t intend the extent of harms and destruction that have resulted of this decision, but that was a pivotal turning point for the entire world; and the entire world failed the Jews, and the MENA region of Arab populations (still recovering from WWI&II themselves). A solution needs to acknowledge these roots to truly make amends for the destruction that has been felt by all peoples generationally and unto this day. To base a “right of existence” on stories of being “the underdog” on the world stage as pioneers of the inception of the state of Israel building a thriving nation in a “barren, hostile waste[d]land,” while criticizing your critics as uneducated fools who’ve fallen for a tragic underdog story that favors the millions of oppressed and displaced people who call themselves Palestinian, is an ignorant, miopic, and contradictory stance that, as I see it, invalidates every claim of this book toward righteousness.
Overall criticism: Tishby is a talented writer and storyteller. This is what makes this book dangerous in a vacuum, because she is correct to point out that a majority of the world are unilaterally uninformed when it comes to what actually happens in Israel. Her points are incredibly easy to digest if you have no prior knowledge to build on, so when taken as fact, as “simple” facts of the state of a “misunderstood country,” they provide you with a good story; but these are the viewpoints of a privileged person who has generationally benefited from status and perks that come from her attachments to family members that had a hand in building that state, and thus benefited from it. She is well spoken, and well educated, and probably a spectacularly nice person on a one-to-one level, but close note of some of the jokes she makes (feeling it cute/funny to call her strong willed and ferociously steadfast ancestors “NinJews” is culturally insensitive, though understandably sounds “badass” to say, and Tishby also makes a “Spirit Animal” joke-reference in the acknowledgment section that shines a beacon on some of her internal biases that she also might want to acknowledge and work on). She doesn’t need to be perfect, and we all have biases, but the book is built on the criticism of biases in others, without doing the work to confronting those she may not be aware of in herself. I’m not using that as proof that nothing here is true, but instead to say it is proof that you can’t take this “simple guidebook” at face value, and should definitely pursue additional sources. And some of those sources MUST BE from across the divide, or you set yourself up to maintain your biases rather than gain further clarity. This book does not make any attempts to do so, which makes it a woefully incomplete story, rather than a noteworthy resource.
It is said that hindsight is 2020, a common colloquialism to denote how easy it is to criticize the past, rather than the strength it takes to change the future. I believe many use this sentiment in an unfortunately cowardly way, because it is (mis)used often to dissuade looking so closely at the past, for being so critical of the actions of people who, maybe were just doing the best they could do at the time…. It’s comforting to give grace to our ancestors for getting us to where we are without at some point shaping up and ‘getting the job done’, so to speak, by ACTing instead of just contemplating the sufferings around them and doing nothing. But I believe we do ourselves a grave disservice by not utilizing that 2020 clarity of hindsight when it comes to such great generational traumas. We must acknowledge harm even when unintended, or done with good intent, and we must emotionally and cognitively grow from our mistakes, or we will continue to put off the problem to be dealt with again by future generations. This applies to so many situations of “conflict” the world over, and I don’t know about you, but I for one am tired of doing the easier short-term solution just to get by, when the problem persists and festers beneath the surface to harm those that will inherit stewardship of the earth from us. How’s about we do the real work, and put an end to discrimination and other divisive practices, so we might actually experience a joy that doesn’t end with the continuation of violence on the horizon. How’s about we take a new path, together? Are You in? 🫱🏼🫲🏽🫱🏾🫲🏻🫱🏻🫲🏿