Tuesday, April 15, 2014


The Latest From The Rag Blog-A Voice Of The Old New Left   


Click below to link to The Rag Blog  

http://www.theragblog.com/

 

Peter Paul Markin comment:

When we were young, meaning those of us who were militant leftist baby-boomers from what I now call the “Generation Of ‘68”, we would chuckle/gasp/shriek in horror when some Old Leftists tried to tell us a few of the ABCs of radical politics. Those scorned old leftists, mainly old Stalinist Communist Party hangers-on or moribund Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party members who had come of political age in the 1930s and 1940s had nothing to tell us young stalwart in-your-face- rebels who were going to re-invent the world, re-invent it without the hurts and sorrows accumulated from millennia of previous struggles to push the rock up the hill of human progress.

Well, we fell significantly short of that aim, had that Promethean rock come speeding down over our heads. Today I am still not sure whether in retrospect those scorned Old Leftists of old had anything going but all I know is we are now cast in somewhat the same light. We are now the Old New Leftists. Problem is that unlike our 1960s generation, warts and all, there is no sizable younger crowd of young stalwart in-your-face-rebels to thumb their noses up at us. And there should be. That has not stopped many old radicals, many who have not succumbed to old age and hubris, from trying to be heard. And the place they have congregated, for better or worse, at least from what I can see is at this site.          

 

 

So I find this The Rag Blog website very useful to monitor for the latest in what is happening with past tense radical activists and activities. Anybody, with some kind of name, and who is still around from the 1960s has found a home here. The remembrances and recollections are helpful for today’s activists. Strangely the politics are almost non-existent, as least any that  would help today, except to kind of retroactively “bless” those old-time new left politics that did nothing (well, almost nothing) but get us on the losing end of the class (and cultural) wars of the  last forty plus years. Still this is a must read blog for today’s left-wing militants.

A Markin disclaimer:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Sometimes I will comment on my disagreements and sometimes I will just let the author/writer shoot him or herself in the foot without note. Off hand, as I have mentioned before in other contexts, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in the entries on this website. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. Read on.

*******

Bob Feldman :
People’s History of Egypt, Part 21, Section 2, 1992-2000


A 2001 Human Rights Watch report outlined the severe human rights violations of the Mubarak regime between 1992 and 2000.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim
Prominent Egyptian social scientist and human rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim was imprisoned by Mubarak.
By Bob Feldman | The Rag Blog | April 14, 2014
[With all the dramatic activity in Egypt, Bob Feldman's Rag Blog "people's history" series, "The Movement to Democratize Egypt," could not be more timely. Also see Feldman's "Hidden History of Texas" series on The Rag Blog.]
An October 2001 Human Rights Watch background report indicated in the following way the degree to which the U.S. government-backed Mubarak regime had still failed to democratize Egyptian society very much between 1992 and 2000:

The movement to democratize Egypt
…Following a resurgence of political violence in the early 1990s, the government introduced anti-terror laws giving the security and intelligence services greater powers of arrest and detention and rounded up thousands of suspects. While fiercely suppressing opposition political activists, the authorities attempted to gain the support of the country’s conservative religious establishment by delegating to them the authority to censor artistic expression, intellectual debate touching on matters of religion, and social mores.
…Since 1992 hundreds of civilians, mostly alleged members or supporters of al-Gihad (Holy Struggle, known abroad as Egyptian Islamic Jihad), al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group), or the Muslim Brotherhood, have been referred to military courts. These trials, sometimes held en masse, fail to meet international fair trial standards: basic rights, such as the right to appeal, have been routinely violated, even in cases where the defendants faced and were punished with the death penalty.
These measures have been used widely against Egyptians attempting to exercise peacefully basic political rights… Having crushed much of its Islamist political opposition by the mid-1990s, and with many of the leading figures of such groups in prison or in exile, the government widened its security net, further eroding basic civil rights…
One recent high-profile example was the Supreme State Security Court conviction of sociology professor and democracy advocate Saadeddin Ibrahim… He was sentenced to seven years; five of his associates also received prison terms, and his Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies was forcibly closed down. Ibrahim is critical of the Islamists, but has also spoken out about election irregularities, treatment of minorities, and other sensitive topics.
Torture in Egypt is widespread and systematic. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation. In his January 2001 report to the Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture cited thirty-two cases of death in custody, apparently as a result of torture, occurring between 1997 and 1999. Confessions extracted under torture are commonly used as evidence in political trials and form the basis for convictions….
…Thousands continue to be held in connection with real or suspected membership of banned Islamist groups. Many are held under administrative detention — in other words, without trial — and in some cases have been held for more than ten years. Among them are individuals who were arrested as children in their early teens and who remain incarcerated as adults. Others were kept in prison though their sentences had expired. Others were never released even though acquitted in court, such as Abd al-Mun’im Gamal al-Din Abd al-Mun’im, a freelance journalist with the bi-weekly newspaper al-Sha’b. He has remained in detention since 1993 even though he was acquitted twice (in 1993 and 1999) of all charges by military courts….
The 1992 Anti-Terror Law also criminalized non-violent political opposition, and was used to arrest and bring to trial persons not accused of committing or advocating violence but simply of alleged affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. Since 1995, over one hundred defendants were tried and dozens sentenced to terms of up to five years after being convicted of membership in an illegal organization.
In 1999 the government arrested and tried twenty alleged Muslim Brothers, mostly lawyers, university professors and other professionals, accused of membership of an illegal organization and attempting to control the activities of professional associations. The prosecutions appeared to be an attempt by the authorities to prevent the defendants from running as independent candidates in parliamentary elections and for the boards of their respective professional associations. In November 2000, the Supreme Military Court sentenced fifteen of the defendants to prison terms ranging between three and five years, and acquitted the rest.
The government has also targeted other Islamist opposition groups seeking to exercise their political rights peacefully. In May 2000 the Political Affairs Committee, a government body responsible for licensing and monitoring political parties, froze the activities of the legal Islamist opposition Labour Party… In a separate case in April 2000, four leading Labour Party figures were imprisoned after being convicted for slandering a government minister.
As part of its efforts to stifle free political participation, the government strictly limits the number of licensed political parties. Since 1996, for example, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates who formed a group known as al-Wasat (The Center) have repeatedly applied to register as a political party but without success…. As an added measure to ensure a comfortable victory for the ruling National Democratic Party in these elections, the government routinely arrests opposition candidates and their supporters in the run-up to elections.
The primary target has been the Muslim Brotherhood, hundreds of whose members and supporters were rounded up and held in administrative detention ahead of and during the October-November 2000 parliamentary elections in what has become a regular feature of Egyptian democracy. The pattern repeated itself in the run-up to the mid-term Majlis al-Shura (Consultative Council, the upper house of the parliament) elections held in May and June 2001, when at least 140 persons suspected of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested for days or weeks, including several candidates running as independents.
Emergency legislation prohibits strikes, public meetings, and election rallies. The government has taken arbitrary measures to stifle the voices of trade union activists who have been outspoken around issues such as worker safety in the state sector. In some cases the authorities issued threats to persuade activists to withdraw their candidacy in union elections. In October 2000 Fathi al-Masri, a board member of Center for Trade Union and Workers Services (CTUWS), an independent NGO, was detained for a month on charges of `disturbing public order’ after he distributed leaflets criticizing medical services at a state-owned company. In September 2001 two other CTUWS board members, including its director, Kamal Abbas, were questioned by prosecutors regarding “unwarranted” criticisms of working conditions at another company.
The government controls the electronic media and on occasion has shut down newspapers and periodicals that cross red lines. The Press Law of 1996 provides jail terms for offences such as defamation, insult or libel. The government has gone out of its way to appease Islamist sentiment in the country by implementing and encouraging measures that in practice violate of freedom of expression. These include banning novels considered to be sexually explicit or denigrating to Islam, and prosecuting writers whose views are deemed blasphemous.
In effect, the government has compensated for its repression of Islamists in the political sphere by allowing the conservative religious establishment, such as the leading figures in Al-Azhar University, to exercise a high degree of control over cultural expression and social mores.
…According to information compiled by the non-governmental Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR), 1,357 people were killed in acts of political violence in Egypt between 1992 and 1998…. The government’s campaign against those suspected of involvement in acts of political violence has been characterized by widespread arbitrary arrests, grossly unfair trials, torture, and executions…
More than a thousand defendants were tried before military courts in thirty-two separate cases between 1992 and 1998, according to the EOHR. Of these, 479 were alleged members of al-Gihad, of whom thirty-seven were executed, 277 imprisoned, and 165 acquitted. Others included 383 alleged members of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya; fifty-one of them were executed, 247 imprisoned, and eighty-five acquitted. None had the right to appeal their sentences before a higher tribunal, a fair trial requirement, and none of the officials they accused of having tortured them were ever brought to justice.
The last major military trial of this kind was held between February and April 1999, involving 107 defendants, 60 in absentia. Most were charged with membership of an illegal organization (al-Gihad), as well as other charges including conspiracy to commit murder, weapons possession, and forging official documents… The Supreme Military Court sentenced nine to death… Seventy-eight were sent to prison and twenty were acquitted. As in previous cases, a number of defendants stated in court that they had been tortured….
Yet despite the undemocratic Mubarak regime’s record of continuing to violate the human rights of large numbers of people in Egypt between 1992 and 2000, the same Human Rights Watch background report of October 2001 also noted:
…For more than two decades Egypt has been one of the largest recipients of U.S. economic and military aid, second only to Israel. For fiscal year 2002 the Bush Administration has requested $ 1.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing funds, $ 655 million in Economic Support Fund assistance, and $1.2 million for training of Egyptian military officers….
[Bob Feldman is an East Coast-based writer-activist and a former member of the Columbia SDS Steering Committee of the late 1960s. Read more articles by Bob Feldman on The Rag Blog.]

This entry was posted in RagBlog and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

The Latest From The Rag Blog-A Voice Of The Old New Left   


Click below to link to The Rag Blog  

http://www.theragblog.com/

 

Peter Paul Markin comment:

When we were young, meaning those of us who were militant leftist baby-boomers from what I now call the “Generation Of ‘68”, we would chuckle/gasp/shriek in horror when some Old Leftists tried to tell us a few of the ABCs of radical politics. Those scorned old leftists, mainly old Stalinist Communist Party hangers-on or moribund Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party members who had come of political age in the 1930s and 1940s had nothing to tell us young stalwart in-your-face- rebels who were going to re-invent the world, re-invent it without the hurts and sorrows accumulated from millennia of previous struggles to push the rock up the hill of human progress.

Well, we fell significantly short of that aim, had that Promethean rock come speeding down over our heads. Today I am still not sure whether in retrospect those scorned Old Leftists of old had anything going but all I know is we are now cast in somewhat the same light. We are now the Old New Leftists. Problem is that unlike our 1960s generation, warts and all, there is no sizable younger crowd of young stalwart in-your-face-rebels to thumb their noses up at us. And there should be. That has not stopped many old radicals, many who have not succumbed to old age and hubris, from trying to be heard. And the place they have congregated, for better or worse, at least from what I can see is at this site.          

 

 

So I find this The Rag Blog website very useful to monitor for the latest in what is happening with past tense radical activists and activities. Anybody, with some kind of name, and who is still around from the 1960s has found a home here. The remembrances and recollections are helpful for today’s activists. Strangely the politics are almost non-existent, as least any that  would help today, except to kind of retroactively “bless” those old-time new left politics that did nothing (well, almost nothing) but get us on the losing end of the class (and cultural) wars of the  last forty plus years. Still this is a must read blog for today’s left-wing militants.

A Markin disclaimer:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Sometimes I will comment on my disagreements and sometimes I will just let the author/writer shoot him or herself in the foot without note. Off hand, as I have mentioned before in other contexts, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in the entries on this website. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. Read on.

*******

Thorne Dreyer :
PODCAST | Hall of Fame singer-songwriter Eliza Gilkyson on Rag Radio


The delightful and talented Eliza Gilkyson performs on Rag Radio and discusses her approach to songwriting and her new album, ‘Nocturne Diaries.’

eliza and dreyer small
Eliza Gilkyson with Rag Radio’s Thorne Dreyer in the KOOP studios in Austin, March 21, 2014. Photo by Roger Baker / The Rag Blog.
Interview by Thorne Dreyer | The Rag Blog | April 9, 2014
Hall of Fame singer-songwriter Eliza Gilkyson joined us in interview and live performance on Rag Radio, Friday, March 21, 2014. Listen to the podcast below.
Rag Radio is a weekly hour-long syndicated radio program produced and hosted by long-time alternative journalist and Rag Blog editor Thorne Dreyer. The show is recorded at the studios of KOOP 91.7-FM, a cooperatively-run all-volunteer community radio station in Austin, Texas. It is broadcast live on KOOP every Friday from 2-3 p.m. (CST) and streamed live on the web.

Listen to or download the podcast of our March 21, 2014 Rag Radio show with Eliza Gilkyson, here:

Lamar W. Hankins :
Aslan’s portrayal of Jesus as revolutionary zealot is fanciful history / 2


Aslan provides embellishments that make for an interesting read but many of his assumptions, according to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, lack historical accuracy.

jesus mosaic
Searching for the real Jesus. Public domain image.
By Lamar W. Hankins | The Rag Blog | April 8, 2014
Part two of two.
In Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan portrays Jesus as a revolutionary zealot intent on overthrowing the Romans and driving them from Israel — land promised to the Jews by God. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman analyzed the book and found numerous historical inaccuracies, some of which I described in Part 1 of this series.
But other Aslan mistakes about the New Testament accounts of Jesus provide even more evidence that Aslan simply doesn’t have the necessary background to write about the period and Jesus’s place in it.

Aslan claims that the Gospel of Mark says nothing about Jesus’s resurrection. Ehrman points to Mark 16:1-8 to refute this claim and show that the writer of Mark “both knows about the resurrection and considers it to be of utmost importance.” And Ehrman refers to Mark’s three “passion predictions” in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33-34, where “Jesus tells his disciples that he will be killed and raised from the dead.”
In another misreading of the New Testament gospels, Aslan conflates the theological views expressed in the Gospel of John with the views expressed in Luke. He attributes to the author of Luke the idea that Jesus is the “pre-existent Son of God” (the logos).
But Luke had no such view. That view is found only in the prologue to the Gospel of John (1:1-8). Luke’s author writes that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of his birth, a distinction that is important to biblical scholars who recognize the differences in the viewpoints of the authors of the gospels.
Aslan further erroneously claims that all the gospels agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist when Jesus was about 30 years old. However, as Ehrman explains, only Luke provides an age for Jesus at the time of his baptism, and he explains the differences among the gospels on this matter:
Luke says nothing about how long Jesus ministered; John says nothing about how old he was when he was baptized; and Mark and Luke say nothing about either one. Here again I should stress that biblical scholars generally think it’s important not to attribute the words of one Gospel to another.
The lack of biblical scholarship by Aslan is easily seen in his claim that the author of Mark was a “Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora.” Ehrman explains why this is unlikely:
Actually, there is every good reason for thinking that Mark could not have been a Jew. He misunderstands Jewish rituals of cleansing and purity, and assigns to “all Jews” a view of hand washing attested only among Pharisees (7:3), a mistake that is virtually inexplicable if Mark himself were raised in the Jewish tradition.
Further, nearly all New Testament scholars agree that the author of Luke was a non-Jew — a gentile.
Some more minor discrepancies found in Aslan’s narrative include his mistaken belief that the book of Acts provides that “there are only twelve apostles” and that Luke does not refer “to Paul as an apostle.” Ehrman points to Acts 14:14: “When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd….” And Aslan’s claim that Paul only once quotes Jesus (in 1 Corinthians 11:22-24), is easily refuted by reference to 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14.
These matters are important to Ehrman because Aslan claims, “either explicitly or implicitly,” that he is an authority on the New Testament, yet he makes “basic mistakes on the very sources that stand at the center of [his] investigation.” Aslan claimed in an interview on Fox News that he is an expert qualified to write on his chosen subject. Both his historical mistakes and errors about the New Testament demonstrate to Ehrman that “he is not an expert — in the ancient world, in the New Testament, in the Gospels, or in the historical Jesus.”
Ehrman doesn’t dwell on Aslan’s historical and biblical mistakes. He takes aim at Aslan’s basic thesis…
But Ehrman doesn’t dwell on Aslan’s historical and biblical mistakes. He takes aim at Aslan’s basic thesis “that Jesus is best understood as a political revolutionary intent on the military overthrow of Rome — or at least the expulsion of Rome from the Promised Land and the establishment of a sovereign state of Israel, all to be done by force.”
Ehrman explains that this thesis is not new. It was the subject of writings by a German theological scholar that were published from 1774-78. And Ehrman writes that he has no personal or political reasons to reject the thesis. If Jesus were an insurgent, that would be fine with Ehrman, but it is not the way he and most other New Testament scholars understand the historical Jesus.
There are, according to Ehrman, circumstances that might lead a casual reader of the New Testament to think that Jesus was a revolutionary: Mark says that Jesus’ followers had swords drawn when Jesus was arrested; Simon the Zealot was a follower of Jesus; Jesus predicted the violent overthrow of the Temple and engaged in violent acts toward the “Temple cult”; and Jesus was “arrested, tried, and executed as a political insurgent.”
Ehrman’s explanation of these data attempts to correct the misunderstandings that underlie them. The predictions of the destruction of the Temple is not the same as the destruction of the Roman armies. Jesus’ comments were directed not at the Roman occupiers, but at the Jewish hierarchy. Further, the Temple was to be destroyed by God as a “divine act of judgment,” not by human force.
Even more to the point, “The execution of Jesus was not for being an insurgent. It was for calling himself the future King.” That is, he was condemned to death and crucified “for calling himself the king of the Jews.”
Aslan tries to portray the gospel accounts of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, hailed by throngs of people (“flanked by a frenzied multitude”) as the arrival of, in Aslan’s summary, “the long-awaited messiah — the true King of the Jews — . . . come to free Israel from its bondage.”
But this view, according to Ehrman’s New Testament scholarship, lacks historical accuracy for one main reason: Roman soldiers always occupied Jerusalem during Passover “to quell any possible nationalistic fervor that could lead to trouble.” For Ehrman, it is implausible that multitudes shouting in joy for the arrival of their new King would not be dealt with quickly by the Roman soldiers.
Part of Aslan’s exaggeration is found in Mark, and others are embellishments from Aslan’s imagination.
Part of Aslan’s exaggeration is found in Mark, and others are embellishments from Aslan’s imagination. Ehrman calls into question the ability of one man to overturn the moneychangers’ tables, drive out those selling sacrificial animals, and shut down the entire Temple cult. The size of the Temple was enormous — “25 American football fields” could fit inside the Temple walls, according to Ehrman.
Aslan provides embellishments that make his book an interesting read, referencing the selling of cheap food and souvenirs inside the Temple walls, for instance. And Aslan wants the reader to accept as true that the Roman soldiers would have considered Jesus’ actions in the Temple to be “a capital offense: sedition, punishable by crucifixion.”
But there is no historical evidence to support the view that Roman soldiers cared about an internal religious dispute, though there is a glimmer of evidence for some of Aslan’s assertions, as Ehrman explains:
I should stress that I think something did happen in the Temple when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. But it was not this made-for-Hollywood production. It was very small time and at the time insignificant, a barely noticeable event that was full of symbolic importance for Jesus and his followers, but only a minor irritation to anyone who cared about the orderly functioning of the Temple and its cult.
For Aslan, the real concern of Jesus was that the land of Israel be returned to the Jews as promised by God. He even construes the famous dictum about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s as a reference to the supposed land of Israel. But Ehrman’s careful deconstruction of the Greek words used in the gospels about this matter refutes such an interpretation. His view of Jesus is stated succinctly in this passage of his critique:
[T]he view of Jesus that has dominated scholarship since the classic of Albert Schweitzer in 1906, The Quest of the Historical Jesus… is that Jesus is best understood to have been — as were many of his contemporaries — a Jewish apocalypticist, one who believed that God was soon to intervene in history in a spectacular and cosmic way to overthrow the forces of evil in a supernatural show of power, and bring in a good kingdom on earth in which there would be no more injustice and oppression and poverty, no more pain, misery, or suffering. This would not happen through political revolt but through a divine display of cosmic power. And it would all happen soon — within Jesus’ own generation.
While there may be hints and traces in the historical record that could be construed to support Aslan’s thesis, the evidence for the apocalypticist view is abundantly attested in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and the source known among scholars as Q: Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:24-27, 30; Matthew 13:40-43, 24:27, 37-39, 44; Luke 12:39, 17:24, 26-27, 30, 21:24-36.
Ehrman summarizes:
The earliest sources record Jesus as propounding an apocalyptic message. These are not just hints and traces of a perspective found in one source or another. They are well attested in early sources. All of them.
The earliest sources, Mark and Q, contain the strongest apocalyptic messages. The later-written gospels begin to tone down that message as it became obvious that the Kingdom of God had not happened during the lives of any of the apostles. By the time John, the last gospel, is written the emphasis had morphed into “faith in Jesus who gives eternal life in the present.”
This is what Ehrman refers to as the ‘de-apocalypticizing’ of the message of Jesus.
This is what Ehrman refers to as the “de-apocalypticizing” of the message of Jesus. Other writings not accepted as part of the New Testament canon (which came together about 350 years after Jesus lived) also suggest this gradual move away from understanding Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher.
Ehrman has more to say on this topic, but I have become well satisfied that while Aslan’s book makes for an entertaining read, it is not historically or biblically well-informed.
Subscribers to Bart Ehrman’s blog can read all of his analysis of Aslan’s book and learn more about New Testament history and the history of Christianity.
Ehrman has just published a new book — How Jesus Became God — related to his view of Jesus, his ministry, and how Jesus was understood after his death. It was released March 25. Ehrman has provided this description of the new book:
How did we get from a Jewish apocalyptic preacher — who ended up on the wrong side of the law and was crucified for his efforts — to the Creator of all things and All-powerful Lord? How did Jesus become God?… That’s the question I address in my book, and I think it’s an inordinately important one, not just for Christians who personally believe that Jesus really is God, but for all of us, whether believers or non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists: all of us who are interested (as well we ought to be) in the history of Western Civilization. It is not hard to make the argument that if Jesus had never been declared God, our form of civilization would have been unalterably and indescribably different.
I look forward to reading it.
Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.
[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, also blogs at Texas Freethought Journal. This article © Texas Freethought Journal., Lamar W. Hankins.]
For a different perspective, see Paul Buhle’s “Reza Aslan’s ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” on The Rag Blog.

This entry was posted in RagBlog and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark

The Latest From The Rag Blog-A Voice Of The Old New Left   


Click below to link to The Rag Blog  

http://www.theragblog.com/

 

Peter Paul Markin comment:

When we were young, meaning those of us who were militant leftist baby-boomers from what I now call the “Generation Of ‘68”, we would chuckle/gasp/shriek in horror when some Old Leftists tried to tell us a few of the ABCs of radical politics. Those scorned old leftists, mainly old Stalinist Communist Party hangers-on or moribund Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party members who had come of political age in the 1930s and 1940s had nothing to tell us young stalwart in-your-face- rebels who were going to re-invent the world, re-invent it without the hurts and sorrows accumulated from millennia of previous struggles to push the rock up the hill of human progress.

Well, we fell significantly short of that aim, had that Promethean rock come speeding down over our heads. Today I am still not sure whether in retrospect those scorned Old Leftists of old had anything going but all I know is we are now cast in somewhat the same light. We are now the Old New Leftists. Problem is that unlike our 1960s generation, warts and all, there is no sizable younger crowd of young stalwart in-your-face-rebels to thumb their noses up at us. And there should be. That has not stopped many old radicals, many who have not succumbed to old age and hubris, from trying to be heard. And the place they have congregated, for better or worse, at least from what I can see is at this site.          

 

 

So I find this The Rag Blog website very useful to monitor for the latest in what is happening with past tense radical activists and activities. Anybody, with some kind of name, and who is still around from the 1960s has found a home here. The remembrances and recollections are helpful for today’s activists. Strangely the politics are almost non-existent, as least any that  would help today, except to kind of retroactively “bless” those old-time new left politics that did nothing (well, almost nothing) but get us on the losing end of the class (and cultural) wars of the  last forty plus years. Still this is a must read blog for today’s left-wing militants.

A Markin disclaimer:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Sometimes I will comment on my disagreements and sometimes I will just let the author/writer shoot him or herself in the foot without note. Off hand, as I have mentioned before in other contexts, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in the entries on this website. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. Read on.

*******
 
 

Lamar W. Hankins :
Aslan’s portrayal of Jesus as revolutionary zealot is fanciful history / 2


Aslan provides embellishments that make for an interesting read but many of his assumptions, according to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, lack historical accuracy.

jesus mosaic
Searching for the real Jesus. Public domain image.
By Lamar W. Hankins | The Rag Blog | April 8, 2014
Part two of two.
In Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan portrays Jesus as a revolutionary zealot intent on overthrowing the Romans and driving them from Israel — land promised to the Jews by God. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman analyzed the book and found numerous historical inaccuracies, some of which I described in Part 1 of this series.
But other Aslan mistakes about the New Testament accounts of Jesus provide even more evidence that Aslan simply doesn’t have the necessary background to write about the period and Jesus’s place in it.

Aslan claims that the Gospel of Mark says nothing about Jesus’s resurrection. Ehrman points to Mark 16:1-8 to refute this claim and show that the writer of Mark “both knows about the resurrection and considers it to be of utmost importance.” And Ehrman refers to Mark’s three “passion predictions” in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33-34, where “Jesus tells his disciples that he will be killed and raised from the dead.”
In another misreading of the New Testament gospels, Aslan conflates the theological views expressed in the Gospel of John with the views expressed in Luke. He attributes to the author of Luke the idea that Jesus is the “pre-existent Son of God” (the logos).
But Luke had no such view. That view is found only in the prologue to the Gospel of John (1:1-8). Luke’s author writes that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of his birth, a distinction that is important to biblical scholars who recognize the differences in the viewpoints of the authors of the gospels.
Aslan further erroneously claims that all the gospels agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist when Jesus was about 30 years old. However, as Ehrman explains, only Luke provides an age for Jesus at the time of his baptism, and he explains the differences among the gospels on this matter:
Luke says nothing about how long Jesus ministered; John says nothing about how old he was when he was baptized; and Mark and Luke say nothing about either one. Here again I should stress that biblical scholars generally think it’s important not to attribute the words of one Gospel to another.
The lack of biblical scholarship by Aslan is easily seen in his claim that the author of Mark was a “Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora.” Ehrman explains why this is unlikely:
Actually, there is every good reason for thinking that Mark could not have been a Jew. He misunderstands Jewish rituals of cleansing and purity, and assigns to “all Jews” a view of hand washing attested only among Pharisees (7:3), a mistake that is virtually inexplicable if Mark himself were raised in the Jewish tradition.
Further, nearly all New Testament scholars agree that the author of Luke was a non-Jew — a gentile.
Some more minor discrepancies found in Aslan’s narrative include his mistaken belief that the book of Acts provides that “there are only twelve apostles” and that Luke does not refer “to Paul as an apostle.” Ehrman points to Acts 14:14: “When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd….” And Aslan’s claim that Paul only once quotes Jesus (in 1 Corinthians 11:22-24), is easily refuted by reference to 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14.
These matters are important to Ehrman because Aslan claims, “either explicitly or implicitly,” that he is an authority on the New Testament, yet he makes “basic mistakes on the very sources that stand at the center of [his] investigation.” Aslan claimed in an interview on Fox News that he is an expert qualified to write on his chosen subject. Both his historical mistakes and errors about the New Testament demonstrate to Ehrman that “he is not an expert — in the ancient world, in the New Testament, in the Gospels, or in the historical Jesus.”
Ehrman doesn’t dwell on Aslan’s historical and biblical mistakes. He takes aim at Aslan’s basic thesis…
But Ehrman doesn’t dwell on Aslan’s historical and biblical mistakes. He takes aim at Aslan’s basic thesis “that Jesus is best understood as a political revolutionary intent on the military overthrow of Rome — or at least the expulsion of Rome from the Promised Land and the establishment of a sovereign state of Israel, all to be done by force.”
Ehrman explains that this thesis is not new. It was the subject of writings by a German theological scholar that were published from 1774-78. And Ehrman writes that he has no personal or political reasons to reject the thesis. If Jesus were an insurgent, that would be fine with Ehrman, but it is not the way he and most other New Testament scholars understand the historical Jesus.
There are, according to Ehrman, circumstances that might lead a casual reader of the New Testament to think that Jesus was a revolutionary: Mark says that Jesus’ followers had swords drawn when Jesus was arrested; Simon the Zealot was a follower of Jesus; Jesus predicted the violent overthrow of the Temple and engaged in violent acts toward the “Temple cult”; and Jesus was “arrested, tried, and executed as a political insurgent.”
Ehrman’s explanation of these data attempts to correct the misunderstandings that underlie them. The predictions of the destruction of the Temple is not the same as the destruction of the Roman armies. Jesus’ comments were directed not at the Roman occupiers, but at the Jewish hierarchy. Further, the Temple was to be destroyed by God as a “divine act of judgment,” not by human force.
Even more to the point, “The execution of Jesus was not for being an insurgent. It was for calling himself the future King.” That is, he was condemned to death and crucified “for calling himself the king of the Jews.”
Aslan tries to portray the gospel accounts of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, hailed by throngs of people (“flanked by a frenzied multitude”) as the arrival of, in Aslan’s summary, “the long-awaited messiah — the true King of the Jews — . . . come to free Israel from its bondage.”
But this view, according to Ehrman’s New Testament scholarship, lacks historical accuracy for one main reason: Roman soldiers always occupied Jerusalem during Passover “to quell any possible nationalistic fervor that could lead to trouble.” For Ehrman, it is implausible that multitudes shouting in joy for the arrival of their new King would not be dealt with quickly by the Roman soldiers.
Part of Aslan’s exaggeration is found in Mark, and others are embellishments from Aslan’s imagination.
Part of Aslan’s exaggeration is found in Mark, and others are embellishments from Aslan’s imagination. Ehrman calls into question the ability of one man to overturn the moneychangers’ tables, drive out those selling sacrificial animals, and shut down the entire Temple cult. The size of the Temple was enormous — “25 American football fields” could fit inside the Temple walls, according to Ehrman.
Aslan provides embellishments that make his book an interesting read, referencing the selling of cheap food and souvenirs inside the Temple walls, for instance. And Aslan wants the reader to accept as true that the Roman soldiers would have considered Jesus’ actions in the Temple to be “a capital offense: sedition, punishable by crucifixion.”
But there is no historical evidence to support the view that Roman soldiers cared about an internal religious dispute, though there is a glimmer of evidence for some of Aslan’s assertions, as Ehrman explains:
I should stress that I think something did happen in the Temple when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. But it was not this made-for-Hollywood production. It was very small time and at the time insignificant, a barely noticeable event that was full of symbolic importance for Jesus and his followers, but only a minor irritation to anyone who cared about the orderly functioning of the Temple and its cult.
For Aslan, the real concern of Jesus was that the land of Israel be returned to the Jews as promised by God. He even construes the famous dictum about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s as a reference to the supposed land of Israel. But Ehrman’s careful deconstruction of the Greek words used in the gospels about this matter refutes such an interpretation. His view of Jesus is stated succinctly in this passage of his critique:
[T]he view of Jesus that has dominated scholarship since the classic of Albert Schweitzer in 1906, The Quest of the Historical Jesus… is that Jesus is best understood to have been — as were many of his contemporaries — a Jewish apocalypticist, one who believed that God was soon to intervene in history in a spectacular and cosmic way to overthrow the forces of evil in a supernatural show of power, and bring in a good kingdom on earth in which there would be no more injustice and oppression and poverty, no more pain, misery, or suffering. This would not happen through political revolt but through a divine display of cosmic power. And it would all happen soon — within Jesus’ own generation.
While there may be hints and traces in the historical record that could be construed to support Aslan’s thesis, the evidence for the apocalypticist view is abundantly attested in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and the source known among scholars as Q: Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:24-27, 30; Matthew 13:40-43, 24:27, 37-39, 44; Luke 12:39, 17:24, 26-27, 30, 21:24-36.
Ehrman summarizes:
The earliest sources record Jesus as propounding an apocalyptic message. These are not just hints and traces of a perspective found in one source or another. They are well attested in early sources. All of them.
The earliest sources, Mark and Q, contain the strongest apocalyptic messages. The later-written gospels begin to tone down that message as it became obvious that the Kingdom of God had not happened during the lives of any of the apostles. By the time John, the last gospel, is written the emphasis had morphed into “faith in Jesus who gives eternal life in the present.”
This is what Ehrman refers to as the ‘de-apocalypticizing’ of the message of Jesus.
This is what Ehrman refers to as the “de-apocalypticizing” of the message of Jesus. Other writings not accepted as part of the New Testament canon (which came together about 350 years after Jesus lived) also suggest this gradual move away from understanding Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher.
Ehrman has more to say on this topic, but I have become well satisfied that while Aslan’s book makes for an entertaining read, it is not historically or biblically well-informed.
Subscribers to Bart Ehrman’s blog can read all of his analysis of Aslan’s book and learn more about New Testament history and the history of Christianity.
Ehrman has just published a new book — How Jesus Became God — related to his view of Jesus, his ministry, and how Jesus was understood after his death. It was released March 25. Ehrman has provided this description of the new book:
How did we get from a Jewish apocalyptic preacher — who ended up on the wrong side of the law and was crucified for his efforts — to the Creator of all things and All-powerful Lord? How did Jesus become God?… That’s the question I address in my book, and I think it’s an inordinately important one, not just for Christians who personally believe that Jesus really is God, but for all of us, whether believers or non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists: all of us who are interested (as well we ought to be) in the history of Western Civilization. It is not hard to make the argument that if Jesus had never been declared God, our form of civilization would have been unalterably and indescribably different.
I look forward to reading it.
Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.
[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, also blogs at Texas Freethought Journal. This article © Texas Freethought Journal., Lamar W. Hankins.]
For a different perspective, see Paul Buhle’s “Reza Aslan’s ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” on The Rag Blog.

This entry was posted in RagBlog and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark

The Latest From The Rag Blog-A Voice Of The Old New Left   


Click below to link to The Rag Blog  

http://www.theragblog.com/

 

Peter Paul Markin comment:

When we were young, meaning those of us who were militant leftist baby-boomers from what I now call the “Generation Of ‘68”, we would chuckle/gasp/shriek in horror when some Old Leftists tried to tell us a few of the ABCs of radical politics. Those scorned old leftists, mainly old Stalinist Communist Party hangers-on or moribund Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party members who had come of political age in the 1930s and 1940s had nothing to tell us young stalwart in-your-face- rebels who were going to re-invent the world, re-invent it without the hurts and sorrows accumulated from millennia of previous struggles to push the rock up the hill of human progress.

Well, we fell significantly short of that aim, had that Promethean rock come speeding down over our heads. Today I am still not sure whether in retrospect those scorned Old Leftists of old had anything going but all I know is we are now cast in somewhat the same light. We are now the Old New Leftists. Problem is that unlike our 1960s generation, warts and all, there is no sizable younger crowd of young stalwart in-your-face-rebels to thumb their noses up at us. And there should be. That has not stopped many old radicals, many who have not succumbed to old age and hubris, from trying to be heard. And the place they have congregated, for better or worse, at least from what I can see is at this site.          

 

 

So I find this The Rag Blog website very useful to monitor for the latest in what is happening with past tense radical activists and activities. Anybody, with some kind of name, and who is still around from the 1960s has found a home here. The remembrances and recollections are helpful for today’s activists. Strangely the politics are almost non-existent, as least any that  would help today, except to kind of retroactively “bless” those old-time new left politics that did nothing (well, almost nothing) but get us on the losing end of the class (and cultural) wars of the  last forty plus years. Still this is a must read blog for today’s left-wing militants.

A Markin disclaimer:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Sometimes I will comment on my disagreements and sometimes I will just let the author/writer shoot him or herself in the foot without note. Off hand, as I have mentioned before in other contexts, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in the entries on this website. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. Read on.

*******

Bob Feldman :
A People’s History of Egypt, Part 21, Section 1, 1992-2000


The Mubarak government responds to Islamist violence with heavy-handed repression; the Muslim Brotherhood splinters; Egyptian poverty increases.

hosni mubarak 1995 crop 2
Mubarak after assassination attempt in Ethiopia, June 26, 1995. Photo from AFP.
By Bob Feldman | The Rag Blog | April 8, 2014
[With all the dramatic activity in Egypt, Bob Feldman's Rag Blog "people's history" series, "The Movement to Democratize Egypt," could not be more timely. Also see Feldman's "Hidden History of Texas" series on The Rag Blog.]
As Jason Thompson’s A History of Egypt recalled, the Mubarak regime mostly tolerated the Muslim Brotherhood between 1981 and 1991, but in 1993 it “launched a major assault on the organization, denouncing it as “illegal,” and accusing it of having “ties to extremist groups” responsible for violently opposing the Mubarak regime; and “hundreds of suspects” were then “jailed and tried in military courts after successive rounds of arrests.”

As James Gelvin observed in The Arab Uprising: What Everyone Needs To Know:
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928. Its last confirmed use of violence was in 1948 when its “secret apparatus” assassinated the Egyptian prime minister who had ordered the organization dissolved… After years of repression, the “supreme guide” of the brotherhood renounced violence altogether in 1972, and his successor renewed the pledge in 1987.
According to the same book:
In Egypt it was groups splintering off from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or unaffiliated with the brotherhood that perpetrated the violence… The government responded to Islamist violence with heavy-handed repression. In the wake of the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat, for example, the Egyptian government imposed an emergency law that entitled the state to restrict freedom of assembly, arrest and detain suspects without warrant, monitor and censor publications, establish exceptional courts to try those accused of violating presidential decrees…
According to a 1994 article about Egypt by Chris Harman, “20,000 troops with tanks and armoured cars” occupied “slum areas in Cairo, such as Imbaba,” in 1993, and “tens of thousands were arrested.” In addition, “death squads set out to kill those activists who escaped,” the “main mosques used by the radical Islamists were blocked with concrete,” and “parents, children and wives of activists were arrested and tortured,” according to the same 1994 article.
The movement to democratize Egypt
During the subsequent 1990s conflict between militant Islamic splinter groups in Egypt and the Mubarak regime, “over 1,200 people were killed, 10,000 wounded and scores of thousands detained under the emergency laws,” according to The Rough Guide To Egypt. In 2010 the same book also described in the following way the political and economic system that existed in Egypt under Mubarak’s U.S. government-backed regime between 1981 and early 2011:
Mubarak’s regime has long been a thinly-disguised military dictatorship allied to an oligarchy. Ex-military and police officers hold top jobs in civilian life; the army is a profit-making entity (owning farms, factories and construction businesses using conscript labour); and senior officials and wealthy entrepreneurs (often from the “Menoufi Mafia” promoted from the Delta governorate where Sadat and Mubarak were born) collude in a web of mutual corruption. Most Egyptians refer to the ruling elite as the “band of thieves”…
In addition, according to A History of Egypt, “the parliamentary elections of 1995” in Egypt “were particularly notorious for fraud and violence”; and in Egypt’s November 2000 elections, “Muslim Brotherhood candidates and supporters were hindered and harassed, and even physically blocked from entering polling stations.” The same book also indicated how the economic situation of most people in Egypt worsened under the Mubarak regime during the 1990s:
According to international standards, the percentage of the Egyptian population living in poverty increased from 20-25 percent in 1990 to more than 45 percent in 1997. The real wages of most workers have steadily declined over the past several decades. Unemployment has risen sharply, with published figures running between 9 and 10 percent, but those are underreported and almost certainly should be adjusted upward by at least an additional 5 percent.
The direness of the situation is further masked by widespread underemployment and low wages, compelling many individuals to find supplementary work and even full-time second jobs in order to support their families… Food prices have increased to distressing levels…
[Bob Feldman is an East Coast-based writer-activist and a former member of the Columbia SDS Steering Committee of the late 1960s. Read more articles by Bob Feldman on The Rag Blog.]