Displaying posts categorized under

BOOKS

Lionel Trilling: America’s Matthew Arnold Edward Alexander

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/7269/full

The recent publication of a selection of letters by Lionel Trilling — 270 chosen out of thousands available to an editor in the archives — affords an opportunity to reflect on the importance of this grand master of the Age of Criticism in the middle of the last century. Trilling rose to prominence in 1950 with the publication of his third book, The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society. It sold in numbers unprecedented for a book of criticism — 70,000 copies in hard cover, and 100,000 in paperback — and made Trilling the most influential mind in the culture of the Fifties.

But Trilling’s importance in the development of American literary culture and the place of Jews in that culture goes back to the time when he was a doctoral candidate at Columbia University in New York and to a now unremembered predecessor there named Ludwig Lewisohn. Lewisohn, a Berlin-born Jew who made himself into a southern Christian gentleman in Charleston, had to leave Columbia in 1903 without his doctorate because he was, in the eyes of Columbia’s English Department faculty, irredeemably Jewish. Like many a Jewish student of English after him, Lewisohn was told that he should not (or could not) proceed in his studies because the prejudice against hiring Jews in English departments was insuperable. Two decades later, reflecting on the appointment of a number of Jewish scholars in American colleges, he noted that in one discipline alone the old resistance remained firm: “Prejudice has not . . . relented in a single instance in regard to the teaching of English.” Perhaps this was because the study of English, unlike that of science or philosophy, was intimately bound up with the particularities of culture, for it was precisely the study of the mind of Western Christianity. What Bernard Berenson called the “Angry Saxons” who ran English departments were determined to protect Tennyson’s “treasure of the wisdom of the West” from barbarous Eastern (European) invaders. (I heard the very same story of rejection decades later from Irvin Ehrenpreis, who recovered sufficiently to become the consummate biographer of Jonathan Swift, but never got a PhD in English.)

Almost nothing of this part of Trilling’s story appears in this volume of letters (Life in Culture: Selected Letters of Lionel Trilling; Farrar, Straus and Giroux, $35, edited by Adam Kirsch). But Trilling did tell it, and very sardonically, in his notebooks of April and May of 1936, when Columbia’s English faculty tried to discontinue his appointment. “The reason for dismissal is that as a Jew, a Marxist, a Freudian, I am uneasy. This hampers my work and makes me unhappy.” His colleagues would undertake to cure his unhappiness by dismissing him before he could complete his degree and thereby strengthen his claim on a tenured position.

Trilling, never one to avoid a fight, confronted his professorial “accusers,” indeed “made date to annihilate [them],” and particularly his dissertation supervisor Emery Neff, who reportedly complained that Trilling had “involved himself with Ideas,” that he was overly “sensitive,” and didn’t really “fit [in] because he was a Jew.” This was not the last time that Trilling’s mentor would abandon him. Twenty-three years later, after Trilling had given a famously “heretical” lecture about Robert Frost’s poetry that aroused a storm of controversy, he wrote to me as follows: “Since we speak of teachers and scholarship, you will readily understand that the startling — and grotesque — part of the incident was that my old teacher Emery Neff, who taught me most of what I know about scholarship, denounced me with no knowledge of the text of what I had said.”

KEN LANGONE :”I LOVE CAPITALISM-AN AMERICAN STORY”

Ken Langone is an American original whose book could easily be titled “I Love America.” The narrative describes his life as a poor boy in Long Island who became one of America’s most successful businessman, former director of the New York Stock Exchange, a co founder of Home Depot, and a black-belt philanthropist who most recently guaranteed all tuition costs to all accepted students at NYU’s medical school.

Langone is proud of his Italian heritage and family but eschews hyphenation. He is a religious Catholic who prays and attends mass often. He attributes his outsize success to capitalism-free enterprise that gives inspiration and impetus and possibilities to every American. In his words:

This book is my love song to capitalism. Capitalism works! And I’m living proof — it works for everybody. Absolutely anybody is entitled to dream big, and absolutely everybody should dream big. I did. Show me where the silver spoon was in my mouth. I’ve got to argue profoundly and passionately: I’m the American Dream.

His book is an optimistic and patriotic and sunny paean to America.

Victor Sharpe Reviews “The Copper Scroll Project” By Shelley Neese

https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-copper-scroll-project-by-shelley-neese

“Within two full years will I bring back into this place all the vessels of Hashem‘s house, that Nebuchadnezar king of Bavel took away from this place, and carried them to Bavel;” Jeremiah 28:3 (The Israel Bible™)

The author of the Copper Scroll Project, Shelley Neese, has created a riveting and true story of one man’s epic search for the lost treasures from the First Jewish Temple, which stood on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.

In this first book by Ms. Neese we meet Jim Barfield whose motivation, since he began his quest in 2006 to find the treasure, marks him as a deeply religious man who wants only to “return the Temple artifacts to the Jewish People.” As he says, “It’s time.”

Jim Barfield fervently believes the Biblical artifacts and treasures lie deep under the desert soil close to Qumran and the Dead Sea; a mere 18 miles from Jerusalem, Israel.
The copper scroll was first discovered in 1952 and although found near the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written on papyrus, the copper scrolls were inscribed in Hebrew letters from the Roman period and engraved upon thin copper plates. Archaeologists and historians remain conflicted as to the origin of the treasure listed in the 64 locations as shown in the copper scroll map.

Could the treasure, if found, be of greater significance to Israel and the world than even the Dead Sea Scrolls? That is the hope that fills the pages of this most remarkable and fascinating book.

As Jim Barfield himself asks: “Is there a scholar, a rabbi, an antiquities authority, or an interested reader with the influence strong enough to loosen the stranglehold that prevents the project from completing our excavation?”

And as Jim Barfield writes in his foreword to Shelley Neese’s compelling book, “I am confident that once a massive recovery operation takes place in the Judean desert it may well reveal to the world messages, instructions and valuable wisdom from the heart of Israel’s past leading to a much deeper understanding of the Bible and an unrevealed history.”

It is this looming question that makes the book’s story so tantalizing. Why, after Jim Barfield’s scan of the soil with a sophisticated scanning device, which revealed the likelihood of highly possible artifacts lying some eight feet deep was an Israeli archaeologist, who had begun to dig shallow test pits, told to shut down the dig after receiving a mysterious phone call?

Vendyl Jones, a Texas preacher turned Biblical archaeologist who may have been the inspiration for the Harrison Ford cinematic character, Indiana Jones, believed Qumran to be the hiding place for the Temple vessels. He spent 30 years searching while using the Copper Scroll as a guide. Jim Barfield, a retired firefighter and arson investigator from Oklahoma, met with Jones, now deceased, and was deeply inspired to continue the challenge of locating the lost Biblical artifacts.

Common Reading for Common Activism By David Randall

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/03/common-

A few weeks ago my wife and I were walking through the Brooklyn Book Festival and we saw a booth saying something about Harry Potter. My son is a fan of the books—my wife and I like them, too—so we looked at the booth. It was for an organization that wants to use Harry Potter to inspire social justice activism. They think the point of reading Harry Potter is to learn that “Through reflection and awareness, we can draw lessons on how oppression operates and use those lessons to help develop an anti-racist, feminist, disability justice, queer and transgender liberationist, working class-based anti-capitalist movement”—that is, the Left.

My wife and I don’t want our son educated by Slytherins who fancy themselves Gryffindors, so we walked on. I’m afraid a lot of parents and kids didn’t.

College common reading programs think about reading the same way—that the point of reading is to draw you in to left-wing activism. And it isn’t just the college common reading programs—there are city reading programs and county reading programs, and earnest activists at book fairs around the county. It’s important to know that this isn’t just happening on campus.

A college common reading is usually one book, which students read over the summer so they can discuss it during orientation. Common readings are supposed to set academic expectations for incoming students—but they’re also usually run by co-curricular bureaucrats, who use them as a tool in their broader campaign to turn higher education into social justice activism.

The National Association of Scholars has been publishing an annual report on college common readings since 2010. This year we’ve added a lot more data to our report. We’ve gathered and collated information on college common reading assignments for the last 11 years, from 2007 through 2017. We now have information on 732 individual colleges and universities, 4,754 separate assignments, and 1,655 individual texts. Our analysis now draws upon the choices made by tens of thousands of bureaucrats and professors at hundreds of colleges, over the course of half a generation.

Book: ‘Girl Power’ Emphasis Making Young Men Feel ‘Unwanted’ By Toni Airaksinen

https://pjmedia.com/trending/book-girl-power-emphasis-making-young-men-feel-unwanted/

A newly published book warns that the cult-like worship of diversity, social justice, and multiculturalism at universities is eroding our nation’s values on free speech, meritocracy, and the classical pursuits of open inquiry and expression.

But that’s not all.

In a Sunday interview with PJ Media, Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather Mac Donald — author of the new book “The Diversity Delusion” — warned that this diversity obesssion is hurting some of the students least likely to graduate: young men.

“The disappearance of men from higher education is in large measure driven by the incessant message coming from every level of the education system that males are the source of nothing but injustice,” worried Mac Donald.

“College after college inundates male students with workshops on toxic masculinity and rhetoric about rape culture,” she explained, adding that men would have to be a “glutton for punishment… to put up with the incessant ideological harangue.”

So, young men aren’t putting up with it.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 30 percent of men drop out of college during freshman year, and only about 38 percent graduate with a B.A. in four years. Women — on the other hand — have been more likely to graduate since 1981.

“Young men are discouraged from participating in school life by the constant incessant emphasis on ‘girl power’ and ‘you go girl’ messages,” said Mac Donald. “The impression is unavoidable that males are at best an afterthought and at worst unwanted.”

Further, Mac Donald also worries about the impact of what she calls “the diversity delusion” on young men’s psychological state. Men in university are “taught that race, sex, and sexual orientation are the most important aspects of the self.”

And if you’re a cis-white heterosexual male? “You are hopelessly doomed.”

Mac Donald’s new book, “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture” was published this month by St. Martin’s Press. She previously authored “The War on Cops,” now a New York Times bestseller. CONTINUE AT SITE

DAVID GOLDMAN REVIEWS “IN GOOD FAITH” BY SCOTT SHAY

http://www.atimes.com/article/not-by-bread-or-rice-alone/

Book review: In Good Faith, by Scott Shay. Post Hill Press; New York 2018. Hardbound; 528 pages with index.

Scott Shay’s ably written book fills an important gap in the literature on religion available to a nonspecialist audience. It will be an important resource for many Asians who are struggling with the Western monotheistic religions. One would hope to see it soon in Asian-language editions.

Today, materialism is ubiquitous. But no one can blame Asians for following the trend. The death of perhaps 30 million Chinese during the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s is a living memory. Today’s is the first generation of Chinese that does not live in the shadow of hunger. Up to one-third of Indian children suffer to some degree from malnutrition.

Asia’s enormous economic advances of the past 30 years have lifted most of its people out of dire poverty, and that has taken up their undivided attention.

At some point, though, many of the Asians who today think mainly about material advancement will look for a greater purpose in life. The celebrated Asian virtues of family, education and work discipline have proven the robustness of Asian culture beyond doubt.

But there appears to be something missing in Asian life: a sense of a greater purpose, perhaps. And that is bound up with a yearning for justice, for the dignity of every individual.

Strangers and Citizens By Reihan Salam

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/immigration-debate-melting-pot-or-civil-war-reihan-salam/Immigration will only benefit our country if we’re committed to assimilating new arrivals.

Editor’s Note: The following excerpt is adapted from Reihan Salam’s new book, Melting Pot or Civil War: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case against Open Borders. It appears here with permission.

‘Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger,” said President Barack Obama, “for we know the heart of a stranger — for we were strangers once too. . . . And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal — that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.

One of Obama’s great talents was his unsurpassed ability to stack the rhetorical deck. Here he was announcing his executive order for deportation relief in 2014. To disagree with him was not just to reject his take on the costs and benefits of a particular policy, it was to oppress a stranger, which no less an authority than Scripture tells us is a very bad thing to do. Yet there was a small wrinkle in the former president’s remarks. While calling on his fellow citizens to welcome the millions of strangers who make their way to our country to better their lives, he also insisted that his executive action would shield only those who’d been in the country unlawfully for five years or more. Moreover, it did not extend to those who might settle in the United States unlawfully in the future.

But surely those who’ve been in the country for, say, four years are strangers who deserve our compassion, too. Having praised unauthorized immigrants who work hard in low-paying jobs and who worship in our churches, the president must understand that there are tens of millions of people around the world who would gladly do the same, even if it meant risking their lives. According to one survey, there are roughly 700 million people around the world who would like to move permanently to another country, and 165 million of them say that their first choice would be to move to the United States. My guess is that the vast majority of these aspiring immigrants are decent people who mean us no harm. If the Biblical injunction against oppressing a stranger is to serve as the lodestar of our immigration policy, why on Earth would we set any limits at all?

Obama’s expansive language gave succor to open-borders romantics— and to the most demagogic voices on the other side of the debate, up to and including the man who succeeded him in the White House. Together, these forces are making it all but impossible to craft a durable immigration compromise. The irony is that Obama had a different and more potent argument at his disposal, namely, that the young people to whom he was offering deportation relief weren’t strangers at all. Because of our decades-long failure to enforce our immigration laws, an arrangement that suited unscrupulous low-wage employers just fine, they had become part of our communities. There was a perfectly good case for doing right by them while also embracing resolute enforcement, a case Obama gestured toward early in his presidency, yet which open-borders activists came to angrily reject in its waning days. The result is that immigration polices championed by liberals and centrists as recently as the 2000s are now routinely denounced as unacceptably extreme.

The Breakup of Australia: the Real Agenda Behind Aboriginal Recognition Keith Windschuttle

Australian voters are not being told the truth about the proposal for constitutional recognition of indigenous people. The goal of Aboriginal political activists today is to gain ‘sovereignty’ and create a black state, equivalent to the existing states. Its territory, com­prising all land defined as native title, will soon amount to more than 60 per cent of the whole Australian continent. Constitutional recognition, if passed, would be its ‘launching pad’. Recognition will not make our nation com­plete; it will divide us permanently.

‘Rush’ and ‘Dr. Benjamin Rush’ Review: American Hippocrates Early America’s greatest surgeon was also its leading social reformer. By Stephen Brumwell

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rush-and-dr-benjamin-rush-review-american-hippocrates-1537493843

During the spring of 1813, former presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were united in grief at the death of a mutual friend who had recently persuaded them to forget their bitter rivalries. Like the two celebrated statesmen, the eminent physician and social reformer Benjamin Rush had been a Founding Father, one of 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

But Adams and Jefferson believed that Rush deserved to be remembered for much more than his conspicuous enthusiasm for the cause of American liberty. Jefferson wrote that “a better man, than Rush, could not have left us,” extolling his benevolence, learning, genius and honesty. Adams replied with equal praise: He knew of no one, “living or dead,” who had “done more real good in America.” Writing to Rush’s son, Richard, Adams maintained that as a “benefactor” to his country, the doctor deserved greater recognition than even the celebrated polymath Benjamin Franklin.

Rush: Revolution, Madness, and the Visionary Doctor Who Became a Founding Father

By Stephen Fried
Crown, 597 pages, $30
Dr. Benjamin Rush: The Founding Father Who Healed a Wounded Nation

By Harlow Giles Unger
Da Capo, 300 pages, $28

Today, while Franklin remains an undisputed giant of the Revolutionary generation, the other Benjamin eulogized by Adams and Jefferson is largely forgotten outside the ranks of historians and medical specialists. Now two authors—award-winning journalist Stephen Fried and seasoned historical biographer Harlow Giles Unger—have produced sympathetic and readable reassessments of Rush’s remarkable career, intended to secure what they consider to be his rightful place as a leading Founding Father.

Given their shared objective, Mr. Fried and Mr. Unger inevitably cover similar ground and draw upon common sources. Both rely heavily upon Rush’s prodigious output of publications and his lively and wide-ranging personal correspondence. Their books reveal a dedicated humanitarian with an enduring influence upon American medicine, not least through the estimated 3,000 doctors that he trained. Yet neither author ignores the contradictions in Rush’s character, flaws that mired him in controversy and that help to explain why he still requires rehabilitation.

Born in January 1746, Rush was 5 when his father, a Pennsylvanian farmer and gunsmith, died. Detecting signs of precocious intelligence, his mother sent the youngster to boarding school, where he progressed so swiftly that at age 13 he gained admittance to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). He graduated in a year and was apprenticed in medicine to Philadelphia’s foremost physician, John Redman. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Future of the Nation A historical description—and intellectual defense—of nationalism Daniel P. Schmidt Michael E. Hartmann

https://www.city-journal.org/intellectual-defense-of-nationalism-16187.html

“Nationalism was not always understood to be the evil that current public discourse suggests,” philosopher Yoram Hazony notes in the introduction to his new book, The Virtue of Nationalism. Hazony is president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem and director of the John Templeton Foundation’s Jewish Philosophical Theology project. His previous books include The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul and The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.

In The Virtue of Nationalism, Hazony defines nationalism principally by distinguishing it from imperialism. He begins by offering an overarching historical framework, describing how English, Dutch, and American Protestants in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries revived the Old Testament’s strong affinity for individual liberty, thereby freeing large parts of the world from the system of universal empire promoted by Holy Roman Emperors under the aegis of the Catholic Church. This individual-centered vision gave birth to an intellectual current against empire-building after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, according to Hazony, resulting in the rise of independent nation-states worldwide.

Since the middle of the last century the tide has turned against nationalism. “Globalists” argued that nationalism brought about two world wars and the Holocaust. Their primary solution has been the promotion of the idea of world governance, either to a limited or more total extent, ordered by a set of liberal democratic values devised by experts, and run by professional administrators. Hazony persuasively argues that this internationalist approach represents a return of the imperial, totalizing vision of the world, which, rather than initiating a golden age of peace and humanism, has aroused old sectarian hatreds, and sown chaos and revolt across the globe. We will soon be forced, Hazony predicts, to make a stark choice between a world in which people, upholding their natural and inalienable rights, are able to choose their destiny within the framework of nation-states; or a renewal of universal empire—probably in the form of the European Union, or the hegemony of America or China. “The debate between nationalism and imperialism is upon us,” he writes.

In this debate, the defense of a centralized global order based on the familiar rationales of either economic efficiency or security is “too narrow to provide an adequate answer to the question of the best political order. In reality, much of what takes place in political life is motivated by concerns arising from our membership in collectives such as families, tribes, and nations.” In this alternate vision of human collectivity, religion, culture, and tradition are primary motivating influences and provide the major sources of value, rather than strictly economic or security factors. This implicit acknowledgement of the importance of national identity—though Hazony never uses that term—is a virtue of The Virtue of Nationalism. In large part because of that recognition, he quite cogently argues in the book that anyone who values his freedom should reject universalism and fight for a future of nations.