This context is of extreme importance to contrast the response in the 20th century, which certainly must also be situated within the context of Zionism and the founding of Israel.
Ariella Aisha Azoulay claims that the French first 'offered' French citizenship to Jewish Algerians (1865) if they wanted it. It wasn't taken up by many Jewish Algerian Jews, so the French proceeded to force Algerian Jews to become French citizens in their own country (1870 Crémieux Decree). She frames it as an act of colonial violence that destroyed the shared world that existed and which the FLN letter also points to. Further, to be considered "worthy," Algerian Jews were compelled to discard their customs, languages (like Arabic), and traditional ways of life to prove they were French. This, in her view, was a process of violent estrangement that "deracinated" them from their own history and world. In enrolling Algerian Jews into the colonial project, the French alienated Algerian Jews from their own roots, culture and identity.
Highlighting this, as the FLN letter does, is never over done. Everyone loses from the colonial logic, including oppressors.
Excellent article that really systematized my thoughts about Gordon (and others) in light of the ongoing colonial genocide. I actually completed a draft article adjacent to this for the upcoming Palgrave Handbook on Fanon, discussing the ways in which academic appropriations of Fanon often function to sanitize his thought (using Gordon and others as salient examples), and if I'm permitted to add more to the word count I definitely want to find a way to work in a reference to some of what you've written here.
Over all we know that academia does function to pull people into counter-insurgency circles. I'm glad to have avoided that due to my own precarious position and the years of organizational work that keeps me honest, but it is saddening to see this pattern––from Lewis Gordon to Eve Tuck––even if I know why it happens and that it should be expected.
I remember when my partner and I went to see Gordon talk at our university, years back when we were both graduate students, and he seemed to be a very different person––he talked about Palestinian solidarity when my partner spoke about being Palestinian with him at the reception. But in retrospect it was kind of weird: he talked about it as being Jewish and having family who lived on kibbutzes as minority Black Jews back in the day, and really kind of emphasized that. At the time we thought nothing about it, particularly since he was saying he agreed with Palestinian self-determination, but in retrospect with his current nonsense it feels kind of weird.
This context is of extreme importance to contrast the response in the 20th century, which certainly must also be situated within the context of Zionism and the founding of Israel.
More of an addition than a counter:
Ariella Aisha Azoulay claims that the French first 'offered' French citizenship to Jewish Algerians (1865) if they wanted it. It wasn't taken up by many Jewish Algerian Jews, so the French proceeded to force Algerian Jews to become French citizens in their own country (1870 Crémieux Decree). She frames it as an act of colonial violence that destroyed the shared world that existed and which the FLN letter also points to. Further, to be considered "worthy," Algerian Jews were compelled to discard their customs, languages (like Arabic), and traditional ways of life to prove they were French. This, in her view, was a process of violent estrangement that "deracinated" them from their own history and world. In enrolling Algerian Jews into the colonial project, the French alienated Algerian Jews from their own roots, culture and identity.
Highlighting this, as the FLN letter does, is never over done. Everyone loses from the colonial logic, including oppressors.
I only just came across this one today strangely. Echoing the above.
Pretty sharp if you ask me.
« Hopeful pathologies in the war for Palestine: a reply to Adam Shatz », by Adbaljawad Omar.
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/hopeful-pathologies-in-the-war-for-palestine-a-reply-to-adam-shatz/
Excellent article that really systematized my thoughts about Gordon (and others) in light of the ongoing colonial genocide. I actually completed a draft article adjacent to this for the upcoming Palgrave Handbook on Fanon, discussing the ways in which academic appropriations of Fanon often function to sanitize his thought (using Gordon and others as salient examples), and if I'm permitted to add more to the word count I definitely want to find a way to work in a reference to some of what you've written here.
Over all we know that academia does function to pull people into counter-insurgency circles. I'm glad to have avoided that due to my own precarious position and the years of organizational work that keeps me honest, but it is saddening to see this pattern––from Lewis Gordon to Eve Tuck––even if I know why it happens and that it should be expected.
I remember when my partner and I went to see Gordon talk at our university, years back when we were both graduate students, and he seemed to be a very different person––he talked about Palestinian solidarity when my partner spoke about being Palestinian with him at the reception. But in retrospect it was kind of weird: he talked about it as being Jewish and having family who lived on kibbutzes as minority Black Jews back in the day, and really kind of emphasized that. At the time we thought nothing about it, particularly since he was saying he agreed with Palestinian self-determination, but in retrospect with his current nonsense it feels kind of weird.
Speaking for someone else is bad acting