In Which We Discuss War and Peace, Part 16, Chapters 1-3

 Part 16, Chapter 1

This is another of Tolstoy's historical essays. In this one, the subject is Alexander I, and who has the right and knowledge to judge if he made the right decisions. Tolstoy's answer is no one - any historian can be accused of the same short-sightedness that he might see in Alexander I, and their judgement is just as likely to be found wrong 50 years later.

Chapter 2

Another essay, on chance and genius and the distinction between them. I think Tolstoy is suggesting there is no distinction - we call it genius if, the person making the decision, by chance, choose something that leads to a desired outcome.

Chapter 3

Another essay; this one a scathing takedown of Napoleon, attributing everything he does to ego and luck.

In Which We Discuss Converting to Judaism

 About 5 weeks ago, I realised I want to convert to Judaism.

In some ways, this realisation was a very long time in coming. I attended a Catholic primary school which meant, between the ages of 5 and 10, I was taught to pray at least three times a day, attended mass every week, and Catholic ideas filtered into every lesson. 

The UK doesn't have separation between church and state, so every school is required to include religious observance in assemblies. By default, this is Church of England, the state religion of the UK, but schools can apply to offer another religious service instead. While Jewish and Muslim schools tend to be criticised and accused of indoctrinating students, to my knowledge, Catholic schools don't garner those kinds of accusations. But that's a rant for another time.

I rejected Catholicism before the age of 10, because it annoyed me. Specifically, the fact that it was internally contradictory and you weren't allowed to talk about why. 

For example; why would anyone assume that Jesus' immaculate conception meant that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life?* And, having assumed that, why would you not then question the appearance of Mary and Joseph's children in the Gospel of Luke? 

*to control women.

For example: why is it so obvious that Ruth and Naomi shared a platonic love? My reading of the Book of Ruth reveals a story about a lesbian couple and a gay man happily co-parenting and everyone deciding to mind their own business about it.

For example: why would you accuse the Jews of killing Jesus? The Gospels describe the idea of a 'Paschal pardon', that the Jewish elders were offered the chance to free a prisoner, and they chose Barabbas instead of Jesus. Firstly, why is choosing Barabbas wrong? That's like saying, if I give my sister a kidney, I've murdered a total stranger who also could have used a kidney. Secondly, the Jews had zero power. I don't care how many times Pontius Pilate washes his hands, the Romans were 100% in charge and responsible for their own actions. The Jews could do nothing. Thirdly, it's outright suspicious that the concept of a Paschal pardon isn't supported by any historical documents outside of the Gospels. It's not even consistent in them - it didn't originally appear in Luke, but was added much later.

...anyway. I couldn't be a Catholic. It made no sense to me.

(Full disclosure; the above points aren't what I remember frustrating me when I was a child, they're things that frustrate me now. I don't remember the specifics of what bothered me, just the feeling that something wasn't adding up and the frustration that no one would talk about it).

But, I missed it. I missed the rituals and the ceremonies and the singing. I missed reading the Bible. 

I wasn't actually supposed to read the Bible. Catholics aren't. They're supposed to read the Catechism, i.e., the Pope's interpretation, and go along with that. But someone gave me several children's Bibles, which included the stories of the "old Testament" and I read them. I liked thinking about them and I missed them.

Because I missed those aspects and because I liked reading and interpreting the Bible, I've spent most of the last 25 years identifying as a Bad Catholic. A Catholic by upbringing, but not by belief.

Last February, I started writing for my work newsletter. I started with Purim, which is a Jewish holiday. I knew there was a great deal of overlap between Christianity and Judaism (and Islam, which is why I also wrote those articles) and my co-worker, who is born and raised Jewish, was willing to check that what I wrote was kosher (right, correct).

As I read more about Jewish beliefs, I kept finding myself going, "See, that's what I think. That's why I'm so bad at being a Catholic. Catholics aren't allowed to think that."

I told myself it was an academic interest. That I was being a good ally (and, from feedback, I do still think I'm quite a good ally).

After October 7th, I realised that what I was feeling wasn't what I normally felt as an ally. I wanted to be with the people who felt like me. I wanted to support them. I wanted to stand with them and be seen as one of them.

At some point, I looked up the conversion process, still telling myself my interest was academic.

A few days after that, I woke up and knew I wanted to convert. It felt like when I realised I wanted to marry my fiancé. In hindsight, I can see all the signs creeping up on me, but I didn't feel it growing. The feeling was just there one day, whole and complete and undeniable. 

'Convert' doesn't feel like quite the right word. I don't expect to change. I'm not going to become something new. I just want to learn how to express this part of myself. Which, I later learned, does align with how Judaism sees converts - they always had a Jewish soul, they just didn't have anyone to teach them how to be Jewish.

What that means is, I am having a lot of new feelings and thoughts and ideas that I want to share. And since most of those will be linked to the weekly Bible portion (the Parashah), this blog struck me as quite a good place to write about them.

In Which We Discuss Assumptions and the Holocaust

Last year, I wrote a post about whether Hermione (of Harry Potter) is white. In that post, I pointed out that people seem to need only flimsy evidence to assume someone matches the 'default' - e.g., white, male, able-bodied, cis, straight - but very strong evidence to assume someone is 'other.'

I thought of this recently because I did exactly that myself. That is, I assumed the status quo based on weak evidence and ignored strong evidence to the contrary. Someone I've known for a few months now is Jewish and it took several hints and outright asking for me to know that for sure. 

I could say, "I didn't want to assume," but, of course, I was making an assumption either way. It's just which assumption. But, I knew he had a relative living in Israel ("but that could be because of the relative's partner!") and I knew his name was Jewish ("but it could come from the alternative French source!"). On the flipside, I knew he didn't keep kosher, or, rather, had quite strong evidence that he didn't (but many Jewish people aren't strict about that), and I think I've known him to use technology or otherwise not strictly observe the sabbath (but, ditto, and also I could just be misremembering). Also, he said "Merry Christmas," but, as he pointed out himself, he knows that Christmas exists, and I know I had previously mentioned in a group conversation that I'm (culturally) Catholic, though he may not remember that. Either way, I know that Hanukah and Passover (etc) exist and I'm not Jewish or even living in a predominantly Jewish society. I feel like I'm in a very small group because only 3% of the UK population tick the 'mixed-other' box like me, but even fewer people tick the box marked 'Jewish' -  only 0.5%.

I haven't changed the opinion expressed in that post. People make assumptions. We should know we're doing it so we can correct it on the occasions when we get it wrong, instead of blindly or defensively arguing for whatever assumption we're making. In theory, I could be defensive and argue that I was right to assume the default, but why? Why would I do that? Just go, "Oh, interesting,", correct your mental notes/tags, and move on with your day. Or, if it's a fictional character, just go, "Oh, I guess you could see it that way," and then either decide to carry on picturing the character however you were before, or change, or flip back and forth, based on whatever suits you.

I think the first reason I wanted to share this because it's really easy to notice when other people are making errors in their thinking, but much harder to realise and acknowledge when you're doing it. The second reason is, Holocaust memorial day was yesterday, 27th January. That's the anniversary of liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp. This year's theme is 'Ordinary People.'

I didn't intend this when I started writing, but I think what I talked about above ties into that theme. Most people assume other people are probably like them, and that tomorrow will probably be a lot like today. It's okay to assume that - you'll get the right answer a lot of the time, and if you never, ever made any assumptions, you'd never get through the day. Plus, if you feel afraid or insecure, assuming other people don't feel like you is, in my experience, more likely to be wrong and cause you unhappiness than assuming many people will feel the same way. The trick is, again, you have to know you're making assumptions and be ready to pay attention and correct them if they're wrong.

The other thought-error we make about the Holocaust is, at least in British schools, to treat it as an anomaly, something that came from a unique evil or a unique time in history. To me, at least, the attitude is "Isn't what Germany did terrible? We must never, ever be like Germany!". Which isn't wrong exactly, since obviously the Holocaust was terrible and must never be repeated, but it does innocently gloss over terrible events the British Empire was involved in, like Partition, or basically everything Europe did in Africa or to African people. It also, somehow, ignores the part where the Allies didn't liberate everyone from Concentration camps, and even punished people like Alan Turing for being gay. 

We get the impression that antisemitism was a thing that happened once, when the Holocaust was the culmination of a hatred that had been growing for thousands of years (I actually learned that from visiting museums in Hamburg, but I looked for a source I could share). Ordinary people think "it can't happen here" or "it was an aberration that won't happen again." I suspect a lot of ordinary people in the 1930s thought it couldn't happen there or then (link is about Martin Niemöller, who wrote the poem First They Came).

The links above have some suggestions for further reading. I haven't read much about the Holocaust, but I would recommend Maus, a graphic novel by the child of two holocaust survivors. I've never read The Diary of Anne Frank because, to be honest, I don't think I can handle it, but it's an obvious one to mention. She knew her diary might be published - based on a radio broadcast, which mentioned that the diaries of ordinary people were a good historical record - and began editing it during her lifetime. The diary was also edited by her father, the only surviving member of her family. One of the things that was removed - I think, by Anne herself - was the fact she was bisexual. On the one hand, I'm opposed to reading private diaries except when, like in the published version, the writer themselves intended it to be read. On the other hand, it's important to acknowledge all the victims of the Holocaust, including the LGBTQ community, and even though she would have been persecuted "just" for being Jewish, her bisexuality would also have been dangerous.

One of my favourite books is The Basic Eight by Daniel Handler, who is Jewish, though that's not what the book is about, apart from in the way a person's culture/viewpoint informs all creative work. The TV show Crazy-Ex-Girlfriend is similar, in that sense. It's not about being Jewish, it's about a specific person who is Jewish. 

An interlude in the song 'JAP Battle'

Being Jewish, like being of any other group, is a category, which means the individuals within that category aren't identical. They have enough traits in common to be in the category, but exactly which traits and to what extent vary. The solution is to read (or watch, or talk to) a lot of different representative viewpoints, to get an idea of the overall picture. Like at football matches, when dozens of people hold up squares to create an image. For instance, I could hold up my square, for my experience of being mixed race or being neurodiverse, but mine only represents me. You need to look at a few more to get a feel for what the overall image is. It's the same for any other group humans might be part of.

In addition to the links above, I found the following while googling but didn't end up specifically referencing the content: Hey Alma; Forward; 1938 Projekt. I also learned that Kafka was Jewish and about an upcoming game called A Light in the Darkness which aims to educate people on the Holocaust. I found this article on celebrities you might not realise are Jewish or have Jewish heritage, such as Rashida Jones, Jack Black, Daniel Radcliffe, Winona Ryder, Maya Rudolph, and Zoe Kravitz. They all have different relationships with Judaism because of course they do. The article has a few links to where that's been further discussed, like Bob Saget being interviewed on the Jewish Federation of LA Podcast.

In Which We Discuss Matthew Perry

...because I just read his autobiography. Overall, it's like watching seasons 1-3 of Bojack Horseman - so dark, but before it gets really dark - interspersed with the occasional clip from Friends to lighten the mood a bit. Also, Perry is very witty. It's possible that he paid a really good ghost writer and the jokes aren't actually his, but I personally don't believe that to be the case. 

Matthew Perry's father left when he was 9 months old, and his mother was always busy and distracted. Which, he says multiple times, he understands and doesn't blame them for, but he can't deny the effect it had on him. It makes sense - he obviously doesn't remember his dad leaving, but when you're a baby and the adults caring for you leave or are distracted, it sets off an alarm inside you, because that's a matter of life and death for babies. In some people, the alarm just never gets switched off.

He felt like it was his job to keep his mother happy, to make her laugh, and doing that made him happy. She'd turn, and pay attention to him, and he'd feel safe, because, in that baby-alarm, attention=safety. So he kept chasing that. Never allowing a silence, always seeking a laugh (god, imagine being like that (the joke here is, I am exactly like that)).

The most interesting thing Matthew Perry says is that fame didn't solve any of the problems he thought it would. He was just famous, with all the same problems. It makes sense that he thought it would - he wanted attention, and to make people laugh, because he associated that with love and safety - but it also makes sense that it didn't work. The problem is, when you're an adult, you know that making people laugh actually doesn't mean they'll take care of your emotional needs or stick around. It only makes you feel better for a few seconds. Then the anxiety comes back. You want that security and you don't know how to get it and keep it. All you know is how to get attention. So you think you need to do it more, or better, and if you did it well enough, you would finally be happy.

Matthew Perry is arguably one of the most successful human beings ever, in terms of making people laugh. Friends had an audience of millions. He was paid over $1mil for a 25 minute episode of making people laugh. I think being so successful at it might be the only reason he figured out it wasn't working, because lots of people don’t. Every person in the world could line up to tell him they loved his work, and it wouldn't make him feel secure or happy, or like he deserved to exist as a human being. He achieved his lifelong goal of having the number one movie and the number one TV show in the country at the same time, and he couldn’t even enjoy it because he was in rehab.

My current theory is, trying to earn the right to exist – via laughter or anything else - doesn't work because it's the wrong question. It’s like asking how much you’d have to pay someone for them to truly love you. It’s the wrong currency. You can’t earn the right to exist. It’s intrinsically yours because you do exist. Like I think, therefore I am. I exist, therefore I deserve to exist.

The other problem is, when people did love him, he didn’t feel secure. I get that. Like the Savage Garden song, “If love was red then she was colour-blind. All her friends have been trialled for treason and crimes that were never defined.” You test your relationships and put your friends on trial because you want to prove they’re unbreakable, that the other person will always be there, that they’re safe, that they can fulfil you. It doesn’t work. The relationship will break if you try to break it. The only way it couldn’t is if that person loved you unconditionally, the way a parent loves a child. That isn’t how adults love each other, romantically or platonically. Love between adults is conditional. Who you are and how you treat each other matters. If it didn’t, you would just love everyone and anyone, equally, with no bias, and if someone loves you like that then it doesn’t matter who you are. You could be anyone. 

So you want unconditional love, but unconditional love isn’t fulfilling. It isn’t being loved for you. The only way to win that game is not to play. Which is where the alcohol and drugs came in. They let him not think and not feel anxious for a while. Until he reached the point where ruining his life with drugs and alcohol was the thing he felt anxious about. Hopefully he figures that one out. He's been sober and drug free for 18 months as of last October, according to The Times, and I hope it sticks.