At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn”(lareviewofbooks.org)
lareviewofbooks.org
At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn”
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/at-shul-we-drink-single-malt-on-a-fortress-in-brooklyn/
23 comments
My guess is it was not enforced because it's a politicaloy savvy community and there wasn't sufficient outrage to justify enforcement.
This article confuses the idea that certain race/ethnicity are "protected classes", versus the idea of race/ethnicity itself being a protected class. It's always a "protected class" doing the discriminating, because everyone has a race/ethnicity. There's no special law that protects Jews and blacks but doesn't protect Indians or whites.
>> But in this case, it was the protected class doing the discriminating.
That's a Category Error. "Religion" is a protected class. "Jewish" is not a protected class.
That's a Category Error. "Religion" is a protected class. "Jewish" is not a protected class.
Dropping into street view at the corner of Flushing Ave and Lee Ave offers a glimpse of the neighborhood described in the article. On one side you see Satmar Meats & Take Out, while on the other you see the Marcy Projects where Jay-Z grew up.
Reading this, I was struck by a similarity in the strength of the distinctiveness (obviously not the content) between the Hasidim and the Amish.
And that was the basis of an in-joke in the movie The Frisco Kid when Gene Wilder called out to the landsmann !
The urban Amish
While their way of dress seems similar, the comparisons really stop there. Hasidim don't have an opposition to technology. They drive, use electricity, have cell phones, etc. B&H Photo in NY is run by Satmar Hasidim, for example.
> Hasidim don't have an opposition to technology.
Technically, as I understand it, neither do the Amish. They have opposition to uses of technology that they feel undermine the social, and particularly family, structure. This may result on bans on technology which is seen as prone to such use and for which there isn't a combination of positive use and prescribed manner of use that adequately mitigates the problem (the exact boundaries of which differing between different Amish groups.)
Technically, as I understand it, neither do the Amish. They have opposition to uses of technology that they feel undermine the social, and particularly family, structure. This may result on bans on technology which is seen as prone to such use and for which there isn't a combination of positive use and prescribed manner of use that adequately mitigates the problem (the exact boundaries of which differing between different Amish groups.)
I think there are lots of other parallels you could draw.
* Religion is supposed to define almost every aspect of life and culture.
* Unlike many other Jewish and Christian movements and communities, both groups emphasize visible, conscious, active separatism from surrounding cultures. (Whereas other orthodox Jews not uncommonly wear clothes typical of their neighbors and work in secular cultural vocations, like secular university teaching or even being the host of Jeopardy.)
* As a sibling comment pointed out, having lots of kids is encouraged.
* There is a process by which local authorities can interpret the rules, and their interpretations are binding on their communities. (If you don't like them, you need to leave the community to be subject to a different community's interpretation.)
* There are different communities with different interpretations and traditions, but, within certain parameters, they may respect and accept each other, intermarry, cooperate in various ways, and so on.
The hasidim do also regulate the use of technology by their members (this article alludes to Internet restrictions, for example), but maybe on a "default allow" rather than "default deny" basis.
It seems like the Amish prioritize keeping their communities based around certain kinds of work (farming and small-scale crafts and manufacturing), and also keeping them rural. Hasidim have made a switch to urban (and, as the article notes, suburban) living.
* Religion is supposed to define almost every aspect of life and culture.
* Unlike many other Jewish and Christian movements and communities, both groups emphasize visible, conscious, active separatism from surrounding cultures. (Whereas other orthodox Jews not uncommonly wear clothes typical of their neighbors and work in secular cultural vocations, like secular university teaching or even being the host of Jeopardy.)
* As a sibling comment pointed out, having lots of kids is encouraged.
* There is a process by which local authorities can interpret the rules, and their interpretations are binding on their communities. (If you don't like them, you need to leave the community to be subject to a different community's interpretation.)
* There are different communities with different interpretations and traditions, but, within certain parameters, they may respect and accept each other, intermarry, cooperate in various ways, and so on.
The hasidim do also regulate the use of technology by their members (this article alludes to Internet restrictions, for example), but maybe on a "default allow" rather than "default deny" basis.
It seems like the Amish prioritize keeping their communities based around certain kinds of work (farming and small-scale crafts and manufacturing), and also keeping them rural. Hasidim have made a switch to urban (and, as the article notes, suburban) living.
>have cell phones
My impression was that this isn't true? It's at least true of some Hasidim, maybe Satmar was different.
My impression was that this isn't true? It's at least true of some Hasidim, maybe Satmar was different.
I had no intention of making a detailed comparison; only to note the magnitude of the distinctiveness.
I’ve been shopping at B&H for decades. The similarity goes beyond clothes.
The Hassids and the Amish basically decided that their society should, as much as possible, try to replicate their existence in 18th century Europe.
The Amish have gone further in that attempt, but both want to block out modern influences to a large extent.
Not saying it’s good or bad, but that’s what they are doing.
The Hassids and the Amish basically decided that their society should, as much as possible, try to replicate their existence in 18th century Europe.
The Amish have gone further in that attempt, but both want to block out modern influences to a large extent.
Not saying it’s good or bad, but that’s what they are doing.
living in New York City and running an electronics store isn't very 18th century.
Nothing except clothing and religious spiritual belief is "18th Century".
An on-line camera store is not 18th Century.
An on-line camera store is not 18th Century.
Well, both groups also have many more children than average, thus requiring ever-expanding amounts of real estate.
There's not a strict religious group in the world that seems to be happy.
You'd have to talk to them directly to hear about the people who are completely satisfied with their lives in strict religious groups. Naturally, such a group isn't for everyone, and drama and conflict make more interesting stories, so that's what you see in news and fiction.
I know a good number of Hasidim (no Satmars though) and they seem about as happy on average as everyone else, maybe a little happier.
There's not a secular group that seems to be happy either.
The article was not clear about this, but one gathers that these laws were never enforced for that reason?