A True Liberation Story

[jbg]

My son was Bar Mitzvah'd back in February. The Torah portion being read in Jewish synagogues throughout the world that day could be called "Peoples' Manifesto for the Liberation From Slavery". Interestingly, it forms the base for the Bible readings on Easter in the Catholic religion.

It concerns the song sung by the Hebrews to rejoice after they successfully crossed the Red Sea on dry land. The sea returned with a vengency, engulfing the Egyptians. The Hebrews sang the "Song at the Sea", now the "Mi Chomocha" sung at almost all Jewish services. The song celebrates freedom and liberation from slavery.

Isn't this what the U.N. means by a "liberation organization"? Or what the folks in Durban consider "liberation from oppression and racism"?

Or for a movement or event to qualify, does it have to be destructive, harmful, cause senseless loss of life and of course poverty?

Edited August 24, 2009 by jbg

[Oleg Bach]

My son was Bar Mitzvah'd back in February. The Torah portion being read in Jewish synagogues throughout the world that day could be called "Peoples' Manifesto for the Liberation From Slavery". Interestingly, it forms the base for the Bible readings on Easter in the Catholic religion.

It concerns the song sung by the Hebrews to rejoice after they successfully crossed the Red Sea on dry land. The sea returned with a vengency, engulfing the Egyptians. The Hebrews sang the "Song at the Sea", now the "Mi Chomocha" sung at almost all Jewish services. The song celebrates freedom and liberation from slavery.

Isn't this what the U.N. means by a "liberation organization"? Or what the folks in Durban consider "liberation from oppression and racism"?

Or for a movement or event to qualify, does it have to be destructive, harmful, cause senseless loss of life and of course poverty?

To grant liberty - or to have liberty - is personal - either you choose to allow yourself to be a slave or you do not. What I do notice about most Christian "church" sects is that they in effect are huge prisons - and all members are prisoners - funny how Christ was a freedom fighter - and a liberationist - but they took that religion and turned it int a damned jail....a huge one with the pope as warden.

[jbg]

funny how Christ was a freedom fighter - and a liberationist - but they took that religion and turned it int a damned jail....a huge one with the pope as warden.

Christ was Jewish, and fighting against moral rot in the Temple. The post is about a different Jewish liberation movement.

[g_bambino]

The song celebrates freedom and liberation from slavery.

The only problem is, the only evidence for Egyptian enslavement of the Hebrews lies in the Bible. Without other record - either archæological or otherwise - it seems doubtful, at best, that the event ever took place.

[jbg]

The only problem is, the only evidence for Egyptian enslavement of the Hebrews lies in the Bible. Without other record - either archæological or otherwise - it seems doubtful, at best, that the event ever took place.

I consider the Bible a good oral history. Much of it is backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also the enslaving ways of the Egyptians and the fact that the nomadic peoples of the Middle East were often forced to move because of climate change is well known.

Thus, on its face much of the story, maybe not literally the miracles, ring true.

[g_bambino]

I consider the Bible a good oral history. Much of it is backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also the enslaving ways of the Egyptians and the fact that the nomadic peoples of the Middle East were often forced to move because of climate change is well known.

Thus, on its face much of the story, maybe not literally the miracles, ring true.

I'd disagree. The Egyptians really only ever enslaved those they defeated in battle, and, as a glory to themselves, depicted such on their temple and monument walls. There's no such evidence that the Hebrews were ever defeated and enslaved by any Pharaoh. Why would that be, other than if it had indeed never happened? The Dead Sea Scrolls don't offer any unbiased proof, either, as much of the collection is Biblical text anyway.

There may have been movement of Israelite tribes in the area, and there may even have been a forced exodus from Pharaonic land, but the freedom from slavery part of the story is highly suspect.

[jbg]

There may have been movement of Israelite tribes in the area, and there may even have been a forced exodus from Pharaonic land, but the freedom from slavery part of the story is highly suspect.

What makes it highly suspect? Doesn't Egypt's current relative lack of industriousness speak volumes?

[Wild Bill]

What makes it highly suspect? Doesn't Egypt's current relative lack of industriousness speak volumes?

Which leads to another interesting point. Does slavery tend to diminish the slave owner? Does he lose industriousness to the point where he can no longer thrive by his own merits?

You might enjoy a book by Harry Turtledove called "Guns of the South", if you haven't already. The author is a Civil War historian and the book's premise is that some Afrikans white supremacists from the early 21st century steal a time machine to go back to the start of the American Civil War, bringing AK-47's to Lee's Grays!

The beauty of the book is that the science fiction premise is in itself only a small part of the story. The real tale is of slavery and how it affected both the Southern culture and that of the North. The history is incredibly detailed and accurate. The extrapolation of events after history begins to change is quite believable and consistent with known history.

From the Red Sea to the Civil War, slavery always seemed to be happening somewhere. It is still practiced today in many parts of the world. I find it darkly ironic that so many criticize America and Europe for the incidence of slavery in their history, while ignoring that those were the folks who outlawed the practice around a century and a half ago. Meanwhile, they don't comment on those countries that practice the atrocity today, many of whom gang up on Israel in the UN.

[jbg]

Which leads to another interesting point. Does slavery tend to diminish the slave owner? Does he lose industriousness to the point where he can no longer thrive by his own merits?

You might enjoy a book by Harry Turtledove called "Guns of the South", if you haven't already. The author is a Civil War historian and the book's premise is that some Afrikans white supremacists from the early 21st century steal a time machine to go back to the start of the American Civil War, bringing AK-47's to Lee's Grays!

I assume the point of the book is that the Confederate South was slothful and lazy. I tend to agree but climate as well as slavery may have played a role. Consistent temperatures over 34, day after day, with high humidity during pre-air conditioning days dont' encourage much in the way of energy and industry, unless forced by the whip. And people working under those conditions are not known for their initiative.

From the Red Sea to the Civil War, slavery always seemed to be happening somewhere. It is still practiced today in many parts of the world. I find it darkly ironic that so many criticize America and Europe for the incidence of slavery in their history, while ignoring that those were the folks who outlawed the practice around a century and a half ago. Meanwhile, they don't comment on those countries that practice the atrocity today, many of whom gang up on Israel in the UN.

Aren't those countries led by wonderful people?

[Wild Bill]

I assume the point of the book is that the Confederate South was slothful and lazy. I tend to agree but climate as well as slavery may have played a role. Consistent temperatures over 34, day after day, with high humidity during pre-air conditioning days dont' encourage much in the way of energy and industry, unless forced by the whip. And people working under those conditions are not known for their initiative.

Aren't those countries led by wonderful people?

Actually, the climate was never mentioned, as I recall! The issue was treated much more deeply. Slavery was far from universally supported by southerners. The only real constant value seemed to be a belief that each state should be supreme in its own government first, only deferring to federal power in strictly defined terms of mutual defense and the like. I was surprised to learn that Lee himself was against slavery, but then I am a Canadian and thus not as well educated in the history of foreign personalities.

As for the character of those foreign leaders, for the most part I would agree. The convoluted arguments by some of the libleft posters on this board for many of the actions taken by these countries never ceases to astonish me. A scientist might say that is what happens when you accept your premises FIRST and then go looking for supporting evidence, ignoring anything you trip across that contradicts what you chose to believe in the first place.

No wonder our society seems to be losing practical people who can build and fix things, in favour of "politicians, beauticians and telephone sanitizers".

As proof of my point I cite reality TV! As an audience our tastes are telling. We've slid a long way from "Barney Miller" to "Paris Hilton's Best Female Friend". The fascination with "Jon and Kate Plus 8" is proof positive!

[jbg]

Actually, the climate was never mentioned, as I recall!

Climate and raw geography are often underemphasized in history and political science. I happen to believe, for example, that tropical and semitropical societies often underperform since the shelter needs are far less elaborate, and the weather discourages physical and mental activity. I also believe that countries such as Canada have a more collective, cooperative nature than the U.S. partially because of the need to work together to face an even harsher climate.

Slavery was far from universally supported by southerners.

Slavery seems to have been accepted more as a fact of life than as something good. Some slaveowners such as Thomas Jefferson posthumously freed their slaves. Many "opponents" of slavery basically needed to keep their slaves since there was no free market in that part of the country in what would now be considered low-wage labor. Immigrants generally came to the cities and those with the inclination and knowledge to farm were able to obtain land grants (later formalized as the homestead system) and other low or no-cost land. Most, however, went to the cities and were available for hire at low wages. This gave the Northerners the luxury of generally "opposing" slavery, whereas Southerners either embraced it or wished their was a better way to staff the plantations (now we call it "migrant labor".

The only real constant value seemed to be a belief that each state should be supreme in its own government first, only deferring to federal power in strictly defined terms of mutual defense and the like.

The Southern states generally prefered low tariffs both in order to encourage exports, which were agricultural in those days, and to enable them to purchase manufactured goods at low prices. This dictated very small government since customs were the main source of revenue for governments.

The Northern states prefered high tariffs to protect their new industries against imports from countries such as England whose capital plant was already bought and paid for. Also, the Northern states needed extensive internal improvements, such as railroads and canals, to move inputs for manufacturing, and allow agricultural product from the Great Lakes and beyond to get to New York for export. Remember, in those days the Saint Lawrence Seaway didn't exist and relations between the U.S. and British North America alternated between frosty and warlike.

I was surprised to learn that Lee himself was against slavery, but then I am a Canadian and thus not as well educated in the history of foreign personalities.

Lee was first and last a Virginian. Virginia was not primarily a cotton state, though its coastal reaches did support tobacco farming. The slave economy was important to Virginia though, with certain exceptions, not "do or die". It was actually not a foregone conclusion that Virginia would secede from the Union. South Carolina, the first state to go, left December 21, 1860. Virginia left, after a contentious debate, on April 19, 1861, or almost four months later. Lee recognized that his beloved state would be "ground zero" for the war and that its economy would be ravaged, and that it would lose the most people. This was true because of its location on the Union's capital's border, and the fact that Richmond was to be the Confederacy's capital. Indeed, much of the fighting in the war focused on the Rapahannock (sp) River Valley and of course on the Potomac. The Union ultimately won for two military reasons: 1) Lee was unsuccessful in advancing north and was trounced at Gettysburg, thus preventing the Confederacy from refocusing the carnage away from its lands; and 2) The Union Army advanced much more effectively in the relatively lightly defended areas such as Mississippi, Tennesse, and Georgia. Just as importantly, the South, always poor, was almost immediately broke and had little money to purchase war materiel overseas. Exporters wanted cash and not Confederate scripp for exports.

[g_bambino]

What makes it highly suspect? Doesn't Egypt's current relative lack of industriousness speak volumes?

The lack of record makes it suspect. I don't see how Egypt's lack of industriousness is relevant.

[jbg]

The lack of record makes it suspect. I don't see how Egypt's lack of industriousness is relevant.

Based on the maxim that "the more things change the more they remain the same" or "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (link)".

[g_bambino]

Based on the maxim that "the more things change the more they remain the same"

Sorry, I still genuinely don't get it. How does that explain why a Pharaoh enslaved Hebrews after defeating them in battle but never recorded the victory as all other pharaohs did for all other defeats and enslavements of tribes/nations/empires/etc.? Of all the temples and tombs and relics of Ancient Egypt, there's no evidence of the Egyptians having ever used Hebrews as slaves. It’s curious why they wouldn't have recorded such a thing, especially given the fact that they would’ve been the victors.

[Bonam]

Sorry, I still genuinely don't get it.

I think jbg's point is that in the past, the people of Egypt used the Jews as slaves, and thus achieved some of their most renowned works. The slaves performed the "industry" in Egypt. Now that their slaves are gone, they are left "without industriousness". Personally, I don't think it's intended as much of a serious point, and rather is more intended as humor/sarcasm, unless I'm misinterpreting something.

[g_bambino]

I think jbg's point is that in the past, the people of Egypt used the Jews as slaves.

I understand that's an assertion he made, but I'm asking for proof of the Hebrews ever having been slaves of Egypt. Besides Biblical text, I have heard of none. Nubians, Asyrians, definitely; but not Hebrews.

[jbg]

Personally, I don't think it's intended as much of a serious point, and rather is more intended as humor/sarcasm, unless I'm misinterpreting something.

Actually that time I was being serious. How much real work gets done in Egypt these days?

[jbg]

I understand that's an assertion he made, but I'm asking for proof of the Hebrews ever having been slaves of Egypt. Besides Biblical text, I have heard of none. Nubians, Asyrians, definitely; but not Hebrews.

The Hebrews were a relatively small group. And the fact that the episode figures so strongly in an oral history rapidly reduced to writing is, to me, a strong indicia of truth. The Egyptians may not have known they had the Biblical Hebrews as slaves either. They may have seemed to be just another Bedouin-type group of nomads.

[g_bambino]

The Hebrews were a relatively small group. And the fact that the episode figures so strongly in an oral history rapidly reduced to writing is, to me, a strong indicia of truth. The Egyptians may not have known they had the Biblical Hebrews as slaves either. They may have seemed to be just another Bedouin-type group of nomads.

The Egyptians actually did know who the Hebrews were; hieroglyphs on temples from the era of Ramses II chronicle interactions with them, but none ever describe them as being enslaved; and the Egyptians were meticulous in their record keeping. Without corroborating evidence - physical artefacts or otherwise - the Biblical story remains just that: a story.

_[+]

Edited September 1, 2009 by g_bambino

[Bonam]

Actually that time I was being serious. How much real work gets done in Egypt these days?

I dunno, but the people that existed in Egypt at the time of the biblical slavery of the Jews have long since been for the most part replaced by other peoples that have migrated into the area. And in any case, a former slave owner can learn to do work for themselves and prosper too, as the example of the US should aptly illustrate.

[jbg]

The Egyptians actually did know who the Hebrews were; there are records of interactions with them, but none of them being enslaved. Without corroborating evidence - physical artefacts or otherwise - the Biblical story remains just that: a story.

I suspect the Egyptians may have known the Hebrews as a separate entity when their own kingdom became mighty. I suspect that during the enslavement period the Hebrews were similar to other wandering Bedouin tribes and probably (contrary I know to the Bible) picked up their more unique characteristics later.

[jbg]

And in any case, a former slave owner can learn to do work for themselves and prosper too, as the example of the US should aptly illustrate.

Not really. The former plantation owners never regained their antebellum glory.

[Bonam]

Not really. The former plantation owners never regained their antebellum glory.

And yet they have prospered nonetheless. Or is your argument that "no work get's done" in America's south too, just as in Egypt? I think you're being a bit ridiculous here ;p

[g_bambino]

I suspect the Egyptians may have known the Hebrews as a separate entity when their own kingdom became mighty. I suspect that during the enslavement period the Hebrews were similar to other wandering Bedouin tribes and probably (contrary I know to the Bible) picked up their more unique characteristics later.

Given that there's no agreed upon date for when the Exodus took place, it's hard to know what stage of development Hebrew society had reached by that point, or even what dynasty was ruling in Egypt. However, as I added to my last post unknowingly after you'd responded to it, the Egyptians were scrupulous record keepers; no matter what era, they documented their stores, trade, population, battles, and every other aspect of life, including some slavery; but not Hebrew slaves. It's possible the Hebrews from whom the tale of the Exodus originated had been put into servitude; but the Egyptians just never had enough slaves to somehow lose in an immense throng the supposed 600,000 men - plus women, children, and the elderly - that followed Moses out of Egypt.

I won't discount the possibility of the story of the Exodus having some origin in the truth; but, given the archæological evidence - or lack of it - I'm inclined to believe that the tale was embellished and morphed through a centuries-long telephone game before it was finally, though still rather vaguely, written down.

[Bonam]

Given that there's no agreed upon date for when the Exodus took place, it's hard to know what stage of development Hebrew society had reached by that point, or even what dynasty was ruling in Egypt. However, as I added to my last post unknowingly after you'd responded to it, the Egyptians were scrupulous record keepers; no matter what era, they documented their stores, trade, population, battles, and every other aspect of life, including some slavery; but not Hebrew slaves. It's possible the Hebrews from whom the tale of the Exodus originated had been put into servitude; but the Egyptians just never had enough slaves to somehow lose in an immense throng the supposed 600,000 men - plus women, children, and the elderly - that followed Moses out of Egypt.

I won't discount the possibility of the story of the Exodus having some origin in the truth; but, given the archæological evidence - or lack of it - I'm inclined to believe that the tale was embellished and morphed through a centuries-long telephone game before it was finally, though still rather vaguely, written down.

I'm no believer of religious texts of any origin, but it seems to me that the events could easily be based in truth. Who says 600,000? That is obviously an exaggeration. It could have been just a few dozen or a few hundred people fleeing slavery. That would not have left much evidence, nor been worthy of recording in Egyptian records, and yet be prominent in the memory of that small group that fled and afterward settled elsewhere.

Most ancient works seem to be based in truth, often much to the surprise of modern scholars. Homer's Iliad for example was written off as fiction for the longest time, until the remains of Troy were found not long ago.