How do American Jews envision their role in the world? Are they tribal―a people whose obligations extend solely to their own? Or are they prophetic―a light unto nations; working to repair the world? The Star and the Stripes is an original; provocative interpretation of the effects of these worldviews on the foreign policy beliefs of American Jews since the nineteenth century. Michael Barnett argues that it all begins with the political identity of American Jews. As Jews; they are committed to their people's survival. As Americans; they identify with; and believe their survival depends on; the American principles of liberalism; religious freedom; and pluralism. This identity and search for inclusion form a political theology of prophetic Judaism that emphasizes the historic mission of Jews to help create a world of peace and justice.The political theology of prophetic Judaism accounts for two enduring features of the foreign policy beliefs of American Jews. They exhibit a cosmopolitan sensibility; advocating on behalf of human rights; humanitarianism; and international law and organizations. They also are suspicious of nationalism―including their own. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that American Jews are natural-born Jewish nationalists; Barnett charts a long history of ambivalence; this ambivalence connects their early rejection of Zionism with the current debate regarding their attachment to Israel. And; Barnett contends; this growing ambivalence also explains the rising popularity of humanitarian and social justice movements among American Jews.Rooted in the understanding of how history shapes a political community's sense of the world; The Star and the Stripes is a bold reading of the past; present; and possible future foreign policies of American Jews.
#97423 in Books 2015-03-22Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.80 x 1.20 x 5.80l; .0 #File Name: 0691160392400 pages
Review
26 of 27 people found the following review helpful. An oddly structured bookBy RogerThis is a very strange book. It is better described as a poorly communicated thesis; a set of responses by others to the thesis; and then a response where the author finally gets his points out.In brief; Morris suggests that core human values are evolutionary adaptations; but that these values are somewhat flexible and culturally adaptive. He then divides human history into three realms or phase transitions defined primarily by our rate of energy capture -- foragers; farmers and fossil fuel societies. Then he goes into three specific values which differe dramatically between the phase transitions -- propensity to use violence; egalitarianism and gender equality.In the first set of chapters he lays out his facts. To those familiar with evolutionary psychology it will seem pretty obvious.Then a series of people; obviously not familiar with evolutionary psychology or cultural evolution theory tear into Morris' ideas. In general they miss the point by a mile. It is like hearing creationists argue with an evolutionary biologist.Then; in chapter 10; the book gets good. Morris finally lays out exactly what his thesis is clearly and explicitly.Here are my thoughts:1). I am not sure why he focuses on these three values. Are these the only ones which differed dramatically? Are these the only ones he is interested in? Or are they the only ones that support his thesis?2). On violence it seems he conflate in tribe/ state and between tribe/ state violence. I think these are separate phenomena which require separate analysis.3). On egalitarianism; he similarly conflates material equality with hierarchical or political dominance. Again; I am not sure why.4) Morris suggests that each age gets the values it needs. It seems to me that a better explanation is that humans value dominance for themselves and that based upon the social context they are forced to settle for equilibriums. Foragers would love to all be alphas. However; in a world of effective weapons and easy exit where nobody wants to be a beta; the equilibrium point for effective social groups is egalitarianism.Similarly; each gender would love to be dominant of its counterpart. In Farming societies; men were able to attain the upper hand; and women were forced to submit to thrive. In forager societies this is less true; and modern societies with high energy capture and high standards of living and state security nets and appliances which free women from housework; this is simply no longer true.The same applies to violence. We may be fine with violence when it serves our needs. Problem is that this creates a struggle and zero sum dynamic. The equilibrium point in forager societies is to maintain peace within the tribe but to fracture and splinter with uncontrollable violence between tribes. In farmers; without exit freedom; tied to the land with some specializing in violence; the natural equilibrium is hierarchy; with the elite caring for their human livestock. In modern liberal states; the optimal equilibrium is networks of voluntary trade and egalitarian rights which shrivel up in environments of violence.I would agree with Morris that our values are contextually adaptive. I do think that we greatly rationalize and tailor them to conditions. Those in hierarchies rationalize their position; those in violence rationalize and tailor and so on.7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Illuminating Argument On the Origin of Value SystemsBy Anne MillsThis is broad brush history of the most interested kind; examining how human value systems arose; and what caused them to change. To survey so wide a scope in such a limited space (this is not a long book) of course risks over-simplification and over-schematization. But Morris is aware of these risks; and presents a compelling argument despite them.The first part of the book presents Morris's central case: that a human value system reflect the constraints on the society that possesses that value system. Specifically; he focusses on "energy capture" -- how many kilocalories a day the average person in a society can command. Initially; when humans were hunter/gatherers; this was very low; creating small populations that needed large ranges to feed themselves. Such cultures tend to be egalitarian and quite violent. As people gradually domesticated plants and animals; the amount of energy that an individual could command jumped; and the evolution into agrarian societies produced a shift in values; to a more hierarchical and less violent structure. Finally; when people gained control over fossil fuels; the amount of energy each member of society could command surged again. The value structure changed rapidly; to a more egalitarian and even less violent model.In the second part of the book; various commentators give their opinions of Morris's arguments. I was disappointed in this section: many of the arguments seemed to slide by Morris's own case; without much contact. For example; one commentator proposes a "real" value system towards which people strive; without explicitly rejecting Morris's argument that value systems arise from economic and cultural conditions. Things improve in the final section; in which Morris restates his case; rather more explicitly.This is an odd format; and a short book (particularly given the scope of the subject) but I found it fascinating. On the strength of that; I am now going to read one of Morris's other books; to see if it is as good.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Painting with a paint rollerBy j a haverstickThis book deals with huge topics very broadly drawn. Morris admits as much. Perhaps the main strength of the book is the very honest self-criticism the author gives as he goes along. The commentaries included are given and dealt with openly and honestly. It makes for thought provoking reading. I don't have much to add here as far synopsis goes. I think the prior reviews are really very excellent! You should read them before buying the book; especially the positive two. The reductivist ;scientistic analysis of human values I find interesting; but; ethically; beside the point. Reminds me of the last chapter of Sociobiology where Wilson; after; reducing values to evolution; makes an impassioned plea for us to be environmentalists! Yo! At least Bertrand Russel bit the bullet; saying his own values just happened to be the result of his class and upbringing and had no "intrinsic" further validity. Atwood; one of the respondents (a philosophy teacher) to Morris makes the point by suggesting that the act of valueing; since it can be done well or ill; must have some proper object; so the "relativity" suggested by Morris can't be the whole story. Actually; if you read carefully; Morris is all over the place when it comes to the objectivity of value; suggesting morethan once that there may be some values proper just to humans in general in additiion to humans in some stage of social development. Of course; this would still be a naturalistic account of ethics.But Atwood's analysis is really too clever by half. The point was more directly made a century ago by G E Moore. Given any social or natural (or evolutionary) definition of "good"; we can still meaningfully ask is that really good. Therefor the reduction has failed. But that's a philosopher's comment. I find these evolutionary and archeo-anthropological books very informative on many different levels despite my moral/mystical inclinations at the highest level. If you do; too; you'll really like this book. Clear and easy enough to read on vacation.The format of presentation; critique and response is great. Philosopher; anthropologist; historian...take it to the beach this summer!Still; as a exemplar of the current thinking; hitting all the buzzwords and all the contemporarty tropes; this is a very interesting book. It certainly gives the reader a lot to think about re: human history and social development. I thought it was very fun to read in that way and wuold recommend it for vacation reading. It's certainly not difficult.
