I did a similar kind of poll on this blog’s previous version, but I have many more readers now, and I’d love to know what kind of posts they like the most. I tried to list all the different topics I write about but fell free to add your own in the comments.
The poll is in the right-hand column of the blog.
Thank you for voting! You know how happy polls make me. 🙂 This post will be sticky for a while, so scroll down for new posts.
The option “Book reviews” is on the poll twice.
LikeLike
This is obviously very Freudian of me. 🙂 Thank you, Pen!
LikeLike
Honestly I love all your posts. So I think I checked just about everything on the list! But I guess my favorites are posts about your teaching and posts about your personal life–the “How I found love” posts were fun to read and so sweet. And I’m a big fan of the “Through the Eyes of a Stranger” series! 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you, dearest reader! This is so good to hear after an endless day I’ve had today.
LikeLike
Yes, I was too lazy to vote because there wasn’t an all of the above choice 😀
LikeLike
Thank you, dear Isabel!
LikeLike
I was confused by the “Anything as long as it isn’t controversial” choice. For instance to me the idea of equality is a given thus uncontroversial but it seems people with money and power would disagree.
LikeLike
RE “Posts about Ukraine, Russia, and the Soviet Union” may be you could help me by telling your opinion (Yes/No) about the next question in one course for teachers my mother is taking now:
Советская власть решительно боролась с проявлениями еврейской религиозной жизни, с еврейскими политическими партиями – сионистскими и несионистскими. Одновременно она боролась и с антисемитизмом. Считаете ли вы, что между составляющими советской политики есть противоречие?
I don’t see contradiction, but my mother does. Or could it be that in fighting religion there wasn’t a contradiction since Christianity was fought too, but in fighting not religious parties there was a contradiction? Didn’t USSR forbid *all* national parties and organizations, not only Jewish ones? Lenin and Stalin thought, according to course’s materials, that Jews should assimilate and disappear as a people, is it antisemitism? If they thought the same about other people too, about new utopian society, why should it be? My mother thinks such answer is insane and will get Fail, that in USSR it was both antisemitic and anti- other peoples, f.e. Ukrainians.
LikeLike
USSR had a long and complex history of dealing with nationalist issues. Before WWII, there was an explosion of Jewish theaters (every city had at least one Jewish theater), Jewish newspapers, Jewish dance groups, etc. And ant-semitism was, indeed, combated by the authorities.
That all came to an end after WWII. All Jewish cultural organizations were destroyed by pretty much 1950. The huge anti-semitic campaign started in 1948.
Something similar went on with Ukrainains, although there was a shorter period of flourishing afforded to them. There was a cultural and political strategy called “Ukrainization” that was adopted in the 1920ies. At that time, the Russian-speakers in Ukraine complained about Ukrainian everywhere pretty much like the anglophones in Quebec today complain about French. There was a cultural explosion of books, theater performances, etc. in Ukrainian. That was over by the end of 1920ies.
The national issues were manipulated in the USSR this way in order to a) first, exploit the national sentiments to attract people to the cause of communism and b) later, ideally, get rid of all nationalism and get everybody to join one great family of humanity. The second stage never really arrived because Soviet leaders found it more useful to exploit Russian jingoist patriotism (that thrives on anti-semitism and anti-ukrainianism).
LikeLike
El, I am sorry but I will get very cynical about this one.
You are both right 🙂 Because the answer you would like to give may be correct, but may be not the one they’d like to hear in Israel in particular (that’s where your Mother is, right?)
I hope you will not take it as particularly anti-Israeli statement – I do recognize that many countries are engaged in certain selective picking of facts for the sake of enhancing their national identity.
LikeLike
As I just taught my students yesterday, there is no nation-building without selectively manipulating, repressing, and inventing parts of history.
I love it when during my classes on nationalism, as soon as I see that it gets a bit too much for them and patriotic feelings begin to rumble, I immediately say, “So in Spain…” And they just calm down. Oh it’s all in Spain, not here. 🙂
LikeLike
Will you allow a link to my blog? In particular, at the English translation of a relevant paper by my country’s [at that time] defense minister (now minister of education)?
LikeLike
Absolutely! Links to the blogs of people I like are always welcome. 🙂
LikeLike
Wow, that’s powerful. The speech contains almost everything I teach my students about nationalism. This, for example:
“This country has the same right to emotional self-determination – like everyone else – and it is under no obligation to rationally demonstrate why it does it all the time”
is brilliant. Indeed, collective identity cannot withstand a rational examination. Hence, it has to appeal to emotions. And what I love is that the speech’s author is so direct and honest about it.
And the attack on the university professors? Classic! This has so been done. So many times, by every budding nation-state.
But the most curious thing, I believe, is the “deluded by Enlightenment” piece. Enlightened thinkers came up with every single nation-building mechanism this person is using in the speech and here is the gratitude they get? 🙂 🙂
You don’t find my analysis of the speech offensive, do you? Making fun of nationalism is not the same as hiding one’s husband in a Tallinn museum. 😉 😉
LikeLike
—Making fun of nationalism
The sad thing is that it is not a parody. The guy is dead serious. He used to be a very decent physicist, has been the rector of the University of Tartu, then minister of education, then of defense and then of education again.
LikeLike
He’s just more honest than most in what he’s saying. Cynical could be another word to describe this. 🙂
LikeLike
*We still need to change rationally designed Republic of Estonia into emotionally close Estonian state*
What does it mean? Stronger national identity, seeing themselves as a people?
*Cynical could be another word to describe this*
Why cynical if he describes the world as he sees it and is right on many (all?) counts, f.e. informational wars. Israeli newspapers & TV talk of them all the time. Cynical is understanding reality like him, but hiding his truth under flowery language.
LikeLike
Because he says very directly that he has no use for reason but will appeal to unreasonable emotions instead. Other people at least try to hide the motivation behind their flag-waving. 🙂
LikeLike
I guess he did not mean the impact Enlightenment had on the development of the nationalism, he meant the impact it had on the development of ethics. Thus, he is essentially suggesting that when nationalism happens to come into conflict with the ethics of Enlightenment, the latter has to be thrown overboard.
LikeLike
Also reason, the guiding force of the Enlightenment, should be dispensed with. Sad.
LikeLike
This has shaped up to be a fascinating thread. 🙂 I should start doing open threads.
LikeLike
I think if one over-uses open threads the charm goes away. Besides, you already have a weekly open thread of links, which imo is the right amount.
LikeLike
I vote for all except “Funny real-life anecdotes”, “Anything as long as it isn’t controversial”, and “Confessional autobiographical posts”. I prefer non-personal stuff.
…
LikeLike
I am not going to vote. I trust your judgement. I find at least half of your posts really interesting. Only rarely do I find one completely uninteresting.
LikeLike
I voted “anything not controversial” but I misread it as “anything as long as it is controversial.” So my vote is *sarcastic.*
LikeLike
No, I take that back. Now I see those two categories are next to each other. I think I chose the right one.
LikeLike
Write about anything that you want!
But for the sake of the exercise, I wish I would disagree with you more often… so for this reason I’d say that I particularlly enjoy your post on politics.
LikeLike
Yes, disagree, disagree! Who can do it as well as you?
LikeLike
Write more on your brand of feminism!
LikeLike
I am hoping if I get the last post the idea sticks. Write more on your brand of feminism!
LikeLike
Thank you. 🙂 I try to space out these posts because I don’t want to shock people too much all at once. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
All of them but i especially love the ones on politics!
LikeLike
Thank you, dear Billy Williams!
LikeLike
You’re very welcome Clarissa,-Keep up the great work!
LikeLike
Do you want to write about prisoner exchange deal of Gilad Shalit, which is The News in Israel now?
After over five years in Hamas captivity, Gilad Shalit will reunite with his family on Tuesday or Wednesday, in return for release of over 1,000 prisoners.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4134684,00.html
I heard of exact number of 1,027.
Hamas leaders already talk “if Israel agreed on 1000, next time it’ll agree on 8000” AND “we’ll capture more Zionist soldiers to free all our prisoners”. Previously Israel released terrorists in exchange for dead bodies and some of them killed more Israelis after release. More in wiki “Israeli prisoner exchanges”.
LikeLike
“Fun trivia”: some of terrorists killed other Israeli soldiers and from what I understood from news, one even made a video out of soldier’s murder with knife. Others too killed several more soldiers and many, many civilians.
LikeLike
This is a war. All kinds of horrors happen in a war.
LikeLike
It isn’t about horrors. It’s about the ratio, about the interests of the country. I was curious about your opinion on that. I am sure US wouldn’t pay this much. Has Israel gone too far and crossed limits, which must not be crossed by paying so much?
The Talmud refers to the redemption of captives (pidyon shevuyim) as a high obligation, greater even than that of tzedakah… Yet despite its exalted status, this obligation is not without limits. The Mishnah instructs that we are not to redeem captives “for more than their monetary value” on account of “the welfare of society” . What could “welfare” mean in this context? The Talmud offers two explanations: payment of exorbitant ransoms might bankrupt the community; alternately, the knowledge that the Jews will pay dearly to redeem their captives might tempt would-be kidnappers to seize more Jewish hostages.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment