Tuesday, February 11, 2020



My Taco Laughs at You: On Death Threats Aimed at Women of Color Who Don’t Fellate White Supremacy





JANUARY 23, 2020
IF YOU REALLY WANT to piss off a white man, ignore him. I did this online a few weeks ago when one tried arguing with me about a piece of racialized literary criticism I wrote. The dude desperately wanted to tell me his definition of Latina because he thought my definition was wrong. I told the fucker to shut up, I’m not interested in having myself explained to myself, and soon after, Alex, my publisher, emailed me.
Hi Myriam, 
Your piece has blown up (not surprisingly!).  The response has been really wide and deep, and thank you for sharing it with us.  I wanted to flag this comment; we’re obviously not going to approve it in moderation, but thought you should know about it because it is personally threatening.  I imagine this kind of horrible racist venom is not something new in response to your work.  We get people like this periodically, unfortunately, but it’s always really unsettling.
I’m not just a writer. I also work as a high school teacher and since I’m not the kind of dick who throws kids’ work in the trash when they turn it in without a name, I’ve developed skills. I can examine anonymous work and tell who wrote it. Aside from handwriting, syntax provides great clues and as I read the flagged comment, it seemed pretty likely that the dull mansplainer from the internet had written it. The threat stank of his desperation and uninventiveness, and it reminded me why I keep my thesaurus away from children. Note the awful alliteration and flagrant abuse of adjectives.
Why won’t you just admit that *anything* written by a white person would have earned your clumsy, overcompensating, ostentatiously ethnic ire? Your entire career is predicated upon the laughable notion that your skin color and genitalia give you some authority to tell others what they may not experience or, dare I say it, enjoy, even if they aren’t from your zealously guarded, ethnocentric tribe of literary poseurs.
Please keep being angry. Please protest vociferously. Please confront the police in person. If we’re all lucky, maybe one of them will relive [sic] you of the burden of a life spent in feckless fury. Alternatively, make me a taco.
I wanted to reply, “I don’t cook, bro!” but the message, signed by E. V. L. Whiteman, was sent through an encrypted service.
Two things came to mind as I pondered what to do next. First, I thought of Maren Sanchez, a 16-year-old Latina who attended Jonathan Law High School in Milford, Connecticut. In 2014, one of Sanchez’s classmates, Christopher Plaskon, a 16-year-old white boy, invited her to the junior prom. Sanchez told him no; she wanted to go with someone else. Plaskon retaliated by stabbing her to death at school. Sanchez’s family buried her in her prom dress.
My next thought was of an ex-boyfriend. This guy had been super charming when we began seeing each other but over time, he showed me who he was. He was the kind of guy who hits his bitch in the face before she heads out to work.
“What happened to your cheek, Miss Gurba?” a kid once asked me.
“A cabinet door banged it.”
I called the police after my batterer told me he was thinking about driving me to a desolate California location, fucking me, and then soaking the countryside in my blood. After I shared these details with a domestic violence detective, he lectured me about male fantasies. The detective urged me to have compassion, stressing that what I had described is common and that I shouldn’t be frightened of the violence in men’s imaginations. When has a woman ever been harmed by a fantasy?
I pushed back against the detective’s bullshit, arguing that my boyfriend’s imagination should be taken very seriously. As proof of how much imagination matters, I explained that my boyfriend had discussed beating and raping me before beating and raping me. The detective then wanted to know what I was wearing when I got raped.
During questioning, the detective’s voice swelled with vicarious pleasure, making me feel freshly assaulted. Not wanting to endure a similar humiliation, I decided to refrain from reporting E. V. L. Whiteman to law enforcement. I didn’t need another lecture on male fantasy. I’m intimate with it. My back is scarred by it. My front tooth has been broken by it.
E. V. L. Whiteman’s threat offers a porthole into his imagination, one where “skin color” and “genitalia” confer authority on those possessing the right kind. And, while E. V. L. Whiteman obliquely mentions my dark pussy, my little brown backpack, the word around which his death threat revolves is “enjoy.” Let’s get back to what he wanted to argue about to begin with, a novel. I, a Latina, dared to criticize a book overflowing with sloppy Mexican stereotypes meant to stir pleasure through pity. That someone would make E. V. L. Whiteman feel bad for taking pleasure in racism, and racial stupidity, shook him to his vanilla core. The jolt registered as an existential threat. Not only did he want me silenced for my offense, he wanted me dead.
Talk about having a case of “the feels.”
Albert Memmi wrote that “[r]acism is a pleasure within everyone’s reach,” and this thesis is golden. We can also exchange the word racism for gender or sexuality and still have the statement ring true. I, however, would prefer for us to layer these nouns on top of each other and then mash them up because I’m a queer as fuck Chicana with European, Indigenous, and Black ancestry. My body is a product of Spanish colonialism and as such, it resides at a dangerous crossroads, one which often exposes me to a very specific type of racist misogyny.
My great-grandmother, Felipa, faced similar dangers, and that is why, upon entering puberty, she began carrying a loaded pistol in her purse. You never know when you’ll run into a Christopher Plaskon.
James Baldwin understood the sensual nature of the pleasures that titillate E. V. L. Whiteman. “How can one be prepared,” asked Baldwin,
for the spittle in the face, all the tireless ingenuity which goes into the spite and fear of small, unutterably miserable people, whose greatest terror is the singular identity, whose joy, whose safety, is entirely dependent on the humiliation and anguish of others?
What prepared Felipa was the death of her father, Magdaleno. He took up arms against the Mexican government because he was done living a miserable life: he wanted better than the shit he was expected to eat. Federal troops captured him, tied him up, took him to Colima, and ordered him to face the wall. As his nose touched it, an executioner raised his rifle and shot him.
With her gun in her purse, Felipa visited this wall. She ran her fingers along its holes, wondering which was made by the bullet that ended her father’s life.
What prepared me for how whack shit can get was middle school. When I was in seventh grade, I took US history with a white lady. She loved John O’Sullivan’s declaration of Manifest Destiny and she made us write an essay about it for homework. Reading O’Sullivan’s description of México pissed me off. He wrote that México suffered “impotence,” characterizing it as an “imbecile” incapable of exercising “any real governmental authority.” He argued that gringos ought to “overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of [their] yearly multiplying millions.”
Dafuq?
At our kitchen table, I chewed a Hot Pocket as I dragged pen across paper. I scribbled that when a country with a bigger military beats up a country with a weaker military for the sake of snatching their dirt, that’s robbery. Also, why did these people feel the need to spread out all over the place? What’s wrong with … Europe? Seems pretty big.
My teacher didn’t give me an A. Instead she gave me a shitty grade and called me rude. Across my essay, in big ass letters, she scrawled, “WHAT’S WRONG WITH WANTING LAND?”
My parents took pride in my level of academic achievement, it was usually high, so I felt a little nervous about how they would respond to my D. When I showed the essay to him, Dad read it and guffawed. He said, “There’s nothing wrong with your paper. You should’ve gotten an A. And your teacher is an asshole. Just like the one you had last year.”
I smiled and laughed with Dad. I’m glad he gave me a profane lens through which to regard my teachers and in doing so, Dad taught me a lesson best articulated by Hannah Arendt: “The greatest enemy of authority […] is contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter.”
E. V. L. Whiteman ended his threat with profanity: “Alternatively, make me a taco.” According to Urban Dictionary, taco “can mean anything from food to a pussy to slang for a spanish person.” Given these three definitions, it seems E. V. L. Whiteman was attempting a triple entendre, which he didn’t nail very well. My taco — dark brown, succulent, savory, and bearing a full set of teeth — cackles at his failure! Its lips flap and my cunt’s fangs shine, my taco blowing an endless raspberry at all the E. V. L. Whitemen who want to taste my Mexican food.
¤



“Lights, Camera-maids, Action!”: Women Behind the Lens in Early Cinema

¤
BY THE 1920s, the United States had transformed into a nation of enthusiastic moviegoers. Hollywood was fast becoming the film industry’s capital as studios were built, stars born, and successful careers made in every aspect of filmmaking from lighting and writing to stuntwork and publicity. Long before film schools, the industry was populated by ambitious self-starters of all sorts, including plenty of women.
Anyone familiar with film history knows that women behind the camera are not a modern phenomenon. Recent documentaries, such as Be Natural (2018) about director Alice Guy-Blaché, who began her career in the 1890s; websites like the ongoing Women Film Pioneers Project, which collects scholarship about women working in all aspects of the early film industry; and DVDs like Kino Lorber’s Pioneers: First Women Filmmakers (2018), a collection of women-directed films gathered from archives around the world, many of which have never been released for home viewing before — document significant contributions by women in the early film industry.
But so much of film history — the films themselves, as well as information about the people who made them — is still unknown. As we become more aware of how hard women have had to fight to make movies, with the hurdles of outright discrimination and sexual harassment often creating impossibly high barriers, it is worth recalling a time when women first had careers in one of the most technical positions in the industry.
When was that time? Roughly one hundred years ago
Ten seconds into this mysterious film fragment, an unidentified woman camera operator makes an appearan

Maxine Dicks
“The Mansfield News Journal,” Feb 6, 1922

¤
Back in 1920, Ida May Park, a prominent director at Universal Film Manufacturing Company, touted the challenges and rewards of the filmmaking profession in deliberately gender-inclusive terms: “[T]here is no one, man or woman,” she wrote in a book called Careers for Women, “who might not take up the profession with a certain degree of confidence in his or her ultimate success.”
This was uncharted professional territory, after all, though Park’s optimism for women in the field would prove false. The division between men’s and women’s work in the movies was already in the process of forming as the studios became big business. Park observed that the industry was too young to have an established path to the director’s chair, nor barriers to keep anyone, including women, out of it. However, she cautioned, “Knowledge of camera operation, of lighting effects, and of all the hundred and one less important mechanical details must be gained through work in the studio itself. The difficulty of obtaining a position as apprentice or assistant is unfortunately very great.” [i]
Park was correct: camera operation was the most important skill of all.
In filmmaking’s earliest days, the camera operator was, in fact, the director. There was no division of labor when filmmaking was, essentially, a one-man or one-woman show. According to director Alice Guy-Blaché, women weren’t just capable of being filmmakers, they were better positioned to succeed at it than their male counterparts. In 1914, Guy-Blaché proclaimed that “[o]f all the arts there is probably none in which [women] can make such a splendid use of talents so much more natural to a woman that to a man and so necessary to its perfection.” [ii]
Both Park and Guy-Blaché’s confidence about what women might do behind the camera was off the mark, at least in the immediate years after they expressed it. This is evident by looking at the case of the camera operator in the decades to come, when women were marginalized from directing and most other technical roles. Between the 1930s and the 1960s, there were only two female feature film directors working in Hollywood — Dorothy Arzner and Ida Lupino. To our knowledge, there was not a single female camera operator working for the studios in this same window.
READ MORE HERE 










The following essay appears as the preface to How Yiddish Changed America and How America Changed Yiddish, edited by the authors and published today by Restless Books.
¤
We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.— Isaac Bashevis Singer
¤
CELEBRATED AND MARGINALIZED, lionized and trivialized, Yiddish is so deeply woven into the fabric of the United States that it can sometimes be difficult to recognize how much it has transformed the world we live in today. It’s a language and culture that’s as American as bagels and Rice Krispies, Hollywood and Broadway, Colin Powell and James Cagney (and connected to all of these, in one way or another). Yet many Americans think of Yiddish, when they think of it at all, as a collection of funny-sounding words. Oy gvald, indeed!
The aim of this book is to present a very different picture of Yiddish, true to its history, as a language and culture that is — like the Americans who spoke, read, and created in it — radical, dangerous, and sexy, if also sweet, generous, and full of life. Its inception is embedded in a radical shift. Some see Yiddish not only as a language but as a metaphor. They note that unlike most other tongues, it doesn’t have an actual address — a homeland, so to speak — or claim, as Isaac Bashevis Singer did when accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature, that it doesn’t have words for weapons. And because of its history, it awakens strong feelings of nostalgia. But others see this as an ongoing problem. In particular, it irritates Yiddishists that the language is fetishized, especially by people who don’t speak it.
Since the Second World War, many valuable anthologies have helped American audiences understand the gamut of Yiddish possibilities. Arguably the most influential has been A Treasury of Yiddish Stories (1954), edited by Irving Howe and Eliezer Greenberg. It concentrated on the Yiddish literary outpouring from figures like the three so-called classic Yiddish writers, Mendele Moykher Sforim, I. L. Peretz, and Sholem Aleichem, and served as a conduit to connect an American Jewish audience to the pre-Holocaust civilization. Its publication was certainly a watershed: the volume was the manifestation of a collective longing. That anthology looked at the shtetlekh, or small towns, in which Ashkenazi Jews lived for centuries through an American lens, as noble, even idyllic, and with a sense of homesickness, but also as a site of contradictions, violence, and unfaithfulness. Readers simultaneously idealized what Israel Joshua Singer called “a world that is no more” and sought to understand themselves as a continuation, as well as a departure, from it.
Other anthologies of Yiddish literature in translation followed suit. Each concentrated on either a region (the USSR, for instance) or a particular literary genre (such as poetry). These volumes include Ashes Out of Hope: Fiction by Soviet-Yiddish Writers (1977), also edited by Howe and Greenberg; The Penguin Book of Modern Yiddish Verse (1987), edited by Howe, Ruth Wisse, and Khone Shmeruk; Benjamin and Barbara Harshav’s American Yiddish Poetry (1986); and Yiddish South of the Border: An Anthology of Latin American Yiddish Writing (2003), edited by Alan Astro. To various degrees, the objectives of these anthologies remained the same.
But in the last few decades, the position of Yiddish in the zeitgeist has dramatically changed. The study of Yiddish thrives in America, among teenagers and senior citizens, the religious and the secular, and everyone in between. Technology has made the language and culture available in wider ways. Young people are studying it. Scholarship related to it is prolific. Its musical rhythms and motifs have been borrowed by other traditions. It is part of movies, television, and radio. And the internet serves up lexicons, memes, recipes, and all sorts of surprising artifacts. Assimilation in the United States has indeed presented Yiddish with challenges, and it has responded impressively, dynamically, demonstrating its flexibility, complexity, and strength.
So what is Yiddish, exactly? First and foremost, it’s a language, a Jewish one. Throughout the thousands of years of their history, Jewish people have spoken many languages, their own and the languages of the majority cultures in which they’ve lived. Hebrew, the language of the Torah (what Christians call the Old Testament) and an official language of the contemporary State of Israel, is one such Jewish language, and many others have arisen in other places and times as means of communications for Jewish communities. For example, Ladino, or Judeo-Spanish, has been spoken by the descendants of the expulsion from Spain in 1492, and Judeo-Arabic has been spoken by Jews throughout the Arabic-speaking world. Yiddish, meanwhile, was the primary Jewish language of Ashkenaz, which is what Jews called northern Europe.
During much of its existence, Yiddish was dismissed as a zhargon, not quite a language at all; this was the common fate of many vernaculars, which were seen as less prestigious than scholarly languages like Latin, and the major European languages like French, English, and German, which had state power behind them. But Yiddish was absolutely a language, one that originated somewhere in central Europe about a thousand years ago, with the oldest extant example of a printed Yiddish sentence dating all the way back to 1272. Written in the Hebrew alphabet, and drawing for its grammar and vocabulary on Germanic, Slavic, Romance, and Semitic languages, Yiddish soon became the vernacular spoken by the majority of the world’s Jews for more than seven centuries, and over those centuries, a language of increasingly popular books and prayers.
In the 19th century, around the same time that languages like Italian and Norwegian evolved into their modern forms, Yiddish hit its stride, flowering into a language not just of commerce and community but of modern theater, journalism, literature, and even national aspiration. At that time, speakers of the dialects of Yiddish — sometimes referred to as Lithuanian, Polish, and Ukrainian Yiddish — constituted large minorities or even majorities in many European cities and in hundreds of European small towns and villages, while many more Yiddish speakers had relocated from Europe to other parts of the globe. The world’s total Yiddish-speaking population just before the Second World War is estimated by scholars to have been about 13 million people.
The language’s fate would be entangled with one of the world’s most brutal tragedies — millions of those Yiddish speakers were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators in the Holocaust during the Second World War — but it also flowered almost everywhere that Jews settled, before and after the war: Yiddish newspapers and books were published in Montreal and Montevideo, Cairo and Melbourne, Paris and Cape Town (not to mention Warsaw and New York). While mostly the language has had to survive, unlike most major languages, without a government’s backing, Yiddish was briefly an official language of the Soviet Union and today it is one in Sweden. It is currently spoken, at home and in the street, by more than 400,000 people around the world.
We might never know when the very first Yiddish speaker arrived on American shores, but it’s clear that a substantial number of speakers had already arrived by the middle of the 19th century, and that they quickly found their way to almost every corner of the developing nation. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, an enormous wave of European immigration brought hundreds of thousands and then millions of Yiddish speakers. Free from some of the strictures imposed by European governments, American Yiddish speakers created newspapers and theaters, and before long they had built one of the most vibrant centers for Yiddish culture in the world.
At the height of the language’s American popularity in the 1920s, a handful of different Yiddish newspapers circulated hundreds of thousands of copies every day, and Yiddish theaters on Second Avenue, in Manhattan, seated thousands of spectators every night. Also, as the primary language of a vast immigrant community of poor laborers and their upwardly mobile children, Yiddish became a crucial part of American politics — at a moment when socialism, anarchism, and communism competed for Americans’ votes with more familiar political orientations — and of American business, entertainment, cuisine, and speech.
In short, America, famously a nation of immigrants, was the site of many of Yiddish’s greatest triumphs — a Nobel Prize, best sellers, and theatrical smashes, as well as political movements that changed the way people everywhere work. As specific as its history might be, like any language, Yiddish is, for all intents and purposes, infinitely capacious: you can say anything in Yiddish that you want. And of course, in America, all kinds of people have done so: factory owners and communists, Hasidic Jews and Christian missionaries, anarchists and political fixers, scientists and quacks. To dive into the diversity and complexity of American Yiddish culture, as this book invites you to do, is one wonderful way to appreciate the wild possibilities of life in the United States.
This anthology showcases the rich diversity of Yiddish voices in America, and of the American culture influenced and inspired by Yiddish. It is made of poems, stories, memoirs, essays, plays, letters, conversations, and oral history. Many of the authors represented here were immigrants themselves who remained loyal to Yiddish in the new land. Others are their offspring, the so-called kinder for whom the language was a link to ancestors and a source of inspiration and provocation, or people from a variety of backgrounds, Jewish and not, who learned the language and made it their own.
Much of the material included here comes from the publications or collections of the Yiddish Book Center, a nonprofit organization working to recover, celebrate, and regenerate Yiddish and modern Jewish literature and culture, which was founded in 1980 by Aaron Lansky, then a 24-year-old graduate student of Yiddish literature (and now the Center’s president). In the course of his studies, Lansky realized that untold numbers of irreplaceable Yiddish books — the primary, tangible legacy of a thousand years of Jewish life in Eastern Europe — were being discarded by American-born Jews unable to read the language of their Yiddish-speaking parents and grandparents. So he organized a nationwide network of zamlers (volunteer book collectors) and launched a concerted campaign to save the world’s remaining Yiddish books before it was too late. Since its founding, the Center has recovered more than a million books, and published Pakn Treger (The Book Peddler), the Yiddish Book Center’s English-language magazine that features articles, works in translation, profiles, and portfolios about Yiddish culture. Not exactly “the best of Pakn Treger,” but drawing on its rich archive and the Center’s other collections, this anthology offers landmarks and sidelights of American Yiddish culture to give readers a spirited introduction to what Yiddish America has been and can be.
The book does not attempt to present this material in chronological order or to make a single argument. Like many anthologies, this one wants to be a smorgasbord. We offer the nexus between American and Yiddish culture, in English translation — with full knowledge of how complex, and also generative, translation can be. This anthology’s animating hope is that its readers will make connections between its heterogeneous content, browsing and skipping and finding surprises everywhere.
To that end, the 63 entries have been organized into six distinct parts. The first, “Politics and Possibility,” explores immigrants’ initial encounters with America. It features scenes of ritual and tradition in the Jewish ghetto of the Lower East Side and explores the ways children of immigrants ventured out into Harlem, the Bronx, and well beyond. The selections reflect how, around the turn of the 20th century, Yiddish culture in New York emanated from a community whose first concern was survival, and who had to decide what that struggle for survival implied about politics, ethics, and culture. For example, a watershed moment in the history of Yiddish in the United States took place in 1923 when Sholem Asch’s play God of Vengeance (written in Yiddish in 1906) opened, in English, on Broadway. The play represents a setting that was as shocking to audience members then as it would be today: a brothel operated by a Jewish pimp and offering the services of Jewish prostitutes.
The realities of Jewish participation in sex work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are complex and tragic, and what Asch’s play captures, with stark symbolism, is the tension between the noble aspirations of Jews of that time to holiness and purity, and the degradations imposed on them by the struggle to earn a living under discriminatory regimes. The play included much that shocked its audiences, including a scene in which a young, supposedly innocent girl is seduced by an older, female prostitute — posing the question of what would happen and what would change when the old authority structures, derived from the rabbis and from Christianity, crumbled away. The second act of God of Vengeance appears in this part. So does a letter written in 1936 about a female athlete who successfully transitioned to male, written to the editor of Forverts, arguably the most important immigrant publication in the United States, in which readers looked for answers to daily questions about becoming American: In what way is this nation also mine? How much tradition am I ready to sacrifice on the road to gaining new rights?
A central question for Yiddish speakers in America, as for most immigrants, was precisely a question about language. Each one had to answer for herself how much she should depend upon and defend the language of her childhood and tradition, and how much she should embrace a new language — English — with its strange possibilities. Such questions had especially large stakes for writers, artists, and politicians. “The Mother Tongue Remixed,” the second part of this anthology, concentrates on the vicissitudes of the Yiddish language as it adapted to the new territory. It features reflections on what happens in the classroom to make Yiddish survive, and the role dictionaries and other authoritative entities play in the continuation of life for the language.
Part two also includes appreciations of figures like Leo Rosten, a humorist who became famous for his efforts to codify “Yinglish” — the blend of Yiddish and English that became common in midcentury America — and some concrete examples of the playfulness with which Yiddish can be deployed, as in the case of Stanley Siegelman’s poem “The Artificial Elephant.” People often get defensive — or prescriptive — about the right ways and wrong ways to speak a language (and of course that kind of attitude has its value), but very often the story of Yiddish in America, even linguistically, has been a story of playfulness and irreverence.
The third part of this volume, “Eat, Enjoy, and Forget,” focuses on one of the avenues through which the culture of Yiddish-speaking Jews has had the broadest impact in America: food. In an immigrant culture, assimilation in the culinary dimension is about experimenting with flavors and ingredients in order to satisfy evolving palates. Those experiments quickly moved from Jewish homes out into restaurants. In the 20th century, delicatessens became staples of every major American city, and bagels triumphed across the country. American companies like Maxwell House and Crisco understood that they could profit by serving a hungry Jewish market. More recently, as nostalgia for Jewish cooking has found its way into haute cuisine, dishes such as latkes have fused with other ethnic favors (say, chocolate-based Mexican mole) to create new tastes that reflect the complex families and histories of Jews in America. Over the decades, classic Ashkenazi dishes have undergone changes in the way they are cooked, in how they are presented, and in what they are accompanied with during a meal. In a 1988, 14-minute short film by Karen Silverstein called Gefilte Fish, three Jewish women of the same family, an immigrant grandmother and her American daughter and granddaughter, explain how each prepares the dish. The first describes the labor-intensive process of cooking it, which she learned from her own mother, starting with the purchase of a living fish — “to make sure it is fresh.” The last just acquires a bottle of the Manischewitz brand before serving it on the table.
The fourth part, “American Commemoration,” focuses on the wide array of Yiddish literary voices in America. It includes translations from the Yiddish of a short story and a lecture by the American Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, still the only Yiddish writer to win the Nobel Prize in Literature — and examples of poetry, fiction, and literary essays by many equally talented but less widely celebrated Yiddish writers, including Chaim Grade, Jacob Glatstein, Anna Margolin, Blume Lempel, Peretz Fishbein, and Celia Dropkin. Almost all American Yiddish writers of that generation were born in Europe, and they naturally drew upon European models as well as Anglo-American ones in developing their verse and prose. It’s not surprising that their narratives frequently take up the experience of dislocation, whether by explicitly telling stories about being an émigré in a land with little patience for the past, or more implicitly by exploring the complications faced by Jews and others in the 20th century.
The fifth part of this anthology, “Oy, the Children!,” considers the descendants of Yiddish speakers, who went on to roles of increasing prominence in American culture. Inheritors of the immigrants’ pathos, their offspring built upon that legacy to make their own marks. In many cases, like Cynthia Ozick’s story “Envy: or, Yiddish in America” (1968) or Joan Micklin Silver’s film Hester Street, they did so by depicting the experiences of Yiddish speakers; artists who did so include novelist Michael Chabon and playwright Paula Vogel, both of them winners of the Pulitzer Prize. In other cases — for example, Hollywood actors Leonard Nimoy and Fyvush Finkel — they distilled the humor or charm of their Yiddish-speaking families and milieus and transformed them in one way or another for wider consumption. Among many other celebrated artists of recent decades, this section also includes graphic artists and storytellers whose drawings depict an older, Yiddish-speaking generation in unexpected and moving ways.
Finally, the sixth and last section of the anthology, “The Other Americas,” explores Yiddish as it flourished not just in the United States but through the American continent, from Canada to Argentina. (The word “America” comes from Amerigo — in Latin, Americus — Vespucci, the Italian cartographer, navigator, financier, and explorer who in 1501–’02 sailed to Brazil and the West Indies.) The language thrived in these regions, too, and continued to link Jews who had come from the same communities in Europe but found themselves in very different situations after immigration. These selections help to suggest some of the ways in which the story of Yiddish in the United States wasn’t unique but rather part of a larger set of phenomena that involved the establishment of Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora.
Each of the entries is introduced with a brief contextual headnote, and a timeline presents some fascinating and representative historical events — but, again, this isn’t a history. It’s most of all meant to be a grab bag, an opportunity for readers to get a little lost and to discover something that they weren’t expecting. It showcases the rich diversity of Yiddish voices in America and of the American culture influenced and inspired by, and created as a result of, Yiddish and its speakers and their descendants. They pushed Yiddish — its sound, its sensibility — to utterly unexpected regions in the continuation of its epic story. By doing so, they have changed America.
¤

Josh Lambert is the academic director of the Yiddish Book Center and visiting assistant professor of English at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He’s the author of American Jewish Fiction: A JPS Guide (2009) and Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (2014).
‘A Frankenstein creation’: Saudi prince says US peace plan takes away Palestine’s heart and soul

PUBLISHED TUE, FEB 11 2020 Sam Meredith@SMEREDITH19

KEY POINTS

The U.S. unveiled its long-awaited peace initiative for an Israeli-Palestinian deal with great fanfare late last month.

The proposal, which Trump delivered standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would give Israel most of what it has sought during decades of conflict.

“What I have seen so far of that deal is that it is trying to make of Palestine what I can call a Frankenstein creation,” Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki Al Faisal told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble on Tuesday.


Saudi politician: Trump’s Middle East deal a ‘monstrous conception’ of Palestine

President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan is a “monstrous conception” of a Palestinian state that is not going to progress any further, according to a former chief of Saudi intelligence.

The U.S. unveiled its long-awaited peace initiative for an Israeli-Palestinian deal with great fanfare late last month.

The proposal, which Trump delivered standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would give Israel most of what it has sought during decades of conflict. This includes the disputed city of Jerusalem and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Palestine has rejected the U.S. proposal outright, while Israel strongly supports it.

“What I have seen so far of that deal is that it is trying to make of Palestine what I can call a Frankenstein creation,” Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki Al Faisal told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble at the Milken Institute MENA Summit in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday.

It is “generally just a monstrous conception of a Palestinian state. It’s rightful capital Jerusalem is stripped from it, so that takes away its heart, and its borders are undefined and that takes away its soul.”

“So, it is not going to go very far — not only in our part of the world — but the whole world has rejected it,” Al Faisal said.

The White House was not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC on Tuesday.

A ‘step back’ on Palestine

His comments come one week after the European Union rejected parts of Trump’s peace plan for the Middle East.

The bloc, which took time to respond in order to allow for unanimity from all of its members, said on Feb. 4 that the plan departed from “internationally agreed parameters,” Reuters reported.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has since described the EU’s position as “regrettable and, to say the least, odd.”



When asked about the perception of the Trump administration in the region, Al Faisal replied: “On Palestine, definitely it is a step back, as I told you. They have abandoned all of the legitimate history and weight of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and adopted a course that is very much one-sided.”

“As far as Iran is concerned, he’s definitely, in my view, taken the right course. Because the nuclear deal allowed Iran, instead of becoming a constructive partner in the Middle East, to be a destructive player in the Middle East.”

“So, reconvening that negotiation and that deal is what he’s offering. The Iranians have not accepted renegotiating the deal and I think they should,” Al Faisal said.

SPACE WARS IN THE AGE OF THE PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY

Russian spacecraft following US spy satellite in ‘disturbing’ manner, Space Force general says


PUBLISHED MON, FEB 10 2020 Michael Sheetz@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

The leader of the U.S. Space Force confirmed that a pair of Russian spacecraft have come very close to a U.S. spy satellite, saying that the foreign satellites are showing “unusual and disturbing behavior.”

General John Raymond called out Russia for developing technologies that could harm U.S. systems in space.

“The United States finds these recent activities to be concerning and do not reflect the behavior of a responsible spacefaring nation,” Raymond said.

SPACEFARING LIKE SEAFARING AS JAMES TIBERUS KIRK WOULD SAY
Feb 24, 2011 - I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by, And the wheel's kick and the ...

A Soyuz-2.1b rocket carrying a missile detection spacecraft launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.
Mikhail Japaridze

The leader of the United States Space Force on Monday confirmed reports that a pair of Russian spacecraft have come very close to a U.S. spy satellite, saying that foreign satellites are showing “unusual and disturbing behavior.”

“Last November the Russian government launched a satellite that subsequently released a second satellite. These satellites have been actively maneuvering near a U.S. government satellite ... which the Russian government characterized as ‘inspector satellites,’” U.S. General John Raymond said in a statement to CNBC.

The extraordinary situation was noted by amateur spacecraft trackers last month, who pointed out that Russian satellite Kosmos 2542 had slowly made its way into the same area in orbit as USA 245 – a satellite the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) operates. The NRO is an agency within the Department of Defense and one of the five major U.S. intelligence agencies.

Kosmos 2542 was not initially near USA 245. But, two weeks after launch, the Russian satellite split into two different objects. By the middle of January, Kosmos 2542 and Kosmos 2543 had moved in orbit and were closing in on USA 245. The Russian spacecraft were as close as 300 kilometers from USA 245, in clear view of the U.S. satellite. Additionally, the two Russian objects were able to see multiple sides of USA 245 due to the nature of their orbits – causing satellite trackers to speculate that Kosmos 2542 and Kosmos 2543 were indeed inspecting USA 245.


Gen. Raymond, recently appointed as the head of the U.S. Space Force, compared the recent activities to Russian satellite tests in 2017. Those satellites “exhibited characteristics of a weapon,” Raymond said, because one of the spacecraft fired “a high-speed projectile into space.”

He specifically called out Russia for developing technologies that could harm U.S. systems in space, saying the recent maneuvers could “create a dangerous situation in space.”

“The United States finds these recent activities to be concerning and do not reflect the behavior of a responsible spacefaring nation,” Raymond said.
WATCH NOW
VIDEO00:53
Russia and China developing ‘destructive’ space weapons

---30---
UPS is taking on Amazon with its own fleet of electric vans

KEY POINTS

Arrival says the initial order for the vehicles is worth “hundreds of millions of euros”.
The last few years have seen a number of big companies, including Amazon, order electric vehicles.




Courtesy of Andor Ivan, Arrival


UPS has placed an order for 10,000 electric vehicles from U.K.-based start-up Arrival, with the logistics giant’s venture capital arm also investing an undisclosed amount in the firm.

In an announcement Wednesday, Arrival — which was set up in 2015 — said the initial order for the vehicles was worth “hundreds of millions of euros”. The firm’s relationship with UPS dates back to 2016, when the two companies announced a partnership.


The purpose-built vehicles will be introduced to markets in the U.K., Europe and North America between 2020 and 2024, while there is an option for another order of 10,000.

Arrival develops materials, software and components that can be used to customize the operations and vehicles of fleet owners. It says its “skateboard platforms” enable vehicles to be manufactured in different weights, shapes and sizes depending on the needs of its customers. Arrival will be manufacturing the vehicles for UPS at microfactories in the U.S. and U.K., with plans for microfactories in Europe too.

“Electric vehicles form a cornerstone to our sustainable urban delivery strategies,” Juan Perez, chief information and engineering officer at UPS, said in a statement. “Taking an active investment role in Arrival enables UPS to collaborate in the design and production of the world’s most advanced electric delivery vehicles,” Perez added.

The deal with UPS follows a 100 million euro (around $110 million) investment in Arrival from the Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Motors Corporation earlier this month. According to Arrival, that investment valued the company at 3 billion euros.

The last few years have seen a number of big companies add electric vehicles to their fleets. Last September, tech giant Amazon announced it was ordering 100,000 electric vehicles from Rivian, a firm it has invested $440 million in.


According to Amazon, the electric vans will begin deliveries in 2021, with the business wanting 10,000 vehicles to be “on the road as early as 2022.” The aim is for the full 100,000 to be deployed by 2030.

Last November, the Volkswagen Group officially started series production of its ID.3 electric car, with the German carmaker planning to launch “almost 70 new electric models” by 2028.

The Hyundai Motor Group has said it will launch 23 battery electric models over the next few years, while Volvo Cars wants 50% of the cars it sells to be fully electric by 2025.

Worldwide electric car sales hit 1.98 million in 2018, according to the International Energy Agency, with global stock reaching 5.12 million.


Norwegian energy major Equinor to run ship fitted with ammonia fuel cells

PUBLISHED FRI, JAN 24 2020 Anmar Frangou

KEY POINTS

The project will involve the modification of Eidesvik Offshore’s “Viking Energy” ship.

Equinor says the vessel will take supplies to installations located on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.



This image shows Equinor’s Johan Sverdrup oil field in the North Sea west of Stavanger, Norway, on January 7, 2020.
Carina Johansen | NTB Scanpix | Getty Images


The European Union has awarded 10 million euros ($11.05 million) in funding to a scheme that is aiming to install an ammonia-powered fuel cell on a ship.

The beneficiary of the money, the ShipFC project, is a consortium of 14 firms and institutions co-ordinated by NCE Maritime CleanTech.


The project will involve the modification of Eidesvik Offshore’s “Viking Energy” ship. The vessel has been used by Norwegian energy major Equinor for 17 years.

“Together with Equinor, we are now launching a full-scale research project to test a propulsion solution based on fuel cells running on pure and emission-free ammonia,” Jan Fredrik Meling, who is the CEO of Eidesvik Offshore, said Thursday.

“The goal is to install fuel cell modules with a total power of 2 MW (megawatts) on board Viking Energy in 2024,” he added. “This will make the vessel the world’s first emission-free supply vessel.”

In its own statement, Equinor explained that the vessel would take supplies to installations located on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.

Vermund Hjelland, vice president of technology and development at Eidesvik Offshore, said part of the testing would see the Viking Energy use ammonia “in transit between harbour and offshore installations for one year.”


The firm, Hjelland explained, envisaged ammonia also being used to power the ship when alongside the quay.

“Our ambition is that 60 to 70 percent of the energy consumption will come from ammonia during the test period,” he said. “In addition, we want to demonstrate that the technology can supply up to 90 per cent of the total power demand.”

Cecilie Ronning, who is senior vice president for Equinor’s joint operations support, said the company was aiming to reduce emissions in its supply chain “and regards the use of ammonia as a promising solution.”
Renewable sea change


The announcement of this week’s funding comes against the backdrop of a significant shift in the shipping industry.

At the beginning of January, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) introduced new emissions regulations that it’s hoped will curb pollution generated by ships.

And in August 2019, an all-electric ferry capable of carrying roughly 30 vehicles and 200 passengers completed its maiden voyage.

The e-ferry Ellen crossed waters between the ports of Soby and Fynshav, which are located on the islands of Aero and Als in the south of Denmark.

The ship is powered by a battery system with a capacity of 4.3 megawatt hours, provided by Switzerland-headquartered energy storage firm Leclanche, and is able to sail as much as 22 nautical miles (approximately 25.3 miles) between charges.

Another example of more sustainable shipping is Finnish firm Viking Line’s M/S Viking Grace, a hybrid ship which has the capacity to use diesel, “traditional heavy fuel oil”, or liquefied natural gas.

To offset that, the vessel can also make use of a 24-meter-tall cylindrical rotor sail developed by Norsepower Oy, another Finnish company. The sail uses something called the “Magnus effect” for propulsion, according to Viking Line.

As the rotor spins, passing air will flow with a lower pressure on one side compared to the other, the business says. This difference in pressure creates a propulsion force that moves the ship forward.
CNBC’s Sam Meredith and Natasha Turak contributed to this report

---30---
A tidal project in Scottish waters just generated enough electricity to power nearly 4,000 homes

PUBLISHED MON, JAN 27 2020 Anmar Frangoul 

KEY POINTS

The European Commission has described “ocean energy” as both abundant and renewable.

The MeyGen tidal stream array has now exported more than 25.5 gigawatt hours of electricity to the grid since 2017.


SIMEC Atlantis Energy


A tidal power project in waters off the north coast of Scotland sent more than 13.8 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity to the grid last year, according to an operational update issued Monday. This figure – a record – almost doubled the previous high of 7.4 GWh in 2018.

In total, the MeyGen tidal stream array has now exported more than 25.5 GWh of electricity to the grid since the start of 2017, according to owners Simec Atlantis Energy. Phase 1A of the project is made up of four 1.5 megawatt (MW) turbines.


The 13.8 GWh of electricity exported in 2019 equates to the average yearly electricity consumption of roughly 3,800 “typical” homes in the U.K., according to the company, with revenue generation amounting to £3.9 million ($5.09 million).

Onshore maintenance is now set to be carried out on the AR1500 turbine used by the scheme, with Atlantis aiming to redeploy the technology in spring.

In addition to the production of electricity, Atlantis is also planning to develop an “ocean-powered data centre” near the MeyGen project.

The European Commission has described “ocean energy” as being both abundant and renewable. It’s estimated that ocean energy could potentially contribute roughly 10% of the European Union’s power demand by the year 2050, according to the Commission.

While tidal power has been around for decades — EDF’s 240 MW La Rance Tidal Power Plant in France was built as far back as 1966 — recent years have seen a number of new projects take shape.


In December last year, Scottish tidal energy business Nova Innovation was issued with a permit to develop a project in Nova Scotia, Canada.

In an announcement at the time, the firm said a total of 15 tidal stream turbines would be installed by the year 2023. The project, according to the firm, will produce enough electricity to power 600 homes.

Elsewhere, a business called Orbital Marine Power is developing what it describes as the “world’s most powerful tidal turbine.”

The company says the turbine will have a swept area of more than 600 square meters and be able to generate “over 2 MW from tidal stream resources.” It will use a 72-meter-long “floating superstructure” to support two 1 MW turbines.

---30---