A ticket to oblivion

The dark distortion in one specific area
casts a shadow on the integrity of the whole

By Shalom Freedman, a writer in Jerusalem, 07/14/2003

A review (as of 2008-01-04) at Barnes and Noble.com (www.bn.com)
of A Study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee.

[Shalom Freedman is a prolific reviewer.
At Amazon.com, he is one of their “Top 50 Reviewers”
(on 2008-01-04 he was Number 30, with 3781 reviews (!!)),
see his Amazon profile.]

[Here is Freedman’s review.
I have edited it lightly to attempt to correct its punctuation,
and added paragraphing and emphasis.
I hope that has not changed his meaning.
In case of doubt, the original, unaltered, appears below.]

Toynbee’s work is a masterful effort at understanding all of human history.
It is also much beyond most great efforts of this kind in that
he seeks out underlying laws of the historical process itself.
I have read all twelve volumes, some more than once and
can attest to the hypnotic power of a work
which promises to give total understanding of all human development.

Unfortunately as happens with the work of most generalists
the work tends to become much more suspect
as one focuses in on the area of one’s own specialization.
This is especially true here, and in this case
for it relates to
one of the most controversial and problematic subjects in Toynbee’s work
his treatment of the Jews.

In most standard histories of Western civilization
the Jews are seen along with the Greeks
as having provided the foundation.
The Greeks give the scientific- aesthetic basis and
the Jews, the moral- religious.
Toynbee does not respect this traditional distinction, and
makes a concerted effort to downplay the role of the Jews,
and to diminish their significance.

[“Makes a concerted effort”?
I, too, have read Toynbee,
not all 12 volumes of the Study,
but the two-volume abridgement of volumes 1 through 10 by D.C. Sommervell
and Volume 12, Reconsiderations, of the complete work.
Toynbee seems to just call the facts as he sees them,
certainly not trying to “diminish their significance,”
but, again, just calling things as he sees them.
He certainly gives many footnotes and references for his opinions.]

One can say that this happens because of his broad way of seeing things,
his using the concept of ‘civilization’ as basis for analysis.
But that becomes very suspect when one considers
Toynbee’s treatment of Jews in the modern era,
and especially in relation to the conflict over the Holy Land.

[Toynbee does dare to criticize the Zionist project,
especially in an annex to Reconsiderations,
viewing it as another example of
Western colonialism and displacement of non-Western lands and people.
But that, quite clearly, has nothing to do with
Freedman’s charge that Toynbee has
“ma[de] a concerted effort to downplay the role of the Jews,
and to diminish their significance.”]

The feeling is that
Toynbee suffered from a kind of resentment and envy of the Jews
which led him to talk about their ‘fossil civilization’
at the very time the Jews were reviving themselves,
and their ancient language and culture in the Holy Land.

[Please!
One cannot say anything critical of Israel, Zionism, or the Jews
without being accused of some sort of malady,
in this case, resentment and envy.
Come on!
Does any sane person really believe that the Jews, and Israel,
are so perfect that
no criticism of them may be validly made?

Many Jews, not just Freedman,
were offended by Toynbee’s use of the term “fossil”
to describe aspects of their culture.
In my view,
following ancient patterns of conduct and ways of thinking
is not necessarily bad.
Further, Freedman’s statement
“Jews were reviving ... their ancient language and culture”
sounds not dissimilar to
Toynbee’s “fossil civilization” locution.]

Anyone who in fact studies
the intellectual life of mankind over the past two centuries
cannot help but being amazed by
the part this very small minority of all mankind played
in the transformation (for good, or for bad) of its intellectual life.
Toynbee wants to ignore this.

[Anyone who has actually read Toynbee knows how misleading this is.
The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Western intellectual life
form but a tiny fragment of Toynbee’s vast canvas.]

He too ignores what other philosophers of history
like Alfred North Whitehead, and Kurt Lowith
pointed to as
the Jewish contribution
to the very conception of ‘linear progressive development’
to our own historical sense.
For Whitehead
this Jewish way of seeing the world taken over by the Protestant world
was absolutely essential to the making of a scientific revolution.
Toynbee instead saw the Jews (and this was another way of attack on his part)
[Freedman seems absolutely paranoid
to view Toynbee’s comments on monotheism
as being an attack on the Jews.]
as bringing into the world the kind of ‘exclusivist monotheism’
he implied Christianity and Islam were guilty of.

No doubt were Toynbee alive today
he would find the Jews responsible for the Taliban, and for Al Quaeda.
This may seem an incidental matter, but it is not.
It is necessary to remember that Toynbee wrote in years in which
the background was being laid to, and the action taken for
what is arguably the greatest crime in human history,
the destruction of the Jews of Europe.
He sat in his study making snide remarks and being above the fray,
but the tone of his work contributed to the bonfire.

Therefore all his intelligence,
and all his vast scheme of understanding
seem for me anyway,
tiny pebbles which the great sea of time will wash far away.
One cannot hope to see the world whole
if one takes one of its central parts and distorts it to lower existence.

---

[In case anyone is concerned that
my attempts to fix apparent punctuation problems, and the emphasis I added,
may have altered the meaning of the original,
here is the original,
as obtained through a Windows cut and paste on 2008-01-06,
without any editing whatsoever.]

The dark distortion in one specific area casts a shadow on the integrity of the whole
Shalom Freedman, a writer in Jerusalem, 07/14/2003

Toynbee's work is a masterful effort at understanding all of human history. It is also much beyond most great efforts of this kind in that he seeks out underlying laws of the historical process itself.I have read all twelve volumes, some more than once and can attest to the hypnotic power of a work which promises to give total understanding of all human development. Unfortunately as happens with the work of most generalists the work tends to become much more suspect as one focuses in on the area of one's own specialization. This is especially true here, and in this case for it relates to one of the most controversial and problematic subjects in Toynbee's work his treatment of the Jews. In most standard histories of Western civilization the Jews are seen along with the Greeks as having provided the foundation. The Greeks give the scientific- aesthetic basis and the Jews, the moral- religious. Toynbee does not respect this traditional distinction, and makes a concerted effort to downplay the role of the Jews, and to diminish their significance. One can say that this happens because of his broad way of seeing things, his using the concept of ' civilization' as basis for analysis. But that becomes very suspect when one considers Toynbee's treatment of Jews in the modern era, and especially in relation to the conflict over the Holy Land. The feeling is that Toynbee suffered from a kind of resentment and envy of the Jews which led him to talk about their ' fossil civilization' at the very time the Jews were reviving themselves, and their ancient language and culture in the Holy Land. Anyone who in fact studies the intellectual life of mankind over the past two centuries cannot help but being amazed by the part this very small minority of all mankind played in the transformation( for good, or for bad) of its intellectual life. Toynbee wants to ignore this.He too ignores what other philosophers of history like Alfred North Whitehead, and Kurt Lowith pointed to as the Jewish contribution to the very conception of ' linear progressive development' to our own historical sense.For Whitehead this Jewish way of seeing the world taken over by the Protestant world was absolutely essential to the making of a scientific revolution. Toynbee instead saw the Jews ( and this was another way of attack on his part) as bringing into the world the kind of ' exclusivist monotheism' he implied Christianity and Islam were guilty of. No doubt were Toynbee alive today he would find the Jews responsible for the Taliban, and for Al Quaeda. This may seem an incidental matter, but it is not. It is necessary to remember that Toynbee wrote in years in which the background was being laid to, and the action taken for what is arguably the greatest crime in human history, the destruction of the Jews of Europe. He sat in his study making snide remarks and being above the fray, but the tone of his work contributed to the bonfire. Therefore all his intelligence, and all his vast scheme of understanding seem for me anyway, tiny pebbles which the great sea of time will wash far away. One cannot hope to see the world whole if one takes one of its central parts and distorts it to lower existence.

[End of original version
of Freedman’s review of Toynbee.]