In our class this semester we have focused a great deal on early American history, specifically the Massachusetts Bay Colony and religious issues associated with its development. While thinking about the terrorism in Boston, I was reminded that the history of colonial America spills over with violent events. While violence in the past and present differ in motivation and intention, there is no doubt still the "terror" invoked by the act.
In The Unredeemed Captive, John Demos examines the 1704 attack by a French and Native American war party on the Puritan English settlement of Deerfield, Massachusetts. While the English had been battling French and Native foes, the attack on the village was unexpected and took its toll. Demos writes "Finally: the sum of the losses sustained, the massacre's full measure...Killed, 'in town,' 39 - and in the 'meadow fight,'an additional nine soldiers....Thus the 'slaine' altogether make 48. Captured, and now bound for Canada, 112. Alive at home - that is, the survivors - 140 (including ten remaining 'garrison soldiers'" (Demos 24).
In his syndicated newspaper column this week, the "God Squad" writer, Rabbi Marc Gellman, offered a further historical and biblical interpretation of the terrorism in Boston which I thought was quite thoughtful and timely - see below.
The Bible and Boston
Only once in the Bible does God command us to remember one of our enemies. His name was Amalek. In Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (KJV) we read:"Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of
Amalek attacked the weak ones at the rear of the march. By choosing to attack the elderly and the young, the vulnerable and slow in the rear of the great Exodus, he guaranteed that he would be able to kill the maximum number of people with the least risk to his soldiers.
After the attack by Amalek in the Bible, God commands Moses, "Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven...the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17:14,16).
The enemy we must never forget is also the enemy of God in every generation. Amalek is more than a man; he is a symbol, a symbol of terrorism, or radical evil in every generation where the Messiah has still not come or come again. Amalek was the first terrorist and on Monday, Amalek visited
As I sat transfixed, sorrowful and angry before the television screen bringing me no news but revelatory images, one image caught my eye, as I'm sure it did yours. It was the picture of the first moments after the first explosion and it showed an older runner going wobbly kneed and collapsing in the street. In a brief report in
"...the runner in what is quickly becoming the iconic photo, who is being aided by police after being knocked to the ground by the explosion, looks to be older. He is somebody who likely took around five hours to complete the race. He is a civilian not only in the political sense, but in the athletic sense. In other words, it seems likely that whoever was responsible for the explosions--assuming somebody was responsible--was deliberately targeting ordinary decent folk rather than the superstars. And, whatever message they were intended to convey, the explosions created the impression that being ordinary is no protection against extraordinary horror. That feeling is the definition of being terrorized."
I think I know the message the killer or killers were intending to convey: Amalek is not dead. I also know the message we must send back to Amalek: We will not forget you! Our deceptively calm and terror-free existence since 9/11 has not seduced us into forgetting you.
Our memory of your tactics in seeking out the old runners will not terrorize us into stopping the race and hiding in our houses. Our public places and our public celebrations will not end because of what happened in
We do not yet know the name you chose in
An old rabbinic legend teaches that the reason God led the people in the Exodus with "a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night" was not to show the people the right direction, but rather to show them the right speed. The march out of the house of bondage was to proceed only at the speed of the slowest person in the march. That way, the strong did not get too far ahead of the weak. That way, the strong did not lose touch with the weak.
The war against Amalek is a slow war, but it is a war we're not fighting alone. We are together, and we are being led through falling and blood, through dust and despair to freedom.
May God comfort the souls of the victims of Amalek in
(Send QUESTIONS ONLY to The God Squad via email at godsquadquestion@aol.com.)
(c) 2013 THE GOD SQUAD DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Very rarely in a U.S. History class have we made it all the way to current history and the recent events that may have made it into the books. We may overlook these events now as tragic happenings just as our ancestors did centuries ago rather than actually considering if it is history. My question to you is what do you think from our recent years have made enough of an impact to make it into our history books? I'm sure not every event in American history has been recorded in the history books used to teach students, but which of these recent events will fall into the lesser category of American events? Will these recent bombings make the history books as a terrorist act, will North Korea's nuclear threats make it (assuming we don't go to war)? I'm curious to hear an experts opinion on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an excellent question, basically, what is important enough to make it into our history books? This all depends on which history course you might be taking at the time. Any basic U. S. History text will now discuss the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and in the future will undoubtedly discuss the attacks in Boston on April 15th. This was the largest terrorist attack on U. S. soil since 9/11. If you go back in further, there is probably mention of the Timothy McVeigh terroist bombing in Oklahoma City in the mid-1990s. Usually, these events are discussed in the context of U. S. foreign relations or domestic issues at home that are creating violent responses. Another way to think about this is to consider the murdering of doctors who perform abortions (there have been several since the 1990s). While this is probably not tagged as "terrorism" because there was one specific target, the broader view of these actions though is to see violence used to further an agenda/political/ideological position, which in many ways does sound like terrorism. This also reflects fringe actions by violent people on a very big American culture war (Roe V. Wade).
DeleteThe other interesting part of your question is "when" does history become important? The odd thing that I've learned about this is that every generation filters its own current passions/problems through the lens of history. This is why books are still being written about the American Revolution and the Civil War. One might ask, what more can be said? In response, part of this is each new generation takes its own current issues and grabbles again with the past. For example, newer scholarship on the Civil War has examined issues of gender (what was the role of women in the Civil War? How did women participate in the war on the homefront?) These are questions that may not have been asked fifty years ago by scholars, but following the feminist movement of the 1960s-70s and continuing feminism and equality issues, these are issues scholars want to explore.
Again, not every historical episode will make it into a general history book, but over time (usually 20 years out or so) people can see what the "big" issues are for a particular age, and settle on those as the most important for an era.
Hope this helps.