Dr. Don Seeman’s ethnography, One People, One Blood: Ethiopian-Israelis and the Return to Judaism, ponders race and religion within the broader political and religious context of modern day Israel. Throughout the ethnography, Dr. Seeman grapples with his own place within the ethnographic space as both an anthropologist and as an active participant in the world, particularly as a Jewish person in the midst of a religiously charged public debate. Through his analysis of his fieldwork, the reader, or at least I, came out more conflicted on the “Jewish Question”than before I read the book. Throughout the work, the reader is asked to scale back and question the categories we place ourselves in and the “purity of heart,” meaning how one must strip themselves open to perform change in a way that satiates the powers at play. There is no black and white answer in this situation, rather a fluid experience of life that defies categorization, because “ethnography is, at its core, always about the relationship of the theoretical to the lived and existential heart of social life–to the content of social experience” (Seeman 13).
The Beta-Israelis struggle against the stigma, and I would argue racism, that faces them as they attempt to immigrate and prostrate themselves before powers divided along fundamental questions of what constitutes Jewishness. Part of the reason this question is so nebulous is because we do not have the categories to answer it. There is a notion that Jewishness has something to do with ethnicity or “race” and religious practice. The Beta-Israelis were already blurring the lines of this category as they isolated themselves from Western Jewish understandings of the religion. This is compounded by the meddling of Christian missionaries who further muddled what it is to be Jewish by separating ethnicity and religion. The LJS missionaries told the Ethiopian Jews that they would still be Jewish even if they were Christian, because they construed Jewishness as a racial or ethnic identification, as well as, a religious one. So, if they converted, “LJS…emphasized the pathos of converted Jews who had found the true faith yet sought to maintain the moral solidarity of their racial or national Jewishness” (Seeman 53). Thus, the notion of the “completed Jew” came to fruition within the Ethiopian population. This leaves us with questions of kinship and belonging in Israel when Ethiopians converted to Christianity and then reverted to Judaism.
I have to say I am not Jewish, so my understanding of the Beta-Israelis following Jewish practices and wanting to be Jewish was one of “great, they are Jewish.” I had no idea that converting to Christianity would be the “ultimate betrayal” that Dr. Seeman claims it is (Seeman 192). This in and of itself is a paradox to me because many Beta-Israelis learned they were Jewish and just sort of slipped back into that identity rather than having a conversion as they would have to have in Christianity. In one such instance, a Jewish Ethiopian remembers returning to Judaism as the “natural effect of uncovering something that had always been there waiting to be discovered (Seeman 98). So, why did they have to perform a Jewish conversion in the Return-to-Judaism programming? If their Jewishness was contested and they decided to return to Judaism knowing that they might struggle, is that not enough to vouch for their character and sense of wanting to belong in that community? Dr. Seeman notes that Jewishness is something that is not just about the individual: “The obvious paradox is that Jewishness, which is beyond individual choice and volition, must be chosen willingly by former converts or their descendants” (Seeman 192). So, in choosing Judaism again, are they not denouncing Christianity? I would argue they are because in my experience Christians would no longer claim them if they practiced Judaism instead of Christianity, but Dr. Seeman brings the conflict back into the national debate of belonging in Israel rather than binaries of religious conviction. He writes, “one of the reasons that the return to Judaism generates so much anxiety is in Israel is that, like conversion, it evokes debate over the relationship between religious and ethnic bases of national belonging, which are related to the tension…in the formulation of contemporary Jewishness” (Seeman 193). Maybe the question is not about believing oneself to be Jewish, but about who decides who takes on that identity.
The Ethiopian Jews seeking to immigrate under the law of kinship were working under the constraints of a predetermined fixed identity and performance of identity in order to be accepted. This does not mean that their convictions are not real, it just means that in a context where you are having to perform a “purity of heart” in order to be believed the actions of that performance are looking towards a specific state power and audience: “The return to Judaism…[is] about the reconfiguration of social memory” (Seeman 98). How one should be Israeli was and is tantamount to how the Beta-Israelis absorbed into Israeli society. A part of their programming in the Return-to-Judaism program was to learn specific things about Israeli culture. For instance, rather than using low-top coffee tables as a space to gather with the family, Western dinner tables and chairs were demonstrated as the correct or culturally apt way to have your home configured (Seeman 111). Thus, not only were Ethiopian Jews having to display a specific form of Judaism, they were also having to alternate the social customs they were used to in order to fully display a dedication to their new identity as Israelis. As an American, I see a lot of the same themes playing out within the sense of belonging and identity for immigrants. There is a certain level of performance for Americans in what music you listen to or what language you speak at the supermarket. Many people, including a number of international students at Emory, have talked about feeling the need to perform a type of image that they see on television in order to appear Americanized or to make others comfortable. Even when acceptance within the cultural context is perceived, often stigma still lies in wait for people the second that their identity slips into something that does not fulfill the category of what is [insert your version of something here].
All of the identity politics and religious debate bring me to the Ethiopian Blood Affair as a critical moment of identity and acceptance in Israel. It seems as if all of the internal conflicts and backhanded statements about Beta-Israeli belonging came to a breaking point at the exchange of bodily fluids. The blood banks in Israel have historically been places of belonging and state unity: “The blood bank is not just a symbol of national unity in Israel; through the exchange of precious and inalienable gifts, it is a privileged site of its physical enactment. Especially in a time of war, the bank is widely perceived as a resource for the whole national collective” (Seeman 167). To turn someone away or throw out their blood is as if to throw out their personhood and their commitment to the nation, or at least, that is the way I see it. The blood banks would accept their donations and then not use them. The lack of utilizing the valuable and time consuming donation was offensive to many. It also felt like a sign that Ethiopian Israelis were never truly accepted into the community (Seeman 164).
The blood politics around HIV and AIDS in Israel mirrored the American AIDS crisis. Blood was used as a way to fear-monger and excuse hatred among Americans against queer people. The same lens could–and I argue–should be used for analysis of the event with the Ethiopian Israelis. It is not as simple as saying it was a matter of race, but it was certainly an open threat to their belonging as their basic humanity–their literal blood–is discarded out of fear of the other. Seeman discusses how yes, there was a prevalence of aids in the Ethiopian-Israeli community, but there was also a rising prevalence of AIDS across the Israeli nation (Seeman 162). Thus, the AIDS scare is used as a way to villainize and other the Ethiopian-Israelis for their different Jewishness. The relationship between Ethiopian and Western Jews was still up in the air and blood was just a bandage for a deeper wound. “The humiliating airing of communal secrets that precipitated the Blood Affair was not related primarily to high rates of HIV infection…but to the painfully unfinished business of answering the question of kinship between Beta Israel and the other Jews (Seeman 163).
The business of kinship is still unfinished for Ethiopian Jews. As they assimilate into the country, their Ethiopian and Israeli identity still come under scrutiny. What constitutes Jewishness is not answered. I spent time after finishing the book to try and figure out how I feel about the lives of people who want to be in a group and yet still somehow end up subversive to a construction of what their identity “should” look like. We are having issues with identity politics like this even on this campus right now as we enter a political limbo. I don’t have an answer to the “Jewish Question” or to a purity of heart. But I do have a question for you all to argue about in the comments. Is simply wanting to be enough? Can one ever fully absorb into a culture that has dictated how one should be absorbed to be “real”? I do not know, but I would like to find out.
I really enjoyed your blog post. I think you did a great job of summarizing the complexity of Jewish identity. There is certainly a great desire for individuals to put themselves in a box, but it is more complicated when different definitions of Judaism exist. Judaism is an ethno-religion, meaning the Jewish religion is tied to the ethnicity of the people (where they came from). Personally, I find being Jewish to be very special. Knowing that we stemmed from the same people and the same land, it is amazing that we’ve survived this long with the number of enemies we have and have been able to retain certain customs and rituals. Regarding your question, I’m not entirely sure. I think it’s certainly possible to feel like you belong. It just depends on the situation you’re in, who is in the situation with you, how welcoming they are, and how you personally feel.
Lucy, I think you did an excellent job both summarizing Dr. Seeman’s work and also relating ideas in the book to different aspects of our society and your own life. At the beginning of your post, you talk about Dr. Seeman’s struggle as an ethnographer and as a Jew to find his position within his own study. We have discussed this idea a lot in class and encountered it in other readings from the course. I think an essential part of analyzing ethnographic work is getting an insight into the ethnographer’s identity in order to better understand the position in which they write and who they may be writing for. By being transparent about his positionality, Dr. Seeman invites his readers to examine and explore the nuances of identity. We also see how an ethnographer’s positionality can affect their work in Herzog and Zborowski’s extremely nostalgic recount of life in the shtetl. When we know more about the anthropologists who compose these ethnographies, we have a deeper appreciation for and knowledge of the people and time in which they write.
I agree with the other comments that you did a great job capturing a lot of different considerations within a very broad debate in a short blog post. In this book, I found it interesting how early within the introduction the question of what it means to be Jewish is framed as one with a variety of implications including important political considerations of citizenship and blood banks. When Dr. Seeman writes on page 6 that “the ‘Feres Mura’ dilemma cannot be divorced from the wider spectrum of problems facing the Ethiopian immigrant community”, I think it’s a good reminder that there are circumstances affecting both the wider Jewish community and Ethiopian Jews that will also shape their reasoning as to who is a Jew. Though we’ve discussed this idea in class, seeing it laid out again made me wonder how we might answer the question differently if there weren’t these pressures on it.
This reading was very powerful to me as Professor Seeman incorporated personal reflection as he studied the “Jewish Question” through the lens of Beta-Israel. Dr. Seeman starts by introducing the reader to the broader question of what it means to “return” to Judaism and how this process is influenced by both internal and external perceptions of Jewish identity. This was similar to that of Shmuel Yilma’s Falasha to Freedom, incorporating the idea of alyiah and the idea of the existential connection to Israel. He also incorporates a lot of self-reflection, both his own and prompts to the reader to think about what it means to be jewish—whether its race, religion, or kinship. Moreover, similar to Meyerhoff, Dr. Seeman reflection on his position as an anthropologist and a jew. Personally, I really appreciated Dr. Seemans reflection on his own jewish experiences and how they relate and differentiate from that of Ethiopian jews which enriches his ethnography. I found it very interesting how he investigated what it means to be jewish saying, “The obvious paradox is that Jewishness, which is beyond individual choice and volition, must be chosen willingly by former converts or their descendants” (Seeman 192). To me, this analysis incorporated both kinship and and religion as it aknowlegde the generational aspect of judaism, but also the personal aspect. This analysis also does not constrain how religious one must be in order to consider themselves to be considered jewish which I thought was very important as we see much more secular and reform jews.
I really liked your blog post as well as your perspective on Beta Israel and the struggles they went through after making Aliyah. I also really liked your discussion of identity and how this instance of the “Jewish question” becomes even more complicated as it involves discussing national and religious belonging, as well as contemporary Jewishness, all very complex and complicated issues. Your question about “wanting being enough” was a really good question because there are lots of Jews in Israel that are secular but are still seen as “real” Jews while Ethiopian Jews may not have been seen as real Jews to some even though they had such a strong desire to belong to Israel. I had also highlighted the same quote as you: “We have already seen how this strong feature of modern Judaism led to rejection and turmoil for the descendants of Beta Israel converts who sought to reassert their Jewishness, yet it is paradoxically that same primordial, inalienable conception of Jewishness that the act of return promises to uncover. The obvious paradox is that Jewishness, which is beyond individual choice and volition, must be chosen willingly by former converts or their descendants (326).” There is a movie called “Live and Become” that I watched in high school and it’s a really interesting depiction of the turmoil in Israel during this time. It focuses on a young boy who is able to escape Ethiopia during Operation Moses even though he is a Christian boy and pretends to belong to a Jewish woman who lost her son. While in the movie, Shlomo is not technically Jewish, he deals with all the same obstacles as the other Beta Israel. I’m sure the the movie is problematic in some ways but it was interesting to think about that movie I had watched years ago and now, reading about real, ethnographic research and thinking about Jewish identity within Israeli culture in a very nuanced way.
I really liked your reflection on Dr. Seeman’s ethnography because it focused on many of the different faucets of the Ethiopian Jewish journey. Through Dr. Seeman’s observations and interactions with Ethiopian Jewish communities in Israel, he addressed complicated questions that are at the root of religious and social debates about Judaism. Lucy, you did an effective job at explaining the conflicting feelings people feel when discussing the “Jewish Question”, and I agree with many of the points you stated. I particularly liked how you were vulnerable and self-aware when sharing that you are not Jewish but are trying to understand why the Beta-Israelis struggled so much to be viewed as Jews by their Israeli neighbors. I also really liked this quote and it made me thinnk aboiut similar questions you mentioned, “one of the reasons that the return to Judaism generates so much anxiety is in Israel is that, like conversion, it evokes debate over the relationship between religious and ethnic bases of national belonging, which are related to the tension…in the formulation of contemporary Jewishness” (Seeman 193).
Thanks for your thoughtful and engaging analysis of One People, One Blood. I really appreciated how you highlighted the complexities of belonging and identity that Ethiopian Jews face in Israel, particularly the tension between religious and ethnic definitions of Jewishness. Your discussion of the “Return-to-Judaism” programming and the pressure to conform to Israeli cultural norms adds an important dimension to understanding the ways identity is shaped by social and state expectations. I found your comparison to the American experience of immigrants needing to perform “American-ness” especially insightful, it really shows how these themes of belonging and cultural assimilation are universal. Your point on the Blood Affair as a turning point in the struggle for acceptance was also powerful, emphasizing how something as intimate as blood donation can become a symbol of exclusion. I think your final question, whether wanting to belong is enough, is incredibly thought-provoking. It raises deep questions about the limits of assimilation and the conditions imposed by those in power on marginalized groups. Thanks for such a rich and reflective post, it’s left me with a lot to think about regarding identity, kinship, and belonging.
Lucy, your analysis of Dr. Seeman’s work is insightful and thought-provoking. I particularly appreciate your exploration of the complexities surrounding the Beta-Israelis’ struggle with identity and belonging in Israel. Your focus on the “purity of heart” concept and how Ethiopian Jews had to navigate both religious and cultural expectations to be accepted is compelling. The comparison to American identity politics is an interesting one, highlighting the universal pressure immigrants often face to conform to predefined cultural norms. The Ethiopian Blood Affair, as you discussed, reveals how deeply racial and religious prejudices can permeate even everyday interactions, exposing the ongoing challenges of assimilation.