bagels

[John Camp]

Something someone else said on these threads about the philosophical complex later referred to as "The Enlightment" made me think of a story I read about bagels.

The story was this. The bagel (especially the New York variety, crusty surface with softer inside) became a fashionable cuisine in Vienna (Eur=Wien) in the last half of the nineteenth century, coincident with a rising tide of anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. As a result, a flood of Jews left Eastern Europe for the US and brought the bagel with them. The fashion for bagels died out in Europe, but in the US, they became a quintessential "Jewish" food that spread through the population, although the bagel was mostly forgotten in Europe. In fact, there wasn't even a bagel place in Israel until fairly recently, because most of the Jews in Israel came from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, where the bagel wasn't current at the time of the mass migrations.

The philosophical basis of the US lies purely in the The Enlightenment, as viewed by the most prominent American leaders of that time, who were both radicals and True Believers. Is it possible that in Europe, The Enlightenment was just another passing fashion among many (like the later Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Existentialism and the bagel) and so never had the grip that it did on the US? It seems to me that most of the larger European political enthusiasms tend to deny an individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to replace it with a communal right to those things. And I think those philosophical ideas matter in the real world, and the US is currently involved in a struggle between the original Enlightenment ideals and those that came later.

By the way, a few years ago I had a terrible bagel in Vienna; it was a bun, not a bagel, though it was donut shaped. I also had a pretty bad wienerschnitzel = (Wien-er-schnitzel, that is, a schnitzel from Wien) there. The best wienerschnitzel I've had in the last few years was at the Frank Sinatra cafeteria at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, although I have to admit that I had a pretty good one at as huge cafe off the main square in Vienna, the name of which I've forgotten if I ever knew it.

[RSL]

Well put, John. I think your analysis of the philosophical tides is right on. In the end, if the United States gives in to the idea that communal rights outrank individual rights, we'll have had it. So far, I don't see an indication that that's really happening, though the left would have us believe it is. The coming presidential election is going to tell us a lot about the ultimate outcome of the clash between the two philosophies. I think it's going to blow the minds of a lot of people, just as the last one did.

[David Sutton]

I get the philosophical underpinnings.
I doubt it's an “either or”. There has been an attempt to balance both in many countries.
After the second world war individual rights went on the back burner. Understandably. The men of that generation were traumatised and wanted peace and conformity.
The inevitable reaction happened in the 1960s and that has been the trajectory since, on the whole, up to the rise of social media.
Some of the challenges we face in most places around the world include a 50% drop in GDP, how to prepare for the next pandemic (maybe with a high kill rate), weather extremes and so on. The countries leaning towards community rights will be more resilient. The right for communities to clean water, to manage their own affairs, to have sustainably produced food close at hand, affordable education and medicine, to name a few.
The attempt to do these centrally once countries reach a certain size will probably not prove viable in our future.

[rabanito]

 I also had a pretty bad weinerschnitzel = (Wein-er-schnitzel, that is, a schnitzel from Wein) there. The best weinerschnitzel I've had in the last few years was at the Frank Sinatra cafeteria at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, although I have to admit that I had a pretty good one at as huge cafe off the main square in Vienna, the name of which I've forgotten if I ever knew it.

Maybe if you'd asked for a WIENERschnitzel they would have given you something more viennoise :-).
There are everywhere better and worse Schnitzels (and restaurants) and in some countries it is referred as "Milanesa" that is "Piccata after the fashion of Milan" (Milan is a city in Italy), where they say this thing was invented and brought to Vienna later.

Conversely, I remember drinking only tea in America. American coffee has (or had at that time)  a horrible reputation. But once in a hotel they told me they didn't have any tea, so I asked for coffee instead.
It was excellent!!
I told that to the waitress who answered "Yes, I know, I know. But in Seattle we make good coffee"
Of course this is only anecdotic  We had a good laugh.

[Alan Klein]

I get the philosophical underpinnings.
I doubt it's an “either or”. There has been an attempt to balance both in many countries.
After the second world war individual rights went on the back burner. Understandably. The men of that generation were traumatised and wanted peace and conformity.
The inevitable reaction happened in the 1960s and that has been the trajectory since, on the whole, up to the rise of social media.
Some of the challenges we face in most places around the world include a 50% drop in GDP, how to prepare for the next pandemic (maybe with a high kill rate), weather extremes and so on. The countries leaning towards community rights will be more resilient. The right for communities to clean water, to manage their own affairs, to have sustainably produced food close at hand, affordable education and medicine, to name a few.
The attempt to do these centrally once countries reach a certain size will probably not prove viable in our future.

You got it wrong.  Capitalism has proven to give people more wealth and health, and other things.  Look at China.  When they operated under Mao as a socialist (Marxist) communal nation, they were terribly poor, millions died of starvation.  Cuba, Venezuela, same thing.  Plus, there were less freedoms. Since China moved to capitalism and free markets (mainly), they are now wealthy.  Although not free politically, economically, Chinese liberties have increased dramatically.

The problem in the West, is that we have moved toward socialism.  Huge debt and printing squanders wealth.  Government debt is used as an attempt to socialize wealth.  WIthin limits, it won't have  a too baleful effect.  But it gets out of control as we are doing now.  Debt and inflation destroys wealth so there really won't be anything left to do all those great things you want done.  Everyone becomes poor.  Additionally, you lose your freedoms to live as you wish as the government imposes rules and regulations to control your activities.  Look at Venezuela, Cuba. 

[John Camp]

Maybe if you'd asked for a WIENERschnitzel they would have given you something more viennoise :-).
There are everywhere better and worse Schnitzels (and restaurants) and in some countries it is referred as "Milanesa" that is "Piccata after the fashion of Milan" (Milan is a city in Italy), where they say this thing was invented and brought to Vienna later.

Conversely, I remember drinking only tea in America. American coffee has (or had at that time)  a horrible reputation. But once in a hotel they told me they didn't have any tea, so I asked for coffee instead.
It was excellent!!
I told that to the waitress who answered "Yes, I know, I know. But in Seattle we make good coffee"
Of course this is only anecdotic  We had a good laugh.

Wiener -- corrected now. Thanks.

[rabanito]

Wiener -- corrected now. Thanks.

Just in case, it was a well meant observation trying to be funny.
My "English" doesn't allow me to make fun of anybody's language skills 

[Alan Goldhammer]

IMO, the best bagels come from Montreal.  Much better than any we have found here in the US.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I recall that many years ago an American literary journal (I think it was Saturday Review of Books, but I'm not sure) had an article about bagels that brought so many responses and responses to the responses that for several months they had a special section entitled "Letters to the Bagels Editor."

Unfortunately, my pal Google doesn't turn up any references to it.

[David Sutton]

You got it wrong.  Capitalism has proven to give people more wealth and health, and other things.  Look at China.  When they operated under Mao as a socialist (Marxist) communal nation, they were terribly poor, millions died of starvation.  Cuba, Venezuela, same thing.  Plus, there were less freedoms. Since China moved to capitalism and free markets (mainly), they are now wealthy.  Although not free politically, economically, Chinese liberties have increased dramatically.

The problem in the West, is that we have moved toward socialism.  Huge debt and printing squanders wealth.  Government debt is used as an attempt to socialize wealth.  WIthin limits, it won't have  a too baleful effect.  But it gets out of control as we are doing now.  Debt and inflation destroys wealth so there really won't be anything left to do all those great things you want done.  Everyone becomes poor.  Additionally, you lose your freedoms to live as you wish as the government imposes rules and regulations to control your activities.  Look at Venezuela, Cuba.

-1 for comprehension.
I was talking about where the balance lies historically, and about achieving resilience for communities within a country. My community consists of about 12,000. We have a reliable water supply, moderately good local governance, locally produced food, schools, a hospital and locally run industries that are more resilient in difficult times as far as employment goes, than big box stores for example.
Your own country is a good example of how community resilience is destroyed.
You have socialism for the rich. They are protected by central government handouts and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone else gets totalitarian capitalism. Good luck with that over the next few years.

[Alan Klein]

-1 for comprehension.
I was talking about where the balance lies historically, and about achieving resilience for communities within a country. My community consists of about 12,000. We have a reliable water supply, moderately good local governance, locally produced food, schools, a hospital and locally run industries that are more resilient in difficult times as far as employment goes, than big box stores for example.
Your own country is a good example of how community resilience is destroyed.
You have socialism for the rich. They are protected by central government handouts and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone else gets totalitarian capitalism. Good luck with that over the next few years.

David, I never said socialism for the rich is right.  It's all bad.  Except for hardships areas, the government should let individuals make decisions. It comes out better than when the government picks winners and losers and redistributes wealth from here to there misallocating spending as they go along often for political rather than economic reasons. 

As far as communities, there are plenty in the US that are large but many more that are small.  I live in a small township.  We have our own schools, water supply etc.  But there is larger structure as well from State government (New Jersey in my case) and from the National government in Washington.  There are many more small businesses, "mom and pop" stores than large box stores.  Of course there's been a trend toward the latter over the decades.  But I don't see that as being a negative.  They're often more productive and provide better quality and a greater diversity of products at lower prices.  So people, especially those who make less, are better able to live better.