Pogrom: Kishinev and the Tilt of History 

Quite the contrary: Zipperstein wrote the most imersive account of those events until now. If he mentions Hearst, it's exactly because he need to contextualize the 'reception' of those events around the world. "You did not mention that it was the first blood libel in the 20th century" - no, you're wrong; Zipperstein makes exactly that, and goes further in researching documents that link Pavel Krushevan as the mastermind behind the 'Protocols', a very, very important discovery when even today the 'Protocols' are still taken as a misterious cannard made up by the czarists. It's also very important to contextualize the creation of NAACP when even today the Forverts downplays Black suffering in the wake of Buffalo shooting (please read Elizabeth N. Webster's article published on Foverts on May 23). Worst of all is your attempt to frame a important scholar and his work by using the 'Jüdische Selbsthass' cliche as rhetorical argument. I regret that I came here wishing to write a comment praising Zipperstein's efforts and his genius in writing such pivotal work that needs to be known by a wider audience just to end up reading a sad account by someone, an anonymous person, who wishes to feign controversy by showing a complete lack of serious compromise with those themes just because maybe you're too anxious to read the book before writing this kind of 'critique'. Just to mention some important topics that this presentation didn't cover and that you didn't mention: the efforts to help the orphaned children; the brave resistance simbolized in some of the most relevant stories of the great Lamed Shapiro; the rape of women, whose reports where collected by Chaim Bialik, but silenced and never mentioned or studied until now, and many more. If the Kishinev pogrom is so important to you (as it should be for all of us), I'm sure Zipperstein's book will teach you important things. Plase read it.

@@freakzclassics unfortunately your seemingly learned response, coming 1 year (!) after I had written my comment, is tinged with malice and and espouses the awful woke’ism that is so popular at the moment. Maybe in a year’s time you’ll have a different opinion.

​@@youtubefaves6365 I won't answer you anymore if you don't change your attitude and your rhetoric. We're both getting nothing out of this, but I won't apologize for my words since your answer contains hate and gross argumentative errors; anyway, let me say a few things so we can see if we can establish some dialogue. 1) The fact that I'm posting an answer a year after you posted your first comment is no valid argument. Your own comment was posted in 2021 (RU-vid doesn't tell me exactly when; I can only see '1 year ago', so I assume it's from 2021); you see? Your own comment was made two (!) years after Zipperstein's presentation of his work. Where is the coherence now? When I saw the notification today, I really expected you to come here to say you've read the book, but no, so I can only reinforce my advice that you should read the book now - if not for the themes and learning (or for you to make a new, more grounded critique, since as a researcher I believe that everything can be debated), do it at least for your own good conscience. 2) "seemingly learned response": it's not 'seemingly', it's actually substantiated, or at least more substantiated than your superficial comment, as you haven't read the book and want to criticize a brief presentation about the book on the basis of the presentation alone rather than going back to the author's work and research. Since the presentation is about the book, and not an isolated presentation about the Kishinev pogrom, for intellectual honesty you should have read it and criticized the points made there, in the work, and not in a presentation about the work (which by its very nature cannot account for all the details of the author's research and work). I am a Brazilian student and researcher trying to reconcile different problems and different cultures; and already explaining why I'm here: I deal with reception of Greco-Roman classics and intersections with modern critical theories, such as Afro-pessimism, feminism, etc., in addition to their intersection with different cultures and problems, such as Nazi-fascism and modern Jewish literature. So in fact I try to be 'studied' in these matters, but until now I didn't want to use any of this as an argument, and until now I focused on just one problem: the fact that your comment was superficial, full of analysis errors and the worst: not ground on the work findings, but on a summary, a brief presentation on the results of a long research by the author. 3) "the awful woke'ism that is so popular at the moment": I didn't know this term/concept/jargon ('wokeism'). As the concept is ambiguous (used by the left and appropriated by the right), I cannot address or refute it objectively and consistently, and in addition to the item 2) above, I believe that the problem of wanting to criticize serious research committed to facts and data, such as Zipperstein's work, without using the same 'rules', resorting to superficial jargon of today's culture wars, only demonstrates your superficiality, lack of will and even malice and bad faith in trying to reduce the efforts of the author and the results he found. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't get in the game. 4) In the same vein as item 3 above, I wanted to reinforce my point by repeating a blunder of yours, when you start by saying that "It seems that the main theme of your [Zipperstein's] narrative is to somehow delegitimize the event by saying that it was not a pogrom but merely a riot". When I said it was quite the contrary, I wasn't being hyperbolic: Zipperstein begins the book precisely by resuming the 'interpretation' of the events of the Kishinev pogrom as a mere 'riot'. If you had had the patience to read the book before commenting, you would see that the third chapter is titled exactly 'Squalid Brawl in a Distant City': Zipperstein is not using his words to define the pogrom as mere riot, but the words of people that, even if they understood the gravity of the events, didn't know how to define the pogrom. This is the case of George Orwell: "This squalid brawl in a distant city is more important than it might appear at first". Orwell does not use the word 'pogrom' there, but Zipperstein wants to start analyzing the events starting from there because they were interpreted that way in the first place. In the face of all this, I can only reinforce my advice: read the book. Maybe a year from now, who knows, you'll come back here to retract your words; and that would not be a demerit, far from it: it would show exactly, as Zipperstein says both in this video and in the book, that the Kishinev pogrom has always been mired in errors because many take the events of the massacre as familiar, as given, when, in fact, there are many more details, information, and relationships that never came to light (or not so fully) before Zipperstein's important research and analysis.

@@freakzclassics This is nonsense. Please stop.

@@youtubefaves6365 No. By the way: "It seems that the main theme of your narrative is to somehow delegitimize the event by saying that it was not a pogrom but merely a riot" - the cover of the book has it stamped in bold letters: 'Pogrom'.