Upload
marlene-stanley
View
225
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
First Contact in Modern times. 18th Century
when Scottish explorer James Bruce stumbled upon them while searching
for
the source of the Nile River. His estimates at the time placed the Beta
Israel around the 100000 number
1977 – Begin comes to power
In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous
members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of
being “Zionist spies,” and Jewish religious leaders ,
Kesim,(sing. Kes) were harassed and monitored by the government.
Operation Moses
Operation Moses began on November 18, 1984, and ended six weeks later on
January 5, 1985. In that time, almost 8,000 Jews were rescued and brought to
Israel.
Operation Solomon
In 36 hours, non-stop flights of 34 IAF C-130s,
filled to absolute capacity with seats transported
14,325 Beta Israel émigrés from Ethiopia to Israel ,
In Israel
new arrivals spent between six months and two years in absorption
centers learning Hebrew, being retrained for Israel's industrial
society, and learning how to live in a modern society (most Ethiopian villages had no running water or
electricity) .
Depression
Suicide, all but unheard of in their tukuls in Ethiopia, even
claimed a few of the new arrivals due to the anxiety of
separation and departure .
Falash MuraThe Falash Mura were virtually unknown
until Operation Solomon, when a number attempted to board the Israeli planes and were turned away. The Falash Mura said they were entitled to immigrate because
they were Jews by ancestry, but the Israelis saw them as non-Jews, since most had never practiced Judaism and were not
considered by the Beta Israel as part of the community.
Ethiopian Activists
Ethiopian Jewry activists maintained that the Falash Mura had been forced
to convert or had done so for pragmatic reasons without ever really
abandoning their Jewish faith.
In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but rather several selves
that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may
trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et al, 1987). Apart from the “level
of self”, an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other
words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any
internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal
identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes .
Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self-categorization
and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. The examples
(minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals
categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup
favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive
self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some
valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I .’
Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is
particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to
internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to
which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison
group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup.
Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-
definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable .
In further research this example is referred to minimal group studies. Schoolboys were
assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned
randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict,
personal animosity or interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the
other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to
encourage ingroup-favoring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that
awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other
words, they displayed ingroup favoritism .