From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:06:39 GMT

In article <g4gpnxb@lynx.unm.edu> osinski@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Marek Osinski) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.205406.2988@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>Of course, unlike Poland, Israel was set up specifically to be
>>a homeland for those who had been refused assimilation -- to the point
>>of their attempted extermination.  It was to be one more nation-state,
>>for a nation previously defined as such and specifically denied a homeland.
>>Israel was defined from the start as a special case, created under special
>>circumstances.  Whether the idea was fully a good one as it was carried
>>out remains debatable, but criticizing the country for not fully assimilating
>>its sworn enemies (many Palestinians call for the destruction of the State
>>of Israel, and have in the past used rhetoric like "push the Jews into the
>>sea").  So to ask aboutthe Palestinians is perhaps a bit irrelevant to
>>the issue of Poles and Jews over the centuries.

[I'm glad that *somebody* remembers that I wrote this paragraph.  I apolo- 
gize for the ungrammatical bits, btw]

>I am not at all sure that the "assimilation" of which Roger was talking,
>complaining that the Jews of Poland were not allowed to assimilate,
>would have been that desirable for the Jews themselves. Remember "The 
>Fiddler on the Roof" and the instinctively perceived threat to the very 
>survival of Jewish identity by assimilation into the "external" society?

"Instinctively perceived" is not the term that comes to mind.  I'd say
it was perception based on example; also, given that the story takes 
place in the Tsar's Russia, where Jews were barred from living in most
places and where they were often conscripted for long periods of time 
to *force* them to abandon their Jewishness in the army, the issue of
assimilation had a different color.

But that's not the point.  Many Jews *wanted*to assimilate, and, to
the extent posssible, did so.  The Jews of Warsaw and Cracow and Lwow
and other cities were one, two, or even more generations removed from the
stetl by the 1920's; they had taken up professions, entered the university,
gotten jobs in corporations and government, etc.

Some things remained closed to them, e.g., the officers' corps; others
*became* closed to them in the 1930's.  There was also social discrimination,
i.e., lack of access to institutions related to Christianity and the like.

The biggest obstacle to understanding this, imho, is thinking about
"the Jews" as a bloc, just as it's wrong to speak of all Poles as 
thinking one thing or another.  Jewish life, like Gentile life, had 
always been varied; it became more so over time.

>I feel the tendency towards assimilation is a typical feature of
>immigrational societies such as that of United States (the "English as
>the only official language" campaign is a good example). In Europe, I
>believe it would be much more valuable to create conditions for each
>ethnic group to preserve and develop its own culture, rather than to
>have the culture of majority imposed upon it. In this context, I tend
>to look at questions about assimilation somewhat suspiciously. Is the
>fact that the overwhelming majority of American Jews can no longer speak 
>Yidish that commendable?

Um, my family *never* spoke Yiddish.  We do, however, speak the German
we've spoken for centuries.  (Some of my cousins don't.  Does it matter?)

But that's just a small point, and a very strange one, given that nobody
complains about Irish-Americans not speaking Irish, ditto ditto for
Italians, Germans, Poles.  "Commendable"?  Any Jew who wishes to learn 
Yiddish, Ladino, Hebrew, or Chinese may do so in this country.  In fact,
I think there's more Yiddish spoken in the US than anywhere else, though
that's just a guess.

Now, assimilation was not invented in the US by any means.  Jewish assimilation
has been going on in Germany, France, England, and elsewhere for centuries;
since the 18th century, only laws have suppressed it, and they fell away
in the 18th and 19th century.  (Remember Franz Josef's comment to the 
Tsar when he (F-J) granted the Jews of Austria citizenship?  "You get rid
of your Jews your way, I'll get rid of mine my way.")

Next, I think you present a false dichotomy.  Assimilation doesn't mean
"having the culture of the majority imposed [on the minority]."  It means
the *choice* to live under different cultural conditions.  And given that,
even in Poland, Jewish life was diverse *already,* "allowing each group
to preserve and develop its culture" is difficult, as the "group" has
more than one culture, more than one strand, more than one view of how 
and how not to live.

>Having said all that it would not surprise me at all if "assimilation"
>as used by Roger simply meant "non discrimination". If that is indeed
>the case, Roger, than perhaps all you need is just to start using more
>appropriate terms.

It's *part* of what I mean.  Non-discrimination at the legal or 
administrative level if, of course, a prerequisite for the sort of
human rights I'm talking about.  Likewise, attitudes among the majority
need to be less than hostile, at the very least.  But the *ability*
to assimilate is what interests me, and that means, in practice, a 
somewhat secular society, one that doesn't have most of the corridors
of power running through the church.  It allows anyone who wants to
participate, a measure of access to commerce and culture and education.
Just like the lives of the majority, Jewish life has changed over the
centuries, has been more or less ghettoized, more or less urban, more
or less isolated from majority culture at different times.  This is
why I consider the variety of opportunity to be the key, and the 
backlash against assimilation in Polish life in the 1930's to have
been so distressing.

Roger