From: osinski@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Marek Osinski)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Polish Anti-semitism or is it?
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:33:34 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Oct8.030639.24640@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <g4gpnxb@lynx.unm.edu> osinski@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Marek Osinski) writes:
>>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.

I could add to that that quite a few of them became part of Polish
cultural elite in the pre-WWII period.

It is very important to make here a distinction between religious
discrimination (which I have no doubt existed in pre-WWII Poland) and 
anti-semitism based on "race". To my knowledge, the latter is the main
feature that distinguishes the German (some people prefer to call it Nazi)
anti-semitism from the Polish one. I also believe that it is the racism-
based antisemitism that is responsible for the Holocaust, hence no
wonder that accusations that "Polish antisemitism" was worse than (or even
comparable to) the German one are meeting with such strong reactions
on the part of s.c.p. participants in this discussion.

>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.

I think it is important to realize that when you speak of
Jews of Poland, you are referring only to a fraction (albeit by far
dominant) of people of Jewish ethnic background who would declare
their religion as Jewish. Those who were atheists (and there were
quite a few...) and especially those who abandoned Judaism for 
Christianity would not be subject to those restrictions. 

>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 agree! See the paragraph above.

>>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 
>>Yiddish 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.

To my knowledge American Poles often try hard to maintain their heritage and
to teach their children Polish. It's not true that nobody complains
about lost heritage. Many other communities try the same, for example
Chinese Americans. Nevertheless, with the American lifestyle, frequent
changes of domicile, and scattered communities, it is often difficult.
In addition, many parents often decide that their children would have a
better chance of succeding in life if they became "100% American",
whatever that means, and do not teach their children the language of
their forefathers.

>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.")

Here is my point again! Assimilation may be a way of "swallowing" a
minority group by a larger one. Poles are especially sensitive to that,
having resisted German and Russian attempts to "assimilate" them
for over 150 years. Perhaps this also explains why I do not like your
usage of this term.

>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.  

This what you want it to mean. Your definition is precisely what I call 
non-discrimination or tolerance. Here is what My Webster gives in this regard:

to assimilate - to absorb into the cultural tradition of a population
or group (the community assimilated many immigrants)

>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.

I do not see anything wrong with diversity within an ethnic group.

>>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.

Thank you for explaining what you meant by your usage of the term
"assimilation". I would still prefer if for clarity you started using 
a more appropriate term. You also underline here, that the main 
problem was the degree or religious discrimination in Poland of 1930's 
rather than discrimination based on racism. Hence, calling it anti-judaism 
may be more accurate than antisemitism.

>Roger

Marek Osinski
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish