From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Polish Anti-semitism or is it?
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:26:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Oct9.012626.13563
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <qxhpsmk@lynx.unm.edu> osinski@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Marek Osinski) writes:
>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:
[...]
>>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". 

Yes.  Absolutely.  Always.  Key point.

The latter is the "true" anti-Semitism.

>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. 

Careful, now.  The restriction of the professional associations, etc.
in the 1930's in Poland seems to have been done on racial lines, as far
as I can tell, and clearly had the German "Arierparagraph" as its model.

Otherwise, I can't comment on the spread of Western (not just German!)
anti-Semitism in Poland in the period 1870-1939.  Anyone?

(It exists today, or so it has been reported, in at least one church
in Poland...)

>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.

Well, let's not get carried away.  The "modern" racial anti-Semitism
would not have gotten anywhere had it not been for a millenium of
habitual, accumulated, routine Jew-hatred of the other kind.  In fact,
it can be seen as a secularization of the older kind during a century
in which all kinds of things were secularized.

>>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. 

In some cases, not in others.  In the 1930's, this was clearly not the 
case in the medical, architectural, and other associations.

>>>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. 

As hard, on the average, as American Jews teach their children Hebrew?
I know plenty of Polish-Americans; perhaps 5% speak Polish, and they're
the children of immigrants (just like me).  Many children of immigrants
don't, and *their* children hardly ever do.

At any rate, plenty of American Jews maintain their heritage, too.

>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.

Having the heritage more or less tied to the religion, and having a
religion that's practiced primarily in the home can really help.

Sure, people would like to maintain heritage, and many people actually do      
something about it.  I do find your comment about Jews and Yiddish a bit
odd, though, which is why I brought it up.

>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.

True only of immigrants.  Their children hardly ever learn the language
of their forefathers well enough to pass it on again in any case; my
children won't learn German, and probably wouldn't even if my wife *did* 
speak it.

(And we don't know enough French...)

Anyway, I feel the point of assimilation is getting lost in the sauce
here.  But no matter -- ther are points of contact, points of com-
parison with the assimilation of Jews in other countries as well.

>>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.

Well?  Did it work?  By 1938, Jews were never more than *partly* 
assimilated -- a situation that brought about weird situations such
as those of Weininger, Mahler, and others -- but even assimilated
Jewish life in Austria was recognizable as a particular entity.  The
shtetl was disappearing, but the Jews weren't.  With assimilation
proceeding via the *removal* of laws, not by the *imposition* of 
same, a new Jewish identity (not without its problems, I assure you)
had grown up.  

>>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)

There's also an intransitive meaning: to take on characteristics of 
the culture.  One may say: "The Jews were assimilated" or "The Jews
assimilated."  The latter implies agency; people choose to take on
characteristics of the majority culture.  

When there is choice, the results are quite different.

>>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.

Good!

>>>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. 

Look, this *is* the appropriate term.  Lots of people use the 
intransitive construction, including most of the scholars whose
works I've read.

>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.

Again, I don't know that.  It seems to me ( and I'd appreciate some
confirmation or contradiction) that racial a-S was indeed present in
Poland in the 1930's; checking Davidowicz, I read:

"In 1937 Polish professional associations of physicians, engineers, and
architects adopted the so-called "Aryan Paragraph," borrowed from Nazi
Germany's legislation, which barred Jews from those fields.  The political
actions designed to drive the Jews from the economy now aimed to drive
them altogether from the country.  The Endecja, having absorbed many 
ideas from the Third Reich, believed that by getting rid of the Jews,
they would assure the eventual racial purity of the Polish state."

(_The Historians and the Holocaust, p. 92.  She cites three studies in
a book entitled _Studies on Polish Jewry, 1919-1939_, New York, 1974.)

Roger
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:17257 soc.culture.polish:3047