From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:17:05 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct9.135543.10892@walter.cray.com> aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.205008.16570@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>I have not seen any.  Could you do me the favor of citing any books
>>that treat Poles the way the _Protocols_ treat Jews: accuse them, via
>>forgery, of fomenting worldwide conspiracy?

>I cannot - as I mentioned I did not read Protocols. What I hear here
>however Protocols probably also that way or another try to falsify the
>history - and such a falsification usually is done to achieve something.
>Nobody would be interested in falsification without hope to achieve
>something.

Of course -- but I know of now Jewish falsifications of the kind that
the Protocols represent.   

>>Not the point.  Many people in this discussion have failed to take
>>note of the special status of the _Protocols_ -- that it is a book
>>written *explicitly* as a lie, intended *only* to deceive.

>Nobody maintained it is not a lie - people do not know what to think
>about precisely until they get enough information. Some of them
>probably will try do get it, read it and make their own opinion.
>That it is proper approach - jumping into conclusions without proper
>knowledge is a good custom.

Well, a time-honored one, let's say...  8-)  But there's plenty that's
been written *about* the _Protocols_, so it's not hard to find out.

>>>And it is probably the first position that can be accused
>>>of any anti-Jewish attitude. 

>>I don't understand this sentence.  Could you elaborate?

>It should be stated more precisely indeed. I think that it would
>be difficult to find in Poland positions of literature falsifying
>Jewish history that were written in Poland recently, at least
>to the similiar degree as Polish history is falsified abroad.

Well, "recently" must mean "within the last decade or so."  After all,
around 1968 there were *massive* falsifications of Polish history wrt
WWII, the Jews, etc.  Even the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was revised to
be understood as more a Polish rebellion than a Jewish one.  See
Davidowicz.

>I haven't read any. And it is clearly shown in discussions here -
>falsifications of Polish history have quite significant impact
>on attitude of Jewish side in the discussion while I do not see
>any wrong impact on attitude of Polish side of the discussion.

Well, I haven't noticed that there *was* a single Jewish side, or a 
single Polish side.  I think we've all been doing a good job of
correcting or otherwise arguing with outr own sides, too; and since
I doubt my arguments would be much different if I weren't Jewish, I
think this partisan analysis is a little off base.  

Again, it's true that much nonsense has been written about the WWII
years; factually, for instance, Hannah Arendt's book on the Eichmann
trial required a book-length correction.  But this happens on all
sides, American, German, Polish, Israeli, etc.  And I doubt there's 
a specifically Jeiwsh viewpoint even identifiable among the historians
as a group.

>>Hello?  I don't think anyone accused Poles of writing it.  What
>>are you referring to?  [Please include at least a *hint* of what
>>you're responding to in cases like these.  Thanks.]

>You simply are trying to jump to some conclusion that is not there.
>Take the text at face value, nothing more, nothing less.

Well, since it's gone entirely now, I can only say that its face value
seemed to be that someone had accused Poles of writing as well as
distributing the book.  

>>For the tenth time: no, that is NOT the point.  The point is that it was
>>being offered for sale in a *CHURCH* bookstore, which is NOT a "Free market."
>>The Church (and any church) only sells very limited selections of books,
>>generally those dealing with matters of the faith and related issues.
>>Church bookstores are not free marketplaces of ideas.

>Maybe you are right, maybe wrong. It is always better to check
>everything before jumping into any conclusion. How do you know
>if there were not possible some arrangements that would take that
>priest out of suspicion ?

I'd *love* to know.  I'm asking for more information.  Monica, can you
name the church or the neighborhood it's in?  Perhaps someone can go
and find out.  I have jumped to no conclusion other than that something
was very wrong when that book appeared in that bookshop.  And unless
Monica hallucinated the whole thing, I stand by that conclusion.

>>>The same I would expect with Mein Kampf. 

>>Would you not be disturbed to find it being sold in a church bookstore?

>Certainly I would not. Probably even I would buy it there just for
>curiosity.

Well, maybe I really don't know much about Polish church bookstores,
then.  Do they usually sell books not related to Catholicism?  

>>>And if you ask
>>>average Pole if he knows anything about Protocols, he will say
>>>truth - no. You cannot even discuss that position within s.c.p.
>>>because majority of us did not read it, I think.

>>Or heard of it, I might add.  Too bad -- that means that those who
>>*do* encounter it at that church bookstore will have no information
>>with which to defend themselves against its big anti-Semitic lie.

>>The issue here is not whether most Poles read this sort of thing, nor
>>whether most Poles are anti-Semitic or whatever.  The issue is that 
>>a *church* in Poland, a well-attended one, not only has a pastor with 
>>a reputation for anti-semitism but also sells a book like this in the
>>parish bookshop.  And that, evidently, no disciplinary action had been
>>taken by the diocese.

>Well, so maybe that reputation is wrong, not a pastor ? It is better
>to check before jumping.

OK -- but it would be a mighty strange coincidence that, of all the churches
in Poland, the one that sells the _Protocols_ is the one with a priest who's
unjustly accused of anti-semitism.  Sure, I'm willing to listen to any
rational explanation -- I sincerely hope against hope that there is one--
but I'm not holding my breath.  And I'm not going to make lists of
wild hypotheses, either, in the meantime.

>>I have no idea what the relevance of this might be to the issue of
>>the sale of the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ in a church.  The
>>_Protocols_ is not a distortion of history -- it is a deliberate
>>*forgery* that places words in the mouths of people who never said them
>>and who would have been horrified to have been connected to anything
>>like them.

>I have no comment as I did not read it.

Well, at least read something *about* it.  It's part of the history
of our century.

>>>No. But I would like to point out, that any Jew who is talking in
>>>general terms like "Polish anti-Semitism" (which for me is unacceptable,
>>>talking about Polish pick-pocketing also would be unacceptable because
>>>of unacceptable generalization) 

>>Sorry, this one doesn't wash.  For one thing, Polsih anti-Semitism was
>>*institutional* both in the 1930's and after the war; for another, holding
>>an attitude and committing a crime are different things.  Is it wrong to
>>speak of Polish nationalism or Polsih Catholicism?  These are also
>>belief systems subscribed to by many Poles, and which differed in at least
>> some particulars from similar ones in other countries.

>Yes, but if somebody wants to talk to you about Jewish ........(place
>any disadvantage there) you will know, it is prejudice. 

No.  Why do you say that?  It depends on the context.  

(However, accusing all Jews of complicity in, or responsibility for,
Israeli wrongdoings is, imho, a little racist.  OR perhaps just 
confused.)

>If somebody
>wants to talk about Polish pick-pocketing, I know exactly the same.
>Talking about institutionality, you are completely wrong, I think.

I posted some examples the other day.  They're well-documented.

>I can say however, that specific institutionality I could notice in
>some countries, e.g. Israel. I think that the problem to get into any
>agreement is because you do not want to see anything in the world
>except very narrow point of view. Prewar Poland cannot be matched by 
>postwar countries that advertise themselves as democracies.

Indeed, prewar Poland was an unusual situation -- just as modern Israel
is, I might add.  But one does better to focus on the peculiarity of the
situation and the things that made it so peculiar instead of going off on
a trail of "yes, but".

>>>should also look into his own
>>>community what happens there to see those problems in proper perspective.

>>Utter nonsense.  Or, mor properly, ad-hominem argument in the nth degree.
>>To investigate the causes of attitudes held in Poland in the 1930's it
>>is *not* necessary to make comparisons to the political system of each
>>person taking part in the investigation.  

>But I haven't heard so far any causes of attitudes, have you ?

Well, why not?  I'd *love* to hear how Polish anti-Semitic sentiments
grew, why they infected the nationalist parties, why the Aryan legislation
of Nazi Germany began to be copied in Poland in the late 30's.  These 
causes are the very thing that interests me.

>The basic disagreement is about evaluation, not reason, and
>therefore it is necessary to compare. Even if somebody talks about
>reasons, it is good to compare with other countries. You have
>such a method, others have different method of reasonong.

When I see some reasoning, and not just diversion and the *destruction*
of valuable distinctions, I'll agree with you.   So far the "yes, but"
arguments have provided nothing but an ever-escalating war of rules for 
comparison and analogy.

>>>I think that Michal explained that problem perfectly to you so far.

>>Yes, he has.  He's explained that, since Palestinians in the occupied
>>territories are not treated to his liking, I may not discuss Polish 
>>history -- or may not do so without simultaneously being accused of
>>complicity in a situation that does not meet his political expectations. 
>>Best of all, he brings in Israel only because I am Jewish -- or because
>>those oppressed in Poland in years past were Jewish.

>I think that you misinterpreted his posts. I did not notice any
>attempt on his side to prohibit discussion of Polish history.

He himself said that it was "only FAIR" to ask me about Israel, as 
though my religion or ethnic background or nationality (he admitted
to me in email that he was a little confused about the relations
between these) had anything to do with the investigation of history.
I'll repost if you'd like.

>But if Michal or anybody else wants to discuss other issues
>related or not related to previous topic, I think you should be
>also indulgent.

Sorry, that won't do.  Remember that these issues were brought in
*an insisted upon* as being relevant to the original topic, and were
used as ad-hominem arguments.  Michal can discuss anything he pleases,
but it's a little suspicious when a discussion of Polish history suddenly
insists on current events in Israel.

>>It's nonsense.  This is not how one does history.  And it's racist
>>nonsense to boot.

>>But I *do* have to talk about Israel every time we speak of Poland?

>No, you don't have to. If you dont like it, or it is not interesting,
>you can skip it. Discuss whatever you want and allow others to discuss
>whatever they like. Thats the democracy in our small dimension.

Except that I was called to task for not discussing it.  And except for 
the fact that the issue of relevance is *also* something one may discuss.
And frequently does.

>>Fine.  It's related to a thousand other topics.  Let's discuss ALL of
>>them each time.  Let's *nevr* get around to the heart of the matter
>>actually under discussion.  That way we'll never have to face up to the 
>>difficult matters actually under discussion.

>>Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.          

>No, I do not see thousand issues here. 

EXACTLY.  We saw only *one* other one -- and guesswhat, it was Israel!
What a coincidence.

>And if somebody wants to discuss
>something in different way, he should be allowed. 

Fine!  But if they insist on its relevance to MY discussion, they will
have to put up with questions and criticism from me.

>And you still can
>discuss whatever you are interested, the way you are interested.
>That's also small democracy. Discuss and allow others to discuss.

Nobody's stopping you!  It was Michal and others who were *forcing*
the discussion to include present-day Israel to whom I objected.

>>>I think it would be good to discuss that with church and see what
>>>church has to say about that. Maybe church will say something
>>>that we do not know ? Maybe in that particular shop mentioned here
>>>church did not have any control ? 

>>That would be very distressing -- after all, the Church advertises that
>>it *does* control the doctrine preached in its parishes.

>Well, we are talking about specific shop and we did not check basic
>facts. That's why it would be good to talk to church.

Great.  Let's do it.  But remember: nobody's *ever* sold that book
who wasn't an anti-Semite.  It would be a first.

>>>Maybe church would like to see
>>>some actions in the Jewish community in reciprocation  regarding anti-Polish
>>>literature ? 

>>WELL!  This is *very* interesting.  Is that any way to do business?
>>"If the Jewish community (as though there were one in Poland to speak of)
>>doesn't publish the things we want it to, we'll continue to publish
>>this lying, slanderous document which has caused untold misery and 
>>contributed to the holocaust brought down upon all of Europe only 50
>>years ago."

>>Anybody who actually did something like that would be beneath contempt.

>I think again that you are trying to jump to conclusion. I personally

No, I was trying to make sense of your statement.  What the hell does
the Jewish community and its literature have to do with the sale of
this book?

>would be interested, I think that other people also would be interested
>if church could contact Jewish community and talk about several issues
>including also anti-Polish literature, if anything can be done about it.

Fine, but I don't think that selling that book is the way to go about it.
I am all in favor of better histories, and of Jewish-Catholic dialogue,
but remember that books like that, if sold in parish churches, are 
major hindrances to such goals.

>Maybe then church could use influence in other areas of interest, who
>knows - the only way to find out is to talk.

I'd *love* to hear.  If someone could find out a little about this 
church, I'd be most grateful.

>>At least read something *about* it.  It is a complete fabrication,
>>cobbled together from two novels of the 1870's and 1880's, that 
>>purports to be the secret protocols of the Zionist Congress in Vienna.
>>It is disgusting shit that, were it to appear in *your* church bookstore,
>>I am certain that you would take immediate measures and ask lots of
>>questions of the people responsible.

>No, I probably would buy it, read it, and then I would be ready to
>discuss it with you. 

That wouldn't be enough, as it misrepresents itself.  The book purports
to report conversations and protocols which never took place.  Just 
reading it will not give you the information you need; on the contrary,
it will give you lies.

>Now I am not prepared until I know at least some
>details what is inside, how it shows everything, etc. The same way
>I would read Mein Kampf.

I hope not!  Mein Kampf, for all its lousy writing style, says what Hitler
means, period.  The Protocols tells of the details of the Jewish plan
for world domination -- which, unlike Hitler's plan, never existed.

>>The issue: a church sold copies of one of the most notorious books
>>ever written.

>Still it needs to be checked - the best way to find out is to talk to
>church.

Great.  Someone a little closer than I might do this.

>>Fine.  I'm discussing it.  And I have *no* tolerance for anyone who
>>sells the _Protocols_ except for purposes of research into anti-Semitism.

>Well, similiar approach was taken by ayatollah - I do not like it,
>nobody can read it. 

Wrong.  That is *not* my approach at all.  As I have said, I do *not*
want to ban the book.  But I want to know why anyone who sells it 
does so.  Just as you'd want to know why someone who went down the
street and cried, "Aleks and all his family are murderers and rapists"
was saying that.   

>People read different things simply to broaden
>their horizons, to have arguments, to have fun, etc.

Well, when I meet someone who's distributed the book for any purpose
other than to spread anti-Semitism, that will be the first one ever.

>>>Thats what also democracy is about.

>>Democracy has nothing to do with the workings of a church bookstore.

>But has a lot to do with tolerance - democracy cannot exist without
>tolerance.

Great.  But tolerance does not exclude vigilance -- and tolerance
*demands* that one fight for the truth.  The book in question is
an enemy of the truth, and an enemy of tolerance -- it was part of
the effort that led to the all-time supreme act of intolerance:
the Holocaust.  

Roger
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish