Norman Davies on Poles and Jews
Norman Davies wrote the marvelous popularizing behemoth "Europe: A History" a decade or so ago as well as several books on Polish History including "God's Playground." One of the things I like the most about Davies is that he is a political moderate. About twenty years ago in the New York Review of Books (to which I advise all persons to subscribe) he wrote something that has been rolling around in my head recently. It seems especially apropos today, not only to anti-Semitism but to the increasingly elastic usages of the term "racism." Here it is.
“One must seriously inquire whether the concept of anti-Semitism is adequate to the task of defining and explaining the historic conflict of two nations. For one thing, the word "anti-Semitism" appears to be infinitely elastic, being applied to everything from the advocacy of genocide to a dislike for bagels. Nowadays in America, it is widely used to condemn any criticism of Jews, or of the Jewish state, Israel, irrespective of the merits of such criticism. Furthermore, like all its dialectical counterparts, such as "anti-Sovietism," it can easily be used to smear all expression of dissenting opinion, since any protesters to the smear can automatically be tagged with the same lousy label.
“Worst of all, when applied to complex international or intercommunal relationships, it assumes from the start that the main source of any antagonisms where Jews are involved must lie with the Jews' opponents. In the nature of things, anti-Semitism cannot be invoked to explore the attitude and conduct of the Semites, nor to consider the happier aspects of the Semites' relations with their neighbors. When applied to the history of Poles and Jews, it cannot do other than suggest firstly that there are no redeeming features to the tale, and secondly that the Poles are to blame for all the misery.
“Anti-Semitism, therefore, looks to be a sadly blunt and one-sided tool, capable of probing only one side of multidimensional problems. It is as though one were asked to write the history of Ireland armed solely with the concept of "anti-Protestantism," or to analyze Moslem–Hindu relations in India on the sole basis of "anti-Islamism," or to expound on Russo-American relations on the sole basis of the "anti-Americanism" of the Russians. No one in his right mind would deny that an irrational hatred of Jews has been a recurrent and deplorable ingredient of Poland's many social and political conflicts. But that ingredient is but one item in a far more complicated and unsavory menu. Another ingredient is the irrational hatred of some Jews for Poles.” (NYRB Nov 20, 1986)
When dealing with the set of issues that Davies concisely raised in the above quotation, some things to think about are these. We do, it seems, automatically feel special sympathy for someone we see as the underdog. This is part of the reason why so many people consider the Palestinians as the Good Guys and the Jews as the Bad Guys. It is a knee-jerk reflex and it has certain good uses but can simplify things to the point that they are not historically accurate. Just because a group has fewer guns than another group, or grievances which may be argued as legitimate against another group, does not mean that it has the right to behave as destructively as it can. It doesn't mean that its members should deserve our exclusive sympathy for committing violent or, on a smaller scale, even rude acts against the group with more guns.
“One must seriously inquire whether the concept of anti-Semitism is adequate to the task of defining and explaining the historic conflict of two nations. For one thing, the word "anti-Semitism" appears to be infinitely elastic, being applied to everything from the advocacy of genocide to a dislike for bagels. Nowadays in America, it is widely used to condemn any criticism of Jews, or of the Jewish state, Israel, irrespective of the merits of such criticism. Furthermore, like all its dialectical counterparts, such as "anti-Sovietism," it can easily be used to smear all expression of dissenting opinion, since any protesters to the smear can automatically be tagged with the same lousy label.
“Worst of all, when applied to complex international or intercommunal relationships, it assumes from the start that the main source of any antagonisms where Jews are involved must lie with the Jews' opponents. In the nature of things, anti-Semitism cannot be invoked to explore the attitude and conduct of the Semites, nor to consider the happier aspects of the Semites' relations with their neighbors. When applied to the history of Poles and Jews, it cannot do other than suggest firstly that there are no redeeming features to the tale, and secondly that the Poles are to blame for all the misery.
“Anti-Semitism, therefore, looks to be a sadly blunt and one-sided tool, capable of probing only one side of multidimensional problems. It is as though one were asked to write the history of Ireland armed solely with the concept of "anti-Protestantism," or to analyze Moslem–Hindu relations in India on the sole basis of "anti-Islamism," or to expound on Russo-American relations on the sole basis of the "anti-Americanism" of the Russians. No one in his right mind would deny that an irrational hatred of Jews has been a recurrent and deplorable ingredient of Poland's many social and political conflicts. But that ingredient is but one item in a far more complicated and unsavory menu. Another ingredient is the irrational hatred of some Jews for Poles.” (NYRB Nov 20, 1986)
When dealing with the set of issues that Davies concisely raised in the above quotation, some things to think about are these. We do, it seems, automatically feel special sympathy for someone we see as the underdog. This is part of the reason why so many people consider the Palestinians as the Good Guys and the Jews as the Bad Guys. It is a knee-jerk reflex and it has certain good uses but can simplify things to the point that they are not historically accurate. Just because a group has fewer guns than another group, or grievances which may be argued as legitimate against another group, does not mean that it has the right to behave as destructively as it can. It doesn't mean that its members should deserve our exclusive sympathy for committing violent or, on a smaller scale, even rude acts against the group with more guns.
posted by Timo-t @ 3:38 PM
2 Comments:
At 5:02 PM,
Anonymous said…
It doesn't mean that its members should deserve our exclusive sympathy for committing violent or, on a smaller scale, even rude acts against the group with more guns.
I agree with this, but it's also important to try to understand, even if you deplore it, the kind of circumstances and thinking involved in, e.g., the recruitment of suicide bombers. This is not equivalent to being rude, clearly this is a situation in which people are brought to believe that they should face certain death in order to inflict damage on what they view as the enemy. That sort of determination does not come from a casual political fad.
At 7:00 PM,
Timo-t said…
No doubt. One thing I am wary about in the determination of causation, however, is the implicit justification or non-justification often inherent in the investigation. It is indeed useful to make the statement "here is a list of the possible reasons why this group of people did this set of collective actions," especially if the reasons are obscure. It is another project, and a worthy one, to ask and answer the following questions: were their actions useful? Are such actions worthy of repetition? Are they constructive? Are they destructive? Is this a good example? And finally, the one that raises hackles right and left: was it an overreaction? These questions need to be answered as well. Answering them is an open-ended project. Defining certain actions as less reasonable than others is the biggest purpose that I envision for this website.
Post a Comment
<< Home