August 2017 Traditional Jewish Attitudes Toward Poles

We then went to the senior class, where the children were thirteen or fourteen years old. These children had just been studying Jewish history, and one of them enthusiastically repeated to me the names of the different kings of Judah. As this was the oldest class, I thought I would ask them some questions. Of the thirty-five children … Nearly all of them knew that New York was in America. None of them knew who Kosciuszko [Kościuszko] was, and one particularly bright boy was the only one in the class who had ever heard of [King John] Sobieski. He thought that Sobieski was a Polish nobleman who had fought against the Russians. I then asked them some questions about languages. Only one boy could talk Polish, although four or five could understand it. … All the classes in this school were conducted in Yiddish, although the main emphasis was put on teaching the children Hebrew. …

We visited three or four other Talmud schools during the day. One of the best had some maps on the wall. When I examined them I found that they were detailed charts of Palestine. The children in this class were able to draw excellent plans of the country on the blackboard, filling in the names of all the cities and most of the villages. I asked one of the boys whether he could draw a similar map of Poland, and he said “No.” …

After having visited these schools, we had an interview with the head of the Talmud Torahs. He was opposed to the idea that the Polish Government should inspect these schools and force them to teach [even some] Polish to the children. … The purpose of his schools was to give the pupils the traditional Jewish education.⁶⁴
Many Jews had more affinity for distant, mythical America than for Poland, or even Palestine, despite overwhelming evidence that Jews who immigrated there soon shed everything that made their lives distinctive in Poland.
Citizens of Kolbuszowa, still we were in love with America. Nothing could change that; nothing ever did. To us American could do no wrong. …

What could happen to people there was common knowledge. The religion of their fathers, the faith of our ancestors, once in America it no longer was the same. Incident after incident reaffirmed this lamentable fact; so did many popular stories. Just look at those who had returned from America to visit us. Beards trimmed or shaved off, payes removed, long coats gone. What kind of Jews were these?

It was so. I remember when my brother came for a visit. Saturday arrived, the sacred Sabbath, but he continued to smoke his cigarettes. … Then he had someone go over to the local Polish store and buy pork sausages. What happened to kosher in America? Excuses—all you heard were excuses. It was too hard. It no longer made sense.⁶⁵
Almost overnight, centuries-old traditions were abandoned by most Jews who immigrated to America from the tradition-laden shtetls of Poland. But within Poland itself there was little tolerance for the idea of assimilation. As Goodhart points out, the so-called Polish-speaking assimilators—“Jews who believe that Judaism is only a question of religion”—were shunned and even despised by the vast majority of Poland’s Jews: “Most of the prominent Jews in Poland are not leaders of their people as is the case in other countries.”⁶⁶ In view of such credible observations (of which there a plethora), unilateral charges that Poles regarded Jews as “others” and rejected the efforts of Jews to be “accepted” into Polish society are entirely misfocused. An American Methodist missionary who resided in Warsaw in the interwar period drew a similar picture:
Reared in a small American town, I had never thought, before coming to Poland, of Jews as being different, except in religion, from others in the community. In Poland, where they formed nearly 10 per cent of the population, I found them a separate people with a culture of their own. Their religion, language, customs, and garb were all a part of a tradition guarded with jealous pride and handed down unchanged through generations. Except for doctors, lawyers, and others in the professional class, the Polish Jew saw to it that no one mistook him for anything but a Jew.⁶⁷
Raymond Leslie Buell, an American writer, educator and President of the Foreign Policy Association, made the following observations:
The ordinary Jew speaks Yiddish … and is influenced by a particularly formidable type of orthodoxy, or rabbinism, of the Tsadika or Wunderrabi variety. While some Jews contend that the government obstructs assimilation, there is little doubt that the most powerful factor which keeps the Jew separate from the Pole is the type of orthodoxy which dominates a large part of the Jewish population. The American visitor unaccustomed to the Polish tradition wonders why more interracial disputes have not occurred when, on visiting a typical village, he sees the Orthodox Jew, wearing his skullcap, black boots, long double-breasted coat, curls and beard, mingling with the Poles proper. The government may think it is in its interest to support the Orthodox Jews against their more assimilated brethren, but the foreign observer is nevertheless struck by the readiness of the ordinary Poles to accept the assimilated or baptized Jew as an equal. In government departments, in the army, in the banks, and in newspapers, one finds the baptized Jews occupying important positions. This class, which in Nazi Germany is subject to bitter persecution, has been freely accepted in Poland. With the growth of nationalist spirit among both Jews and Poles, the trend toward assimilation seems to have been arrested. It remains true, however, that the Polish attitude towards the Jew is governed by racial considerations to a lesser degree than the attitude of other peoples.⁶⁸
According to that author, the most significant factor that set Poles and Jews apart was grounded in economics, and certainly not race, though religion also played a role.⁶⁹ As W. D. Rubinstein has argued compellingly,
the demonstrable over-representation of Jews in the economic elites of many continental European countries was itself a potent force for creating and engendering antisemitism, arguably the most important single force which persisted over the generations. … the fate of other ‘entrepreneurial minorities’ was, often, similar to that of the Jews in continental Europe. …

Over-representation in the economic elite of a visible ethnic minority of the degree found in Poland or Hungary was certain to cause trouble regardless of the identity of the group …⁷⁰

It was no accident that, with the advent of the Great Depression, which hit Poland harder than any other European country, conditions would take a turn for the worse.⁷¹ The overall economic situation of the Jews in Poland, however, belies the claim of economic “oppression” that is often levelled in popular literature. According to a study by British economist Joseph Marcus—undoubtedly the most extensive analysis of the economic history of interwar Polish Jewry, the Jewish share of the country’s wealth increased both absolutely and relative to the non-Jewish share in the interwar period. While representing less than ten percent of Poland’s population, Jews held 22.4 percent of the national wealth in 1929 and 21.4 percent in 1938. The average Jews was clearly better off than the average non-Jew. In terms of per capita income, in 1929 the income per caput was 830 złoty for Jews, and 585 złoty for non-Jews, i.e., forty percent higher. Although very many Jews lived in poverty (as did non-Jews), Marcus argues that “the Jews in Poland were poor because they lived in a poor, under-developed country. Discrimination added only marginally to their poverty. … That Jewish poverty was mainly the result of accumulated discrimination against them is a myth and it is time to expose it as such.”⁷² Jews also made considerable inroads into agricultural landholding during the interwar period. The collapse of traditional Polish estates is demonstrated by the fact that by 1939, 14 out of 24 estates in the county of Dąbrowa Tarnowska belonged to Jews, and only 10 to Poles.⁷³ Clearly, the economic condition of Jews was not in peril, as some would have it.

The traditional role of the Jews as “middlemen” is one that is not fully appreciated in the scholarship on Polish-Jewish relations. As outside observers who lived in Poland point out, the relationship between the oft-exploiting Jewish usurer and the oft-exploited Polish debtor—using modern parlance, a form of co-dependency—was not a healthy one:

He generally manages to succeed, for the Polish peasant is easy prey. Having very little ready money … readily pays interest in kind without reflecting how much dearer it really costs him. And borrow he must from time to time. … When a misfortune comes, and the cow dies or falls sick, the Jew is at hand, and so it goes on till the peasant is perpetually in his debt and power. He and his wife have no idea of the market value of their dairy and farm produce, for the Jews rule the market and keep their secrets to themselves.⁷⁴
Middlemen—whether Chinese in Southeast Asia, Tamils in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Indians in Uganda, or Jews in Eastern Europe—exhibit a distinctive cultural profile which includes strong group ties, resistance to forming bonds with those who are not members of the group, and dress, language and religion that differs from the majority’s population. Middleman minorities are often regarded as economic exploiters who do not commit to solidarity with the peoples they exploit. From time to time these sentiments explode in violent outbursts, often in response to an incident that provokes outrage among the host society.⁷⁵ (As Israeli historian Emanuel Melzer has noted, the anti-Jewish excesses and pogroms that occurred in Poland in the years 1935–37, “Usually … resulted from the killing of a Pole by a Jew.”⁷⁶ This is to be contrasted with the situation in present-day Germany, for example, where many “foreigners” are being killed for purely racial reasons.⁷⁷) As Edna Bonacich has also noted, in relation to other countries that faced this problem, “The efficient organization of the middleman economy makes it virtually impossible for the native population to compete in the open market; hence, discriminatory government measures … have been widely introduced.”⁷⁸ Arguing, in the case of Poland, that religious prejudice (Christian anti-Semitism) or (Polish) nationalism per se is the driving force behind these reactions simply misses the mark.⁷⁹

Comparisons are sometimes made, especially in the writings of American Jews, between the position of Jews in Poland and that of Blacks in the United States. This analogy is simply devoid of legitimacy and misleading. Blacks came to the Americas by force, were slaves with no rights, could not emancipate themselves, performed menial labour, were mostly poor, and were at the very bottom of society. Jews came to Poland voluntarily and could leave at any time, served as traders, were largely exempt from the menial labour of the Polish masses, and—as middlemen situated between the tiny nobility and the peasant majority, enjoyed more rights and privileges than most Poles. The Jews’ long-term advantaged position no doubt facilitated their becoming a literate class, and of many Jews becoming wealthy. Finally, discriminatory laws and policies against Blacks served primarily to keep them inferior, whereas those directed against Jews were primarily to reduce their advantages.

Rather, it was the Polish peasantry that occupied the position of Blacks, at least up to the end of the 19^th century. In pre-partition Poland, the Jews occupied a position between the landowners and the peasants that perpetuated inquities against the latter class. The primary exploitative device was the so-called propinacja, a liquor production and sale monopoly enjoyed by landowners on their estates and private towns, which was usually operated by Jewish leaseholders. As Jan Peczkis points out in his review of Hillel Levin’s book Economic Origins of Anti-Semitism: Poland and Jews in the Early Modern Period,⁸⁰
Poland’s Jews did not simply transmit the policies of the Polish landowners to the peasants. These Jews had considerable autonomy, and assumed considerable powers of their own. To begin with, the Polish owners were often absent (p. 10) or only remotely involved with their estates (p. 62). Jews became leaseholders, or arendars. They often managed the estates. In fact, they sometimes managed entire villages, and oversaw the economic development of forests, mines, mints, breweries, etc., using serf labor (p. 62). Clearly, the Jews were less middlemen, and more an economic class.

Author Levine leaves many questions unanswered. How was the exploitation of Polish peasants apportioned by Polish landlord and “middleman” Jew? To what extent were the landlords actively driving the liquor enterprises, and to what extent were they taking their “cut” of the already-functioning Jewish-run alcohol trade?

One quoted Russian official, Kachovsky, who visited an area after the First Partition, contended that the Jews were the ones primarily responsible for the exploitation of the peasants (pp. 172–173). A quoted visitor, Stephens, reported observing a Jewish innkeeper wrangling with, and extorting money from, intoxicated peasants (p. 143).

The scale of the Jewish liquor enterprise was staggering. Around 1750, about 85% of Polish Jews were in some way associated with the liquor trade (p. 9). Moreover, the very sustenance of many Polish Jews was dependent upon the propinacja (taproom) (p. 12). It is obvious that the Jews, most of all, had a vested interest in its perpetuation.

Levine suggests that the Jewish role in the dysfunctional late feudal Polish society only postponed its end (pp. 237–238). However, the “cultural inertia” actually worked in several ways. Consider the “laziness” of the landowners. To what extent was it an outcome of the fact that the Jews had assumed such dominance in estate affairs? In Poland, unlike many western European nations, the Jews did not identify with Polish society (p. 236). Why should they, in view of their huge size and economic power in Poland? Now consider the complaints, repeatedly stated by Levine, that Polish society suffered from decentralization and backwardness, and that the landowners were, for a long time, disinterested in modernization. Why should they, in view of the fact that most of the benefits would accrue to the Jewish economic class?

Author Levine suggests that anti-Semitism developed as Poles, more and more, unfairly blamed the Jews for the propinacja. However, Levine acknowledges that Jewish prejudices also existed against Poles, and that the Jewish tavern-owner or liquor-dealer could use them to rationalize his role in the degradation of the Polish peasant. He comments, “The drink was both the effect and the cause of that broken resistance and degradation. The Jew, as the primary representative of this system, as the monetizer of unmarketable grain, could avert facing his contribution to the plight of the serf—a ‘Goy’, he might mutter in self-righteousness, ‘drunken sloth is the essence of the Gentile.’” (P. 10.)
Despite oft-repeated claims (and supposed exculpation) that Jews became tavern keepers under compulsion, without regard to the deleterious impact that this system had on the welfare of the peasants, the evidence is not that persuasive. Some of that comes from the research of Jewish-American historian Glenn Dynner, who concludes that Jews stuck with tavern keeping largely because of economic self-interest: “But many Jews could not evidently see why they should renounce a lucrative industry like liquor and enter less lucrative ones like agriculture and army service …”⁸¹ Dynner realizes that Jewish profiteering sometimes occurred⁸² but provides no indications as to how widespread it was. He portrays Jewish tavernkeepers as self-policed, while tacitly admitting that they could take considerable liberties with peasants:
Most Jewish tavernkeepers were also probably careful not to push things too far. Perhaps few felt bound by their lease contracts’ pro forma moral stipulations, according to which they promised never to cheat customers. And perhaps few were deterred by the risk of fines and prison sentences for serving liquor that was less than the regulation 45 percent alcohol. But each was constrained by the knowledge that there was a limit to what the peasant was willing to endure in terms of watered-down vodka, usurious loans, cooked books, and so on.⁸³
Unfortunately, Dynner does not develop the latter theme. If there is to be any apportionment of blame for the propinacja, Dynner, in spite of his qualifications, apportions it evenly, “Jewish tavernkeepers may not have been the architects of this ghastly enterprise nor even its main beneficiaries, but they were fully complicit.”⁸⁴ As for the charge that Polish peasants physically abused Jewish tavern operators, Glenn Dynner is dismissive of this claim:
The memoirists who report on the local situation in everyday Poland-Lithuania will talk about how the Jewish tavern keeper was willing to be insulted and abused and even beaten, because in the end he would get revenge by extracting maximum profit from the peasant by encouraging him to drink beyond what he can afford. This is a very hostile observation. If that happened all the time, I think the situation would have been too unstable.

One thing I discovered about all the abuse and insults was that it might have originated in halacha, in Jewish law. In order to keep a tavern profitable, you had to keep it open on the Sabbath and festivals. The rabbis developed elaborate legal fictions to say if a Christian comes and demands a drink, using the threat of violence, even if it’s the Sabbath, you have to serve him. And what ends up happening is a bit of a farce. On Saturday, the peasant had to come in and threaten violence to the Jewish tavern keeper in order to receive his drink. So what you have are Christians helping Jews circumvent their own laws.⁸⁵

In his lectures (“Jews, Liquor, and Life in Eastern Europe”), Dynner promote a different focus:
In Eastern Europe much of the economy was based on vodka. The nobles who owned most of the region’s distilleries and taverns preferred to lease them to Jews, whom they believed to be more sober than the rest of the population. The Jewish-run tavern became the center of leisure, hospitality, business, and even religious festivities, while Jewish tavernkeepers became integral to both local economies and local social life, presiding over Christian celebrations and dispensing advice, medical remedies and loans. Nevertheless, as peasant drunkenness reached epidemic proportions, reformers and government officials sought to drive Jews out of the liquor trade. Historians have assumed that this spelled the end of the Polish Jewish liquor trade and the noble-Jewish symbiosis. Yet new archival discoveries demonstrate that nobles tended to simply install Christians as “fronts” for their taverns and retain their Jewish lessees. The result—a vast underground Jewish liquor trade—reflects an impressive level of local co-existence that contrasts with the more familiar story of anti-Semitism and violence.
What is buried in this focus is the equally important fact that this alliance, in which Jewish middlemen played an integral and voluntary, was exploitative and highly oppressive and, justifiably, did provoke resentment on the part of peasants.

Booker Washington, a prominent Black American leader and a representative of the last generation of Blacks born in slavery, made a tour of Europe in 1910 during which he had an opportunity to observe the condition of European labourers and peasants. He used those observations to illuminate the situation of African Americans, especially in the South. This was a witness who, more than Whites or Jews, had first hand experience and knew of what he wrote. While in Poland Washington saw peasants living in “weather-worn and decrepit” huts shared with cows, pigs, geese, and chickens. Every exchange of cash seemed to be in the hands of Jews:

wherever in Poland money changes hands a Jew is always there to take charge of it. In fact, it seemed to me that the Jew in Poland was almost like the money he handled, a sort of medium of exchange.
He noted that his Jewish guide “looked down upon and despised” the Polish peasants among whom he traded. He referred to them as “ignorant and dirty creatures.” He observed that, unlike Jewish immigrants who came to America,
Instead of seeking to make themselves look like the rest of the people among whom they live, they seem to be making every effort to preserve and emphasize the characters in which they are different from the people about them.
Washington concluded that
there was much the same life that I had known and lived among the Negro farmers in Alabama. … I am convinced that any one who studies the movements and progress of the Negroes in America will find much that is interesting by way of comparison in the present situation of the Polish people and that of the American Negroes.⁸⁶
The reality of shtetl life was far removed from the picture perpetuated in popular literature. In a study based on historical records from the first half of the 19^th century, historian Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern writes:
Jews and Christians routinely exchanged insulting remarks about each other’s religions. Verbal and other forms of violence were endemic among ordinary shtetl Jews as among gentiles. The shtetl was profoundly politically incorrect. More important, this kind of behavior was a positive affirmation of one’s identity—through deprecating the identity of the other. …

The shtetl in its splendor did not have a monopoly on violence. Slavs and Jews alike conceived of violence as an acceptable means of communication. Abuse—physical, rhetorical, and verbal—was a daily occurrence. Violence was one of the indispensable languages of the shtetl, an environment in which outbursts of brutality were as normal as Sunday bazaars.⁸⁷

Adam Teller shares this view and expands on its implications:
Thus it was that in the shtetls, as elsewhere in Poland-Lithuania, the Jews were the victims of violence, both verbal and physical, on the part of their neighbors. However, a close examination of the sources reveals that the Jews were able to give as good as they got, and often did so. Violence in the shtetls and towns of Poland was by no means one-sided. The court records indicate many cases of Jews attacking townspeople, peasants on their way to market, and even nobles and priests who tried to interfere in their daily lives. This violence, which was endemic to Polish society in this period, should therefore be understood not so much as signifying the Jews’ weakness in the face of non-Jewish society, or their excessive self-confidence in light of noble protection, but rather as a sign that the Jews were well integrated into urban society and acted, mutatis mutandis, just like their neighbors.⁸⁸
Relying on quoted newspaper extracts, sociologists William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki summarize what essentially is the co-dependency of Polish peasants and Jews at the local level.
The Jewish shopkeeper in a peasant village is usually also a liquor-dealer without license, a banker lending money at usury, often also a receiver of stolen goods and (near the border) a contrabandist. The peasant needs and fears him, but at the same time despises him always and hates him often. The activity of these country shopkeepers is the source of whatever anti-Semitism there is in the peasant masses. We have seen in the documents the methods by which the shopkeeper teaches the peasant boy smoking, drinking, and finally stealing; the connection established in youth lasts sometimes into maturity, and almost every gang of peasant thieves or robbers centers around some Jewish receiver’s place, where the spoils are brought and new campaigns planned. Gangs composed exclusively of Jews are frequent in towns, rare in the countryside; usually Jews manage only the commercial side of the questions, leaving robbing or transporting of contraband to peasants.⁸⁹