Eleanor Roosevelt and the Jews (Part 3)

You might want to start with part 1.  

Or you might want to skip this all together and read this wonderful Disney World Travelogue.  

I don't have the energy to explain what I've been doing with these posts, so I'm just going to jump in and start looking at what Eleanor Roosevelt said about Jewish people in her My Day column in her United Nation Years (from 1946-1952).  

I'm not sure what they mean by United Nation Years.

Was FDR in the United Nations?  In an official role?  Or was she?

I Googled. It was she not he.

Actually, now I'm remembering that FDR died.  I think in office.

Googling again...

Yeah.  I'm right.  He died in office.

* * *

The search-function of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project is a little hard to work with.  I think it might be a bit glitchy.  Because of this, it's hard for me to read the entries in order.

So, I jump around in time a bit.

Sorry about that.

* * *

Before I get into the Jewish-related search results, I want to see what Roosevelt wrote on my parent's birthdays.  I'm just curious.  Plus, since they're both Jewish...it kind of counts.

* * *

Roosevelt talks about shopping on the day my mom was born.  

She took her granddaughter, and her granddaughter's friend, shopping in NYC.

Roosevelt says, I was going to shop, which is a necessity when you shop for yourself but an entertainment when you shop for the young.

I probably don't share her feelings about this. I usually find clothes shopping quite stressful, whether it's for me or someone younger.  

I wonder if my mom would agree, though.  She takes her grandchildren shopping. Is that entertaining for her?

Roosevelt and her granddaughter also went to the dentist...minus the granddaughter's friend.

I'm reading all of this as a kind of horoscope of my mom's life and seeing the dentist trip as a negative omen.

After the dentist and some other chores, Roosevelt and the granddaughter had lunch with Mrs. Albert Lasker and Mrs. Anna Rosenberg.

It's interesting that Roosevelt refers to the first friend by her husband's name and the second by the woman's own name.

Maybe women chose how they wanted to be referred to and considerate people respected that. 

Anyway...the other thing in regards to names.  Both sound like Jewish names to me—especially Rosenberg.

Roosevelt says about their lunch:

Mrs. Lasker and Mrs. Rosenberg are always a stimulating pair, and this was an especially interesting luncheon because I had a glimpse of the report on the nation's health which Oscar Ewing is shortly going to make to the President. When this report is released to the public I shall hope to tell you more about the things in it which seem to me important to every individual in the country.

That's some exciting foreshadowing there.

* * *

I Googled.

Oscar Ewing was one of the writers of the New Deal.

You know....reading old diaries like this.  It feels very much like time-traveling.

I love arm-chair time-traveling.

* * *

Roosevelt took her granddaughter to see a play called Mr. Roberts.

This is quite prophetic.

My mom (born on this day) married a Mr. Roberts.

* * *

Speaking of....

I'm now going to look at what Eleanor Roosevelt wrote on the day my dad was born.  

* * *

I just realized that the Granddaughter adventures didn't happen the day my mother was born.

Roosevelt's column was published that day....which was a Friday

The adventures occurred on Thursday.

Oh well.

It still counts for something.

Probably. 

* * *

Back to my dad:

On that day, Roosevelt talked about going to an education meeting.  There was a French woman there who was in the United States to examine our school systems.  

Roosevelt writes:

She is impressed by the happiness of our children and their freedom in the classroom. She maintains, though, that there is more thirst for knowledge and insistence on study for the sake of knowledge only in the French school system.

Interesting....

Roosevelt also talks about Russia pulling out of the United Nations health agency. She says, That is one of the few specialized agencies to which the USSR has been willing to belong, and the benefits to be derived from worldwide cooperation on health projects seem so very obvious that it is difficult to understand why the Soviets do not wish to keep in touch with the rest of the world.

I bet Roosevelt would be dismayed to know what Russia is up to lately.

* * *

It suddenly came to me that The New Deal was an FDR thing.

Right?

Or maybe he started it and then Truman finished it?

I'm wondering if what Roosevelt wrote about on my mom's birthday was another Oscar Ewing adventure.

Googling.....

Lord Wiki says the New Deal was Roosevelt, and the various parts of it came about between 1933-1939.

So...the Oscar Ewing thing must have been something new.

* * *

According to Lord Wiki, Ewing was part of something called The Whistle Stop tour.

He was also head of the Federal Security Agency which is now the Department of Health and Human services.

He was an advocate for a national health plan.  Maybe that's what Roosevelt had been referring to.

I wonder if it would be like universal health care?

* * *

Now I should get on with searching for mention of the word "Jew" or "Jewish".  I might also look for things like "Israel", "Palestine" and "Holocaust".

* * *

On March 26, 1946, Roosevelt writes about visiting a Jewish home for the aged.  She says: I could not help being thankful that, in this country, these old people could find a sanctuary in their declining years. A happy contrast to the sad old people that I saw in a Jewish refugee camp in Germany.

I wonder when she went to visit the refugee camp.

And I wonder how many European Jews were in refugee camps, in Europe, after the war?

I'm assuming she's talking about post-war.  

Although, I could be wrong.

* * *

It turns out there's a whole website about these camps.  They were called Displacement Camps.  Or at least, that's one of the names for them.

I'm going to bookmark this site and add it to my list of possible future posts.

To answer my question above, though...the site says, at it's peak, the camps/camp had around 250,000 people.   

* * *

On June 11, 1946, Roosevelt talked a bit about the statistics of the Holocaust.

She writes: Of the 7,000,000 Jews who lived in Europe when Hitler first came to power, nearly 6,000,000 were put to death in the most brutal manner possible. The methods used frequently included deliberate starvation and torture. Among those murdered were 2,000,000 Jewish children.

I thought there were more than 7 million before Hitler.

But I could be wrong.  

* * *

Or I could be right.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says the number was 9.5 million.

* * *

Roosevelt doesn't just talk numbers in the June 11, column.  She also shares this:

I talked to a man and his wife who had finally managed to come to this country from a concentration camp near Frankfort. They are educated, scholarly people—he is a poet. They had seen their two children burned to death.  

Sometimes it's hard to remember that behind the numbers, there are sad stories.

Or we may remember but....

For me, I don't feel a lot of empathy when seeing numbers.  I need the stories.

* * *

Roosevelt talks about issues in Palestine on August 19, 1946.

By the way, I'm trying to go in order of date for the first page of results.

The problem is once I get to the second page, I'll probably jump back in time.

If all the results were on one page, I think I could manage to read the results in order.  

It's too complicated to flip through all the results.

And with this website, sometimes it says there are many more pages of results. But when I look again, the results are no longer there.

Anyway...Palestine.

Roosevelt says: Many of us will agree that resort to force by Jews in Palestine is deplorable, but I don't think it is hard to understand. Palestine does not belong to Britain, which governs it under a mandate. When people are desperate, I suppose that a show of force against them inevitably brings retaliation in kind. 

I'm not quite sure what was happening there.

Jews were using force. Was that against Arabs?  The British?  

I thought Palestine did belong to Britain.

It all confuses me so much. 

Roosevelt says: 

The suggestion that the country be partitioned seems to me no answer to the problem, since the main objection originally to Palestine becoming a home for the Jews was the grave doubt entertained by many as to whether the land would be able to support any more people than were already there. It is understandable that the Arabs are not anxious to have the Jews as neighbors. The Arabs are a nomadic people, leading simple lives, and those who have moved into the orbit of the Jewish people have found the competition difficult and the standard of living higher than that to which they were accustomed. The Jews, however, are not asking for a vast increase in land. They ask to keep what they have, with slight additions for economic needs, and to be allowed to take in refugees.

The Arabs that Roosevelt describe kind of remind me of Texans who don't want to share the land with people from Mexico, Central America, etc.

I believe there will always be people with the attitude of I'm sorry that happened in your country. But we can't help you here.  

There will always be people who are anti-refugee.

There will always be people who are unwelcoming.

 * * *

Were the Arabs in Palestine very nomadic?  I mean were most of them nomadic?  I feel that can't be completely true, because I'm pretty sure I've heard that some Palestinians lost their houses to Jews.

I'm guessing some Arabs were nomadic and others lived in homes.

I wonder which group was more resistant about letting Jews find sanctuary in Palestine—the nomads or the villagers.

* * *

A few days have passed since I've worked on this.

I'm worried a bit that I'm going to be lost and unable to jump back in...that I've lost that momentum.

* * *

Here's something odd.

On April 1, 1947, Roosevelt writes about European children orphaned by World War II/Nazis—the ones who died, because they acted in opposition to the Nazis.  Basically: ANTIFA.

Roosevelt says, Under the law, the state can do nothing for these children. Orphans whose parents died under other circumstances have some rights under the law. But those whose parents, from patriotic motives and of their own free will, chose to defy the German authorities, are left without protection.

I guess maybe I'm confusing Germany back than with Germany today—imagining that right after the war, they showed regret for what the Nazis had done and immediately made laws to rectify some of the horrors.

* * *

The little boy from Jo Jo Rabbit would probably count as one of these kids.

* * *

On May 14, 1947, Roosevelt writes a LOT about Palestine.  Well...the whole column is about the subject.

I kind of wish I could just quote all of it.

But I won't.  

She definitely supports Palestine becoming the Jewish homeland but also understands that the land is important to Arab.

One of the things she says is:  I realize perfectly that, from a religious standpoint, Jews, Arabs and Christians all have an interest in the Holy Land. I realize also that the Arabs have an economic interest and a right in much of that area of the world.

One thing that is missing from that statement is an understanding that Arabs may also have a...

Not sure what to call it.  

Maybe....residential claim?  Their house, apartments, neighborhoods, community, etc.

Another quote from Roosevelt.

Under the British mandate, through money contributed by Jewish people in many parts of the world, areas of this country have gradually become settled and developed. Possibilities are outlined for future development which many Jewish people feel will support many more of their unfortunate brethren. It is true that, as yet, the Arabs outnumber the Jews in most of this area, but there is no real reason why these two peoples, who have great similarities, cannot live in peace together.

I wonder if both groups were equally resistant to living in peace together.

Did both groups want the other group out of there?

One of the ideas Roosevelt seems to amplify on her platform is that the Arab people were nomadic— living simple lives.  And one of their main reasons for resistance is that the Jews were bringing a more developed, modern way of living.  

I wonder if this is very true or is it partly propaganda.

I think one of the pro-Zionist things I've heard is that the Israeli's brought technology and other modern things to the area.  

Maybe irrigation?

* * *

I really need to learn more about the history of Israel.

It's just kind of daunting, because it's really hard to separate propaganda from history.

Though I guess that's the case with all history and not just Israel.

There's always going to be two sides of the story.  It's just that in many cases, one side is kept quiet.

I think with some history, there are two sides yelling very loudly.  I think this is what we have with Israelis vs. Palestinians and MAGA vs us Woke Liberals.  

With other history, one side is very loud.  The other is super quiet.  But then through the years, the quiet becomes less quiet.

* * *

I'll use autism as an example.

I think for decades...the autism-is-a-tragic-disease group was very loud. Their message was readily accepted by most of society.

Then...I think in the 90's...there were quiet whisperings of autistic pride/neurodivergent acceptance.  

Quiet whisperings=fringe movement.  My brain just reminded me that this term exists.  

Thanks, brain. 

Anyway, I think because of the Internet...it's now probably around 50/50 among people who have an interest in autism.  Some think of it as a tragedy that needs to be cured or overcome.  The other half see it as something that should be accepted in the same way we accept different sexual orientations and skin colors.

I think with Israel vs. Palestine, from the beginning (not beginning beginnings but late 1940's)...there were two loud viewpoints.

Loud.  I was trying to think of a word for that.

Would mainstream work?

At least since I can remember...supporting Israel or supporting Palestinians both seem like pretty mainstream movements.

It had to be, at least partly, the same back then.  Because Roosevelt was writing about it in her column.  I imagine she was so busy with mainstream issues.  She probably wouldn't have time for fringe movements.  

This is making me rethink autism viewpoints being divided 50/50.

Well, maybe it's about half and half in terms of people who have a vested interest in the subject.  

But although neurodivergent acceptance isn't super fringe anymore, I also don't think it's mainstream.  Just going by my experience on Twitter and Instagram.  There very often seems to be posts written with an autism-is-a-tragedy mentality and the opposing side coming along to speak up and explain why they see that mentality as being problematic.  

This is often in the form of a person or organization asking for others to support their support of an autistic charity...a charity that has a history of seeing autism as a tragedy.

Sometimes the person or organization. might know of the two opposing sides and has made a choice of which one to support. Other times, they seem to be clueless. 

Note: Many people subscribing to the first mindset would probably claim that they DO support neurodivergence.  But it's often in the form of:  He has autism.  But he's a delightful kid.  Or:  We have a child with autism, but we've taught her that she doesn't have to let her autism define her!

How about....

He's Jewish! But he's a delightful kid.

We have a Palestinian child in our class.  But we've taught her that she doesn't have to be defined by that. 

(Just in case someone didn't understand why that phrasing is offensive).

Well...there may be people who also don't understand why it's offensive when applied to Palestinians and Jews.  

* * *

Getting back to Roosevelt's column.

She says: Some of the writers whose articles I have read suggest that, because the Arabs control much oil and because the U. S. and Great Britain are both interested in leasing this oil, they do not wish to offend the Arabs in anyway.

Outside of Trump's administration, I think most American presidents and governments have tried to play nice with both the Palestinians and Israelis.  

It might not be equal.  But I don't think any administration has been either We're pro-Israel and the Palestinians can go suck it or We're pro-Palestinian and the Israelis can go suck it.

I think the same goes for most other countries towards Israel/Palestine.  

Anyway, I wonder what were and are the main motivations in trying to support both sides.  

Do oil and economics play the main part?

I imagine there's a fear of losing votes from either group (Jewish voters and Muslim/Arab voters) 

I'd like to imagine that some support of Israel comes from the American government feeling guilty that we didn't do enough to help the European Jews.  But I don't think the United States is very good at facing their guilt and trying to make amends.

* * *

On August 14, 1947, Roosevelt used her column for a solemn lecture on bystanders.  

She had learned of a group of college students who said antisemitic things; then pointed to a Greek student and said he looked Jewish.  That led to the student being beat up bad enough that he had to spend ten days in the hospital.

Roosevelt writes, The horrible thing to me is that this could happen when other people were about and that no one seems to have tried to prevent it. I feel sure that even one person with courage and conviction could have brought these young people to their senses. We did not fight a war against fascism in order to allow it to develop here.  

I think of things like this when I see people telling celebrities and corporations to stay out of politics.  

What they're really doing, when they say these things, is pressuring others to be bystanders.  

How would have history been different if more celebrities and European companies used their platforms to speak out against Nazism?  

* * *

In that column, Roosevelt writes: This week marks the second anniversary of Hiroshima and the Atomic Age. Happy anniversary, everybody.

From what I know of her, I'm assuming she was being very darkly ironic.

Did I use ironic correctly here?  

Anyway....

If someone like Trump had said it, I'd think he was being genuine.  

* * *

It's the next day.

I realized yesterday, after I finished blogging for the day, that I went off on this tangent about autism and forgot to mention what I should have mentioned about Palestinians and Israelis.

I think the pro-Israeli side assumes that the modern ways of life are superior and universally desired by all.  

If it's true that the Arabs in Palestine were nomadic and not modernized, we shouldn't assume their way of life was inferior.

Well, I think we CAN have opinions about which type of lifestyle we think is better.  I think the problem is more when we assume everyone else must share that viewpoint.

Another analogy:  Let's say family A is a video game/pop culture kind of family.  The children from Family A spend a week with Family B.  Family B is a sports family. 

At the end of the stay, the B parents proudly tell the A parents that the A kids went a full week without screen time and even better, one of the kids used the spending money, she had saved for their next trip to their local comic-con, to buy a couple of sports-team sweatshirts.

Parents B expects Parents A to be very grateful and relieved that their child has made such vast life improvements and can't understand why Parents A are not overjoyed.  

Stepping outside the analogy. 

Modern living makes life easier, and in some ways, it makes life spectacular.  But it also makes life incredibly stressful and is pretty much destroying the earth.  So I couldn't blame anyone for wanting a more nomadic existence.  

When it comes to providing refuge to fellow human beings, though....ones who I'm pretty sure have a pretty historical claim to the land.  I don't think this is the time to say...Nah. We want to keep things simple.  Find a home elsewhere.

Oh!  That's the other thing.  Yesterday when taking a shower, I had Alexa play the Fiona Apple cover of "Across the Universe", because the Arab resistance to too many Jews coming and changing the culture of Palestine, made me think of the song.  

 

The last time the song came to me was during the beginning of the pandemic—hearing of people not wanting to make the changes needed to stop Covid from spreading.

* * *

I find it a bit messed up that the left tends to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.  I think the Palestinian side of things (at least back then) fits in better with the right-wing anti-immigrant mentality.

If the world made more sense, I think the left would sympathize with Israelis and the right would sympathize with the Palestinian feelings of: Go Back to Where You Came from, and Isn't it time you stopped playing the Holocaust card?

It's all about the narrative, though.  Were the Jews invaders and now colonizers?  Or are they people indigenous to the land who returned to their land?  

* * *

Getting back to Roosevelt. 

She had a lot to say about Palestine on March 1, 1948.

I Googled to see when Israel became an official country.

It was about two months later—May 14, 1948.

Roosevelt says that she's getting letters from people asking them to rethink allowing Jews to turn Palestine into Israel and instead use one of the US states for that purpose.

Roosevelt says:

This particular suggestion is somewhat funny. I can quite understand how certain groups who feel that we would profit by Jewish immigration might ask us to receive not only those who are in Palestine but all the other Jewish displaced persons. But that we be asked to arbitrarily displace citizens of a certain state, and turn that state over to the Jews, strikes me as a suggestion to which the writers gave very little thought!

Why is it funny to imagine displacing citizens of a US state, but it's less funny to displace Palestinians?

Maybe if Arabs and Americans would have been cooperative and welcoming...they could have developed a smaller version of Israel in the Middle East and then another small Jewish area in one of the US states.  

Even today, there are spaces that are undeveloped.  I imagine back in the 1940's, this was even more the case.

It seems to me that there would have been room for tons of Jews without displacing a lot of people.

I'll have to read more about why and how the Arabs were displaced in the formation of Israel. Was Israel too forceful, inconsiderate, and greedy in taking over?  Or were Arabs too antisemitic, unwelcoming, and uncompromising?

Or was it a mix of both?

* * *

Roosevelt writes more about Israel on December 30, 1948.

She says:

There are, of course, many points of view about the State of Israel. The Arab nations feel that they do not want to cede this territory to the Jews and, while they were quite willing to accept the Jews who came there and have them consider the area as a national home, they now feel that this never was meant to be a national state. The British, who had the mandate over the area from the League of Nations and finally gave it up because it was more than they could well handle, do not wish to do anything that would create difficulty between them and the Arab citizens in various parts of the world.

I wonder how the Arabs felt about the British mandate.  I mean before the land was designated as the Jewish homeland.

Was there a lot of resistance to it?  

Rhetorical questions for now...but maybe a future rabbit hole and post.

* * *

I really need to make improvements on my knowledge of Israeli history.

Roosevelt talks about the Balfour Declaration.  I've heard of this but had no idea what it was.  

It came about way before the Holocaust—November 2, 1917 and Roosevelt says that it expressed Britain's blessing on the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. And the Jews regarded this as a mandate created to make it possible for them to reach a point where they could govern themselves. That point, they consider, has been reached, and now they feel they are entitled to be a nation.

I think I did (kind of?) know that the plans of Israel came about before the Holocaust.

I think the Holocaust just put the plans in the fast lane.

Roosevelt says:

The Jews are willing to take long-suffering refugees from all parts of Europe who wish to leave the area where they have been unhappy, but in order to do this they must have sufficient land to settle them on. The land seems unpromising now, but they have discovered that through hard work they can develop it and make it productive.

How much territory has the story of undeveloped land being developed by the hard work of the Jews? and how much territory has the story of Arabs being kicked out of their homes to make way for Jews?

* * *

I finished with the first page of search results for Jew in the years 1946-1952.

When I tried to get to the second page, there was an error.

When I tried again, there were results.  But it's going to reset my armchair time machine (futon, actually).

I'm going to guess the results are ranked by relevance.  So I think I'm going to...not stop but look for some of the other relevant search terms.

I'll look at "Israel", "Palestinian", and "Holocaust".  I'm wondering if those words were common enough in those days for Roosevelt to use them.

Well...she did use the term Israel in the December 1948 post.

I'm wondering when the Arabs in Palestine started referring to themselves as Palestinian.  I also wonder, before Israel became a thing, did any Jews refer to themselves as Palestinian?  

And when did the Holocaust become known as the Holocaust?

* * *

I searched for Holocaust, Israel, and Palestinian in the years 1946-1952...not among the whole universe but just within Eleanor Roosevelt's column.  

Roosevelt wasn't yet using the word Palestinian.

I saw many mentions of Israel.

There were a handful of mentions of the Holocaust, but some might have been in reference to a nuclear Holocaust.

I was hoping and planning to try to finish the 1946-1952 years with this post.  But this is already too long. 

Yes, we can blame my tangents.

In the next post, I will continue with 1946-1952.  I'll look at the posts mentioning Israel and the word Holocaust.

And I'll go on a million more self-indulgent tangents.

Before I say bye-bye, though.  I am going to Google and try to get a quick answer about when the words Palestinian and the Holocaust came to mean what they mean today.

* * *

I'm going to give up on getting a quick answer about Palestinian.

I Googled and can already see how the term is super-politicized.

Just looking at the snippets that Google provides.

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

Origins of the name 'Palestine' and Palestinian Nationalism 'Under the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917), the term “Palestine” was used as a general term to describe the land south of Syria; it was not an official ...

From: DecolonizePalestine: 

Myth: The name Palestine was a Roman invention: The very first traces of the name Palestine come from the time of Ramses II and III, roughly around the mid-12th century BC. There is an inscription dated to ...

From: the Hudson Institute: 

The Forgotten History of the term Palestine: The ancient Romans pinned the name on the Land of Israel. ... “Palaestina” referred to the Philistines, whose home base had been on the ...

I find this very interesting and will add it to my list of future post ideas.

I really want to write all these posts.

I want to do all the research.

I'm feeling a desire to clone myself or have a Groundhog Day spell put on me. 

It's overwhelming.  Not only do I now have a list of 44 post ideas.  But each idea might take up 4-5 parts.

* * *

For the term Holocaust, I'm using Lord Wiki's expertise.  It's fascinating.

I'm not going to go into the word's long history.  At least not now.

One of the earliest uses of it, in terms of referring to what happened in Europe, was from a writer for the New York Times—Julian Metzer. He used the term in 1943 when writing about Jews immigrating to Palestine.

In the 1950's, when translating from Hebrew, the word was sometimes used as a translation for the Jewish/Hebrew word "Shoah"

In the 1960's the word became more associated with the Jewish genocide but with qualification.  A book was written by Nora Levin titled.  The Holocaust: The Destruction of Europe Jewry.  

So back then...if someone said the word holocaust, they might be met with...WHAT holocaust?

The word's connection to the Jewish genocide became pretty much solidified in 1978.  What was the cause?  A Meryl Streep miniseries titled: The Holocaust.

The film and television industry really has a huge impact on culture and history.  

* * *

The bit above was supposed to be the end of the post.  But I just wanted to add a synchronicity story.

Yesterday evening, after rambling on about not assuming everyone values the same lifestyles, I was listening to the latest episode of the Weird Crap in Australia Podcast.  Matthew and Holly did this whole lecture on people leaving modern society, for various reasons, and how people shouldn't be maligned or harassed for making such choices.  It fit in well with what I had written.

Matthew and Holly make me wish I was still obsessed with Australia and that this blog was still about Australia.

But...at least I still have their podcast.

What would our world be like if we

knew for sure there 

was life after death, and 

we could easily talk to our 

dearly-departed on the Internet?

The Dead are Online a novel by Dina Roberts 

Eleanor Roosevelt and the Jews (Part 2)

 You might want to read part 1 first.

For an index of my Holocaust/Jewish/Nazi related posts, click here. 

For anyone who does not want to bother reading the first post but still wants to read this post....

I've been basically searching through Eleanor Roosevelt's My Day column which is published and indexed on the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project's website.  

For the most part, I'm trying to get an idea of her feelings regarding the Holocaust, Jewish refugees from Europe, Jewish-Americans, etc.  But sometimes I end up looking at other things....

* * *

On December 8, 1938, Roosevelt writes:

As I listened to the speeches last night at the dinner given for the support of the Leon Blum Colony which will assist some of the Jewish refugees to start life all over again, I could not help thinking how much all human beings like to fool themselves.

This is her introduction to some deep thinking about freedom.

But it made me question the Safe Haven documentary's narrative.

I feel the documentary was saying that a total of only 982 refugees was brought from Europe during the World War II/Holocaust era.

That did seem low to me.

I guess in the back of my mind, I imagined there were more.  And what Roosevelt says here makes me think the back-of-my-mind was correct.  

I don't think it's that the documentary lied.

It might be more of a technical difference.

Maybe the 982 were people who were directly rescued by the American government. America provided a ship, passage, and then a place to stay.

Other refugees may have trickled in with the help of family and community sponsorships.

Also, this column was published before the war began.

Confession: I had to Google the official dates.  For anyone who's like me and not good with war-dates.  World War II was September 1939-September 1945.

So...the Jewish refugees that Roosevelt was referring to would not be war refugees.  Or at least they weren't WORLD War refugees.

* * *

Now I'm looking at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. They have a page about the number of refugees coming to the United States from 1933-1945.  

In 1924, the United States added some extra racism to the pot. Congress passed a law that limited immigration from certain countries...trying to protect the US racial stock.  They limited Jews, Africans, and Asians.

During the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover further reduced the number of immigrants.

In 1933, the US State Department issued visas to 1241 Germans.  The allowed quota (from the 1924 thing) was 25,957.  

Around 83,000 Germans were on the waiting list.  Most of them did not get the Visa, because they could not afford it.

From 1934-1937, there were 80 to 100 thousand Germans on the waiting list.  Most of them were Jewish.  

In those years, an average of about 7000 Germans were given Visas.

An average of 89,000 Germans/Jews were put on a three to four year waiting list.

This makes me feel kind of sick...thinking of the people who talk about how they're fine with immigrants as long as they do things legally. 

They need to wait their turn.

As if they're waiting in a Virtual Queue at Disney World.

And how much money is needed to do immigration legally?

* * *

Oh!

I read things wrong above.

It wasn't about having enough money for a Visa.

It was about having enough money to qualify for immigration.

When I was desperately wanting to move to Australia, one of the things I saw is that if you didn't have the desired career skills they were looking for, you could come over as an investor.

If we were wealthy enough, Australia would let us live there.

I was just an angsty autistic woman with a special interest. I was still safe in the United States.  But what if there was the rumblings of a genocide?  Should we have needed to be wealthy to move to Australia?

* * *

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says that between 180,000-220,000 European refugees moved to the United States from 1938-1945.  Most of them were Jewish.

That's a much different number than 982.

I'm so confused.

I feel dumb.

Did I misunderstand something in the documentary?

Was I misled?

Anyway....there's a lot more to learn and understand.  I think I'll add it as a topic to my list...and move on back to Eleanor Roosevelt.

* * *

I'm wondering if what makes the 982 special is that they didn't have visas. Maybe what was being asked from President Roosevelt is to keep the genocide in mind and bend the usual rules a bit.

 * * *

I thought there was more "Jewish"/"Jew" search results in 1935-1941, but I suddenly found myself at the end.

So...now I'm at 1942-1945 which is when the United States was officially part of World War II, and Franklin D. Roosevelt (Eleanor's hubby) was President.  

Although I just Googled and saw that the US entered the war in 1941 (after Pearl Harbor).

Sometimes research makes me feel smart.

Other days...like today...I feel like it's making me dumber. And it's providing me the wonderful opportunity of displaying my stupidity.

* * *

Reminder: Because of how the search thing works,  the posts I'm looking for are not in order (date-wise)

I'm jumping around in time.

* * *

I'm looking at October 25, 1945.

This is post-war, and Roosevelt talks about Palestine.

FDR talked to an Arabic man named King Ibn Saud.

Googling....

King Ibn Saud was the King of Saudi Arabia.

Roosevelt says that her husband felt like the talks were a failure. The King of Saudi Arabia was not open to the idea of allowing an influx of Jews to come live in Palestine.  

Roosevelt writes:

The Arabs, said King Ibn Saud, are of the same Semitic race as the Jews, and got on well when their backgrounds were similar. My husband said that King Ibn Saud asserted that he had been a warrior all of his life; he was not interested either in farming or forestry; his people were herdsmen and nomads, and he wished no change.

My translation: Yeah. Sure I would help Jews. Just not THOSE Jews. Because as the Beatles song says, Nothing's gonna change my world.  

* * *

Another thing I want to look into someday....I think it's already on my post list. It's something I saw on the Zioness Instagram account about Jews being indigenous to Palestine.

Are Jews an invader to Israel like Europeans are an invasive species to Africa, the Americas, Australia, etc.  

Or are Jews more like Indigenous people who were pushed into a diaspora by various wars and rulers; then found their way back home?

* * *

I wonder how many European Jews immigrated to Israel during the Nazi/Holocaust years.  How many Arabs were welcoming and how many of them were like the Saudi King?

* * *

Now I've jumped back in time to August 13, 1943. This is during the war.

Eleanor Roosevelt has a lot to say about Jews on this day.

She met with a representative trying to save the Jews in Europe.

She says, Some people think of the Jewish people as a race. Others think of them purely as a religious group. But in Europe the hardships and persecution which they have had to endure for the past few years, have tended to bring them together in a group which identifies itself with every similar group, regardless whether the tie is religious or racial.

I find that interesting.

Before the Holocaust, were Jews less cohesive?

It's really hard to explain to people what being Jewish means.

I think there's an antisemitic, dismissive agenda to see Jewishness as just-a-religion.

Or it could just be ignorance...in some cases.

Claiming or believing that Jewishness is just a religion is similar to claiming that Blackness is just about skin color.

What it's really about is having a shared history.

And when a shared history involves major trauma, it creates an even stronger bond between people.  

So...yeah.  I think Roosevelt was on the right track there. 

* * *

Roosevelt goes onto talk about how there are good Jews and not so good Jews.

She says it quite elegantly....I don't want to take up too much space quoting it all here.  It might be better to just read for yourself (if you're interested).

She concludes the sentiment by saying: In other words, they are a cross section of the human race, just as is every other nationality and every other religious group.

Yep. 

Roosevelt gives a good argument in favor of protecting people against genocide:  

This same thing might happen to any other group, if enough people ganged up against it and decided on persecution. It seems to me that it is the part of common sense for the world as a whole to protest in its own interest against wholesale persecution, because none of us by ourselves would be strong enough to stand against a big enough group which decided to treat us in the same way.

Note to any MAGA people reading this (because I can guess what you're thinking) Persecution against the persecutors doesn't count.  Neither does having to wear a mask or get a vaccine.

Well...no, of course....

Some persecution always counts no matter who's the target.

For example: Genocide, slavery, and police targeting you for looking a certain way.

What doesn't count: Being arrested after doing illegal things; Being kicked off Twitter, Having reporters ask you difficult questions, People celebrating your idol getting Covid, Your cousin's cousin unfriending you on Facebook, a major studio replacing you with another actor for one project and hiring you for a different project, Being treated like Black people often get treated even though you are white.

* * *

Now I'm reading the column for December 11, 1945.

Roosevelt talks about reading a magazine called Commentary published by the American Jewish Community.

I think it's so cool that she did this.  I love the idea of having a First Lady or First Gentleman who reads about various cultures and then writes about it.  I haven't ever paid a huge amount of attention to the spouses of American leaders.  I wonder if anyone else did/does things like this.

Roosevelt says: 

As in every other group, there are great varieties of opinion among the Jewish people on various questions. In this country especially, I think that the great majority of people of the Jewish faith, even those who have come from other lands, consider themselves only as Americans. They have fulfilled their duties as American citizens ever since the earliest days, with a patriotism and devotion to this country equal to that of the members of any other group. Back in Revolutionary days, our financial existence was assured by the contributions of two men, one of them a Jew.

I wonder if she means American vs Jewish-American.  Or does she mean American vs. German-American or Polish-American or French-American.

I'm doubting that hyphens were as much of a thing as they've become these days.  

My feeling is we can be American (or other country) and also have a bunch of other equally important identities.

Lately, I've been asking myself...who are REALLY my people?  Outside of family and friends.  I mean if there were various groups matching my identities and interests, where would I most want to hang out?

With.....

Jewish people.

Autistic people.

Women

Texans

Democrats

Disney World Fans

Lost fans

TV show (in general) fans.

Coronation Street fans.

It's hard when you do a full list.

Easier to go either or.

Sometimes I think of it in terms of: Would I rather seek out autistic people among Lost fans or seek out Lost fans among autistic people?

* * *

Who was the wealthy Jewish person Roosevelt was referring to in the passage above?

The rich person that comes to my mind when I think of rich Jews from the bygone days is the Rockefeller family.  But I think that's less bygone than Revolutionary times.

Googled....

Lord Wiki says it was a guy named Haym Salomon.  

I don't think I've heard of him.

* * *

There are other lovely things in the December 11, entry.

Roosevelt talks about equality.  She says, Until we have complete equality of opportunity in every field, equal rights socially and economically, we cannot consider ourselves a real democracy.

She adds: There cannot be, of course, complete equality for every human being because, even though we have equal opportunity, our native gifts and the circumstances in which we are born condition our development. But our race and our religion should not place any special handicaps upon us.

I think she should have said, even IF we have vs even though we have.

But based on what she said earlier, I think she meant if.

Also, it's kind of a contradiction.  The circumstances in which we are born play into equal opportunity.

It's like playing Monopoly where one person starts off with the usual $1500 and the other player starts off with $15.

Each player has an equal chance of landing on New York Ave, and each player is given equal permission to buy the property.  But they don't truly have an equal opportunity in being able to afford it. 

* * *

I wanted to see if the Jewish magazine Commentary still existed.

I went from Google to Lord Wiki to a link to the magazine.

I think...hoped...that I got led to to the wrong thing.

It turns out that Commentary has gone pretty right-wing.

I got that idea first from seeing the editorials featured.

Samples of some of the titles.....

"Biden's War on Democracy"

"Can Democrats Let the Pandemic Go?"

"Why Fauci Became a Bobblehead"  (although maybe that one's literal and not an insult?)

Then I went to look at their about page.  If I had any doubts about their political leanings, this cleared it up.

They say:

COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

I wonder what happened in the 1970's to change them.

Or maybe they were always conservative but in the 1970's they graduated to flagship level. 

* * *

Another thing to clue us in to the right-wing orientation of Commentary.

Looking through their long list of editorials....most are written by men.  I see only one editorial written by a woman (Christine Rosen).

Two specific men seem to do most of the writing: Noah Rothman and John Podhoretz.

All that being said, there may be left-wing magazines where men hog the platform.  

As for Rothman and Podhoretz dominating the site....

The Washington Post does have certain writers that have an editorial featured pretty much everyday.  But each of those days also have editorials published by additional writers.

* * *

Well...maybe never mind.

When I look at a single issue (the most current one)....things look much more different.

Out of eleven editorials, two are written by women.  That's better than one out of a long list.

Though, since women make up half of the population, it should be five or six written by women.

Only one out of eleven editorials was written by Podhoretz, and there's nothing from Rothman.

* * *

The September issue has thirteen editorials. Only one was written by a woman.

There's nothing by Rothman OR Podhoretz.

Are they on vacation?

If so, I wonder where to?

* * *

I'm going to leave this rabbit hole even though I don't want to.

I started reading from Lord Wiki, and I want to go down, down, down the hole.

But I'm going to save it for my list of future posts.

Though...just have to say one thing.

It turns out Podhoretz is the editor, and someone with the same last name was the editor from 1965-1995.

Norman Podhoretz.  I clicked on his name. He's the father of John Podhoretz (current editor).

Also...one of the items on my post idea list is looking at modern right-wing opinions regarding the Holocaust.  Commentary editorials will probably be incredibly valuable to that post.

* * *

On April 14, 1943, Roosevelt attended a memorial show with singing and acting in a place called Constitution Hall.  It was called "We Shall Never Die" and was dedicated to the two million dead Jews in Europe. 

If the governments of the United States and other countries had acted faster and stronger, the two million might never have grown to six million.

* * *

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has a page about the memorial.  I'm going to save the rabbit hole for a possible future post.  It looks pretty interesting.  It was a show written by a Jewish-American screenwriter.  There were multiple performances of it.  

* * *

On October 8, 1945, Roosevelt wrote about a ceremony she attended, held by a Netherlands-Jewish society.  

There was a message from the Queen of the Netherlands.  I'm not sure if the message was live—that the queen was there...or if she had sent in a message.

But anyway, the queen expressed sorrow for the deaths but also spoke proudly of her citizens for banding together to fight the Germans.

Roosevelt says, Holland is one of the places where not only is there no anti-Semitism, but there has been no distinction between citizens. That is something of which to be extremely proud, and I wish it could be said in all parts of the world.

I don't think a country exists where there is no antisemitism. But I can believe there are places where there is less of it...than the average.

I thought of Denmark as being the country that fought to save the Jews.  I think that's the subject of the Lois Lowry book, Number the Stars. 

Also, I associate the Netherlands with Anne Frank.  Isn't that where the attic is?  Things didn't turn out so well for her.

Well...maybe it was the Dutch folks that protected her, and the ones who captured, imprisoned, and killed her were Germans.

* * *

The Anne Frank house in Amsterdam has a page about the Holocaust in the Netherlands.  The title is "We Don't Have an Antisemitic Bone in Our Body"

No, I'm joking.  It's actually "The Netherlands: The Highest Number of Jewish Victims in Western Europe".

They disagree with Eleanor Roosevelt about the lack of antisemitism. Admittedly there was some antisemitism, often not openly expressed, but in these countries there had been no legal difference between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens for almost 150 years.

A lot of this goes over my head...will maybe learn more later.

But from what I do understand. In comparing what happened to in France and Belgium to what happened in the Netherlands....

The Netherlands was the only country of the three to have public protests against anti-Jewish laws.

Well...I might be wrong, because I'm kind of skimming some parts.  I think maybe they're saying that since France and Belgium were more cooperative with the Nazis, they actually ended up with more influence over what eventually happened to the Jews.  

I almost feel like the website is saying that because the Dutch stood up against injustice and antisemitism, things turned out more deadly for the Jews.

I shall have to read about this later...get a better understanding.

* * *

On February 26, 1945, Roosevelt talks about the death of a woman named Henrietta Szold.  She was the founder of Hadassah.

That's meaningful to me, because I remember our Grandma Goldie being very involved with Hadassah in Chicago.  

Roosevelt says that Szold helped save 12,000 European Jewish children from death.  She brought them to safety in Palestine.

* * *

I feel like most of this post is me gathering ideas for future posts.

* * *

Roosevelt has some strong words against Congress on December 18, 1945.

She says, 

It would seem impossible for the members of Congress to go home and enjoy their Christmas vacations with the weight of the suffering of the world constantly before them, and no action yet taken to alleviate it.

It would, I think, be for all of us a sadder Christmas. Our representatives in Congress must be conscious of this, and yet I am sometimes a little bit confused by their apparently inconsistent reactions to this suffering.

For instance, as far as I have been able to find out, there has been comparatively little protest over the fact that the Germans—Jews, Protestants and Catholics—who have spent years of the war in concentration camps, and therefore should be regarded as our Allies who fought from within Germany, are treated similarly to the Germans who fought the war against us, whether as soldiers or civilians.

I'm wondering if she's referring to what I learned while watching the Safe Haven documentary—that while refugees were imprisoned in Fort Ontario and not allowed to seek employment, German prisoners of war were given work and paid by the US government.  

Roosevelt also talks about how thirty-four congressmen (Democrats and Republicans) voted to increase rations for Germans.  At first, I thought she was talking about German prisoners of war.  But she was actually talking about Germans in Germany.

Oh...well, I think the paragraphs above are also in reference to German civilians and not prisoners of war.  

I guess this was about the post-war interactions between The United States and Germany.

This post would have been written a couple of months after the war's end.

Roosevelt isn't completely heartless towards the Germans.  She says she doesn't want them to starve.  But she wants to give them the bare minimum.  She'd rather help go to other people.

I get that.

It makes sense to me.  

It's like if Trump became homeless and starving. I wouldn't feel okay walking past him and not helping at all.  But I could just give him a cheap granola bar and a bottle of water.  I don't need to give him all the cash in my wallet, take him out for an expensive meal, and then let him stay at our house.  If I am wanting to be generous, there are people who are much more deserving.

* * *

On November 7, 1945, Roosevelt talks in favor of Jewish refugees emigrating to Palestine from Europe.

She writes, There is in Europe at the present time a group of 100,000 displaced persons—the miserable, tortured, terrorized Jews who have seen members of their families murdered and their homes ruined, and who are stateless people, since they hate the Germans and no longer wish to live in the countries where they have been despoiled of all that makes life worth living. Naturally they want to go to Palestine, the one place where they will have a status, where they will feel again that sense of belonging to a community which gives most of us security.

Reading that makes me really wish, the Jews and Arabs had found a way to live peacefully together. 

* * *

There's that modern saying, This Tweet didn't age well.

I think that sentiment can be applied to Roosevelt's column on October 13, 1945.

She writes against giving help to the Germans.  

Our economic advisers—looking primarily to the interests of the industrialists of this country, backed by a similar group of industrialists in England—are saying that we should reestablish the industries of Germany so that Germany may live. 

Anyone who looks at the German people knows that they have suffered less than any people in Europe. What are we doing? Are we planning to make them strong again so we can have another war....Will we never learn the lessons of history? Not the Russians, but the Germans have brought about the past two world wars.

I wondered how surprised she'd be to see Germany today. They've had an amazing turn-around.

But with her lacking foresight, I can understand why she'd feel that way.

I wonder if it's very true that the reasons the United States helped Germany was because of wanting to do nice by industrialists.  Was it less about humanitarian reasons and more about money?

* * *

On April 30, 1945, Roosevelt brings up what happened in Europe, to the Jews, to fight in support of a fair employment bill.

Roosevelt says:

Many people have come to think of this bill as being of value only to certain minority groups. I think it is important for the public in general to understand clearly that the bill, while it may be of value to these groups, is equally vital to each and every one of us who are citizens of the United States. If we do not see that equal opportunity, equal justice and equal treatment are meted out to every citizen, the very basis on which this country can hope to survive with liberty and justice for all will be wiped away.

That's before she brings up Germany.  

Then she says:

Are our memories so short that we do not recall how in Germany this unparalleled barbarism started by discrimination directed against the Jewish people? It has ended in brutality and cruelty meted out to all people, even to our own boys who have been taken prisoner. This bestiality could not exist if the Germans had not allowed themselves to believe in a master race which could do anything it wished to all other human beings not of their particular racial strain.

This makes me think of the anti-racism movement and the idea that you're either anti-racist or racist.

When there's systemic racism, it's really not helpful to be "not racist".  It's kind of meaningless.

Would it have helped save any Jews if a person in Europe was not-antisemitic?  Sitting around, not hating on Jews, would not have saved any lives. What helped to save lives was being AGAINST antisemitism and fighting antisemitism.

That being said...when it's not about systemic discrimination...if it's more a matter of hurt feelings....being just not-bigoted is probably enough.

At this point, I don't feel that I'm in significant danger as a Jewish person in the United States.  I mean...for being Jewish.  Yeah, there are hate crimes against Jews.  But I don't feel it's at a widespread, dangerous level.

I think antisemitism in the United States is more about hurt feelings.  And though that sounds dismissive, I don't mean to be dismissive.  I think the things that are said are very hurtful.  It hurts me. It angers me.

I feel most non-Jewish people are at least a little antisemitic.  I think there are many who are moderately antisemitic.  I think there a small number of people who are very antisemitic.

So for me, a person being NOT antisemitic is enough.  At this point, I'm even grateful for just-a-little antisemitic.  

If things get worse for Jews in the United States...like laws against us and/or an increase in violence against us; then I'd want people to be anti-antisemitic rather than simply not-antisemitic.

* * *

On July 2, 1945, Roosevelt wrote about a letter she received from a Jewish father.  Though her daughter did well in high school, three colleges rejected her, because of religious quotas. The universities didn't bluntly tell them that.  They gave other excuses.  The principal of the high school told them the truth of the matter.

So...there we had more widespread antisemitic discrimination in the United States.  

In many of her columns, such as this one, Roosevelt isn't just not-antisemitic.  She is anti-antisemitic.  She uses her platform to speak out and fight against injustice.

* * *

I think I'm going to stop here.  

I feel like I've gotten enough of a sense of what Eleanor Roosevelt was thinking regarding Jewish people from 1942-1945.

In my next post, I will probably look at Jewish related things in her 1946-1952 years.  

What would our world be like if we

knew for sure there 

was life after death, and 

we could easily talk to our 

dearly-departed on the Internet?

The Dead are Online a novel by Dina Roberts 

Eleanor Roosevelt and the Jews (Part 1)

I have a list of 32 post ideas....and I plan to keep it growing.

When it comes to lists, I usually use Random.org to pick which thing comes next in my life.  

I decided for this post, I'd continue with my Random.org tradition.  But I limited it to the things I added while watching The Safe Haven documentary.  Those were numbers 23-32 on the list. 

Eight of those ideas came directly from watching the documentary.

Two of the things came in the same time period (days) of watching the documentary.  But I was inspired to add them while reading Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America by Ijeoma Oluo.  It was actually stuff that Oluo didn't spend a lot of time on in the book.  But she mentioned it, and I thought...I'd like to learn more about that.  

But anyway....

Today Random.org picked out number 28 for me.  And 28 is Eleanor Roosevelt.  

She was mentioned twice in Safe Haven as someone who advocated for the Jews and other European refugees.  I was glad to hear that.

I look forward to learning more about her.

I'm not sure where to start.

* * *

I was wondering if I should start with a general biography.

But she's a super famous person, and I'm sure there are many biographies available.  

Though...with that, I'm thinking about people reading this post.

I might need to know some background info...for myself.

All I know about Eleanor Roosevelt...besides that she was a First Lady and married to FDR, is that (I think?) she was well-liked.  I mean I think she's sort of seen as a heroine-icon.  

* * *

I'm wondering if Eleanor Roosevelt is one of those people who is seen as beloved by some...such as Jewish people.  But she has a dark side that makes her not so lovely to others.  For example, maybe she was racist towards Black people.  Or maybe she was unsympathetic to Native Americans.

* * *

I'm going to start and maybe stay with Oswego.

I Googled Eleanor Roosevelt and Fort Ontario.  

One of the results is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

Oh.  It's a photo.

It's Eleanor Roosevelt visiting Fort Ontario.  The museum specifies that the Hendels were there. Eisik Hendel is specifically named and pointed out in the photo.  I'm guessing maybe the Hendel family donated the photo to the museum.

There's some information about the Hendels on the page. They were from Yugoslavia.  After their release from Fort Ontario, they moved to New York City.  

I wonder if they still have family living there.

Now I'm wondering...was there a Hendel kid at the Jewish preschool I worked at. Could they be related?

I started falling down a rabbit hole, but I'm stopping myself.

I Googled the Hendel family and found an article.

So....instead of totally neglecting Eleanor Roosevelt, I'm just going to add the Hendel family to my list of post ideas. 

* * *

Another Google result...the first one actually...is a diary/journal entry from Eleanor Roosevelt herself.  That's VERY cool.

Oh!  The website is the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project.

And it's not a diary/journal that I found. It's a syndicated column she wrote.

She wrote a column six days a week from 1935-1961; then after that, she went down to three days a week.

At first, she was pretty controlled.  It sounds like she performed the role of Good Little Wife.  Then, as the website describes: 

As Roosevelt grew more comfortable with the "My Day" format, she took greater risks with it. By 1938, she had moved away from the trivial and mundane and begun to concentrate more on her responsibilities as citizen and political symbol.

That's awesome.

* * *

The date Google led me to was September 22, 1944.

But I backspaced to the day before and saw she talks about the war there.

There's probably a lot of other related entries.

Hopefully, this website can be my main resource.

It seems very valuable.

* * *

Roosevelt talks about flowers at the end of the September 21 column.

I love that, because I've been getting into gardening lately.

What she talks about mostly, in the column, though is about whether or not to celebrate when the news arrives that Germany has been defeated.  A person writing to her felt that there should not be a wild celebration, because the war would still be going on in the Pacific.

Roosevelt wrote: 

I think I agree with the gentleman, for my heart would not feel free and joyous. I would be glad, however, that we had reached a milestone for which we had waited so long. Perhaps our bells might ring out. We might say a word of silent prayer and gratitude, and everyone of us might do an extra bit of work to signify our determination to bring the final close of the war as near as possible.

That makes sense.

I'd be okay with celebrating, though.  As long as it wasn't with wild ignorant optimism.

I might be a let's-party-tonight-and-cry-tomorrow kind of person.

OR

Yay! Your biopsy came back negative. Let's celebrate. But let's also be aware that while that biopsy was negative, a new cancer might be quietly growing.

Which...really...is why we need to celebrate tonight.

But I'm thinking of personal celebrations or celebrations with family and friends. 

The context of this column is probably more about whether or not there should a government sponsored extravaganza.

I'd say no on that.

* * *

Roosevelt mentions the loss of American boys who are fighting. And that's the main reason, we shouldn't celebrate.

She doesn't mention the mass amounts of deaths that have occurred in the Holocaust...or deaths of military personnel of other countries.

There's a little bit of nationalism there.

* * *

Moving onto September 22.

Roosevelt talks about her trip to Oswego.

It starts on Tuesday night (the 19th).  She and someone named Mrs. Henry Morgenthau spent the night in Syracuse....which is near Oswego.

Joseph Smart called for them, and they went to the refugee shelter.

I guess called for them means he picked them up?

I remember Smart mentioned in the documentary.  Was he the one in charge of the shelter?  I'm wondering if he was the one who had worked in the Japanese concentration camps and had felt guilty about it.

I just checked.  He's the director.  AND he's also already on my list of post ideas.

* * *

Roosevelt was not satisfied with the treatment of Oswego refugees.

She needs to rise from the dead and make a stink about what is happening these days to refugees.

Roosevelt says: Forty-five cents a day per person is what is allowed for food. Regular iron cots and springs with cotton mattresses, army blankets, an occasional bare table and a few stiff chairs—this is the furniture of what must be considered a temporary home. Restrictions are plentiful, and there is much work to be done around the place; but at least the menace of death is not ever-present. 

I didn't realize they had to pay for their food.

I guess they got an allowance?

Hopefully, they weren't supposed to have money from Europe.

Roosevelt says: Volunteers come out to teach English; but since most of the people in the shelter are professional people and frequently have many talents, they, too, have much to offer to the community. After lunch, for instance, an opera singer from Yugoslavia sang for us, and I have rarely enjoyed anything more.

That's a nice mutual benefits kind of situation.

I think it also brings up a very important point.

Sometimes the best giving is receiving.

People need to feel needed and appreciated....especially if they have a talent they're proud of.

In families, unconditional love is important.

No one should feel they must perform or create in order to be loved.

On the other hand, if we have creative talents or other abilities that are ignored by our family, that doesn't feel good either.

For me, it makes me feel very...

Not invisible...but unseen.

I imagine the opera singer felt VERY seen.

And I hope she read Eleanor Roosevelt's column.  I hope she saw her singing mentioned. 

* * *

Roosevelt says: I was much touched by the flowers which were given me, and especially by some of the gifts, for these, in the absence of money, represented work.

I love that.  

Although it makes me feel kind of guilty.  Because for the last year or so, I've been giving my nephews gift cards for their birthdays.  That takes no thought and no work.

BUT...I kind of feel sometimes money might be more useful and appreciated. 

It does make me feel, though...that I don't know my nephews well enough.

* * *

I'm not a good gift giver, and I'm also not a good gift receiver.

I don't think I'm that awful at knowing people, though.

I just can't always manage to get a good (affordable) gift that matches what I know of them.

* * *

I think the best gift exchange would be where no one buys anything,

We just write out what we'd WANT to give people.  Fantasy gifts.

I think that would take work, AND it would be thoughtful.

* * *

Roosevelt describes one of the refugee rooms (homes). 

Brightly colored pictures from magazines and papers had been cut out and pasted elsewhere on the walls, and colorful covers had been made for their beds. The effort put into it speaks volumes for what these people have undergone, and for the character which has brought them through. 

I think that's a good example of making the best of a situation.

There's a big pushback against toxic positivity lately. And I think that's a really good thing.

On the other hand, I feel maybe we are sometimes going in the direction of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I say "we" because I'm guilty of going too far.  For example, I may have reposted things on my Instagram stories or Retweeted things that go too far.

No one in a difficult situation (disaster, disease, injury, war, abuse, disability, etc) should be pressured to be strong or cheerful. They shouldn't be expected to be stoic. They shouldn't be expected to pull through on their own.  

But if we push this message too much, I fear we may start to villainize people who do want to and are able to be stoic.  

We knew a woman with breast cancer. (She's still alive, thankfully.  But I don't really know her anymore).

I can't remember exactly what happened.  But it was something like she baked all this stuff to give to the medical staff on the day of her surgery.

I don't want anyone to feel like they need to do this if they're about to get cancer surgery.  I want people to feel okay just sitting in their bed crying or staring off into space.

But if someone DOES want to make cookies, I don't want to feel they need to hide this fact.  I don't want someone to feel shame for being too positive or too productive during difficult times.

I also wouldn't want someone to make the worse of a situation, feeling otherwise they will be perceived as not having suffered enough and are undeserving of sympathy.  

* * *

I am having self-doubts about these posts.

Am I actually learning about the subjects?

Or am I just using snippets of what I encounter as an excuse to go on a rant/tangent...or as an excuse to play research games with charts, Google Maps, etc.

* * *

I think fans of Eleanor Roosevelt are going to be annoyed and/or offended.

If you're one of those, I'd advise you to close this tab.  Things are very likely to get worse here than better.  

* * *

I think the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt is pissed at me.

I'd apologize.  But you're not supposed to apologize if you have no plans to change your behavior.

* * *

I've left September 22 and am now looking at the days after that.

On September 23, Roosevelt sounds less nationalistic than the earlier day and more of a world citizen.  She says: 

As each new country is liberated, the military occupation must be supplemented by the governments of the liberated lands and by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration set up by the 44 United Nations. With winter coming on, there will be a great need for warm clothing in all these countries; and so this collection has been instituted in the hope of sending 15,000,000 pounds of clothing to be distributed wherever the need is greatest.

I'm not saying this is the first evidence we've had that Roosevelt isn't nationalistic.  She cares about refugees who are not yet American...and at the time of her visit, the refugees weren't meant to be come American citizens.

I'm just saying that in the  September 21 column, her words made it sound like she was focused on OUR military's suffering and not thinking about all the other militaries, citizens, etc.  

* * *

The September 25 column is interesting.

It talks about a potential yet averted conflict involving the refugees and Oswego residents.

It reminds me very much of stuff we experience today.

What happened is there was a cigarette shortage in town.  

Worried that, the townspeople would blame the refugees...the newspaper provided fact-checking.  

The fact was: there was a cigarette shortage almost everywhere.  

I'm not sure if they did the fact-checking before the rumor started....like preventative medicine.  Or did they publish the fact-checking after the rumor started to grow.

I'm imagining that maybe, in those days, people accepted fact-checking.

I think many Republicans these days see fact-checking as liberal lies.

* * *

Wasn't there a rumor that migrants were causing the formula shortages?

* * *

I'm going to read an editorial in USA TODAY about the formula shortage.  

Rex Huppke provides various quotes from Republicans including Texas Governor Greg Abbott.  

Abbott Tweets: While mothers and fathers stare at empty grocery store shelves in a panic, the Biden Administration is happy to provide baby formula to illegal immigrants coming across our southern border.

Yeah. That sounds very pro-life of Greg Abbott.

Oh....

Nationalism is so ugly.

It really is.

If it weren't for nationalism, how many Jews (and other "undesirables") would have been saved?

First of all, a ton would have been saved if there was no German Nationalism.

But a fair bit would have been saved if there weren't ugly shithead nationalists in the United States.

If it weren't for nationalists in America, I'm betting Roosevelt would have allowed more than 982 refugees.  Instead there may have been 10,000 or 100,000.  Maybe even more.

* * *

Huppke provides various examples of Republicans pretending they're the party that cares the most about babies. But then facts prove otherwise.

For example:  Elise Stefanik says, There is a reason why the Republican Party is the party of parents.

Huppke then points out that seven out of ten of the states with the worst infant mortality rates have Republican Governors.  The same goes for the states with the most families experiencing hunger.

Huppke ends his editorial by saying: Dang it. All these facts have a decidedly liberal slant to them.

I think a comedian...maybe Stephen Colbert...said something like reality has a liberal bias.  

Okay.  Yeah. Lord Wiki confirms it was Colbert.  He said it in 2006 at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

* * *

Getting back to Eleanor Roosevelt's September 25 column.

She talks about people spreading rumors about The President's health. She says,  I hope everyone realizes that the people who spread these rumors are not really concerned about the President's health. They are working to create an impression which they think will serve their interests.

I feel my family is very guilty of this. Myself included. We sometimes share news stories with a facade of compassion, but we're mostly trying to get a point across. I mean I don't think any of us are completely devoid of concern or compassion. But the main point of sharing is to point fingers at the harm the other side has caused.

Her conclusion says, It is said that gossip is the vice of women. Yet I have lived nearly sixty years, during which I have spent a good part of my time with men, and I have not found that they are any less quick to repeat things about which they know little and which they have not verified.

I'm glad she called that out.

* * *

I imagine my family members completely denying that they disguise partisan politics behind exaggerated compassion.

They can deny all they want.

I don't have to believe their denials. 

* * *

I stopped skimming through the end of September 1944 and have now plugged in "Jewish" into the My Day column search option.

I want to try to get back on track.

Although I'm not going to beat myself up for getting off the track, because my purpose in writing these posts is not just to learn about the Holocaust but also to connect it all to the present shitshow.

* * *

So far, I've looked at a 1936 and 1939 post in which Jewish is mentioned as part of an organization name.  

For example: The National Council of Jewish Women.

Maybe "Jew" is a better term.

I should also look for "Holocaust".

Though I don't think they called it "The Holocaust" while it was happening.

I'll try for various terms.....

* * *

The posts are not in order, but I've been trying to read them in order.

That's a bit challenging, though.

So....let's pretend we are jumping around in a Tardis.

Or we're in season five of Lost.

Our jumps won't be too big, fortunately.  Though the search results are not in order of date within a category; the fact that there are categories helps. 

There's White House Years (1935-1941)

White House World War II Years (1942-1945)

United Nations Years (1946-1952).  Here we can probably find out whether Roosevelt was more Team Jewish or Team Arab/Muslim.

Post UN Years (1953-1962). Same as above regarding Israel/Palestine.

Right now I'm in the White House Years...skipping the entries that are just naming a Jewish organization.

* * *

I'm looking at January 2, 1944.  

Roosevelt talks about books she is reading.  She says, Then, to jump to something entirely different, there is a new Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, which should be extremely interesting to anyone wanting authoritative information on the Jewish people and their religion.

That's very cool.

So far, she seems like my kind of woman...wanting to read and learn.  

* * *

Jumping back to September 2, 1939.

Roosevelt says that in the morning, she and the President got the news that Germany had invaded Poland.

Oh wow!

Roosevelt says the night before, she received a letter from a German friend who she had roomed with in school in England.  

Roosevelt wrote: In this letter she said that when hate was rampant in the world, it was easy to believe harm of any nation, that she knew all the nations believed things that were not true about Germany, did not understand her position, and therefore hated her. She begged that we try to see Germany's point of view and not to judge her harshly.

I wonder if this friend continued to support Hitler.

Did she ever get off the Hitler train?

I feel a kinship here with Roosevelt. She rants about this person supporting Hitler.

Roosevelt says:

 Can one help but question his integrity? His knowledge of history seems somewhat sketchy too, for, after all, Poland possessed Danzig many years prior to the time that it ever belonged to Germany. And how can you say that you do not intend to make war on women and children and then send planes to bomb cities?

That reminds me of how us left-wing biased people talk about Trump.

Here, though, Roosevelt is a bit too generous for me.  She says: No, I feel no bitterness against the German people. I am deeply sorry for them, as I am for the people of all other European nations facing this horrible crisis. But for the man who has taken this responsibility upon his shoulders I can feel little pity. It is hard to see how he can sleep at night and think of the people in many nations whom he may send to their deaths.

I feel sorry for the people who weren't on the Hitler train.

Roosevelt seemed to think all of Europe was being held hostage by one evil man.

It doesn't work like that.  Not there and not here in the United States.

* * *

I thought this would be a one post project.

But I think it will have to be another trilogy.

Or more. 

* * *

Now I'm looking at October 25, 1941.

Roosevelt says: I have been reading some accounts of the removal of the Jewish people from Germany to Poland and Russia. Somehow, being suddenly told that within an hour you must leave your home never to return, is very difficult for us here to visualize. It is a leave-taking which savors somewhat of death.

I'm not sure what she means by savors.  Looking at it in context, I'm guessing she means it's similar to death?

I wonder how many Jewish people knew that they'd be leaving their homes forever.  Did any of them have false hope of returning at that point?

In this column, Roosevelt also says: These mass removals, where people are treated like animals and not like human beings, are so horrible to contemplate, that one can only hope that at a certain point feelings become numb and suffering ceases to be acute.

I can understand having that sort of hope. But I don't think it happens. 

Well...maybe. 

Because she does say "certain point".

I have sometimes imagined that in circumstances where there are many deaths and a lot of trauma, people become somewhat numb.

I'm thinking more of The Walking Dead than the Holocaust.  But I think it applies to all mass tragedy/trauma.  The first deaths probably bring stronger emotions and reactions.  The subsequent ones less so.

But even when we have subtle emotions and calm reactions...that doesn't mean we are less psychologically damaged.

People become very damaged...so much so that, from what I remember reading, their genetic make up changes.  

* * *

I'm going to reread.  BBC has an article about the trauma-genes phenomena. 

It's pretty fascinating stuff.  The name of it is epigenetics. There have been studies on humans...somewhat inconclusive and moderately convincing.  And there are studies on mice which seem pretty conclusive and also pretty convincing (my opinion).

The bad new is that it seems trauma can not only fuck up our own lives but also the lives of our descendants (and not just from learned behaviors).

The good news is the study/studies also show that therapy can probably fix the psychological damage and prevent it from remaining in the family tree. 

Well....I think folks should keep all this in mind when they whine that people or groups should hurry up and get over what has happened to them.

Thinking of how we've had centuries of systemic racism against Black people.

Even if racism completely disappears tomorrow, the effects of all the trauma are not going to just vanish.

* * *

Getting back to Eleanor Roosevelt and the Jews.

I've now switched my search term from Jewish to Jew.  I'm not going to search for the Holocaust until I get to the 1942-1945 years.  Because I don't think anyone was using the term Holocaust early on.  

They might not have been even using it before 1945.

* * *

Here's something interesting.

On January 16, 1940, Roosevelt wrote:

 What an odd thing it is to find, according to the newspapers, that a group of people who say they belong to the: "The Christian Front," whatever that organization may be, were planning to overthrow our government by force, the elimination of the Jews and the installing of a dictator! A "Christian Front" might reasonably be supposed to indicate that the members are followers of Christ, and he was a Jew. He never used force to overthrow evil.

I don't think I've heard of this.

I'm going to add that to my list of future posts.  It sounds pretty interesting, and I see Lord Wiki has an entry on it.  

Though in case it takes me a long to get to that post....I had to read a little bit about it to satisfy my curiosity.

The drama took place between 1938-1940 and was headed by a radio priest named Charles Coughlin.  It took place mostly in New York City, and most of its members were Irish-American.

* * *

I don't think Eleanor Roosevelt meant it in this way.  But I think, it sort of looks like, Roosevelt was implying that Jews ARE evil.  But that you can't use force to overthrow them.  

If I hadn't already read other stuff she had written about Jews and other subjects, I might question what she said.  I mean I'd be questioning whether she was an antisemitic person.

I'm the type of person who is hypersensitive to little things like that.

I'm the type of person who says or thinks...What did you mean by THAT?

* * *

On June 28, 1940, Roosevelt writes:

The years of depression have made us less sure of ourselves, oversuspicious and overcautious perhaps. Take, for example, our attitude toward the acceptance of any foreign political refugees. The first to suffer from oppression abroad were the German-Jewish people, but many other nationalities have followed in their wake.

These people love liberty and value it, and have had experiences which may be of value to us in recognizing the propaganda methods used by totalitarian dictators. We must, of course, use caution, but we need not be cautious to the point of going back entirely on our traditional hospitality to political refugees.

These words would do well by people today.  

And the last sentences in her column made me immediately think of The Walking Dead.

Roosevelt writes:

Human life is precious, human intelligence of a fine order is rare enough to make us want to preserve it. I sometimes wonder if we could not safeguard ourselves and at the same time show some of our old time generosity towards human beings who today are in great misery and danger.

The Walking Dead provides a fairly balanced analogy about immigration and other situations where there's a struggle to choose between compassion and self/group preservation.  

A lack of openness would have prevented us from getting favorite characters like Michonne.

Too much openness and trust and we'd get more Terminus situations.

 * * *

I'm going to stop here and continue this with a sequel post.  

 

 What would our world be like if we

knew for sure there 

was life after death, and

we could easily talk to our

dearly-departed on the Internet?

The Dead are Online a novel by Dina Roberts