The beginning of this messy journey begins here.
What I've been doing with these posts is searching for mention of Jews, Israel, and some related words in Eleanor Roosevelt's My Day column.
In this post, I'll be looking at what she wrote in 1954.
My searching has given me 17 results. I'm going to subtract the ones where Roosevelt mentions the searched for words just in passing....UNLESS she talks about something else in the column that is particularly interesting to me.
* * *
Okay. I went through the 17.
I'm now left with 12.
* * *
Starting with January 8, 1954.
Roosevelt writes:
The Jewish people have been among the earliest settlers in our country. On October 12, 1492, Luis de Torres was the first Jew to land from Columbus' caravel Santa Maria and he gave thanks to God for having safely crossed the uncharted seas.
Yes. Jews participated in colonization.
I wonder how bad Luis de Torres was in terms of that.
Roosevelt also talks about the first Jewish cemetery in the United States. It was consecrated in the year 1656.
* * *
Lord Wiki says that Luis de Torres was Columbus's interpreter. He knew Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Arabic.
Uh...weren't they looking for India?
Maybe they were planning to go to Arabic countries as well.
Who was speaking Hebrew at the time?
I have no idea what Chaldaic is.
I shouldn't judge these guys, because the world was much less explored in those days. They might have had no idea about who was speaking which languages were.
Or I might be wrong, and these guys were ignorant and didn't know how to use the research sources that were available back then.
* * *
Lord Wiki says de Torres was a converso. I was thinking that had something to do with conversations...relating to him being a interpreter. But it turns out that it means he converted to Catholicism.
SO...if it ends up he was an extra violent, greedy, or cruel colonizer, I'll let the Catholics claim him.
If he ends up being less awful than the typical colonizer, I'll let us Jews claim him.
I'm joking.....
* * *
Lord Wiki says de Torres was killed in 1493, so he didn't spend a lot of time in the Americas.
* * *
I've now happened on an interesting website called The Internet Index of Tough Jews.
I'm wondering if the site is right-winged or more center.
Is it prejudiced that I can't imagine it being left-wing?
I feel left-wing people would appreciate toughness, but I feel we'd be more likely to honor things like compassion and intelligence.
Anyway....
This website says that de Torres converted to Catholicism because of the Inquisition. So it wasn't exactly a choice.
I'm not sure how much he needed to be coerced. Was it like screaming No!!!!! Don't cut off my head! I'll convert! Or was it more like Oh. Okay. Sure. Why not?
Here, they give de Torres more languages for his resume—Aramaic (Fallen!) Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Latin.
They don't mention the Chaldaic thing.
Oh!!
Columbus thought he was going to find Asian descendants of the last tribes of Israel on his journeys. That's why he wanted someone who could speak Aramaic and Hebrew.
So, there was some thought put into the languages. It might not have been correct. But it wasn't random or completely ignorant.
When they reached Cuba, Columbus sent de Torres and some others to find people.
There are conflicting stories about what happened to de Torres. Some people gives him a long-lived happy ending and others have him being killed.
The website says that in a Simon Weisenthnal book, Weisenthnal speculates that the first words spoken to the Native Americans were probably Hebrew.
Maybe?
I guess that's possible if they really saw finding-the-Asian-descendants-of-the-last-tribes a sure thing.
I imagined it was more of a maybe-kind-of-thing.
If one has no idea what language a group of people speak, what do they start with?
For those of us not bilingual, we'd probably just use our own language and hope for the best.
Would it be the same for an interpreter?
Maybe de Torres should have worked on some Indian languages. Like Hindi? I mean he did have that long ship ride.
Or maybe there were no books on Indian languages.
Maybe Chaldaic is an Indian language?
No...
Googled. It's a Semitic language. Or it's connected to a Semitic group of people. They were from what is now Southern Iraq.
It's confusing.
* * *
I'm thinking maybe I'm stupid and Columbus wasn't trying to go to India but some other place around there.
Googled.
I'm not going to read too much. But I think he was trying to get to Asia in general. And that might have included what we now call the Middle East.
I'm probably applying too much of our modern globe to 1492.
* * *
I was going to look up the first Jewish cemetery. But I've already spent more time on the January 8 column than I wanted to.
I think I shall move onto the next column.
* * *
I'm confused about whether I should use the term "Column" for the individual entries.
A few times, I've written "post" or "entry" but then I tell myself that Roosevelt wasn't a blogger, and I delete it.
* * *
Before I move on, actually...
We had flags in our front yard—three small Pride flags and an American flag we took from the Lake House.
A few weeks ago, the American flag disappeared.
Of course, we thought it was some kind of political attack.
We watched the Ring videos, but it didn't show the thief.
Tim questioned why they took the American flag and not the Pride ones.
I said they probably didn't like people like us having an American flag.
Then....
Yesterday, I suddenly noticed the three Pride flags were missing.
Again, I watched the Ring video. I didn't see a thief. But I could pinpoint the general time, the flags disappeared.
Tim couldn't figure out how the thief circumvented the camera. He suggested it might be an animal. Though I'm not sure he actually believed that. I vetoed that theory. I could imagine an animal accidentally taking one flag. But all three?
I ordered more flags from Amazon...a whole bunch. It was kind of about being patriotic and supportive of LGBTQ+. But I think I mostly bought them as bait.
Tim had plans to put out a second camera.
Then I guess he decided to watch the footage from yesterday again. He has access to something where the camera takes a photo every...thirty seconds? Three minutes? I forget.
He called me over.
It HAD been an animal. A squirrel!!!
We didn't get good footage of the actual thievery. It's too far away and blurry. But we saw enough to conclude the squirrel did it.
I Googled and found a story of a veteran who thought people were stealing his flag. It ended up being a squirrel taking the parts of the flag to use for his nest.
Anyway...I have lots of flags. So I'll keep providing the squirrel with new material.
* * *
Moving onto January 19, 1954.
I was confused here.
Roosevelt says:
Sunday a very unique party was given in New York City in honor of Dr. Israel Goldstein. This party was an informal reception for the many "little people" whose troubles and difficulties have been heard by members of the Jewish Conciliation Board of America, Inc., of which Dr. Goldstein is the president. He is also the president of the American Jewish Congress and a distinguished rabbi.
When I first saw this, I quickly imagined she was talking about dwarfs. I told myself I was wrong. But then I started having doubts.
Maybe the word "unique" made me question things.
* * *
Well, I just Googled Israel Goldstein. He wasn't a dwarf.
So I think little people here probably means not-famous.
It would the 1950's version of not-blue-checked.
* * *
Now I'm having more (different) confusion about the party.
Roosevelt says:
Here I want to report to you only on this particular party. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas was the principal speaker and the place of meeting was the old Educational Alliance Building on New York's Lower East Side. This is one of our oldest and best known settlement houses. Many of the little people gathered there were survivors of Hitler's concentration camps, others were products of New York's tenements. There were also present, however, judges and lawyers and business leaders who sat on the panels to hear the cases and to settle the disputes for these little people to the satisfaction of both the plaintiff and defendant.
I'm guessing the party was for the people who once had their disputes handled there. The Little People. But it almost sounds like they dealt with disputes at the party.
I'm kind of impressed that they got all these disputing people to come and celebrate together.
I mean even if a dispute is settled, I don't think it automatically restores peace between people. I also imagine the losing side would often be resentful.
I'm wondering if most of the people attending the party were the winners in their disputes.
* * *
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has a 1959 article about the Jewish Conciliation Board.
The article says, Dr. Goldstein pointed out in his speech that many of the cases dealt by the Board “involved Jewish patterns, traditions and mores which only a Jewish tribunal could understand sympathetically.
And....
Under the arbitration laws of New York State we have been able to render binding decisions, “Dr. Goldstein reported. “We have probably saved our city and state millions of dollars in court costs and eased the already overcrowded court calendars.
That makes sense.
Though I still imagine people being disgruntled about the decisions.
* * *
In her January 29 column, Roosevelt writes about the one hundredth anniversary of the Jewish Community Center Movement.
I knew there were Jewish Community Centers, but I didn't realize there was a movement regarding them.
A Senator named Herbert Lehman talked about the the Centers and the movement in Congress. At that time, there were 350 centers and more than a half million members.
This makes me feel guilty that we don't belong to a Jewish Community Center.
The last time we had any involvement is when we accompanied my sister and her family to a Jewish Community Center pool. I have no idea what year that was.
Lehman said to Congress that the centers are a vigorous force for democracy. A center gives the American Jew those enriching experiences which help make him a better Jew and a better citizen and therefore a happier and more interesting person.
I can imagine that's true for some Jews. But I think the same can be said for libraries, fandom conventions, movie theaters, college campuses, dog parks, theme parks, haunted houses, museums, botanical gardens, zoos, sporting events, virtual online spaces....
Well, maybe not the Jewish part but it would work for the happier-and-more-interesting person part.
* * *
The Jewish Community Movement has a website. They now call themselves the JCC Association of North America.
I'm very glad to see that the JCC leans left.
They have a whole page for a statement on racial equality and also one for their support of Asian and Pacific Islanders.
On racism they say: We are inspired by voices calling upon us to come together to root out racism and inequality while those who would incite and divide us, sow discord and disharmony that place our progress as a nation at risk.
That's a very polite and pointed way of saying We're not MAGA.
They have the longer version of the beautiful, important Eli Wiesel quote:
I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.
I wish there was a gun that would shoot quotes instead of bullets.
I would shoot Eli Wiesel's quote to anyone who
A) tells a corporation or company to stay out of politics
B) tells a celebrity that they should stay out of politics
C) Treats politics like team sports rather than decision-making that will have huge consequences for people lacking in privilege.
* * *
I just remembered/realized that both my nieces attended and worked/work at a Jewish Community Center camp. And now one of them is getting a degree in education.
Interestingly, the Jewish day camp that my older sister and I went to in Madison Wisconsin isn't listed as a JCC camp. I guess some Jewish camps are outside the system?
And the Cystic Fibrosis camp where Tim and I first met was held at a Jewish camp. That's not part of the JCC either.
Well...now I'm looking at the website of Camp Blue Ridge, and I'm not seeing anything about it being a Jewish camp.
Maybe it's not Jewish anymore?
* * *
I Googled and ended up on the Jewish Federation Website.
About Camp Blue Ridge, they say: While the camp is officially non-affiliated, the majority of the clientele come from an American Jewish background.
Interesting.
I wonder if it was affiliated in the 1980's and 1990's?
Also...I'm thinking maybe some Jewish camps are affiliated with the Jewish Community Center and others are affiliated with the Jewish Federation. And I guess some are unofficially affiliated.
* * *
Googled my old day camp. Camp Shalom.
It's affiliated with the Jewish Federation.
I'm wondering what's the relationship between the Federation and JCC? Are the two organizations friends? Frenemies?
* * *
Later in the January 29 column, Roosevelt talks about her visit to Canada. She had dinner with the Consul General of Israel whose husband became the Minister of Israel from Canada.
She mentions their last name (Camay) but not their firsts.
I did some Googling and was unable to find about more about Mr. and Mrs. Camay.
And....One of the few sites listed was Roosevelt's column.
* * *
Sadly, I wrote two of the days out of order.
I don't really want to jump back in time, so I'm going to skip talking about what Roosevelt wrote on January 27.
* * *
Jumping ahead to February 12.
Roosevelt writes about a movement in Chicago to get people to buy Israeli Bonds.
Some things that Roosevelt says about Israel for this day:
So far the interest in these bonds has always been met promptly and I think that anyone who has been in Israel will come away, as I did, with the feeling that the spirit of the people there is one that promises success for the establishment of a stable country.
And...
There is much to be done and many problems to be met in Israel but in that area of the world, Israel is the one country which seems to be embarked on creating a truly democratic form of government. If peace can be really established between the Arab nations and Israel, I think Israel can serve as a valuable spark plug for democracy as well as for economic improvement in the lives of the people of the whole area.
I feel that's somewhat ethnocentric. I'm not sure.
As much as Jews were "other" in the United States, I think back then that Arabs/Muslims were much more so.
And while some of the Jews in Israel were Middle Eastern, there were others coming from Europe. And Americans in the 1950's probably had a stronger comfort level with people originating from Europe.
On the other hand, I am lacking when it comes to the history of the Middle East. It could be that the countries there were very much lacking in democracy.
And economic progress.
Progress is a hard one for me.
I wish every person had access to progress whether it be about values or technology.
At the same time, I want every individual to have the freedom not to participate in modern values and modern technology. BUT.... I don't want those people imposing their restrictions on others...including their spouses or children.
Well...all children are going to be at least somewhat restricted by their parent's decisions and way of life. I think it's only problematic when there are too many restrictions and/or the child, as they approach adulthood, is forced or manipulated into remaining a part of a very restrictive situation
* * *
Thinking more about it.
It's like I feel it's wrong to judge other cultures and countries for being less modern.
But then at the same time, less modern often equals less civil rights.
And thinking about it....
I would very much prefer that people around the world judge my state (Texas) harshly.
So...if most countries in the 1950's Middle East were like Texas in terms of how the laws treat women and other marginalized people, and Israel showed promise of turning the whole area into less Texas and more California or New York.....
Then I'm 100% on board with what Roosevelt was saying regarding the Middle East.
* * *
Onto March 11....
Roosevelt writes about getting a pathetic letter from an Israeli mother. I was sort of expecting some shaming from Roosevelt. But pathetic has changed meanings through the years.
These days, it's usually used as an insult. But I think in the past, it was more a word of compassion.
Anyway, what happened is the mother's daughter had been heading to Iran to visit her husband. He had been working there.
The plane had to make an emergency landing in Iraq. The police detained the daughter, because she had an Israeli passport. Then they put her in prison.
I really am lost when it comes to Middle Eastern politics.
I'm surprised it was deemed safe for her to go to Iran. Did Iran have better relations with Israel than Iraq back then?
The daughter was thirty-one when this happened. About a decade earlier, she had spent four years in a Nazi concentration camp.
I wonder what happened to her.
Did she get out?
Did she survive?
Roosevelt provides the name of the daughter—Minni Bar-Ness. I Googled and didn't find anything.
* * *
I Googled more—using different search terms. I still can't find anything.
I feel it should be out there somewhere.
Roosevelt says the mother wrote: Since then six weeks have passed and all efforts on the part of the Israeli, Dutch, English and other authorities were ineffectual and fruitless. The whole world is informed about the matter and calls it a 'kidnapping.'
If the whole world knew about it, I feel someone should have written about it somewhere.
Maybe it was written about but never archived...at least not where it's easy to find on the Internet.
I could also be Googling the wrong things.
Two disturbing theories cross my mind.
A) That it never happened and the woman was seeking attention from Roosevelt. It's not like, in those days, Roosevelt could go on Twitter to see for herself what the world was saying.
B) These types of kidnappings/imprisonments were so commonplace that they weren't seen as newsworthy.
* * *
The better scenario is that I'm Googling wrong.
The best solution is someone points me in the right direction, and I learn the Israeli woman was released from Iraqi prison and lived a long life.
I want to say happily ever after but after a Nazi death camp and then being imprisoned for having the "wrong" passport, I'm sure she'd too traumatized to be a very happy person.
* * *
I just tried again.
I'm unable to let this go.
I Googled Minni Bar-Ness and Tel Aviv. I ended up seeing another My Day column one that I hadn't saved. I guess it doesn't mention Israel or Jewish specifically. But I'll add it now.
From what I can see in the little search blurb, Minni Bar-Ness ended up coming home. I'll read the other details when I get to June 5.
For now, I'm heading over to March 26.
Roosevelt writes about Catholics, Protestants, and Jewish groups making a joint effort to raise money for distressed people overseas.
She writes: It is a heartening thing when the three great religions in the United States come together and make a joint appeal for the support of their widespread relief and reconstruction efforts in areas of distress overseas.
I imagine/hope that these days, Muslims and other religions would be included in the team work.
I imagine American Muslims were not included (or not mentioned) in the 1954 endeavor, because they were marginalized. I doubt it was because they were less giving and compassionate.
I'm wondering what the US population of Muslims was compared to the US population of Jews.
* * *
I'm not easily finding population statistics about Muslims in the 1950's.
I think I'm going to give up.
My Google adventures are not going so well today.
* * *
Roosevelt writes about a booklet that talks about her husband's meeting with King Ibn Saud. It was published by a group called American Friends of the Middle East, Inc.
I think I read about this meeting. It was where the King was not very on board with the whole Israel plan.
* * *
I searched my blog.
It was in part 2 of my Eleanor Roosevelt series.
I'm not sure when the meeting between FDR and King IBN Saud took place, but she wrote about the meeting in October 1945...which was six months after FDR had died.
FDR hadn't been pleased with the talks.
Roosevelt defends...explains...what she had meant in the May 22 column.
My husband came back full of interest in the whole meeting and with great admiration for King Ibn Saud. But Colonel Eddy says in one place that he was surprised to hear that my husband said he was disappointed in his interview. I think I can clear that point up.
It was not the meeting nor the personal feeling he had for the King that was a disappointment. It was something else, which I heard him speak of several times. He had hoped that from this meeting there could come an understanding with the King which would make for a pleasanter atmosphere surrounding the small, new state of Israel.
Well, yeah.
In her 1945 column, it's not like she said that her husband came home and talked about how the king was creepy, annoying, rude, etc.
I think it was clear that he was disappointed with the talks and not the king himself.
Though if a meeting doesn't result in what we're were hoping for, it wouldn't be surprising if we hold some negative feelings towards the person who brought on the disappointing results.
Roosevelt writes:
My husband felt that there was so much land in that area, and that the promise of a homeland had been made to the Jews who settled in Israel. He hoped that by peaceful means a settlement could be arranged which would not create bad feeling between peoples that had lived side by side in harmony. He was disappointed that, just as Colonel Eddy reports, King Ibn Saud made no concessions as regards Israel.
I feel in this particular column, Roosevelt is playing the game of diplomacy. Maybe kind of awkwardly.
* * *
In her May 22 column, Roosevelt talks about opposition to the United Nations.
She talks about a pamphlet she received titled "Giving Away Our Liberties to the Super Government of the U.N."
The pamphlet says: Apart from these dangerous aspects of our membership in the anti-Christian U.N. these are serious reasons why we must unite in prayer to try to get the U.S. out of the U.N. Some of the most-important reasons are the deadly 'genocide treaty,' the 'Covenant of Human Rights,' the 'UNESCO,' together with other demands of the U.N. that we abandon our immigration laws, our tariffs and our foreign policies.
I think there are Americans today who are against the UN. I think usually right-wing ones.
In response to the "deadly genocide treaty", Roosevelt writes:
The genocide treaty is not deadly. It was written to unite all people of all nations against the mass extermination of a whole people in the way Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews in Germany and later the Poles in Poland.
What kind of person would be against a genocide treaty?
Did they imagine it was a pro-genocide treaty?
Roosevelt says the pamphlet was written by a group called the Cinema Education Guide. I wonder if they're still around or if there's anything out there written about them.
* * *
Googled.
I can't find anything.
They might have been super fringe.
* * *
Now I'm back to the story of Minni Bar-Ness.
I thought I had initially missed the June 5 column, because it doesn't mention "Jewish" or "Israel". But Roosevelt does mention the United Jewish Appeal. So, I think for some reason, I had wrongly concluded that it didn't have anything substantial.
OR I might have clicked on it/closed it accidentally?
Anyway...Roosevelt writes that she received a letter from Minni Bar-Ness. Apparently, Bar-Ness had been released from the Iraqi prison and reunited with her husband and son.
I was thinking that her story need not have been very commonplace in order to be not newsworthy.
These days, it seems very easy to become newsworthy. We have so many news outlets. And most every news outlet can be accessed via Google.
If something newsworthy happens to me in Carrollton Texas and someone from my past decides to Google me, they'll be able to probably find mention of it.
In the 1950's, there was finite space for news. There was more chance for things to fall under the radar.
All that being said, I'm still suspicious and can very much imagine a person writing to Eleanor Roosevelt with a fake story.
* * *
If anyone out there knows of this Minni Bar-Ness....please tell me!
She must have descendants out there somewhere.
Though...I say this and then think, What if someone out there decides to pile on to the making-stuff-up.
* * *
Roosevelt mentions neither Jews nor Israel in her July 20 column. She mentions Palestine.
A group called The Christian Rural Overseas Program sent surplus food items to various groups in needs; one being displaced Arabs from Palestine. This included butter, cheese, powdered milk, and cottonseed oil.
* * *
I Googled Christian Rural Overseas Program and ended up on the website of CWS: Church World Service.
I'm guessing it's the same organization.
They seem to be a left-wing Christian organization.
I say this, because their website says:
We know that racism and prejudice have no part in the just world that we want to live in. In 1996, we responded to an epidemic of burned and desecrated Black churches in the United States. Alongside our partners, we mobilized thousands of volunteers to help rebuild more than 80 churches. In 2020, we launched our Platform for Racial Justice.
That's very cool.
* * *
I'm not seeing anything on their website that says they used to be called Christian Rural Overseas Program.
Googling some more....
This Mennonite cousin of Lord Wiki says that Christian Rural Overseas Program worked under CWS. CWS sponsored them.
* * *
The last column I'm going to look at for 1954, and this post, is December 20.
In this column, Roosevelt writes:
In thinking about this question of human rights, I have lately wondered whether anywhere in the world they are the concern of all the world or should be considered only as a domestic question.
And then she answers:
But the more I turn this over in my mind the more I feel convinced that, at least for those nations that signed the charter of the U.N., human rights must be viewed as the concern of all the nations and not only the concern of an individual nation.
I agree.
Though it can be complicated and difficult. Because of....
A) Hypocrisy. It's hard to successfully point fingers at other countries when your country has its own problems
B) There's always that battle between minding our own business and saving the vulnerable.
C) The need to maintain diplomatic relations.
Judging countries is very similar to judging families.
Where do we draw the line between abuse/dysfunction/toxic vs. a different-style-of-parenting?
When should we respect differences and when should we intervene?
(By intervening, I don't necessarily mean calling CPS. It could be a concerned email/ text; Or an in-person meeting; Or subtle hinting with memes on social media)
* * *
With families, there's probably less of a need to maintain diplomacy.
Well...there's still a need. But the threats are more along the line of silent treatments and angry emails rather than oil access, Federal Aid, trade agreements, war, etc.
Note: I write these posts over a few days and didn't realize until proofreading and editing that this kind of connects (maybe contradicts in some ways) what I wrote regarding the Elie Wiesel quote. Or it doesn't really contradict it. It's maybe more explaining why it might be difficult to speak out. BUT I think fear and hesitation about speaking out is understandable and somewhat sympathetic. I think its' much different from pressuring others not to speak out.
* * *
Getting to the Jewish/Israeli part of the column.
Roosevelt recommends some books. One of them is a book called A Village by the Jordan by an Israeli named Joseph Baratz. Roosevelt says he's a friend of hers. I wonder if she means a real friend or someone she had the pleasure of briefly meeting once or twice when she was in Israel.
Used copies of the book are available on Amazon.
I wonder if the book was ever (somewhat) popular. And if so, did Roosevelt help with that? I wonder if she was like Oprah (or any modern day influencer). Did things get a bump in popularity when she mentioned them?
* * *
Lord Wiki has a page on Baratz.
He was also a politician.
Born in Russia, he immigrated to Palestine in 1906 at the age of 16.
At that time, Palestine was under the control of the Ottoman empire.
I really need to learn more about all these different stages of Israel.
Anyway....Baratz worked on Israel's first Kibbutz. I think that's what the book was about.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment