You might want to start with Part 1.
For an index of my Nazi/Holocaust related posts, please click here.
I'm now on 34:00 of the Safe Haven Documentary (out of 57:23)
I hope to finish the documentary with this post.
Unless I fall down a very deep rabbit hole or go on a super long tangent, I think I can accomplish that.
* * *
Robert Clary, the narrator of the documentary, provides me with more camp nostalgia with his mention of Oswego refugee children swimming in the lake.
The children had fairly normal lives.
Clary says the adults did not. Why? Because they weren't allowed to go out and get jobs.
Could they not have provided jobs within the refugee camp? Daycare, Cooking, Cleaning, Nursing, Teaching, Coaching....
Well...here's something odd.
While the Oswego refugees couldn't get jobs, the US government was paying Nazi POWS to work in nearby orchards.
I don't think I've heard that before.
And yeah. It does sound a bit unfair and irrational.
Also. While less than a thousand Nazi-victim refugees were brought to the United States, 372,000 German POWS were brought in.
WTF?
* * *
Oh...well....
It seems the refugee camp organizers heard my work-inside-the-camp idea.
The refugees were actually required to work—manual labor type stuff. Lawn mowing, cleaning the snow, shoveling the coal....
Snow cleaning?
I've not heard of that before.
I feel bad I didn't think of these manual labor examples before.
Earlier, I was thinking that the disgruntlement over not-working was going along with the Protestant Work ethic or the capitalistic narrative that the most important thing in a person's life is having a job.
But now I'm thinking maybe it was more about wanting to be financially secure...or pursuing a career/business.
* * *
Sharon Lowenstein, a historian, says the problem with asking the refugees to do manual labor is that they weren't in good enough physical shape. They weren't physically rehabilitated yet.
She also says that they were more urban/mercantile...professional.
I can understand the argument involving not having the physical strength. Some of them had recently survived concentration camps. And some might have simply lacked the physical strength. Maybe they were like me and had fine/gross motor problems. Maybe they were elderly. Maybe they were out of shape for other reasons.
But...I also think there's an idea of this kind of work being beneath them.
I think it's unfair and wrong for anyone to be prevented from doing the work they have the talent for, they studied for, or that they trained for. But I don't think we should ever see particular work as being beneath us.
I have had a lot of anger that I lost my role as our DFW family's videographer. That hurt a lot. And it bothered a lot me when later I was thanked/applauded later for things like unloading the dishwasher or stirring onions in a pan.
I think this would be different than if I continued to be the honored family videographer and then declared that doing the dishwasher and stirring vegetables was beneath me.
All that being said....who knows if any of the refugees were overly disgruntled about grunt work.
* * *
A man on the video...I'm not sure who he is. They might have already named him, and I've forgotten who he is. This is probably due to me watching a 57 minute documentary over a span of many days.
Anyway, he says that some refugees were working a lot and others hardly worked at all.
I think this happens in pretty much all situations.
I'd divide people into four groups in terms of doing chores and other helpful tasks.
A) People who eagerly work without complaint. They tend to do more than their share.
B) People who work (usually less than group A) and act like martyrs. They groan, exaggerate their contribution, and complain.
C) People wishing to do more work, but they're not given enough tasks and/or responsibility. They're the ones who might ask. Do you need any help? Is there anything I can do? And then they're knocked back with, I got it. That's okay. It's easier for me to just do it myself.
D) People who are content relaxing. They don't feel pressure to contribute.
(I was actually thinking of the Lake House (RIP) while writing those categories)
* * *
The lake house is not actually dead, by the way....just our time with it.
It was actually bought by an interior decorator/influencer. I feel like she (the lake house) might miss us. But she also might appreciate her makeover.
I'm not sure, actually.
Do houses get attached to their style...decor?
Maybe it depends on the house.
Our Fort Worth house was bought by investors and very modernized.
I hope both houses are happy.
On one hand, I'd rather them not be thinking, Thank God those people are gone! But on the other hand, I hope they're not feeling lonely and abandoned.
* * *
A lot of interpersonal drama happened at the lake house.
I'm wondering if the house might need therapy. Or an exorcism.
I'm not talking at the level of The Shining.
It's more on the level of The Slap (Christos Tsiolkas).
* * *
Getting back to the documentary.
The refugees who had medical careers used their talents at the hospital/clinic of the refugee center.
People who had careers not needed in the refugee camp were provided with vocational training.
Examples: Carpentry, car mechanics, sewing, beautician stuff.
The refugees had English classes. The government didn't provide this. Jewish welfare agencies did.
Though I don't have faith in leaving welfare up to charities and generous individuals, I think along with government help, private help can be a good supplement.
I feel that in the past communities had more involvement in welcoming immigrants to the United States. For example...families sponsoring the newbies.
I don't think the desire to be welcoming has changed. And I still see organizations around.
I'm wondering, though, if people have less access to immigrants.
The Oswego community was allowed to come in and visit the refugees.
Are people allowed to visit the border control centers in Texas, Arizona, and California? Can people donate stuff? Can they bring gifts?
I have this feeling that these things are not allowed, because our government (especially the right-wing side) does not WANT the newbies to feel welcomed.
* * *
I've been doing a small bit of Googling.
I'm not seeing anything welcoming or encouraging people to visit and/or bring gifts.
* * *
I'm now looking at a law website called NOLO.
It's interesting. It's a website that provides resources for finding a lawyer or for seeking legal information.
They have a page about the living conditions of US detention centers.
I'm not sure if the ones I read about in my last post are detention centers or the places where people stop before they go to detention centers.
When I was Googling before, I saw a much larger list, of centers, than I had seen when doing the previous post. And then I noticed that some of them were actual prisons.
NOLO then informed me: Many immigration detention centers are actually located inside jails operated by the federal or state government, and hold immigration detainees with civil (not criminal) charges along with people who have been convicted or accused of crimes. Other centers hold only immigration detainees and are operated by private companies.
From what I vaguely know....private prison companies are quite evil.
NOLO makes me think that the Oswego refugees had a much better experience than refugees today.
In most centers, men and women are housed separately.
Some centers house women and children together.
What about children being raised by fathers-only?
NOLA says: Living conditions are difficult at detention centers. You will likely be transported to a detention center in handcuffs and sometimes in shackles. Many of your personal belongings will be taken away, and you will be assigned a specific bed. In some facilities, the guards will refer to you based on the number of your bed or using your alien registration number.
That is absolutely disgusting.
It's very much like prison.
Uniforms.
Lack of Privacy.
Difficulty of making phone calls.
Slow mail, and mail is screened.
On the positive side, charitable groups do visit the prisons. I'm going to call them prisons. Because that's what they are.
NOLO suggests asking for help from the visiting charitable groups if you don't have an attorney.
* * *
The Republicans in my family are buzzing in my head.
I imagine them saying that these are NOT refugees.
People who enter through the legal channels are probably treated better.
Maybe they get Oswego-level treatment.
I'm reminding the imaginary versions of my family members that only 982 refugees were brought in officially from from Nazi-occupied Europe. What if thousands of more Holocaust victims managed to enter the United States "illegally"? Would the Republicans in my family have wanted these people treated like prisoners?
* * *
Getting back to the documentary.
Other contributions, from the Jewish welfare agencies, are listed. Books for a camp library, textbooks for Hebrew classes, a linotype machine for a camp newspaper, paints, clay, musical instruments....
There were artists in the camp who submitted their work to galleries and contests in nearby Syracuse.
Really. Would any of this be allowed in today's immigrant prisons?
* * *
Here's an organization I've heard about before—RAICES (Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services).
They accept donations of various goods. I'm not sure if these things are given to people only after they are allowed to leave the prison. Or do they help to make the immigrant prisons more livable?
* * *
The documentary says that the song "Don't Fence Me In" became a sort of theme song of the Oswego refugees.
They were fenced in. Yeah.
But it seems like their lives were pretty okay behind that fence.
I feel the documentary creators want me to be outraged.
It's hard to do that. I feel people in today's immigrant prisons would love to live in an Oswego style camp.
* * *
People in Oswego would escape the camp from a hole in the fence and then take the train into New York City.
The administrative staff knew about these escapes and turned a blind eye.
It sounds kind of exciting.
The documentary boasts about how despite the little escapes, no refugee ever got in trouble with the law. No one tried to escape permanently.
Uh....maybe because they were treated well?
I feel like they're trying to give credit to the refugees for being well-behaved. Obedient. But we've already learned that some of the refugees were people who had escaped Nazi prison/death camps.
* * *
Now the documentary is talking about less rosy times.
A cold winter.
A suicide.
A occupational hazard death.
The summer camp aura might have faded. But these problems are more misfortune than systematic mistreatment.
The refugees became depressed.
The government was asked if the refugees could have 1-2 week leaves. The government said no.
* * *
I'm really feeling oppositional to this documentary right now.
They're talking about birds being locked up in a comfortable cage; how that's bad even if things are comfortable.
You know who else are prisoners in comfortable cages?
Children!
They're prisoners of their home.
They're prisoners of school.
Though...Yeah. Some of these places are NOT comfortable.
From what I'm seeing...
Despite the barbed wire fence, the refugees did have a lot of freedom.
* * *
I would have more sympathy for the refugee's situation if some of their need to be free was due to paranoia about being harmed again.
Due to things like showers ending up being gas chambers...there could be Hansel-and-Gretel type fears.
I'm imagining being kidnapped and held prisoner...with my family. We're given good food, fun extracurricular activities, and fairly comfortable shelter. We can move around the prison.
If anything would prevent us from relaxing and enjoying the time, it would be fear that the kidnappers are going to eventually torture us and/or eat us.
If I knew for sure the kidnappers were not violent and/or abusive...I think I might start to relax.
Yes. We would probably miss our homes and old lives. But if we knew, for reasons the kidnappers are not to blame, that our homes were no longer safe...I think I'd try to settle in and be okay with things.
* * *
Twenty-two babies were born in the camp.
That's cool.
See.
Sex was allowed.
Men and women could intermingle.
(Hopefully women and women and men and men could sneak in some sexy time too)
There was political controversy over whether the babies could be counted as American citizens or not.
The government didn't want these babies having citizenship, because they still wanted to send the refugees back.
To me, that is the worst part of the Oswego refugee situation. It's not the barbed wire. It's the knowing that you're not fully wanted, and you're expected to leave.
* * *
Earlier the documentary made Roosevelt seem uncaring and unhelpful.
Now they're talking about his death in 1945 and have one of the survivors saying:
Everything became dark. We had so much faith in his leadership. And in his humanity. And his ability to make the world better.
To be fair, though....it's not like they had Google and Twitter in 1945 Oswego.
They probably were unaware of Roosevelt being under-helpful to victims of Nazism.
* * *
The war ended in Europe.
The Oswego residents had a mixture of emotions.
They were happy about the end of the war but stressed and sad, because they knew this meant they were supposed to return.
I imagine if I was a refugee from the United States, I would want to stay in my new country. I would feel sad and rejected if I was expected to return.
As for 1940's Europe, the war had ended. Hitler was dead. But that didn't mean antisemitism was dead.
Who would want to face all the neighbors who did nothing to protect you...or worse celebrated harm being done to you?
* * *
The director of the shelter, Joe Smart, resigned as director and became an advocate for allowing the refugees to stay.
He formed a citizen's committee and was able to get support from a hundred prominent citizens, including Eleanor Roosevelt and Albert Einstein. Cool!
The refugees had a shitty rollercoaster limbo experience.
A subcommittee voted that they could stay.
The whole committee voted they had to leave.
To me, this roller coaster sounds much worse than the barbed wire fence.
* * *
Not wanting to return to Europe was likely partly due to becoming attached to life in the United States.
It was also likely due to not wanting to return to a place where they experienced horrific trauma.
And the documentary reminds us that homes and cities had been ravaged by the war.
It wasn't like houses were standing around healthy, intact...eagerly waiting for their Jews to return.
* * *
On Christmas 1945, Roosevelt's replacement, Harry S. Truman, put in a directive giving the Oswego folks a pathway towards staying in the United States.
The documentary talks about how while Truman was in support of the refugees staying, he put in this directive knowing there was opposition from Congress. I wonder which members of Congress voted against them staying. Though they're very likely all dead, I still think they should be named and shamed.
The Oswego residents were super excited about being allowed to stay.
In order to make things legal, the refugees had to follow the rule of leaving the country and then returning. The immigration obstacle course.
This was done by busing the refugees to Niagara Falls and then having them return again.
* * *
One of the survivors says he became fearful at this point—anxious with the question where do we go now?
This makes me think about the pandemic. This refugee's desire for freedom reminds me of the desire of many to get back-to-normal during the pandemic.
A vocal group of people wanted us to get back to school! And back to work! And back to the hairdressers! And back to the gym!
There was a part of me that eventually wanted to get back to normal....I mean after several months and the arrival of the vaccines.
Another part of me was not so excited.
My sister sent us a funny YouTube video with a couple expressing these kinds of feelings. One line that hit me was about having to wear a bra again.
Is it really that dreadful to stay home for a month or to watch Netflix and play boardgames with your kids?
Is it really that dreadful to stay in a refugee camp...where the main complaint seems to be that they weren't allowed to find outside employment or wander around the United States whenever and wherever they wanted?
Anyway, I'm much more on board with the refugee's fight to eventually stay in the United States than I am with their desire for immediate full freedom in the United States.
Yeah...and then they get the freedom. And guess what...where are you going to live? How are you going to support yourself?
* * *
I remember watching a Crash Course video with John Greene talking about how people define freedom in different ways.
A lot of Americans define freedom as being able to keep the money they earn and to not have their businesses regulated by the government.
Other people define freedom as being free to pursue happiness and having the safety net that is needed to do that—healthcare, education, food, and shelter.
I also feel that one of the most important types of freedoms is the ability to be with those we love...MUTUALLY love, of course. I guess I'm talking mostly about families.
At Oswego, they had healthcare, education, food, shelter...and from what I understand, for the most part, they were able to be near their loved ones.
There was enough allowed closeness that twenty-two babies were conceived.
* * *
I'm getting close to the end of the documentary.
They're talking about how the refugees went off in various directions and how many became successful.
Lawyers
Doctors
Engineers
Teachers.
I can imagine some people using this as pro-Jewish propaganda and anti-struggling-immigrant propaganda.
I'm not going to deny that us Jews are super extraordinarily brilliantly talented. Obviously, we are.
BUT....
Maybe there's correlation (and causation) between how well refugees are treated and how well they do as residents and citizens of their adopted country?
* * *
I just started arguing with myself.
Because...uh....the Jews weren't exactly treated that nicely in Europe.
So they definitely have a huge amount of trauma.
Maybe that shows, though....that if traumatized people are given needed supports...they can do well in life. I don't just mean financially/career-wise but with health, happiness, meaningfulness, etc.
* * *
The documentary showed some people speaking a bit of German to each other. Thanks to Duolingo, I understood it!
It was pretty basic: How are you? Good Good Good (not sure how many goods) Thank you.
But I'm excited.
Duolingo is awesome.
I feel guilty about all the Duolingo criticizing I did a few weeks ago on Twitter.
Sorry, Duo.
* * *
The documentary says that some of the Oswego alumni are still friends and sometimes go to visit Fort Ontario.
By the way, I've been calling the refugee place all kinds of things...
But I think the official name is Fort Ontario.
Or it was Fort Ontario originally.
The museum in Oswego is called Safe Haven Holocaust Refugee Shelter Museum.
The Documentary too is called Safe Haven.
I can't fully blame myself for being confused about what name to use.
Well...though now I'm feeling guilty, because I see myself resembling those people who will never take blame for things. Always making excuses.
So...okay. Sorry. It's probably my fault for being confused.
And I apologize to anyone that tried to read this post and ended up confused.
* * *
One of the survivors says: How many millions more if we had rescued them, if they had survived, would have contributed to society in a meaning way. Whether as bricklayers or as doctors or as train conductors or professors. It doesn't matter. But they could have become productive members of society. Instead they are fertilizing fields somewhere.
I'm glad there's a push in today's society to go beyond seeing a human being's worth as what they can contribute to the economy.
I don't know how big this push is.
It might just be big on Instagram and Twitter.
And I think it might be big only among disability advocates.
The general idea is that people and other animals should be allowed to live and exist simply because they like living. Or even if they don't particularly like it, they still want to be alive, and they should be given that right.
That's not to say that we should completely disregard being productive.
Contributing to society is quite important and wonderful.
It's good for our self-esteem. It's good for our family. It's good for our neighbors. It's good for our community. It's good for our gardens. It's good for our country's GDP....
With how the world is...(like kind of very shitty), I think what's equally important as our level of productiveness is our level of destructiveness.
Our footprints of destruction....
Our carbon footprint.
Our bigotry footprint.
Our toxic behavior footprint.
Our exploitation footprint.
Our abusive footprint.
* * *
I think the line about fertilizing fields is powerful.
But it might have been better to say PREMATURELY fertilizing fields.
Every living thing is going to die someday.
And the fertilizing aspect of that is pretty cool.
* * *
In the conclusion of the documentary, Robert Clary reminds us that it was only a token amount of Jews that were saved Oswego-style.
The last lines of the documentary, spoken by Clary:
Today Oswego forces us to confront the painful questions of what might have been, what could have been, and what should have been.
It's telling that they phrased it in past tense and didn't add something about current refugee situations.
What might be. What can be. What should be.
Learning history is important.
But I think it's also important to tie in history with the present....
Especially when the present is so painful for a lot of people.
(That was supposed to be my conclusion but.....)
* * *
Well, I just had another conversation with my family that made me realize another type of freedom is very important to me. The freedom to say no to an event or invitation!
The ex-lake-house family is going on a cruise...two cruises made up of different groups. I'm not going, because I have vowed to not go on any more cruises. The increase chance of vomit-experiences is way too stressful for me.
The family started talking about the cruises, and a strict law was laid down. Everyone was free for the day but all must attend dinner at 5:30. The message: We're paying for this cruise, and we expect you to follow our rules.
Even though, I'm not going...I snuck my beak in. What if you have another thing you want to go to? What if the ship is docked at the port into the evening? What if you want a late lunch at the port?
I tried to come up with compromises. Could someone miss dinner but trade it with a breakfast or lunch?
I can totally sympathize with anger over paying for a family cruise and then some family members never spending anytime with the family. That would be incredibly rude and hurtful.
But I think people can have both togetherness and flexibility.
My breakfast and lunch idea was pretty much shot down.
Even though I'm not even going, it made me feel anxious and trapped....upset. It's partly because I know there are other autistic people in the family. I worry about them being stressed.
One of the kindest and most important accommodations one can give autistic people is permission/welcome to say no to events....to be able to say, I need time alone right now. I'm not feeling up to socializing. Actually, I think most people deserve that accommodation (within reason).
Read my novel: The Dead are Online
