Watching the Safe Haven Documentary (Part 2)

You might want to start with Part 1.

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

I'm now at 9:21 of the documentary (out of 57:23)

There was a push from a columnist, the War Refugee Board, and probably others (hopefully) to save many refugees.

FDR wasn't on board with that, but he was willing to let in 500-1000 refugees as a token gesture.

* * *

Now the documentary is showing a woman named Sharon Lowenstein.  She wrote a thesis about the refugee center in Oswego.  I guess it was turned into a book, because they show an image of a book. It's called Token Refugee. 

Lowenstein says there was a plan...or desire of a plan.... to open up camps all over the country.  Instead of death camps, they would be refugee camps. And they wanted to save tens or, better yet, hundreds of thousands of people targeted by the Nazis.

Roosevelt nixed that plan and offered the one camp instead.

* * *

Southern Italy was liberated from the Nazis.  In June 1944, a lot of refugees fled to the area.  This is where Roosevelt picked out a few lucky Jews to get his golden ticket.

Now the documentary is showing Ruth Gruber. She wrote a book about Oswego.  She had also been personally involved. First of all, she herself was Jewish.  Second, she was an assistant to someone named Harold Ickes.  He was Secretary.  

Secretary of what?  

Lord Wiki says he was Secretary of the Interior.  

* * *

Reading about Ickes....

He seems like a fairly decent guy.

He was against segregation and desegregated the cafeteria and restrooms in his department.  And his department included National Parks.

Though he didn't have the courage to protest Japanese internment camps, he did quietly complain about it in his diary.

He also suggested offering Alaska as a refuge for Jews fleeing the Holocaust.  It wasn't a state yet, so there was the idea that it didn't have to follow usual quotas.

Would the Alaskans already living there be okay with a large influx of Jews?

I'm sure some would.

I'm sure others would not.

And I'm sure some Jews would be respectful newbies while others, with a sense of entitlement, might try to take over.

Anyway...as many of us already know, this plan didn't end up happening.

Lord Wiki says most American Jews were opposed to the plan.  

I'm trying to decide if this is a rabbit hole I should go down now or wait for a future post.

Well...I think I'll go for the future post option.

For now, I'll just say Lord Wiki says it was Rabbi Stephen Wise who led the Jewish opposition to the plan, saying that it would give the hurtful impression that Jews were taking over a portion of the country for settlement.

Interesting.

I wonder if he ever came to regret that opinion.

* * *

Ruth Gruber says:

While America was selecting that thousand, Adolf Eichmann in Hungary had begun the selection in April of 1944. Late April.  Now it was July of 1944, and he had already selected 550,000 Jews to be burned in Auschwitz. And America was selecting 1000 for life in our country.

It's strange how this country feels there is enough room for accidental/unwanted embryos but not enough room for refugees.

By the way, Gruber was the person sent over to help make the selections.  

I can imagine she's haunted by the memory of those she didn't choose. 

Three thousand Jews applied.  So it was a 1/3 ratio.

The documentary says 100 escapees/survivors of the concentration camps were chosen. They were top priority; then came the very young and very old.  With that, I'm getting the idea they were taking the most fragile...perhaps with hope the others might survive without assistance from the United States. 

They also kept families together.

So it does seem that there were at least good intentions with who was chosen....I mean compassionate intentions.  

It wasn't a matter of merit or exploitation—let's see who can offer the most to our country.

I mean if you're dealing with people who want to emigrate...just for the joy of it.  Like when I wanted to move to Australia...yeah, then merit can and should play a part.

But when it comes to people needing refuge, it shouldn't be about who might be the most useful.

* * *

Gruber says that when the refugees boarded the ship to America, many of them did not have shoes.

They wore rags.

Many of them had no belongings, because they had been on the run for so long.

And I'm not sure what sort of souvenirs people can grab from a concentration camp.

* * *

Robert Clary (the narrator of the documentary) talks about the form the Jews were forced to sign upon getting on the ship.

They had to show that they understood that they were guests and that their stay was temporary. When the war was over, they were supposed to go back.

That's pretty unwelcoming.

A) Do people often want to go back to the country that caused such horrific trauma to their family?

B) It's hard to feel settled and peaceful when we know our stay is temporary.  

* * *

Gruber actually went on the ship with the refugees.  She was there for their journey. She asked them to tell her their stories, so she could report back to Roosevelt.

Some people are willing to be the listeners. They are willing to be witnesses. They are willing to let people unload.

Others cry out:  No trauma dumping!

Although I think there are (rare) times where the term trauma-dumping is merited...I think in many cases, it's just a replacement for phrases such as Save your drama for your mama or Positive Vibes Only.

Instead of making blanket rules against trauma dumping, it's probably best to give people the tools to be able to say, I'm sorry.  But because of my particular life history, hearing about this is very traumatic for me.  I can't handle it.

There's a big difference between reading: Please No Trauma Dumping!

And....

A Holocaust survivor telling the victim of a later genocide.  I'm sorry. I know you need someone to talk to.  But my family was killed in the Holocaust, and I can't handle hearing about it.

I suspect, though, as the No Trauma Dumping phase continues to pick up in popularity, it will be used more often by privileged people wanting to keep things light than it will be used by traumatized people unable to bear more trauma.

I just remembered I wrote a post about this a few years ago!  It was in reaction to a storyline on Neighbours, before I had even heard of the phrase trauma-dumping.

I'm glad to see that 2015-Dina agrees very much with 2022-Dina.

When we disagree...sometimes that causes me cognitive dissonance.  

* * *

I wonder if 2048-Dina will agree?  (Hi!  If you're reading this!).

* * *

I'm going to take a pause and go take a shower.  Then we will probably eat dinner while watching Extraordinary Attorney Woo.

Then I'll get back to the video and my learning and my rambling.

If anyone is keeping track, I'm now on 15:32 out of 57:23.

* * *

I'm back.

It's the next day.

I'm getting back to watching.

Robert Clary breaks down the composition of the refugees.

I'm not sure if composition is the right word?

Anyway....

874 were Jewish.

73 were Catholic

28 were Russian or Greek Orthodox.

7 were Protestant.

I guess that would be just religious composition.

Did they not get any Romani or homosexuals?

Though I'm sure some of the rescued were LGTBQ.  Probably closeted.

In terms of national origin, the biggest group was from Yugoslavia.  

What has Yugoslavia become?

I forget these things.

According to this website, it has become Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Republic of Macedonia.  

Though that map is from 2008. Has it changed since then?

Oh! That website is actually the United States International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  

I'm guessing it deals with war crimes.  

When was that Bosnian war?

Googled:  It was 1992-1995.

* * *

I would have hoped and expected that the Jewish people on the refugee ship would have gotten along.  They shared a religion, a history, and an enemy.

But the documentary says they did not. They divided by nation of origin.

Oh Clary (or the writer) agrees with me.  He says, All this despite the fact that all of them were victims of the Nazis.

I wonder about people in refugee camps, centers, etc. these days.  Do people often stick to the people from their own countries of origin?  Is there a lot of conflict between groups?

* * *

The ship arrived in the New York area on August 3, 1944.

A survivor talks about seeing the Statue of Liberty...and in her interview, decades later, she gets emotional.

Another survivor says he can't describe his feelings and that's why he writes music.  I imagine writing music is a super effective way of processing emotions.

Gruber says that the passengers all rushed to the rails and a rabbi asked to say a prayer.

It sounds like a scene from a movie.

He said a prayer of survival which...now that I'm hearing it.... I think it is also one of the prayers we say for Chanukah.

I'm wondering if on Chanukah we are praying for OUR survival or the survival of the oil/candles?

* * *

I'm looking at a website called Kveller for the Chanukah prayers.

The Shehecheyanu (the one the rabbi said on the ship) is said on the first night of Chanukah only.

It's translated as: Praised are You, Our God, Ruler of the universe, Who has given us life and sustained us and enabled us to reach this season.

I'm not sure I knew what that prayer was about or that it could be used for other occasions. 

 I'm glad to have learned it today.  

* * *

The next stop for the refugees was Hoboken New Jersey.

How far is that from Manhattan?

Really. I just want an excuse to look at Google Maps.

Oh.

It's right across from Manhattan.

The documentary says the refugees were ferried across.

Is there still a ferry?

I really should know more about New York geography.

Oh!!!!

It's the Lincoln Tunnel that gets you from Manhattan to Hoboken.

I think I will always associate the Lincoln Tunnel with The Stand.

Google Maps has Street View in the tunnel.  So you can play The Stand in your imagination.

Now I'm sitting here wondering....why was that scene scary?  It wasn't like there were any zombies.

Dead-dead bodies seem really tame when you compare them to zombies.

Or did something supernatural happen?

Did someone have a hallucination?

* * *

I can't tell if I'm actually moving through the tunnel, or if it's just the same scene repeated.

* * *

I was moving!

I got to the exit.

Or entrance?

Am I on the New Jersey side or Manhattan?

* * *

New Jersey.

This is SO fun.

And this is why I look for excuses to play on Google Maps.

I should get back to the documentary.

* * *

In Hoboken, the refugees were deloused which involved showers and separations of husbands and wives.  This was terrifying, because showers and forced separations were cornerstones of the Nazi concentration camp experience.

Were the people running the refugee program not aware of the shower and separation trauma?  Or were they lacking sensitivity?

Of course, showers had to happen.  But it probably could have done without separating the men and women.

Well...I guess they wouldn't just throw men and women together in the shower.  It would probably taken too long to allow each couple a private shower together.

I don't know.

Maybe it had to be done that way.

Hopefully, there was compassion and understanding, though.

* * *

After Hoboken, that evening, the refugees were put on a train and taken to Oswego.  

The trains, too, were bad-memory triggers.

The train stopped at Fort Ontario on the morning of August 5.

Looking at the Time and Date website.

August 3 would have been a Thursday in 1944.  

So on Thursday, they arrived, took the Ferry to Hoboken, had the scary showers/delousing, and then got on a train.

August 5 is Saturday. So I guess it was a pretty long train ride.

Were there bathrooms on the train?

Did they stop somewhere to go to the bathroom?

* * *

When the refugees arrived at their new home, they were upset to see that there was a high barbed wire fence.

A survivor named Leon Levitch says, Why?  Why us? We are the victims of the Nazis. Why should they put us in the barbed wire?

It's kind of like someone kept prisoner by a serial killer.  The police find them.  They're rescued.  They think they're going to be given a lot of attention and TLC.  Then instead, they're thrown in a prison cell.

The feelings that go along with those stories seem so familar to me.

I think it's probably what happens to Black people on a fairly regular basis.

Or at least...that whole thing of them being in danger or a victim of crime. They call the police, and instead of being rescued, they're questioned in a hostile manner and/or arrested.

I want to imagine that despite the roughness of the situation—the delousing, the separating of men and women, the train wire, the barbed wire...that the humans taking care of the refugees were much softer.  I hope most of them were warm and welcoming instead of hostile.

* * *

The barbed wire was not put there for refugees.

It had been up before.

The fort was over a century old—built in 1755.  It played a part in the Revolutionary and Civil War.

Soldiers once slept in what had now become the home of the refugees.

The documentary says the refugees weren't very interested in the history. They didn't want to be in what they saw as a prison.

They protested.

I wonder how many right-wing, anti-immigration Jews know about Safe Haven. Would they support the Jews being put behind barbed wire?

How would they feel knowing that the Jewish refugees protested?

* * *

The documentary includes an interview with the shelter director—Joseph Smart.

He says the refugees felt that they had been misled in Italy.  They thought they were coming to America as honored guests.

I would have expected to be an honored guest if I survived a horrific ordeal.

But I think that rarely happens for refugees.

I am wondering, though...if they had known what had awaited them, would they have said: No thank you.

I doubt it.

I am torn between two sides of myself.

Side A:  Beggars can't be chosen.  They should just be happy and grateful to be safe and away from the Nazis.

Side B:  People who escape horrific trauma should be treated like royalty.  They should get comforts and treats.

I know this is probably highly inappropriate but right now I'm wondering how the Oceanic Six were treated when they got rescued.

I can't remember.

I vaguely remember them being interviewed.

* * *

Smart had also worked in the Japanese concentration camps of World War II.

He wasn't happy with that role and then thought Oswego would be a chance to redeem himself

He says that instead he found himself running yet another small concentration camp.

I have added, Smart to my list of post ideas, by the way.

* * *

The refugees had no papers.

All they had was a tag they wore that read "Excess Baggage."

Uh...ouch.

A survivor says, We had become excess baggage in a very real way.  People didn't want us. We were excess.  We were disposed of—at least that was our experience for several years.

That makes me sad. And scared. And worried.

Because there are so many refugees.

And there will be more and more.

No. I'm not scared of the refugees.

I'm scared of all the shitty people who want to keep refugees out of their countries

*.* * 

Now I'm onto the breakfast scene.

Again, I'm torn.

A part of me is sad that these people are in a concentration camp.

Another part of me is thinking...this reminds me of summer camp!

I love summer camp....like in an idyllic memory kind of way.

* * *

Okay.

Good news.

It sounds like the breakfast was plentiful.

A survivor says she had seven eggs.

And there's also mention of bread and cereal.

There's just something so wonderful about camp breakfast...waking up, getting dressed...people wearing sweatshirts because it's a bit chilly.  

I guess it's kind of like a cruise breakfast.

But I think camp is better.

I'm not good at having strong scent memories.  But one of the ones I sort of have...and strongly.... is the smell and feel of my old camp sleeping bag.

* * *

Is there a camp for autistic people I can work at?

It would have to be one that is actually autistic friendly and not some kind of intervention thing.

It would, of course, have to welcome autistic adults as staff.

When I worked at a Cystic Fibrosis camp...no, I don't have CF.  But there were counselors and counselors-in-training who had CF.  I think it would be insulting not to.  And same goes for Autism.

* * *

It's over 24 hours later.

I haven't been back on my laptop all day.

I come back and see autism stuff instead of Holocaust stuff.

Because I started researching autism camps yesterday.

But now camp feels like a really bad idea for me.

I don't think it would work with my OCD/contamination issues.

Also...I don't think I want to be a counselor.

I'd rather be one of the campers.

* * *

I feel I should add that it has crossed my mind how (extra) difficult refugee situations would be for me with my OCD.

Or any disaster situation.

Recently, I imagined being on the Lost island and how it would bother me...all these people going to the bathroom and not being able to wash their hands.

Or maybe the ocean with the salt water would appease me?

I'm not sure.

I'm very big on soap.

* * *

If it were a zombie apocalypse, there'd be no worries.

I'm a very slow runner.  

I don't think my zombie-self would have OCD.

* * *

Getting back to the documentary....

* * *

Shit.

The documentary, for some reason, started back at 0:00.

But it's not too much of a shit.  Because I had written down above where I left off!

I had just done that to display how long it's taking me to get through a documentary...because I interrupt so much.   I guess it turns out there was another purpose to it all.

A side benefit.  

* * *

I was wrong.

I wrote the time stamp the time before last...not the last time I watched.

Oops.

But I did write down the scene I was on.

Breakfast.

So I should be able to find that pretty easily.

* * *

I have found the breakfast scene.

Breakfast included bananas.

I had paused, the other day, before hearing that.

* * *

Visitors from the area came to visit the refugees.

I was bracing for stories of antisemitism and xenophobia.  But so far, it's positive.  The people were friendly and brought gifts.  

Now they're talking about a survivor named Adam Munz. He was seventeen at the time of arrival.  There was a recreation hall with ping pong paddles and table but no balls.

I imagine the missing ball thing happens at a lot of refugee centers, schools, community centers, etc.

Anyway, this is sweet.

Munz had a dime.  He asked a resident of Oswego to buy him some ping pong balls, and the person came back with three.

Oh!  Now it's gone from a heart-warming story to a comedy.

Munz messed up his newbie English.  He meant to show gratitude by saying You're a big ace but instead said You're a big ass.

Fortunately, the big ass/ace had a good sense of humor about it....was understanding.

* * *

The documentary talks about how the news of the refugees was overshadowed by news of war-fighting in Europe.

In Oswego, the news was on page 12 of the newspaper.

The refugees were quarantined for a month for health issues.

Some (most?) of the refugees were frustrated with this, because they wanted to go out and visit relatives who already lived in the United States.

They wanted to be FREE.

With this, I'm more on the side of the government.  I'm probably somewhat influenced by Covid.  But...I think even without that storyline in all our lives, I think I'd still be pro-quarantine.

Yeah. I would be.

Because when it was Johnny Depp's dogs vs. Australian quarantine, I was totally on Australia's side.

All that being said...the Oswego people were separated not by Plexiglas and masks but by a chain-link fence.

That's not a very impressive quarantine.

I think the documentary wants me to be angry that families had to share news of tragedy through this fence.  But while I'm not okay with the tragedy, I'm not outraged by the delivery.  These days we get bad news via Facebook, Instagram, texts, emails, etc.

I'm not complaining about that either.

Bad news is bad news no matter how it's delivered.

Well...I take that back.  I think it's preferable NOT to get bad news via social media.

* * *

This is really jumping around.

But I've had an uncomfortable thought that's been plaguing me.

The uncomfortable thought is that I might have been wrong about something in my last post.

I had written about how us Earthlings are usually not good at saving people from genocide.  Yeah. Some folks get saved.  But I thought most were left to perish.

Then the other day I listened to a Washington Post editorial about how Germany has gone from really shit to extraordinarily awesome.  And they mentioned Germany taking in a million or so Syrian Refugees.

I don't know what percentage of Syrian refugees have been saved from the Syrian crisis.  But a million refugees....that's pretty good.  I think?  It's better than 982.

And maybe we've done okay as well?

How many Syrians have come here?

Well...Lord Wiki says it was 300,000 in Germany not a million.  I might have misheard the editorial.  Or maybe it's gone up since Lord Wiki did his research.

As for the United States, Statista says between 2015-2017 around 22,000 Syrian refugees were let in.  

From 2018-2021, less than a thousand a year have been brought in.

Lord Wiki says that Donald Trump suspended Syrians finding refuge here with an executive order.

I don't know if that order still stands or if there are just less refugees needing a home now.

I'm ignorant when it comes to the Syrian refugee crisis.

Sorry.

* * *

Although Europe and the United States have taken in a number of Syrian refugees...Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries took in much more.

Turkey has taken in at least 3.5 million.  But all this involves lots of political drama that I'm not going to learn about right now.

* * *

Getting back to the documentary,

The Jews in Oswego started a synagogue in the camp and set up a Kosher kitchen.

That's good.

My heart was feeling warm and hopeful.  Then Ruth Gruber reminded me that it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops, because these rescued Jews had family back in Europe.  So they weren't just balancing the relief of being rescued with disgruntlement over their new home.  They were also dealing with grief and the not-knowing if their loved ones back in Europe were dead or alive.

A few weeks after the refugees arrived in Oswego, they held a wedding.  Two of the occupants had fallen in love while fleeing the Nazis.

The quarantine ended on September 1.  So that was a little less than month.

The documentary says that 5000 people came to visit.

All in one day?

I wonder if most were relatives or friends.

How many were just curious and/or friendly neighbors?  

Did people just freely arrive?  Did they have to sign up and get approval?

I'm sitting here asking questions that the documentary might answer if I unpause it and give them a chance.

* * *

The refugees were given some added freedoms.

They could leave the camp.  But they had to have a pass; they couldn't leave Oswego; and they had to return in six hours.

I think that's better than what people in detention centers get these days.

Yeah.

Snopes says that yes refugees are allowed to leave detention centers.  They're not prisoners.  If they want to leave, all they have to do is walk out.

And return to their original countries.

How generous we've become.

Oh.  And escaping a detention center is akin to escaping prison.

Also...skimming this for now.

But migrants have to pay for their own airfare to get out.

So even if they wanted to get back to their original country, that might be impossible.

Might is probably an understatement.

I imagine most refugees and migrants are lacking the funds needed.

*.* *

Back to Oswego 1944....

The children were allowed to go to school.  Some of the adult refugees enrolled in a teacher's college.

What is education like for today's refugees in the United States?

This government site says: 

Currently, there are over 4.7 million foreign born individuals enrolled in pre-kindergarten to postsecondary education, representing 6% of the total student population. Another 20 million students are the children of foreign born parents.

As a nation of immigrants, America has benefited from the vitality and enthusiasm brought to its shores by those seeking a better life. Successful immigrant and refugee integration efforts build the capacity of schools and early learning programs, communities, organizations, and other stakeholders to support the civic, linguistic, and economic integration of immigrants.

That's good.  I like that.

What about children in detention centers? 

How many kids are in detention centers?

*.* *

The National Council of State Legislatures says that in 2019, unaccompanied 69,488 children were in detention centers.

Lord Wiki says the NCSL is nonpartisan.  But they don't seem very Trump supporting...at least not in their page about detained children.

As for the kids, I wonder how many came into the United States without adults and how many were separated from their adults.

And what happens to families who come together and are not separated.  Are they all put in detention together?  For how long?  Where do they go afterward?

* * *

I'm going to read this long article about migrants in Politico.  

The beginning reminds me somewhat of the people in the Safe Haven Documentary.

A family of three kids escaped Venezuela and imagined they were going to find....a place where they would finally be free from hunger and police harassment and could simply be kids.

Instead when they came to the United States, they found very harsh conditions.

Politico says they slept on cement floors in cold cinder block cells.  

Federal court rulings have said children may not be held in border patrol facilities for more than 72 hours.  But the article says more than 220,000 kids have been held longer than what's supposed to be allowed.

How much longer?

Well...even if it was less than 72 hours...even if it was four or five hours.  It's a horrible way to be welcomed into a country.

The thing is, a lot of people do NOT want migrants to feel welcomed.

That attitude is pretty understandable when coming hundreds of years ago from Native Americans.  It's not understandable coming from people who have parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. that were immigrants.  

* * *

Sorry. I'm going to jump subjects here.  But just know...that what I wrote above made me think of this.

I struggle to understand people who are angry that the Biden Administration is helping people with their college loans.  Some argue that it's not fair, because they didn't have this kind of help when they were paying off their loans.

For now...I'm just going to ignore the fact that college has become so much more expensive than it was back in those olden days.

But I thought of an analogy from my own life.

I listen to this autism podcast with these super neurodivergent-affirming therapists, and it makes me wish that I had these therapists when I was young. 

I sometimes envy the children getting diagnosed these days who have had this level of support.  

But I'm not going to sit around pouting and saying, I didn't get support for my autism when I was a child, so that's how it should be for all kids now and forever.

I think we can wish we had something we didn't. I think we can envy those who are getting what we didn't get.  But at the same time, we can be glad things are changing for the better.

Note:  These therapists I wish I had are unfortunately still probably in the minority.  Autism therapy is still often about helping children overcome autism rather than learning to live with it and embrace it.  

* * *

Getting back to the Politico article

The article says, In recent years, public reports of child detentions by the Border Patrol included only unaccompanied minors, omitting tens of thousands of children in families.

I do feel I hear more about unaccompanied children.

So....

Trump enacted something called Title 42 Emergency Order.  This is where the government can immediately expel people who crossed the border without authorization/permission.  The reasoning was to help keep Covid out.

Biden took office.  He asked for unaccompanied children to be exempt—let them stay.  But children in families weren't offered the same refuge.

Biden tried to lift Title 42.   A judge in Louisiana put a halt to his lifting.

I vaguely remember hearing about that.

I'm not sure what's going on with it these days.

* * *

Politico has a graphic with the detention center statistics.

Two centers are in California.

Two are in Arizona.

Five are in Texas.

I wonder what's the closest to us.  Well...because we live in Texas.

It's in....

Big Bend Texas which is about 2 hours and 45 minutes south-west of us.

In the Big Bend Texas Border Control Facility, 27% of the detainees are children.  

The average amount of time that kids stay there is 58 hours.

Twenty percent of the kids stay for over 72 hours.

I think the treatment in the center is more important than the length.

I mean not that I think it would be good for kids to be stuck in there for months or years.  

But if it were a decent place, I don't think it would be a problem for kids to be in there for 72 hours or....72 days.

The conditions, though, are far from decent.

Some of the shitty things listed in the article.

A) Children being cursed and yelled at

B) Children being kicked and shoved.

C) Stale food and food that made kids sick

D) Sick kids not given medical care

E) Toilets and showers lacking privacy

F) Kids kept in dirty clothing.

G) Very cold air-conditioning.  (since running AC is expensive, it makes me wonder if this is purposely used as a form of torture/punishment)

The detention centers kind of lay in the middle of Nazi death camps and the Safe Haven in Oswego.

OR...at least of what I know of Oswego so far.

But Oswego seems pretty decent compared to what people today are getting in Texas, Arizona, and California.

* * *

Now the article returns to the family from the beginning.

Two sisters were put in a cell.  It had a dirty sink and a toilet with no privacy.  It was just there in the middle where other migrants could watch them using the bathroom.

Another family's experience:

A teen girl developed a sore throat, cough, and headache. During the pandemic. She was told medication wasn't available and also, in a dismissive way, told she wouldn't die.

For five days, they had no toothbrush and no shower.

* * *

The excuse that some conservatives use for not wanting more brown people in their country is that these migrants are opportunists and not legitimate asylum seekers.

They might say escaping government persecution is different than simply wanting a life improvement.

But I'm not sure why people would put their lives and the lives of their family in danger just so they can achieve a bit of upward mobility.

Nope.

As the Politico article explains.  It's more likely things like rise in gang violence and parents worrying their teens will be forced to join.

Hurricane damage.

Drought.

Political and economic instability.

It's very much not like me wanting to move to Australia, because I love the accents and feel some kind of spiritual connection.  And wild parrots are super cool. 

 * * *

One little complaint/disagreement I have with the mindset of this Politico article is there's this idea that the border facilities should be improved for children.

But...uh....

Maybe they need to be improved for the adults as well??

To be fair, though. The person writing the article...people (Anna Flagg and Julia Preston) probably care very much about adults.  But they're probably trying to reach people whose hearts are chilled towards brown and Black immigrants. 

I wonder if anyone tried to plea for the Jews in Europe that way.  Yes. I know you think Jews are vermin—dangerous, controlling, money hungry.  But some of them are just innocent little children!  

Note: I should mention that the article was actually written for an organization called The Marshall Project.  And they gave permission to Politico to reprint it.  I saw that before and then forgot; but was reminded when I looked for the names of the writer.  

* * *

Ah...some good news.

Border Patrol has begun hiring cleaning staff, medical staff, and childcare assistants.  

Hopefully they're hiring decent people and not abusive ones.

They're also providing some laundry rooms and play spaces.

Hopefully also decent showers and toilets.

I think we can find a compromise between open borders and abusive, unwelcoming prison-like centers.

* * *

Getting back to the Jews (and others) in 1944 Oswego.  

I lost my place again in the video.

I don't think I got far past the breakfast scene.

I think Robert Clary was talking about education.

That got me down a rabbit hole towards education for migrants today.

Now I'm realizing I never made it to my intended destination.

I'm not up to going back down that rabbit hole.

Maybe I'll run into it another day.  On purpose or on accident.

* * *

Now we're running into some antisemitism.

Ralph Faust, the principal of the high school in Oswego, wanted the president of the student council to give a welcoming speech.

The president objected to it. His feeling was that the refugees shouldn't be in the school nor the community without the school or community improving of it first.

I imagine this is one of those tricks where you hide your bigotry behind a dislike of big government.  Instead of openly saying, I hate Jews and think they should stay and die in Europe, you pretend your grievance is with the Federal Government not asking permission of the local government.  

One of the survivors is asked if she encountered antisemitism.  She said she didn't.  And for any that happened (not to her personally) she says, I don't know that it was really antisemitism, or anti-foreigners, or anti a lot of people suddenly invading this peaceful little town.

She's more generous than me.

But I think she has a point.

I think we can assume antisemitism too easily.  But we can also make the opposite mistake and overlook it.

This goes for all kinds of bigotry.

Going back to modern immigration.  If someone wants to greatly limit immigration, I'm likely to assume they're racist.  But if I learn more about them and learn they're equally intent on pushing back white immigrants (which are often called expats) and they're pushing for better access to birth control and abortion I'm going to rethink my assessment and decide they're fighting against over-population.

* * *

Eleanor Roosevelt visited the Oswego shelter six weeks after the refugees arrived.

She was not happy that the refugees were being kept behind a fence. AND...

She did NOT wear a jacket that said, I Really Don't Care.  Do U?

A survivor is asked if he thinks Mrs. Roosevelt scolded her husband about this when she got home. He says yes and that he thinks the president probably just ignored her.

I can relate to trying to advise a powerful man and having my advice swiftly ignored or vetoed.  Not that I'm delusional enough to believe ALL my advice is correct.  But it gets to the point where I have to wonder if my advice is deliberately vetoed BECAUSE I'm a woman.  Or it could be that powerful men need to feel that they're the ones laying down the law.

I'm rambling about this and the Roosevelt story is all imagined. She might not have even mentioned it upon returning to the White House.

* * *

I think I'm going to stop here and then continue at 34:00 of 57:23 in part 3.

Hopefully, I can get the last 20 minutes into one post and there won't be a part 4.

Strange...I just had a strong dream flash when writing the above sentence.

I think I've mentioned these before.....

Yes...found it.  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

Eleanor Roosevelt and the Jews (Part 5)

If you want to start at the beginning of this messy project of mine, click here.

If you don't want to start at the beginning: Brief summary:  I'm reading through some of Eleanor Roosevelt's My Day columns to see her views on Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel.  

For this post, I'm going to try to open way too many windows at once.  Because I'm going to look up four words—Palestinian, Shoah, Jew, and Israel...for the years 1953-1962.

 I'm going to try to read the columns in order.

Well, there are no results for Shoah.  So that makes things a little easier for me.

There are a LOT of results for Jew—ten pages worth.

The same for Israel. Yikes.

The results include Palestine when I look for Palestinian.  I'm not sure why.  But I do see a few mentions of Palestinians.

* * *

I'm going to do one year at a time...starting with 1953.

I came up with seventeen columns; a mix of Jew and Israel.  There was no Palestinian.

I was putting the column windows in order and saw I had two May 5's.  I was wondering why and then realized it's because May 5 must have been a result for both Israel and Jew.  After realizing that, it seems strange that more columns don't have both Jew and Israel.

Or it could be some kind of glitch.

Or I'm missing something?

* * *

It's the next day and instead of working on this post as I had planned, I have spent way too much time trying to change the appearance of my blog.

I had thought of changing my theme/layout a few weeks ago and kind of forgot about it. Then I was listening to the Imagineer podcast about Mary Blair.  There was a brief mention of pink and orange as a color scheme, and I suddenly became obsessed: I want to wear pink and orange clothes! I want to redo one of our bathrooms pink and orange!  I want to make my blog pink and orange!

Now....

I don't know if I like it or not.

I didn't like the old layout, because I felt it was hard to find anything.

But I'm worried this new layout is too busy.

I do like the pink and orange, though.  

* * *

Getting back to Roosevelt....

I think I'm going to go through the windows I have open and eliminate posts where Israel or Jewish is mentioned just in passing.

* * *

Yay!  I was able to eliminate a few.  

One I kept, despite Israel or Jew, being mentioned just in passing.  BECAUSE Roosevelt talks about Australia.  

I may not still be obsessed with Australia.

But I'm definitely still interested in Australia.  

Note: When I say mentioned in passing, it usually equals Roosevelt mentioning a Jewish event she went to but she doesn't really say much about the event.  

* * *

I'm considering doing one post for each of the remaining years.

It might be better to have many short Eleanor Roosevelt posts rather than one or two more super long ones.

What I worry about is ending up with nine more posts and each of them super horribly long.

* * *

In her January 15, 1953 column Roosevelt talks about a growing movement against the United Nations.

She writes:

Day after day it is becoming more evident that a well-organized and well-financed campaign against the United Nations is coming to light. It is tied now and then with hatred of the New Deal and my husband and it sometimes appears to be an offshoot of isolationism. But whatever its roots, the results are bad.

The President of the League of Women Voters had given Roosevelt some samples of anti-UN materials.

Roosevelt describes some of the propaganda and says: And when they proceeded to say that this was the day the old Jewish plot to control the world was going to be carried out, I recognized some of the signs of the old pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi literature that I have read before.

Wow.  Roosevelt says some very timely things.

Some of the old people are carrying on in the same name of anti-communism and pro-Americanism the same campaign they waged in favor of fascism. The sad thing is that though they fight communism they play into the hands of the Communists. The Communists want to create suspicion and disunity among the people of the United States, and much of this anti-U.N. literature is designed to do exactly what the Communists want, but under a cloak of saving us from communism and fostering patriotism and religion in this country.

* * *

Roosevelt also writes in the January 15 column, Unless the truth, however, gets out to people, how are they going to know that this nonsense that is handed to them is not based on facts?

It was much harder to get information out to people in those days and probably also much more difficult to see their reactions to it. I wonder if people were as resistant to fact-checking in those days.

For me, it feels naive to imagine someone allowing facts to sway their opinions about things. But I think I felt differently a few years ago.  Back then, I would have expected people to accept the facts and then adjust their opinion—not necessarily switching political parties or other allegiances but making at least some changes to their viewpoint of things.

Roosevelt says,  Unless our vast media for spreading information accepts this responsibility, the people of the country may well wake up to find that they have made decisions on false information. That will be a sad day for all of us.

Sad. Yeah.  But what's worse is watching people not wake up...even when the media is providing the information.

And yes I AM very aware that MAGA people reading this would feel that I was the one not awake.

We're really living in two realities now.  And with the ease of faking things, it's going to get harder and harder to prove our side is the correct one.

* * *

In my temporarily missing (not yet unpacked) novelization of Poltergeist, the tagline on the cover was Some things have to be believed to be seen.  That's a perfect way to describe the situation we are in right now with reality.

I'm not sure if that was also a tagline for the movie?

I think it might be a famous quote that was used for the book.

* * *

According to the Brainy Quote website, it was said by a guy named Ralph Hodgson.

* * *

I hope we still have the Poltergeist book in one of our moving boxes. I'm kind of worried it's been lost.

* * *

On February 9, 1953, Roosevelt writes about a shortage of doctors.  She writes:

 One of the things which has always troubled me greatly is the fact that it is so often impossible to find a place for a boy to study medicine in this country. As you may know, New York City is about to build its first medical school in 54 years; this is one of the three new schools to be projected in the entire country in the last 25 years. The new college of medicine is sponsored by Yeshiva University, and though it is a Jewish university admission is on non-sectarian lines. No one attending is asked his race, color or creed.

Uh...but I guess that they do ask about gender.

I think Roosevelt was pretty forward-thinking when it comes to gender equality.  It makes me wonder if the idea of a woman becoming a doctor in those days was so rare that it was too outlandish for even Roosevelt to seriously consider it.  

* * *

Googled.

The Yale School of Medicine shows that various women-as-doctor milestones had occurred before Roosevelt wrote her column.  

Close to a hundred years prior, Elizabeth Blackwell earned a medical degree.

In 1864, the first Black woman got a medical degree.

The Saturday Evening Post says that in 1950, around the time that Roosevelt wrote her column, six percent of doctors were women.

That's not a huge amount. But I would think it would be enough for Roosevelt to not write about doctors as being a boy thing.

Or maybe in those days, there was an understanding that "boy" didn't necessarily mean only boys?

I'm tempted to go deeper into the rabbit hole about this.  But I'll stay above ground for now.

* * *

I did a bit of Googling about Yeshiva University School.

It's called the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.  

Roosevelt was one of the honorary chairpersons.

* * *

On February 11, 1953, Roosevelt writes about the United Jewish Appeal meeting/event.

Ruth Gruber was the narrator of a dramatic presentation.

I think she's the one who gathered up the refugees for Fort Ontario.

Yeah...just searched my blog for her name.  I wrote about her in part 2 of my series on the Safe Haven documentary.

Anyway....Roosevelt describes the presentation.  They used a map in the background.  Roosevelt said it moved to the area being discussed.  I'm not sure how that worked.  

I'm guessing she meant that, somehow, the area being discussed was highlighted on the map.

The stories shared took place in Japan, Barnard college (New York) Morocco, and Israel.  

I'm wondering if the stories were acted out or described by the actual people who experienced them.  Or did Gruber tell the stories while the areas on the map were (somehow) highlighted?

* * *

On February 14, Roosevelt talks about Russia and Israel.

I see that Russia has broken off relations with Israel. I suppose this should be no surprise, and yet I am sorry to see this nation, which talks so much about wanting peace, encourage war. Quite obviously, this is a play for Arab following and sympathy. Russia feels that if she becomes the enemy of Israel she will automatically garner all the Arab votes to her side. Among the Arabs there are some very astute politicians, but they may think that they will get more out of the U.S., Great Britain and France if they seem to be leaning toward the Soviets.

I wonder if that was the actual intent of Arab countries.

I have no idea.

* * *

I consulted Lord Wiki to get a spoiler/reminder of when Russia and Israel got back together.

He says it was 1991.

BUT he says they didn't break up until 1967.

Maybe the 1953 thing was a false alarm?  

Maybe they didn't break up.  Maybe they were just on a break.

* * *

Also in the February 14 column: Roosevelt talks about fraternity bigotry at William's College in Massachusetts.

Well...wait.

I thought it was a stain on William's College.  But they actually took a stand against bigotry.  Their fraternity lost it's national standing, because they allowed the "wrong" kind of person into a fraternity. Wrong being NOT white, full-blooded Aryans.

Commentary, the right-wing Jewish magazine I wrote about in an earlier post, has an editorial about the fraternity story.  

I'm going to read it, because A) I want to learn more about the incident B) I've been wanting to know more about what goes on in the minds of right-wing Jews.

* * *

I'm now confused about whether this is a recent editorial talking about the past or if it's actually from their long-long-ago archives.

James Rorty writes, According to a 1949 Roper survey, 60 per cent of all American students are opposed to any group rejection by fraternities.

I would think if it was more recent, he'd use past tense.

* * *

I just looked closer.

The page is labeled as 1956.

So...it's old.

Also, I Googled James Rorty.  Lord Wiki says he was a radical.  And he was against McCarthyism.  So he was a left-wing radical.

I guess this was before Commentary turned right-wing.

So much for getting a right-wing opinion.

But I'll still read it, so I can learn about the fraternity drama.

* * *

I love this from Rorty's editorial: A sorority with a Greek letter name at the University of Missouri excluded students who looked and were Greek.

Some of Rorty's editorial goes over my head...mostly because I'm reading quickly and trying not to fall into rabbit holes.  But the general idea I'm getting is that young college students were open to being more inclusive, but the older alumni had opposing feelings about that.

Now I'm slowing down my reading a bit, because Rory talks about the origins of the KKK.

He says it started in the 1860's by some Confederate officers who were also fraternity men.  The organization was originally called Kuklos for the Greek word for circle.  They later added Klan to the name, and it became the Ku Klux Klan.

Rorty writes: The Ku Klux creed of white supremacy, nourished by the “Aryanism” of Gobineau, Madison Grant, and other racist ideologues, left a significant residue in the rituals of some of the college fraternities; witness the constitution of Phi Delta Theta, written in 1912, which provides that “only white persons of full Aryan blood, not less than sixteen years of age, should be eligible.

So...did the term Aryan come from the United States and not Germany?

Rorty says that by 1928, more than half of fraternities and sororities had membership rules regarding race and religion.

* * *

Lord Wiki is telling me that the history of the term Aryan is quite long and complicated.  But no.  It didn't start with Hitler.  Nor did it begin with the KKK in the United States.

I'll add it to my topic list.

* * * 

In her March 14, 1943 column, Roosevelt says she went to a press conference and meeting regarding the Israel Bond Organization.  She says, At the press conference I met Dr. Frank Kingdom, who was to share the platform with Dr. Dov Joseph and myself. Dr. Joseph is Minister of the State of Israel. He made a most interesting speech on the development of Israel.

She doesn't say what he said in his speech.  So I guess...I'll move on.  I could have probably included that in the skip-this-column group.  

Then again...it's not Jewish or Israel related, but there's this:

I had a good example the other day while talking to a gentleman of how inaccurate our memories are. He told me that while he distinctly held the impression that these two Senators had made unfounded attacks on various Americans he could not remember specific things that had been said by them.

That is a natural characteristic of ours as a nation. We get impressions and then promptly forget how we attained them. But I find one of the best ways to refresh one's memory is to keep a file of the Congressional Record and refer to it now and then. One can always find the Senators' original statements and then frequently the modification of those statements.

That reminds me of me with my family.  I used to have to rely on memory and gut feelings when it came to drama, trauma, disagreements, etc.  But now very often, I can just search through texts and find evidence to back things up.  Though I've learned this evidence doesn't help me win arguments.  The audacity of one text made me so angry that I sent a screenshot of it multiple times.  I SO wanted the writer of the text to say something like, Oh wow. Did I say that?  I was wrong. I'm so sorry.

I didn't get the reaction I wanted.

But I like having the validation for myself.

* * *

The one downside of keeping records and relying on records is when there are no records, it becomes hard to believe my own memory.

There are two solutions to this:

A) trust my past self.  If it's a new memory that pops out of nowhere, it's probably a good idea to be skeptical.  But if it's a past memory that's been passed consistently forward by all my various subsequent past selves, I should trust all those past selves even if my current self is dissociated from the memory. 

B) Write as much down as possible.

* * *

In her March 23 column, Roosevelt talks about an antisemitic pamphlet she read.

It is a two-page pamphlet issued by an organization called The Christian Nationalist Crusade, with a post-office address in St. Louis, Missouri. The pamphlet rehashes an old anti-Semitic story published by some groups a number of years ago who wanted to whitewash Hitler and Fascism and to make people believe that the Jews were plotting secretly to control the world. The story was proved at the time to be completely untrue, but apparently this group is sure that people can be fooled again.

And the attempts continue.

The Roosevelts were given roles in this exciting storyline.

The pamphlet has an additional touch in the form of a map of Mexico purporting to show the location of a "super-palatial hideout" that was supposed to have been built for my husband. The map, they say, was published originally in a California newspaper in 1951, along with a story about this "secret hideout.

What is a super palatial hideout?

Googling....

The dictionary on Google says palatial is: resembling a palace in being spacious and splendid.

That sounds nice.

Later in the column, Roosevelt says: But this type of lie is always written on the supposition that no one is going to try to run down the truth. 

Now the lies can be told knowing that even when someone tries to bring the truth, people are going to refuse to listen.

Again: Some things have to be believed to be seen.

What is fact-checking to some of us is left-wing propaganda porn to others of us. .

* * *

Roosevelt writes about Israel's fifth anniversary in her April 24, column.

I just Googled and saw Israel's birthday is April 25.  

So I guess they celebrated a bit earlier.

As a Jew, I should know Israel's birthday.  It's just that controlling the world takes up a LOT of brain space. For instance, we need to memorize all the secret codes that gets us into the various underground palaces around the world.  

And also the one on the moon.

Anyway....

Roosevelt says this nice thing about Israel.  

The people of Israel and their friends can reap great satisfaction from the development going on in their country and from the spirit with which these people face their many problems and hardships. They are not at war and yet along their borders there is constant war activity. There is no friendly spirit surrounding them, so they must be constantly watchful. Yet, the country grows economically and spiritually.

If they become less watchful, will there be more friendliness surrounding them?

Will there be more friendliness surrounding them if they became less watchful?

* * *

Roosevelt's May 5 column is mostly about Russia and Jews stuck in the Soviet Union. 

She writes: 

 At the moment the most urgent concern is for the safety of the 2,500,000 Jews behind the Iron Curtain. The fund is helping escapees from Eastern Europe, giving them relief and resettling them in democratic societies, principally in Israel.

And....

The Soviets strongly condemned Hitler for his anti-Jewish actions but now, at least up until very recently, they seem to have been following a similar policy. Since the changed attitude on the Soviet doctors was announced, however, there is hope of a changed policy not only in the Soviets, but in the satellite countries.

I think condemning antisemitism is sometimes less about defending Jews and more an excuse to attack the opposing political group.  

Someone said it well on Twitter the other day.  

Well...I tried to find the Tweet and haven't had any luck.

But I've found many others along the same vein.

For example, Allison Josephs Tweets: 

Antisemitism comes from every group but if you only call it out when it aligns with your politics, you’re not actually a Jewish ally you’re a supporter of your own political party.

Joel M Petlin Tweets:

The silence to Antisemitism really is loud. But part of that silence comes from those who only criticize it when it comes from their political adversaries.The real challenge is for people to call out Antisemitism when it comes from the members of  their own political team.

Julia Jassey Tweets:

It’s so apparent how political antisemitism has become. The right attacks antisemitism on the left and defends it in their own backyard. The left does the same. I’ll be the first to call out antisemitism among my political “friends”—if you don’t, you’re keeping bad company.

Ariella Kimmel Tweets: T

The problem is so often when people do speak up on antisemitism it’s only to “own” the opposing political view, rather than calling it out wherever it festers

And if we want an example of all the above,  Mehdi Hesan Tweets: 

Here’s a thought: neither the political party nor the TV network that excused or ignored Trump’s antisemitism, Greene’s antisemitism, Gosar’s antisemitism, and now Kanye West’s antisemitism should probably never be taken seriously again on the issue of antisemitism.

Somewhere in history, Hesan might have spoken up against antisemitism on the left.  But when I did a search, I didn't see anything of the sort in the top results.

* * *

It's the next day.

I spent a lot of the afternoon watching the January 6 hearings.

Knowing that I have family members who still ride the Trump train...

It makes me want to scream.

* * *

In her May 7, 1953 column, Roosevelt complains about the lumping together of the "Jewish Gestapo" "New Dealers", and Communists.  She encountered a propaganda postcard from a Christian nationalist organization.  

She says:  That first sentence reveals a dishonest effort to make it appear (1) that there are Jewish Gestapo organizations, which is, of course, untrue. The Jews were the victims of Hitler's Gestapo. They have no such organizations of their own (2) By tying these three groups together, they try to make it appear that New Dealers and Jewish organizations are tantamount to Communists. This also is entirely untrue. Accomplishments made under the New Deal were not communistic. They met the needs of the people, which had been allowed to become desperate under the previous Administration. But they were not Communistic.

It's sad that the Republican party is still playing this exact same game of trying to tie Democrats to Communism. 

Yes. Some Democrats are Communists. I think it's a pretty small number.

But if you believe that anything outside of 100% support of pure capitalism = communism.  Then yeah...pretty much all of us are communists.  

* * *

The postcard said that there's a campaign to replace Christian tradition with Jewish tradition.

Jews will not replace us!!!!!

The times really haven't changed much, have they?

Reading all this...I feel like we're redoing the 1950's but with the Internet.

* * *

Roosevelt says interesting things about interracial marriage.  I don't really understand it fully.

There is no moral law which forbids intermarriage between different races. It is custom and habit, and where people wish to break these rules it is their right to do so, even though they may suffer as a result of the fact that many of us are governed by the customs and habits and conventionalities under which we live. To make it appear, however, that this is a moral code which should not be broken is, I think, un-Christian.

I guess what she's saying is it's not morally wrong to marry someone of another race but those who do so might face challenges, because of the culture we live in.

When did the Supreme Court legalize intermarriage?  I know it's Loving vs...something.

I'm guessing in some states, it was probably already legal.

I wonder if Roosevelt knew personally of any interracial marriages.

* * *

Googled.

Loving vs. Virginia was in 1967.

Lord Wiki says that in 1958, a Gallop Poll showed that 94% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.  Wow.

Did that include Roosevelt?

I have a feeling she'd be okay with it but that her convictions wouldn't be strong enough to speak in defense of it.

I mean she kind of did defend it but in a weak-hearted kind of way.   

* * *

I'm not sure if Roosevelt has anything substantial to say about Jews in her May 13 column.  I kept that window open, though, because she talks about Australia.

Speaking of Australia, I listened to the Australiana podcast about the opening ceremonies of the 2000 Olympics.  It was fascinating. It also gave me an extra dose of self-doubt, because they mentioned celebrities I hadn't heard of before.

 I also feel like a failure for never writing about the Olympics.  

I'm sure if I searched my blog, I'd find mention of it.  But I never did any serious research on it.  

With both my Australian podcasts, there is way too much that is new and unfamiliar to me.

Is is because Australia is so vast and impossible to know everything?  Or did I do a shitty job with having a special interest in Australia?

* * *

Getting back to Roosevelt....

She writes: 

During World War II and immediately after some of our servicemen were married to Australian girls and others who served there saw possibilities which they thought promised a better and easier future. So, they settled in the land called Down Under and, of course, their status today is interesting to read about, as I have just done. I think we are sufficiently like the Australians so that we get on well with them and living there should not be very difficult for our young people.

WHICH Australians are we like?

It's hard for me not to get racist undertones with that. 

Am I being unfair?

Overly woke?

I guess I'm just thinking...wondering...In comparison, what countries would be difficult for young Americans to live in?

For me, as a white, Jewish-American it would be easier to live in Australia than let's say...Korea.  Because I speak English well.  

But for a Korean-American who speaks fluent Korean and understands Korean culture, moving to Korea would probably be no more difficult than moving to Australia.

* * *

Roosevelt writes, Fortunately, Australia is a country that needs settlers. 

I'm sure that's exactly what Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander people were sitting there thinking. We need MORE white people.

But even for some white people, the we-need-more-settlers story is quite horrible.  When was that whole thing with British children being kidnapped for a happy, lovely life in Australia?

Note: Happy, lovely life = abuse and exploitation.

* * *

Googled.

The Australian Government admits that between 1927-1967, 150,000 British kiddos between the years of 9 months and 8 years were shipped to Canada, Rhodesia, Australia, and New Zealand to pump up the white population.

EVERYBODY is a victim of white supremacy.  Even white people. Even white cisgender straight men.  It's a really shitty thing.

(of course, there's not equality in terms of who is most victimized by white supremacy).

* * *

The Jewish part of Roosevelt's May 13 column is she forgo attending a United Jewish Appeal event, because she was very busy doing last minute things for her upcoming trip to Japan and Europe.

I feel like this should be used as an inspirational example for the whole push to have courage in declining invitations.

I see this push a lot on Instagram....probably because of who I follow.

Really, they need to have an alternate campaign that teaches people to graciously accept the declines.  That way we might have less people sending out messages like, We HAVE to make the effort to get together for holidays.  

* * *

If the United Jewish Appeal was anything like my family, the whole organization would probably shut down with blame going at least partly to Roosevelt. Because...she only made cameo appearances.  

* * *

If anyone wants to accuse Roosevelt's declining on antisemitism or apathy towards the Jews...this is also in the May 13 entry:

I was very much touched the other day to be invited to the coronation by Queen Elizabeth, and I was very sorry that, because of my commitments in Japan, it wasn't possible for me to accept.

* * *

On July 24, 1953, journeyed to King's Landing.

Roosevelt writes:  Our guide pointed out to us the windows of an old Jewish temple and told us that only seven out of the 140 Jews who had been in the city when the Germans took over, had survived but they had saved their records, which was the story time after time in these persecutions.

I wonder what the Jewish population is there now.

* * *

Lord Wiki says the Jewish population, in Dubrovnik, BEFORE the Holocaust was only 250.

Now there's around 30.

* * *

Roosevelt's September 15, column deals with communism.

A man named Joseph Kornfeder claimed to be a former member of the Communist Carty and testified that there were six-hundred Protestant clergy who were part of the Communist Party.  

Roosevelt says, It seems to me that the evidence given at times is not always convincing, even though we are expected always to believe that anything said by an ex-Communist must, of course, be true.

I would want proof that Kornfeder was truly communist. I mean it might not prove what he was saying was true. But I think it would be a good place to start.

I think the Jan 6 hearings would be much less compelling if people only claimed to work for the Trump administration.

* * *

Roosevelt says that something used as evidence against the Protestant clergyman is that they signed a petition against the execution of the Rosenbergs.

Roosevelt says,  I happen to feel that the trial had been fair and since we had capital punishment in this country there was no other sentence that could be imposed. I do not believe in capital punishment, however, and hope we will do away with it.

I think that's called...I'm going to try hard to stay on the fence about this.  I can't blame her since being against the execution of the Rosenberg's might earn her the reputation of being a communist.

Roosevelt explains herself further, Many of those who signed that petition, I am sure, did so because they were opposed on principle to capital punishment and the question of the guilt of the condemned was secondary, particularly as in peace time it is rare to give such a penalty even for such a serious offense.

That makes sense.  It might not sitting on the fence.  I guess it's more like I agree the crime was bad enough to receive the harshest punishment.  But I don't particularly support the harshest punishment.

Being against a certain type of punishment doesn't mean we necessarily support the crime or believe the culprit is innocent.

* * *

I was trying to find the word "Jewish" or "Israel" in the column; then remembered Roosevelt notes that there were also Catholic and Jewish clergy being accused.

* * *

The last entry in 1953 mentioning Israel or Jewish is October 19.

Roosevelt talks about the Internationalization of Jerusalem.

I actually hadn't heard of the concept until reading her columns. Or I heard and forgot I heard.

In this column, she says: 

I find there is considerable desire on the part of certain religious groups to push the internationalization of Jerusalem. I have no idea whether this is a wise move or not. Yet something, I am sure, must be done before long to make it possible for both the Arabs and the Jews to cross the lines in Jerusalem without question. When I was there, the university and the hospital on the Arab side were not in use because the Jewish people were forbidden to cross into the Arab part of Jerusalem and the Arabs could not cross into the Jewish part. It is obvious that the sooner the change is made which allows people to move freely from place to place, the better will it be and the sooner will the tension in Jerusalem be eased.

I'm ashamed to say, I don't know how Jerusalem is handled these days.  The only thing I really know is that Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Or he tried.

I did watch a great TV show about people living in Jerusalem.  It's like a Jewish version of Friends.

I have to Google for the name...

Srugim.  That's it.

Anyway, the show was great, but it didn't help me learn the political boundaries of Jerusalem.

* * *

I'm reading parts of an NPR article about Jerusalem.

Or maybe I should go ahead and read the whole thing.

I was looking for a quick answer.  But I should probably take the time to learn it all a bit carefully.

The article was written in response to Trump moving the embassy.

Even though the embassy was moved, the practice of putting Jerusalem on the US passports of people born there (vs a country) still remains.  

NPR says the Western part of Jerusalem is seen as belonging to the Jews.  The Eastern part has important Jewish, Christian, and Islamic holy sites. Israel captured it in 1967 and have been increasing their population there.  This is one of the places that's considered occupied territory.

Before 1948-1949, the Jews and Arabs were kind of mixed together in the city.

After a war, fences were put up.

The Jews went west and the Arabs went east.

Arabs had to abandon their homes. Jews the same. 

Interestingly, the article uses the term abandoned and fled to refer to the Palestinian's situation and expelled when referring to the Jewish situation.

Is that an accurate assessment?

If this came from a more right-leaning source, I would expect a bias.  But NPR is left-leaning, and I feel left-leaning sources tend to have more sympathy with Palestinians.

Oh!  I should mention that Jews were barred from the Western Wall which is the most holy site for Jews.  It would be like banning Muslims from Mecca.

* * *

In 1967, there was another war.

Israel captured eastern Jerusalem and refused to give it back.

The article says, But in the eyes of the U.N. and nearly all governments, it's seen as occupied territory.

However, the embassy is NOT in the area considered to be occupied.

But there is fighting over Jewish people moving into areas that are predominantly Arab.  These Jews are being labeled as settlers. But Israel disagrees, because they don't consider the area occupied.

The Palestinians think Israel is doing this as a land grab kind of thing.  I guess the idea is to have as many Israeli's in these areas as possible.  Then if there is ever a 2 state solution, Israeli's can try to claim there is more of them there, so the land should go to them.

OR something like that?

* * *

I need to learn more about the concept of Israel as occupiers.  If when people are saying that, they're referring to the land obtained in 1967, I think it's fair.  I don't necessarily agree with it.  I need to learn more about the war.  But I think it's fair to see a piece of land, obtained in a war, to be contested.   

If people are referring to all of Israel as being occupied; then I think that's antisemitism.  

And I see "Free Palestine!" a lot.  What does that refer to?  Is it the areas that the UN had originally labeled as being for the Arabs?  Is it freeing Palestinians from having to go through arduous checkpoints?  Or are they saying they want Israel to disappear completely?

It probably varies person to person.  

For those who use such a statement as their response in discussions of antisemitism, it's probably more likely the latter.   And...it might also be a bot sometimes.  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online