WARNING: If you are super sensitive and unable to consider this subject rationally, please be aware that this entry may send you into hysterics.
So Harry S. Truman was anti-Semitic. I like the Smoking Gun, but sometimes they take things out of context and make it look slightly different than it was or is. Just like many other news and media outlets. Another example is their attitude on the Peter Townsend child pornography hoopla which I don't think was altogether fair to him. The only thing which continually redeems them is their publication of the actual documents so that a person may read and decide for themselves. But with the brief introductions and without continuing to view the posted documents, you might get a different impression.
Though I'm not defending Truman and do not agree with the way that some of his thoughts were posed in the entry at issue, I am saying that when you read the ENTIRE jounal entry, there is more to it than disliking jews as an issue of race:
"6:00 p.m., Monday, July 21, 1947
Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morganthau about Jewish ship in Palestine. Told him I would talk to Gen. Marshall about it. He'd no business, whatever, to call me. The jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgment on world affairs.
"Henry brought a thousand jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed. When the country went backward - and Republican in the election of 1945, this incident loomed large on the D[isplaced] P[ersons] program.
"The jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler or Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro[...] he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition, when propriety comes. Look at the Congress attitude on DP -- and they all come from DPs."
If this is what he observed...should his memory be crucified for saying it? It doesn't sound to me like he is putting them down simply because of their race, but more because of their complete lack of compassion for any cause except for their own. In fact, I think what he says at the end "I've found very, very few who remember their past condition, when propriety comes. Look at the Congress attitude on DP -- and they all come from DPs" is something worth thinking about. Now, for all I know, Truman could have been the most racist, contemptable son of a bitch that ever lived, but based on this writing alone, I don't think it would be fair to make the assumption that he dislikes jews for their race as much as he dislikes their political take on the displaced persons issue, and other issues of global importance. I don't think it's fair to lay a blanket judgment as he did, but I also don't feel that this entry should be a black mark on his permanent record.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that there seems to be a hyper sensitive response to any comment that could be perceived as, in any way, anti-Semitic. It is to the point where a person can't open their mouth and speak of jews unless they are saying something perfectly positive or being ultra sensitive to the historical plight of jews, or else they are automatically assumed to be a "ANTI-SEMITE". Could there be a dirtier word? Especially with the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it is such a volatile subject. I am personally on the side of the Palestinians. I don't defend their killing of Israelis anymore than I would defend the Israelis of killing Palestinians, but I do think that if you examine the reason that all of this started, it is the fault of the Israelis and not enough blame or pressure is being laid upon them and I think their self-righteousness is shameless. I think that in recent times, the escalation of conflict has a huge lot to do with Bush Administration policy with respect to Israel (the good son) and not doing enough to help Palestine (the stepchild).
At any rate, I live in NYC, I work in a huge lawfirm, so you figure it out. I am certainly in no way anti-Semitic or anti-any other race, religion or creed (except Jahovah's Witnesses. Those people drive me to distraction), but all the same, I think that the hyper-sensitivity and the ultra political correctness has gone a little far. To the point where people cannot express their political views on the subject, without it being turned into a racial/religious attack.
NOTE: Graham Lester makes an excellent point in my comments about the time frame during which Truman's comments were made and the geographical background of Mr. Truman that would suggest, that he was, in fact, anti-Semitic. I would like to stress again that I am not defending these comments, only speculating and tying the recent publication of his writing in with my feelings about the subject in the world today. Granted, things were MUCH different in 1947.
Posted by Maria at July 14, 2003 11:34 AM | TrackBack"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler or Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog." Harry Truman
Maria,
What makes the above remark so completely inexcusable is that he was writing in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of the concentration camps. What could possibly have been his evidence that Jews were as bad as Hitler or Stalin? What had any Jews done in Truman's lifetime that could justify such a comparison?
Truman was from Independence, Missouri. I live nearby in Kansas City. My understanding is that anti-Semitism was absolutely rife in this area fifty or sixty years ago. There were even restrictions against Jews buying property in the Kansas City Plaza area.
As for the Palestine issue, that was a problem created primarily by "Christian" nations, not by Jews or Palestinians. It was Christian progroms against Jews in Russia in the 19th century that created the bulk of the early settlements, and Nazi persecution of Jews in the 1930s that created another massive wave of immigrants later. So it is not really a question of being on one side or the other a much as it is a question of trying to resolve problems that have primarily been imposed upon both communities from the outside.
Posted by: Graham Lester at July 14, 2003 12:43 PM"What makes the above remark so completely inexcusable is that he was writing in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of the concentration camps."
Point taken with respect to the particular time frame and Mr. Truman's geographical background. As I said, it is not that I am defending Truman or that I agree with what he said, I just felt that the way that the comments were being reiterated took them somewhat out of context. I certainly think it was inappropriate for him to make the comparison to Hitler and Stalin.
"I've found very, very few who remember their past condition, when propriety comes. Look at the Congress attitude on DP -- and they all come from DPs" I think I just felt him when he said that and maybe that's where my thoughts on the subject mostly stemmed from.
To me, the bottom line with Israel and Palestine is that right now, the Israelis continue to occupy Palestine, citing their own religious rights and views, the importance of which they place above the right of the Palestinians to inhabit their own land. I think that's wrong. And I think that our fear of appearing anti-Semitic and our government's bias on the side of the Israelis is a huge hinderance to a resolution.
Posted by: Maria at July 14, 2003 01:09 PMClinton brokered a good deal for the Palestinians but Arafat backed out. The Bush administration therefore refused to deal with Arafat, but as soon as a more responsible Palestinian leader emerged it restarted the peace process. It is the current administration's refusal to deal with terrorists that is making the creation of a Palestinian state possible. The position of the administration is that both peoples should have their own independent state. It is not siding with Israel as much as it is siding against a minority of extremists who want Israel completely destroyed.
Posted by: Graham Lester at July 14, 2003 01:41 PMGood post Maria. This is what I like to see, a little objectivity when viewing and forming an opinion about a subject, and not letting the views of the writer blind you to the subject. You are being fair to Truman, and the reason I took so much offense to the Bush posting is because I didn't see you putting in the same amount of objectivity to those issues; the completely biased slant of that list, in my opinion, made it completely unreliable and nothing more than an impassioned flame attack against the president.
Anyway, I think it's also important to note that these words by Truman were placed in his private journal (unless I missed the source completely; wouldn't be the first time :) and were not something he ever meant to be public. People write all sorts of things in their private journals that they may not even mean; who knows what mood he was in when he penned this? He may have just been pissed off at someone about this subject and was writing to get it out of his system; something I think we all do through this medium you yourself have created.
I'll admit I'm not an expert on Truman; it's way before my time and I'm not a history major, but if I was to get into the subject I would try to approach it objectively, just as I do any current events. I have mixed feelings about the Israeli/Palestine situation. I'm not completely on either side, and I honestly don't think we'd be making the progress we are there now if it wasn't for the Iraq war. I'm watching that situation with great interest; maybe we can finally get a measure of peace established in that region.
Well, hope you had a great weekend and are having a good day!
Posted by: lee at July 14, 2003 01:44 PMGood point Graham, that's one I meant to add above and forgot. Bush has been hard on both sides about coming to an agreement; I don't think he's been pro-Israeli any more than pro-Palestinian. He's on the same stance he's been since 9/11: he's completely anti-terrorist and I'm glad he's stayed that way.
Posted by: lee at July 14, 2003 01:46 PMMaria writes:
"To me, the bottom line with Israel and Palestine is that right now, the Israelis continue to occupy Palestine, citing their own religious rights and views, the importance of which they place above the right of the Palestinians to inhabit their own land. I think that's wrong. And I think that our fear of appearing anti-Semitic and our government's bias on the side of the Israelis is a huge hinderance to a resolution"
*********************************************
Point made. I have shared this point of view for some time. This very phenomenon is what got the actress/activist Vanessa Redgrave banned from speaking in front of the Boston Symphony. (She eventually won a settlement against the BSO for their action against her)
She's no anti-Semite. She's an egalitarian and a humanist ready to compromise her life, her safety AND HER CAREER to support that which she thinks if righteous.
Nor, in my opinion, was Truman an anti-Semite ... if this sampling of his sentiments is broadly representative.
Posted by: Chosesinconnues at July 16, 2003 09:17 PMHey Choses, you still awake man? I just got an interesting email from Sasha; seems BH has banned Roggy. Wow; I always thought he was incredibly naive and needed to pull his head out of the sand, but he was never aggressive or combative about it. Have you still been haunting that place? Has he changed? I would've thought you'd been banned before he was :) I haven't even looked there in a long time so don't know what's up, but it definitely seems to justify my reasons for leaving; they're putting an old boy system in place, and I'm just not the old boy type!
Posted by: lee at July 16, 2003 11:10 PMThere truly IS a God...;)
Altho without the Roggenfascists of the world, my claws would be dull and blunt.......:)
Posted by: evilmike at September 15, 2003 08:12 PM