Jewish Soul is Not Polish Soul Shanes

Diaspora Nationalism and Jewish Identity in Habsburg Galicia, by Joshua Shanes. 2012

Like Endeks Like Jews: The Immutability of the Jewish Soul, Assimilation Notwithstanding, Held By Many Jews Themselves

Zionism, as generally understood today, was just one form of Jewish nationalism. There was also territorialism [also called Statism]–the Jewish goal of securing a geographic territory outside of Palestine, a position once held by Alfred Nossig. (p. 58). [Territorialism can be mapped unto Polish concerns of a potential Judeopolonia.]

JEWISH NATIONALISM EXISTED WITHOUT A GEOGRAPHICAL NATION

However, contrary to common misconceptions about the nature of nationalism, it does not have to have territorial ambitions. (p. 16). As emphasized by Shanes, much of Jewish nationalism, at least that in Galicia, was a territory-less form of nationalism. Jewish nationalism is thus defined by the author, (Quote) At its core, It must be understood as a movement designed to strengthen Jewish ethnic pride and identity, and ultimately to organize Jews politically AS JEWS, self-conscious people of a modern nation. (unquote)(emphasis in original)(p. 11). Furthermore, Jewish nationalism was an integral development among Galician Jews, and not so much a defense against the anti-Semitism of others’ nationalisms. (p. 9, 49-50, 56).

JEWISH NATIONALISM WAS VARIEGATED

Jewish nationalism among the Jews of pre-WWI Galicia began with the secular intelligentsia (p. 109), and then acquired a broader following among the Jews. (p. 150). Pointedly, Jewish nationalism did not coincide with specific Jewish positions on other matters, such as religion, assimilation, spoken language, or Zionism. (pp. 50-51). In the latter part of his book, Shanes describes the various Jewish political parties and political processes in which Jewish nationalism because manifested.

ENDEKS CORROBORATED BY JEWS THEMSELVES: JEWISH ASSIMILATION INTO POLISHNESS IS NOT NECESSARILY SYNONYMOUS WITH JEWS BECOMING PART OF THE POLISH NATION

Perhaps without intending to, Shanes clarifies many ancillary matters in Polish-Jewish relations, especially the nature of Jewish assimilation. For instance, consider the common criticism of Endeks for rejecting separatist-oriented Jews as Poles and then turning around and commonly rejecting assimilated Jews as well. Actually, there is no contradiction. Although Shanes does not describe it in this manner, he essentially concurs with the fact that assimilation does not itself make a Pole out of a Jew. He comments, (quote) Part of the problem lies in the ambiguity of the terminology itself…Most [assimilationists] intended only the modernization of the Jews and their INTEGRATION into non-Jewish society AS JEWS. (emphasis in original)(unquote)(p. 10). In other words, essentially the same separatism, particularism, and aloofness to the Polish independentist cause remained–albeit now in an outwardly gentile form.

Shanes confirms the Endek contention that Jewish nationalists tended to be enemies of the Polish cause. In addition, linguistic affinity (Polish vs. Yiddish) was not itself predictive of this. Apropos to both premises, (Quote) Jewish nationalists, for example, railed against Poles and Polonization–in Polish–while Orthodox leaders who could not speak Polish insisted on supporting Polish Conservatives. (unquote). (p. 51).

It is obvious that Jews had conflicting loyalties, and even those Galician Jews considering themselves Polish did not usually identify with Polish national aspirations. (Quote) Marsha Rozenblit has demonstrated the tendency of Habsburg Jewry to espouse a “tripartite” identity: Austrian politically, German (or Czech or Polish) culturally, and Jewish ethnically. (unquote)(p. 2).

JEWS OPPORTUNISTICALLY TURN PRO-POLISH AFTER LONG HAVING BEEN PRO-GERMAN

Shanes describes how Poles, in the late 19th century, became more and more dominant in Galicia, doing so increasingly at the expense of local German-Austrian influence. Interestingly, Endeks were not the only ones who suspected opportunism in those Jews who seemed to become Polish. He writes, “(Jewish) Nationalists mocked assimilationists for so quickly abandoning German for Polish, arguing that they were pathetic sycophants who sought simply to join those in power.” (p. 60).

DO NOT BLAME EVERYTHING ON THE POLES

In common with many authors, Shanes attributes the aloofness of Galician Jews towards Polish nationalism to the latter’s growing exclusivism and anti-Semitism. In contrast, some local Jews essentially concurred with the Endek position that anti-Semitism was partly of the Jews’ own making, “…Agudas Achim (Union of Brothers, or Przymierze Braci), which blamed Jewish intransigence for anti-Semitism, and promoted the integration of Jews into the Polish nation.” (p. 56).

ENDEKS CONFIRMED: SELDOM DOES A JEWISH SOUL GET TRANSFORMED INTO A POLISH SOUL

Some of the pre-WWII Endeks and ONR questioned if a Jew could ever truly become a Pole, and have since been endlessly condemned for thinking that way. Interestingly, much the same attitude was held–much earlier–by some Jews. Thus, some Galician Jewish anti-assimilationists promoted essentially a racial or borderline-racial definition of Jews in that they saw essential Jewishness as an innate and immutable characteristic. Shanes quotes from DER KANTCHIK and comments, (Quote) “…you will get up and go to the market to find a new father, a new mother, and new sisters and brothers? You laugh–it is really comical. And yet it is just the same when a person wants to become a Pole. What is born with you, you cannot change.” Here Jews do not merely constitute a nation, but an ethnic nation. Assuming a Polish identity thus becomes a biological impossibility rather than an immoral cultural choice. (unquote)(p. 90).

RUTHENIAN WAS NOT THEN SYNONYMOUS WITH UKRAINIAN

On a completely different subject, the author also clarifies some aspects of Polish-Ukrainian relations. Poles advanced the self-professed Ruthenians’ rejection of the Ukrainian nationalists’ Pan-Ukrainian concept. In contrast, the Ukrainian nationalists insisted that the term Ruthenian was nothing more than an archaic synonym of Ukrainian, and that the pre-WWII Poles’ division of Ukrainophones into Ruthenians and Ukrainians was self-serving and artificial. Shanes supports the position of Ukrainian-Canadian historian John Paul Himka, who essentially concurs with the Polish view, (Quote) Only in the early twentieth century was the term [Ruthenian] gradually replaced by the preferred term UKRAINIAN, while the use of the term RUTHENIAN grew to be a political statement that denied the connection between Ukrainian speakers on the two sides of the Austrian-Russian border. (unquote)(p. 15).