A personal experience in Poland
Danny Kreindler
remnants of Jewish life. There's nothing left, even the
cemeteries were destroyed. Poland is one big Jewish
graveyard. There are hardly any Jews left in Poland, yet
anti-semitism is quite alive. It was a very depressing sad
experience for me.
In the Polish tourist town of SANDOMIERZ a large
painting depicting in full detail the process of religious
Jews killing Christian children for their blood to be used in
religious rituals is permanently displayed in the town's
Cathedral.
The painting shows a Jewish woman enticing children to
come into the place where they are killed by the men. An
unmistakable rabbi figure is seen collecting the blood into
an urn. At the bottom of the painting another man throws the
bodies of the dead children to the dogs.
In 1957, 43 Jews were murdered in Kielc (Poland) when a
rumor spread that a Christian child had been killed for its
blood.
Can anyone suggest what steps should be taken to remove
that dangerous and offensive painting from the walls of the
Samdomierz Cathedral?
Any comments will be appreiciated- to the s.c.j. or to
the above address.
Yaakov Gladstone.
Eric Silber
>I just returned from a trip to Poland where I tried to find
>remnants of Jewish life. There's nothing left, even the
>cemeteries were destroyed. Poland is one big Jewish
>graveyard. There are hardly any Jews left in Poland, yet
>anti-semitism is quite alive.
> Can anyone suggest what steps should be taken to remove
>that dangerous and offensive painting from the walls of the
>Samdomierz Cathedral?
>
> Any comments will be appreiciated- to the s.c.j. or to
>the above address.
>
> Yaakov Gladstone.
Although I am a secular Jew and Israel is a modern nation state,
I often wonder what Israel will do to protect Jews in Europe or
America from resurgent racist lunacies. Perhaps you will say that
it is not Israel's job to protect Ukrainian Jews or Latvian Jews or
German Jews or Croatian Jews. What is the policy of Israel today
concerning resurgent anti-semitism in Europe ?
Martin Lawera
Before we all go ballistic about it: how about if we just ignore
our friend Yaakov?
Obviously, he is trying to start a flame-war.
Martin
adam.v.reed
> I just returned from a trip to Poland where I tried to find
> remnants of Jewish life. There's nothing left, even the
> cemeteries were destroyed.
Actually, there is a lot to see if you can find it. The locals
can't help, since knowledge of this aspect of Polish history
has been systematically suppressed. So a good guidebook is
indispensable. The best is
Przemyslaw Buchard: "Pamiatki i Zabytki Kultury Zydowskiej w
Polsce". Warszawa 1990. Very few Polish bookstores carry it;
your best bet is to contact Przemyslaw Burchard,
ul. Podlesna 15, 01-673 Warszawa, Poland.
The book has detailed listings for hundreds of cities and towns.
In Sandomierz, for example, the State Archives (Archiwum
Panstwowe) on ul. Basztowa is housed in the building of an old
synagogue, built in 1688; synagogue frescoes, with Hebrew
calligraphy and signs of the Zodiac, are still visible. There is
also a restored community center (Dom Kahalny) next to it.
One of the two Jewish cemetaries (the one on ul. Sucha) still
has a few dozen gravestones left, and a monument to some 1000
Jews shot there by the Germans.
> Poland is one big Jewish
> graveyard. There are hardly any Jews left in Poland, yet
> anti-semitism is quite alive. It was a very depressing sad
> experience for me.
> In the Polish tourist town of SANDOMIERZ a large
> painting depicting in full detail the process of religious
> Jews killing Christian children for their blood to be used in
> religious rituals is permanently displayed in the town's
> Cathedral.
> The painting shows a Jewish woman enticing children to
> come into the place where they are killed by the men. An
> unmistakable rabbi figure is seen collecting the blood into
> an urn. At the bottom of the painting another man throws the
> bodies of the dead children to the dogs.
This painting depicts the allegations made against Aaron Berk
in 1698. These resulted in an unenforced prohibition against
Jewish settlement in Sandomierz, which remained theoretically in
force until 1862. See Burchard, p. 171.
Adam_...@ATT.com
Lech Borkowski
>remnants of Jewish life. There's nothing left, even the
>cemeteries were destroyed. Poland is one big Jewish
>graveyard. There are hardly any Jews left in Poland, yet
>anti-semitism is quite alive. It was a very depressing sad
>experience for me.
How did you recognize that the antisemitism is quite alive?
This is no flame, it is a polite question. You make the statement,
but what exactly happened to you during your trip, that makes you
say it?
> Yaakov Gladstone.
Lech Borkowski
l...@neptune.phys.ufl.edu
Michal Szleper
>remnants of Jewish life. There's nothing left, even the
>cemeteries were destroyed.
Where did you look for those cemeteries? I can assure you
there are still some Jewish cemeteries in Poland.
>
> Any comments will be appreiciated- to the s.c.j. or to
>the above address.
>
>
> Yaakov Gladstone.
>
>
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| My opinions are my opinions. But facts are those of everyone. |
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Michal~ Szleper | "All you need is love, love, |
| (mic...@fuw.edu.pl) | Love is all you need..." |
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Roger Lustig
>>I just returned from a trip to Poland where I tried to find
>>remnants of Jewish life. There's nothing left, even the
>>cemeteries were destroyed.
>Where did you look for those cemeteries? I can assure you
>there are still some Jewish cemeteries in Poland.
Correct. Some are indeed neglected to the point of being overgrown,
etc., and some were destroyed in war, pogroms, etc. But many remain
intact, or at least in fair condition. My father has an on-line index
of the graves in the Gliwice (olim Gleiwitz) Jewish Cemetery, for
instance; he based it on the record-book that the custodian (there
still is one) had.
Roger
Maciek Blasikiewicz
>>>painting, after all, that "educated" generations of poles (and
>>>similar artwork did the same for others around the world) so that
>>>they were prepared to actively participate in the "final solution."
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>So tell us, Douglas, where can we find more about how Poles ACTIVELY
>>participated in the "final solution". Did they come-up with the idea of
>>mass extermination, did they build the death camps, did they run them?
>>Tell us their names, Douglas, so we can hunt them down, and punish them.
>To actively participate is to do what some murderous Poles did to my
>great Uncle and his family. Shoot them in cold blood because
>they were Jew pigs. That is ACTIVELY participating in the final
>solution. If it isn't active enough for you Blasikiewicz then
>you should awaken. It was enough for my family.
>Are you going to hunt them down Blasikiewicz?
Do you know their names, their SS unit identification, the location
and date of the crime?
>Tell us about your family. Where was it, what did it do during the
>final solution.
OK Balbin. My mother's parents both served as slave labour in Austria.
My father's father fought in September 1939, avoided capture, and
then lived in a small village with my grandmother, under the German
occupation.
>Half of my family were murdered by POLES and the other half saved
>by POLES. We still send gifts
(and brag about it)
>to those who were good, but to those
>who behaved like animals, and my father tells me they were far
>from a minority (my father was saved by POLES) they can GO TO ROT
>IN HELL.
And I am sure they will. Amen.
MB
Maciek Blasikiewicz
>painting, after all, that "educated" generations of poles (and
>similar artwork did the same for others around the world) so that
>they were prepared to actively participate in the "final solution."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So tell us, Douglas, where can we find more about how Poles ACTIVELY
participated in the "final solution". Did they come-up with the idea of
mass extermination, did they build the death camps, did they run them?
Tell us their names, Douglas, so we can hunt them down, and punish them.
MB
Isaac Balbin
To actively participate is to do what some murderous Poles did to my
great Uncle and his family. Shoot them in cold blood because
they were Jew pigs. That is ACTIVELY participating in the final
solution. If it isn't active enough for you Blasikiewicz then
you should awaken. It was enough for my family.
Are you going to hunt them down Blasikiewicz?
Tell us about your family. Where was it, what did it do during the
final solution.
Half of my family were murdered by POLES and the other half saved
by POLES. We still send gifts to those who were good, but to those
Ben Pashkoff
In article <ldjgao...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, sil...@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:
|>
|> Although I am a secular Jew and Israel is a modern nation state,
|> I often wonder what Israel will do to protect Jews in Europe or
|> America from resurgent racist lunacies. Perhaps you will say that
|> it is not Israel's job to protect Ukrainian Jews or Latvian Jews or
|> German Jews or Croatian Jews. What is the policy of Israel today
|> concerning resurgent anti-semitism in Europe ?
|>
Perhaps I do not understand the full meaning of this posting. If I do not, I
apologise in advance, but although I am a religious Jew and Israel is my home,
I often wonder what Israel will not do to protect Jews from resugent racist
lunacies. I think that the answer can be summed up in one word, and proven in
one sentence. The word is: ALIYA, and the sentence is: In the past 2.5 years
Israel has managed to absorb a LARGE number of Jews from the former Soviet
Union as well as Ethiopia and the only condition has been to come.
--
________________________________________________________________________
| Ben Pashkoff B...@VMSA.TECHNION.AC.IL |
| |
| "There is nothing better for the body than silence." Pirke Avot 1:17 |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Isaac Balbin
>>Are you going to hunt them down Blasikiewicz?
>Do you know their names, their SS unit identification, the location
>and date of the crime?
My father can take you to the grave, Damn it.
As a 10 year old boy, he had to remove their decayed bodies
with his mother and re-bury them.
>>Tell us about your family. Where was it, what did it do during the
>>final solution.
>OK Balbin. My mother's parents both served as slave labour in Austria.
>My father's father fought in September 1939, avoided capture, and
>then lived in a small village with my grandmother, under the German
>occupation.
Good. I am glad you are not the son of murderers.
I am the son of a survivor who witnessed POLISH attrocities
and POLISH good.
Your statement that POLES did not take part in the final solution
is palpable rubbish. Wash your mouth out. My family is a living
witness to it.
By the way, the POLES who actually saved our family decided one sunny day
that they would report us to the Germans. My Grandfather, of blessed memory,
who was smart, replied that when the Germans would come, he would report
that the POLES has assisted his family, and if he got weak-kneed, he would
dies as well. The Pole decided to change his plans, and that is how
we survived.
Maciek Blasikiewicz
>Your statement that POLES did not take part in the final solution
>is palpable rubbish. Wash your mouth out. My family is a living
>witness to it.
By "final solution" I understand the implementation of a plan that the
Nazis came up in the early fourties (1941-2?) for the systematic
extermination of the Jews in death camps. It was implemented by units
of the SS. I am not aware of any Poles who participated in the units of
the SS that run the camps, or any other SS units.
However, I concede that there were occurences where armed groups of
Poles have murdered Jews during the war, due to violent antisemitism
or other reasons. But this is not participation in the "final
solution", as these groups were not acting on directives of the
Germans, and were not organised specifically to murder Jews in
accordance with plans for the "final solution".
This does not mean that the effect was any different, or that these
people are any better than the Nazis (because they did not have a
master plan). They are contemptible war criminals that should be
brought to trial whenever possible.
MB
W. Dobosiewicz
>mat...@stats.mu.oz.au (Maciek Blasikiewicz) writes:
[...]
>Good. I am glad you are not the son of murderers.
>I am the son of a survivor who witnessed POLISH attrocities
>and POLISH good.
>Your statement that POLES did not take part in the final solution
>is palpable rubbish. Wash your mouth out. My family is a living
>witness to it.
>By the way, the POLES who actually saved our family decided one sunny day
>that they would report us to the Germans. My Grandfather, of blessed memory,
>who was smart, replied that when the Germans would come, he would report
>that the POLES has assisted his family, and if he got weak-kneed, he would
>dies as well. The Pole decided to change his plans, and that is how
>we survived.
Earlier in your posting, you say that your father was 10 years old. So why
personilise the story if you were not even born (I assume).
When it comes to the main part, let us distinguish between antisemitism
and holocaust. So, how many Jews do you think were killed by
"blood-thirsty" Polish barbarians? And how many perished by the hands of
the GERMAN Nazi machine?
By the way, your story of the Pole who almost gave your grandfather away
and then changed his mind when blackmailed sounds interesting. Why did
they bother to take care of your family in the first place, then? I assume
it was money, what else?
Your hatred should be put in some perspective, though.
Consider these two stories:
- my father was arrested and sent to a concentration camp (5.5 years) by a
Polish Volksdeutsch (i.e a Pole who decided he was member of the
superrace)
- most Jews from the Warsaw ghetto were ushered into the cars to Treblinka
(not Auschwitz, folks!!!) by the Jewish police under Lejkin.
So what? There are amoral individuals in every society and their
visibility usually is proportional to the hardness of the times they live
in.
That most Poles at the time were at least slightly antisemitic did not
help, did it? And most Poles now still are antisemitic, alas.
But from that to claim that Poles participated in the "final solution" is
a long way to go. Even if Poles murdered+denounced 30,000 Jews (so far I
have not read of a higher estimate), this still is only 1% of the Jews
living in Poland. The remainder, minus survivors, was helped to death by
some other nation.
Why not blast your loudspeakers that way, then?
W. Dobosiewicz
Maciek Blasikiewicz
>>However, I concede that there were occurences where armed groups of
>>Poles have murdered Jews during the war, due to violent antisemitism
>>or other reasons.
>There were civilians as well---not just armed gangs of thugs. Okay?
>Please again do not be limiting with little collective nouns.
I was not being limiting.
>And what are the other reasons? To steal their money? Oh yes, that
>is much more comforting. Mass murder takes place and this is the
>time to get rich fast. Hrrumph.
It is always time to get rich quick for some people. Are you suggesting
that robbers stop their activities during wars, or care if their victim
is a Jew or not? Some may do so, but many probably don't. Besides, I
can also imagine many reasons other then robbery and antisemitism.
People were suspicious of strangers during the war, and it was not
difficult to make mistakes. (I am not suggesting that mistakes account
for a large proportion of killings, but that such things also happened.)
MB
Isaac Balbin
>At 3:24:44 GMT Isaac Balbin writes:
>> Half of my family were murdered by POLES and the other half saved by POLES.
>> We still send gifts to those who were good ... (my father was saved by POLES)
>... then after almost five hours ( 08:13:32) he writes again:
>> By the way, the POLES who actually saved our family decided one sunny day
>> that they would report us to the Germans ...
>Now I understand everything!..., all POLES are bastards, even those who were
>saving Jews. I am POLE, I am bastard too. But Balbin's family still send
>gifts to those bastards...
You understood very little unfortunatley.
(1) I never said ALL Poles
(2) The fact that those Poles who did save us, and set out to do so, at one
stage decided that they would snitch on us to the Germans, does not mean
that we should not send presents to their offspring. Think about it.
Roman Budzianowski
> (2) The fact that those Poles who did save us, and set out to do so, at one
> stage decided that they would snitch on us to the Germans, does not mean
> that we should not send presents to their offspring. Think about it.
Every Pole during wwii new that the penalty for hiding Jews was death. Why would anybody
report to Germans about him hiding Jews is beyond any logic. There must be more in this story.
Andrew P. Paplinski
>I suspect that the reason we castigate the Poles is that we compare their
>response with that of the Danes.
I suspect that YOU attempt to castigate poles because it is
much easier to blame the victim than the powerful Germans.
>
>The majority of the Death Camps were built in Poland, and the Poles, if they
If you really would like to know why GERMANS built the Death
camps in Poland, you might have tried to ask GERMANS instead of
generate a naive conjecture.
>didn't actively assist the Nazis, at least they didn't resist as much as the
>Danes did. The Danes, on the other hand, actively resisted the Nazis. So did
>the Dutch. Anne Frank, for example, was hidden in Holland.
>
Reading Your oversimplistic and misleading statements I thought
that it might be a good idea for you to go to the library and
do some research first before you write such a fresh and novel
comment.
>Jeff Silverman
>Boeing Commercial Airplane.
>
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski a...@cyfrak.rdt.monash.edu.au
Dept. Robotics&Digital Technology Phone: +61 3 573 2015
Monash University Fax : +61 3 573 2345
PO Box 197, Caulfield East, 3145 [Melbourne, AUSTRALIA]
--
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski a...@cyfrak.rdt.monash.edu.au
Dept. Robotics&Digital Technology Phone: +61 3 573 2015
Monash University Fax : +61 3 573 2345
Andrew Mytys
>From article <1992Oct12....@discus.technion.ac.il>,
>by s149...@techst02.technion.ac.il (Danny Kreindler):
>> In the Polish tourist town of SANDOMIERZ a large
>> painting depicting in full detail the process of religious
>> Jews killing Christian children for their blood to be used in
>> religious rituals is permanently displayed in the town's
>> Cathedral.
>I would hate to see this painting destroyed. I would rather see it
>prominently displayed as a dusgusting reminder of a horrible era,
>perhaps in the context of a holocaust museum. It is this kind of
>painting, after all, that "educated" generations of poles (and
>similar artwork did the same for others around the world) so that
>they were prepared to actively participate in the "final solution."
>In the appropriate interpretive context, such a painting can be
>just as useful in educating a new generation about the evils of
>prejudice.
> Doug Jones
> jo...@cs.uiowa.ed
I dont think there were may poles who were "Prepared to actively participate
in the "final solution"".. Remember, Poland was no ally to Hitler. In
fact, poland was invaded by Hitler, and many Poles also died in those
concentration camps with the jews. Some courageous Poles even went out of
their way and into danger to hide jews who were being rounded up by the
nazis. I don't think that any amount of paintings could persuede the vast
majority of Poles (who are devoted Catholics for the most part) to abandon
their faith and commit such attrocities as depicted in said painting, or by
the nazis./
u
Roger Lustig
>s149...@techst02.technion.ac.il (Danny Kreindler) writes:
>> In the Polish tourist town of SANDOMIERZ a large
>>painting depicting in full detail the process of religious
>>Jews killing Christian children for their blood to be used in
>>religious rituals is permanently displayed in the town's
>>Cathedral.
>> The painting shows a Jewish woman enticing children to
>>come into the place where they are killed by the men. An
>>unmistakable rabbi figure is seen collecting the blood into
>>an urn. At the bottom of the painting another man throws the
>>bodies of the dead children to the dogs.
>Well, its good that you were offended. But the removeal of such testimates
>to mans ability to be crule one another is not the proper thing to do.
Why not? Offensive things get removed from places all the time.
>Following your thinking the exhibits at Auswitz should also be removed, as
>they also offend visitors, and probably a great deal more than some painting
>on a dark wall of a catherdral.
"Following your thinking"? Shoe us how this follows.
a) Auschwitz is not a house of worship.
b) The exhibit in the church is not a museum. Auschwitz memorial is
there for informational purposes, not slander.
>Even if there was a consesus to remove this
>painting, you would have to battle the Catholic church in Poland. This is
>one battle which cannot be won.
Then it's time to start fighting that battle. I doubt that what you
say is true; but if it is true, then the moral authority of the Church
is in grave doubt.
(Look around *your* church. The Stations, the windows, the memorials,
the statues, etc. -- they are all meant to educate. That's the context
of this painting, isn't it?)
Churches get remodeled all the time. How many churches have interiors
that look the way they did even 100 years ago? When the church finds
something offensive on a wall, they remove it. If it's on the wall,
one may only assume that it's not offensive -- unless some special
arrangement has been made to explain its presence, and I didn't hear
of any of this in the original report (see above).
One is forced to ask: is there something special about this display?
What does the church find indispensable about it? Why can it not even
be covered?
Roger
Maciek Blasikiewicz
>b) The exhibit in the church is not a museum.
First, exhibits are not museums, so we agree here. Second, old churches
often have historical value, as do their contents, and hence should be
preserved.
>Churches get remodeled all the time.
Not true. Many churches, because of their historical value, get
restored to the condition they were in long ago. This church we are
talking about is a few centuries old, and I would be surprised if
anyone wanted to remodel it.
>How many churches have interiors
>that look the way they did even 100 years ago?
Many in Poland.
>When the church finds
>something offensive on a wall, they remove it. If it's on the wall,
>one may only assume that it's not offensive -- unless some special
>arrangement has been made to explain its presence, and I didn't hear
>of any of this in the original report (see above).
A few days ago A.Reed explained what the painting is: it portrays
allegations that were levelled at some Jews at a trial a few centuries
ago. I don't know if there is a notice next to the picture explaining
that it portrays untrue allegations from a "witch trial", but I think
there should be one.
MB
Roger Lustig
>ro...@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>b) The exhibit in the church is not a museum.
>First, exhibits are not museums, so we agree here. Second, old churches
>often have historical value, as do their contents, and hence should be
>preserved.
Fine. So preserve the church. Preserve its contents. But why leave
that particular item in the sanctuary? Put it in a museum! I'm
sure it wasn't painted when the church was built, and many churches
*have* stripped off centuries of accretions.
Besides, historical value gets preserved at the church's discretion.
Look at all the changes wrought by Vatican II! If Gregorian chant could
be removed from most servides overnight, a painting can be moved.
>>Churches get remodeled all the time.
>Not true. Many churches, because of their historical value, get
>restored to the condition they were in long ago. This church we are
>talking about is a few centuries old, and I would be surprised if
>anyone wanted to remodel it.
Again: does the painting date to the same time as the building of the
church? Why *not* remodel it, in an effort to remove the stench of
old hatreds?
>>How many churches have interiors
>>that look the way they did even 100 years ago?
>Many in Poland.
Fine. But, as I said, if the hierarchy *wants* to remove such an
offensive painting, it will . And if it *doesn't* want to, one must
ask the reason why. Imagine the good that could be done by commissioning
a painter to make a new, more appropriate painting. Replacement of
old art works is *also* a Church traditio.
>>When the church finds
>>something offensive on a wall, they remove it. If it's on the wall,
>>one may only assume that it's not offensive -- unless some special
>>arrangement has been made to explain its presence, and I didn't hear
>>of any of this in the original report (see above).
>A few days ago A.Reed explained what the painting is: it portrays
>allegations that were levelled at some Jews at a trial a few centuries
>ago. I don't know if there is a notice next to the picture explaining
>that it portrays untrue allegations from a "witch trial", but I think
>there should be one.
At the very, very least. Now we agree; I'd like to know what the
status of the picture is. Now, I'm not Catholic, but I suspect that,if I were, I would like worshiping in that church better if the painting were not
always there to be seen. Perhaps a curtian would be appropriate.
(After all, the prayer for the perfidious Jews *was* removed from the
Easter liturgy.)
Roger
Robert Greenstein
>In article <921014144...@atc.boeing.com> <silv...@ilvc.boeing.com (Jeff Silverman @ Flight Test Instrumentation Lab)> writes:
>>I suspect that the reason we castigate the Poles is that we compare their
>>response with that of the Danes.
Speak for yourself.
>>The majority of the Death Camps were built in Poland, and the Poles, if they
>
>If you really would like to know why GERMANS built the Death
>camps in Poland, you might have tried to ask GERMANS instead of
>generate a naive conjecture.
>
>>didn't actively assist the Nazis, at least they didn't resist as much as the
>>Danes did. The Danes, on the other hand, actively resisted the Nazis. So did
>>the Dutch. Anne Frank, for example, was hidden in Holland.
Anne Frank was hidden in Holland. So what. Are you implying that because
one Jew was hidden in Holland, the Dutch deserve a medal? Or maybe you
mean to say that no Pole ever hid a Jew? Such simplistic statements
do not aid anyone's understanding of Polish-Jewish relations.
--
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
gr...@island.com that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
of latent idiocy - M. Corelli
samuel.saal
a...@cyfrak.rdt.monash.edu.au (Andrew P. Paplinski) writes:
>I suspect that YOU attempt to castigate poles because it is
>much easier to blame the victim than the powerful Germans.
If you read, for example, Dershowitz's recent editorial on the rise of
the right again in Germany, you will see that "we" do no such thing.
The Germans are reminded at least as much about their role after all,
it was the Germans that started, and generally ran the Holocasut. The
difference is that Poles attempt to deny any complicity or complacnece
prefering the mantle of the vicitm when that title is hardly deserved
as much as Poles seem to wish.
--
Sam Saal kingfish!saal OR sa...@kingfish.att.com
Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Jacques Goldberg
(...)
>Anne Frank was hidden in Holland. So what. Are you implying that because
>one Jew was hidden in Holland, the Dutch deserve a medal? Or maybe you
>mean to say that no Pole ever hid a Jew? Such simplistic statements
>do not aid anyone's understanding of Polish-Jewish relations.
Do I remember correctly some immediate and very effective dockers strike
in occupied Holland when nazis started deporting Jews? Or was it in Poland,
or elsewhere?
Also, how many Jews have been forced to deserve some medal (not necessary
made of gold, color often enough) because one Jew was allegedly killed in
HolyLand?
[readers please refrain from launching a thread about the word "allegedly"
above. It's there only for consistency. French Revisionist Faurrisson once
requested a photo taken by somebody BEING GASED to believe in the Auschwitz
gas chamber story which he claims to be an invention. I'm less demanding, I'll
just keep a doubt, rather than deny, until that Jew brings me a photo of his
killing taken by himself of course.]
>Robert Greenstein What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
>gr...@island.com that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
> of latent idiocy - M. Corelli
Jacques Goldberg
Marek Osinski
>In article <amytys.7...@ais.org> amy...@ais.org (Andrew Mytys) writes:
>>s149...@techst02.technion.ac.il (Danny Kreindler) writes:
>
>>> In the Polish tourist town of SANDOMIERZ a large
>>>painting depicting in full detail the process of religious
>>>Jews killing Christian children for their blood to be used in
>>>religious rituals is permanently displayed in the town's
>>>Cathedral.
>>> The painting shows a Jewish woman enticing children to
>>>come into the place where they are killed by the men. An
>>>unmistakable rabbi figure is seen collecting the blood into
>>>an urn. At the bottom of the painting another man throws the
>>>bodies of the dead children to the dogs.
>
>>Well, its good that you were offended. But the removeal of such testimates
>>to mans ability to be crule one another is not the proper thing to do.
>
>Why not? Offensive things get removed from places all the time.
Why not, Roger? Because it is part of history, whether you like it or
not. Andrzej is right pointing out significance of that painting. What
better proof of anti-Jewish propaganda by the Church in past centuries
do you need? Removing or covering the painting would constitute
an attempt to revise history.
Danny Kreindler has not mentioned how old was that painting, but I'm sure
it must be pretty old.
[..] remarks referring to Auschwitz deleted.
>b) The exhibit in the church is not a museum. Auschwitz memorial is
>there for informational purposes, not slander.
Litlle you know about European monument conservation, I'm afraid.
Sandomierz Cathedral is certainly a national monument and nothing
can be changed there without special permission of monument
conservationists. From this point of view, it's more than a museum.
You should not interpret display of that painting as slander, rather
it is a said witness to history. As such, it definitely serves
informational purposes.
>>Even if there was a consesus to remove this
>>painting, you would have to battle the Catholic church in Poland. This is
>>one battle which cannot be won.
>
>Then it's time to start fighting that battle. I doubt that what you
>say is true; but if it is true, then the moral authority of the Church
>is in grave doubt.
I can assure you there is no consensus on altering historical monuments,
be it in Poland or in other European countries. And I don't think that
the Church has much to do with this. If you think about it, it might
even have been convenient for the Church to cover up this shameful
reminder of its role in the past in instigating anti-Jewish sentiments.
>(Look around *your* church. The Stations, the windows, the memorials,
>the statues, etc. -- they are all meant to educate. That's the context
>of this painting, isn't it?)
>
>Churches get remodeled all the time. How many churches have interiors
>that look the way they did even 100 years ago? When the church finds
>something offensive on a wall, they remove it. If it's on the wall,
>one may only assume that it's not offensive -- unless some special
>arrangement has been made to explain its presence, and I didn't hear
>of any of this in the original report (see above).
Your statement may be true in the U.S. (where a 20-year old piece of
furniture is an antique :-) ) but not in Europe. Nobody would
give permission to remodel a medieval monument.
Your attitude towards historical monuments reminds me that of early
Muslims, who would chip off noses of antique monuments because they
offended them.
>One is forced to ask: is there something special about this display?
>What does the church find indispensable about it? Why can it not even
>be covered?
On one hand, a major part of this entire discussion was for you and your
colleagues to prove the extent of antisemitism in Poland, concentrating
on its past. And now, when you have a clear proof of what was going on
in the past, you would like to cover it up? Why, Roger?
Many things from the past are offensive today. That does not mean we
should pretend they have not happened. What is important, as Andrzej
points out, is a proper education. I don't know whether Polish schools
offer such education today. That painting, for example, should be
publicized (I haven't heard about it before), and discussed in the
context of Kielce pogrom in 1947 (not 1957, Danny). When I was at
school, that subject was never mentioned.
>Roger
Marek Osinski
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Oct18.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <amytys.7...@ais.org> amy...@ais.org (Andrew Mytys) writes:
>>>s149...@techst02.technion.ac.il (Danny Kreindler) writes:
>>>> In the Polish tourist town of SANDOMIERZ a large
>>>>painting depicting in full detail the process of religious
>>>>Jews killing Christian children for their blood to be used in
>>>>religious rituals is permanently displayed in the town's
>>>>Cathedral.
>>>> The painting shows a Jewish woman enticing children to
>>>>come into the place where they are killed by the men. An
>>>>unmistakable rabbi figure is seen collecting the blood into
>>>>an urn. At the bottom of the painting another man throws the
>>>>bodies of the dead children to the dogs.
>>>Well, its good that you were offended. But the removeal of such testimates
>>>to mans ability to be crule one another is not the proper thing to do.
>>Why not? Offensive things get removed from places all the time.
>Why not, Roger? Because it is part of history, whether you like it or
>not.
So? Lots of things are "part of history" and get removed. The Roman
Catholic liturgy was completely revamped in the 1960's, after a thousand years
plus. Should they have left in the prayer for the conversion of the
perfidious Jews (one of many changes) just because it was "part of history"?
>Andrzej is right pointing out significance of that painting. What
>better proof of anti-Jewish propaganda by the Church in past centuries
>do you need?
None, thank you. However, simply leaving it there and not doing anything
about it, e.g., making it clearly museal unlike the rest of the items in
the church, suggests that Church attitudes TODAY also need questioning.
>Removing or covering the painting would constitute
>an attempt to revise history.
No. It would in fact constitute an alteration of the church to suit
present-day needs. As it is, I suspect the painting is something of
a distraction...
>Danny Kreindler has not mentioned how old was that painting, but I'm sure
>it must be pretty old.
Nobody's saying one should burn the painting. However, it needs attention
drawn to it -- for all I know, this has been done -- and this would involve
making sure that people know this is not the current opinion of the church.
And, given the authority and credibility that something depicted or
written in a church usually has, this is not a trivial matter.
>[..] remarks referring to Auschwitz deleted.
>>b) The exhibit in the church is not a museum. Auschwitz memorial is
>>there for informational purposes, not slander.
>Litlle you know about European monument conservation, I'm afraid.
>Sandomierz Cathedral is certainly a national monument and nothing
>can be changed there without special permission of monument
>conservationists. From this point of view, it's more than a museum.
Well, then, I hope that care has been taken to explain the significance
of the painting to all who see it. The original report we had here did
not mention any such measures, but I'm willing to find out that there
are such.
Could someone check on this? I'm not exactly close to the place...
>You should not interpret display of that painting as slander, rather
>it is a said witness to history. As such, it definitely serves
>informational purposes.
Depends on what people do with it. Remember: a church is still a place
where people come to worship. Where people express their beliefs, and
learn what they're supposed to believe. For over a thousand years,
European churches have been designed to contain lessons for those who
worship there. Is the right lesson being drawn from the painting?
That's all I want to know.
>>>Even if there was a consesus to remove this
>>>painting, you would have to battle the Catholic church in Poland. This is
>>>one battle which cannot be won.
>>Then it's time to start fighting that battle. I doubt that what you
>>say is true; but if it is true, then the moral authority of the Church
>>is in grave doubt.
>I can assure you there is no consensus on altering historical monuments,
>be it in Poland or in other European countries. And I don't think that
>the Church has much to do with this. If you think about it, it might
>even have been convenient for the Church to cover up this shameful
>reminder of its role in the past in instigating anti-Jewish sentiments.
Actually, the Church usually finds a stony silence to be the most
convenient thing, as far as I can tell.
But, again, I'm willing to hear that attention is paid to explaining the
painting to the faithful and to tourists.
>>(Look around *your* church. The Stations, the windows, the memorials,
>>the statues, etc. -- they are all meant to educate. That's the context
>>of this painting, isn't it?)
>>Churches get remodeled all the time. How many churches have interiors
>>that look the way they did even 100 years ago? When the church finds
>>something offensive on a wall, they remove it. If it's on the wall,
>>one may only assume that it's not offensive -- unless some special
>>arrangement has been made to explain its presence, and I didn't hear
>>of any of this in the original report (see above).
>Your statement may be true in the U.S. (where a 20-year old piece of
>furniture is an antique :-) ) but not in Europe. Nobody would
>give permission to remodel a medieval monument.
Well, I've spent a fair amount of time in Europe--went to high school
there, and have been back every year since-- and have seen a fair number
of churches that have been remodeled in one way or another, some of them
not even victims of bombing!
>Your attitude towards historical monuments reminds me that of early
>Muslims, who would chip off noses of antique monuments because they
>offended them.
They had that in Europe, too, during the Reformation. They were called
Iconoclasts, and they didn't necessarily stop with the nose.
As for my attitude toward historical monuments, keep in mind that I'm
a historian myself -- actually, a musicologist. PReservation and
restoration are major interests of mine; but so is the world today.
One cannot simply elevate such goals to the level of absolutes. One
must remember that, no matter how old the church, it is being used for
worship *today*, and must serve for worship *today*.
(Besides, take a close look at the building history of most of those
churches. They got remodeled, and added onto, and revised, and altered,
in every century. Why? Because they were being used as churches, and
the needs of the church and its congregation changed.)
I am by no means an iconoclast. In fact, my argument is based on my
awareness of the power of images, and the purpose of images in a church.
All I ask is that those who operate churches today be aware of this too,
and act accordingly to make sure that offensive images be dealt with
properly.
Simply shrugging one's shoulders and saying, "It's historical, so it's
good and it's going to stay" won't do. For that matter, it never has
done.
>>One is forced to ask: is there something special about this display?
>>What does the church find indispensable about it? Why can it not even
>>be covered?
>On one hand, a major part of this entire discussion was for you and your
>colleagues to prove the extent of antisemitism in Poland, concentrating
>on its past. And now, when you have a clear proof of what was going on
>in the past, you would like to cover it up? Why, Roger?
Oh, for heaven's sake. I suggested it be covered during *services*.
Showing it for historically interested people is fine. But simply
leaving it as part of the church, along with the Stations and the stained
glass and the stonemasonry and the altar and the font -- that's not OK.
One needs to take care of it, to provide proper stewardship, if you will.
>Many things from the past are offensive today. That does not mean we
>should pretend they have not happened.
Indeed. But we should also not pretend that they don't happen today.
>What is important, as Andrzej
>points out, is a proper education. I don't know whether Polish schools
>offer such education today. That painting, for example, should be
>publicized (I haven't heard about it before), and discussed in the
>context of Kielce pogrom in 1947 (not 1957, Danny). When I was at
>school, that subject was never mentioned.
Exactly. Its significance should be discussed, and its owner (the Church)
should ensure that everyone who comes near knows what it is.
Roger
Marek Osinski
>ro...@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>
>Not true. Many churches, because of their historical value, get
>restored to the condition they were in long ago. This church we are
>talking about is a few centuries old, and I would be surprised if
>anyone wanted to remodel it.
Actually, the Sandomierz Cathedral has more historical value that Maciek
thought. Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about it:
"The beautiful cathedral was built between 1120 and 1191; it was rebuilt
in stone in 1360, and is one of the oldest monuments of Polish
architecture."
>>When the church finds
>>something offensive on a wall, they remove it. If it's on the wall,
>>one may only assume that it's not offensive -- unless some special
>>arrangement has been made to explain its presence, and I didn't hear
>>of any of this in the original report (see above).
>
>A few days ago A.Reed explained what the painting is: it portrays
>allegations that were levelled at some Jews at a trial a few centuries
>ago. I don't know if there is a notice next to the picture explaining
>that it portrays untrue allegations from a "witch trial", but I think
>there should be one.
Here I agree, an explanatory note should be prominently displayed in
front of that painting. Perhaps it is? The original posting did not
mention anything on that subject.
Marek Osinski
samuel.saal
>Litlle you know about European monument conservation, I'm afraid.
>Sandomierz Cathedral is certainly a national monument and nothing
>can be changed there without special permission of monument
>conservationists. From this point of view, it's more than a museum.
>You should not interpret display of that painting as slander, rather
>it is a said witness to history. As such, it definitely serves
>informational purposes.
No monument conservator would complain about a small sign on a stand near
the painting that explained the history and, in this case antisemitism.
This could be placed near the painting and would neither detract from the
history or religious use of the building. Is such a sign there? If not,
its absence is quite telling although certainly is no proof.
>Many things from the past are offensive today. That does not mean we
>should pretend they have not happened. What is important, as Andrzej
>points out, is a proper education. I don't know whether Polish schools
>offer such education today. That painting, for example, should be
>publicized (I haven't heard about it before), and discussed in the
>context of Kielce pogrom in 1947 (not 1957, Danny). When I was at
>school, that subject was never mentioned.
I agree that the painting should be maintained, but only with sufficient
explanation. My suggestion, above, seems to me to be the minimum.
Andrzej Zaleski
LIST
Urocza sasiadeczko!
Jesien jest dzisiaj w ogrodzie i krzak, ktory w lecie zaslanial mi Twoje
okno, stoi ogolocony z lisci. Coz z tego, kiedy nie zobacze w oknie
Twojej Milej Buzi, ktorej brak mi tu jak rozmow z Toba. Juz przeszlo dwa
miesiace staram sie zastapic te rozmowy listami. Czy niezbyt Cie meczy
ta korespondencja ? Napisz.
Bylem wczoraj na spacerze nad rzeka. Wrocily do mnie wspomnienia tego
niezapomnianego wieczoru, kiedy rozmawialismy dlugo o sensie istnienia,
a potem noc sie otworzyla nad nami, gdysmy wracali ku miastu, ksiezycem
wielkim, jak bochen chleba. Kiedy stalem nad rzeka, zdawalo mi sie, ze
jeszcze slysze Twoj glos w szumie wiatru, glos mojego Przyjaciela.
Nie pisze Ci, ze stale mysle o Tobie, bo to nieprawda. Nie pisze, ze zyc
bez Ciebie nie moge, bo przeciez zyje. A przeciez tak wiele dalbym za
chwile rozmowy z Toba o wersyfikacji Konstantego Ildefonsa. Wiele mysli
przychodzi mi teraz do glowy na ten temat i nie mam sie komu zwierzyc.
To zle. Nieczesto sie zdarza, zeby dwoje ludzi rozumialo sie ze soba tak
dobrze, jak ja z Toba, Przyjacielu. Pisze Przyjacielu, bo przeciez to
przypadek, ze jestes dziewczyna i nie na tym zasadza sie sens naszej
Przyjazni, ktora wiesz, jak cenie wysoko. Myslalem, ze bede w Warszawie
w zeszlym tygodniu w sprawach zarzadu, ale ubiegl mnie Kowalski z
wydzialu oswiaty. Tak wiec rozwialy sie moje marzenia, ze znowu poslysze
Twoj glos, ze znowu zobacze Twoje oczy, ciekawe swiata. Coz, nie umiem
przepychac sie lokciami. Czasem martwie sie tym, ale niekiedy bywam z
tego dumny.
Znowu wrocilem do starozytnych Grekow i znajduje w nich to, co mnie tak
pociaga w rozmowach z Toba; zrozumienie spraw ludzkich, madrosc i
dobroc. Zwlaszcza Ajschylosa jakbym na nowo odkrywal i spedzam z Nim
wiele wieczorow. Ale ten Przyjaciel nie zastapi mi jednak przyjaciela
vis-a-vis, ktory w dalekiej Warszawie moze takze czasem o mnie pomysli.
Nie zapominaj o wiernym przyjacielu. Caluje Cie,
Staszek
Adresatka odebrala list tuz przed wykladem i przeczytala go ukradkiem,
chroniac przed wzrokiem profesora.
- Cos ciekawego ? - spytala dziewczyna siedzaca obok.
- A nie, nic. Jeden facet z Zyrardowa chce sie koniecznie ze mna
przespac...
:-)