Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Local Politics

I have been back from our summer home in Wisconsin for 10 days. I’ve been driving around Jacksonville and walking closer to home. Here is what I see.

 

There are some, not many, political signs, and most of them are for Biden and Harris. I see big Trump signs along the highway, but few in this Republican town. What does that mean? The Democrats got their signs ready first? Is Trump in trouble among local Republicans? I don’t know.

 

Lots of houses are for sale and others have been sold. The crushing of the leisure economy doesn’t seem to have affected the real estate market in any significant way. Some aspects of the economy are doing well.

 

The college across the street, Illinois College, my former employer, is in the midst of a busy fall. There are some unusual scenes on campus: everybody with masks; outdoor classes under big tents; signs marking doors as only entrances or only exits in efforts to guide foot traffic towards less interaction.

 

A major project to lay fiber optic cable will give Jacksonville broadband services, a significant upgrade in the town’s technological capacity. That project is mostly due to one Democratic member of the City Council, the youngest, serving in his first term. Brandon Adams has pushed for for some city investment in better communication since he was elected last year, and finally won a majority on the Council.

 

Few of the local Republicans would ever have gone beyond paving the roads, fixing the sidewalks, and maintaining basic infrastructure. Adams could not persuade them to support the model he urged Jacksonville to adopt, a municipally owned network run by the city, providing high-speed Internet connections to every residence and business in Jacksonville. Nor could he persuade his fellow Council members to bring in an outside expert to offer advice. Instead the city is paying twice as much to rent a small portion of the fiber optic cables. Republican ideology avoids expert knowledge, costs more money, and provides less.

 

But nobody here says our lives are threatened by Democratic candidates or left-wing hit squads. That’s something to be thankful for.

 

Steve Hochstadt

Jacksonville IL

September 15, 2020

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

The Religion of Patriotism

 


“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

 

I have not said that pledge for many years, but I remembered every word from all the times I had said it as a youth, in school and at other places. The history of that wording reflects the history of American patriotism.

 

The pledge was written by Francis Julius Bellamy (1855-1931) in 1892. He had studied at the Rochester Theological Seminary to become a Baptist minister, following his father, a Baptist minister in Rome, NY. He led congregations in Little Falls, NY, and then in Boston. Bellamy believed that the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources were inherent in the teachings of Jesus. In the labels of the late 19th century, he was a Christian socialist.

 

His cousin Edward Bellamy, whose father was also a Baptist minister, shared Francis Bellamy’s late 19th-century version of liberation theology. He wrote the novel Looking Backward: 2000–1887 (published in 1888), a futurist fantasy in which a Boston man falls asleep in 1887 and wakes up in 2000, when the United States has been transformed into a socialist utopia: all industry is nationalized, working hours reduced with retirement at age 45, and equal distribution of all goods. Looking Backward, along with Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was among the great best-sellers of the late 19th century. His sequel, entitled simply Equality (1897), promoted equality for women, and imagined the television, air travel, and universal vegetarianism.

 

The Bellamy cousins wanted radical change, but so did millions at that time. During the last decades of the 19th century, often labeled the Gilded Age, rapid industrialization and capitalism unfettered by regulation led to widespread poverty and unprecedented concentrations of wealth. The top 1% owned half of the nation’s property, and the bottom 44% owned 1%. American industry had the world’s highest accident rate. Socialist and labor movements grew in response.

 

Francis Bellamy preached against the evils of capitalism, offered a public education class entitled “Jesus the socialist”, and was founding vice president of the Society of Christian Socialists. He was forced out of his Boston congregation in 1891. Daniel Sharp Ford, a member of Bellamy’s congregation who published Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine, hired him to promote Ford’s campaign to put an American flag in every school. To coincide with the 400th anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1892, in coordination with the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, Bellamy wrote a flag pledge published in Youth’s Companion in September 1892.

 

Bellamy’s pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” He later wrote about his thinking when composing the pledge. The Civil War led to his reference to “indivisible”. Although he was deeply religious, he strongly believed in the separation of church and state, thus including no reference to God. He had been inspired by the French Revolutionary slogan, “liberty, equality, fraternity”, but wrote, “No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all.” He knew that most state superintendents of education were opposed to equality for women and African Americans.

 

Bellamy’s political thinking was among the most progressive of his era, but did not escape the racism inherent in American culture. He argued that the assimilation of non-white “races” into American society would lower “our racial standard”. His and Ford’s and official America’s veneration of Columbus was itself a political statement based on white supremacy and targeted at Italian voters.

 

As a national ritual of patriotism, the pledge has been yanked to the right in the 20th century. In 1924, the conservative leaders of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution persuaded the National Flag Conference to change “my flag” to “the flag of the United States of America”, despite Bellamy’s opposition. A much more serious distortion was added in 1954 with the words “one nation under God”. Although that change is often attributed to the recommendation of President Dwight Eisenhower, its longer history, as described by historian Kevin Kruse in One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America in 2015, is much more revealing.

 

In response to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which introduced significant regulation of business and empowered labor unions, giant corporations created a public relations campaign for big capitalism using organizations like The American Liberty League. This secular political campaign was a flop. Jim Farley, chair of the Democratic National Committee under Roosevelt, said, “They ought to call it The American Cellophane League, because No. 1: It’s a DuPont product, and No. 2: You can see right through it.”

 

Corporate America then turned to conservative Christian ministers, literally employing them to link capitalism with Christianity by arguing that the New Deal is evil and capitalism is “freedom under God”. In 1951, Cecil B. DeMille organized a Fourth of July ceremony, backed by the leaders of corporate America and hosted by Jimmy Stewart, carried live over national radio. Their message was that “the American way of life” was Christian individualism expressed in unchecked capitalism.

 

This is the background for the insertion of religious messages into American patriotic rituals. The pledge now asserted that the separation of church and state was un-American. “In God We Trust” appeared on a postage stamp that same year, 1954, and on paper money in 1955. In 1956, it became our first national motto. Since Ronald Reagan began using “God bless America” to end his speeches in the 1980s, that phrase has become a staple in both parties, like the flag pin as patriotic adornment.

 

The claim in the modern Pledge of Allegiance about “liberty and justice for all” is not true today. In the Jim Crow era, when I first learned to recite it, it was an outright lie. The stirring words of the national anthem about America, “the land of the free”, were similarly false. Like the Lost Cause mythology about the Civil War and its aftermath, which was enshrined in the school textbooks I read and taught as American history, these assertions were propaganda for an American society based on white supremacy. Patriotic rituals were designed to indoctrinate young and old with the belief that the racist, sexist, antisemitic America of the 20th century was already perfect, that criticisms of racial injustice or gender discrimination were illegitimate, that America was God’s country and corporate capitalism was God’s handiwork.

 

On Flag Day in 1943, the Supreme Court declared, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, that a law requiring schoolchildren to salute the flag and recite the Pledge was unconstitutional. That ruling still stands as settled American constitutional law. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote then, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” Yet the patriotic rituals we take for granted do exactly that, prescribing that belief in a specific kind of God is patriotic and that freedom and justice for all already exist.

 

Steve Hochstadt

Jacksonville IL

September 8, 2020

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Amalia and Josef Hochstädt

 

Jüdisches Museum Wien

 

Amalia and Josef Hochstädt

 

I first encountered Shanghai refugees in my grandparents’ homes on a hospital grounds in small-town New Jersey. Shanghai was not a conversational topic in their home or mine, although evidences of Shanghai were everywhere. Prominently displayed in their house were a view of Shanghai on the living room wall and countless figurines of wood, ceramic, and jade. In my own home, I particularly liked a laughing, seated wooden Buddha in our dining room.

 

I knew only the outlines of Josef and Amalia Hochstädt’s stories, told in their Viennese accents as a short series of facts about their previous lives, or gleaned from photographs proudly displayed.

 

Josef served as a young medical officer in the Kaiser’s army. Later his gynecological practice in Vienna supported a luxurious and cultured life. Amalia played piano, her brother Egon Peretz played violin, and some members of the Vienna Philharmonic came over to join them. When the Nazis took over and latent Viennese antisemitism exploded, they were unusually successful in rescuing their family. My father, Ernst Hochstädt, who had become Ernest Hochstadt by the time I arrived much later, left before Kristallnacht through Italy to Portugal, and sailed to the US. Amalia and Josef managed to get their 13-year-old daughter on the Kindertransport to England, and then they sailed to Shanghai on one of Lloyd Triestino’s ships, which was run by the family of Amalia’s good friend.

 

I only heard scraps of stories about their life in Shanghai, but I was surrounded by clues, especially at their house. Not only my grandmother’s recipes, but also the furniture, the dishes, the sculptures, and the silver had come around the world from Vienna, along with fine Chinese art objects. As a Jewish child, I knew that my family’s escape from the Holocaust had been remarkably smooth. I sensed early that their modest life in New Jersey, where my 60-year-old grandfather had managed to find a position as a gynecologist at a tuberculosis and mental health clinic, represented severe social decline. I thought the small colony of Viennese doctors there was a remarkable coincidence.

 

Under normal circumstances, I would have learned a lot about my grandparents and the whole Hochstädt-Peretz family in my own home. But there are no normal circumstances in refugees’ families. In my case, the sad circumstance was my father’s relationship with his parents. It was always clear to me that he was gleeful at age 18 to land in America, far from his own family. A few days after he arrived in 1938 with virtually nothing, he visited the very distant relative of Amalia who had supplied the financial sponsorship for my father’s visa. There he thanked the man and encountered his 16-year-old tomboy niece, who played with her cousin there all the time. My mother Lenore. By the time my father could visit his parents in Shanghai in 1946, they had been married for 4 years. Despite that, my grandparents expressed to my father their concern that his marriage to a girl of the lower middle class was preventing him from pursuing further education, so he could be a doctor. My aunt, who had been brought to Shanghai from England after my grandparents settled in, was decidedly snooty to my mother, a characteristic demeanor that she maintained her whole life.

 

Those slights to my mother were fateful, but they fit into an amusing refugee story. At some point, my mother’s parents, both employed in New York’s clothing industry, said something like, “What? You’re going to marry that penniless refugee?” The social derogation suffered by nearly all refugees leads inevitably to difficult social situations. The amusing part is that they didn’t really care at all and heartily accepted my father into their family.

 

So my father did not regale me with Hochstädt family history. He was a dutiful son, taking our family to see his parents in New Jersey regularly from Long Island where we lived, later flying the whole family out to Santa Monica in southern California after they moved there, and eventually moving with my mother to within miles of their apartment.

 

My father represents to me one typical refugee reaction to uprooting: he became American. Unlike virtually every other German-speaking refugee I have met, he spoke English with no accent. He learned to love baseball and he spoke to his parents in English.

 

My serious study of the Shanghai refugees began informally with Amalia after Josef had died, not yet an historical project, but a family history project, in the early 1980s. She talked happily in front of my tape recorder and told stories which amazed me. I interviewed her again in 1987.

 

As I learned how much fun it was to talk with people about Shanghai and their whole lives of survival, I found out by chance that a group of former Shanghai Jews, some refugees, some not, were going to have a Seder reunion in Shanghai in 1989. That spring was a fateful year for China and for me, as I decided to make the Shanghai refugees a personal project. I saw the early stages of the protests that led eventually to the Tiananmen Square massacre and met people who changed the direction of my historical career.

 

Over the next ten years, I interviewed 100 former Shanghai Jews, nearly all German-speaking refugees, who lived in Vienna, Berlin, Israel, and the US. I wrote two books based on those interviews, one German, one English, and many smaller pieces. I met the other scholars across the world who shared my passion. But I never wrote about my grandparents.

 

My initial impression that becoming a refugee in China was easier on my grandparents than on others became the realization that Amalia and Josef did not share any of the characteristic experiences of other refugees: being made penniless by Nazi bureaucracy; giving up their last possessions in order to leave; scrounging for survival in Shanghai; being forced into the Designated Area in 1943; desperately trying to find a way out of China after 1945. Instead they brought my grandfather’s office and their dining room furniture with them to Shanghai, lived in an 8-room apartment in the International Settlement, had a cook who learned to prepare Viennese dishes, and were inscribed on a list of mostly doctors who got Japanese permission to avoid the Designated Area. In my efforts to establish a rapport with the former refugees with whom I talked, I did not discuss the very different and relatively privileged life of my grandparents.

 

Amalia and Josef employed resources well beyond what most Jews could expend. They got their children and themselves onto the best lists. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum says, “By 1938, you could expect to wait for at least two years for a visa,” yet they managed to procure one for my father. The Kindertransport was designed to rescue especially impoverished children or those with a parent in a camp, but they found a place for their daughter. Only about 1% of refugees were officially allowed by the Japanese to remain outside of the Designated Area.

 

Their resources included determination. While they were allowed to remain in central Shanghai, they had to give up their apartment to a Korean man working with the Japanese. An Indian gentleman, who must have been a patient of my grandfather, allowed them to move into his compound, which included an office so my grandfather could continue his practice. When the War was over, Amalia went to see the Korean and told him they wanted their apartment back. He initially refused, but Amalia said that her son, my father, in the US Army was coming soon and would deal with him forcefully. He left and they moved back into their comfortable lives. They stayed until 1949, in no hurry to get out of decolonizing Shanghai until the Red Army approached.

 

That’s what my grandmother told me. My aunt told me that the story was not true, that her mother didn’t have the bravery for such a negotiation. Again the difficult internal dynamics of my family got in the way of fully understanding their refugee experiences.

 

I was nearly 40 years old when I interviewed Amalia. Reading the transcript is embarrassing now. I knew much too little about the Shanghai refugees to ask good questions. I had not yet learned to jot down names and places that might be confusing later. I interrupted too much. My grandparents seemed to have led a charmed life at every stage.

 

When I first became aware of my grandparents’ personalities, my grandfather was already 70, was not very talkative, and expressed opinions as facts. I was not prepared for story after story of how people with important connections made things happen for my grandparents in Vienna and Shanghai, including the Japanese man who got them on the short list to remain in central Shanghai.

 

Not everything, however, turned out as they wanted. While Jews in Vienna after the Anschluss desperately sought escape routes, Amalia arranged for a very distant relation in New York to vouch for my father and for a job for Ernst in Washington with a well-connected lawyer. Instead of following his fortune, my father followed his heart, married my mother, got a job in the clothing industry, and earned a scathing letter from Josef. Amalia and Josef were remarkably successful refugees, but not such good parents.

 

They represent a second type of refugee, like many who became refugees as adults. They retained many of the attitudes they had developed in Vienna. Wherever they lived, they sought out other Viennese Jews. They saved as much as they could from their former lives. But much was lost forever. There was a piano in my grandparents’ homes, but I never saw my grandmother play it.

 

As this exhibit at the Jewish Museum shows, it is still possible to hear new stories from Shanghai refugees. I believe there is no more important Shanghai document than an interview transcript. Taken together, interviews with former refugees will write the history of their unique experiences. There are limitations, however. The great majority of the first-hand narratives in memoirs and interviews have been given by people whose childhoods in Europe ended suddenly with their trip to Shanghai. Even the few older interview partners tend to begin their stories with their departure from a life in Europe which appears rosy in comparison with what came after.

 

My own family’s story suffers from that disruption. My grandfather’s sister, Rosa Hochstädt, a dentist in Graz, did not go to Shanghai. She was arrested and sent to Theresienstadt in 1942 and to Auschwitz in 1944, where she was murdered. My grandparents never talked about her. Why? Why didn’t she go to Shanghai, too? Did she also suffer from the discordant Hochstädt family dynamics? Was there guilt about her death?

 

Most survivors keep the most difficult parts of their Holocaust stories to themselves. Former Shanghai refugees are no exception. In my interviews, they talked easily about hygienic deficiencies of Shanghai, the prevalence of disease, the abuses of the Japanese, and the insufficiency of food. Although few of them had ever been formally interviewed, those stories had been rehearsed before. The immense family tragedies that form the foundation of every refugee’s life and may have never been told, might erupt unexpectedly with bursts of emotion, revealing hidden personal truths. More likely, they don’t surface in interviews at all. My grandmother may have explained why Rosa was never mentioned, when she said, “But you forget about, you, you don't want to remember this kind of things.”

 

Now everyone who can answer those questions is dead. Interviews and this exhibit can recover a great deal about the Jewish experience of surviving the Holocaust. But some people were lost completely and their stories will never be told.

 

Steve Hochstadt

Professor of History Emeritus

Illinois College