To new shores
Emma Lazarus’ famous lines “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” reflect in part the perception of some Americans of who the emigrants to the New World were. A friend of mine in 8th grade told me proudly that his ancestors (Scotch-Irish) were the “trash” of Europe, but they had built the greatest country on earth. The reality is more textured. If you read Albion’s Seed you will note that the various streams that settled the eastern seaboard prior to 1776 fit the “huddled masses” stereotype to varying degrees.
The Puritans of Massachusetts were very conscious of preferring literate and relatively skilled settlers. Not only did they exclude the majority of the poor peasantry from their City on the Hill via monetary hurdles but they implicitly rejected the migration of religiously like-minded nobility and gentry to their Commonwealth when they refused to transfer the inherited privileges of the English upper classes. Though as a schoolboy I learned that Virginia was founded by indentured servants, the reality is that the coastal colonies of the south were seeded from the two ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, the gentry and nobility and the destitute rural poor, who to some extent transferred their class relations and sensibilities to the New World. Many of the leading families which cohered into the Virginia and Carolina planter aristocracies have their origins among the younger sons of the southwest British nobility (primogeniture excluded them from the greater part of their familial fortunes). States like Pennsylvania and New York clearly have more variegated origins, from the Dutch remnants of New Amsterdam to the Quakers and fellow travellers of Philadelphia, but overall one can say that this relatively heterogenous bunch had a central tendency toward “lower middle class” artisan origins which they leveraged into a positive attitude toward mercantalism. Often not as as cerebral as the Puritans of New England, the citizens of Philadelphia and New York nevertheless did celebrate modern virtues of literacy and industry to the extent that worldly goods could be best attained in such a fashion. And then of course there was the massive Scot-Irish emigration to the uplands which later became Appalachia. Coming from the borderlands of Scotland and England and Ulster in Ireland, this group could best fit under the image that Lazarus’ poem evokes in us. Lacking in the advantages of many of the other British groups who settled the eastern seaboard this group had to grasp opportunity physically and forced its way to the center of American life in part through its prowess in the arenas of battle and politics.
Of course Emma Lazarus was speaking to a later time, during the Great Wave of the turn of the 19th century when millions upon millions of southern, eastern and Jewish Europeans swelled onto the shores of the eastern United States. The Jews were often the most likely to be literate and skilled of the new immigrant streams, and so they were the first who made their presence felt in the professions. Nevertheless, what was the character of the Jewish immigrants relative to their source populations? We can perhaps spy a hint if we look at the character of mass conversions (assimilation) to gentile society in Europe. In The Pity of it All, a history of Jews in Germany from the first glimmerings of tolerance during the life of Moses Mendelssohn until 1933, Amos Elon states:
Conversion was mostly a middle- and upper-middle-class phenomenon. The richest, most talented, successful and cultured men and women were often the first to convert…. (page 83)At the very moment when the new Jewish middle class was beginning to enter German society and German politics, conversion deprived German Jews of their social and intellectual elite. The most influential segments of the middle and upper middle class abandoned the poor and petite bourgeoisie to their fate…. (page 90)
My impression (though I am not sure about this, further illumination would be welcome) is that some of the same dynamic characterized the conversion experience in pre-expulsion Spain, that assimilative pressures were felt strongest by the Jewish elite who moved in gentile circles.
But such assertions have a weaker weighting in my world that some quantitative documentation. Which brings me back to the United States. In The Jews in America Arthur Hertzberg offers:
…in 1906, the year whem some two-hundred-thousand Jews…came to the United States, only fifty listed themselves as professionals (at that time, between five and ten percent of Jews in various countries of Eastern Europe, including Czarist Russia, were in the professions). (page 13)
This is a community which today has an over two times the frequency of college degree holders as the general population. Via psychometrics one can assert that the American Jewish community’s median IQ ranges from 107-115. It is interesting to reflect whether perhaps the peculiar familial experiences of the Jewish intelligensia (which I would estimate form about 1/4 of America’s intellectual class, conservatively) might not influence their relatively lack of interest in strongly selective immigration in a manner remiscient of Canada. After all, their forebears were not the great ones of the European Jewry, but rather those of modest means (and even less than modest), but they have clearly succeeded in this country.
[stop with the contentless comments already. last warning]
Edited By Siteowner
My impression, from Berkeley historian Yuri Slezkine’s 2004 book “The Jewish Century,” is that the higher class, more assimilated, more educated Jews of Eastern Europe were more likely to move East to the great cities of Russia (later, the Soviet Union). They tended to look down upon the Jews who moved to the U.S. as money-grubbers, who didn’t understand the higher things in life like Pushkin and Marxism.
On the other hand, the German Jews who moved to the U.S. tended to be quite elite, but there were never many German Jews compared to Polish and Ukrainian Jews.
steve,
1) according to the jews in america you were generally correct. though hertzberg would probably say that the reason the jews who moved to america were money-grubbers was that money and comfort was what american jews of russian origin tended to lack in the old country. and the animosity was to some extent mutual, russian jews circa 1900 detested the jewish elite of russia because they felt like they bore the brunt of cossack anti-semitism (as well as supplying jewish boys for the russian army).
2) the german jews (again, according to hertzberg) were relatively well off compared to the russian jews who came later, but they were actually (with a few exceptions) not the german jewish elite. much more likely to have been petty cattle traders from bavaria.
According to The Culture of Critique by Kevin McDonald Jews have promoted completely open immigration because they believe that they trive better as a group in a multi-cultural society. He believes that this is a group evolutionary survival technique.
He believes that this is a group evolutionary survival technique.
that jews promote pluralism (broadly speaking) because they believe it is in their best interests as a minority may very well be correct, but this “group evolutionary survival technique” really needs to become more than a ideological mantra. if you use a word like evolution, and appeal to d.s. wilson’s interdemic selectionary theories (as i understand macdonald does), one must assume that intergroup variation exceedes intragroup variation in norms and said norms are enforced by the group. the problem with macdonald’s thesis is that the very group of american jews who are the most politically and socially active was also that very group whose intermarriage rate began to skyrocket in the 1960s so that today jews have anywhere between a 30-55% interfaith marriage rate. the group of jews, orthodox, who are most easily modelled using group selection because they tend to enforce community norms as opposed to allowing freedom of individual (selfish) choice to operate as the premier value in their lives, are less socially and politically active than the majority of jews (aside from a few issues relating to religion).
my general impression is that the use of group selection theory by macdonald and to a far greater extent his web-acolytes is simply to imbue their descriptions with a theoretical and prescriptive patina imported in from the evolutionary sciences. i see nothing that necessitates the specific terminology of biology here aside from the prestige. the acolytes should stick to more plain verbal organismic metaphors and divest themselves of the perception of rigor by using group selection theory. the fact that political activist leftist jews who were crucial cogs in the shift in the american landscape on a host of social issues are also those who outmarry and tend not to reproduce suggests that their behavior is most parismoniously modelled as selfish-individual level action (predicated on particular norms, which are influenced by judaism). i think reordering the primary level of selection in this debate does imply particular normative-policy inferences, but i don’t particularly care enough about this topic to move further down that road….
also, let me be precise and note that i was suggesting that perhaps the relative sanguinity of american jewish intellectuals at the lax educational and skills requirements for american immigrants (vis-a-vi canada for example) is due to the fact that their own forebears were relatively uneducated, so they simply extrapolate from their own familial experiences to the world. additionally, let me point out that canada’s immigration policy is actually more ethnically pluralistic than the united states’ because it has selection criteria which prevent one group (ie; mexicans) from becoming an overwhelming block. so, selection criteria is to some extent orthogonal to the point about multiculturalism, and in fact, our current family reunification biased system seems to be leading toward a inevitable bicultural duopoly where other minority groups will likely suffer.
p.s. since this can has been opened, i am obligated to warn anti-semites that my zionist paymasters have told me that i have to delete any irritating and manifestly stupid comments.
LOL at all the **WARNINGS**!!
Razib, I think that your suggestion is definitely a contributing factor as to the background assumptions of Jews in general. However, the primary factor, I think, is the memory of the trauma of the 1930s when Jews were trying to flee Europe, had nowhere to go, and the US closed its gates to immigration – followed by the Holocaust. This is still a very painful issue to many Jews.
I can assure the rest of you that most Jews (like most Americans) don’t put any thought into Mexican immigration, don’t have any rational or thought-out opinions about immigration in general, and probably don’t have any opinions about immigration policy at all.
However, the primary factor, I think, is the memory of the trauma of the 1930s when Jews were trying to flee Europe, had nowhere to go, and the US closed its gates to immigration – followed by the Holocaust. This is still a very painful issue to many Jews.
you are probably correct. though please note that jewish leaders (ie; jacob schiff) along with others (roman catholics, elite old-line WASP intellectuals who dissented from eugenicist progressivism, captains of industry who wanted a large labor pool) lobbied multiple presidents to veto legislation shutting down the ‘open door’ before it was finally accomplished in 1924. so the jewish commitment to open borders predates the tragedies of the 1930s, though certainly those likely solidified any biases in that direction.
I can assure the rest of you that most Jews (like most Americans) don’t put any thought into Mexican immigration, don’t have any rational or thought-out opinions about immigration in general, and probably don’t have any opinions about immigration policy at all.
The average level of most Americans’ thinking on immigration doesn’t extend much beyond snuggly-wuggly Hallmark slogans.
so the jewish commitment to open borders predates the tragedies of the 1930s
Yes, I could have gone further back. Before Hitler it was the Czars, etc. Though as long as the borders were open it was a source of exhilaration rather than trauma.
I thought I would tell an appropo piece of my family history. My father’s mother family was pretty poor when they emigrated from Russia. My great grandparents arrived with very little and with 6 children. My great grandfather died 1 and a half years later leaving my great grandmother pregnant with what turned out to be twins. Obviously all of the older children (including my grandfather) had to quit school and go to work. None went past high school. What I first took for granted but now find fascinating is that everyone of their children (my parent’s generation-over 20 in total) graduated from college. A lot of the men went under the GI bill but the women went too.
“My impression, from Berkeley historian Yuri Slezkine’s 2004 book “The Jewish Century,” is that the higher class, more assimilated, more educated Jews of Eastern Europe were more likely to move East to the great cities of Russia (later, the Soviet Union).”
You mean to tell me that our amazing and endless flow of American Jewish talent descends from the LOWER half of European Jews??!! Jesus!! (There’s yet another gifted Jew for ya’.)
Razib,thanks so much for your informed response about Kevin MacDonald’s position. I am a completely isolated intellectual, knowing no one who reads voraciously as I do, so I enjoy feedback from informed people like the one’s who populate this site. I have read much about the Jews and find them an endlessly fascination subject.
Hmmm, “the trash of Europe” that is the first time I’ve ever heard that for the demopgrahic mentioned.
“We know that the term Ulster Scot is generic and simply means Scoto-Irish. I love the Highlander and I love the Lowlander, but when I come to the branch of our race which has been grafted on the Ulster stem, I take off my hat with veneration and awe. They are, I believe, the toughest, the most dominant, the most irrestible race that exists in the universe as this moment.”
Lord Rosebery
“Hence it turns out that the genuine Scotch-Irishman is at bottom a lowland Scot, with an admixture of the bluff and sturdy qualities of the English Puritan, and a dash of the genius, grace and humor of the French Huguenot. This makes a remarkable combination of qualities, and we find them blended and balanced in the typical Scotch-Irishman. There is in him the steadfastness, not to say, stubbornness, of the Scot; the rugged strength and aggressive force of the Saxon, with an infusion of the vivacity, ready genius and sanguine temperament of the Frenchman. It is not claimed of course, that every individual of the race exhibits this combination, but it characterizes the type; it is an idiosyncrasy of the race as such.”
I’m an American Ulster Scot by descent and accordingly due to the Auld Alliance I can trace about 25% of my ancestry to Alsace-Lorraine France etc.. . Gee, I bet my genetics are just full of trash .
I’m an American Ulster Scot by descent and accordingly due to the Auld Alliance I can trace about 25% of my ancestry to Alsace-Lorraine France etc.. . Gee, I bet my genetics are just full of trash .
a large portion of albion’s seed documents the capital that the scotch-irish brought over. or you can read born fighting. you can use whatever label you like….
Outside of any evolutionary theories, Jews have a long history of crossing borders to escape persecution and to pursue opportunities. So it’s not especially shocking that a lot of Jews would be sympathetic to open borders.
If it is indeed true that the higher end of the Jewish bell curve stayed in Europe rather than emigrate, the Nazi slaughter is even more tragic in light of potential contributions to mankind that were lost.
I have read the opposite on the Jewish Nazi exodus, that it was the wealthier and, as a result probably the brighter ones, who had better chances to escape and availed themselves of the opportunity more often than not. I have no stats or sources to back this up, but just remembering things from my readings.
I have read the opposite on the Jewish Nazi exodus, that it was the wealthier and, as a result probably the brighter ones, who had better chances to escape and availed themselves of the opportunity more often than not. I have no stats or sources to back this up, but just remembering things from my readings.
the majority of german jews, many highly eminent, did survive because of exodus. but fewer than 1% of germans were jewish circa 1935-the vast majority of the ashkenazi jewry resided in eastern europe.
Even if the Jews who came over to the States largely came from the lower economic half of the various old world Jewish populations, isn’t it possible that this helped make them more dynamic, and hungrier (literally and metaphorically)? Which couldn’t have hurt their chances for success here.
Also, assuming that life didn’t stratify economically back then as semi-strictly along IQ lines as it seems to these days, maybe the Jews who came to the States were just as smart as their economic betters. Is there any reason to think they weren’t? So maybe the Jews who came to the States were both super-bright and super-driven.
FWIW, it seems to me that the “driven” factor is much underdiscussed in some of these discussions about Jews and success. Bright and talented as they often are, they often have (forgive the generalizations) other qualities and attributes that can’t hurt, so far as making-it goes: tons of drive, a love of (and tradition of) networking, and a cultural openness to material success in a lusty sense (ie., success to Jews doesn’t mean denial, it means enjoying a sensual good life). Succeeding is good!
I suppose I’m coming a little close to the old cliche of Jews as pushy, and apologies for that. But, lordy, the degree to which many Jews I’ve known have wanted success, rewards, money, recognition … It’s breathtaking. They want it much more so than many equally brainy non-Jews I’ve known. They’re so avid, so lusty, and so eager. (Flip side: so intrusive, so pushy, so grasping.) I know one guy who edits a scholarly magazine, for example, who tells me that managing the Jewish academics who want to publish in his mag is a whole job in itself. They think they deserve half the magazine; they call up over and over again, indignant that he isn’t giving the magazine to them; they gasp in disbelief and outrage if he turns their papers down; they just don’t give up … This guy admires Jewish brains, by the way, and laughs with fondness (though also with exasperation) as he tells these stories. (Quietly, of course.)
Still, let’s avoid cliches: Would “a lot of Jews are awfully dynamic” be OK? Is there a good GNXP, numeric way of measuring “dynamic”?
And since this can of worms has been opened:
One further question? This one about MacDonald. I semi-understand your reasons for rejecting Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as science. But what if MacDonald weren’t presenting his theories as strict science, but instead as sociological/psychological speculations? Would you guys/gals then have any problem with them? Is he describing phenomena that don’t exist? Do his attempts at explanation make absolutely no sense?
but instead as sociological-psychological speculations? Would you guys/gals then have any problem with them? Is he describing phenomena that don’t exist? Do his attempts at explanation make absolutely no sense?
there are many specific things macdonald is spot on about. but, his overall model is wanting. two quick points-
1) i am not totally averse to using group selection on a socio-cultural context, but
a) you have to be really careful
b) the theoretical models are very tentative.
2) for macdonald, jews turn into a necessary and sufficient conditions for a host of social ills (from what i can gather). this is why he appeals to the dark anti-semitic underbelly of the web, and this is one reason i find some of his more expansive claims unpersuasive (the necessary and sufficient character of some his assertions).
when macdonald surfaced in slate in 2000, i was open to his ideas (though extremely skeptical of group selection). but over the years has transformed himself into a standard issue moderate white nationalist, as evidenced by his writings in the occidental quarterly. i don’t find it fruitful to take him seriously anymore (he does make cogent specific observations about jewish behavior, but nothing you can’t find in other places, even from jewish sources).
Michael Blowhard said: “Also, assuming that life didn’t stratify economically back then as semi-strictly along IQ lines as it seems to these days, maybe the Jews who came to the States were just as smart as their economic betters.”
I think you’re right in this respect. European universities had strict quotas for Jews, so highly bright pupils had limited opportunities for success and mobility.
In terms of Kevin MacDonald, his theory about Jews collapses in the face of observable data, and therefore should be rejected because it has no real world social value. In the simplest terms, it’s hogwash. Ostensibly, he claims that Jewish ingroup clannishness foments anti-Semitism — you know, that Jews bring it on themselves by acting too much like an exclusive other — yet anti-Semitism exists in places where there are almost no Jews (like Japan), and also in places where there is a high assimilation rate of Jews into the non-Jewish community (like pre-WWII Germany). Conversely, in places where Jews are a highly distinctive community (such as the Coachin and B’nei Menashe in India), anti-Semitism does not exist. Clearly Jews don’t bring it on themselves.
I also think there are a number of reasons why there is a history of Jews supporting multi-ethnic societies, including an enculturated respect for “the other” by believing that non-Jews have just as much of a chance at salvation as do Jews (Noahide laws are just as valid as the Torah’s laws), and by learning at the earliest age the very first commandment, which instructs Jews to remember that they were strangers in the land of Egypt.
I also think there are a number of reasons why there is a history of Jews supporting multi-ethnic societies, including an enculturated respect for “the other” by believing that non-Jews have just as much of a chance at salvation as do Jews (Noahide laws are just as valid as the Torah’s laws), and by learning at the earliest age the very first commandment, which instructs Jews to remember that they were strangers in the land of Egypt.
i’m highly skeptical of these explanations, they tend to be post facto. for example, i’ve just read several books on the history of judaism, and several rabbis (orthodox) explicitly supported the southern position on slavery using biblical commandments. it was the most reform, less textually grounded, rabbis who tended to promote abolition (ie; david einhorn, though isaac mayer wise tended toward neutrality). but my experience with modern jews is that they assume of course jews would be against slavery because they were slaves. also, yes, though jews offer gentiles the chance of salvation…they weren’t exactly believers in the equality of all nations in the eyes of god.
also, look at the history of the roman empire and you will i think see that jews were not particularly committed to pluralism when it existed de facto as imperial policy. or look at the history of the macabee state.