|
|---|
Saturday, January 22, 2011
"Bieganski" has received reviews.
One is by Anna
D. Jaroszynska-Kirchmann, and it appeared in American
Jewish History. Ms. Jaroszynska-Kirchmann's review accurately
recapitulate's one of "Bieganski"'s main arguments.
The other review is by Romuald K. Byczkiewicz, and it appeared in the
American Library Association's publication Choice.
Choice's review is deeply troubling, because it factually misrepresents
"Bieganski." It is regrettable when a publication uses its power to
misrepresent a book whose author is not famous, and whose correction few will
ever see. I ask Choice to print a retraction. More on that, below.
***
All authors share the frustration of not being heard. Several
years ago, at Indiana University, Prof. James Shapiro delivered a masterful
talk on passion plays in Oberammergau, Germany. I was thrilled and gratified. Prof.
Shapiro, a prize-winning author, was everything an audience member could desire
in a public speaker.
No sooner had the applause died
down than a very loud man shot up. Prof. Shapiro, this loud man insisted, had
screwed up on this point, and missed this other point, and fudged this third
point. I stared at the loud man, aghast.
This incident
was an education. It taught me that writing is one thing; being heard is
another.
***
"Bieganski" addresses controversy:
Polish-Jewish relations, and the deeply ugly stereotypes of Poles deployed to
distort history.
There are traumatized people in both
populations. People sometimes respond to their own pain by attempting to cause
pain in others. Intense politics are at play. A career can be damaged with a
charge of anti-Semitism.
I am placed in the "Polish
Catholic" slot. In fact I'm an American of Polish and Slovak ancestry,
quite proud of my Catholic upbringing but not an orthodox Catholic. Naïve people
assume that my work has been criticized by Jews and championed by Polish
Catholics.
My best supporters have disproportionately
been Jews and people who are neither Polish nor Jewish. Stuart Vail has been
selflessly supporting my writing for years. Stuart is neither Polish nor Jewish;
further, we agree on almost no political issues. Stuart is merely an integral
man who values good writing.
Rabbi Laurence Skopitz,
Rabbi Michael Herzbrun, Prof. Antony Polonsky, Prof. Alan Dundes, Arno Lowi,
Simon Stern, Robin and Mark Schaffer, are just a few of those to whom the
identity politicians would assign "Jewish – not Polish" identity. Without
them, I am nothing. They support me because their humanity transcends anything
identity politicians can ever comprehend.
***
On the
other hand, I have received scathing attacks from the "Polish
Catholic" camp.
A few months back I received a
lengthy e-mail from a complete stranger. The e-mail insisted that it was obvious
that I hated Poles and Poland, that I hated peasants and had written a book
that would depict Polish peasants in the worst possible light. The e-mail's
author insisted that he would use all the power and position he had to do
everything he could to undermine "Bieganski."
He
based his reaction to the book on its cover, which he had seen on Amazon,
before the book was even released. He had read none of its contents.
I have been denounced in at least two Polish publications,
Sarmatian Review and Glaukopis.
The Glaukopis article identified me as a participant in a conspiracy against
Poles and Poland.
***
So, yes. Authors often go unheard.
And those who react to what authors write often are reacting more to their own
inner narratives or political gamesmanship than to anything that appears on the
author's page. Everything is exaggerated when it comes to the fraught field of
Polish-Jewish relations.
The Choice review is something
else again. I am an unknown author. "Bieganski" is not a bestseller.
More people may be exposed to Choice's inaccurate review than may ever be
exposed to "Bieganski" itself. "Bieganski" is the only book
on the market right now dedicated to addressing stereotypes of Poles and other
Eastern Europeans and how these stereotypes are deployed to distort world history.
It does not service truth, or scholarship, for Choice's inaccurate review to
remain unaddressed.
***
In March, 2008, American
Jewish History published a review by Anna D. Jaroszynska-Kirchmann of one
published chapter of Bieganski, "The Necessity of Bieganski: A Shamed and
Horrified World Seeks a Scapegoat." This is the most controversial chapter
of the book. It appeared in Polin
19, winner of the Halecki Award.
In her review, Ms.
Jaroszynska-Kirchmann writes that, "'The necessity of Bieganski,' Goska
finally argues, lies also on an even higher platform: it gives illusion of
absolving those who failed in their own test of humanity [during the Holocaust],
by placing blame on easily identifiable others."
Ms.
Jaroszynska-Kirchmann accurately identifies what my work said. In the American
Jewish History review, "Bieganski" was heard.
***
Less happy news is found in the February, 2011 Choice, published by the
American Library Association. This review is by Romuald Byczkiewicz.
There are three major problems with Choice's review of "Bieganski."
The first problem with Choice's review may seem arcane and
picayune to a non-scholar. Choice writes that Bieganski is "well
researched in the secondary literature." This comment fatally discredits
Choice's review. Perhaps Choice's reviewer, Byczkiewicz, did not read the book.
Perhaps Byczkiewicz did not understand the book. Perhaps Byczkiewicz is purposely
misrepresenting the book. I know no other options.
Let's
look at what "secondary" and "primary" mean to a scholar.
"Primary" means an original document that directly
records an issue the scholar is researching. A "secondary" source is based
on the material in the primary source.
Here's an
example. Suppose you wanted to research the OJ Simpson trial. Primary sources include
trial transcripts. Secondary sources include newspaper articles based on what
was said in the courtroom.
Here's the problem with
Choice's use of "secondary" to characterize "Bieganski."
Other than "Bieganski," there is almost no scholarly literature on Jewish
stereotypes of Poles and their deployment in Polish-Jewish relations. Further, "Bieganski"
relies almost exclusively on primary sources.
"Bieganski"
argues that the brute Polak stereotype is ubiquitous in academic, journalistic,
and popular culture discourse. Examples:
* prominent poet
Andrei Codrescu, when commenting on the breakup of Yugoslavia on NPR,
denouncing Eastern European Christian peasants, with their "smoke-darkened
icons" as possessed of "deep-seated and emotionally unassailable
stupidity";
* prominent scholar Thomas Laqueur arguing in the London
Review of Books that all Poles, even those who appear not to be anti-Semitic, are
essentially anti-Semitic;
* the hit Harrison Ford film "The Fugitive" depicting
Polish Americans as particularly dingy and sleazy.
Byczkiewicz
misunderstands these and hundreds of other examples as "secondary"
sources.
If "Bieganski" were concerned with
Andrei Codrescu as an expert witness on the breakup of Yugoslavia, then, yes,
he would be a secondary source. But "Bieganski" is very much not
citing Codrescu as a reliable source on the breakup of Yugoslavia. Rather,
Codrescu, Laqueur, "The Fugitive," are all cited as purveyors of the
Bieganski stereotype. These are all primary sources, as is most of the book.
One may approve of "Bieganski's" methodology, or
disapprove of it, but Choice's review completely fails to so much as recognize
and accurately identify it. Any such disapproval as that Choice attempted,
ineptly, to express would have to take issue not just with
"Bieganski" but with the methodology of an entire corpus of
scholarship on stereotypes of Jews, African Americans, homosexuals and women. Choice
has placed itself in opposition to a significant body of scholarship.
Second, and tragically, Choice's review is defamatory. "Bieganski,"
Choice claims, "glosses over the reality of anti-Semitic attitudes held by
some Poles." If Choice can effectively tar "Bieganski" as
anti-Semitic, it effectively undermines the only book on the market right now
that addresses racist stereotypes of Eastern Europeans, stereotypes that are
used to distort history – including Holocaust history – as the American Jewish History
review accurately noted.
Antony
Polonsky edits the book series in which "Bieganski" appeared. I
ask Choice: would the Albert Abramson Professor of Holocaust Studies give his
imprimatur – or, if you must, his hechsher – to a book that "glossed
over" Polish anti-Semitism?
Igor and Kira Nemirovsky,
religiously observant Jews, published "Bieganski."
Father
John T. Pawlikowski endorsed "Bieganski." I ask Choice: would the
recipient of the Raoul Wallenberg Humanitarian Award for Distinguished
Contributions to Religion and the Distinguished Service Award from the American
Jewish Committee state, as Father Pawlikowski did, that "Bieganski"
"offers no apologetic for genuine instances of Polish anti-Semitism"
if that were not true?
What does the book itself say? An
excerpt:
"Discussion of the Bieganski stereotype
will raise alarms. In 2001, Jan Tomasz Gross published Neighbors: The
Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland; in 2006, he published Fear:
Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. Gross' works gained new attention for shocking crimes committed by
Poles against Jews during the World-War-Two era. This author concurs with
Agnieszka Magdziak-Miszewska, Polish journalist and diplomat. "Neighbors
is a book which had to be written … If I want to have a moral right to
justified pride in [Polish] rescuers, then I must admit to a sense of shame
over [Polish] killers."
Magdziak-Miszewska
goes on to state, "It is all too human to seek justification and symmetry
for our own guilt." This work is not an attempt to create the impression
of a symmetry of suffering, or an attempt to justify Polish crimes. Poles, as a
group, suffered horribly during World War Two; Jews, as a group, suffered
worse. There is no symmetry. There is no justification. This work stands in
accord with the statement by the late Polish leader, Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, who wrote of Polish crimes,
Nothing can justify the killing of people by stoning, by
butchering with knives, the decapitations, the stabbing with sharpened stakes,
the wholesale murder of women and men, of the old and the young, driven to the
Jewish cemetery, the burying alive of still breathing victims, the drowning of
women with their children in the pond, and at the end the driving of the
remaining victims to the barn and burning them alive (Nowak-Jezioranski).
The two phenomena – Polish guilt for Polish crimes, and
stereotyping of Poles – are both real. The reality of one does not negate the
reality of the other."
Choice: please explain how
the above statement and others like it, found throughout "Bieganski,"
"glosses over" Polish anti-Semitism.
If Choice
cannot produce evidence supporting its charge that "Bieganski"
"glosses over" Polish anti-Semitism, it is incumbent upon Choice to
print a retraction.
Finally, a style note. Choice's
reviewer found the book "dizzying." Too many facts, he protests.
"Too many notes,"
a notorious line from the film "Amadeus," comes to mind.
Authors on stereotyping cull facts from many sources: popular
culture, politics, journalism, scholarship. As a writer, and a teacher, I'm
always aware of this. I always introduce my reader to any new name, providing
the personage's historical era, their field of influence, and their impact. For
example, before discussing Thomas Laqueur, mentioned above,
"Bieganski" identifies him as the Helen Fawcett Distinguished
Professor of History at U. C. Berkeley, and a prominent historian of
masturbation.
It is possible that Mr. Byczkiewicz found
the array of facts in the book "dizzying." Will others find it so?
Curious readers are courteously invited to sample one chapter of the book in
the February, 2011 issue of TheScreamOnline.
If dizziness ensues, I will provide Dramamine.
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
