IMMIGRANT

Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 9 months ago to History
300 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

By now, we are all familiar with the problems faced by America relative to illegal immigration. But, there was a time, early in the 20th century,
when immigration was welcome and sought after, with many square miles to fill. Just about all you needed to do in order to be an immigrant was was to be healthy enough to remain vertical. If you saw the beginning of "The Godfather Part 2" you got a pretty clear picture of Ellis Island. In Poland and Russia Jews were were confined to "shtetles" ( Little States) within or nearby a city. Unless they were either professional men, land owners,or shopkeepers who dealt in necessities (butchers, bakers, food suppliers , etc.) they were so poor that many of them literally starved to death.This is about my Grandfather on my mother's side.

My Grandpa, Manus (Mike) Sherman, his wife and daughter live just outside of Lublin the 4th largest city in Poland in what we call today the Ukraine. He was a non commissioned officer in the Polish army., from which he defected at the outset of World War 1.He changed his name in order to keep from getting caught.and his passport wouldn't sound any alarms because he stole the I.D. off of a dead soldier. It's about this part where I tell you a couple apochryphal stories that circulated among immigrants.There were dozens of themand here are just two: Jews hated the army. In those days, they had good reason to. They had no loyalty to the repressive country in which they lived and they were treated even worse in the army than they were as civilians.

At Ellis Island many of the men, especially those from Germanywho were fleeing the Kaiser's conscription were loathe to give their real names, and on one day they decided to all say "Ich fergessen" (I forgot.) The closest to that in the ears of a minimally educated official, was "Ed Ferguson." That day a hundred or so Ed Fergusons passed through Ell Island. Here's another one:: Before going on permanent AWOL many would steal the wallets of the dead soldiers, not for the money, but for the I.D.Hence our new family name on my mother's side became Shermann, the second n getting dropped when Grandpa got ajob.Another great incentive was that Ford was paying $5 a dayand once the rumor was confirmedyou couldn't hold back half of Europe from immigration. $5 was a month's income in Poland.

"Mike" had a few bucks saved up from many years of manual labor so he traveled to Detroit, where he got a job in construction, building the Rackham Memorial Building, a Marble palace in the cultural center which also contained the Institute of Arts and the Main Library, also marble clad masterpieces.During this time my mother developed rickets from malnutrition so, her mom sent her to live with her parents who owned a small farm. For the first time in her young life, she was able to eat decent food and lots of fresh vegetables and eventually she grew strong but never achieved what should have been her full height.Grandpa told me that he couldn't believe his good fortune. To be able to live a life that Americans took for granted. He got hired at Ford making more money than he ever imagined.Enough to pay rent, clothes, food, and even some to save.He loved Amerca and learned English as quickly as he could so he could become a citizen. By his accent some would call him Russian(same as A.R.'s). "I can tell by your accent tht you are Russian." His back would stiffen up and he'd look the person in the eye and say, "Not Russian, American!" While he was proud to be an American , he still retained some old country habits. He drank only Corby's whiskey when indulging because it was the cheapest rotgut. He also like Slivovitz, a very potent plum brandy. It was said that after uncorking the bottle, the fumes alone would make you drunk. He loved caviar. Not that expensive blsck stuff that you daintilly put on crackers, but the orange fish eggs that you could smell 2 blocks awa when he opened the jar.And that's the difference between 1920 and 2018. Every family had its own stories of coming to America. I have just skimmed the surface. I have had the good fortune of being 1st or 2nd generation depending on which side you look at. As I was growing up, I heard various aunts uncles and, of course, parentstell me how lucky I was to be born in America.They were right.
+.


All Comments

  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Luther had no concept of the rights of the individual so it's difficult to accuse him of hypocrisy. He is known for his determinism denying free will, the individual's right to interpret the Bible and commune directly with God, and rejection of reason in favor of faith -- with faith alone, without regard to behavior ("works"), the way to salvation in the supernatural world.

    None of that supports the right of the individual to use his rational mind in guiding choices and actions here on earth, which is reflected in his statist politics of German nationalism and Protestant persecution of dissenters as bad as or worse than the Catholics.

    The positive outcome of his 'freedom of conscience' was an unintended consequence. His own draconian Protestant theology worse than Augustine was impossible to live by, nor did you have to because all that mattered was faith. It was so contradictory and unsystematic that there was no dogma to adhere to. Multiple sects developed with no standard to choose one over another. It all made a Catholic-like monopoly impossible. This nihilism, despite the statism, ultimately left an intellectual vacuum, leaving room for a philosophy of reason and real individualism in the Enlightenment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You said that earlier. This is about what is proper as a moral ideal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You had many potential sons or daughters. If that were the criterion you would be worried about all of them and done everything you could to have as many children as you could. That you wanted that son in particular, were willing to take the risk, and understandably so miss him now is not a standard for disliking all abortion (or with the Catholic Church condemning contraception). The right of abortion does not mean abort everything. It does not mean that someone who wants a child should abort it or not care. It does not mean you should not have had your son.

    Ayn Rand gave reasons for her principles; they did not come from "shaded attitudes". Your own love for your son is more than "shading" your attitude towards all abortion. A potential life is not a life. "A life is a life no matter how Rand thinks of it" makes no sense: The potential is not the actual. Her personal choice to not become a mother was not the explanation of the moral right not to and was not an irrational personal relationship. One has the right to make many choices of what values to pursue in life. Any choice made is not a denunciation of others' different choices for their own lives. Her choice to not have children says nothing about your choice to have your son and be glad you did, and your choice says nothing about hers or anyone else's not to have children, let alone a moral status of that choice as not liking abortion as such.

    The value of life does not mean we should make as many of them as we can. Ayn Rand emphasized the value of a woman's life to herself. That is the source of the moral right to have an abortion, if necessary, for a woman who does not want to have children or have more children and whose personal values would be destroyed by taking on the unwanted responsibility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because it is killing my potential son or daughter. I'm up for whatever happens, be it physical or mental. What confirmed it for me is the kid We were supposed to abort, turned out to be an outstanding person who died at age 32 and I'll miss him all the rest of my life. But if he had been aborted I would never have gotten to experience him.Make of that what you may. A life is a life no matter how Rand thinks of it. She never wanted to experience motherhood and maybe that shaded her attitude a bit. After all, while she had a mind like a machine, she really wasn't one. She had humor and experienced the same emotions that we do, and when it came to personal relationships she could become pretty irrational.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You said "I don't like abortion". Why? What do you think is wrong with it? Why would the topic of punishment come up at all just because someone doesn't like something as a matter of mere taste? Religionists want to criminalize it, but how is your dislike for it different than theirs'? Are you agreeing with them on something, and if not why say 'me too but'?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 9 months ago
    I THINK THAT WE'RE DONE WITH THIS SUBJECT.. LET'S CLOSE IT DOWN BEFORE IT GOES ON FOREVER.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 9 months ago
    I may be dense, but I'm afraid I don't understand you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ideally people would use some sort of protection against anything they don't want, making rational choices to do so in a timely manner. Some don't, and as a result wind up paying more and losing more time later contending with problems because of it. That kind of personal irresponsibility has nothing to with abortion in particular and is not an argument against the value of abortion when it is needed. Those who have an emotion aversion to abortion, even if they don't want to punish it, seem to be driven by something else -- influenced by the drumbeat of religious arguments and imagery promoting fallacies, all in a context of lack of understanding of basic principle of morality, human value, and rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A worldwide epidemic , from NY to Pennsylvania to Chile ,Haiti , Sweden and England and almost every where in between.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am with you. Ideally people would use some protection to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I imagine there is a fair bit of long term regret when abortion is concerned. I am opposed to govt funding it.
    I also have concerns about PP and the potential
    Ethical abuses. https://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can't be free in a society dominated by religion. Religious people can be politically free in a proper secular society if they don't control the government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ideas cannot be "banned" whether or not they are religious. Teachers, judges and others are selected for their qualifications. If someone holds irrational ideas and wants to abuse their position to indoctrinate with them then they are not qualified regardless of their religion. Teachers, in particular, should be chosen in accordance with the standards of parents, not government. If there is a market for how they teach then that is what they will be hired to do. It has nothing to do with banning religion.

    Opposing and arguing against wrong ideas, whether or not they are religious, does not mean government "banning" people who hold them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is not a justification for demeaning abortion. That your wife once chose to take a risk says nothing about the value of abortion to those who rationally choose it. We might like no pain, no measels and no colds to be part of our culture, but here in reality we must deal with them, just like unwanted pregnancies. Medical treatment to improve human life where necessary is a value, not something to look down on whether or not you want to make it illegal (as the church has). A mindset that abortion is somehow unsavory, surrounded by religionists and those under their influence "idealistically" promoting a "right to life" of cells, embryos and fetuses will bring back the prohibitions, overwhelming those who emotionally "feel" that abortion is somehow wrong but should be an unpunished evil, unable to defend it as a good.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    BTW, Iceland is awesome! Vacationing here now. Great geography, people, hiking, food, etc
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 9 months ago
    You cannot be religious and be free.Too many restrictions and you are admonished to be grateful for them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Basing a philosophy on faith and mysticism is fundamentally flawed and irredeemable. That is all or nothing. It is contradictory to Ayn Rand's ideas and the theme of Atlas Shrugged in every way.

    Religious doctrine has repeated over and over the depravity of man. No one here said that loving one's own life is wrong or that love isn't a "positive sentiment" -- when selectively granted. A commandment to unconditionally love others, beginning with a supernatural deity, destroys the concepts of love, value, and self-worth. The religious injunction to love others does not say you can base it on what others do. A duty to love neighbors and enemies is the opposite. To try to salvage love as a "positive sentiment" based on the religion by ignoring the contradictions in the name of "it's not all or nothing" is logically hopeless.

    You seem to be trying to find good, modern secular values of individualism in religion as a source, regardless of all the contradictions. It isn't there. What proper common virtues today often associated with religion are the result of better thinking over time, not religion, and are contradicted and undermined by religious faith and mysticism throughout its history. They are not a result of religion and its essence, they evolved over time from people who were often otherwise religious at a time when religion dominated, but who were slowly climbing out of it. If they hadn't we would still be in the Dark Ages.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 5 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regarding immigration, would you and Herb ban Christians? Would you ban every other religion as well, such as Muslims?

    Should they be allowed to be teachers in public schools? Judges? Able to vote? Should their children be taken away, for the kids "protection"?

    How far and how strong is your blanket condemnation?

    PS Someone else brought up the issue of religion regarding immigration, not I.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 9 months ago
    I would like no abortions to be part of our culture.My wife, during her 2nd pregnancy tried lifting something too heavy and started spotting. It got increasingly worse. She was advised to abort or have a severely damaged child. She refused and gave birth to a normal rather large infant., who turned out to be a truly great person. But don't look to me, ever, to approve more laws unless they are a matter of world shaking importance.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo