What if the US made a Jewish state to send Jewish immigrants too during the major immigrant wave of the late 1800s

Martinus Padueius

Martinus Padueius

Banned

athgtq16129

VEN212 said:
The Slattery Report, right?
Click to expand...
There's even an AH novel about this.
en.wikipedia.org

The Yiddish Policemen's Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Thought that the novel would be only about Jewish Sitka but holy shit:
Chabon describes the rest of world history only elliptically, but hints at enormous changes. Germany crushes the Soviet Union in 1942 and World War II continues until 1946, when Berlin is destroyed with nuclear weapons. Chabon refers to a 'Polish Free State' existing in 1950 and describes some characters as veterans of a lengthy 'Cuban War' in the 1960s. President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated and married Marilyn Monroe, and Orson Welles succeeded in making his film of Heart of Darkness. Describing the modern world, Chabon refers to a 'Third Russian Republic' and an independent Manchuria that has its own space program.
Click to expand...
 
Aghasverov

Aghasverov

Belisarius II said:
The whole idea is absurd. The United States has never been an apartheid state. We don't reserve territory for ethnic, or religious groups. If you permit someone to immigrate to American they can live in any State or Territory they want. American Citizens can't be prevented from moving anywhere they want to.
Click to expand...
Except Native Americans.

Also I think that a good case could be made that policies, both public sector and private sector, throughout the 20th century could be characterized as a sort of less-formalized apartheid... everything from racial clauses in the restrictions/covenants of the new suburbs from the 1920's through the 1960's, the urban redevelopment schemes from the 1960's on, redlining in lending practices, even government programmes like the GI Bill, VA, FNMA/FMAC early on, all had one common theme - keep the "undesirables" either down, out, or both.
 
Aghasverov

Aghasverov

Socrates said:
Britain elected a Jewish Prime Minister in the 1870s so can't have been too anti-Semitic of a culture.
Click to expand...
Well, he was a convert to the Church of England, though. I have to concur that the German Empire was no more anti-Semitic than most of the rest of Europe, and a good bit less than some, particularly Russia. There were quite a few Jews, both converts and practicing or non-religious Jews, that were prominent and influential in most of the nations of Europe - even among the ranks of the nobility in Austria-Hungary, Prussia, even Russia.
Interesting story about Disraeli - Otto von Bismarck had three portraits on the wall of his office. One was of the Emperor, one was of his wife, the other was of Benjamin Disraeli. A visitor asked him about it once, and he replied: "Der alte Jude? Das ist Der Mann!" :)
 

Socrates

Martinus Padueius said:
Sundown towns and black exclusion are the opposite of what OP is saying. It's not an equal comparison anyway. Blacks and indians were seen as barely human, indians especially were viewed as savages, while Jews were not despite the vitriol aimed against them.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said at all.

The United States has never been an apartheid state. We don't reserve territory for ethnic, or religious groups.
Click to expand...

He even used the term apartheid as something the US wasn't, which refers to blacks!
 
Martinus Padueius

Martinus Padueius

Banned
Socrates said:
That's not what he said at all.

He even used the term apartheid as something the US wasn't, which refers to blacks!
Click to expand...
I was referring to the OP post itself. Regardless:
The federal government never outlined an area and said "blacks can only live here" or "blacks can't live here". The only reserved areas were just that, reservations, exclusively for native Americans and the conmen who preyed upon them. Bringing that up at all in a discussion about any other demographic is just...a non sequitur. It doesn't have anything to do with the price of molasses in Madagascar, if you will. The status and view of native Americans was and is unique, to the point that state governments were actively exterminating them and the federal government was at best ambivalent about it. A similar setup will NOT happen for Europeans, though they be Jews. If it would, Jewish immigration would just be banned outright instead of going through all the effort. It's comparing apples to oranges.
 

Socrates

Martinus Padueius said:
I was referring to the OP post itself. Regardless:
The federal government never outlined an area and said "blacks can only live here" or "blacks can't live here". The only reserved areas were just that, reservations, exclusively for native Americans and the conmen who preyed upon them. Bringing that up at all in a discussion about any other demographic is just...a non sequitur. It doesn't have anything to do with the price of molasses in Madagascar, if you will. The status and view of native Americans was and is unique, to the point that state governments were actively exterminating them and the federal government was at best ambivalent about it. A similar setup will NOT happen for Europeans, though they be Jews. If it would, Jewish immigration would just be banned outright instead of going through all the effort. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that Jews would be seen as very different to native Americans and African Americans. It just seemed like you were whitewashing US history. That's all.
 

riggerrob

Move the P.O.D. back to the 1600s and make Quaker, Calvinist, Catholic, etc. colony founders greater religious zealots.
While we now understand that Quakers, Catholics, etc. emigrated to the Americas to flea religious persecution ..... it is too easy for the formerly-persecuted to become equally fanatic in the other direction .... just look at what happened in Quebec after the Quiet Revolution.
WI Quakers restricted immigration to Quakers-only?
While the original George Calvert was an extremely tolerant Catholic .... what would it take for him to found a Maryland for Catholics only.
 

James Ricker

It wouldn't so much be a state parks be set aside for the Jews but more likely a state settled predominantly by Jews.
If they weren't welcomed on the East Coast they would have migrated West. Minnesota but have been a logical choice.
 
Martinus Padueius

Martinus Padueius

Banned
Socrates said:
I completely agree that Jews would be seen as very different to native Americans and African Americans. It just seemed like you were whitewashing US history. That's all.
Click to expand...
Ah sorry if I didn't express myself well at first.
James Ricker said:
It wouldn't so much be a state parks be set aside for the Jews but more likely a state settled predominantly by Jews.
If they weren't welcomed on the East Coast they would have migrated West. Minnesota but have been a logical choice.
Click to expand...
Eh they weren't welcomed wholeheartedly on the east coast yet they mostly stayed there. And for good reason. Half of a big pie is bigger than all of a tiny pie.
 

Rambam23

Banned
My great-great aunt Rose Brenner was the president of the NCJW in the 1920s. The NCJW at this time had a Department of Farm and Rural Work which worked to settle Jewish families on farms to combat urban overcrowding. It was a failure, but if it had more resources behind it, I could imagine a substantial rural area somewhere in the West becoming predominantly Jewish like parts of Minnesota are Scandinavian.

A whole predominantly Jewish state is harder to imagine, but I could imagine the Alaska plan creating an Alaska with a Jewish population larger proportionally than New York or New Jersey which are the most Jewish states currently at 9% and 6% respectively (I was surprised Florida wasn’t higher, it’s 3% not including winter-only residents).
 

Viriato

I don't think you could have found a group of immigrants less suited to agricultural pursuits than Eastern European Jews based on their previous occupations and living conditions. Sending someone to a farm in a remote area with little to no knowledge of farming would have probably led to large-scale abandonment of these farms.

According to the 1897 Russian census only 2.8% of Jews were engaged in agriculture as farmers or labourers. It was only slightly larger in Austria's 1900 census which listed 11.9% of Jews working as farmers or farm labourers. This was compared with over half of non-Jewish immigrants arriving in America between 1899 and 1914. Additionally, Jewish immigrants were overwhelmingly urban with 84% hailing from towns and cities rather than villages. This again contrasted with the majority of non-Jewish immigrants, with the majority hailing from small villages.

According to the 1897 census, 51.2% of Jews in Russia were engaged in the manufacturing, sale or trade of clothing or leather goods, and it would be no surprise that they would engage in a trade they knew upon arrival. In 1897, three-quarters of all Jewish workers in Russia were employed in manufacturing, commerce and professional services. In Austria, in 1900 that figure is only slightly lower at 73.1% of the total Jewish workers.

It should be as no surprise that by 1920 the number of Jews engage in agriculture was barely above 1% of the total living in the United States. This was compared with one-third of all non-Jewish immigrants whom were engaged in agriculture (the highest portions being Germans, Scandinavians and Czechs). Around half of non-Jewish immigrants became labourers or servants, compared with one-fifth of Jews. In the New World, Jewish immigrants largely flocked to the trades in which they had some experience. The result being two-thirds were engaged in manufacturing (compared with 14% of non-Jews) and another 6% in commerce (compared with 1.7% of non-Jews).

The thing that set Jewish immigrants apart was that they by and large immigrated in large groups with their entire families. This again was the opposite of non-Jewish immigration. For non-Jews (with the exception of the Irish) two-thirds of non-Jewish immigration was composed of males traveling alone, if we look at groups from the Balkans this number rises to nearly 90%. It was much easier for a lone male to establish a farm and then either marry or send for family from the old country.

At any rate, Jewish immigrants would not have been attracted to any agricultural settlement in large numbers unless they were forced to or no other alternative existed. It is important to remember that when Jewish immigration to the U.S. was limited by the 1924 quotas, the numbers of Jews emigrating to Buenos Aires jumped in number until 1930 restrictions were implemented there as well.
 

funnyhat

riggerrob said:
While we now understand that Quakers, Catholics, etc. emigrated to the Americas to flea religious persecution ..... it is too easy for the formerly-persecuted to become equally fanatic in the other direction .... just look at what happened in Quebec after the Quiet Revolution.
Click to expand...

Anglophones in Québec have their own public school system, their own hospitals, and their own universities. For a group that makes up 8 % of the population, that's a pretty good deal, not really what I would call persecution. If it seems bad somehow, it's just because previously, they had a ridiculously good deal and took it for granted.
 

James Ricker

Martinus Padueius said:
Ah sorry if I didn't express myself well at first.

Eh they weren't welcomed wholeheartedly on the east coast yet they mostly stayed there. And for good reason. Half of a big pie is bigger than all of a tiny pie.
Click to expand...
A little more prejudice on the East Coast could have changed things.
One highly charismatic violently anti-Semitic political or religious leader could have changed things.
Never underestimate the historical significance one a$$hole being in a position of power can have.
Even heavier immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe due to the Tzar needing more money and conducting more or larger pogroms also could have contributed to it.
European history is closely tied to immigration to America. Wherever and whenever there were problems in Europe people immigrated the United States and settled on what was the frontier at the time
 
Aghasverov

Aghasverov

Viriato said:
I don't think you could have found a group of immigrants less suited to agricultural pursuits than Eastern European Jews based on their previous occupations and living conditions. Sending someone to a farm in a remote area with little to no knowledge of farming would have probably led to large-scale abandonment of these farms.

According to the 1897 Russian census only 2.8% of Jews were engaged in agriculture as farmers or labourers. It was only slightly larger in Austria's 1900 census which listed 11.9% of Jews working as farmers or farm labourers. This was compared with over half of non-Jewish immigrants arriving in America between 1899 and 1914. Additionally, Jewish immigrants were overwhelmingly urban with 84% hailing from towns and cities rather than villages. This again contrasted with the majority of non-Jewish immigrants, with the majority hailing from small villages.

According to the 1897 census, 51.2% of Jews in Russia were engaged in the manufacturing, sale or trade of clothing or leather goods, and it would be no surprise that they would engage in a trade they knew upon arrival. In 1897, three-quarters of all Jewish workers in Russia were employed in manufacturing, commerce and professional services. In Austria, in 1900 that figure is only slightly lower at 73.1% of the total Jewish workers.

It should be as no surprise that by 1920 the number of Jews engage in agriculture was barely above 1% of the total living in the United States. This was compared with one-third of all non-Jewish immigrants whom were engaged in agriculture (the highest portions being Germans, Scandinavians and Czechs). Around half of non-Jewish immigrants became labourers or servants, compared with one-fifth of Jews. In the New World, Jewish immigrants largely flocked to the trades in which they had some experience. The result being two-thirds were engaged in manufacturing (compared with 14% of non-Jews) and another 6% in commerce (compared with 1.7% of non-Jews).

The thing that set Jewish immigrants apart was that they by and large immigrated in large groups with their entire families. This again was the opposite of non-Jewish immigration. For non-Jews (with the exception of the Irish) two-thirds of non-Jewish immigration was composed of males traveling alone, if we look at groups from the Balkans this number rises to nearly 90%. It was much easier for a lone male to establish a farm and then either marry or send for family from the old country.

At any rate, Jewish immigrants would not have been attracted to any agricultural settlement in large numbers unless they were forced to or no other alternative existed. It is important to remember that when Jewish immigration to the U.S. was limited by the 1924 quotas, the numbers of Jews emigrating to Buenos Aires jumped in number until 1930 restrictions were implemented there as well.
Click to expand...
This may be true, but.... the Jews of the old Pale of Settlement did fairly well at farming once they tried their hand at it (and when they were permitted to by the Czarist authorities - remember the occupations of Jews in Russia wasn't generally a matter of choice, they did what they could since they were legally excluded from many occupations):

Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

The Jewish agricultural colonies in the Kherson Guberniya and Bessarabia were innovative, and provided something of a model for the later kibbutzim, which were themselves generally successful. In a less-restrictive environment than Imperial Russia (and less, um, fraught with issues than Mandatory Palestine), a Jewish agricultural settlement model could probably flourish...
 

Viriato

Aghasverov said:
he Kherson Guberniya and Bessarabia were innovative, and provided something of a model for the later kibbutzim, which were themselves generally successful. In a less-restrictive environment than Imperial Russia (and less, um, fraught with issues than Mandatory Palestine), a Jewish agricultural settlement model could probably flourish...
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that they could do well as a group in farming, the Jewish farming in Southern New Jersey was successful, but the overall numbers were small.

www.nj.com

Jews fled persecution to settle in this piece of N.J. Their story is being told again.

The first successful Jewish farming colony in the country was established in South Jersey.
www.nj.com www.nj.com

Farming was expensive, even if land was "free". Money was required for inland transportation, tools and equipment, seeds and fertilizers. Additionally, funds to sustain a family before the first good harvest were required.

And when we see that on average, Jewish immigrants arrived with far less money in savings than other immigrant groups. At the beginning of the century, over half of Jewish immigrants arrived with less than $50 in savings. This compared with one-seventh of Irish immigrants and one-seventeenth of all Italian immigrants. One average, Jewish immigrants had 60% of the median in savings of all immigrants. This was coupled with fewer than 2% having been in the country before, a figure far lower than the other immigrant groups. As a result, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants arrived in New York and were able to find work in the field in which they were experienced. The cities simply offered better paying work, and importantly better educational opportunities for children.
 

casaubon

I'm not sure if this is possible within the Continental US but I think a more expansionist US that finds itself with a larger proportion of non-White territories under it's control might have some incentive to do something like this. If the US ends up with additional land in Africa through an alternate end to slavery with more colonization of Liberia and surrounding environs, or takes part of Central America through various historical shenanigans, or British Guiana through a changed Venezeula Crisis of 1895 the existing power structure might see a benefit to introducing another ethnic group into the mix. Over time this could result in a majority-Jewish state, though I don't think it will be recognized by law as explicitly for Jewish people. New-Israel-on-the-Essequibo. I believe there was even a British proposal to send Jewish refugees to Guiana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top