NYC, 1654: Initially Jews Were Stymied by Stuyvesant
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Robert Cohen - 29 May 2005 23:41 GMT This article in the NYT arts section about a museum exhibit offers some interesting details/dynamics about refugees from Recife who were descendants of refugees from the Spanish Inquisition.
See article for the Dutch-appointed Governor's un-enlightened attitude about them thar Catholics & Lutherans too.
www.nytimes.com
COPYRIGHTED BY THE NY TIMES 2005
Connections For American Jews, a Home in Exile
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN Published: May 23, 2005
It was not the sort of welcome that would typically inspire commemoration. Twenty-three men, women and children, exiled from their homes, arrive in the port of New Amsterdam. The ship's skipper demands his payment. But the travelers had been robbed by pirates on the high seas on an earlier part of their journey and stripped of most belongings.
The courts authorize an auction in which their remaining goods are sold. The principal debtors are imprisoned. And Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch director general of New Netherland, also appeals to his employers at the Dutch West India Company to deny them permanent residence. He did not want Jews coming into New Amsterdam, and the human cargo that had made its way from Brazil consisted of Jews.
But however inauspicious this greeting was in September 1654, it has now become the spur for a season of commemoration, including at least three new museum exhibitions - one at the Museum of the City of New York ("Tolerance & Identity: Jews in Early New York, 1654-1825") and two at the Center for Jewish History ("Greetings From Home: 350 Years of American Jewish Life," presented by the American Jewish Historical Society, and "Starting Over: The Experience of German Jews in America, 1830-1945," presented by the Leo Baeck Institute).
Partly this is because the date of that ship's arrival offers a numerically satisfying 350th anniversary, but it also marked the first community of Jews coming to settle in what was to become the United States.
A bit forced, perhaps, as anniversaries go - but there is still something unusual and subtle in what transpired during this initial encounter, something easy to miss amid the celebrations of what Jews later made of themselves in the United States and what the United States made of them.
Ultimately, it is a tale of successful immigrations. The exhibition "Tolerance & Identity," in its portraits and displays, in its accounts of first synagogues and its samples of early correspondence, shows how dynasties of Jewish families took root. Some of these family trees lost branches through assimilation, some through tragedy. But over time they flourished at the center of New York's cultural, political and religious life of the 18th and early 19th centuries: writing, engaging in commerce and politics, donating books to the first public library, joining the first New York Chamber of Commerce.
More ambitiously, "Greetings From Home" tries to encompass 350 years of such interaction in two exhibition rooms. Attention is given to such figures as the Jewish philanthropist Adolphus S. Solomons (1826-1910) who founded what is now Mount Sinai Hospital and worked with Clara Barton to create the American Red Cross. Here, too, is a photograph showing the primal origins of the city's department stores among Jewish immigrants (Abraham & Straus, Macy's, Gimbel's) and rare items like an 1891 Yiddish-English phrase book for prospective immigrants, which teaches the aspirant phrases like "I never saw such a handsome head as yours" or "My hand is tired with working."
There is almost too much in this exhibition, and much of it is familiar in general character if not in detail. But it also says something about the tensions of the American Jewish experience to see a 1913 passport application in which the Hungarian-born Eric Weiss, using sleight of mind if not of hand, announces himself as Harry Houdini, a native of Wisconsin. And surely, too, not all was smooth going. A young woman's college rejection letter from 1947 reads, "It is with regret that we are obliged to return your application, but our Jewish quota has been filled for some time."
Nonetheless, the interaction of Jews with the United States was more profound, more wide-ranging and more successful than with any other country in recent history. And that success does indeed have a subtle connection to that first, inauspicious landing in New Amsterdam.
Peter Stuyvesant, after all, did not just oppose the Jewish settlement; he found Jews' very identity damning. He argued that they were "deceitful," "very repugnant" and "blasphemous." He believed that if they stayed, New Amsterdam would start down a slippery slope: let the Jews in, he wrote to his employers, and then "we cannot refuse the Lutherans and Papists."
But the Dutch West India Company (which included Jews on its board) understood something the haughty overseer did not. Running New Amsterdam was not a matter of plundering colonial assets and shipping them back home; the Dutch had different ambitions.
As the historian Jonathan D. Sarna points out in his recent book, "American Judaism," they had also learned how active Jews could be in industry and trade. New Amsterdam was a destination for Jews who had fled Spain and Portugal but who spoke their languages and remained in contact with citizens of their empires.
These were the Jews who, in a short time, helped turn the Dutch-run Brazilian city of Recife into an important center for Jewish life and a flourishing center of trade - at least until it was captured by the Portuguese in 1654, which led to the escape of those 23 Jews to New Amsterdam.
Colonization, the Dutch West India Company seemed to suggest, is not a matter of exploitation. It requires certain kinds of relationships. Tradecraft is more than barter; it presumes a rational system of exchange, in which the particular individual's identity matters less than issues of trust and communication across cultural differences.
The company was explicit about this, suggesting to Stuyvesant that he should "allow every one to have his own belief, as long as he behaves quietly and legally, gives no offense to his neighbor and does not oppose the government."
The notion that economic life was related to a form of political freedom, that opportunity and responsibility were intertwined, created what we now call modernity. It gave the Jews their first home in exile. And for all the flaws and failings, something similar was offered to other immigrant groups over the course of 350 years - which is why this anniversary is more important than it might seem.
Connections, a critic's perspective on arts and ideas, appears every other Monday.
More Articles in Arts >Special Offer: Home Delivery of The Times from $2.90/week.
Jeffrey Salzberg - 30 May 2005 01:40 GMT > This article in the NYT arts section about a museum exhibit offers some > interesting details/dynamics about refugees from Recife who were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > COPYRIGHTED BY THE NY TIMES 2005 Please don't vbiolate people's intellectual property rights.
 Signature
================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay!
Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Robert Cohen - 30 May 2005 12:51 GMT re: please don't deliberately violate copyright laws
I do not intend to do so.
I am very concerned about clarifying the phenomena.
If I re-post a freely available article that has previously been publicly posted by an original poster, and I qualify its originator by giving acknowledgment that it's " copyrighted..", and I am a subscriber to the website, in this case as a non-paying subscriber, and am an individual w/o a proft motive, and am posting for the intellectual entertainment of members of my news group, then how do the courts' rule?
Please give me the precedent case if ya have it.
The current legalisms in established/prevailing copyright law are not so clear to me.
Therefore, I am interpreting the ambiguous laws.
If I am sued for what I have been doing:i.e., NYTIMES versus RobtCohen, and I win, then I'll be semi- famous, celebrated and damnede to helle by some.
I'f I am sued for what I've been doing, and I lose, then I'll be semi-infamous.
Therefore, I may continue to re-post acknowledged copyrighted articles until my legal assumptions/interpretations are corrected as being unquestionably wrong/clearly wrong by a specific or very comparable or identical case adjuduication or precedent.
Jeffrey Salzberg - 30 May 2005 13:26 GMT > re: please don't deliberately violate copyright laws > > I do not intend to do so. You did.
> If I re-post a freely available article Freely available for reading, not for copying.
> publicly posted by an original poster, and I qualify its originator by > giving acknowledgment that it's " copyrighted.." ...Which means, specifically, that you may *not* copy it without permission.
> subscriber to the website, in this case as a non-paying subscriber, Your subscription gives you limnited rights, including the right (obviously) to read what's on the site but not the right to reproduce anything without permission.
> and am an individual w/o a proft motive, Irrelevant, unless the copyright owners specifically exempt non-profit entities.
> and am posting for the > intellectual entertainment of members of my news group, then how do the > courts' rule? ...That you may not reproduce it.
> Please give me the precedent case if ya have it. Here's a link to Stanford University's page on "Fair Use" -- generally considered to be one of the best explanations:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
...Which includes this passage:
"If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include: quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C."
Note that it specifies that you may quote a *limited* amount ("a few lines"..."a few paragraphs"..."a portion of") of the original text -- not the entire article.
> Therefore, I am interpreting the ambiguous laws. They are not ambiguous at all; on the contrary, the case law is quite clear.
> If I am sued for what I have been doing: It's unlikely that you'll be sued, but it's an ethical issue as well as a legal one...and my take on you is that you're a very ethical person.
> i.e., NYTIMES versus RobtCohen, > and I win, You wouldn't. The case law is quite clear, and there are numerous precedents.
 Signature ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay!
Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Robert Cohen - 30 May 2005 14:02 GMT re: Stanford website's copyright explanation phenomena
The EXCELLENT mumbo jumbo reminds me why I dropped out from law school, because it's over my head, patience & tolerance of ambiguity.
Meanwhile--while now worrying more than ever about this--I've previously dealt with the copyright legalistic mishmosh at <alt.philosophy.law>.
originally posted in the spirit of dispair in March, 2005:
I'll now take that wonderful ambiguity "fair use," as a prime example of confusion, and try to explain the smokey signals a/k/a "law"
What the h is "fair use?
10. A gifted Supreme Court law clerk consults dictionaries, and finds serependipitous, catchy phrase fodder for immortalization
9. Specialization attorney, billing for thousands, conjures plausible, reasonable challenging, provoking scenarios that the catch-phrase doesn't adequately cover
8. Meanwhile, the Holiday Inn's next affair is a librarian conference regarding copy machine copying--how many copies is
a violation of "fair use?"
7. Taking the bread out of an author's & publisher's mouth via "fair use" is as close as one may get to "stealing" without the risk of occupying a jail cell and getting the s beaten out-of "smart a.s"
6. Quoting & plagarizing & re-publishing & re-printing: Where does "fair use" leave off and "rip-off" begin?
5. Satirizing & parodying: It's okay here, but not okay there, or whatever the Judge is feeling today after argument with wife over new scratch on Mercedes
4. International political-economics wranglings with China, allegedly the most flagrant copyright violator: They own something like 600 billion in our Treasury bonds or whatever, and would they cash 'em in if we really clamped-down on their way of life (copying nearly everything we create)
3. Well, the internet could not exist without "fair use," and we all probably intuit to ourselves that copyrights are actually "abused" (imho) 7/24, normatively.
2. IT'S EXCESSIVELY CONFUSING & COMPLEX, and if ya disagrees, then that's yer ...right to un-copy my hyteriical paranoiac perceptions of realities
1. Who cares? Here in the midst of the 19th century industrial & manufacturing era, we're not confused by such an esoteric, nebulous pile of news group postulating feces by an idiotic hyper-posting screwball
Jeffrey Salzberg - 30 May 2005 14:18 GMT > re: Stanford website's copyright explanation phenomena > > The EXCELLENT mumbo jumbo reminds me why I dropped out from law > school, because it's over my head, patience & tolerance of ambiguity. That's as may be, but it's still illegal and unethical.
In the end, of course, you have to make your own decision -- be ethical and respect others' rights, or be unethical and steal their intellectual property. It's not ambiguous at all.
 Signature
================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay!
Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Les Cargill - 30 May 2005 16:33 GMT >>This article in the NYT arts section about a museum exhibit offers some >>interesting details/dynamics about refugees from Recife who were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Please don't vbiolate people's intellectual property rights. If the posting of the NYT article was for purposes of discussion, this *used* to be covered under "fair use". And if the NYT wouild simply allow links to the website without all the registration foofraw, he'd not have to post the whole damn thing.
Restricting access to websites is ludicrous. Why bother with a website at all, then? It's been clearly demonstrated that websites don't necessarily make money directly*, and it's foolish to try to change that.
*assuming advertiser support is indirect.
-- Les Cargill
|
|
|