Truman diary -- how many DUers have ever used an ethnic epithet in anger

All of you have no doubt heard by now that Harry Truman's recently discovered diary contains some troubling references to members of the Jewish faith:

6:00 P. M. Monday July 21, 1947
"Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish ship in Palistine . Told him I would talk to Gen Marshall about it.

He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs.

Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed. When the country went backward-and Republican in the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the D P program.

The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D P as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes."

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/diary/page21.htm

These words have come as a shock to many people, since Truman's remarks, which obviously appear anti-Semitic on their face, are very much at variance with his actions -- including his critical support for the creation of the State of Israel.

The explanation that most Truman experts have been proffering, and it seems like a reasonable one to me, is that Truman's remarks (made, after all, in a private diary) were more reflective of his hot head than of a true antipathy for Jews.

Whatever's the truth in Truman's case, however, it strikes me that this incident provides a valuable reminder of why we need to be careful about judging a person's heart based upon an isolated remark, especially when it's made in anger. And to me, this raises an interesting question based, I'll confess, on my own experiences. I truly believe, that while no one is entirely free of prejudice, I come about as close as anyone to meeting that goal. Yet, I will admit that there have been times in my life when, in response to some provocation, I have found myself thinking or even muttering a racial or ethnic epithet. A good example would be a situation where someone cuts me off in a dangerous driving maneuver, forcing me to break suddenly. There have been a few times where, in that type of situation, I've been shocked to find myself forming the phrase in my mind -- "You fucking (insert epithet)"

I don't like it when that happens, but I also don't think that makes me a bigot. I just think it's a natural human reaction, in times of sudden rage, to grab hold of any identifying characteristic of your antagonist in the process of mentally striking back.

I would be interested in knowing if some of the rest of you have had the same experience and, if so, what you think about it.

won't confess how many times

we have all made mistakes...and will continue to do so.

I think it's how you feel after you've done it... If you have no remorse then in my mind you're a racist.... I've uttered the N-Word a few times in my life and instantly reflected on how fucked up that was...

My 9 year old son the other day started to talk about a kid in school who happened to be Black... Before he started the conversation on the subject he apologized to me by saying that he was about to mention the kids skin color.... It was a very touching and proud moment for me because my 9 year old already has a sensibility that skin color should not be a factor....

I mentioned to him that it's OK to mention someones race but that it wasn't OK to hold against them...

I think good liberal parents who feel strongly about racisim will certainly raise their kids the same way...AND that's all good!

When I grow up I want to be a little boy. ~ Joseph Heller

i grew up in an eastern european family and the older members of my family (many of them now dead) used racial words and slurs against every ethnic group but their own.. it retrospect it was laughably ironic how goofy it all was.
However my mother's generation didn't do it as much and my generation has successively gotten better...all part of the American melting pot because now our family has extended to have members of the latino, african american, jewish, ...etc communities...

I think the statement may have been taken out of context but then again I am not Harry Truman...but those were different times and things we find unacceptable today were the norm..or at least tolerated.

and I have a mouth that would make a truck driver blush. When I'm angered I might blurt out just about any foul thing, but I can honestly say that even when my brain disengages and the curses fly, they are never racial in nature.

Sexist sometimes, and I'm prone to using colorful *body part* language.

Besides, I don't think the word "Jew" is considered a racial epithet. Take a look at the phrase again, and replace the word Jews with the word Israelis (which wasn't invented yet, was it?):

"The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D P as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes."

Was he very far off the mark, really?

Not in anger, not in conversation. Only time an racial epithet has ever crossed my lips in quoting someone else whose opinion i do not share or in an sardonic way as in an estimation of what someone else (Trent Lott?) would say.

And, i'm with DoctorMyEyes on the Truman thing. It seems there less to this statement than the flap made about it. I interpret his comments as based upon Jewish folks he actually knew or had dealt with. I don't interpret this statement as relating to all, but those leaders (perhaps those promoting the State of Israel?) with whom he had direct contact.

I'm not saying that's so. Just my interpretation. But, if i'm right, then any reaction to his statement apropos a general ethnic bias on Harry's part is much ado about nothing.
The Professor

calling people, rats, snakes, pigs etc. or whatever animal fit. My mother punished me for using racial epithets so I never developed the habit. Lately I have been picking on and Republicans and other conservatives lot though.

I use that one daily driving around Atlanta.

(usually they go back out to the suburbs after work)

He used a broad brush, that's for sure and should not have but I wouldn't consider that an epiteth.

Also, I did a google on this and found a lot of amplifying information. Seems Truman foresaw what a mess the entire premature creation of Israel could cause and didn't like getting pushed around, lobbied, and having heavy handed tactics used against him until he gave in.

I am also confused as to why the media is saying this is 'recently discovered' information when it's been available for years. What's going on here? I'm really perplexed and curious about the timing of 'recently discovered' information which isn't that recent!

******

Truman was as yet averse to the idea of a Jewish state despite his support for immigration, primarily out of concern that it would require excessive US resources to defend it. This concern was to surface again and again and influence policy in the months ahead. He wrote to Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota on November 24, 1945:

"I told the Jews that if they were willing to furnish me with five hundred thousand men to carry on a war with the Arabs, we could do what they are suggesting in the Resolution - otherwise we we will have to negotiate awhile.

It is a very explosive situation we are facing, and naturally I regret it very much, but I don't think that you, or any of the other Senators, would be inclined to send half a dozen Divisions to Palestine to maintain a Jewish State.

What I am trying to do is to make the whole world safe for the Jews. Therefore, I don't feel like going to war for Palestine."

<snip>

Truman's support for a Jewish state remained cautious and conditional. He was especially irritated by the torrent of support for a Jewish state from Zionists, and became more so as time went on. On October 17, 1947, Truman wrote to Senator Claude Pepper regarding mail he received during the deliberations of UNSCOP:

"I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it -- I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with."

<snip>

Zionist pressure continued. An American Zionist delegation met with Truman in January 1948 at the White House and demanded immediate help for the thousands of homeless Holocaust victims seeking refuge in a Jewish state. Truman's response was not satisfactory, and the visitors became adamant. Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, Ohio pounded on the President's desk. Truman was outraged. "No one, but no one, comes into the office of the President of the United States and shouts at him, or pounds on his desk. If anyone is going to do any shouting or pounding in here, it will be me."

Truman had them ushered out of the Oval Office, and said to his staff. "I've had it with those hotheads. Don't ever admit them again, and what's more, I also never want to hear the word Palestine mentioned again." Truman had developed an aversion to Rabbi Silver, and once remarked that many of the problems of Palestine were due to terror and Silver.

<snip>

"The Jews are so emotional, and the Arabs are so difficult to talk with that it is almost impossible to get anything done. The British have, of course, been exceedingly uncooperative. .. The Zionists, of course, have expected a big stick approach on our part, and naturally have been disappointed when we can't do that."

<snip>

What is not generally understood is that the Zionists are not the only ones to be considered in the Palestine question. There are other interests that come into play, each with its own agenda. The military is concerned with the problems of defending a newly created small country from attacks by much larger and better trained Arab nations. Others have selfish interests concerning the flow of Arab oil to the U.S. Since they all cannot have their way, it is a perfect example of why I had to remember that 'The Buck Stops Here.'"

<snip>
((and later))

"I ...stressed that it was extremely dangerous to base long range policy on temporary military success. There was no doubt that the Jewish army had gained such temporary success but there was no assurance whatever that in the long range the tide might not turn against them. I told Mr. Shertok that they were taking a gamble. If the tide did turn adversely and they came running to us for help they should be placed clearly on notice that there was no warrant to expect help from the United States, which had warned them of the grave risk they were running."

http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

The entire article is an interesting read and puts his quotes into a badly needed context.

Peace

I started a thread on the editorial board where I was trying to get to the same thing. You completely aced me out in terms of clarity and coherence though. Good on ya.

And why is this coming out now? I suspect it's both an insurance meme and a shot across the Democrats bow. In case the shit really hits the fan and there's no possibility of recovery without major headrolling, the White House party line will be "the Zionists made me do it." That will start a very difficult and rancorous national discussion. I doubt it will ever get that far.

On the Dem side, before the war, Gary Hart and Jim Moran have been pilloried for even mentioning such connections. (Moran cloddishly, Hart less so.) Both had to quickly back off.

Now, the GOP is basically warning that if airing this dirty laundry is the only way out, it will be aired. Dems can consider this a shot across their bow and most likely will back off to avoid such a rancorous national discussion.

Minor edit: never -> ever

I've been fearing this for a year now. So have some of my clear-thinking Jewish friends whose nightmare it's been that because of the way we've been marching lock, step and barrel with the Likud, when everything blows up, everyone will start finger pointing and using a broad brush again... This is too eerily reminiscent of what happened around WWI and WWII.

The whole thing makes me distinctly uncomfortable.

How deep does the rabbit hole go? And which pill will America take?

When you watch the political players, it gets even more interesting. A few of those calling the loudest for impeachment have so much to hide that you wonder what their real goal is. Others are so mum it's frightening. Either way, I don't like it. Things could get unbelievably ugly.

.