
We have now posted the English translation of Hagay HaCohen’s lengthy and comprehensive article about the Managing Jewish Immovable Heritage conference, for Polish Radio’s Hebrew service.
Click here to see the translation
We have now posted the English translation of Hagay HaCohen’s lengthy and comprehensive article about the Managing Jewish Immovable Heritage conference, for Polish Radio’s Hebrew service.
Click here to see the translation
2 comments on “English translation of Hagay HaCohen’s article”
I thank Doctor Gruber for taking the time to read my work and to explain things further. There is no greater honor to a journalist then having his work read and found worthy of comment. However, my goal was and is to present events and issues as fully and comprehensively as possible. I would do a disservice both to the larger theme of Jewish legacy in lands now bereft of a significant Jewish community and to the seminar I attended in Krakow as a reporter had I not also provided the reader with different points of view and a firm grounding in history. To present the reader with this snippet of what Dr. Gruber had said (or, to be precise, as it was understood by others) does not misrepresent his views in any way. It rather allows the reader to get a better insight into how various people, of whom Dr. Gruber is a very meaningful and honored member, perceived the seminar and the larger theme it dealt with. Had people said, for the sake of argument, that it was a great decision by the pianist at the reception evening to play the Krakow Nigun by the late Rabbi Calebach (which he did, and I heard it) I would have written about that too.
There are always further reasons and arguments, the Jewish Community of Warsaw has arguments behind the decision to sell the White Building and agree to it being torn down just as the town of Działoszyce had reasons to tear down the Beith Midrash near the Shul. I think that a journalist is not and can not be an advocate presenting all sides involved as they see it but a fair presenter of events as they happen and views being discussed. While no camel sees his own hump I would like to think this goal had been met now as it is still being met in my ongoing work.
I am aware of the years of dedication and hard work Dr. Gruber had given in service on these complex issues and agree that from his perspective indeed a great blessing had occurred. There is now a strong, positive interest in Jewish heritage and legacy in Poland and it encompasses many people, Jews and not. Only time will show what will this interest produce. Or, to use another snippet from his own words, who will lift the suitcase, and to where.
Many thanks for Hagay HaCohen’s report. Of course it can only touch the surface of the complexities and contradictions that are so much a part of the field of preserving Jewish cultural heritage – often in places where there are few or no Jews. I want to address here just two point, when he writes:
“There were no people there to present the city of Krakow or the Polish Ministry of Culture. To my question why this is so an old hand in Polish-Jewish relations spoke under the condition that anonymity should be kept: “I think they were simply not invited. Surely you heard Dr. Gruber state that all those here are either Jewish or honorary-Jewish, but this same mind-set does not allow in Poles who wish to be equal partners in the work of preserving and promoting Jewish heritage in Poland.”
A few clarifications are in order.
First, the conference was not about Krakow, or even Poland, but about the broad issue of managing Jewish immovable property – and especially the concerns of the Jewish communities throughout Europe – from about 20 countries in all. The previous gathering in Bratislava was almost entirely limited to representatives of Jewish communities. This conference was larger and included a somewhat more diverse group – but it was still organized and essentially funded from within the Jewish community and its supporters (The JDC, the Rothschild foundation, etc.). Certainly one goal to my mind (and was only on the advisory committee) was to encourage, inspire and teach Jewish community groups to act more creatively and responsibly in caring for their properties. We can already see some progress in this area since 2009 – the case of Zilina, Slovakia, for instance, stands out. To my knowledge some cultural heritage officials were invited – and did attend – but that was not the main purpose of the event. Others were invited and for whatever reason – did not attend.
Secondly, my one line about Jews and honorary Jews was meant as an inclusive and welcoming line – hardly a divisive challenge as my (unnamed but known) friend understood it. The idea was – and I still think it valid – than anyone who is concerned with protecting and preserving Jewish cultural heritage should be made welcome by Jews – and especially Jewish communities and organizations. After all, I was speaking in an active synagogue – and my intent was to be inclusive. My long held views about partnerships and inclusion are well known. The intent of my remark was to embrace and empower non-Jews – whether Christians, atheists or whatever – if they were willing and even eager to do the right thing by Jeiwsh heritage. When I work on Italian heritage I am pleased when Italian friends include me as an “honorary Italian.” I was thrilled once when an Irish ambassador called me an “honorary Irishman.”
The suggestion, however, that Poles (or others) might be engaged in protecting and preserving Jewish heritage sites for their our purposes, protecting what they perceive as their own culture, must be accepted – but still critiqued. I am the first to say that Jewish heritage is part of Polish heritage – but to accept Jewish heritage as Polish heritage without acknowledged and understanding the Jewish component would be wrong. That is why I always say it is not enough to save a Jewish site – one must also explain it. This an area where we have a long way to go. I applaud the efforts of the mayor of Działoszyce to protect the former synagogue ruin (and I deplore that the Jewish community of Katowice, and other local and international Jewish groups had done nothing beofre), but I also wait for some kind of signage that gives meaning to the ruin. It is not some Romantic garden folly – if its a ruin, than it must be a commemorative one.
In 2013 more than two decades after the fall of Communism, we are blessed that hundreds – maybe thousands of non-Jewish and non-religiously observant Jews have engaged themselves in Jewish heritage projects. There involvement should be part of a cultural exchange; a continuing dialog. But I still am happy to think of all these people in some way as honorary Jews. They have in some way asked or acted to – if not “join the club” – at least to enter the clubhouse. Of course, as a preservationist, I encourage them. But as a Jew, I welcome them all.