Chapter 8-Divisions Within Groups

One element that really stood out to me after reading chapter 8, pertained to a couple of the divisions that developed within certain groups. For one, there were the predominantly Catholic Poles who did not feel as if they were a cohesive part of the American Catholic Church at the time. Based on the reading, it seems that they felt the American Catholic Church represented other Catholic groups/interests, such as the Irish, but not the Polish. Essentially, they very much felt excluded from the church and unequal; Polish priests were not chosen to be American bishops. This exclusion naturally angered the Catholic Polish community; forming a wedge. Eventually that wedge, that division, motivated the Polish of Pennsylvania to create the Polish National Catholic Church in 1904.

I find this division so fascinating. For much of colonial America, the general attitude towards Catholicism was negative, even feared (e.g. I think of the treatment of Catholic Irish immigrants). Although that outlook gradually changed, it seems that religion, in this case the Catholic faith, would or could have served as sort of magnet for those who subscribe to it. It could have served as a means of commonality amongst a variety of immigrant groups who share the Catholic faith. Yet, as in the case of the Poles, it seemed to do the opposite. It’s difficult to ascertain all of the factors that went into this division. On the one hand, the American Catholic Church obviously played their role by not permitting or at least choosing polish priests as clergy members. And also the book discusses how the Polish had a rather strong sense of “Polish American nationalism”; they were a proud people and sought to have a church of their own comprised of their own people, priests, and governing bodies.

Another division that caught my attention had to do with the German-American  Jewish population and their Eastern European counterparts. Here again were two different and distinct groups who shared the same religion (although it could also be said that in some respects they shared a culture/ethnicity as well, due to how “Jewish” is classified). Yet, the Eastern European Jews differed from the former already-established group. They were poor and came mostly from small little rural communities in Russia. They also came from a socialist country, which can influence a people’s mentality. Lastly, while the Eastern European Jews were of course Jewish, they belonged to distinct sects of the faith, including Orthodox and Reform. So, they were their own group, a group that seemed to have little in common with the German-American Jews in some key respects.

The German-American Jewish population, as the book delves into, looked down upon the Eastern European group for their differences. They felt embarrassed by them and poked fun at their Yiddish language. It seems they thought of them as a lower class version of the Jewish population. Perhaps even more shocking, to me, was how they feared the Eastern Europeans would inadvertently fuel the already present anti- Semitism in America. Despite the tensions, however, the two groups did unite to help fight anti-Semitism and to also aid other Eastern European Jews abroad.

  Divisions within broad groups of people albeit religious or otherwise have always and will probably continue to exist. Yet, despite realizing this, its occurrence continues to bewilder me; there are so many groups outside of one’s own that hate, look down upon, that feel animosity toward, tension, etc. that the last thing anyone seems to want is members within their own group to assume these sorts of feelings/attitudes. It seems logical that members of a group should support one; they should be allies. Yet this is difficult if not impossible when no one belongs to any one group. There are many groups that individuals belong to and that help define them. Sometimes the religious ones unite, yet other times it is the cultural, ethnic, or national ones that outshine the others.