The “Canadian Jewish Chronicle”, of Dec. 12, dwelling on a statement made recently by an American Jew to the effect that the restriction of immigration will be beneficial to the Jews in America because it “will help release the resources in effort and money that can well be spent in religious and cultural work”, expresses its indignation that Jews should hold such a point of view.
“The money that American Jewry spent on Americanization work amongst immigrants and even the vast sums contributed to the relief of European Jewry, has not made any very serious dent in its resources. There was still enough money to be raised in America to supply the needs of American Jewry for a Jewish education. The great need for Jewish knowledge in America was not so apparent while the Jewish stream was kept from drying up by the constant influx of Jews from Europe.
“By this stream of European immigration, Orthodox Judaism was kept supplied with manpower to carry on its work. Reform Jewry depended for its members upon those Jews who were beginning to be somewhat assimilated and who stepped into the breach created in the ranks of Reform by those Jews who had become wholly assimilated. European Jewry was keeping Judaism in America alive”, says the “Jewish Chronicle”.
ASSIMILATION VS. AMERICANIZATION
Recurring to Professor Charles W. Eliot’s address before the Harvard Zionist Society, of which it treated editorially a few days ago, the “Jewish Daily News” of Dec. 17, dwelling on the protest of the Irish against Professor Eliot’s statement that they and the Jews do not assimilate in this country, says:
“So far no Jews have protested against the famous educator, though we are certain there are some Jews who are displeased with his statement. Many will assume that Professor Eliot’s assertion that the Jews and the Irish do not assimilate was an implication that they are not as good Americans as others are. This is certainly not what Professor Eliot meant. Americanization and assimilation are two distinct terms which are frequently, and regrettably, confused. Professor Eliot employed these terms in their true conception, the conception which liberal minded persons should have.”
THE LATE PROFESSOR NEUMARK
The death of Professor David Neumark is being commented on editorially and in feature articles in all Jewish papers. The “Day” of Dec. 18 considers Professor Neumark’s passing a national loss to the Jewish people.
“Professor Neumark gave his whole life to the work of research in the realm of Jewish spiritual life, of Jewish philosophy and Jewish religion. It is more than the work of a scholar. It is the work of national culture. If with other people research work in the field of culture is merely an additament, a beautifying of the actualities of life, it is a necessity, an absolute prerequisite for us Jews.
“We do not possess too many great men of spirit in American Jewry, we are not blessed with too many builders of culture. The place occupied in American Jewish life by Professor Neumark cannot be filled.”
The Executive Committee of the Eastern Medical Society gave a dinner to Dr. Abraham Strachstein, the retiring President, at the Hotel Commodore, New York. The incoming President, Dr. Nathan Ratnoff, was the toastmaster and speeches were made by Dr. Joseph Saphir and Dr. M. J. Robinson. A gold watch was presented to Dr. Strachstein.