Uncategorized
How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports
(JTA) — Decades before Sandy Koufax sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur, and 18 years before Greenberg chased Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record in the late 1930s, a college athlete made some overlooked Jewish sports history.
Arnold Horween, a burly Chicagoan, became the first Jewish captain of the Harvard University football team in 1920 — an achievement that sent ripples through American culture.
Horween, who would later play and coach in the early years of what would become the NFL, was born to Jewish immigrants from Ukraine. He became a star player at Harvard, helping the Crimson go undefeated in both 1919 and 1920 after returning from serving in World War I. (His brother Ralph also played at Harvard and in the NFL, and they were the first and only Jewish brothers to play in the NFL until Geoff and Mitchell Schwartz.)
But it was Horween’s unanimous selection as the team’s captain, and more importantly, his appointment in 1926 as the team’s coach, that would prove unprecedented.
“In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson, the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes,” said Zev Eleff, the president of Gratz College and a scholar of American Jewish history.
Eleff explores Horween’s story and its impact in his recent book, “Dyed in Crimson: Football, Faith, and Remaking Harvard’s America,” released earlier this year. He traces the history of Harvard athletics in the early 1900s, exploring how Horween, along with Harvard’s first athletic director, Bill Bingham, altered the landscape of America’s most prestigious college.
Horween’s ascendance came at a time when Harvard instituted quotas to limit the number of Jewish and other minority students it accepted — a practice the school would employ throughout the 1920s and 30s. His story also took place amid a political landscape that featured the rise of Father Charles Coughlin, the antisemitic “radio priest,” and the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Eleff underscores in the book, Horween did not fit the model of a “Boston Brahmin,” the class of elite, Christian, aspirationally manly men whose supremacy was unquestioned at Harvard Yard. Horween broke that mold, instead instilling a team culture where a love of the sport was almost as important as winning — the Ted Lasso effect, if you will.
“Dyed in Crimson” also uses early 20th century Harvard as an allegory for the broader theme of how sports can change society.
“The theme of the book, something that’s uniquely American, is how the periphery can influence the mainstream,” said Eleff. “How people on the sidelines can really make an influence.”
Eleff spoke to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about how Horween’s story fits into the pantheon of Jewish American sports legends and what it says about Jews’ ability to succeed in America.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Let’s dig into Horween’s story. I liked the idea of him as like an earlier version of Koufax or a Greenberg, but to be honest, I had never heard of him. Why do you think his story isn’t as well known as other Jewish athletes?
I think it has everything to do with the emergence of Major League Baseball. College football was America’s sport in the 1910s and 1920s. It was a big money sport, when there was very little money outside of the New York Yankees. And I think that Horween’s star started to sort of decline with Harvard football, but also the emergence of other sports.
The other reason is because the idea of the Jewish ballplayer loomed large. The New York Giants, for decades, tried to identify a Jewish superstar. They actually passed on Greenberg. There was a thought after Greenberg that there was Jewish DNA for baseball, and the signing of Koufax was directly linked to this notion. It was this eugenics-like link that you need a Jewish ballplayer. For the Giants, it was ticket sales. So the commotion about Greenberg and Koufax is more about Jewish identity. And baseball is, as a professional sport in New York, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, different than college football, particularly in New England at this time. Frankly, Jews lived near the Polo Grounds, they didn’t live near Harvard Yard.
Arnold Horween shown in The Baltimore Sun on November 16, 1927. (Wikimedia Commons)
For Horween, obviously he’s not at the level of a Greenberg or Koufax talent-wise, but he also didn’t seem to care as much personally about his Jewish identity. You write in the book that there were some Jews who took issue with the fact that Horween was not practicing, but there were also many Jews who were simply proud he was Jewish. What do you think about that dynamic?
There becomes a sort of disconnect between lived religion and the perception and what they come to represent — the mantle that they wear almost towers above the practice. Horween eschewed the opportunity to claim the mantle of Jewish leadership, Jewish celebrity. But we do see in its moment that he is the topic of rabbinic sermons, that The American Hebrew and other Jewish press are reporting on him. They are elated. In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson — it’s hard for people to realize, but in the moment when they were part of the big three [alongside Princeton and Yale] — the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes.
One of the parts of this book that I enjoyed learning about is the extent to which college football in the early 20th century was all about honor, masculinity, gentlemanliness. And at the time, that kind of stands in contrast to how Jews were viewed — that Jews were not masculine, Jews couldn’t fit into that mold of the “Harvard man.”
Being on the sports team, that was probably far beyond Jewish expectations. Not to say that Jews could not be athletic, but very often the varsity players weren’t picked for their talent but rather their surnames. What the sea change at Harvard is, [within] gentlemanly culture — in which “gentlemanly” is a Protestant, Christian masculinity — Horween is not Protestant. What allows him a pathway into that elite group is that drive to win. And as a player, he’s good luck. He never loses. He becomes a signature player for victory who even wins the Rose Bowl.
But as a coach, he subverts that. What he and Bill Bingham do is their campaign isn’t necessarily for winning, it’s for having fun, it’s for enjoying the game.
In the 1910s and 20s, college football was the peak of American sports, but that’s certainly not the case anymore. What do you think would be the modern comparison for someone like Horween?
Is Becky Hammon with the Spurs, the first woman [to act as] head coach in basketball, something like that? Or the very important discussions about people of color as coaches in the NFL? Sports and education are, for some reason or another, where change is made in American life. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 ends, at least officially, segregation. Title IV, what is basically American law for anti-discrimination based on sex, is based on women’s college sports. You have the breaking down of color barriers and Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Vietnam. You have the first [openly] gay athletes, you have questions of breaking the glass ceiling for women and Serena Williams.
It’s absolutely 100% true that sports doesn’t matter. Who wins the World Series is of no great consequence to most people’s lives. Although it’s interesting, if you drive up I-95 on a Sunday, you will see that the bumper stickers and the flags change. There is some sort of passion, obviously, about sport. But it’s absolutely true that for some reason or another in the 20th century and 21st century in American sport, really important social and cultural decisions, and political decisions, are made in American sport.
Zev Eleff, president of Gratz College and author of “Dyed in Crimson.” (Courtesy)
Another main topic in the book is that the goal for immigrants, especially Jews, was Americanization, assimilation — that to become part of the mainstream was the marker of success. But that seems to be the case for Jews in a very different sense than it is for Catholics and for Blacks.
The major contribution of this book to American Jewish history beyond telling this story is to complicate notions of Americanization. Jews and Catholics in particular view Americanization very, very differently. The Catholic experience is to create parallel systems. If you’re a good Catholic boy with immense football talent, play for Notre Dame, play for Boston College. Don’t play for the Protestant mainstream. Cream them on the football field. Create parallel systems.
The Jewish experience is not so. Outside of Orthodox day schools in the early 20th century, it was anathema, it was considered almost heretical, for American Jews to [go] to private schools. To the contrary, the so-called golden citadels of the public schools — that is the agent of Americanization. Jews don’t establish their own educational systems. They somehow Americanize and acculturate into the mainstream. We don’t compete with Harvard, we get into Harvard.
Thinking about the antisemitism of that time — the quotas, Father Coughlin, all of that — how do you think that compares to what we’re seeing today?
Historians disagree about the 1920s. Was it a time of great prominence of American Jews? There was affluence in the roaring ’20s. There were institutions that were created, there was creativity, from the Orthodox and Mordecai Kaplan certainly, across the board, the Jewish Theological Seminary. American Judaism was at a certain high point in the 1920s. At the same time, there were quotas, and there was rising antisemitism. I think today we also have to deal with the tension of, on the one hand, there are great opportunities for Jews in the United States; at the same time, there is antisemitism. And so from the 1920s to the 2020s, 100 years later, you see a model for how to grapple with those tensions.
What do you hope, more than anything else, someone takes away or learns from your book?
It’s a book that begins like a punch line: a working class Protestant, a Catholic and a Jew walk into a football field. But it ends with something I think a lot more pronounced, which is, it’s a story about change. As a historian, I study change, particularly in American Judaism, broadly in American religion and Jewish Studies. Change is the best asset that a historian has to study. I wasn’t interested in just finding another Sandy Koufax story, replicating that story. This is a story that isn’t just about a Jew who happened for his moment to become quite successful and quite famous, or a Catholic or a former mill hand turned first athletic director in college history. It’s really about how people on the periphery influence the mainstream.
—
The post How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Trump endorses Brandon Herrera, Texas GOP candidate who owned copy of ‘Mein Kampf’
(JTA) — President Trump on Thursday endorsed Brandon Herrera, the de facto GOP nominee for a Texas congressional district whose past comments about Nazis have drawn scrutiny.
“Brandon is strongly supported by many Highly Respected MAGA Warriors in Texas, and Republicans in the U.S. House,” the president wrote on his social network Truth Social about the gun-enthusiast YouTuber. Trump added that Herrera would “[p]rotect our always under siege Second Amendment” and concluded, “HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”
Herrera won his primary race after his opponent, incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales, admitted to having conducted an affair with a former staffer who later died by suicide. Gonzales withdrew from his reelection bid, which was scheduled for a runoff, as a House investigation opened into his conduct.
Herrera is best known for his Second Amendment advocacy that has included criticizing a gun-control bill drafted in the wake of the 2022 Uvalde school shooting in the district he hopes to lead. His output has also included reviews of Nazi-era weaponry, a recreation of Hitler’s suicide, and the occasional Holocaust joke.
In 2024, on his own podcast, Herrera also discussed owning a copy of “Mein Kampf,” Hitler’s manifesto. The resurfaced clip recently raised eyebrows, though Herrera and the other podcast hosts lauded Dorothy Thompson, an American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany who panned the book in 1939, and joked about his remarks being edited to sound like he was a Nazi. Herrera recently said he didn’t agree with its “teachings.”
During their 2024 matchup, Gonzales had called his opponent a “known neo-Nazi,” which Herrera disputes. Trump’s endorsement of Herrera stands in contrast to the Republican Jewish Coalition, whose spokesperson told Jewish Insider will continue to oppose him.
A spokesperson for Herrera’s campaign rejected accusations of antisemitism in a statement to the Texas Tribune.
“Brandon has never done or said anything antisemitic, and he has earned the support of leaders in the Jewish community,” campaign manager Kimmie Gonzalez told the news outlet. “In Brandon’s work as a historical firearms educator, he has simulated the execution and poisoning of Adolf Hitler. The misleading clip about Brandon’s rare book collection omits his comments ridiculing and condemning Hitler’s book.”
The campaign did not immediately return a Jewish Telegraphic Agency request to specify which Jewish communal leaders are supporting Herrera. Texas’s 23rd Congressional District stretches across the state’s southwestern region and includes parts of San Antonio and the outskirts of El Paso.
With Herrera on the ballot, Democrats, running attorney and former schoolteacher Katy Padilla Stout, see a pickup opportunity in a traditionally red district. Padilla Stout recently opposed Trump’s strikes on Iran, calling the action “a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution” in a statement that did not mention Israel. Some Democratic party staffers are already painting her opponent as “Mein Kampf loving Brandon Herrera.”
The post Trump endorses Brandon Herrera, Texas GOP candidate who owned copy of ‘Mein Kampf’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mourning the victims of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
דעם 25סטן מערץ וועט ווערן 105 יאָר זינט דער שרעקלעכער טראַגעדיע — די שׂריפֿה אינעם טרײַענגל־שוירטווייסט־פֿאַבריק, אין 1911. 146 יונגע אַרבעטאָרינס, ס׳רובֿ ייִדישע און איטאַליענישע, זענען אומגעקומען, ווען די טיר, וואָס האָט באַדאַרפֿט בלײַבן אָפֿן זיך צו ראַטעווען אין אַזאַ פֿאַל, האָבן די סוועטשאַפּ־באַלעבאַטים געהאַלטן פֿאַרשלאָסן.
צו יענער צײַט, האָט דער פּאָעט מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד געאַרבעט אין „פֿאָרווערטס“ סײַ ווי אַ זשורנאַליסט, סײַ ווי אַ פּאָעט. ער איז אָנגעקומען צו דער שׂרפֿה, בעת די טראַגעדיע איז פֿאָרגעקומען און האָט במשך פֿון עטלעכע וואָכן געשריבן עטלעכע אַרטיקלען און לידער וועגן דער טראַגעדיע. מיר דרוקן דאָ אַן אויסצוג פֿון זײַן אַרטיקל, וואָס איז געווען געדרוקט אויף דער ערשטער זײַט פֿונעם „פֿאָרווערטס“, אַ וואָך נאָך דער טראַגעדיע, און אַן אויסצוג פֿון אַ פּאָעמע וואָס ער האָט געשריבן אין אָנדענק פֿון די אומגעקומענע מיידלעך.
זינט עס זײַנען אין ניו־יאָרק איבער הונדערט לעבנס פֿאַרברענט געוואָרן צוליב דער צוגעשלאָסענער טיר, וואָס האָט לויט דעם געזעץ געזאָלט זײַן אָפֿן, קוק איך מיט פֿאַרדאַכט אויף אַ טיר, אויפֿן געזעץ און אויף פֿײַער.
איך באַטראַכט זיי אַלע פֿאַר איבעריקע זאַכן.
וואָס טויג מיר אַ טיר, אַז זי איז פֿאַרשפּאַרט? וואָס טויג דאָס געזעץ ווען מען פֿירט אים נישט דורך? און פֿײַער… יאָ, מיר דאַכט, אַז מענטשן ווייסן נישט וואָס צו טאָן מיט זייער פֿײַער…
איך האָב פֿון אייביק אָן געוווּסט, אַז מיט פֿײַער שפּילט מען זיך נישט. איצט אָבער ציטער איך פֿאַר דעם וואָרט פֿײַער. איך קען קיין נאַכט נישט שלאָפֿן. פֿײַערדיקע חלומות שרעקן מיך, זיי פֿאַרברענען מײַן מנוחה און איך ליג און שוידער.
מיר דאַכט, אַז הימל און ערד האַלטן אין אײַן ברענען, אַז עס פֿלאַקערן די זון, די לבֿנה און די שטערן, אַז די מלאכים שפּרינגען ברענענדיק פֿון די הימלשע פֿענצטער אויף דער ערד און פֿאַלן אַרונטער טויטע… און די אַמבולאַנסן פֿירן זיי אַוועק אין מאָרג (מתים־שטיבל).
מיר דאַכט, אַז גאָט אַליין איז אײַנגעהילט אין אַ פֿײַערדיקן טלית און ברענט. ברענט און גיסט מיט פֿײַערדיקע טרערן, וואָס פֿאַלן אַרײַן און פֿאַרלירן זיך אין זײַן וועלטן־גרויסער, פֿלאַקערדיקער באָרד, און פֿון זײַנע נאָזלעכער זעצט אַ רויך ווי פֿון אַ צוויי וווּלקאַנען.
איך זע ווי די גאַנצע פּמליא־של־מעלה קרימט זיך, דרייט זיך מיט גסיסה־שמערצן אין אַ ים פֿלאַמען, ווי די כּרובֿים און שׂרפֿים און חיות־הקודש צאַפּלען מיט די פֿלאַמענדיקע פֿעדערן, רײַסן זיך די אָנגעצונדענע האָר פֿון די ברענענדיקע קעפּ און קלאַפּן פֿאַרצווייפֿלט מיט די רויטע, פֿײַערדיקע פֿליגל אין אַ שווערער, גרויסער, אײַזערנער טיר און די טיר איז פֿאַרשלאָסן… דער שׂטן האָט איר פֿאַרשלאָסן און באַהאַלטן דעם שליסל…
איך זע ווי די „אופֿנים“ און „גלגלים“, די „הימלשע רעדער“ דרייען זיך און פֿלאַקערן, און מיר דאַכט, אַז דאָס זײַנען שנײַדער־מאַשינען, און אין די ברענענדיקע, צום טויט־שפּרינגנדיקע מלאכים דערקען איך די פּנימער פֿון די פֿאַרשׂרפֿעטע אַרבעטער־מיידלעך, די טעכטער פֿון דער ייִדישער גאַס אין דער בלוטיקער פֿון פֿרויען־יאַקעס פֿון וואַשינגטאָן פּלייס.
איך שרײַ, איך ליאַרעם, איך וויין, איך פֿלוך, איך לאַך און כאַפּ זיך אויף אין היסטעריע.
פֿײַער… פֿײַער…
וואָס איז אייגנטלעך פֿײַער? איז דאָס אַ ברכה? איז דאָס אַ קללה?
די תּורה איז געגעבן געוואָרן אין פֿײַער, די אינקוויזיציע האָט געהערשט אין פֿײַער.
פֿײַער איז די נשמה פֿון דער וועלט. אין פֿײַער גייט אויף דער טאָג און מיט אַ פֿײַער פֿאַרגייט ער.
דאָס לעבן פֿון יעדן באַשעפֿעניש איז פֿײַער.
דער מענטש, אין וועמען זײַן פֿײַער האָט אויסגעברענט, דער האָט אויפֿגעהערט צו „זײַן“.
אַפֿילו די מילב האָט אין זיך אַ קליינעם לאָקאָמאָטיוועלע מיט פֿײַער, וואָס טרײַבט איר דורכן לעבן.
ליבע איז פֿײַער, דענקען — פֿײַער, אַרבעט — פֿײַער, האַס — פֿײַער, ראַכע (נקמה) — פֿײַער. אַלץ איז פֿײַער, אַפֿילו דאָס וואַסער: מיר גיסן אין זיך וואַסער צו פֿאַרלענגערן אונדזער פֿײַער. די דורשטיקע ערד טרינקט וואַסער, כּדי צו האָבן גענוג פֿײַער אַרויסצוגעבן אירע געוויקסן.
איך קען דאָס קלענסטע ליד נישט זינגען, ווען איך זאָל נישט דערפֿילן אין דער נשמה אַ ברען, אַ פֿײַער, דעם הייליקן פֿײַער פֿון שאַפֿן.
איך פֿאַרגעטער דעם פֿײַער, ער איז דער סימבאָל פֿון טעטיקייט, פֿון שטרעבן, פֿון שטײַגן, פֿון גיין אַרויף, הויך, הויך הימלווערטס…
אָבער איך פֿאַרער נאָר אין פֿײַער דאָס שאַפֿערישע און נישט דאָס צעשטערנדיקע. איך בענטש אים ווען ער גיט, אָבער נישט ווען ער נעמט. איך בענטש אים אויפֿן סיני און פֿלוך אים (שעלט אים) אויפֿן שײַטער־הויפֿן.
איצט פֿאַרדאַם איך אים. ער האָט פֿאַרצערט אַ פֿאַבריק מיט אַרבעטער־מיידלעך. ער האָט פֿאַרוואַנדלט ניו־יאָרק אין אַ לוויה־שטאָט און איז געוואָרן די קללה פֿון דער מענטשהייט.
ברעכט אויף די טיר און באַפֿרײַט זיך!
און אָט איז דאָס ליד וואָס משה ראָזענפֿעלד האָט דעמאָלט אָנגעשריבן:
די פֿאַרשלאָסענע טיר (פֿײַער־געדאַנקען איבער פֿאַרברענטע אַרבעטער)
דער פֿײַער בושעוועט אָן שיעור
עס זעצט דער רויך, די העל דערוואַכט.
מען שפּאַרט זיך צו דער רעטונגס־טיר,
אומזיסט! אָ, וויי, זי איז פֿאַרמאַכט!
מען שרײַט, מען ראַנגלט זיך, מען פֿאַלט,
אין טײַוולס בלוטיקן געצעלט.
מען בלײַבט אין זײַן פֿאַרפֿלוכטן גוואַלט,
אַיעדער אויסגאַנג איז פֿאַרשטעלט.
מען לויפֿט, מען ווייס אַליין ניט וווּ,
און יעדע האָפֿענונג איז גענאַרט.
די שווערע גיהנום־טיר איז צו,
דער אַשמדאַי האָט איר פֿאַרשפּאַרט.
ניט רופֿט דעם שוואַרצן שד צום דין!
אַ שאָד די מי, ער איז גערעכט…
צו דער פֿאַרמאַכטער טיר אַהין!..
און אַלע, פּונקט ווי איינער, ברעכט!
מען בלײַבט אין דעם גיהנום־בראַנד
כּל־זמן דער שלאָס איז אים געטרײַ…
קומט אַלע גלײַך, לייגט צו אַ האַנט!
ברעכט אויף די טיר און איר זײַט פֿרײַ…
די העל איז נאָר אַ העל ווי לאַנג
דער שלאָס פֿון טײַוול הענגט אויף איר.
געפֿערלעך איז איר פֿלאַם, איר צוואַנג
נאָר בײַ אַ צוגעמאַכטער טיר…
אַ צווייט ליד וואָס מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד האָט אָנגעשריבן וועגן דער שׂריפֿה האָט די פֿאָרשערין און זאַמלערין פֿון ייִדישע לידער, חנה מלאָטעק, אָפּגעדרוקט אינעם פֿאָרווערטס אין 2011 — פּונקט הונדערט יאָר נאָך דעם אומגליק, אינעם אַרטיקל, קינות וועגן דעם טרײַענגל־פֿײַער. דאָס ליד געפֿינט זיך אויף דער פּלאַטע „דאָס גאָלדענע לאַנד“ פֿון יאָסל מלאָטעק:
די רויטע בהלה (אויף פֿאַרברענטע פֿאַבריק־מיידלעך אין ניו־יאָרק)
ניט קיין שלאַכט, ניט קיין פֿאַרטײַוולטער פּאָגראָם
האָט אָנגעפֿילט די גרעסטע שטאָט מיט קלאָגן,
די ערד האָט ניט געציטערט אין איר תּהום,
עס האָט קיין בליץ, קיין דונער ניט געשלאָגן;
סע האָבן קיין שוואַרצע וועטער־וואָלקנס ניט געקראַכט,
און קיין קאַנאָנען ניט די לופֿט צעאַקערט —
אָ, ניין! דאָס האָט אַ מוראדיקע העל דערוואַכט,
אַ שקלאַפֿן־נעסט מיט שקלאַפֿן ווילד געפֿלאַקערט,
דאָס האָט דער גאָלד־גאָט מיט אַ בראַנד־געלעכטער
געפֿרעסן אונדזערע זין און טעכטער,
געלעקט די לעבנס מיט זײַנע רויטע צונגען —
זיי זײַנען אין דעם טויט געשפּרונגען,
אין זײַן שויס געדרונגען,
ער האָט זיי געכאַפּט, געלאַכט, געזונגען…
ער האָט זיי פֿאַרשלונגען.
* * *
זיי זײַנען געזעסן אין זייער יאָך פֿאַרטיפֿט,
זייער שווייס האָט געטריפֿט —
אין דעם פֿאַרטויבנדן געזשום
פֿון מאַשינען אַרום, —
ווען צען שטאָק אין דער הויך,
האָט זיי פֿאַרוויקלט דער רויך,
פֿאַרשפּונען דער פֿלאַם,
און אַ גלוטיקער ים
געפֿרעסן, גענאַשט,
פֿאַרקוילט, פֿאַראַשט!
* * *
שוועסטער מײַנע! יונגע שוועסטער!
מײַנע יונגע ברידער!…
טרויערט מײַנע לידער!
יאָמערט און טרויערט!…
זעט ווי עס לויערט
פֿון טונקעלע נעסטער
דעם אַרבעטערס טויט;
ווי ער האַלט זײַן ברויט…
ווי ער גלאָצט בײַ זײַן טיר,
בײַ זײַן אָרעם געצעלט —
וויי, וויי איז מיר!
וויי, וויי דיר, וועלט!
אַ שבת איז דאָס געווען,
אַן אַרבעטערס אַ שבת,
זײַן „קידוש!“… זײַן „הבֿדלה!“…
די רויטע בהלה
איז פּלוצלינג געשען,
געשיקט פֿון דעם רײַכן,
דעם פּרינץ פֿון געלט.
אָ, אָ, וויי אָן אַ גלײַכן!
פֿליסט טרערנטײַכן,
אַ פֿלוך דער אָרדענונג!
אַ פֿלוך דער אומאָרדענונג!
אַ פֿלוך דער וועלט!
* * *
אויף וועמען זאָל מען פֿריִער קלאָגן?
אויף די פֿאַרברענטע?
אויף די ניט־דערקענטע?
אויף די, וואָס קדיש זאָגן?
אויף די פֿאַרקריפּלטע,
פֿון „זײַן“ געטראָגן?
מײַן טרערנטײַך
אויף אײַך אַלעמען גלײַך!
* * *
פֿאַרהיל זיך אין שוואַרצן, דו גאָלדן לאַנד!
צו טיף דײַן פֿאַרברעכן, צו שרעקלעך דײַן שאַנד,
צו טויב דײַן געוויסן, צו בלינד דײַן געזעץ,
צו טײַוולש דײַן „האַווען“, צו בלוטיק דײַן נעץ,
דײַן נעץ, וועלכע פֿאַנגט דײַנע אָרעמע־לייט —
ס׳וועט קומען די צײַט!… ס׳וועט קומען דײַן צײַט!…
* * *
צינדט יאָרצײַט־ליכט אָן אין די ייִדישע גאַסן!
דער בראָך איז דער בראָך פֿון די ייִדישע מאַסן,
פֿון אונדזערע מאַסן פֿאַרחושכט און אָרעם.
ס׳איז אונדזער לוויה, יאָ, — אונדזערע קבֿרים,
ס׳האָט אונדזערע קינדער, וויי, אונדזערע בלומען,
דער פֿײַער פֿון אונדזערע אָרעמס גענומען.
וויי! אונדזערע ליבע פֿאַרשׂרפֿעטע קוילן,
וויי! אונדזערע פֿריידן אַ העלע מיט גרוילן,
וויי! אונדזערע גליקן אַ באַרג מיט אַרונות,
וויי! אונדזערע זיסע — גיהנום זכרונות!…
אַ צווייט ליד וואָס חנה מלאָטעק האָט דעמאָלט געדרוקט הייסט „מאַמעניו, אָדער עלעגיע פֿאַר די טרײַענגל־פֿײַער־קרבנות“, ווערטער פֿון אַנשל שאָר, מוזיק פֿון יוסל רומשינסקי:
עס רײַסט דאָס האַרץ פֿון דער שרעקלעכער פּלאָג,
ס׳ייִדישע פֿאָלק קלאָגט און וויינט, און ברעכט די הענט.
עס ברעכט אויס אַ פֿײַער, אין העלן טאָג
און הונדערטער אַרבעטער, זיי ווערן פֿאַרברענט.
די וואָס זײַנען פֿון פֿײַער אַנטרינען
האָבן שפּרינגענדיק זייער טויט געפֿינען.
די „מאָרג“ איז פֿול,
מען ווערט שיעור דיל,
ווי אַ מאַמע קלאָגט דאָרט אין דער שטיל:
— אוי־וויי, קינדעניו!
רײַסט זיך בײַ די האָר די מאַמעניו,
— צוליב דעם שטיקל ברויט
האָט אַ שרעקלעכער טויט
גערויבט מיר מײַן איינציק קינד;
טויט ליגט מײַן מיידעלע,
תּכריכים ׳שטאָט אַ חופּה־קליידעלע,
וויי איז מײַנע יאָר,
אַ קינד פֿון זעכצן יאָר,
אוי, מאַמע, מאַמע, וויי איז מיר!
חנה מלאָטעק האָט אויך אַרײַנגענומען טייל פֿון אַ ליד וואָס זי האָט באַקומען פֿון איוו סיקולאַר. די ווערטער זײַנען פֿון לויִס גילראָד און די מוזיק — פֿון ד. מייעראָוויץ. דער אָנהייב לייענט זיך אַזוי:
די שטונדע האָט געקלאַפּט,
דער שאַפּ האָט געסטאַפּט
אין דער גרויסער ווייסט־פֿעקטאָרי.
די אַרבעטער, זיי
האָבן געקראָגן די פּיי
און געאײַלט זיך אַהיימגיין פֿאַר פֿרי.
נאָר פּלוצים, אוי־וויי,
אַ שרעק, אַ געשריי,
אַ העלישער פֿײַער ברעכט אויס.
פֿון איבעראַל קומען
פֿאַרצווייפֿלטע שטימען
אַיעדער וויל פֿריִער אַרויס.
פֿײַערלײַט קלינגען,
פֿון צענטן פֿלאָר שפּרינגען
מיידלעך פֿאַר אַנגסט און פֿון נויט.
עס קראַכט אומגעהײַער
דאָס שרעקלעכע פֿײַער
און פֿאַרברענט יונגע לײַבן צום טויט.
The post Mourning the victims of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
I had a shot and rock ‘n’ roll fame — I chose a lifetime of Shabbat instead
In 1986, saying no was not part of the plan. I was 26, newly signed to Island Records, and for the first time in my life, the machinery of the music business had begun to move in my favor. My songs “Waning Moon,” “I Feel Young Today,” and “1000 Years,” from my second album Gematria, were on the radio and MTV. There was talk of tours, of opening slots with artists like Sting, Joe Cocker and Greg Allman. My job, as everyone understood it, was simple: Say yes. Yes to every opportunity, yes to every kind of exposure, yes to everything that could possibly give my career momentum.
Lou Maglia, the president of Island Records, was an old-school Italian record guy — street-smart, direct and deeply invested in the artists he believed in. I was among his first signings. He had taken me on largely because of an independent record I had made called This Father’s Day, written and recorded as tribute to my dad, who died at 54, just a day after I’d turned 24. He was my mentor and my hero. Those who say his death had much to do with my sudden turn toward observant Judaism are partly right.
The other part is that in seeking a record deal since I was 13, and then finally getting one, I discovered it wasn’t the answer to what I’d actually been searching for, which was a loving family, a clearer understanding of what my life’s purpose might be, and a deeper sense of belonging in my tribe — the Jewish people.
That’s why, one afternoon, when I walked into Lou’s office and closed the door behind me, what I said to him must have sounded incomprehensible.
“Lou, I’m starting to keep this Jewish thing called Shabbos, and I won’t be available to perform on Friday nights anymore.”
He stared at me for a moment, then burst out laughing.
“Ha! Fucking Shabbos. Ok, that’s a good one, I get it. But can we talk about these opening slots?”
It wasn’t a cruel laugh. It was the laugh of a man encountering something he had no category for. In Lou’s world, artists did all kinds of self-destructive things and made radically poor decisions. But remove themselves from the single most important performance night of the week? Never. Ever.
I was, in effect, telling him I had decided to become unavailable for my own ascent.
At the time, I couldn’t have explained my decision in any coherent way. I didn’t have the vocabulary or even the conceptual framework. All I knew was that after my dad’s death something had begun to feel hollow. Not the music. The music was real. It was everything around it. The sense that if I just kept moving forward fast enough, saying yes often enough, I’d arrive at some point where things would finally make sense. They didn’t. (I can state for the record, 40 years later, they still don’t.)
But around that same time, through a chain of introductions, I met the record producer and singer Kenny Vance, of Jay and the Americans fame. Kenny, now my dear friend, had worked with everyone, and he wasn’t shy about mentioning it.
“I used to date Diane Keaton,” he told me. “I know Woody Allen. I was the music director for Saturday Night Live. But tonight, I’m gonna take you to my main connection, a religious Jew in Brooklyn.”
I suspect he thought I’d roll my eyes at the prospect. I did nothing of the sort. I was excited.
Before long, we were crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, the lights of lower Manhattan burning behind us. We arrived at an apartment in Crown Heights where Rabbi Simon Jacobson greeted us. I connected with Simon right off the bat. His eyes reflected a paradox, an awareness that being alive was both a source of great humor and great sadness. Simon told me about his work reconstructing the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s talks from memory, highly complex talks that lasted for hours and drew on thousands of Jewish sources. The scale of it was incomprehensible to me. It belonged to a world governed by entirely different assumptions than my own.
Later that night, after Kenny, who seemed very old — I think he was 40 — got tired and left for his home in Far Rockaway, I asked Simon about the paintings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe hanging on the wall.
“What’s the deal with those pictures?” I said. “They seem sort of cultish to me.”
Simon wasn’t offended. “I enjoy them,” he said. “To me, the Rebbe is like a very inspiring grandfather.”
Makes sense, I thought.
He grew quiet, then continued. “There are people called tzadikim,” he said. “They have no sense of self. They live only to serve others. And they can do anything they wish.”
I knew enough to know he wasn’t using the colloquial tzadik, as in “What a tzadik, that Herb Shapiro. Got me such a deal on my new Firestones.”
“Really?” I asked. “Can they fly?”
Simon looked at me. He became serious.
“I’ve never seen anyone fly. But for a tzadik, flying is no greater miracle than walking.”
The remark just about toppled me. Not because it sounded weird and mystical, but because it cohered with something I had always felt, but had never heard expressed so simply: that walking itself was a miracle. That breathing, eating pancakes, taking a piss, that just being alive, was a miracle.
One could accurately say that I was the fastest person ever to join the “cult.” I went out and bought tzitzit the next day. I began keeping kosher. “One less shrimp,” was how I thought of it. Then came Shabbat observance in my dumpy railroad apartment on 47th and Eighth Avenue in Hell’s Kitchen.
Shabbat, like music, was the space between notes. A kind of purposeful interruption. For one day each week, I stopped. I stopped producing. I stopped striving. Most importantly, I stopped trying to turn success into proof of my worth. It wasn’t only about stopping work. That’s too simple. It was about remembering that I was more than my work. It felt like an authentic subversion of shallow cultural norms, something that instinctively appealed to me. It was the more truthful version of the so-called subversion that rock and roll had always only imitated.
This is why I told Lou Maglia no.
Not because I was certain, but because I had begun to understand that if I lost this, I might lose something far more essential than a career.
My friend, the late Lou Maglia, lapsed Catholic, soulful man that he was, stopped laughing. He saw that I was serious. He didn’t drop me. Far from it. He became my biggest champion. When it would have been only logical for us to play cities like Cleveland and Chicago in support of one of my recordings, Lou even helped finance my tour of the Caucasus in what was then the USSR. (Another story for another time.) He knew that my music wasn’t a posture, but a reflection of my deeply held values.
Hey Lou, if you’re up there listening, thank you. You were a beautiful man with a beautiful spirit.
People sometimes ask me if the cost to my career was worth it. There are two issues I have with the question. First, it assumes the career was the central measure of my life. Second, few ask what I received in return. I have, thank God, been blessed with a beautiful marriage, a tight-knit, loving family, grandchildren, a body of work that I could never have imagined at age 26, and time. I have been able to see the value of time and secure it as my own.
As for music, Shabbat didn’t take any of it away from me. It taught me to hear it better, write it better, and perform it better.
I have never struck a better bargain.
The post I had a shot and rock ‘n’ roll fame — I chose a lifetime of Shabbat instead appeared first on The Forward.