The Next Generation

On April 13, the AJR arranged a gathering at Hannah Karminski House which, both with regard to the subject and to the average age of the audience, differed from the usual meetings of the AJR. The function was prompted by the publication of Karen Gershon’s book: ” We came as Children—A Collective Autobiography of Refugees ” (Gollancz 1966). Parts of the book had come as a surprise to some readers, because they seemed to indicate that integration was even limited for many of those who had spent their formative years in this country. The object of the meeting was an informal exchange of views on this subject among members of the younger generation. Only a limited number of people could be invited. They included some who had come over with children’s transports ; others had arrived with their parents or were born in this country. The proporition of those who had accepted the invitation was particularly high. After the audience had been welcomed by the Chairman of the AJR, Mr. A. S. Dresel, Mr. W. Rosenstock introduced Karen Gershon. He described her work as a most important contribution to the historiography of our community. One of the points to be discussed at the meeting, he stated, was, to what extent the reports published in the book were representative of the younger generation. Referring to certain difficulties some of the children had to go through during the first years after their arrival, he pointed out that the older refugees were not entirely free of guilt, because they could probably have done more for those refugee children who had left their own families behind. Karen Gershon recounted personal experiences which, in her view, showed that quite a few former refugees of her age group were particularly vulnerable and inclined to attribute any difficulties they might encounter to their foreign origin, especially as far as they had still retained their foreign accent. The proper equilibrium, she maintained, could only be achieved by the generation of their children. After her deliberately short introduction Karen Gershon answered a variety of questions raised by the audience in the course of a most vivid discussion. Was integration easier for those who had stayed together in groups or special refugee schools and who could therefore lean on each other, or for those who were dispersed and got to know their environment from the very beginning? Was it easier for those who had been too young to strike roots abroad prior to their emigration or for the older ones who were better equipped to fend for themselves? Some referred to the ” scars ” they had to live with, others described the initial difficulties as a challenge which had strengthened their personalities. One speaker warned against considering the difference of background as an impediment; a country like England had always respected members of minority groups who retained their characteristics. It was also stated that often the choice of the marriage partner had been influenced by the refugee status, though in opposite directions: some married fellow refugees because the common destiny facilitated mutual understanding; others had married English Gentiles because — consciously or sub-consciously — they expected that this would make final integration easier for them. Several speakers stressed that the problem was not limited to the dichotomy between the Continental origin and the English environment, but that the Jewish element also played a most important part, not only for those who wanted to retain their Jewish identity but also, as we know only too well from our experience in Germany, for those who tried to escape it. There was not sufficient time to consider this aspect in greater detail. It involves the complicated question of the substance of Jewishness, a vexing problem especially for those whose religious leanings are weak or even non-existent and who do not consider themselves as Israelis abroad either. It might be worthwhile to devote a special discussion to this question which, as we know, is particularly on the minds of many younger people. The paramount impression of the gathering was that most members of the next generation have achieved a happy equilibrium between the values of their background and of their environment. Those who considered their Continental birth or parentage as a handicap were definitely in the minority. On the other hand, almost all speakers, including those already born in this country, confirmed that their origin put them into a specific position. However, they did not consider this as a misfortune but, on the contrary, as an enrichment of their lives. It opened vistas for them, which were not as easily accessible to others, and they realised that they would render a disservice to themselves if they tried to suppress any of the elements by which their personalities had been moulded. All those present felt that the evening had served a useful purpose. It was therefore a step in the right direction on the part of the AJR that it provided a platform for this ” teach-in”. It would be appreciated if any readers who are of the opinion that the gathering should be followed up by further occasional meetings, at which the questions under discussion could be enlarged upon, would get in touch with the AJR. It is hoped that the feeling of belonging which became evident at the meeting will also be beneficial for the general work of the AJB. though this was not the actual object of the function. The AJR will have to cope with many essential tasks for a long time to come. However, those who are now in charge have gradually to be replaced by younger people. A rejuvenation of the rank-and-file and, above all, of the group of active fellow-workers is therefore increasingly important. Any offers of support and help will be greatly welcomed.