Talk:History of Poles in the United States

exile of Polish protestants or Polish Brethren
I probably didn't help this by linking directly from Polish Protestants to the Polish Brethren. The Polish Brethren were identified as a very pious group with a homegrown following among ethnic Poles. I know they were targeted and effectively banished. However, the notion that laws on the practice of Protestantism did not exist, is not true. Polish Lutherans in particular were identified as Swedish sympathizers, and I suspect that Polish Calvinists, non-denominational Protestants, etc. experienced some of that push to convert or leave. I'll do more research, but the source I cited mentioned a strong rebuke of Lutheranism (official church in Sweden) following the Deluge.Pola.mola (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Description of anything requires description of more than one part or a form, especially minor one. If Polish Protestants had been exiled there would have been no major Protestants cities in Poland like Tumult of Thorn (Toruń) 66 years later. If you have info about an exile other Protestant groups from Poland it will be very interesting and new for me. If the chapter describes pushing out other groups of Protestants I will not protest against Pushing out Polish Protestants or any title which describes what the chapter contains. PawełS (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're approaching this from a nuanced position, although Protestantism was less and less tolerated, if not effectively exiled. The Polish Brethren (a separatist Protestant group closest to Calvinism) were decimated after the Deluge. They were explicitly exiled. I have proof of complete banishment (violence, killing, and legal prosecution) for the practice of their religion in Poland . I even found a Sejm decree (universal agreement) legally banishing the Polish Brethren in 1658. In the case of the Polish Brethren, their church was so far out of acceptance that preachers were prosecuted and courts shut down their churches and schools even in Protestant Prussia, which was largely Lutheran. I suspect we're both in agreement that they were exiled.


 * Protestantism on the whole declined in Poland, and there were documented mobs, violence, and legal prosecution against preachers, churches, and religious schools including the Tumult of Thorn (Toruń) article you shared. In Torun, where Polish Protestants had militias safeguarding their church, they were in struggle even without belonging to more radical denominations like the Polish Brethren. The sources I have cited give evidence that most Poles immigrating to America at that time (the 17th century) were Protestants, including Calvinists, Moravians, etc and religious freedom is cited as a factor in their decisions. Anti-Lutheran sentiment was very high during and after the Deluge (Lwów Oath), although they were not approached as harshly as the Polish Brethren. Calvinists and their delegates were removed entirely from the Sejm in 1718, meaning they had no political representation, and Protestants in northern Poland faced skirmishes following the Deluge. Let me know what else you'd like me to find; you're correct in saying that I won't find evidence that all Protestant denominations were exiled, because it didn't happen. However, I want to show it was bigger than the Polish Brethren, and that religious freedom was a motivating factor for some Polish Protestant immigrants.--Pola.mola (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Coal Age remittances
The remittances were not just sent to Poland, the cited article states that:
 * "Statistics gathered as to the money sent abroad from Wilkes-Barre during the first six months of 1914, before the outbreak of the war, leads to the conclusion that an outflow of nearly $10,000,000 a year from the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania has been stopped."
 * "The greater part of this was formerly remitted to Russia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Greece and the Balkan States. The sums sent to the Suwalki region in Russia, [...] were especially heavy. [...]"
 * "All the money sent abroad from the anthracite coal region is saved out of the wages of the foreign-born workers in the anthracite mines. [...] Local bankers state that the maximum remittances were made a decade ago, when laborers were more accustomed to work here for a few years and then retire to their native lands on their savings. [...]"

There are no estimated figure for was sent back to Poland in the cited source. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC); modified 23:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please restate the question.-Pola.mola (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a brain freeze. See my correction. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, got it. The Coal Age source does not give good records on each country, and you're right that it serves as a description of the industry, with various other nations involved in remittances. Brian McCook's book comes to mind as a good source, but it is not immediately available. I'll have to get back to you on this. We can revise the language to reflect the fact that World War II disrupted the outflow of money going to Poland, or give a figure of the total from the anthracite region as an estimated $10,000,000 a year, where the majority of coal miners were immigrants and a large proportion were Poles. - Pola.mola (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The steel workers by Fitch
As far as I can see, the word "Poles" occurs twice in the "Industrial organization under the non-union régime" chapter of The steel workers by Fitch. There is discussion of Slavs and other foreign laborers. I do not think the source supports the paragraph. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source more closely represents a description of the industry, but Poles were in fact included, as are Slavs. -Pola.mola (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the Pittsburgh Survey uses "Slav" to include Poles. [source see http://books.google.com/books?id=cG0fshqiaEQC&pg=PA223 ]  Poles were by far the largest Slavic subgroup in Pittsburg. The survey explains why Slavs dominated the unskilled roles in steel--as the Poles did in Pittsburgh, Gary, Detroit, Milwaukee etc . Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a footnote is needed to explain that Fitch is discussing unskilled labor by Slavs and Magyars in general and not Poles specifically.

I know intuitively that the paragraph is correct and that it applied to Poles – but the paragraph needs support from a source without synthesis, i.e. it is a logical fallacy that if unskilled laborers were Slavs and Magyars, and if Poles are a subset of Slavs, then what is written about Slavs and Magyars generally applies to Poles specifically. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Temperament in Winter
All Winter wrote on that page was:
 * "An extremeness in temperament is a characteristic of the Slav. It can be traced in the Russian as well as in the Pole."

Winter describes this temperament as:
 * "In the midst of the most autocratic government in the world, we find the most democratic institution—the village commune. A people naturally good-natured and charitable in their views are guilty of the most cruel punishments on the part of the government, and of almost inhuman reprisals on the part of subjects. So it is and always has been with the Poles."

Winter was writing in 1913, serfs were really emancipated in the Russian Empire in 1906 when communal responsibility for the payment of taxes was abolished – just 7 years before Winter published his book. I think memories of abuse and debasement of serfs were fresh in peoples minds. I think Winter was writing about obshchina and not about stereotypes or an "inborn and unchangeable personality trait". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, Winter does give some historical context and writes about the Poles from a historical point of view. In describing "an extremeness in temperament", he did not write with the distance of an objective historian. In the modern context, few historians would present the personalities of an ethnic group without expressing it as a stereotype or popular notion. There are other sources which speak about this "extremeness in temperament",, but Winter did it in 1913, and his source is one from a historian. The word temperament itself connotes that a trait is inborn. I agree his view was more nuanced than a simple stereotype, but many other sources were not.-Pola.mola (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the early 20th century usage of the term temperament is unintelligible now, in the 21st century, e.g. p. 224 of the source you suggested here, states: "The torpedo has temperament and individuality but frequent grooming keeps it in proper trim." I have no understanding about what that author means. Likewise, I have no understanding, what "extremeness in temperament" without qualifications about what that means. I think it is senseless for an average reader?
 * Anwrote in 1894:
 * "The Germans as a nation are typically of the vital temperament, and from intermarriage with the same temperament they have developed excesses of appetite, as instance their beer drinking. Almost the same disadvantage exists among the Irish where the sanguine phase of the vital temperament predominates. The result is shown in the proportion noted for high tempers." (here).
 * This was describing temperament and phrenology.
 * Another author wrote in 1908:
 * The refusal to assimilate is "by very reason of their fiery and often visionary temperament and their lack of moderation." (p. 531)
 * then juxtaposed that Henryk Sienkiewicz wrote that "a Slav [and the Poles are Slavs] acquire the habit and he will drink himself into an early grave."
 * "But no faults of Polish racial social or political character can excuse political injustice towards a people who have notably stood for liberty, who have been the bulwark of Christianity in eastern Europe, the shelter of the jews, the rescuer of Austria from the enslavement of the Turk, and last, not least, an aid in our own Revolution." (p. 532)
 * "Despite all changes, the Poles remain, whether in Russia, Prussia, or Austria, a distinct individual, and unconquered people." (p. 532)
 * "One might think that Russia would understand better, because Russians and Poles are closely allied Slavs in temperament, language, and customs." (p. 532)
 * Here temperament is also mentioned and the usage seems just as narrow-minded about assimilation of Poles by Germans. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I still would define Winter's work as giving characterizations, which is not as loaded a term such as "stereotype". - Pola.mola (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The new immigration by Roberts
Roberts (p. 61) is discussing "Slav and the Magyar, the Italian and the Lithuanian, the Hebrew and the Roumanian, the Greek and the Albanian" and not Poles specifically.
 * They "supplied the call for men, strong of body, docile of heart, willing in disposition, to do coarse, dirty, and dangerous work. The consensus of opinion of superintendents and foremen who have used these men is, that they have played their part with a devotion, amenability, and steadiness not excelled by men of the old immigration. [...] The physical endurance of the Slav and the Italian will compare favorably with that of the Irish and the German; the native ability of the Lithuanian and the Magyar will compare favorably with that of men of the same social status and previous training, from other countries of Europe."

It seems like prejudices of cultural determinism about unequal treatment of immigrants – "they have played their part" – i.e. these "strong" yet "docile" men are in their place doing "coarse, dirty, and dangerous work".

The only specific mention of Poles in the volume does not fall into this:
 * "A Polander, ignorant of the English language, but a skilled mechanic, came to Brooklyn, N.Y., to look for employment. He had to begin work at $5 a week, but as his knowledge of English increased his wages advanced, and, within six months he was getting $15." (p. 59)

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From census data we know most of the Pittsburgh Slavs were Polish. What we have here is very careful sociological descriptions--some of the best survey data in the world at that time--and we certainly want to use it. The characterizations of the Slavs by the sociologists & their employers is quite favorable, given the vocabulary and criteria of the era. I read it that they are saying: they do good work, & cause little trouble:  let's hire more of them.  Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * yes most were Polish. Yes, I agree that they meant "let's hire more of them" and were objective for the early 20th century but the subtext was a cultural determinism and out-group homogeneity, e.g. they were Slavs not Poles, that was common then. My point is not so much about the portrayal but the elasticity of the way the sources are used. Much of this WP article has references that are generalizations without page numbers and that make leaps that I know are true, like that most Pittsburgh Slavs were Polish, but not supported in a solid way by the sources. The sources should be specific to Poles, although Roberts was published in 1912 when there was no country of Poland only Polish people. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and they did not have census data on "mother tongue" they could use [Poles were from Russia, Austria & Germany]. I have read the Pittsbg Survey and see very little "cultural determinism." This was 1910--one of the very first sociological studies of Slavic elements and I'm sorry they did not subdivide them --but that would make group sizes very small.  Poles were first studied a few years later in W.I. Thomas & Florian Znaniecki. The Polish peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of an immigrant group (1918) but the Pittsbg Survey had not reached that stage of sophistication yet. Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * it is only my opinion about some of the many sources – I will not be removing Roberts. But, why use century old sources that do not map to the modern terms? There has to be a more contemporary interpretation, in the many sources already included, that discusses the century old sources. These old sources were good for their time, like you write: "given the vocabulary and criteria of the era", but seem dated to me, e.g. I read determinism into Roberts. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * good point. In my view the enormous quantity of info they collected = rich primary source material of the sort it's hard to replicate today. As for "cultural determinism," I don't see much of it. In fact, Roberts stands out for his refusal to accept determinism: he wrote: ""I believe in the immigrant. He has in him the making of an American, provided a sympathetic and guides him and smooths the path which leads to assimilation.... My main thesis is, that in every community where the men of southeastern Europe have settled, the redemptive forces necessary to raise the foreigners from inefficiency in ignorance, from anti-social habits and gross superstition, are available."  For commentary see  That is Roberts believed every immigrant can be Americanized and is not locked into a predetermined status because of his ethnicity. Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, its a "rich primary source material of the sort it's hard to replicate today". But, Roberts wrote that his goal was to interest the "native born" about "these sons and daughters of backward races, so that telic action in their behalf is instituted, their hopes and aspirations understood. and their desire to become Americans intelligently met" (Roberts p. 8). I agree that he had a positive opinion of immigrants when compared to Ross in Barkan et al. (Barkan et al. p. 3). I do not think Roberts advocating rapid assimilation excludes his acceptance of unequal treatment of different immigrant groups that was common in the early 20th century. He was a man of his times. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * he said they were in bad shape now ("backward") in terms of American standards and he was trying to fix that. He strongly insisted their status was not permanent or determined by their ethnicity. that is he rejected ethnic determinism.   Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Coat tail riders
"John Paul II remains a popular figure for Polish Americans" is, in my opinion, obvious but "American politicians [...] have invoked his memory to build cultural connection" is, in my opinion, contentious.

The title of the nydailynews.com article is "Mitt Romney praises Poland, Pope John Paul II, in bid to impress Polish-American voters" According to the nydailynews.com author, "Romney was hoping his expressions of support for Poland and the late Polish pontiff would play well with Polish-Americans back home in swing states." I think its just an example of a politician's vapid attempt to ride the coat tails of a groups emotional attachment to John Paul II, one of the great people of our time, and to get Polish-Americans to buy the product, i.e. the politician Romney. One of Romney's quotes – John Paul II "has a unique and special place in our hearts" – makes me mockingly marvel at what "unique and special place" Romney has in his heart for John Paul II.

Some of many existing sources might have something better about building cultural connections to Polish-Americans. I do not think that what a politician says when he is in effect campaigning supports a sense of "cultural connection" to Polish-Americans. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Krol in Consolamini
What Consolamini wrote was:
 * "from the death of Cardinal Krol in 1988 until his resignation in the midst of the sex abuse scandal in 2002 Law was the most powerful bishop in the United States—a 'Kingmaker' whose stamp of approval was on every nomination for bishop sent to Rome."

The source is not about Krol, so I restored the. The text about Krol needs a source. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
The 58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was not "all-Polish".

"The Civil War Centennial and Polish Americans" by Edward C. Rozanski does not describe the composition of the regiment.

The description in Polish Immigrants by Scott Ingram and Robert Asher is accurate: Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski "commanded troops in the Polish Legion, an immigrant unit, " (p. 23) It was "an immigrant unit."

According to the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs, the companies in the regiment were "composed of Danes, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Poles and Russians." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

An inconsistency
"Poles have lived in the United States for over 400 years—since 1608" Considering the fact that the US didn't exist prior to 1776, wouldn't it be better to change this sentence accordingly?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the Poles in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romeny-praises-poland-pope-john-paul-ii-bid-impresses-polish-american-voters-article-1.1125706
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0%2C8599%2C165245%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321155214/http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/TX255/0/Karnes.pdf to http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/TX255/0/Karnes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved  Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

– By WP:DEFINITE and WP:CONCISE, the use of "the" should be dropped from these titles because it simply is not necessary to convey the topics of the articles. Additionally, the use of the definite article in these cases is clunky and should not be in use per WP:NATURALNESS. For now, we can disregard the "political correctness" argument that using the definite article to refer to ethnic groups in certain cases is "othering" and a social wrong. While I personally think this argument is compelling, the true test of whether referring to "Poles" with "the" is acceptable can simply be conducted by looking at the wider media: In 2019, news articles mentioning "the Poles" were a very small fraction (8.8%) of articles mentioning "Poles". By WP:COMMONNAME, the titles of the articles should be changed to reflect this usage by the media. Mysterymanblue (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * History of the Poles in the United States → History of Poles in the United states
 * History of the Poles in Baltimore → History of Poles in Baltimore


 * Support 100% (and Support other similar moves) per WP:DEFINITE, WP:CONCISE, and especially WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONSISTENT. You wouldn't say "I learned about the history of the Americans", you say "history of Americans" – and this isn't any different! (You're right, it sounds almost pejorative and othering with a "the".) Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)