Analysis Of Engel's Anti-Jewish Violence: Rethinking The Pogrom

Many terms have been analyzed, and reanalyzed to universally establish a common definition. However, many of those definitions haven’t been fully accepted in different areas of the world. There is words like genocide, and mass murders, that have different denotations and explanations and can thus, cause implications in terms of consequences. In particular, the word pogrom has had different interpretations since it was first used in the 19th century. In Engel’s article Anti- Jewish violence: Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History, he delineates the importance of interpretation in terms of explaining the word pogrom.
First and foremost, in order to explain what Engel writes in his article, we have to understand a vague definition of

pogrom. A pogrom, as explained on page 19, is “excesses organized by the government against a portion of the population, that same government withholding authorities from interceding violence, and lastly, when the authorities intervened in a later time where human life was already lost” (Engel, 19). Although the word pogrom has been used numerous times, the term’s definition has abundantly evolved. With repeated violent outbursts, the term became too broad and was used vaguely referring to any instances regarding force. Engel, therefore, tries to interpret and analyze why the term could or could not be used to describe various violent outbreaks.
If we fast forward to the present day, pogrom is used to describe a violent outbreak causing harm to particularly the Jewish population.

To people like, Polish historian Franciszek Bujak, the term pogrom can only apply to Jews and no one else. He says that there is certain criteria that would make a pogrom a pogrom. Those criteria are as follows: “the violence couldn’t be against the Jews in a socio economic or political way, it couldn’t occur with any other disturbance, it had to be motivated entirely by groundless unprovoked religious or ethnic hatred, the victims had to be entirely defenseless, and lastly, casualties needed to run into at least the thousands” (Engel 24). With Bujak’s definition, no violences would be categorized as pogroms. It is mostly like he is trying to downplay the extremity of the violences by saying none of it is really that severe. Using Bujak’s definition would mean that the violences in Lwow, Czestochowa, Lida, and Wilno would not be considered pogroms—although it is described as such by many historians. The term pogrom has a negative connotation to it, therefore Bujak wouldn’t want Poland to be perceived as violent or irrational (by stating that they committed pogroms). This is where biases make it impossible to agree upon a common definition to words like pogrom. Not only do biases cause disruptions in the definition of pogrom, but also categorizing all violences under the same

category.
Engel also argues that it isn’t so reliable to sort all types of violence against the Jews, under one umbrella being: pogrom.

He gives several examples on page 22 that described violent acts against the Jews, but aren’t necessarily similar to fall under the same category. A few of those examples are: the riot in Warsaw in 1881, where street mobs took revenge on Jews for allegedly disrupting midnight mass (there was no killings, just damage to property), the confrontation between striking factory workers and local Jews in 1892 (where 3 Jews died but 140 Polish workers were shot too), or the White Terror in 1919 (where 3,000 Jews were killed). Engel is perplexed by the broad use of pogrom because all three instances have been described as pogroms, but their severity is completely different. It’s almost as if we’re saying that no deaths is the same as 3,000 deaths; this is a very difficult comparison to make. One of the solutions Engel offers to such a complication, is that violences could be separated into sub categories not just one broad label. The categories should describe “property damage, killing of lives, the role of state authorities, the immediate historical background and context of the violence” which will lead to a more specific, and accurate label (Engel,

23).
However, a thought to consider is that there is also similarities to the violences occurring against Jews. For example, all instances occurred where there was a social divide due to either religion or ethnicity, or both. The divide created a sense of superiority amongst one group which made them act upon it using violence. The impacting take away, is that the victims of the violence didn't necessarily do anything to be targeted, but rather they were victims because of stereotypes involving the group they belonged to. It really doesn’t matter what these violent acts are labeled as, what matters is why they occurred, how they occurred, and who they occurred against. No existing word can describe violent acts without having a negative connotation, therefore it is important to pay attention to the details of why the violence occurred.
It was important for people to understand how to act, when violence broke out. For example, if the group you belonged to was being targeted, you needed a way to protect yourself. European nations would use police and military force to stop violence against them, but sadly not everyone could afford it. The most common theme in European states was to convince subjects to voluntarily reduce violence against others. There was an established sovereignty that took place because of it. The only problem with it is that, the subjects tend to fall short in establishing what justice signifies to all people.
Justice is also very difficult to explain in a transitional period where there isn’t established laws, territories, and income. Many groups can argue that violence occurs in times where a state feels they need to regain power and violence is the only answer to it. On page 24, it explains how “the higher ranking group thinks that they can be made whole, only through violent action unmediated by what the state normally deems as mechanisms that provide resolution” indicating that violence is the only answer to the problems. Many people believe in this action plan, therefore much violence has broke out.
It is important to understand that pogrom doesn’t have a legitimate definition because everyone can interpret it differently. The victims use the word to describe a horrific violent event against their people, but the perpetuators wouldn’t want to be associated with that term. It gets difficult for everyone to agree on a set definition that’s why Engel argues that the label isn’t whats important but rather why these violent outbreaks are taking place.