Teddy Roosevelt & Circumcision

Maybe a somewhat odd subject, but yesterday I came across some quotes by Teddy Roosevelt whom as all should know carried a big stick around all his life, was President from 1901-1909 and generally liked to think of himself as a healthy, virile, American outdoors-man, the epitome of action and vigor, a manly man amongst men and so on ...

Anyway, in writing rather vehemently about some opponents to his plans for naval expansion, he called them: 'political hermaphrodites ... emasculated professional humanitarians ... a small bunch of eunuchs ... ' and also most intriguingly: 'a circumcised skunk' ....

Now this last I thought striking as it implied that to men of Roosevelt's time - only a bit over a century ago - that circumcision was not a very manly thing to do at all, that the practice tampered with a man's virility and emasculated anyone who was circumcised ... it was to Roosevelt - and presumably to many others at the time - quite an insult.

I couldn't help posting this, since now things have almost completely changed and for Americans it's the wimps who don't get cut and thereby transfer themselves into clean-cut examples of manhood.

This is why I find history so interesting. Deep held beliefs end up being transitory and ever-changing, The qualities and virtues of one age turn out to be ridiculed in the next. Everything is in flux and ever changing.

I've got to wonder if there's a modicum of antisemitism in that statement as the vast majority of men who would have been circumcised were either Jewish or Islamic.

I've got to wonder if there's a modicum of antisemitism in that statement as the vast majority of men who would have been circumcised were either Jewish or Islamic.

Hmmm ... possible and it certainly wouldn't have carried such a stigma in TR's days as antisemitism does now.

But it still remains a curious phenomenon nonetheless how circumcision came to be so readily embraced by mainstream Americans shortly after this time. Well, I have some inkling what with military insistence on hygiene and abstinence during both world wars and with worries about youthful masturbation debilitating American manhood and vigor and all that.

But the main question is, how did people in the US end up accommodating these contradictions in their minds? Apparently the worries ended up trumping any religious encumberments attached to being circumcised or else a lot of doctors and physicians were some real sweet-talking salesmen back then ...

It also seems that TR really knew how to throw out the insults back then ... ha ha.

Accommodation? No, rationalization. If we're going to cut off men's dicks, let's figure out 'good' reasons. You're probably right about hygiene, especially when people didn't have 24/7 access to clean running water. In the US, there are jokes - based on rural reality - about the Saturday bath. I'm sure that there were severe hygiene issues when bathing was a privilege.

There are TONS of historic anti-masturbation ideas and devices. The puritanical origins of this country weren't based on religious freedom, they were based on one group seeking freedom of their own extremist ideology that included sex for procreation only. At one point, circumcision was an accepted 'cure' for masturbation. So were Graham crackers and corn flakes.

Once an idea was rationalized into common practice, the medical establishment would go to great lengths to support it. Remember that doctors are, for the most part, arrogant know-it-alls. Another example is baby formula. My brother-in-law was born in 1950. His mother wanted to breast feed exclusively - not popular or medically accepted at the time. Formula is MUCH better than nature, right? While she was in the hospital, they brow beat her about formula and insisted on weighing the baby after each feeding.

That was the standard at the time. Circumcision has just a few more years of standardization than formula.

BTW, apparently, Roosevelt was referring to Maurice Low, a Jewish journalist at that time, lending support to the antisemitic tone of the term.

BTW, apparently, Roosevelt was referring to Maurice Low, a Jewish journalist at that time, lending support to the antisemitic tone of the term.

Aha .. yes it does.

But apparently eunuchs and hermaphrodites were (are still) general terms of denigration, not specifically antisemitic. And you wouldn't get far in an insult contest in the US calling someone a circumcised skunk nowadays though ...

At the time in France it was common (at least among right-wing nationalists) to mock the Jews as "circumcised", and I'm not surprised the same applied to the US.

Antisemitism was widespread in Western Europe and in the US (of course, this was better than Eastern Europe, where they held pogroms).

Until the 2nd World War there was not the social stigma that there is today against using racist or antisemitic mockeries.

Being circumcised in Europe was often seen as proof of being Jewish and that was dangerous in the Nazi period. Only recently I read an account of how the Nazis shot quite a few Crimean Tartars because they were circumcised and so they thought they were Jews. England on the other hand practiced circumcision quite widely but they didn't see themselves as part of Europe anyway.

Being circumcised in Europe was often seen as proof of being Jewish and that was dangerous in the Nazi period.

That is quite right. And this was not only during the German occupation, but more recently as well. Though nowadays, circumcision in Europe is more readily linked to being Muslim ...

Anyway, when I was in high school in Belgium, the last year (1969) our Dutch language teacher told this story about a friend of his. This friend had been traveling in the Middle East, to one or another of the more strict Islamic countries (so I surmise it must have been Saudi Arabia). Now this friend, like many Belgians, was very good at languages, speaking several fluently. Apparently this aroused the suspicion of some or other type of official in that country, I would suppose the mutaween. And this was because in their minds, Jews were good at languages, hence anyone who spoke languages so fluently must therefore be a Jew (and therefore suspicious on principle).

Now, the part of the story that was the clincher, especially for us high school students, was that the teacher's friend was taken by police and examined to see if he was circumcised or not, a simple and direct first indicator of religious affiliation. When it was seen he was in fact not circumcised and hence not Jewish, he was let go with no further ado.

But, the cautionary conclusion we took from this anecdote was that it is often advantageous NOT to be circumcised and mistaken as Jewish.

There was a film about a German - Russian Jew who managed to survive the war in the Wehrmacht without detection. Supposed to be based on a true story but I thought it stretched credibility. Anyway he spent great efforts to avoid medical inspections and avoided sexual encounters. It tells of him trying to stretch the skin with a weight to create a new foreskin and ending up with an infected penis. (Not actually shown as such). In British countries no easy conclusion can be made about a person by their circumcision status.

There was a film about a German - Russian Jew who managed to survive the war in the Wehrmacht without detection. Supposed to be based on a true story but I thought it stretched credibility.

The movie is called 'Europa, Europa' ... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099776/?ref_=nv_sr_3

The main problem for a boy like that - a Russian-German orphan - would have been his lack of papers, of official documents of any kind. Russian identity papers listed a person's 'nationality' and being Jewish was treated as a nationality at that time. So he had to keep his identity intact as an Aryan, without recourse to identity papers proving this. That is why he had to keep his circumcision hidden and a secret. It would have cast suspicion on his claim to race. And suspicions can lead to more thorough investigations and so on ...

In Germany at that time, race was determined mainly by administrative means, by birth or baptismal certificates, marriage records and things like that. Circumcision was a possible secondary identifier, but not that important because naturally there were medical reasons for circumcisions to be performed on non-Jews. But mostly because a large percentage of German Jews had assimilated so thoroughly as Germans, that they no longer practiced circumcision.

The same would have applied more or less to western European countries under occupation. Administrative means determined a person's race - in the main.

In the East it was a different story. Let's say the German authorities were over-zealous/indifferent and so cared little one way or the other who was detained, sent to a KZ or work camp.

I recall seeing a movie where a male has to drop his pants and lower his briefs in front of a doctor.

In Un sac de billes, the narrator, then a boy, recounts how he and his brother taken to some doctor, and they had to show their penises. They claimed they were Catholic but had been circumcised for medical reasons.

Now I wonder whether phimosis is likely to be more frequent among brothers (i.e. if one has this condition the brother is more likely to have it) or it's just random.

I always get a little 'hot under the collar' when I read about Circumcision being used to determine ones Nationality or Religion. It is such a haphazard way of determining this, and it hits a bit close to home too! I am neither Jewish or Muslim, but I am a non-religious Circumcised, British Citizen.

I have heard about the NAZI's using Circumcision as a method of determining whether a person was Jewish or not. This was a ridiculous system, and would have meant that someone like me would have been wrongly classified as Jewish (or Muslim) or indeed, American - where most Boys are Circumcised.

I trust that in the more enlightened twenty-first century, we have moved away from grading people by whether they are cut or uncut.

I have heard about the NAZI's using Circumcision as a method of determining whether a person was Jewish or not. This was a ridiculous system, and would have meant that someone like me would have been wrongly classified as Jewish (or Muslim) or indeed, American - where most Boys are Circumcised.

A bit of history here. While (Nazi) racial theories did often mention circumcision as being a Jewish custom, mostly as a means of ridicule and somewhat easy off-the-cuff identification of Jews, the Nuremberg Laws assigned a person's race solely according to ancestry. Physical characteristics did not play a part in determining race in Nazi Germany. Being Jewish or not depended on one's parents and grandparents being or not being Jewish. When it came to determining who was legally Jewish, only ancestry counted. This was then proven via birth records, baptismal certificates, marriage certificates, entries into parish books etc.

And also, it was up to citizens to prove they were of German/Aryan stock. This was proven by having an Ariernachweis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate)

In the East things were undoubtedly much looser and German authorities did not work so meticulously to determine a person's race. Let's say they erred on the side of over-zealous. And perhaps in individual instances circumcised individuals were identified as Jewish without much else needed.

But even racist Nazis knew that Muslim circumcised and that good fine German males might suffer from phimosis or the odd results of infections due to venereal disease. They also knew there were many non-observant Jewish Germans who did not circumcise.

Determining who was Jewish was done via official records, documentation and paperwork. Not circumcision. Luckily so for American POWs I might add.

Sorry for the history, but so much nonsense is often told about this.

During a dinner table conversation my dad emphasized that he did not believe in circumcision because it was a Jewish tradition. "We are not Jewish. We do not circumcise. Circumcision is of the Jewish culture". Not that my dad had anything against Jewish people, but my dad fought in WW2 and was familiar with how Nazi Germany had used circumcision to determine if someone was Jewish. My dad did not want the same happen to us.

was familiar with how Nazi Germany had used circumcision to determine if someone was Jewish. .

Circumcision was not used to determine if a person was Jewish. Consider how that would have worked out for Muslims, who were also virtually all circumcised. Especially since Muslims were thought to be ideological 'allies'. Moreover, in occupied countries like France, there were tens of thousands or more Muslim citizens/residents.

Using circumcision was not workable as a system for determining Jewishness or not. It was however something that was used to ridicule and stigmatize and in certain questionable circumstances used as an indication of the possibility of being Jewish. It was certainly better to not be circumcised of course, but that was not how 'race' in Nazi Germany was determined.