{"id":9179,"date":"2026-05-27T16:19:08","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T23:19:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/philippineinternment.com\/?p=9179"},"modified":"2026-05-28T11:09:37","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T18:09:37","slug":"memorable-manila-mensches-by-martin-meadows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/philippineinternment.com\/?p=9179","title":{"rendered":"Memorable Manila Mensches by Martin Meadows"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

MEMORABLE MANILA MENSCHES<\/strong><\/center>\n<\/p>\n

PREFACE.<\/strong>\u00a0Of the two objectives of this lead-in section, in effect one is positive (and brief) and one is negative (and not so brief). The positive purpose is to emphasize that prospective readers will learn much more from this manuscript than details about the interesting lives of three notable individuals \u2014 they will encounter coverage of significant though often little-known aspects of the history of much of the twentieth century (and even earlier).\n<\/p>\n

\nThe negative purpose, so to speak, is to indicate that one potential angle of analysis will not be utilized herein. That approach, known as revisionism, affects virtually all fields of scholarly study. According to its widely accepted definition, \u201cRevisionism, in a general sense, refers to the act of revising or reinterpreting existing ideas, beliefs, or historical narratives, often with the intention of challenging established perspectives.\u201d [Google AI] <\/p>\n

\nThe aim here at the outset is not to pass judgment on revisionism, but rather only to note its absence in the body of the text. However, as this paper touches on certain topics prone to revisionism, a digression into one of them may be useful to illustrate the point being made here.\n<\/p>\n

\n An excellent instance of revisionism in one field is the study of World War II (WWII). \u00a0Skipping\u00a0the details, suffice it to say that WWII became known as \u201cthe good war.\u201d \u00a0Today the literature in the field is filled with works questioning that view. \u00a0A good illustration of that situation is provided simply by citing the titles\u00a0of two books (without their subtitles, to emphasize the contrast) \u2014 Studs Terkel\u2019s\u00a0The Good War<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(1984)\u00a0<\/em>and Jacques R. Pauwels\u2019\u00a0The Myth of the Good War<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0(2000).\n<\/p>\n\n\n
\"Studs<\/a><\/td>\n\"Jacques<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

\n And the same revisionist trend is true of the myriad subfields of WWII history. \u00a0A relevant example is that of the Japanese Empire\u2019s internment of American and other Allied civilian nationals in the Philippines during WWII \u2014 specifically, in Manila’s Santo Tomas Internment Camp (STIC). \u00a0In that regard, the case of one recent (2024) revisionist effort will be briefly surveyed. \u00a0Its author states at the outset that \u201cThe goal of this [Masters] thesis is not to dispute the suffering of Allied citizens in the STIC\u201d [Hyun, ii] \u2014 yet in effect that is what he proceeds to do,\u00a0<\/strong>as a few examples will suffice to show.\n<\/p>\n

\n \u00a0After discussing \u201cthe good war\u201d concept, the author asserts that\u00a0\u201cBefore February 1944, the internees\u2019 description of themselves as \u2018innocent victims of barbarous Japanese\u2019 failed to describe the complexities of the STIC accurately\u201d. \u00a0And what were those \u201ccomplexities\u201d? \u00a0The author \u201cargues that [their] colonial and racial mindsets shaped the internees\u2019 perception [of] and relationship[s] with the Japanese and Filipinos during and after their internment at the STIC.\u201d \u00a0[Hyun, 2] \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n Evidence of the author’s revisionist mindset is his statement\u00a0that many previous studies of STIC \u201chave not explored how these internees were intentional or unintentional agents of imperialism\u201d; nor has STIC itself \u201cbeen analyzed as a subject of [Western] imperialism.\u201d \u00a0He\u00a0claims that virtually every aspect of STIC life\u00a0reflected internees’ racial, colonial and imperialistic perspectives; and those, in turn, derived from and were inherent in the U.S. conquest and \u201cAmericanization\u201d of the Philippines. \u00a0[Hyun, 29]\n<\/p>\n

\n Thus, for instance, even the works of STIC’s highly esteemed authors, A.V.H. Hartendorp and Frederic Stevens, \u201cmust be read with skepticism because both authors were internees at the STIC, meaning that some of their arguments and perspectives are biased.\u201d \u00a0As an example, the author notes that \u201cHartendorp frequently defends American imperialism as superior to that of the Japanese.\u201d \u00a0[Hyun, 16, 27] \u00a0(How odd.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>But enough of this digression. \u00a0[See the Roberts article for a critique of\u00a0one strand of\u00a0<\/strong>WWII revisionism.]\n<\/p>\n

\n What is the relevance of this prefatory excursion into the realm of revisionism and its manifestations? \u00a0Its objective, as noted, is neither to defend nor to attack revisionist analyses, whether of STIC or otherwise. \u00a0Rather, by having called attention to the factor of\u00a0<\/strong>revisionism, it can now state that this paper\u00a0(a) intends to present a straightforward recounting of the histories of three exceptional individuals;\u00a0(b) therefore uses an approach that precludes any dabbling in revisionism; and (c) has sought, via this Preface, to deflect potential criticism that it has ignored the revisionist perspective. \u00a0In short, its approach can be summarized with the statement Police Sergeant Joe Friday supposedly used to make on the \u201cDragnet\u201d radio program long ago \u2014 \u201cJust the facts, ma\u2019am.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

I.\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0INTRODUCTION.<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n

\n After a relatively placid decade in Manila throughout the 1930s and into the 1940s,\u00a0my parents and I decided in January 1942 to accept the gracious invitation of the Imperial Japanese Army. \u00a0That enabled us to take advantage of the spacious accommodations and many other amenities of the World War II resort getaway known as the Santo Tomas Internment Camp.\u00a0 It was during that pre-war period, as well as later in STIC, that I met a number of colorful and intriguing characters; but few if any had life histories comparable to those of the three remarkable men discussed herein. \u00a0The fact that their histories encompassed, and in effect culminated in, WWII underscores\u00a0their unusually compelling records. \u00a0At a minimum, it also makes them\u00a0fully deserving of the title of \u201cmensch\u201d (as defined below). \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n This account of the lives of the three Memorables of the title assumes that their personal records are objectively engrossing, rather than simply a matter of personal interest. \u00a0On the other hand, it is indeed true that I did know all three men \u201cup close and personal,\u201d as the clich\u00e9 has it; that will be evidenced in due course, as my various interactions with each of them are recounted (no doubt too lengthily). \u00a0But the question of personal bias is refuted (or at least becomes irrelevant) in light of\u00a0their roles in\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0WWI (for two of them)\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0WWII; in particular, their actions during the Nipponese occupation of the Philippines serve to further justify this survey. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n In a sense, this report is an offshoot of\u00a0an earlier piece, which included this statement: \u00a0\u201cThe [three] personal histories I am aware of . . . are so fascinating that they deserve (and may well receive) separate coverage.\u201d \u00a0[Meadows (a), n.p.; ellipsis added] \u00a0Providing that additional coverage\u00a0could serve not only to demonstrate that those histories are indeed objectively impressive; much more importantly, it could help rectify the fact that the three Memorables are not widely known to general audiences, if known at all. \u00a0(It\u00a0could also help demonstrate once again that the internet, as a source of much otherwise inaccessible material, enables study of the lives of long-ignored and little-known individuals.)\n<\/p>\n

\n The names of the three Memorables are\u00a0Joseph Cysner, Isaac Konigsberg, and Joseph Rice (to be discussed in that order).\u00a0Their\u00a0histories were unrelated and diverse, and for the most part their paths were only tangentially linked once they reached Manila. \u00a0As this combined survey implies, however, they had a number of commonalities. \u00a0All three were of European origins. \u00a0All three were Jewish \u2014\u00a0though only in Cysner’s case did his religious faith adversely affect his fate significantly. \u00a0All three were born well within or shortly after the 19th century. \u00a0All three eventually arrived in the Philippines by rather circuitous routes, and inevitably led Manila-centric lives. \u00a0Last,\u00a0all three were victims of, and in one way or another were involved in the resistance to, the Nipponese occupation of the Philippines during WWII.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n Before proceeding, a clarification of the title’s last word is in order. \u00a0As noted, each Memorable was more than qualified to\u00a0be described as a \u201cmensch\u201d (sometimes spelled \u201cmensh\u201d). \u00a0That particular word, admittedly (and jocularly), was useful to make possible an alliterative title. \u00a0But apart from such a feeble attempt at humor, that Yiddish-origin word would have been just as applicable to the Memorables had they not been Jewish. \u00a0For\u00a0it has become one of the numerous Yiddish terms that have entered the American lexicon. \u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

[Note:<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0Here are some others (many can be spelled in more than one way): schtick, glitch, spiel, kibitz, bagel, schlep, klutz, schmo, kvetch, schmooze, chutzpah, yenta, kosher, blintz, bupkis, lox, schnook, schmuck, tush, schlock, nosh, plotz, maven, tchotchke, gelt, schnozzle, mazel, etc. \u00a0And the Yiddish origins of a term used in gambling circles surprised me \u2014 vigorish.]\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n\"The<\/a>But what exactly does\u00a0\u201cmensch\u201d mean? \u00a0According to the late American humorist Leo Rosten, as quoted in\u00a0Wikipedia<\/em>, a\u00a0mensch\u00a0is “someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character; the key to being ‘a real mensch’ is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Wikipedia<\/em>\u00a0adds that \u201cThe term is used as a high compliment, implying the rarity and value of that individual’s qualities.\u201d \u00a0As that entry further points out,\u00a0“The word has migrated as a loanword\u00a0into American English,\u00a0where a\u00a0mensch\u00a0is a particularly good person, similar to a \u2019stand-up guy’, a person with the qualities one would hope for in a friend or trusted colleague.\u201d \u00a0[Wikipedia<\/em>\u00a0(a), n.p.]\u00a0 At a\u00a0bare\u00a0minimum, therefore, the term \u201cmensch\u201d as applied to the Memorables simply means a good person. \u00a0And by the way, the term can be applied regardless of the recipient’s sex.\n<\/p>\n

[Note.<\/strong>\u00a0 Leo Rosten was the author of the amusing\u00a0\u201cHyman Kaplan\u201d stories, which I first encountered in STIC, thanks to the Camp\u2019s main library, and which I neglected to mention in an earlier piece listing my readings there. \u00a0(Meadows (b), n.p.)]\n<\/p>\n

\nFor sticklers for precision,\u00a0there is one more point to clarify, because the word in the title is not \u201cmensch\u201d but \u201cmensches.\u201d \u00a0The latter would seem to be merely a plural form of the word, but there are some who would question its legitimacy, on the ground that there is no such word in either Yiddish or German. \u00a0That may be true, but, as one source explains, there\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0such a word in English.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n