Anti Semetism

[HydrogenBond]

The angle I would like to take is, why do the Jews get a special label for anything said in a derogatory way, while all the rest of the religions and cultures have nothing of the sort. I apologize, if this is taken the wrong way by any Jewish person, even marginal disapproval might be labelled anti-semetic, to demonstrate my point.

 

For example, if I want to dump on the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Baptists, Aetheists, etc. you name it, I can say anything I want. It is OK. If I use the same level of logic, argument or insult against the Jewish culture, it will raise the sword of social condemnation, that has its own special word. There is sort of biased standard going on. It is best to be respectful of all cultures and religions, but if one wants to exercise free speech, one needs to know there is one circle of radius X in the sand for all. The jewish culture is almost given a radius of 2X.

 

I can see cutting extra slack to an underdog, which the Jew were coming out of WWII, since they already have one or more strikes against them. But overdogs should be able to handle taunts from the underdogs. Is the basis of the bigger radius in the sand, sort of a prima dona thing, where she will walk out on the audience if she is not shown proper respect. Knowing this the bouncers are ready give the taunter the bum's rush to avoid the wrath of the prima dona. Maybe other religions are not given prima dona status. That means they are required to take the good with the bad and sing anyway.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an idea that popped into my head. The reality is, the Jews have been the victims throughout much of history. Because of that history, the smaller radius circle in the sand, that everyone else must accept, does not provide enough of a buffer for Jews to feel secure. Having achieved power, they have decided to annex, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of cultural nomenclature, to create an extra measure of defensive buffer.

 

This creates a situation, just like in Isreal, where the extra measure of social buffer, violates Arab sensibility, since the peaceful Arabs are forced to except being infringed upon (gives them a negative buffer). This causes a backlash that requires maintaining the buffer. The extra buffer, create sresentment, with the resentment justifying the need to maintain the buffer to feel secure? Chicken or the egg.

 

Like in Isreal, the annexed lands, became open for settlement and are now treated like it was always part of Isreal. But others also have the right to live (discouse) within these occupied territories, but are shut out of saying anyhting. I believe we should respect the sensible borders of all (play nice) but any extra social buffers should open to free speech, without fear of miltary tactics.

[Chacmool]

A word of caution to anyone replying to this thread: think very carefully before posting. The topic is treading a very fine line, and any hate speech will not be tolerated.

[InfiniteNow]

A word of caution to anyone replying to this thread: think very carefully before posting. The topic is treading a very fine line, and any hate speech will not be tolerated.

 

Absolutely. :lol: It's a curious question (are there other groups of hate which have a title specific to the group they hate?), but generalizations and bigotry can quickly get out of hand.

 

I have one question though...

 

What's a semete? ;)

[pgrmdave]

Wikipedia has a good article on this, with a decent explanation as to why anti-semitism is now only applied to jews. However, I disagree with your original premise that the fact that they have a word detailing that specific prejudice leads to the idea that it is less socially acceptable to be prejudiced against them. Understand that I can only really speak from what I know, which is Northern New Jersey, which is near one of the largest Jewish populations in the world (New York City), and is in general a liberal location. In addition to which, the United States has had much less antisemitism than most of the world historically, so the backlash against it may be less. However, in my experiance, it is just as socially unacceptable to be against Jews as it is to be against Blacks, or Muslims, or Catholics, or homosexuals. It does seem that it is less acceptable than being prejudiced against hispanics (the current large immigrant group, and the US has a history of hating whoever is newest), whites (the group in power is okay to hate), or gender/age discrimination (very ingrained in society). The fact that it has a word to describe it doesn't mean very much.

[sanctus]

If you ask me it just comes from the sense of guilt after the WWII. If the people killed in the gulags by Stalin (who, by the way, were more than the people killed in the concentration camps) were as well all from one religion I guess we would have now as well a specific word...

 

I think this is also the reason why one so easily gets called an anti-semit, even if he/she is only criticizing the israelian politics (as I often do) for example.

[HydrogenBond]

Sorry for my miss pelling. I know this is a delicate issue. One can almost hear the eggshells crunching. That is my point. I have had many Jewish friends, throughout my life, and I never felt that way around them. We could always talk deeply about things, maybe because friendship allows one to see the person instead of a persona (created by a culture and by its anti-culture).

 

I know there are a lot of biggots out there, who have their history books written by Daffy Duck. But sometimes this daffy history needs to be said out loud, so it can put to the test and corrected, allowing these people to learn the truth. To buffer free speech perpetuates ignorance.

[InfiniteNow]

Why do the Jews get a special label for anything said in a derogatory way, while all the rest of the religions and cultures have nothing of the sort?

As I mentioned above, I myself share a modest interest regarding your question, but struggle to support the second half of it. Are you certain that "all the rest of the religions and cultures have nothing of the sort?" If that part of your question is invalid, then so is the rest of the point. There HAS to be a group out there who's descriptor is contingent on the group where their hatred is focussed. We are just unaware of them.

 

I apologize, if this is taken the wrong way by any Jewish person, even marginal disapproval might be labelled anti-semetic, to demonstrate my point.

You see, you're 1) apologizing that somebody had the wrong response to your point, instead of for making the point itself, and 2) should be apologizing for having an offensive idea and presenting it to ANY reader.

 

"I really am sorry if any black person takes this the wrong way, but..." Hence, the dangerous territory warning. :cup:

 

For example, if I want to dump on the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Baptists, Aetheists, etc. you name it, I can say anything I want. It is OK.

You see, it's not. That's the fundamental point.

 

If I use the same level of logic, argument or insult against the Jewish culture, it will raise the sword of social condemnation...

As well it should! This sword of condemnation should be raised when you insult ANY culture or group with an inaccurate generalization... Better yet, that sword should cut your tongue out so you cannot do it again. :lol:

 

It is best to be respectful of all cultures and religions...

Darn tootin'. :) It's too bad you're only paying it lip service here, as opposed to putting the concept into action. You're not the only one guilty of this, and it's not my intent to single you out. It's really a point that applies to a large number of people, a number which I would sincerely like to see decrease globally.

 

...but if one wants to exercise free speech, one needs to know there is one circle of radius X in the sand for all. The jewish culture is almost given a radius of 2X.

Well, this is your interpretation, and really is based on nothing approaching validity. However, people ARE free to say whatever they want in a culture of free speech, but people are also free to react how they want. The freedom of speech is in one's ability to say what they want. The freedom is not their ability to say hateful and ignorant things without negative reaction from those around them.

 

You like analogies. Think of a gun. You are allowed to shoot it, but must do so following certain guidelines and safety considerations. Your right to shoot a gun is not a right to fire it into a crowd...

 

You can say whatever you want, but some of it will come with consequences. Perhaps those around you, in your life, are more sensitive to the antisemitic comments, and hence it's more salient in your awareness. However, people are (and should be) sensitive to hate wherever you are, and the radius of allowance on that hatred should be a singularity.

 

 

Cheers. ;)

[CraigD]

… why do the Jews get a special label for anything said in a derogatory way, while all the rest of the religions and cultures have nothing of the sort.

The term anti-Semitism can refer to hostility or prejudice against either an ethnic group – semites, which refers to a group of similar-looking people living primarily in the middle east and practicing many religions, OR people practicing Judaism, OR people who support the various political position, from the simple right of the state of Israel to exist, to radical forms of Zionism that encourage Israeli domination of the middle east.

 

So anti-Semitism may refer to prejudice against a perceived racial group (genetically, Semitic people do not appear to be closely related), making it a form of racism, similar to white supremacism and other practices that are widely condemned. Nearly every well-recognized ethnic group has at least one, and usually many, unique derogatory terms, which I’m confident are well known to all of us, and need no repeating.

 

Or, anti-Semitism may refer to disagreement with the policies of the state of Israel, which are widely defended as examples of protected speech.

 

IMHO, ambiguous terms such as anti-Semitism need to be used carefully and in extensive context, or risk fostering misunderstanding and strife.

[Boerseun]

I've read an interesting take on this, awhile ago. I have no idea wether it's true or not, but it certainly brings another dimension to the discussion:

 

Jews have been around Western cities for ages, literally since Roman times. Now why would this be? There's a long and sordid history of ghettos being terrorised by the other city residents, an anger towards the Jews who are herded into the ghettos, not allowed to live in the rest of the city, this anger exploding every now and then in physical violence. This has been going on for hundreds of years - WWII was simply the last instance of this. And why would this be?

 

Apparently, it turns out that Christians aren't allowed to charge each other interest on loans. Seeing as there's no profit in loans, they don't loan money to each other. Jews, on the other hand, is allowed to charge non-Jews interest. So, money-lending is a profitable business for a Jewish minority living in a big city full of non-Jews. And the non-Jews actually took the 'hated' Jews with them when they settle a new city somewhere in a new colony, 'cause, hey - they have to get money from somewhere, right? So, up pops a new ghetto in a brand spankin' new city. And the hate towards the Jews stem from the fact that plenty people owe the Jews money, and at some point its simply easier to raise a violent protest, kill the Jew and have your debt scrapped. Clearly not in as simple terms, but city-wide antagonism towards the money lender will build up as more and more people moan and groan about the interest they have to pay. And this have been going on for years and years, generations upon generations, up to the point where the story evolved towards a Jew being a bad person in itself, whether he's a money-lender or not. Hitler was the most famous case of falling for this bullshit story.

 

If memory serves, it was James Michener who came up with this theory. It makes a lot of sense to me, and if you think that this has been going on since Roman times, you can understand why there is such a wide occurrence of anti-Semitism. Whether you're European, Arab, or even Asian, chances are that somewhere in the last couple o' thousand years, one of your ancestors have owed a Jew somewhere some money. And the story of how the Jews are all about money and sucking the rest of the world dry is as old as the mountains - or at least the Romans. It's probably one of the oldest non-religion memes out there.

[CraigD]

Apparently, it turns out that Christians aren't allowed to charge each other interest on loans.

The sin of usury. According to the wiki link, this sin started being significantly discouraged around 1100, then was relaxed somewhat in the mid 1200s.

Seeing as there's no profit in loans, they don't loan money to each other. Jews, on the other hand, is allowed to charge non-Jews interest.

As I’ve read and discussed it, it’s more a matter that moneylending could get a medieval Christian excommunicated, a disaster not only for his immortal soul, but also his business ties with other Christians. Jews were viewed as no less sinful, but couldn’t be excommunicated, or their Christian biz ties worsened.

If memory serves, it was James Michener who came up with this theory.

Though I’m not historian enough to readily prove it, I’m pretty sure the “moneylender = Jew = we hate him” connection was a well known one long before his time. Shakespeare’s ca. 1600 play The Merchant of Venice is often cited as a revealing discourse on the subject, and similar literary treatments appear to go back at least another couple of centuries. My suspicion is that moneylending Jews were held in contempt by pagans and other Jews before the emergence of Christianity in the early centuries AD – religious scriptural objections to it are found not only in the Christian New Testament, but in the Jewish Torah.

 

By the 19th century, with Christians and Jews both major participants in the moneylending business, more often than not in partnership together, the usury issue seems much less important. Business-based contempt for Jews since then seems to be mostly based on accusations of “insider favoritism” – that is, that Jews give one another better business deals than they give non-Jews. Though I suspect this is true on an individual basis, it’s also true about individual businesspeople of most religions and ethnicities, so less of a specific cause of anti-Semitism.

 

In many ways, the controversy has come full turn in the last 150 years, with socialist political ideology taking the place of Religion as the strongest critic of usury. Because many early and current proponents of socialism, notably Karl Marx, were and are Jewish, some contempt for Jews is due to the perception that they are opposed to moneylending, while Christians support it. It’s interesting that at the same time Adolf Hitler was vilifying Jews for exploitive capitalistic practices like moneylending, he was also vilifying them as promoters of socialism who wished to ban money and its lending altogether.

 

As it’s been explained to me by some of my Muslim friends, the Islamic view on money lending is significantly different than the Jewish or Christian. Among Muslims, a person may give money or other support to another in return for a promise to share in the profits – even many times the amount invested - if the other’s venture is successful. If the venture fails, however, the investor may not ask for repayment. In essence, in an ideal Islamic community, there is no moneylending, only business investment and partnership.

[Boerseun]

Hey, Craig - good post!

 

It's amazing to investigate the roots of anti-semitism, if only because common hatred of Jews is so widespread across continents, there must be a reason why the Jews have been picked out by the world as the universal scapegoat.

 

"There's only one guy who would suck you dry for money, and that's a Jew."

"They want to introduce Communism and do away with money completely! It can only have been a Jew (Marx)! Typical!"

 

The above two complaints have been commonly raised in the 20th century, and whether they are contradictory is immaterial. Jews will get blamed for whatever goes wrong.

 

But they are an amazing species. For their population size, I think there's no other population group who have changed the world as much as the Jews. Some of the best scientists of the 20th century were Jews, and the number of noted scientists, musicians, philosophers, mathematicians, artists etc. coming from their ranks is completely out of kilter with their small population size. I think in a big way anti-Semitism has less to do with how bad Jews are, than with the Jew-haters being envious of Jewish achievements.

[Qfwfq]

Jews have always had a strong tradition of trading (including money lending, it amounts to trading money for money) and their being quite adept at it is the most basic source of resent against them. Hitler accused them of having ruined the economy, in order to strike up the hatred. The Magna Charta (see points 10 and 11) was written earlier in the same century in which Jews were systematically exiled from England. I suppose people eventually deemed that bit of protection to be insufficient.

 

The problem of usury is high interest rates. It is usury when they are shockingly high. Over here law defines the crime of usury as being when rates are above a precise limit, according to market-based criteria. A few years ago this limit became so low that banks had to slightly knock down the rates of non-indexed mortgages that had started in the early '90s.

[HydrogenBond]

The angle I was going with is connected to the radius of eggshells. Let me approach this from another angle. Let's talk about the anti-semites. I no longer have to tip toe on eggshells. I can walk flat footed, put on workboots and do a clogging dance. I can even approach their nest and stomp on their eggs. They don't have a buzz word defense like anti-anti-semite, that will give them a radius of eggshells to prevent approach to the nest.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do not support hate mongering. But putting aside content and looking only at free speech, differ degrees of free speech are allowed when dealing with different groups.

 

The question I have is how does any group get a social radius of eggshells around them, to protect their nest? Is it done by a type of lottery, like the Clearinghouse Sweepstakes?

 

Picture if the radius of eggshells was a social commodity that anyone could get, just fill out a form and you get a circle of eggshells around you. What would happen is that everyone would be afraid to say anything, since almost anything can be taken as offensive by someone. The more radii of eggshells the worse the problem. To avoid that, only a few forms are available. How does one get one of these scarce forms or wiin the lottery?

[InfiniteNow]

Simple really. Public Relations (PR)... You get a large enough percentage of the publication to invest themselves passionately into the issue (to "buy in"), then you have your increased radii of eggshells.

[Dov Henis]

I'd suggest we get off the subject of antisemitism in this forum. The subject is immense and very complicated and will inevitably blow out in many unexpected (and expected) unpleasant directions. The roots of this subject go circa 2000 years back to pre-Paulus encounters between the Eastern-Hellenistic and Jewish cultures/literatures in Alexandria and Antiochia, via pre-Christian cultural clashes between Rome's ruling nobility and its Jewish community, and it has been inflated and expanded with the rise and spread of Christianity.

 

In my opinion its roots are Intolerance of The Other and envy at Jewish communal solidarity and social-educational values and practices.

 

This thread starts with a whiff of bad smell by reference to Jews = Israelis, and as usual in a heated highly charged discussion it might become embarrassingly ugly since it comprises many hidden psychological layers and knots and belongs in a psychiatrist office.

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

Yeah, but we spoke about Muslims. We're an equal opportunity group of ignoramouses. :beer:

 

Stopping discussion stops progress. We just need to be certain to make every effort to avoid invalid and hateful posts.

 

I suggest you refrain from visiting the thread if there is something here which you dislike, or refute points with merit where necessary. Cheers. :beer: