dagblog - Comments for "Anti-Semitism - It's a Small World After All"

No, I doubt that avenging

acanuck — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:08:31 +0000

In reply to Assessing the durability of

No, I doubt that avenging Jesus really figured in the thinking of some Cossack setting out on a pogrom. That idea just served as a common baseline for why it was OK to hate Jews. The real reason was the official and unofficial sanction anti-Semitism got from the secular leaders of Christendom. It was just too convenient to have a universally recognized, ready-made scapegoat to distract from, say, the rising price of bread. Clerical silence (or worse) gave common people the signal that this had the approval of both church and state.

Your minority hypothesis makes perfect sense; solid examples too. Think also of Rwanda, where the visibly distinct (mostly taller) Tutsis dominated business and government. The genocide targeted not only them, but also many educated, well-off Hutu (presumably as "collaborators"). That's one of the problems: prosperous and well-educated minorities always tend to associate and identify with the rulers, who in turn exploit their skills. When the rulers are themselves outsiders (and especially when their rule is seen as biased against the locals) that is a powderkeg.

So people don't like to be ruled by others they see as different, and (as you note) they also like to have people they can continue to look down on. In both cases, it's really useful if the minority is visibly different. African-Americans were obviously easiest to single out for discrimination; Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants to North America, less so. (It's fascinating to see how racist cartoons from the 19th century defict the Irish; grotesque and literally apelike; they didn't really look like that, but they were penniless, illiterate, and often spoke no English, so that was how they were expected to look. After clawing their way up the social ladder, Irish-Americans are publicly represented by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. So it's sorta full circle.)

Anyway, I'm not sure I have a specific point, except to get in a cheap shot at O'Reilly.

Assessing the durability of

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:30:54 +0000

In reply to I know that anti-Semitism

Assessing the durability of anti-semitism depends on understanding its cause. I don't believe that the liturgical blame for "killing" Jesus had much to with the popularity of anti-semitism in Europe. "Christ killing" was simply the rationalization. And not the only rationalization. There was also blood libel, usury, economic conspiracy, racial impurity, and plain old heresy, to name a few. A different rationalization for every age. Thus, anti-semitism outlives "Christ killing" and thrives even in nations which do not worship Christ.

So what is the cause? I have posited the "well-off minority" hypothesis. This hypothesis need not apply only to Jews. It could be Pharisees, Coptic Christians, Sikhs, Chinese and Indian communities in Africa, etc. And sure enough, these minorities have often been discriminated against in the various regions. The Jews stand out largely because they are so widespread and because Europeans have been so brutal. If this hypothesis is correct, it will be very hard to stamp out anti-semitism so long as Jews remain a distinctive minority.

(Of course, "impoverished minorities," those that are on average worse off than the majority population, also suffer discrimination, e.g. Native Americans, African Americans, the Roma, Australian aboriginals, the Sami, the Ainu, etc. I make no claims about which form of discrimination is worse, but there are differences in how the persecution plays out. For example, the conspiracy theories are generally reserved for the well-off minorities. In Europe, Jews were feared in a way that the Roma never were. That didn't stop Hitler from slaughtering both.)

I know that anti-Semitism

acanuck — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:22:39 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the correction. I

I know that anti-Semitism seems somehow more durable than other ethnic or religious hatreds. But logically, there's no reason for it to be inevitable. At some point, European-Russian Christianity simply decided "the Jews" had killed Jesus -- overlooking the actual religion of the victim. (Maybe because once it was the official faith of the empire, it was no longer politic to say, "The Romans did it.")Anyway, that notion gained a foothold wherever the official state religion did, and having a universally accepted scapegoat proved convenient to rulers in times of crisis.

Much different story in the Mideast, where the Jews of Jerusalem raised a batallion (maybe it was a regiment) to fight alongside Saladin's troops and defend their city against the Crusaders. When the Christians initially won, of course, they put everyone indiscriminately to the sword. Ah, the joyous cameraderie of those good old days!

Thanks for the correction. I

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:27:00 +0000

In reply to Genghis, your point about

Thanks for the correction. I have modified the quote.

It's a good point about Muslim-Jewish relations, which was far better historically than Christian-Jewish relations. Though modern Arab anti-semitism preceded the founding of Israel, it seems to have been introduced by Europe and first appeared among Christian Arabs. The conflict with Israel of course exacerbated it, and if Israel some day makes peace with the Palestinians, the anti-semitism will certainly diminish. But I worry that anti-semitism is the kind of thing that grips the imagination and comes roaring back in times of trouble. And if old Jerusalem does not return to Arab control, I expect that the issue will serve as a constant reminder which keeps the flames of hate alive.

Genghis, your point about

acanuck — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:43:55 +0000

In reply to Anti-Semitism - It's a Small World After All

Genghis, your point about none of the Swat Valley peasants ever meeting a Jew sent me googling. It's even starker than that. The last figures for Pakistan's Jewish community date from four decades ago, when it numbered 250 -- out of a current population of 175 million. My guess is that emigration and age have taken a further toll. Mind-bogglingly, it is just possible that no Pakistani -- unless he or she has traveled abroad -- has ever met a Jew.

The Taliban who no doubt told the peasants about "the Jews" probably themselves picked up their knowledge from al-Qa'ida types -- Saudi Arabian Salafis -- who themselves would have never met a Jew. Same for the army propagandist. It's contemptible that such disembodied hatred is being exploited (especially by people supposedly on our side) but I question how deep its roots really go. All evidence seemingly to the contrary, I firmly believe that current Jewish-Muslim animosity is transient. There are 1,000 years of coexistence, and a shared religious background, to back that belief. We may not see that animosity entirely dissipate in our lifetimes, but it will.

One minor point: the Pakistani military pamphlet didn't say "the same Jews," it said, "the same as Jews ..." Comparing the Taliban's actions to those of the mythical enemy, and trying -- in crude fashion -- to turn its propaganda back on itself. It's typical of the ham-fisted way the army is carrying out its Swat offensive.