The roots of anti-semitism

[Behind the Aegis]

Anti-semitism, or anti-Jewish prejudice is an ancient form of racism.

Unlike modern anti-black racism, the roots of which lie in the trade in slaves and the rise of capitalist colonialism, going back perhaps 400 years, anti-semitism dates back to conflicts inside the Roman Empire.

In AD 313 the Emperor Constantine the Great gave Christianity supremacy inside the Empire. The Christians used their new power to persecute their Jewish rivals. The Jews were blamed for what was for Christians the worst crime in history: “The Jews killed Christ”.

The Christians wanted a clear line of demarcation between the Jews and those they might “seduce” into their faith. On this basis, the Jews were excluded from many jobs, driven into ghettos, made to wear special clothes to distinguish them from others. The Jews began to fill the jobs which others did not want. They filled particular economic roles in medieval societies. For example, the job of money-lender, considered sinful but necessary to the functioning of the economy, was allowed to Jews. The money lender was a disgusting figure to the peasant who has borrowed in order to live and must pay back what he borrowed and a lot extra in interest. And so the Jews, forced into a particular role, reinforced the prejudice against them. That is often the lot of the oppressed.

more...

[cpousnret]

1. my jewish friends

i am advising my jewish friends that the neo-cons do not have your best interest at heart.once they consolidate their power you will see a holocaust worse then can be imagined.they use the right evil-gelicals to tempt you into voting with them,much akin to nazis germany.

[cali]

2. LOL

Perhaps you're unaware that Jews in this country overwhelmingly vote democratic. Perhaps you should be warning your friends of other religions not to vote with them.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. .

:eyes:

Didn't read the article did ya? Because it was certainly not "neo-con!"

Oh, BTW...you do know that 70% of Jews vote democratic, yes?

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Kerry received 77% of the Jewish vote in 2004

1. Highest voter loyalty for any Caucasian ethnic group. Only Afican-Americans were more loyal to the Dems.

2. Notwithstanding a massive targeted campaign by the GOP --

3. We know what the fundies are all about.

[Phx_Dem]

9. Good advice

I appreciate your post, it's a good example of misinformation creeping into liberal circles. To think that well meaning people like yourself would think that american jews are voting for repukes just makes me want to cry.

[Andromeda]

20. ...

:wtf:

[aquart]

4. It wasn't the peasant who was borrowing.

Peasants had no collateral. If you're that wrong on this, maybe you want to go back and check your timeline. And other details.

Oh, the guy who was borrowing was the king.

[riona]

5. i just want to get this off my chest

i don't understand anti-semitism, i don't see any valid reason for it, and there is no excuse for it. period!

[tocqueville]

6. this is FAR MORE COMPLICATED...

I recommend reading here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States

there are different types of antisemitism. The old type (religious) has very much disappeared to be replaced with other "reasons".

besides antisemitism goes back to antique Greece and to early Christianity

[Behind the Aegis]

12. It is more complicated.

I will disagree with you that the "old type" has very much disappeared! I currently live in Oklahoma and I can tell you, it is VERY much alive!

Although the "wiki" sources are good, this is the best information I have read about the topic, The Nature of Judeophobia - History and analysis of Antisemitism, Jew-Hate and anti-"Zionism". Be warned, this is a LONG piece, at least 20 pages if printed out, if not more! However, it is broken into chapters and you can jump from topic to topic without losing too much information.

[Cassandra]

7. "those they might “seduce” into their faith"

An early example of projection.

[Phx_Dem]

10. the link is not working nt

[King Mongo]

11. Anti-Semitism has evolved...

...to become the hatred of all Semites, including Jews, Arabs and Palestinians. Nowadays, there are Jews who hate Arabs, Jews who hate Palestinians, Palestinians who hate Jews, Arabs who hate Jews, non-Semites who hate all Semites and Semites who hate all non-Semites.

It is best to recognize that hatred is bad no matter who is being hated, and all hatred should be treated equally. Our understanding of anti-Semitism must include the hatred of any Semite, including Palestinians and Arabs since this type of hatred is also a serious problem.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. That is NOT what anti-Semitism is.

Although linguistically what you are saying could be argued, it is not what the word means. For over a hundred years it has been applied to one group: Jews!

While I agree hating any group is wrong, it is also important to discuss the topic at hand, in this case hate against Jews.

Some info for you:

The Nature of Judeophobia - History and analysis of Antisemitism, Jew-Hate and anti-"Zionism"
Anti-Semitism

[Phx_Dem]

14. I agree w/you and mondo

Personally I think we should stop using the word anti-semite and just call it what it is, anti-jew. There are too many "anti-semites" in this world that love to play games with the meaning of the word. I even read something on a muslim site that "asserted" that there is no such thing as anti-semitism because most if not all jews are descended from eastern Europeans!

One last point, I have real problems w/labels in general, it is pointless IMO to worry about what someone thinks, as opposed to legitimate concern over what they say and do.

[King Mongo]

15. Since there has been a new growth of hatred....

... the term anti-Semitism needs to adapt to this new type of hatred. Since hatred against and between Semites has increased over the past 100 years, this hatred against and between Semites must be addressed as being anti-Semitism. The best way that one can deal with this new type of hatred, is by criticizing both sides equally. This does not mean that terms such as anti-Jewism or anti-Arabism or anti-Palestinianism would decline in value or should not be used.

I argue this because I feel that the hatred that both Semites share for each other is not being fairly and equally criticized, encouraging the need for our methods of dealing with this hatred to change, meaning that both sides must be viewed as being Semites that one must not be anti of. In otherwords, if there was not a conflict between Jews and Arabs, then I would not be making this argument.

[cali]

16. You can argue this

but the term is so deeply entrenched, both in academia and in the popular culture, that expanding it to cover others, is pretty much impossible. In addition, it wouldn't really be practical. It would simply be confusing. I also reject your argument that there's a conflict between Jews and Arabs. There certainly is conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and even between Arabs and Israelis. There's evidence that there's hatred of Jews by some Arabs. It's more diffiicult to make the case that there's hatred of Arabs on the part of Jews.

[King Mongo]

17. It wouldn't take much...

to encourage the Muslim world to use the term "anti-Semitism" to address the hatred of any Semite. The "West" would soon follow afterwards. From my observations, there are many Israelis who hate Arabs. To hear such hatred, one just has to discuss discuss Palestine with Israelis. Many Israelis refuse to recognize that Palestinians exist, preferring to call them Arabs while blaming Arabs in a hostile manner for many things. Certainly, one can argue that it is not racism for a Semite to hate another Semite, but the type of hatred is the same as any other type of racism. Including Arabs in the term "anti-Semitism" would certainly help more people to be more aware that one should not hate Arabs as well.

[pelsar]

18. local culture...

your confusing politics/societies with hate......very "elite liberal and ethno centric"

Israelis use the terms arabs/palestenains in discussing the political situation...if you listen to palestenains/saudi arabians, egptians etc they also use the words jew and israeli to describe the situation. We can listen to an israeli interviewing a jihadnikim (the otherway around doesnt happen)...and they will discuss killing jews/arabs etc and yet....theres no "hatred" there. (exceptions will be noted). And both groups understand the other when the descriptions are used.

and the word anti-semitism is understood by both sides for what it is..hatred of jews....we dont need the "west, elite liberals with the word games to enter in to our culture and try to use their "superior" methods and beliefs" and convince us that "they know."

What would be more appropriate if the wests "elite liberals" would leave their "superiority" and egos behiind and listen to how the middle east and its culture works and understand the local terminolgy.....

[King Mongo]

22. More and more Arabs and Muslims

are beginning to feel that the term "anti-Semitism" cannot be fairly used to describe the hatred of Jews, since Arabs are Semites and since much hatred is shared between both Jews and Arabs. Also, since the term "anti-Semitism" is often used to describe people who do not hate Jews, the term is moving in the direction of being used to mean the act of being anti Semites (including Arabs).

If, in the future, the term "anti-Semites" is mostly used by those who hate Arabs, then certainly, the term "anti-Semites" will be understood, in the distant future, to mean the hatred of Arabs.

[cali]

19. How do you know that

"It wouldn't take much to encourage the Muslim world to use the term "anti-Semitism" to address the hatred of any Semite"? How do you know "the "West" would soon follow afterwards? Seriously, that's a sweeping claim to make. Do you have any historical comparisons of linguistic changes that are similar?

Here's why such a change would lead to confusion: Every time the word was used, the user would have to tack on a phrase, sentence or paragraph to fully explain what group was doing the hating and who they were directing it to. Jew hating Arab? Arab hating Jew? Non Arab hating Arab? Non Arab hating Jew? Non Arab hating both Jews and Arabs. It gets messy really quickly.

[King Mongo]

21. The meaning of a words often change

to reflect the modern situation. While dictionaries are used as a guide, they are often updated to our new usage of words. Certainly, such changes are slow, but they do occur. In the case of the term "anti-Semitism", the modern sitaution is that Jewish Semites and Arab Semites are fighting against each other and this situation is likely to persist into the distant future. Furthermore, since the term "anti-Semitism" is often wrongly used as a tool to criticize those who don't hate Jews, the term anti-Semitism is doomed to eventually be modified to describe the hatred that both Semites for each other.

Since the term "anti-Semitism" will, in the future, be used to describe the hatred between Semites, anyone who wishes to describe the hatred of a specific group of Semites can use the group terms, such as anti-Arab, anti-Jew, anti-Palestinian, etc.

[cali]

23. I have a hard time taking seriously

an argument couched in such sweeping terms: "the term anti-Semitism is doomed to eventually be modified to describe the hatred that both Semites for each other."

I rather doubt that you're omnipotent.

I'm afraid, that at least for the forseeable future, you'll simply have to come up with some other term. You may be right, but the odds are heavily weighted against that. You've provided nothing but the claim that words often change to back up your argument. In addition, though I'll freely grant that there is Israeli animosity towards Arabs, you need to provide some sort of evidence to shore up your claim that there's widespread bigotry against Arabs on the part of Jews outside Israel. Evidence of Arab bigotry towards Jews is easlily documented. Can you provide anything to back up your assertion?

[King Mongo]

24. You have your opinion, I have mine.

While you doubt that I'm omnipotent, I'm confident the term "anti-Semitism" is doomed to eventually be modified, unless the conflict between Jews and Arabs vanishes in the near future and the term "anti-Semitism" will no longer used to describe those who do not hate Jews. The odds don't have much influence upon my opinion since I feel that the term "anti-Semitism" is often used by many who dislike Arabs.

>>words often change

The meaning of words do in fact change, due to how people use them. For instance, if those who do not hate Jews are accused of being "anti-Semites", as is often the case, then the term "anti-Semites" is more likely to be understood as being the hatred between Jews and Arabs since many who use the term "anti-Semites" are bigoted against Arabs.

>>widespread bigotry against Arabs on the part of Jews outside Israel

I seriously doubt that most Jews outside of Israel hate Arabs, but millions of non-Jews outside of Israel seem to strongly dislike Arabs mainly because of Israel. Since so many people have such a strong dislike towards Arabs, it really makes sense for the term to be modified to include both groups.

[pelsar]

25. whoooa...there we go...the new anti semitism

but millions of non-Jews outside of Israel seem to strongly dislike Arabs mainly because of Israel.


this i believe we call the "new antisemetism"...since the old version blames the jews for all kinds of world events (economic upheavals, social movements etc)..we now have the new enlightened version.

this version doesnt blame the jews for the world events, but blames israel for them....and here we have a classic:

non jews dislike arabs because of israel...i suppose you have some evidence to back up such a pathetic claim?

[King Mongo]

26. Yes, I have evidence.

Is this so-called "new anti-Semitism" something that is used to describe people who do not hate Jews? If one does not hate Jews, then how can one be a so-called "anti-Semite"? Maybe, this idea of "new anti-Semitism" is attempting to change the term "anti-Semitism" to mean "anyone who criticizes anything about Israel regardless of whom they like or dislike".

This is pretty much my argument. If many who hate Arabs use the term to criticize those who do not hate Jews, then certainly the term is best to mean the hatred of Semites, including Arabs.

[pelsar]

28. it depends on the type of criticism....

saying israeli policy is bad because it causes more pain, etc is legit, claiming israeli policy in the westbank or the wall is illegal, is legit, etc

claiming israeli policy causes millions of non jews to dislike arabs is absurd...and is defined by us jews as the "new anti-semetism"

so what is your evidence....

[King Mongo]

31. You misunderstood...

I did not say that Israeli policy causes millions of non-jews to dislike arabs. Rather, I said that millions of non-Jews hate Arabs because of Israel.

[pelsar]

32. yes i understood....

i was explaining the difference between legit criticism of israel and the "new antisemetism"..whichi is what you expressed:

israel is to blame for non jews disliking arabs (the new P/C version of anti semetism)

[King Mongo]

34. So, you are accusing me of being an anti-Semite

Yet, I don't hate Jews. This means that anti-Semitism, in your opinion, does not mean the "hatred of Jews". Thus, it might as well mean the hatred of Semites.

It's not Israel's fault that 30 million American Christians are bigoted in favor of Israel. This was their own choice and no one forced them to do this.

[pelsar]

36. its called the NEW antisemitism....

no you probably dont 'hate jews" as in classic KKK style....but you've replaced jews with israel and giving israel influence that other countries dont have...hence your "israel has made 30 million christians "dislike arabs"

Those american christians belief is based in the bible (thats what christianity is all about) and yes they have chosen what they believe i dont believe israel has any mind controlling waves that are controlling them...but then perhaps thats what you believe since you'r claiming israel did this to them.

[King Mongo]

39. wrong judgements

>>> you've replaced jews with israel

Sorry, but I don't follow your argument.

>>> hence your "israel has made 30 million christians "dislike arabs"

You misunderstood me.

>>> israel has any mind controlling waves that are controlling them

I never said this

>>> you'r claiming israel did this to them

I never claimed that.

[cali]

37. Bias against a group of people doesn't

neccessarily translate into hatred. Most people who hold a bias against another group, whether it be another race, or gays and lesbians, or those who follow a certain religion, are convinced that they aren't biased even as they make sweeping statements about that group of people. It's still prejudice or bias- whatever you want to call it.

The other day I encountered anti-semitism on the general discussion board. Someone posted something about Jews controlling the justice system and media in NY and being subject to a different standard than non jews. No, I can't link to it. The mods swiftly goty rid of the thread.

[King Mongo]

41. Agreed

I was thinking the same. Just because the Hamas and 30 million Christians refuse to recognize that Israel and Palestine exists, that doesn't mean that they hate Jews and Palestinians, but their position is hostile and some of them do hate.

>>Someone posted something about Jews controlling the justice system and media in NY and being subject to a different standard than non jews

It is most likely that that person hated Jews, but I think that it could be possible that the individual was slightly misled and will correct him/herself later. Due to the nature of the conflict, I think that it is possible for non-racists to be misled to believe things which are not true. Later on, these individuals will become racists or recognize that were are wrong and their views will change. Conspiracy theories are not always motivated by hatred.

[cali]

27. Whoa.

Nothing like giving the reader a clue as to where you're coming from. It's the fault of Israelis that presumptively millions of non-Jews hate Arabs? Way to go with a logical fallacy. This purported hatred couldn't possibly have been caused by other factors, could it?

As far as our respective claims being based on opinions; I agree. Only mine is based in reality. And hey, if Jews are nearly as powerful as you seem to think when it comes to controlling world opinion, don't you think they'll act to prevent the term anti-semite being used to describe hatred toward Arabs?

[King Mongo]

29. Columbus

>>Israelis

Seriously, where would you get that idea? I have no idea how you could come up with such a conclusion.

>>hatred against Arabs

In the case of non-Jews, religion is often a leading factor.

>>I agree. Only mine is based in reality.

Agreed. Yet, with things like "new anti-Semitism", it is very possible for my opinion to become a reality in the distant future. It's like Columbus claiming that the world is round and Semites are not only Jews.

>>they'll act to prevent the term anti-semite being used to describe hatred toward Arabs

Of course, and this is being done now. But, that doesn't mean that it will succeed. Personally, I have no desire for the definition to change. Rather, I just feel that all racism should be treated equally as much as possible.

[pelsar]

30. so....

if i understand correctly:

non jews who are religious "dislike arabs because of israel".....did i get that right?

(which religion?)

and the "proof"?...im hesitant to even call it that...but i do enjoy the fact that what you really think is now coming out....no longer are you pretending to be "even handed"....its the israelis fault for the so many "disliking the arabs"

[King Mongo]

33. CUFI

CUFI is a bigoted organization with about 30 million members, and it's not Israel's fault.

[pelsar]

35. how is it israels fault?

they're religious they believe in the bible and would believe in with or without israel

and they're are some chrisitan groups which want to boycott israel...

[King Mongo]

38. Reread #33

>>they're religious they believe in the bible and would believe in with or without israel

Exactly. They are bigoted because of their beliefs about Israel and thus they are bigoted because of Israel, but it's not Israel's fault.

[pelsar]

40. israel is irrelevant

they are not bigoted BECAUSE of israel, they are bigoted because of their beliefs which encompass many things, one of them is israel. but that does not mean they dislike arabs. It means they have strong feelings for israel. One does not preclude the other

[King Mongo]

42. Agreed, partially...

If there were no tensions between Jews and Palestinians, then these 30 million Christians would not be bigots. The only reason why they are bigots is because of the nature of the conflict and their one-sided position. This basically means that they are racists because of Israel, but it's not Israel's fault. They are one-sided because they choose to be one-sided in a conflict that Israel is having and if Israel was not having this conflict, or if Zionists had not created Israel, then these folks would not be one-sided.

[cali]

44. LOL

People who think in black and white, who lean toward being one sided, will always find something to prop up those tendencies.

[Igel]

47. Possibly.

I've heard the arguments, and discussed the motivation for the arguments, more than once. Sometimes the motivation is fine: people hate people like me, I'm Semitic, I demand that other people alter their language to accommodate me. Other times it's more along the lines of, If we make the meaning of 'anti-Semitic' more broad, then the specifically anti-Jewish aspect won't be so salient. The term of art for the latter is 'obfuscation', and it's abroad in the land. Some would probably be bound by ideology to argue that it would cease to exist, but they're stuck, happily so, in a erroneous 1950s linguistic theory.

In any event, sometimes words find new meanings, but typically only when the old meaning is no longer important, or at least is no longer as important, as the new meaning. This can happen when a new term arises to cover that semantic space, so the old term can extend its meaning. Sometimes the old term stretches a little and people devise the new term, allowing the old term to continue to expand its territory; in this case, the old term typically just dies, unless what it's saying is important enough to justify keeping it. Anti-Arab sentiment isn't of that calibre, protestations of exalted victimhood notwithstanding. It anti-Semitism is forced to change so that a new term arises, allowing anti-Semitism to become too non-specific, 'anti-Semitism' will wither, and the new term will acquire the same stigma.

[bloom]

45. I agree with you

I think it's quite nuts to say that a Semitic Palestinian is "Anti-Semitic" because (s)he doesn't like what the Jews are doing in Israel.

I also think it's nuts when Jews use the term "Anti-Semitic" against supporters of Semitic Palestinians.

And then the there are the Anti-"Semitic" Jews - who hate Palestinians.


It does not seem that it expecting that much to expect people to be more specific with their language.

[cali]

46. For someone who expects precision in

language, you seem to be quite lax in yours. You recognize virtually every bias possible against those on the pro Palestinian side of the debate- undeniably a real issue, and totally ignore in your careful listing the equally real bias that is classic anti-semitism. Precision in language doesn't mean co-opting words and phrases and putting them to your own political usage. That practice has an ugly history.

[bloom]

49. There is also

the use of the phrase for people who are anti-Jewish AND anti-every-other-kind-of-semitic - but you wouldn't know that that is what they were talking about because some people want to reserve the phrase for the people that they want to insult?

We already know how the OP wants to use it - so it's what the point in repeating it?

Would you deny that the phrase "anti-semitism" is used against people politically? I see it rather often.

I don't deny that there is and has been anti-Jewishness. Apparently I'm supposed to give a history of that every time I post in I/P - at least that seems to be your implication.

[cali]

50. No, I'm not suggesting that you

do anything. I was merely pointing out your frame. And it's not a matter of how the OP wants to use the word, it's what the word means, and has historically meant. You can try and appropriate it, but using it to denote meaning outside of its accepted use strikes me as rather fruitless. it's certainly an endeavor I have no use for.

Yes, there are people who reject any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, just as there are people who use criticism of Israel as a veil cast over anti-semitism. I see both. And the most interesting thing is that neither side seems to be aware that they're doing it.

[Igel]

48. The problem is that people acquire the meanings of words

by usage, not by etymology.

It's a vicious habit, though, a habit that bites one on the arse rather like a vicious dog would. Not, of course, in the "true" meaning of 'vicious'--'of or relating to vice'. I would never think to comment on a dog's morality, or why biting another's arse could ever be considered a vice. And, of course, not in the 'true' meaning of "habit", whether the French 'demeanor, condition, dress' or the even 'truer' Latin meaning 'have'. Then I'd be saying that possession is a vice, which would clearly make a socialist.

Many an argument--fortunately, not often in my lifetime--has gone astray by confusing the history or derivation of a word with its present meaning. Morphological transparency is a horrible problem with it doesn't match a word's idiosyncratic meaning.

[occuserpens]

43. Hmmmm...

What modern left have to do with Roman Emperor Constantine?!

[bemildred]

51. I don't find this convincing.

Is it really the case that the pagan Roman's annoyance with the Jewish rebellions is the same thing as the medieval christian religious-pecuniary persecutions, is the same as the Nazi nationalist-paranoid holocaust, is the same as the modern muslim anti-Israel motivated anti-semitism? It doesn't seem so to me.

I mean, you can go back farther, to the Egyptians and mesopotamian hydraulic empires, it doesn't even start with the Romans, and those seem to be different too.

The link is not working for me, BTW.