# History of Anti-Semitism



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

As an off-shoot to the Nazi thread, I think what would be useful is if someone more informed than me can give us an overview about the history of anti-semitism. I think the most important question is this: when did attitudes begin to shift, and so when can we start 'condemning' those who were anti-semitic?

Because of the horrific nature of the holocaust, we are ingrained to damn all anti-semitism wherever we see it. However, we really need to be more nuanced than that. For example, I happened to read a bit of anti-semitic Chaucer the other day (writing in the 14th century). I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that I can condemn him for his views, because they were a systematic product of his age, and _no one_ would have questioned them.

On the other hand, if a modern author was writing something anti-semitic, of course we would all jump to condemn them straight away, because important changes have happened since Chaucer, awareness has been raised, and those opinions are unacceptable now.

But when did attitudes change? Were Wagner's beliefs a particularly vocal form of an institutional anti-semitism? Were they on the tail end of popular anti-semitism, with tolerance being promoted by more forward looking thinkers? Or were they totally anachronistic and condemnable because everyone around him had moved on from anti-semitism to acceptance?


----------



## Wehwalt (Jan 21, 2012)

I did not follow the original Nazi thread so forgive me if I mention things that have been already mentioned there. 

Although the term "Anti-Semitism" was only coined in the 19th century (and brought into general use by a close friend of Wagner, actually), one could argue that the sentiment it expresses is nearly as old as the people it is aimed towards. Already in ancient Greece and Rome, Jews were prosecuted and generally disliked. Indeed, since they did not honor the Roman/Greek Deities, and often did not want to help with rituals to appease the Gods, it was believed the Jewish brought the anger of the Gods upon society. In Rome Jews, and later on, Christians as well, were treated as criminals and used for fights in the Collossaeum. 

Then, when the Roman Emperor Constatine the First declared Christianity the official Religion, the situation improved dramatically for the Christians. Not so for the Jewish: now instead of hated and maltreated by the Romans, they were subjected to the same sentiments by the Christians, as they were seen as responsible for the death of Christ. 

These sentiments from the Christians against the Jewish came and went, but did never truly leave. Especially in the highly religion-centered middle ages it was very strong. 

In Wagner's time, anti-semitism was still very much the standard, indeed increasingly becoming so. The 'Non-Jewish' had now gained another reason for their dislike of the people: the Jewish were often rich and most of the Banks were run by them. Thus they were seen as greedy, and as 'stealing' money. 

Wagners - rather deplorable - statements about Jews were did not give rise to much surprise or, even less, to shock. Also, his personal actions were in no way related to what he claimed about the Jewish: he actually had many excellent Jewish friends. His hatred of the Jewish seems more to have stemmed from his extreme dislike of the composer Mendelsohn, and the fact that he was indebted to many Jewish bankers, than to some contorted moral principality. From the relatively recent publication of the Cosima diaries, it turns out that Cosima's (Wagner's Wife) dislike of Jews was much stronger and much more consequent than that of The Master. Added to that we can see from the articles Wagner wrote in later life that he came back from his extreme Anti-Semantic viewpoint, and, in one of his last written articles, even called them 'Superior to Christians". 

All of this said, I do not believe Wagner can be truly condemned for his anti-semitism. I greatly dislike many of the things he wrote about them, yet they were in more ways than one the product of his time, and the product of things that had befallen him as a person. At that, I am convinced there are no real 'anti-semantic messages' in any of Wagner's operas. Even in Der Meistersinger, Beckmesser is a portrait of a critic Wagner greatly disliked, rather than that of a Jew.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

As the Torah attests, the Jews were a warlike bunch back in the day. Among their neighbors, being anti-Jew must have been the rule rather than the exception. Denigrating one's enemies has always been common practice, so it seems that one thing lead to another.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Whose attitude changes are you referring to? People in general, or those in power? Unfortunately, the United States government and its WWII allies were more concerned with the unconditional surrender of their enemies and its advantageous outcome, than they were with stopping the wholesale slaughter of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. And this included firebombing over a million civilians to death in Germany and Japan.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

An interesting sideline to this discussion is that the emergence of the 'Jewish composer' is a relatively recent thing. The earliest Jewish composer of classical music of whom I am aware is Salamone Rossi (1570-1630), but he seems to be an isolated case before Giacomo Meyerbeer (1791-1864), Fromental Halévy (1799-1862) and Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847) who were the first Jewsish composers to enjoy prominence in an otherwise Christian environment.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Whose attitude changes are you referring to? People in general, or those in power? Unfortunately, the United States government and its WWII allies were more concerned with the unconditional surrender of their enemies and its advantageous outcome, than they were with stopping the wholesale slaughter of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. And this included firebombing over a million civilians to death in Germany and Japan.


The term is 'strategy'. No sentiments, human or humane, are involved in government strategy. Or usually in 'company' strategy for that matter - which is one reason why the SCOTUS determination that corporations are 'persons' is so wrongheaded.

[how's that for a segue?]


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There are a couple of exhaustive tomes on these subjects by the prolific author, James Carroll. Constantine's Sword chronicling the history of antisemitism and the Catholic church, and House Of War about the founding of the Pentagon and the evolution of the military industrial complex.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

We did do a unit on this kind of topic at uni, as part of our studies of history. There was a whole history of racism - not specifically against Jews - before the Nazis came along.

I do not really agree that racism before the 20th century was just kind of normal part of the culture. What I'd argue is that it came out of a distorted view, a total distortion, of Enlightenment thinking. The mainstream kind was not really about prejudice or discrimination, but about opening up more options for the whole of humanity. Of course it was a theory, but an important one.

Look up the writings of Count Arthur de Gobineau to get your head around racialist theories coming before the 20th century. This guy just used rubbish pseudo-science to give a distorted view of the Enlightenment, thus propping up the rigid conservative dogmas of elements of the ruling aristocracy wanting to maintain the status quo of their rule over Europe (& of course, this kind of warped thinking gave a hand to legitimise the development of colonies outside of Europe which was beginning at that time - when the British came here to Australia, they called it_ Terra Nullius_, a land without any inhabitants, but the Aborigines had been here for like 40,000 years!). De Gobineau influenced other racial theorists like Houston Stewart Chamberlain who came later, and lived into the 20th century.

Thanks to these guys, the Nazis had something to legitimise and back up their racist ideology, but of course it was not "real" science or theory, it was just plain old racism parading as that (same as like that of Nazi henchman Dr. Joseph Mengele, not a doctor, but a butcher)...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> There are a couple of exhaustive tomes on these subjects by the prolific author, James Carroll. Constantine's Sword chronicling the history of antisemitism and the Catholic church, and House Of War about the founding of the Pentagon and the evolution of the military industrial complex.


Ordered one of each. I suspect that both of them are, ah, _compartmentalized_, with the misconceptions built into that approach - but we'll see. [That's the editorial 'we', not the royal 'we'.]


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

starthrower said:


> There are a couple of exhaustive tomes on these subjects by the prolific author, James Carroll. Constantine's Sword chronicling the history of antisemitism and the Catholic church, and House Of War about the founding of the Pentagon and the evolution of the military industrial complex.


Can we possibly avoid the anti-war drivel. Without the American strength and the allies we would not be doing this '
I think you should look very carefully at what the Germans and the Japanese did across the board, it was monstrous ! Or do you believe in forgive and forget---you really shouldn't you know!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Can we possibly avoid the anti-war drivel. Without the American strength and the allies we would not be doing this '
> I think you should look very carefully at what the Germans and the Japanese did across the board, it was monstrous ! Or do you believe in forgive and forget---you really shouldn't you know!


The "military industrial complex" is the old name for the plutocratic 'New World Order'. There may be other hypothetical 'New World Order' formulations, but the one we have for real is the plutocratic one.

Moving that aside (as if that's possible) strategic bombing was and is a crime against humanity, no matter what entities did it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

moody said:


> I think you should look very carefully at what the Germans and the Japanese did across the board, it was monstrous


Exactly! And my point concerning the Nazi extermination campaign is that the allies did nothing to stop the slaughter. They chose to prolong the war by offering the enemy no conditions for surrender. So the Jews were expendable.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

What are you suggesting should have been done, should the Allies have sat across the table with Hitler,Himmler, Goering and their evil cronies? The only deal they would have accepted would have been one where they stayed on as the legitimate government. As for the Japanese, they did not believe in surrender under any circumstances. I live in Britain and in two world wars we stood alone in Europe against German agression loosing t he cream of our manhood doing it. I used to stand out in the garden and watch the British and German fighters and bombers wheeling overhead, my country was well bombed by aircraft, flying bombs and rockets, London's East End, Coventry and Plymouth were flattened. I need no instruction on the horrors of bombing among the civilian population, I look forward to hearing of your experiences, I wonder whether you have actually looked into all of this , if not I suggest you have a look at such publications as The Knights of Bushido, the Rape of Nanking and the various histories of the S.S.
This is probably a mistake, I am not sure that this is place for such a subject.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

And another _Poley_ topic bids fair to careen off the rails...


Polednice said:


> I think the most important question is this: when did attitudes begin to shift, and so when can we start 'condemning' those who were anti-semitic?


This made me recall a couple a quotes by American Baseball statistician-wizard Bill James. In discussing the hot-tempered Baseball legend Ty Cobb, he said "Ty Cobb didn't invent racism- it was taught to him." And again, he makes an important distinction between "Shoeless" Joe Jackson (the corrupted) and a thoroughgoing degenerate like Hal Chase (the corrupt).

But to get to a useful answer, we need to ask the most pertinent questions. "When" can we start condemning those who are anti-Semitic is only part of the picture. There's also "where" and "under what circumstances," to site two situations that spring most quickly to mind. Also, we need to distinguish between the _thought_ of anti-Semitism (worthy of condemnation at all times and in all situations, I'd say), and _those who harbor_ anti-Semitism, who would be subject to varying degrees of censure, depending on their individual conditions and actions.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ Antisemitism is a subset of racism. Racism is a primitive condition, a carry-over of the 'stranger' antagonism evolved by our pre-human ancestors.

There is probably no cure for the 'congenital disease', but control of self-damage may be possible, employing the force of logic.

Maybe.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^
There's more to it than that. Especially where the Jews are concerned. It's about power and money.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

moody said:


> What are you suggesting should have been done, should the Allies have sat across the table with Hitler,Himmler, Goering and their evil cronies? The only deal they would have accepted would have been one where they stayed on as the legitimate government. As for the Japanese, they did not believe in surrender under any circumstances. I live in Britain and in two world wars we stood alone in Europe against German agression loosing t he cream of our manhood doing it. I used to stand out in the garden and watch the British and German fighters and bombers wheeling overhead, my country was well bombed by aircraft, flying bombs and rockets, London's East End, Coventry and Plymouth were flattened. I need no instruction on the horrors of bombing among the civilian population, I look forward to hearing of your experiences, I wonder whether you have actually looked into all of this , if not I suggest you have a look at such publications as The Knights of Bushido, the Rape of Nanking and the various histories of the S.S.
> This is probably a mistake, I am not sure that this is place for such a subject.


Yes, this is a topic for another thread. And I do find all of this history very interesting. But to paint the British and Americans as the eternal good guys, and their enemies as the evil scum is rather simplistic, with the exception of the Nazi's. I'm sure many people in South East Asia, Iraq, and Afghanistan on the receiving end of American bombing campaigns feel differently about American goodness.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> ^^^^^^^
> There's more to it than that. Especially where the Jews are concerned. It's about power and money.


Ah, but the racism underlies and powers the resentment. The Jews were expelled from England early in the 12th C. because the king and his nobles owed them money they didn't want to pay - but he owed the Jews because Christians were forbidden to loan money at interest. The motives and the racism were inextricably intertwined.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> As an off-shoot to the Nazi thread, I think what would be useful is if someone more informed than me can give us an overview about the history of anti-semitism. I think the most important question is this: when did attitudes begin to shift, and so when can we start 'condemning' those who were anti-semitic?


Don't forget Martin Luther.

Just "google" - _Martin Luther anti-semitism_ -and you'll soon get the drift.

Whilst you're at it, try Shakespeare and Charles Dickens as well.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

moody said:


> I live in Britain and in two world wars we stood alone in Europe against German agression loosing t he cream of our manhood doing it.


Stood alone? What about the French and Russians, and forces from Britain's colonial empire?

And BTW, how far do you think the Brits would have got in WW2 if the Americans hadn't got roped in and bailed you out? You would very probably have been obliterated by Hitler's forces eventually, in which case wasn't it foolish to go to War in 1939 in the first place? Hitler had no quarrel with the Brits.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> Stood alone? What about the French and Russians, and forces from Britain's colonial empire?
> 
> And BTW, how far do you think the Brits would have got in WW2 if the Americans hadn't got roped in and bailed you out? You would very probably have been obliterated by Hitler's forces eventually, in which case wasn't it foolish to go to War in 1939 in the first place? Hitler had no quarrel with the Brits.


If you could persuade yourself to read posts properly you would notice that I said stood alone in Europe. you dont appear to be aware that as they were part of the BRITISH Empire the colonial countries would be included when I say "we" I am one myself, my family was Canadian/German . as for the French, I am glad you have a sense of humour as to their contribution, of course de Gaulle did come and take refuge with us for the duration of the war.The Russians in fact had a deal with Germany until Hitler reneged on it and they fell out. They joined in to grab territory in which they were successful. President Roosevelt was keen to get into things, but because of the large population of Germans and Italians in the USA had a problem. Nevertheless, once Pearl Harbour occurred it was a different matter,but that was some years after the start of the whole thing.If you care for once to look up you will see that my post of Wednesday fully endorses the American role!Of course if we had been obliterated and without our colonial forces, I wonder how the USA would have done against the Axis forces. I would suggest you moderate your language and try to put your point of view without being rude--it's not allowed hear you know. We went to war because of Hitler's invasion of Poland we had a treaty with them and we did it right then rather than wait until we were attacked,this is known as having morals. Lastly have a flip through some history books before your next effort.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> As the Torah attests, the Jews were a warlike bunch back in the day. Among their neighbors, being anti-Jew must have been the rule rather than the exception. Denigrating one's enemies has always been common practice, so it seems that one thing lead to another.


Also, if you know your book of Genesis, other nations are founded by the "have nots" in the family. Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau, for example, squabbled over the "blessing" (what we today would call inheritance). Esau was ousted by his younger brother, which wasn't the norm, and basically chased Jacob away. They meet again later, and while they are pleasant to one another they go their separate ways out of concern for their families. Later, a tribe and then nation would be called Edom ("red"), after Esau ("the hairy red boy", hehe). Not much love was lost between former relatives, for a long, long time, even until the book of Nehemiah when Cyrus let the Hebrew people return home and build the Second Temple.

So, anti-semitism seems to have originally come from the "have nots" in the family, so far as I understand it.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> We did do a unit on this kind of topic at uni, as part of our studies of history. There was a whole history of racism - not specifically against Jews - before the Nazis came along.
> 
> I do not really agree that racism before the 20th century was just kind of normal part of the culture. What I'd argue is that it came out of a distorted view, a total distortion, of Enlightenment thinking. The mainstream kind was not really about prejudice or discrimination, but about opening up more options for the whole of humanity. Of course it was a theory, but an important one.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... I would say that Mengele was a human biologist and not a doctor. It goes without saying that he spat on the Hypocratic oath, but he did produce valid findings that have been used to treat people, not hurt them. Of course, that may sound awful, but it does also seem to respect those unfortunate souls more than hardly remembering them. Each one of them has been remembered and they contribute to the proper practice of medicine, so I guess we really are indebted to them.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> Stood alone? What about the French and Russians, and forces from Britain's colonial empire?
> 
> And BTW, how far do you think the Brits would have got in WW2 if the Americans hadn't got roped in and bailed you out? You would very probably have been obliterated by Hitler's forces eventually, in which case wasn't it foolish to go to War in 1939 in the first place? Hitler had no quarrel with the Brits.


If the original declaration was about defending Poland's independence then there was a 50/50 chance that in 1939 GB would have been fighting the Red Army rather than the Wehrmacht - even if the Red Army was relatively enfeebled at the time does the long-term scenario bear thinking about?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Back to the racism issue - 

History explains who we happen to be racist against - just now in the USA, among WASPs anti-Semitism is not as common as racism against African-Americans, which may be less common now than racism against Mexicans, which may be less common than racism against people who look approximately Arab or Central Asian. Hopefully these examples show that if we ask why one group doesn't like this group or that group, the answer is historical. 

But a deeper question is why people are like this. I think there are two very good answers. One is spiritual: there is an evil inside us that makes us this way, and we have an ethical/religious duty to fight against this part of ourselves. That is true. The other answer is scientific: humans are a war-making creature. Concepts like ethnicity, and the capacity to hate people of certain different identities, enabled our ancestors to fight more effectively and survive. This is also true. 

I don't know about the history of anti-semitism in detail, but in the 19th century it was ratcheted up in part because the capitalists of Western Europe discovered that it could be used to divert workers' anger away from them. Modern anti-semitism was born in the same cauldron of inequality and rage that produced communism, nationalism, and imperialism. 

And now, we are once again told that it doesn't matter how unequal our societies are, we ought to just accept it without comment, and that we should instead direct our anger not toward the corrupt bankers or politicians of our own culture but rather toward Chinese workers or Mexican immigrants or Muslims. To challenge this dogma is unpatriotic and unChristian.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Communism, imperialism, and tyranny seemed to keep ethnic strife under control. When these systems break down or are toppled, the ethnic hatred comes to a head and the different sects start slaughtering each other. We witnessed this in eastern Europe in the 90s, in Iraq after the American invasion, in India after the British empire dissolved.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmm... I would say that Mengele was a human biologist and not a doctor. It goes without saying that he spat on the Hypocratic oath, but he did produce valid findings that have been used to treat people, not hurt them. Of course, that may sound awful, but it does also seem to respect those unfortunate souls more than hardly remembering them. Each one of them has been remembered and they contribute to the proper practice of medicine, so I guess we really are indebted to them.


Ok well let's cast aside my brief reference to Dr. Mengele, it was just an emotional aside. What do you think of the rest that I'd said? Eg. about de Gobineau and Chamberlain? I think I was making some relevant answers to the questions of Polednice in his OP, but nobody else except yourself has answered me. I think these are relevant, though it may well make Wagnerites discomfited that H. S. CHaimberlain, the British pseudo-theorist of racism, was a huge fan of that composer, and he even ended up taking German citizenship! But of course, it's not relevant, as it is uncomfortable for some people here. The usual thing. How about how de Gobineau distorted Enlightenment thinking, as I said, which you said elsewhere on this forum you are a kind of fan of?...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Anti-Semitism (antisemitism)
n.
The act or state of disagreeing with Israel politically in any way, especially concerning backwards apartheid-esque practices;
"Geez, I wish those in power would stop committing genocide on the Palestinian people..."
"Anti-Semite!!!"


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Lukecash, I sincerely hope that I misread your post re: that butcher Mengele and your statement that some *good* {sic!} came out of his torturing innocent and defenseless human beings, including infants. Could you please elaborate on your theory/statement in this regard? What and where are the *valid* *findings *to which you refer*?*


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmm... I would say that Mengele was a human biologist and not a doctor. It goes without saying that he spat on the Hypocratic oath, but he did produce valid findings that have been used to treat people, not hurt them. Of course, that may sound awful, but it does also seem to respect those unfortunate souls more than hardly remembering them. Each one of them has been remembered and they contribute to the proper practice of medicine, so I guess we really are indebted to them.


Try thinking before you put your foot in your mouth.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

This Russian movie, which can be enjoyed competely on YouTube, shows an inside view of Jewish life in pre-war Ukraine (the intro-picture is misleading: it is not a war-movie). When you see the father drilling his son to become the best violinist ever, I guess that no other people set such high ambitions for themselves (that inevitably evoke envy & hatred from the _*****_). This movie is a must for Tchaikovsky & Shostakovich lovers + those who like the talent of Vladimir Spivakov.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Consider these facts;
1940 Summer to autumn. The Battle of Britain. We more or less broke Goering's airforce . the defeat over B ritain had a devastating effect on the German campaign against Russia and it was a critical turning point in WW11. When Field Marshal Paulus deperately needed air support at Stalingrad it was not available, this led to his surrender and another nail in Hitler's coffin.
1939. The pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee scuttled by its crew in the River Plate when trapped by the British navy.
1941. May. Sinking of the giant battleship Bismark.
After the loss of these two ships Hitler would not allow his surface f leet out on belligerant voyages ever again.
1941. Attack on Pearl Harbour. December. So you see this was all done before the Americans came to bail us out 

What do they teach in schools these days??

Polednice you B......did you realise what you were starting ?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I don't know what Mengele's 'valid findings' were, and am interested in knowing them. I suspect that their value was paid for many time over in human suffering, and that no indebtedness ever accrued. Perhaps _Luke_ sometimes focuses too closely.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Anti-Semitism (antisemitism)
> n.
> The act or state of disagreeing with Israel politically in any way, especially concerning backwards apartheid-esque practices;
> "Geez, I wish those in power would stop committing genocide on the Palestinian people..."
> "Anti-Semite!!!"


You are confusing antisemitism with anti-Zionism. And misusing 'genocide'. Both confusions are not unusual.


----------



## larifari (Sep 5, 2011)

Mengele's "research" was no more cruel and offensive than the "research" that is being done today by modern day Mengeles on aborted human fetuses. 

And let us not forget that Mengele's holocaust claimed six million lives, while the modern day holocaust aka Roe vs Wade has claimed thirty million and the number is still rising.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't know what Mengele's 'valid findings' were, and am interested in knowing them. I suspect that their value was paid for many time over in human suffering, and that no indebtedness ever accrued. Perhaps _Luke_ sometimes focuses too closely.


The only research of any potential practical value that Mengele produced concerns hypothermia (he conducted experiments which involved measuring the length of time it takes for people to die when immersed up to their necks in freezing water). However, his victims were in a dreadful state of health to begin with, and his "research" was badly done in other respects--not to mention badly documented--so his results are highly questionable. Even if you include them, it's reasonably safe to say that Mengele's contributions to modern medical knowledge are negligible.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

larifari said:


> Mengele's "research" was no more cruel and offensive than the "research" that is being done today by modern day Mengeles on aborted human fetuses.


May I ask what research you are referring to here? Research using embryonic stem cells?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

larifari said:


> Mengele's "research" was no more cruel and offensive than the "research" that is being done today by modern day Mengeles on aborted human fetuses.
> 
> And let us not forget that Mengele's holocaust claimed six million lives, while the modern day holocaust aka Roe vs Wade has claimed thirty million and the number is still rising.


Do you know nothing of history? Mengeles experiments were performed on live prisoners not dead foetus' and this thread is referring to anti-semitism, I suggest you take your political agenda away because chances are that you might make yourself objectionable to some people here.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I think taking dislike or distrust of ANY group of people to extremes is worth treating the same way as anti-Semitism is today. I think it is prudent to look at history and the events that preceded the Holocaust and watch for those elsewhere in the world - not just toward Jewish populations, but toward ANY population. It is not mere racism - it goes well beyond that. It is when very large segments of the population blame a smaller group or groups for their country's woes. It often involves extreme nationalism, as it becomes a 'protect our national well-being' issue in their eyes.

Watch out for any group of people being blamed for economic or other troubles (this type of thing is often brought about by those with very nationalist opinions), and take steps to quell it before it evolves into publicly-accepted policy. I see the way many people blame undocumented immigrants in my country for our economic woes, and I see shadows of those pre-Holocaust events. And no, invoking 'Godwin's Law' is not always correct, for how can we say 'Never Again' if we're not allowed to make comparisons?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Who is Godwin?


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

moody said:


> Who is Godwin?


Maybe he refer to Paul Godwin (real name Pinchas Goldfein). 1902/82. excelent violinist and light music conductor, very active in Europe in the 30s. and 40s. Never heard "Jealoyssy" with a fantastic introduction on violin solo? No. you are too young for that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

dmg said:


> I think taking dislike or distrust of ANY group of people to extremes is worth treating the same way as anti-Semitism is today. I think it is prudent to look at history and the events that preceded the Holocaust and watch for those elsewhere in the world - not just toward Jewish populations, but toward ANY population. It is not mere racism - it goes well beyond that. It is when very large segments of the population blame a smaller group or groups for their country's woes. It often involves extreme nationalism, as it becomes a 'protect our national well-being' issue in their eyes...


I would agree. Eg. the Nazis did not only target those of Jewish heritage - although they were the main target - but also gypsies, homosexuals, people with disabilities, religious people (eg. Christians) who did take a stand against thier brutality, Communists and others on the left, and also anyone opposing them (Konrad Adenauer, who would later become the Chancellor of post-war West Germany, was imprisoned by the Nazis, and he was a Christian Democrat, not a leftist by any means, but he hated the Nazi regime).

It is true, racism, or prejudice and discrimination was not restricted to the Jews or one or two other groups throughout history...


----------



## larifari (Sep 5, 2011)

moody said:


> Do you know nothing of history? Mengeles experiments were performed on live prisoners not dead foetus' and this thread is referring to anti-semitism, I suggest you take your political agenda away because chances are that you might make yourself objectionable to some people here.


The so-called experiments on the so-called dead foetuses is exactly the same as the so-called experiments of Mengele were on Jewish prisoners in the extermination camps. The only difference was that the victims of today don't even have the voice.

Are you implying that I may be banned or according to you, should be banned for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves?

You seem to forget that those dead foetuses were alive before some butcher who chose to turn his/her Hippocratic oath to a hypocritical, money-grabbing oath.

Looks real good on you!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Anyone or any group that refuses to march or assimilate is an easy target for scapegoating by thugs and other mental midgets.


----------



## larifari (Sep 5, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Anyone or any group that refuses to march or assimilate is an easy target for scapegoating by thugs and other mental midgets.


Can you give me a valid reason why a person who immigrates into a country that predominantly speaks a language other than the mother tongue of that immigrant person, should NOT assimilate?

If a person wants to maintain his/her heritage, he/she has the undisputed freedom to stay wherever the hell they crawled out from.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^That's a false dichotomy. One can immigrate, maintain one's own language from the mother country, and other cultural things, but still become part of the host or new country.

The Jews in Europe before the Holocaust were well integrated into many of the countries and societies there. They had been there for centuries. There was some intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. The Nazis banned that. The Jews spoke Hebrew, or some of it, but also the language of the country they had been living in for generations.

Same with other immigrants. They pick up the native language and customs, esp. the generations born into the new country.

Why do I have to explain these simple things? This appears it will be a thread for troll-like behaviours. Unfortunately. I'm the only one who has attempted to answer what I thought was the question. Focussing on racism before the Holocaust...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

And I bet you'd like to beat them back into that hole, wouldn't you? I don't have to give you a valid reason because I'm not advocating non-assimilation, I'm just making a point.


----------



## larifari (Sep 5, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^That's a false dichotomy. One can immigrate, maintain one's own language from the mother country, and other cultural things, but still become part of the host or new country.
> 
> The Jews in Europe before the Holocaust were well integrated into many of the countries and societies there. They had been there for centuries. There was some intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. The Nazis banned that. The Jews spoke Hebrew, or some of it, but also the language of the country they had been living in for generations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The illegal immigrant problem in the US is about 2/3rds plutocratic voodoo. Most of the Mexicans who 'come across' would be very happy with a real green card. They send most of their earnings home. That's *home*. They intend to return *home* at some undetermined time. Assimilation is contraindicated.

While you are distracted by the 'problems', the plutocrats are stealing your birthright.



ps. This thread may soon be given wings, and fly away.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

larifari said:


> Can you give me a valid reason why a person who immigrates into a country that predominantly speaks a language other than the mother tongue of that immigrant person, should NOT assimilate?
> 
> If a person wants to maintain his/her heritage, he/she has the undisputed freedom to stay wherever the hell they crawled out from.


Wow, dude.

..


----------



## larifari (Sep 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The illegal immigrant problem in the US is about 2/3rds plutocratic voodoo. Most of the Mexicans who 'come across' would be very happy with a real green card. They send most of their earnings home. That's *home*. They intend to return *home* at some undetermined time. Assimilation is contraindicated.
> 
> While you are distracted by the 'problems', the plutocrats are stealing your birthright.
> 
> ...


If they want to come, let them learn English! If they want to go home, eventually, let them go home now.
If they can't call the country that gives them wages that they could never even dream of in the hell hole they call home, let them go home or transform their own country to be similar to the one they steal and freeload from.


----------



## larifari (Sep 5, 2011)

science said:


> Wow, dude.
> 
> ..


Thanks for your thoughtful, smart, wise and insightful response.

You are a politically correct, 0bama worshiping, mentally superior to any tea-partier intellectual, aren't you?

Aren't you glad that your mother was pro-life?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

larifari said:


> If they want to come, let them learn English! If they want to go home, eventually, let them go home now.
> If they can't call the country that gives them wages that they could never even dream of in the hell hole they call home, let them go home or transform their own country to be similar to the one they steal and freeload from.


Well, if we want to continue having our toilets cleaned for $4.25 / hour, we'll have to compromise.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

larifari said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful, smart, wise and insightful response.


Cool off man.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

larifari said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful, smart, wise and insightful response.
> 
> You are a politically correct, 0bama worshiping, mentally superior to any tea-partier intellectual, aren't you?
> 
> Aren't you glad that your mother was pro-life?


I think you should think of taking it easy---and that guy is about the last person to fit into that nonsense of yours.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> I think you should think of taking it easy---and that guy is about the last person to fit into that nonsense of yours.


Well, that's nice of you. Thanks, man.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Hilltroll72 said:


> This thread may soon be given wings, and fly away.


Hope not.

Please permit the indulgence of a couple of quotes:



Chi_townPhilly said:


> Every energetic poster (I can think of) has indulged in some digression from time-to-time. Perhaps something said in the thread might remind a person of an amusing incident or observation that a follow-up poster feels is worth sharing. If too much of this goes on, then the OP (or ANY participant, for that matter) can civilly call for return to the header-topic, and not be out-of-line.
> 
> When (in the judgement of Administration & Moderation) the digressions sink to the level of willful and deliberate thread-hijacking or derailment efforts, then they cross the line.


 *AND...*


Chi_townPhilly said:


> Intentionally disruptive posting is "trolling," and will receive assessments as such.


We hope the next time we (or anyone else) visit(s) here, 
it will be to say something about the _History of Anti-Semitism_.

Please.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

moody said:


> Consider these facts;
> 1940 Summer to autumn. The Battle of Britain. We more or less broke Goering's airforce . the defeat over B ritain had a devastating effect on the German campaign against Russia and it was a critical turning point in WW11. When Field Marshal Paulus deperately needed air support at Stalingrad it was not available, this led to his surrender and another nail in Hitler's coffin.
> 1939. The pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee scuttled by its crew in the River Plate when trapped by the British navy.
> 1941. May. Sinking of the giant battleship Bismark.
> ...


I don't doubt any of these things, and I wasn't trying to belittle Britain's apparently courageous action in 1939 to take on Hitler more or less single handed, save for French support which soon fizzled out. 

The main point I was trying to make was that had it remained a war solely between Germany (and Italy) and Britain alone, I doubt that Britain would have won it. It was only because the Americans and Russians came later that Hitler was eventually defeated. But in 1939 neither of these situations could have been confidently predicted. It was therefore an extremely high risk strategy that could easily have failed with monumentally catastrophic consequences. If Britain had been defeated and then Germany then turned its attention on the USA, in unison with Japan, things might not have turned out so rosy for the Americans either. As for "anti-Semitism", this would have been the order of the day if the Japanese and Germans had actually secured victory, and there possibly would not be a Jew left on the planet today.

To this extent, it is questionable whether the action Britain took in 1939 was actually the right one, given that there was a significant risk that Hitler's forces would eventually succeed against Britain. It might have been better for Britain to have stepped up drastically its own re-armament, and tried to hang out for as long as possible until Germany actually attempted an invasion, which I doubt would have happened very quickly, given Britain's already awesome naval power and the fact of the English Channel making invasion so much more difficult. 

It's all speculation but possibly what might have happened instead of invading Britain is that Germany would have first invaded Russia. It might then have joined with Japan in joint action the USA. On this scenario Britain would have been far better prepared militarily and could have joined the USA in joint hostlities against the Axis powers in 1941, or whenever, with far better odds of survival and eventual victory. I guess however that in this scenario the Russians might have "bought it" at the hands of the Germans in the meanwhile.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

And I even said


Chi_townPhilly said:


> Please.


----------

