Jump to content

Talk:History of antisemitism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

NOT an anti-Semitism

1121 A letter from Baghdad describes decrees regulating Jewish clothes: "two yellow badges, one on the headgear and one on the neck. Furthermore, each Jew must hang round his neck a piece of lead with the word dhimmi on it. He also has to wear a belt round his waist. The women have to wear one red and one black shoe and have a small bell on their necks or shoes." (Paul Johnson, History of the Jews p.204-5)

In the middle ages, there were regulations concerning the clothes that people of the certain profession must wear. What it has to do with AS?? Cautious 18:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

1885 Germany expels about 10,000 Russian Jews, refugees of 1881 - 1884 pogroms.

It was known in Poland as "Rugi pruskie" and was directed much more against Poles then Jews. Prussians tried to slow-down de-germanisation of their eastern provinces, called Ostflucht. It was not motivated by AS, maybe a form of xenophoby. Cautious 18:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC) 26 000 Poles. In particular all people without the right to German citizenship. The sentences about refugees is plainly ridiculous. Cautious 18:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and disputed

The whole article is POV and very biased. One example: 386 John Chrysostom of Antioch writes eight homilies Adversus Judaeos (lit: Against the Judaizers).

This belongs to the history of Christianity, chapter establishing doctrines. Instead of version based on Judaism, the more universal version were used. What it has to do with Anti-Semitism? Nothing. Cautious 09:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, the facts of history are stubborn. I wish all this would never happen, but it did. This definitely belongs to the history of A-S. Early Christianity had to break up with Judaism it derived from, and one way to do it was to ostracize it with antisemitic allegations. Please take a look at John_Chrysostom#The_Homilies_against_the_Judaizers, [1], etc. The information is widely available. In the future, please refrain from deleting text without explanation, it is not polite. Your objections are unfocused, but your agenda clearly is. Please state exactly which fact is disputed. --Humus sapiens 09:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1st I am not deleting the facts. You are adding propaganda texts. As I stated in proper place, Jews of Kielce mostly came from Soviet Union, forests etc. So your sentence is misleading. If somebody wants more he can read the whole article. 2nd moral contempt of Jews, understood by the their religion DO NOT constitute AS. It belongs to history of religion and religion is based on moral criterias. If somebody liked Jewish religion 400 AD, most likely he himself was Jewish. Better find, what Talmud says about Christians. Cautious 10:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The fact, that Chrysostom texts were later taken out of context and used by Nazis, doesn't make him Anti-Semite. It is other way around: you are taking into granted, the Nazi propaganda. In matter of fact, you are spreading Nazi ideas. Cautious 10:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance and prejudice here, may I suggest you carefully read Anti-Semitism as well as Christianity and anti-Semitism. Seriously, the answers to many of your questions are there.
  2. It doesn't matter where the Kielce Jews came from, that doesn't excuse the atrocities committed against them.
  3. Before accusing me in "spreading Nazi ideas", you should have reread what John Chrysostom wrote and what this article says about it.
  4. You are welcome to start an article "what Talmud says about Christians".

--Humus sapiens Talk 10:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not an expert about Talmud. What I noted, but maybe I am wrong, Talmud doubts virginity Of Mary, and gives fatherhood of Jesus to Roman soldier, among other anti-Christian opinions. The same version was repeated by Jurgen Stroop. It means that Nazis read Talmud. Cautious
I read his theories, but without details. It was normal form of the discussion between religions in those times. One of the protestant writers in Poland in XVIth century used in his book 56 different types of bad words against Catholics. Read Talmud and compare, who was the worst in the war of words Cautious 00:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The subject of this article the A-S, not anti-Crisitanity. Please understand: whatever is in the Talmud it does not justify the persecutions of the Jews. Also, how many Christians were persecuted and murdered by the Jews? --Humus sapiens Talk 00:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A-S is not reasoned animosity against Jews. If Talmud said the same about Christians and some contemprorary Christian said the same about Jews, there is simply conflict, no A-S. A-S is one sided bias, that has no substance. How many is irrelevant. I am sure it would be possible to find many Jewish villains, of course on condition, that they were in position of power over Christians. How many Jews Christins killed. Nazis were no Christians, probably you know it. Anyway, it is irrelevant.
I read it again about the John and I think that this shouldn|t be in artcile called History of Anti-Semitism. Simply because the guy was not Anti-Semite. Is it enough for you. You simply put all the history of Jews into history of Anti-Semitism. It is obvious that you see Jews by the glass of anti-Semitism. You are so called Anti-Semite a rebours, it is a problem with you and with this article, that makes no sense. Lets put it to history of Jews. Cautious 00:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The links above have sections on A-S and are full of quotes by the Chruch Fathers. Their A-S was one of the steps in the process to ostracize-marginalize-persecute the Jews as a religious group. Your crusade here is very obtrusive. If you don't understand a topic, try to research it more or ask questions, instead of approaching it with already preset conclusions. Keep personal attacks out of the encyclopedic discussion. As a matter of fact, I have moved many items from Timeline of Jewish history over here to separate the two. --Humus sapiens Talk 00:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am saying, he was not Anti-Semite, you are saying that he took part in the process of creation of A-S. But he wasnt A-S, we agree both on it. What conclusions somebody has drawn later, is his problem. Try to make it simple. Experienced proved, that applying such a complicated reasoning as you above did, is to make truth less clear and then you can prove everything. What comes to my mind, that you have already choosen agenda and you are trying to find facts to back up it. Cautious 01:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Search the web for: "church fathers" anti-semitism. I am not judging John Chr. here. He might have his reasons. He was a part of the process and thus relevant, even crucial part of it as the A-S evolved over time. Stop your childish personal allegations: note that the more detailed articles are not written by me. Also note that I have not added many other Chrurch Fathers, even though they should be mentioned here, IMHO. If you are really interested in promoting encyclopedic knowledge, (rather than hiding it), and true reconciliation (which comes after learning from uncomfortable facts of history so not to repeat it again), then why don't you do it, or it's too "complicated" for you? --Humus sapiens Talk 02:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your point is completely irrelevant. Web is full of good and bad things. In Copernicus times, everbody believed in Sun revolving around Earth. The common error is not less erroneous. I see that you dont have further arguments. The point is, that A-S is commonly abused by aplying to everything. By doing it, it is less clear what was A-S what not, but first of all, A-S becomes less bad and more acceptable. It is better to limit A-S to really bad things rather then call it every event in history of Jews. Cautious 02:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I have serious doubts, if this article make sense at all. As everybody know, modern Anti-Semitism was developed in the XIX century as one of the fashionable ideologies of the century, together with nationalism and socialism. The events before XIX century, occured from different motivations i.e. religious Anti-Judaism or imperial ambitions of Romans or social upheaval.

That is not true. The word anti-Semitism is a modern invention. But hatred of Jewish people is as old as the Jews themselves. Anti-Judaism is no different from anti-Semitism. JeMa 17:34, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Also putting Intifada here, makes no sense at all. I propose to move the entry to Anti-Semitism article without pre XIX century events or keep it in limited version to the things that have in common idelogical Anti-Semitism Cautious

From a political science point of view, you are correct. However, much of anger and fighting expressed in the intifada is motivated by years of exposure to anti-Semitic myths and conspiracy theories, which the average Palestinian accepts as factual. JeMa 17:34, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
This thesis should be defended, before yóu are trying to make your argument. From the external point of view, Palestinians may have reasons to violently oppose the Israelis. Whether they are motivated by anti-Semitism must be proven with source documents. Cautious 00:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Palestinians may have reasons to violently oppose the Israelis Targeting and blowing up a schoolbus or a disco or a pizzzeria full of children _on purpose_ cannot be justified by any reason, period. Humus sapiens 04:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They have a right to defend themselves, but obviously they don't have a right to use non-discriminate violence against civilians. I 100% contempt those methods. Moreover, I believe, that using those methods made them loosers in political sense of that word. If they took Gandhi approach, they probably would have made better deal. Cautious 13:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I moved following to talk: 70 - 135 CE After at least two major Jewish revolts, the Romans desecrate the Second Temple, rename Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina forbidding Jews to live there, and rename the province from Judea into Palestine. Approx. 1.5 Miliion of Jews massacred, thousands sold to slavery.

This belongs in the article. The important fact here is, the Romans tried to wipe out the whole nation. Please do not remove. Humus sapiens 08:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

1948 May 15. The next day after Israel declares independence, five Arab armies invade. 1948 Arab-Israeli War

1948 - 1955 About 1 Million of Jews expelled from Arab Middle East and North Africa, find refuge in Israel. [www.jimena-justice.org]

1956 The 1956 Suez War.

1964 Creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/plo.html

1967 June 5-11. The Six-Day War.

1967 Sep. 1. The Arab Leaders meet in Khartoum, Sudan. The Three No's of Khartoum: No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel. No peace with Israel.

1973 Oct. 6-24. The Yom Kippur War.

1975 United Nations adopts resolution equating Zionism with racism. Rescinded in 1991, but no apologies given.

1976 Israel rescues hostages taken to Entebbe, Uganda.

1987 Beginning of the First Intifada against Israel.

1990 - 1991 Iraq invades Kuwait, triggering a war between Iraq and Allied United Nations forces. Israel is hit by 39 Scud missiles from Iraq.

2000 Sep. 29 The al-Aqsa Intifada begins.

2001 Aug. The UN Conference in Durban.

Why were these moved to Talk? JeMa
Good question. I am planning to reintroduce at least some of them back, rephrasing to make clear why they belong. Humus sapiens 09:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Issues in the 1400s

1483 Lithuania - Jews were readmitted in 1501. The law, that states which traders are allowed in the country, has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism.

Similarly:

1483 Warsaw got the privilage thet Jews cannot settled down, but Jews could settle down elsewhere. Simply, Polish towns were divided on Jewish populated, German populated and mixed. By the way, Warsaw was then tiny town, rather village, located in semi-independent Duchy of Masovia.

I have returned them back. Please try not to mix your own agenda and NPOV. Humus sapiens 09:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Issues in the 20th century

> modern Anti-Semitism was developed in the XIX century <

Sorry, I would respectfully disagree. This is the timeline of one of the world's oldest hatreds.

Animosity toward Jews can have completely different background. Modern Anti-Semitism is an ideology and was found in XIX century, while what happenned in Middle Ages was religiously and economically motivated. Romans were motivated by imperial ambitions. Cautious

Perhaps this timeline page (when better developed), together with Anti-Semitism, would disspell this confusion.

I wouldn't want to turn this into a political discussion. This is supposed to be one of the saddest lessons of history, still being learned today.

Yes and No. What happenned in Germany during WW2 was horrible. There were also some horrible events in the past, but 600 years long most of world Jews enjoyed confortable life in Poland. Even Khmielnicky massacre didn't stop Jewish population to double in 100 years. Jews in Poland had more freedom then Polish peasants, for example. Cautious

Kielce

Kielce deserves its own article. Moving the discussion to Talk:Kielce pogrom

Saving a remark from Cautious for the history of Antisemitism: Let's stick to the facts: Jews in Kielce 1946 could have returned from concentration camps, could have returned from death camps (but very few. Only prisoners in death camps, were operators of them. There were few people necessary to operate. They could have been Jews). They could have returned from deportation to Soviet Union. They could have return from the hiding by the local families. They could also have returned from the hiding in the forest. The resources say, that 1 or 2 victims of the pogrom were not Jewish. So let limit ourselves to the facts.

So the logic is, if some Jews were forced to be operators in the camps or have returned home from deportation to the SU, this makes them legitimate target of pogrom in 1946? That's sick. Humus sapiens 09:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You have well developed imagination. In the main article about Kielce pogrom is stated that among victims there were 2 non-Jewish persons. As far as I am concerned it should be properly stated: over 40 people killed. The second point is, that in July 1946 more then a year after the end of WW2, people were not under journey from death camps. It is not established, where they spent the war. Some of them might survive the war in other places: Soviet Union, forests, hidden in private apartments. Therefore your text is factually wrong and misleading. Cautious 10:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Romans and the Jews

If the Romans are going on this page (and there were two separate Roman sackings of Judaea -- the first after the Masada revolt, the second after Simon Bar Kohkba decided that he was the Messiah), then Antiochus Epiphanes belongs here too: his actions were explicitly aimed at wiping out Judaism, while the Romans' actions were more like their suppression of any other revolt; they didn't see any major religious dimension to it, and before things turned violent, they were fairly tolerant of Judaism. --MIRV 09:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To qualify a bit further: It is a bit unfair to call the Romans anti-Semitic, because the government, at least, didn't have any problem with Judaism as such; all it cared about was keeping peace and collecting taxes. It was only when there was trouble and uproar -- not necessarily caused by Jews, since religious minorities are easy targets for blame -- that they turned violent. There were several expulsions also: Tiberius and Claudius both decided to kick the Jews out of Rome after disturbances of the peace; this should probably be mentioned. --MIRV 09:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we should briefly mention only relevant dates & events here, emphasizing why they are important. Humus sapiens 10:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tiberius

[2] has some readings on Tiberius' expulsion. I doubt that this particular episode belongs on the timeline, but other opinions are of course welcome. --MIRV 21:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Existence of anti-Semitism

In the present form the article is not acceptable. If one think, that Israel is the threat to the peace, it is the opinion, and one has right to his own opinions. Calling it Anti-Semitism redefine Anti-Semitism and make presenting not-convinient opinions called by this word. This is the concept of an extremist. Cautious

This poll demonstrates that anti-semitism is still alive and well. :( Humus sapiens 10:29, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Your statements ilustrate the extremism and propaganda. What you are saying is as true, as 2+2=5. Either Anti-Semitism is ideology of hatry and is undoubtly bad, or accordind to your definition, people opinions about Israel are Anti-Semitic. So defined Anti-Semitism has no moral value. It is neither wrong or good. Cautious
No personal attacks here, please. Singling out the Jewish state, with the countries such as N.Korea, Iran, Syria, Lybia, etc., the results of the poll are clearly A-S. Humus sapiens
Removed it. Humus sapiens 07:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No one is saying that mere criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Your straw-man criticism is noted. JeMa

Reversals of AS policies

Moved to talk: "1634 Anti-Semitic left overs banned in Poland." Reasons: 1) The meaning is unclear. 2) Is it relevant to the subj of persecutions? Humus sapiens 08:19, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More on (2) above: I've changed my position on relevance of persecutions in the article. Now I think that major reversals of oppressive policies also belong here. Endless expulsions don't make a lot of sense unless they are punctuated by readmittions - often for a price. Humus sapiens 22:30, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Disputation" boilerplates (pun intended)

What specific changes must be made to remove the "disputed" notes? Unless there is a response in, say, a month, they will be removed. Humus sapiens 01:24, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, there are all the individual sections disputed here on the talk page, not to mention the complaints about a severe lack of context for many items and the inherent inaccuracy of lumping together everything from the Seleucid persecutions to the modern-day intifada. If a month passes with no such disputes, then the boilerplate should be removed. --MIRV 22:39, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UN Durban conference

This article is in need of serious work. A Wikipedia article can't take the position that the UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance was an "anti-Semitic farce" or that apologies should have been given for the 1975 UN resolution, etc. Other entries need context (i.e. Jews were executed in Iraq in 1969? Was there a stated reason beyond anti-Semitism? Had they committed crimes? How many?). Isn't it possible for anti-Israeli beliefs and actions being distinct from anti-Semitism? It is, at the very least, true that some people believe there is an important distinction. If the wars against Israel are anti-Semitic according to some interpretation, that interpretation needs to be explained and identified, not assumed as common knowledge. Tuf-Kat 01:44, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This article is more than just farcical--it is disgraceful. It is based on poor research and makes no reference to the real research being done on this topic. I am already prepared to delete this article. Danny 02:06, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dann and Tuf Kat are incorrect. There is a strong consensus among most experts in anti-Semitism that this conference was anti-Semitic. All Jewish groups I know of agree on this. Danny's criticisms of those people who have stated those views does not represent the views of the Jewish community. They represent his own views. He has the right to his opinion, of course, but his opinion does not represent a consensus among those affected by this conference. JeMa
Perhaps some items do not belong, some were badly worded or their relevance is not enough explained in the timeline. This is work in progress. Simply removing half as Danny did is vandalism. If Hadrian's toponymics or mass pogroms of 1918 or the UNGA Res. Zionism=Racism are not A-S, then what is?! Humus sapiens 03:22, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This article is not intended to prove that UNGA res. Zionism=Racism is anti-Semitic. I'm not sure what the point of this article is, but proving that certain actions are anti-Semitic is not it. If this article is to exist, it should be to show how anti-Semitism has evolved over time -- its reasoning, effects, perception, etc. A list of historical events that somebody has presumably connected with anti-Semitism does not provide the reader with any useful knowledge. My advice would be to redirect this to a prose article called history of anti-Semitism -- timelines are good for inventions and the like, when events that are clearly relevant clearly occurred, but aren't capable of putting historical events in adequate context for highly controversial ideas like anti-Semitism. Tuf-Kat 03:40, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
I'm with Danny and Tuf-Kat on this. Incidentally:
1099 Crusaders capture Jerusalem and massacre tens of thousands of the city's Jews is somewhat doubtful since the city did not have tens of thousands of Jews at that time. A few hundred perhaps. Most of the population was Muslim and some were Christians. Almost the whole population other than Christians was massacred. This is a good example of how separating the Jewish experience from its context can distort history. --Zero 03:56, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be at Timeline of anti-Semitism? Tuf-Kat 03:49, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)

Inserting the suppression of the two revolts against Rome (good thing the esteemed author doesn't know about the Jewish revolt in Cyprus) as anti-Semitic is just asinine. Failing to distinguish between various forms of anti-semitism is asinine. Assuming unfounded causal links between events is asinine. My advice to the author, if he does not have the time to read some serious scholarly work on the topic (and Chesler or Foxman are neither serious nor scholarly) is to at least peruse Baron, read Edward Flannery, Gavin Longmuir, or Jakob Katz. Right now, this is really pathetic. Danny 04:03, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please stop your insults towards Humus and others. Those contributing are doing so in good faith, and they show a good deal of knowledge. You can work with them, instead of hurting them. JeMa
I realize that the history of this long and strong hatred could be uncomfortable for some. With your constructive contributions, this article could evolve into useful resource and reference. That's "the point". Thank you Zero, I removed 1099 entry. (I guess that was total deaths). The "equal opportunity oppressors" don't belong here. May I suggest Danny read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Tuf-Kat: "timelines are good for inventions" - are you suggesting all historical timelines have to go? Humus sapiens 04:48, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I never said historical timelines should go (obviously, I work on Timeline of trends in music all the time). I said that timelines work well for subjects that are full of documentable events with clear and unambiguous relevance. For the most part, nobody argues about when American history can be said to have begun, or whether certain periods count, hence Timeline of United States history is fine. Nobody agrees on what anti-Semitism is, or when it has occurred or what events and circumstances have shaped it. Thus, most bullet points on a timeline of it will require at least a paragraph or two of context and counter-interpretations -- this makes the timeline format unwieldy. Tuf-Kat 06:18, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
"Nobody agrees on what anti-Semitism is" -- all it takes is lookup in a dictionary. I appreciate your criticism. Format-wise, bulleted hypertext is perfect for things such as this (IMHO). Humus sapiens 07:32, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That's absurd -- plenty of people argue about the definition of anti-Semitism. There are almost a dozen archives at Talk:anti-Semitism, largely arguing about the definition. Tuf-Kat 02:58, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
If you find the "reasons" (read: excuses) absurd and self-contradictory, I agree. More about it: [Aish HaTorah's Exploration of Anti-Semitism].

As for the unfortunate but commonly used term, is this is the right place to discuss or redefine it?

As the article stands right now, the history of A-S ends in 1968. Perhaps convenient for some, but unfortunately very untrue. This is what Eli Wiesel called "double killing" because it also murders the memory of the crime. Tells a lot about those who's butchered the article. Humus sapiens 10:33, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of some major cuts

Yes, I was around Wikipedia when they put them together. "Be bold." "Remove patent nonsense." As for "equal opportunity oppressors," I guess you agree with my removal of all the Roman Empire stuff. You should read about what they did in Syria, Armenia, Parthia, Dacia, Gaul, etc... Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is, to say the least, a highly debated issue, and you are taking a stance on it, declaring it as a matter of fact (see: Wikipedia:How to edit articles). Do you want me to nitpick at each and every date? I can. Danny 05:04, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here's a good one:
1078 Pope Gregory VII prohibits Jews from holding offices. Context: Ferdinand I had granted Jews equal rights one hundred years earlier and Jews had become a powerful "state within a state" in Castile (Milman's term) with so much autonomy that the beit din was allowed to imposed capital punishment on Jews for violation of the Law). Gregory was involved at the time in the Investiture Controversy with HRE Henry IV. It was a conflict of interests between two individuals, both of whom were trying to consolidate power. Since Alphonso VI of Castile was not under Henry, Gregory attempted exert Papal control there and "cautioned Alphonso ... [he happened to be 13 at the time and therefore subject to being swayed by a more powerful ruler] to cease allowing Jews to rule over Christians" (see Flannery, 127--128, who I quote verbatim with my own explanation regarding the vulnerability of Alphonso). He did not prohibit anything. He could not prohibit anything given the conflict in which he was embroiled. Jews were already in positions of power. Any privileges that were taken away were soon restored so that under Alphonso VIII, they were fighting with the Christians against the Almohades. That, my friend, is context. Compare with your statement "prohibits Jews from holding office." Gevalt!!! Danny 05:25, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is constructive (except your "Gevalt"), thank you. I'll remove it. Need to learn more about this, but where did it say Castille or Spain? BTW, some of entries you removed today I'm going to reword to show their relevance and put back. Hadrian is definitely relevant. Humus sapiens 07:32, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Haman will go back when there is some verification of his historical existence beyond the biblical account. Please don't tell me you plan on putting Pharaoh next. Danny 01:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reasonable. Humus sapiens 01:23, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Reasonable. JeMa

I took out two of the way-too-many links for Kielce. The Sinai Liechter piece is an abominable piece of poorly written crap. The link to Polonia Today surprised me: Do you actually read the links? It takes the attitude of Cardinal Hlond. If you really want some information about Kielce, Humus, try reading Jerzy Slawomir Mac, "The Kielce Pogrom, 1946," in Studium Papers 13, no. 2 (1989; trans. Padraig Kenney). The links I already went through were pretty poor--they certainly don't capture what really happened or its impact throughout Europe. Like I always say when I teach the subject, if you wanna talk about it, you gotta really know it first. Danny 04:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've read them and thought it'd be a POV from the other side. The multitude of links was in response to denial by User:Cautious above. I'll try to research more. Humus sapiens 09:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UN resolution

Someone deleted:

2003 Dec. 2. A UN draft resolution condemning anti-Semitism is cancelled.

Actually the 58th General Assembly passed two resolutions, "The incompatibility between democracy and racism" and "Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, etc.." which condemn anti-Semitism explicitly. There were only two votes against: Israel and USA. Presumably the reason was that the resolution wording says "anti-Semitism and Islamophobia". Go searching at http://www.un.org/ga/58/ --Zero 11:21, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's the info on the UN res. in question:

Thanks for the links. In summary: there is a regular resolution on religious intolerance (sponsored by Ireland for historical reasons) that has always been passed unanimously. This year for the first time two examples of such intolerance, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, were inserted (previously no examples were listed), and then removed again before the resolution was put to the GA. Instead those two examples were added to the resolution on democracy and racism, which was passed with two votes against (Israel and USA). The religious intolerance resolution without examples was passed unanimously. None of this should be on this page. --Zero 10:13, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article:

  • [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033112/posts Arabs torpedo UN anti-Semitism resolution]

Pontius Pilate

26 Procurator Pontius Pilate misappropriates Temple funds, orders his legion to attack the protestors. Philo calls him consumed with "corruption, violence and robbery", responsible for "oppression, illegal executions, never-ending most grevious cruelty". Blaming Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth (in c. 36) is traditional anti-semitic accusation.

I removed this section because, as far as I can ascertain, there's no reason to suppose that Pilate's actions were motivated by any special hatred of Jews; rather, it seems that he was simply incompetent, cruel, and somewhat corrupt -- all of which were normal characteristics among Roman provincial administrators, sadly. If there's evidence to the contrary, this should of course go back in. --MIRV 17:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Solomon Mikhoels

As for Mikhoels, I wrote the article on him, so I know this. Personally, I believe he was killed by the NKVD, but we will need more proof than that. Danny 02:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

CheKa = GPU = NKVD = MGB = KGB = FSB = secret police. Plus-minus bunch of other shadowy institutions. You feel strongly about changing it to NKVD, go ahead, I don't have any sentimental attachment to any of them. Humus sapiens 02:43, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, the question is, was it murder or was it really a car accident. Danny 02:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think what followed (despite state funeral for camouflage) answers that question. [3] Humus sapiens 03:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That is not proof. It is circumstantial only. Danny 03:31, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Changed to "killed in suspicious car accident" Humus sapiens 08:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Again, a resonable wording. JeMa

Moved here from VfD

  • Timeline of Anti-Semitism -- This article is used to push an agenda and cannot possibly be NPOV without providing context (which a timeline can't do of course). Another disingenuous propaganda attempt if you ask me. --213.231.204.211 19:52, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agenda? What kind of agenda? The "Do not murder Jews agenda?" Yeah, that's a pretty awful agenda... RK 14:20, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename. (Added vfd tag) The info is useful - but has an inaccurate, misleading and probably POV article name. It limits itself to anti-Jewish history and specifically doesn't acknowledge other Semitic people - including Eritrean, Ethiopean, Maltese, Arabic, Syrian, Somalian, and Mali peoples. Ex: Arab-on-Isreali violence or vice-versa by definition cannot be anti-Semitic; it is intra-Semitic. Davodd 20:31, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • A common mistake, but "anti-Semitic" does mean specifically racism against Jews as well as (and less commonly) against all Semites. Onebyone 00:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • That's incorrect; in the English language "anti-Semitic" does specifically mean racism against Jews, and does not properly refer to racism against other Semitic peoples. Its etymology is from "racism against Semites", but its meaning is "racism against Jews": it was coined specifically to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment, and the term was picked because at the time it was coined, Jews were the only Semites who were in Europe in significant numbers. There are numerous other English words which are not true to their etymologies, so this isn't exactly unusual. --Delirium 02:48, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't feed the trolls. Certain trolls, for years, have tried to erase all Wikipedia articles on anti-Semitism by playing this card. They know full well it isn't true, and they are not trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are trying to censor data they disapprove of. RK
    • I suggested on the talk page to move content into history of anti-Semitism. The anon user above is right -- timelines can't provide enough historical context for a subject like this. Tuf-Kat 22:35, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Most of this looks fine to me, it just goes a bit wrong at the end when it fails to explain why specific actions against Israel may or may not, depending on your POV, be regarded as "racism against Jews". Having said that, I have no particular attachment to the current title, "History of anti-Semitism" would be fine by me. Onebyone 01:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Of course. There are many people angry at Jews, who refuse to accept that there are things Jews view as anti-Semitic that some other people may not. For instance, the vast majority of the American, European and Jewish communities, both religious and secular, view the PLO and its attacks as anti-Semitic, while many Europeans and American leftists do not. But it is NPOV to say that these groups and actions are viewed as anti-Semitism by Jews. RK
    • Keep. The confusion and uncomfortableness around this topic demonstrate that the article is necessary as a useful resource. 1. The term is a common misnomer, but that's what dictionaries are for (e.g. [www.dictionary.com]). Not going into deep etymology here, any human language is full of them: tanks don't carry water, free trade is not free, Democrat & Republican mean the same thing (in Greek and Latin respectively), etc. To those who wants to change it, best of luck. 2. The contents. Note, it is an addendum to main article Anti-Semitism where the etymology, semantics, roots, reasons, excuses and tendencies are (or should be) explained in detail. No doubts, the chronology of world's longest hatred is not an easy reading. The article is still recovering from being continuously vandalized (that includes attempts by User:213.231.204.211). Every time an entry has been challenged, it was either removed or rephrased to show the relevance and keep as close to facts as possible. Constructive contributions & suggestions are more than welcome. I already have changed the ending. Humus sapiens 04:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Almost by definition, any list of racism-against-foo is POV. The data might be salvaged in a putative "history of the Jewish people" if judgment calls are removed, but as is this is simply an agenda posing as encyclopedic. To call any particular action "racism", one needs considerable historical context. (Say, an attack against nation X might be ethnically motivated, or it might be territory expansion, or a thousand other things. Coren 05:14, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this POV article. (And I was born Jewish!). Anjouli 05:32, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the article is moving towards NPOV and I am close to changing my voteAnjouli 13:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote change. Delete for inalienable POV reasons Davodd 10:59, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC). Neutral. Davodd 03:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • How come it is Ok to discuss bigotry against homosexuals, blacks and hispanics (of Which Wikipedia does plenty), but it is suddenly POV and forbidden to discuss bigotry against Jews? We must not make new rules for discussing Jews, while applying different standards to every other group. Keep the article.
    • Keep it. "Anti-semitism," a term coined in Europe to mean "hatred of Jews" is still a very real problem today, there's no disputing that as a matter of POV. It's important to have such a comprehensive resource like this one so that we can understand this problem.151.197.44.128 23:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)151.197.44.128 23:42, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding POV: the history is full of cruel and uncomfortable events. Objectively stating well-documented facts, even if inconvenient for some, is not POV. Denying or rewriting them - clearly is. Some contributors have suggested in the past that the A-S has begun in the 19th century and happily ended in 1945. Isn't the encyclopedia's job to clear up such confusions? In the interests of objectivity, I am adding relevant reversals of A-S policies, such as by Charlemagne, St. Bernard, Barbarossa... Some are already there. OTOH, [[User:213.231.204.211 should be banned from continuously vandalizing this page pushing his agenda. According to his latest deletion, A-S has ended in 1969. Great news! Humus sapiens 11:36, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Iraq

1969 Iraq: The Ba'ath Party publicly hangs 9 Jews in Baghdad's Liberation Square after accusing them of spying for Israel and America. The Baghdad Hangings

Firstly, this could easily be anti-Israeli rather than anti-Semitism (or indeed just the Ba'ath Party being a group of murderers). More importantly, in the multi-millenium history of anti-Semitism, and the vast numbers that have died to it... are these nine people historically significant enough? They're not even mentioned in Ba'ath Party at the time of writing. Revert if I'm being ignorant again, of course. Martin 00:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it is important: Babylon has been major Judaic center for centuries, its Jewish community was 2,500 years old (since Babylonian exile, c. 586 BCE). This is just the top of the iceberg that caused large international outcry. From the link above about the 1969 events: "...there was a mass protest demonstration outside the Iraqi Embassy in Kensington, London of over 5,000 people". Iraq 1948 Jewish population: 150,000, 2001: Approx. 100. (David Singer, Ed. American Jewish Year Book 2001. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2001). See also: Iraqi Jews The Jews of Iraq: A Forgotten Case of Ethnic Cleansing by Carol Basri. What's wrong with this picture: as soon as Antisemitism is directed against the Israeli Jews, it is somehow OK? Humus sapiens 01:14, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Where did I or anyone else say that hanging these nine (us-israel.org says 11, so I don't know who to believe) Jews was ok? It's not. Capital punishment is barbaric. The Ba'ath party were a nasty piece of work. But I doubt whether we can simply state as fact that these particular killings were an act of anti-semitism, and this article is not supposed to be a "history of killings of Jews".
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that this was the "tip of the iceberg. With millenia to cover, it seems to me that we should cover the actual icebergs, rather than their tips. By being broader we can also be more definate in this case: There is no doubt or serious dispute (AFAICT) that one cause of the Jewish emigration from Iraq was Iraqi anti-Semitism, but it is harder to be sure that individual killings were the result of anti-Semitism, and that this is undisputed. Martin 22:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You misunderstand. These people were not killed for political reasons, nor is this a capital punishment issue. They were killed because they were Jews; if they were not Jewish, they would not be dead. And it is significant not only because of the facts of these nine cases, but because these nine cases are representative of a widespread hatred of Jews among many people in Iraq. This material absolutely needs to be noted here. The same thinking is applicable for cases of Christians being executed in other Muslim nations. It is not the numbers alone that are important; it is their very existence which is important, and also representative of a deep-seated hatred of Christians in general. The same is also true of persecution of and murder of those who follow the Bahai faith. (I dread to think of what would happen to Arabs who converted to Unitarian Universalism in Saudi Arabia, but it wouldn't be pretty.) JeMa 17:29, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I do misunderstand. Perhaps you would like to re-add the section in question? Martin 22:15, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Iraq is only one piece of the puzzle. See JIMENA: approx. 900,000 Jews were expelled from Middle-Eastern communities, some as old as Babylonian exile. In general, I think that 1948-Present section is still waiting for major rework. Humus sapiens 22:54, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism against Israelis

Did anti-Semitism really end a generation ago? I somehow think that Israeli victims of suicide bombers, many indoctrinated by Hitler's Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Eldars of Zion, would disagree. A good rule of thumb is this: If a group uses either of those books, then any of their criticisms or attacks on Jews are anti-Semitic. JeMa

Palestinian Authority (PA) is teaching Hitler's Mein Kampf
The PA and Hitler - American Enterprise
Palestinians, Protocols of Eldars of Zion (Christians for Israel)
Friday Sermons in Saudi Arabian Mosques: the Protocols of the Eldars of Zion
Many people share your point of view that attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians are motivated by anti-Semitism. Others do not, or consider it a secondary cause. I've added a paragraph to discuss this, but I don't see the point in duplicating terrorism against Israelis. Let's try to keep the ongoing dispute over pages on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pinned down to its own corner of Wikipedia, eh? Martin 22:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am not qsking for us to discuss this subject here. I am only saying that we should note these significant anti-Semitic events. If you wish, we can note the difference of opinions. Jews and many Christians view these events as anti-Semitic; some others do not. Detailed discussion of these events is not appropriate in this, or in any, timeline article. As you note, discussion should be in the related articles. JeMa 17:51, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)


Perhaps it is sufficient to note in the intro that some or many of the events may not be anti-Semitic in themselves, but rather are highly relevant to anti-Semitism. For example, Nostra Aetate was not anti-Semitic, but rightly should be mentioned as one of the great defeats of anti-Semitism. In this view we might include such events as the creation of the state of Israel, and the start and end of World War II in the timeline. Martin 22:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust

From article, copied to Holocaust:

That's lovely, but we have a great article on the Holocaust already, and there are references there, so I don't think we need citations here too. Save the citations for items where we don't have articles yet! Martin 22:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hadrian

Discussion moved to Talk:Hadrian

Since I've edited the entry in _this_ article, I'll discuss it here. Cut/paste as you like, I'll follow and maybe even learn some rules :)

WAS: 117 - 138. The reign of Roman emperor Hadrian, who crushed two Jewish revolts in Judea and re-established Jerusalem. See Hadrian for more details.

IMHO, simply crushing a rebellion is not AS. His inadequate attempt to wipe out entire religion/nation and erase its trace from map and from history definintely is. BTW, if he did the same to Phrygians and Parthians, I don't have any problem calling him anti-P or anti-P as well.

Hadrian also re-established Jerusalem, which had a major effect 1800 years later

True, but not _because_ of Hadrian, rather _in_spite_ of him. Rebuilding it as a Roman city, banning any Jewish presence there, banning the Torah, desecrating the Temple... Isn't this the historical context that the article has been suggested to provide? Humus sapiens 23:34, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My logic was that while the crushing of the revolts may or may not (depending on who you ask) be anti-Semitic, it certainly had a major effect on anti-Semitism. The scattering of the Jews ((see diaspora), rendering them a stateless people, seems to come up time and again in analyses of the root causes of anti-Semitism. Martin 12:59, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We are in agreement here. Except Jewish diaspora began half a millenia before that, with Babylonian exile. Maybe minor rewording is still called for. Humus sapiens 21:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like what's there now. For a while, I wasn't sure I liked "abolished", but I think the slight vagueness is an asset here - if people want to find out exactly what we mean by "abolished", they can read Hadrian for details. Nice edit, Humus. Martin 22:03, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Christian X of Denmark

Moved following to talk: 1940 April 9. A popular legend portrays king Christian X of Denmark wearing an armband as he makes his daily morning horseback ride through the streets of Copenhagen, followed by non-Jewish Danes responding to their king's example, thus preventing the Nazis from identifying Jewish citizens. In the book Queen in Denmark (by Anne Wolden-Ræthinge) the Queen Margrethe II of Denmark says about the legend: "It is a beautiful and symbolic story, but it is not true. The myth about the King wearing the star of David... To me, the truth is an even greater honor for our country than the myth." The Danes did undertake heroic efforts to shelter their Jews (about 7,000) and help them escape from the Nazis to Sweden. Rescue of the Danish Jews

  1. 1 It isn't about anti-Semitism
  2. 2 More important events are omitted.
  3. 3 We should list detail story of holocaust that was about 6 000 000, before this story of 7 000 should be listed, otherwise we loose any proportion.

Cautious

Agreed that this paragraph could be removed. But we should not discuss the Holocaust here; that subject has its own dedicated article. Instead, we should mark significant dates and events related to the Holocaust, but defer discussion to the proper articles. JeMa 17:51, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Fine. The idea was to show that not all people were bad... Humus sapiens 08:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Augustine and Jerome

425 St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Jerome brand Judaism a corruption and call for the enslavement and severe persecution of Jews until they agreed to convert.

Augustine actually argued, at some points, against the persecution of Jews, albeit for reasons other than the general wrongness of persecution (see his article and the section in Christianity and anti-Semitism; also see [4]). Can we have references to the specific texts by these authors, please? --MIRV 19:52, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's where it came from, I think: [Paul Johnson's History of the Jews (1987), p. 165]: "St Augustine, the most influential of all the Latin theologians, argued that the Jews... were part of God's design, since they were witness to the truth of Chr-ty, their failure and humiliation symbolizing the triumph of church over synagogue. The policy of the church, therefore, was to allow small J. communities to survive in cond. of degradation & impotence." Removal of this sentence is OK by me. Humus sapiens 07:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And Jerome died in 419 or 420, so there's no way he could have written anything in 425. I've taken him out too, because his anti-Semitic writings (the worst I could turn up with a bit of googling) don't say what's attributed to him in the article. --MIRV 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OK for now. Agreed, vagueness should be squeezed out. I feel that the section on the early Chr-ty (when it first broke with J-ism, then ostracised it) needs a lot more work. The point is, this transition was done _gradually_. Humus sapiens 17:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree. It would be worthwhile to have something on the real opinions of Jerome and Augustine, since they're both important figures of late 4th-early 5th century Christianity, and their attitudes are probably representative of the religion at the time when it had gained real political power within the Roman Empire. Ambrose of Milan's views should also be included here. --MIRV 17:26, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The innocense of small steps: gradual squeeze

I wonder if somebode realize, that wearing the regulations on the clothes in Middle Ages existed not only for Jews, but for other groups like town people, peasants. This had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Pro 10:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's a litmus test: were the peasants or guild folks marginalized-persecuted-murdered just for being what they are? The policy behind the badge was humiliation and degradation. One may argue, the Nazi badge also didn't have anything to do with AS. It's the seeming innocense of small steps. Humus sapiens 17:32, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Meshochnik"

This Russian word relates to to period when normal trade was disrupted, and a large number travelled from country to cities with bags full of food for sale. Hence the slang "meshochnik", which can be rendered as "bagman", but I strongly object to translating slang by slang, since the connotations seldom match. The real connotation was "profiteer", especially since it was not uncommon that prices for food set by "meshochniks" were... er... say, free-market. Mikkalai 19:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Frankly, I'm not entirely comfortable with neither meshochnik, bagman, nor profiteer. I guess, the latter is closer, negativity-wise: 1) by general population's hatred toward overpricing, and 2) by the Bolsheviks' policies regarding private enterprises). BTW, the first two are taken from Paul Johnsohn's volume "A History of the Jews". Humus sapiens 23:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Probably Johnson better knew Jews than Russian language :-) Mikkalai

Blood libel and so on

I have a proposal to move all those cases of alleged Blood libel out of here and put it somewhere together with other cases of Witchcraft to separate article and left here a link. I agree thet Blood libel is a specifically Jewish kind of withchcraft, but has more to do with it, then with modern anti-Semitism. WolfgangPeters 09:21, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be a good idea to mention it there and provide a link here. As for _moving_ the cases of blood libel, ritual murder or host desecration accusations out of HofAS, I would strongly oppose. It doesn't have much to do with alleged witchcraft (although I have to admit, I don't know much about the WC). The AS allegations are driven by hatred and intolerance, that's the reason why they are so contradictory, and sometimes even self-contradictory: the facts don't matter. Humus sapiens 19:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I second that. You both seem to fail to notice that *libel* is "false accusation", not "witchcraft". That says all. Mikkalai 20:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wolfgang. False accusations, but motivated by the same factors, as the believe in black magic. It is quite obviuos, that anti-Semitism was not a motivation behind the blood libel in Middle Ages, since the idea was not yet invented. However, the xenophoby, means the hate against strangers combined with the believe, that Jews practise black magic which requires the blood of Christian child, was the reason behind blood libel. Opposite is true, putting blood libel cases from AD 1600 together with Hitler, make whole history of anti-Semitism completely unclear. Cautious 20:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
IMO your argument contains a couple logical fallacies.
  • First, related to your usage of "invented" word. If you mean it literally, then you implicitely define A-S as "theoretical" ideology, and I tried to explain why this is not exactly correct. Else, if you used "invented" word in a "slack" way, then one may argue that the thing not "invented" (in double quotes) may well exist. For example, people spoke in prose from the very first words (although I cannot prove this :-), but prose was "invented", i.e., the notion as such was identified, "only recently".
  • As far as I am concerned, anti-Semitism was not only the new word. It was also an ideology, that belongs to the century of ideologies, together with marxism and nationalism and socialism. The ideology was for the first time, racial anti-Semitism. The opposition to former anti-judaism based on religion or simple xenophoby, must be underlined. If there were no difference between the anti-Semitism ideology and xenophoby, why we didn't put anti-Semitism as one of the chapters under the xenophoby?? Cautious 00:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Second mistake as to the scope. Even if my first obectsion is wrong and middle-age blood libels are better not to be considered as acts of A-S, a serious history always considers pre-requisites, origins, analogies, etc. Otherwise there would be no continuity in history, and hence no much sense in the science of history as lesson for today. So IMO they are still to be listed, possibly with cautious remarks, or in a separate subsection, stating that these cases are not exactly what we call antisemitism today.
  • Yes, I agree, It should be mentioned here, that those were prequisits of the later development of the anti-Semitism, but since they were not motivated by the ideology, the ybelong to the world of superstitions. Tell me seriously, the Roman emperror that expell Jews from Palestine, was he motivated by anti-Semitism, as it stated in the article, or he rather exercised the violent power of the empire?? He was angered by allegedly non-comprehensive resistance of Jews and exercised the right to of his sword. Therefore, adding his name to anti-Semitism article, amkes only sense as a prequisite. Cautious 00:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Finally, the issue is related to witchhunt article, rather than to withcraft, and it is indeed missing from there.
  • Whatever, people out of the superstitions, belived that Jews perform witchcraft, based on the blood of Christian child.The blood libel and thewitchhunt are basically the same. Cautious 00:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mikkalai 22:14, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note: Cautious and WolfgangPeters are the same individual. This has been verified through the server logs. Maximus Rex 05:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Aquinas quote, much depends on the translation, and certainly the context is all-important. It should be considered that Aquinas lived in the age of feudalism, and he was imposing feudal values on relations between Jews and the state. He is also in keeping with the Third Lateran Council, though he is moderating their stance regarding the "subjection of the Jews to Christians" significantly. I propose another translation that takes these factors into consideration: "It would be licit, according to custom, to hold Jews, because of their crime, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the state; however, they must use them with a certain moderation and not deprive Jews of things necessary to life." It is, however, necessary to distinguish between Kammerknechtschaft (the idea of Jewish servitude) and the charge of usury, both of which date to the same time, but which are, nonetheless, distinct phenomena. Danny 02:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tacitus

Hmm. . . Tacitus is on the list of those who repeated the rumour about the donkey's head in the Holy of Holies, which misses some of his subtlety. In this case, he stated explicitly that he was repeating the stories told by others, and he follows it up with a fairly accurate description of Jewish monotheism (Historia 5.5) and Pompey's entrance into the empty Holy of Holies (Historia 5.9) -- make it reasonably clear that he didn't believe the story. --67.71.76.166 19:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed his name from the list. Objections? --Humus sapiens Talk 22:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More Tacitus

I don't know about removing him entirely; he did repeat the story, and the rest of Historia 5 makes it clear that he hated Jews. The structure of book 5 runs something like this: 5.1 introduces the subject (the Jewish Revolt) and leads into the backstory; 5.2 collects various theories of Jewish origins; 5.3 and 5.4 give the conventional wisdom, which includes the donkey's head story; 5.5 opens with a dismissal of the old stories and launches into a uniquely Tacitan mixture of vicious polemic (he was good at that) and grudging respect for Jewish piety, morality, and resistance to tyranny. This was his usual style; he would often give a conventional account and follow it up with a penetrating observation which made the previous story look obviously wrong. Here's an example (Historia, 5.4):

"We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguiled them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance in honour of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith having been transmitted from the Idæi, who are said to have shared the flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in multiples of seven."

Or more simply: "Conventional wisdom claims that the Jews rest on every seventh day and year simply because they are lazy; however, here is a reason which any pious Roman would find acceptable for observing temporal cycles of seven."

And another example: in ch. 5 of the same book, he casts further doubt on the conventional wisdom that Jews were originally Egyptian lepers, by his contrast of the Egyptian animal pantheon with the purely spiritual concept of divinity espoused by Jews.

I think he deserves his own section; he was clearly as anti-Semitic as any other Roman, but he didn't accept the common justifications for the belief, instead aiming for psychological insight into the animosity between Jew and Gentile. At times he seems close to the modern explanation for why Jews (and later Christians) were so detested in that age: monotheists, because of their refusal to acknowledge the cults and practices of others, were considered anti-social freaks by the overwhelmingly polytheistic mindset of the ancient world. Here's my draft:

Tacitus writes anti-Jewish polemic in his Historia (book 5). He picks apart and rejects several old anti-Semitic myths¹ (including that of the donkey's head in the Holy of Holies); his explanation for his view that Jews "regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies" rests on an analysis of the extreme difference between monotheistic Judaism and the polytheism common throughout the known world.

[1] Granted, Josephus did the same in Against Apion, but he was writing an apologetic tract from a strongly sympathetic perspective; Tacitus' perspective is clearly hostile, but he exposed the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the stories nonetheless.

(The above is probably slanted in his favor. Please feel free to edit it mercilessly.) My aim is to explain the contrast between the shallow anti-Semitism evident in other ancient writings -- "I think Jews are bad people because they're descended from Egyptian lowlifes" -- and his more considered analysis -- "I think Jews hate and are hated by others because they are monotheists in a polytheistic world; therefore they deserve to be contemptable outcasts." Others may have maintained the same hatred for the same reason, but I think he was the first to explain it in so many words. --67.71.79.45 05:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deacon Robert

This article has an entry as follows: "1222 Deacon Robert of Reading, England burned for converting to Judaism, setting a precedent for the burning of heretics." I've been unable to confirm the existence of such a person and am beginning to suspect that he is either a fabrication or insignificant. The only mentions of a Deacon Robert of Reading I can find with a web search are verbatim copies of the aforenoted sentence. Can someone please provide a third-party cite for this person, preferably from primary sources? --Psychonaut 19:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Format Problems

This article is HORRIBLY formatted perhaps much of the information within it should be moved to a page dedicated to the history of jewish people. This page is really sloppy it is just a confluence of events that give no background and trying to cover such an IMMSENSE space of time with little dribbles of one-sided accounts that it seems to lack validity.

Also Anti-semitism is not reserved only for jews as the semetic people are those people from the ancient Arabian pennisula, meaning many arabs today are semites. But saying it was, perhaps a page about anti-jewish acts and beleifs could go into three pages- Ancient anti-semitism, Historical Anti-semitism, and Modern anti-semitism.....this would really help get this topic to a managable level in my opinion. Need I mention the POV latent throughout? --GrazingshipIV 22:14, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Semite vs. anti-Semite, is a FAQ and is covered in anti-Semitism, as well as the background: read it first, just as the header says. BTW, I don't see a big difference between Ancient A-S, Historical A-S and Modern A-S. It's swayed from political to religious to racial to political again, but its nature stayed the same for millenia. As for format & NPOV: you see a problem, you're welcome to fix it. Thanks. --Humus sapiens| Talk 22:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page itself is poorly formated it looks like someone vomited. I am not so much against the anti-semetic wording as I am the way it's drawn out, perhaps the way that the page is broken down should be changed. It would be good to have 'History of Anti-semitism' as a disambiguation page and have articles on each time period (i.e 1901-Present be it's own page considering the amount of info that would contain). The current way it is organized is hard to follow, too piecemeal in its approach to significant time periods and just plain ugly.-GrazingshipIV 22:34, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the earlier comment: the history of the Jewish people is not defined by anti-Semitism. I cannot say I favor this format very much myself, it follows the format of other similar WP pages. I'm not very happy with sectioning either. Any better alternative? --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the history of the jewish people is totally defined by anti-semitism but most people's history is somewhat defined by their struggles. I suggest there be a page called the 'History of Anti-semitism' and on that page there would be links to a page dedicated entirely to the subheadings that exist on this page. You and others are very dedicated to this topic (seemingly) and should henceforth go into detail about each period (i.e 1901 should be it's own page filled with specifically things that happened during that time) and then statements and the comments related to those statements could be comparmentalized and therefore more organized rather than just this mess that currently exists.-GrazingshipIV 01:37, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Breaking it down year-by-year would be excessive; perhaps, if possible, it should be broken down by era? That is, if classical, medieval, and modern anti-Semitism had different rationalizations, causes, and effects (as, I think, they did), a paragraph or two of introduction might help frame the events of that era: the reader could see which items fit into the zeitgeist, which recalled earlier forms of the hatred, and which anticipated later events.
A brief sketch of what I mean: the anti-Semitism of the classical era was, it seems, largely driven by conflict between monotheism and polytheism (some of which later carried over to Christianity); later Roman and medieval anti-Semitism was motivated partially by religious reasons—charges of deicide being perhaps the best-known—and partially by social structures which singled out Jews for hatred; modern anti-Semitism owed a great deal to 19th-century racial and anthropological theories, and so forth.
Granted that the above is a severe simplification, but if it's at all possible, the kind of context thus provided would be very informative; though the hatred has been around for millenia, the outward forms and the rationalisations given have changed immensely. If the article then becomes too large, it could easily be broken down into separate pages.
Thoughts? —No-One Jones 07:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Anti-Semitism is not "one of the causes" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at most it is a symptom of it. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss this, as it only allows for cheap shots which cannot be defended against. The "See" list is more than enough in my opinion. -- Dissident 14:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where's the logic: if the hatred and violence were directed against Argentinian, Turkish, German, Soviet etc. Jews, it's A-S, but if it is against Israeli Jews then suddenly it's not? The section Talk:History of anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism against Israelis above contains the links provided by User:JeMa. I agree, this kind of A-S propaganda and incitement "cannot be defended against". Let's not mix up a symptom with a cause. --Humus sapiens|Talk 11:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_antisemitism/Archive_1&oldid=416692012"