I think you completely missed the point UG.

The point meadish was trying to make, and did so rather clearly I think, was that you could change the word Jew to any word and it would be considered racist but because the poster was using the word jew he felt it wasn't racist.

He could just as easily have written it this way

Do you really think that most of the world have any love for Polish people? Many of us feel sorry for them, but their unfocused violent ways have hurt them much more than helped anything. They really are their own worst enemies.

Most others have always looked down on them.

or

Do you really think that most of the world have any love for Chinese people? Many of us feel sorry for them, but their unfocused violent ways have hurt them much more than helped anything. They really are their own worst enemies.

Most others have always looked down on them.

And his point would still have been made:

Here's your post with a few changes to more clearly expose the blatant negative stereotyping with racist undertones, for anyone who missed it.

Are you for real? The word "Jew" was not changed. The word Palestinian was changed in order to insult Americans because I am an American. Who cares if all of the other Americans that read this feel insulted too? There is nothing wrong with that.

It is fine to point out that the whole world hates Jews and Americans, but I can not point out that some people are not crazy about Palestinians either. That is bad, very bad!

I would like to avoid getting suspended once again for arguing with you folks, so I will quit while I'm ahead (if I am allowed to). I have learned my lesson from past confrontations. You folks can believe in whatever you want to. I'm getting out of Bedlam.

I would like to apologize if anyone else felt I was trying to insult Americans in general. That was not my intention.

You are great. I love hamburgers, rocknroll and strawberry milkshake. Just work on your foreign policy a bit please.

My whole point was intended exactly as sbk said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Back to the original topic?

I'd like to point out that the topic is a straightforward request for information, as well. I don't think anyone on this thread is posting from an anti-Semitic point of view. To deny that the Jews have, historically, been the objects of much hatred (albeit for misguided, ignorant, or evil reasons) is to deny anti-Semitism itself.

Had the holocaust not happened, would antisemitism be viewed any differently than widespread discrimination against other groups in recent (150 years) history such as the Chinese, Irish, North American Natives, African-Americans, Gypsies, etc? Pre-WW2 the Irish and Chinese were not treated well throughout much of western society. Jews suffered similar discrimination but on average were perhaps a bit better off in terms of finances and education. Natives were facing the extinction of their culture, and their numbers were shrinking, many of them destitute.

What I mean is was the scale of the holocaust, and the fact that both it's perpetrators and victims could have easily been neighbours with us and not looked out of place, so close to home, that it forever altered our perception of antisemitism?

We watch the Rwanda massacres on CNN without all that much guilt. Hardly a person in western society even knows about the deaths of up to 1.5 million Armenians between 1914 to 1920. Maybe the holocaust during the second world war hits westerners so strongly because we view Germans as being much like ourselves and it frightens us that "civilized white society" could commit such an atrocity, yet our unspoken prejudices see Africans and Turks as less civilized, allowing us to unconsciously explain away their atrocities?

I'll admit it, I don't expect the same degree of civility from Africa because I don't view, for what I consider good reasons, that societies there are as civilized. So I'm able deal with things like Rwandas killing each other in the hundreds of thousands easier than I would the massacre of a similar number of Dutch. Something in me identifies with the Dutch. I can see myself in them, where in a poor village in sub-saharan Africa I would be totally alien. Yet in this village is a woman who's entire family were killed with machetes in front of her eyes. If she were to meet with a lone survivor of a family sent to Bergen-Belsen they would likely find much in common. But while their experiences are similar, our society simultaneously assigns one of them to a footnote of history, while elevating the other. (please don't read this as an attempt to dismiss the suffering of holocaust victims, that's not the point).

What I guess I'm trying to say is that while antisemitism is both real, and unacceptable, it is no less acceptable than any other form of racism or prejudice, however the trauma of the holocaust has assigned it a very prominent place in the western psyche. A person with antisemitic prejudices most likely does not confine his hatred only to Jews, so to concentrate on that alone misses the real question of "why does this person hate at all?". Because that same assumption that another person could be classified as inferior and therefor could be systematically eliminated drove the thinking of both hutu and the nazi alike.

The only difference is which victim you identify with.

Very well spoken, cdnvic.

I think it makes more sense for Europeans or English-speakers to discuss anti-Semitism than, for example, anti-Tutsi-ism, because it is a concept that affects us more. The Jewish diaspora has meant a greater number of Jewish people in countries like America, and historically spread throughout Europe. If there had been more Tutsis in London or New York, perhaps the profile of the massacres there would have been higher.

America and Europe have additional connections to anti-Semitism because of the involvement in World War II and its ending.

So opening poster obviously meant his question in our context. I doubt very much, for instance, that many Hutus have much prejudiced opinion about contemporary Jewish people one way or the other (though I could be wrong)- as I don't imagine great numbers of Jewish people present in the region, now or historically.

In our context, the biggest prejudices include sexism, age-ism (of various types), homophobia, and the various "racial," religious, and ethnic-based kinds which affect relatively large numbers of persons in our culture(s). Without a large local membership, it's simply dislike against an individual person.

In that context, anti-Semitism- in our cultural context- has one of the biggest one-shot massacres on record. That's something important, I think, for those of us who are in our loose basket of cultures to think about.

Of course, it doesn't compare historically in some ways to other troubles, for example the ravages of sexism- the numbers of women denied opportunities over the years that were offered their male counterparts- but it was a fairly big and sudden blot on the historical tolerance landscape of our combined cultures, and is worthy of comment. Also the survivors and escapees continued to influence opinion in Europe and the USA. Jews from regions that continue to be oppressed- like the Ukraine in recent memory- attempt to escape to countries where anti-Semitism has been controlled.

Furthermore, it is worthwhile to investigate the specific forms of prejudice and racism to discover what makes them similar or different.

There are gay white men who are prejudiced against blacks- and women who are prejudiced against Jews- and Jewish people who don't like gays.

So I think prejudices are individually situated, and not always rationally of the same cloth. I agree that there must be similar mechanisms that keep people from examining their assumptions and facing whatever irrational fears they have. However, we need to ask ourselves what happened with regard to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust because it is more of our responsibility. Most of us only even heard about the Tutsi massacres in retrospect, because our cultures simply weren't as engaged with that part of the world. Most of us don't run into anti-Tutsi-ism in a way meaningful enough for us to make an impact, either for or against.

On the other hand, my Mom (for instance) though she doesn't actually have any Jewish friends or really know any Jewish people, she used to call another one of my family members 'the old Jewboy' because of his monetary habits. Now, my Mom is probably lost anyway- don't even get me started on her other prejudices- but I can make sure that other family members or anyone else in earshot knows that I don't approve of that behaviour. I don't normally, though, have any call to hold up the reputation of Tutsis in my own cultural milieu- or even here in Thailand.

However, I don't think the topic is about whether anti-Semitism is better or worse than other prejudices, but rather why it exists at all. It's easier to explain sexism- men want to retain their powerful roles with respect to women (some scholars argue this is the bulk of the reason for homophobia as well). Racism (and maybe all prejudices to some extent) is also based on that unfortunate human tendency to alienate, fear, and put down those who are apparently, visibly, different. But *why* anti-Semitism? Is it about appearances of difference? I think it is a worthwhile question to ask.

I recently bought some Concentration Camp memorabilia from an auction in Europe. Six armbands, ......including a yellow star of David, pink triangle (for gay inmates). I think there's one for a Jehoveh's witness and one for general Antisocials.

Not sure how i'm going to display them without folk thinking i'm a bit peculiar.

That's a very profound post Journalist.

Very apt for "Outside the box" IMO. From my limited knowledge your post is accurate, yet I am not sure how to reply myself but I am intrigued as to how others will.

However, I don't think the topic is about whether anti-Semitism is better or worse than other prejudices, but rather why it exists at all. It's easier to explain sexism- men want to retain their powerful roles with respect to women (some scholars argue this is the bulk of the reason for homophobia as well). Racism (and maybe all prejudices to some extent) is also based on that unfortunate human tendency to alienate, fear, and put down those who are apparently, visibly, different. But *why* anti-Semitism? Is it about appearances of difference? I think it is a worthwhile question to ask.

It doesn't explain everything but Catholic religion forbid money lending. Therefore in the old time, money lenders were mostly Jewish. Not exactly a recipe for universal love.

One reason, they promote........

CIRCUMCISING DEFENCELESS LIL BOYS.

That's not strictly true. They don't promote it. From Genesis 17.11 God speaking to Abraham, "You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."

So circumcision was/is for those in the covenant relationship with God. So if you, assuming you are a Gentile, wanted to enter into this covenant relationship you would need to be circumcised.

But many religions use circumcision so that's hardly a reason...

That's not strictly true. They don't promote it. From Genesis 17.11 God speaking to Abraham, "You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."

Certainly seems a strange topic to bring up in a conversation.

"Would you like a brew Ab's"

"Yes please, God"

"One lump or two"

"Two, please"

"No problem. Oh, and by the way Ab's, get yourself circumcised"

"No worries boss"

Is it really due to something that happened 2,000 + years ago?

According to (some) Christians, they committed deicide.

I have heard this claim before, but it was Pontius Pilate who gave out the sentence. So despite Herod's ethnicity, it was still a Roman who orderd the crucifixion.

Regardless, I have never understood how a person's actions could tar an entire people for 2,000 subsequent years.

That's not strictly true. They don't promote it. From Genesis 17.11 God speaking to Abraham, "You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."

Certainly seems a strange topic to bring up in a conversation.

"Would you like a brew Ab's"

"Yes please, God"

"One lump or two"

"Two, please"

"No problem. Oh, and by the way Ab's, get yourself circumcised"

"No worries boss"

I wasn't going to bother as this is one subject where posters think it fine to disrespect others views. That said I will briefly explain circumcision from the Jewish perspective. In scripture there's often spiritual and practical, this is certainly the case with circumcision. The practical advantages of living a nomadic existence in a very 'sandy' environment are easy to understand. However, the spiritual is at first glance not so easy to see. In scripture 'human nature' is referred to as being of 'the flesh'. Circumcision is a cutting off of the flesh and in Abraham's case a promise to serve God and as a token of God's covenants of promise. Abraham's descendants (the Jews) and ultimately his descendant Jesus would live in the land of promise - Israel. So that in a nutshell is circumcision!

Please don't reply to this if you are just going to enter into 'bash' mode.

In many senses Christians were an offshoot of the Jewish population (naturally enough, since Jesus was Jewish). There is a lot of evidence that in the early times of the Christian organisation that it was persecuted and underground- the Jews, as a more assimilated population (in the Roman culture) probably contributed to that.

The Jews weren't assimilated in any way; in fact their adherence to their faith, rather than adding the Roman gods to it, was a major sticking point. Jesus of Nazerath wasn't the only Jew crucified in that time frame for declaring himself the Messiah (which has a whole 'nother secular connotation to Orthodox Jews) and it was relatively easy for the then Jewish religious authorities to strike deals with the Romans to exchange those fruitcakes for a level of 'protection'. Another example of their lack of assimilation is the "ha-Mered Ha-Gadol" (המרד הגדול‎) which was a scant 30 odd years after Jesus of Nazerath was executed. Within 4 years the Jewish Temple was destroyed and the Jews mostly scattered. In 73 CE the Romans finally broke through at Masada and finished the remnants of the Jewish state (which they had titled "Palestine"). The Jews had no power in Roman society and were extremely widely dispersed by the time that Christianity was gaining ground in Rome (which I consider as being Constatine's conversion).

Since Christianity encourages organisation of the underclass/outcaste ("blessed are the weak"- incidentally, this is one reason that colonisation and Christianisation went hand in hand for the pre-European societies which were hierarchical, because it was a good way to divide and conquer the colonised people), and there are always more of them than the overclasses, naturally enough when Christianity came more to power they had a score to settle. Not that good Christians would ever seek vengeance, no, not that!

In terms of more recent European history, since good Christians are not supposed to loan money at interest (go ask a Christian why he shouldn't and see if he knows) any more than he is supposed to eat pork or commit adultery, in medieval times many Jews were forced to take these taboo niche jobs including moneylending- which led to an unpopular reputation for the obvious reasons.

I'm not sure, but doesn't Jesus of Nazareth state in Mark 7:18-19 that "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" And what of Acts 10:9-16 that states "...And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common....". And what of Romans 14:14 that essentially states if a man wants to keep Talmudic law it is their right "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Later problems include the co-option of Darwinism for evil purposes to create hate sciences of eugenics and the pseudoscientific belief in 'races.'

On the other hand, there was a theory advanced that the reason Eastern European Jews have so many Nobel Prizes, and Grand Master Chess players, is that the forced natural selection (i.e., if your only job opportunities are banking you live or die by your brains) favoured them.

I have heard this claim before, but it was Pontius Pilate who gave out the sentence. So despite Herod's ethnicity, it was still a Roman who orderd the crucifixion.

Regardless, I have never understood how a person's actions could tar an entire people for 2,000 subsequent years.

And the Christians never thanked us.....

But for an interesting tidbit, the Jews were exempt from the Emperor worship by religio licita. There were many religions that were 'tolerated' (see Edict of Milan), but curiously it appears that until 313 only Judaism was on the list. In fact, there's speculations that the book of Galatians was written to due some in-fighting about Jewish Christians insisting that non-Jews first convert to Judaism and then Christianity to avoid persecution (Christianity was religio illitica because it was mystic and not inline with the religion that the Romans had extended the exception to).

I wasn't going to bother as this is one subject where posters think it fine to disrespect others views. That said I will briefly explain circumcision from the Jewish perspective. In scripture there's often spiritual and practical, this is certainly the case with circumcision. The practical advantages of living a nomadic existence in a very 'sandy' environment are easy to understand. However, the spiritual is at first glance not so easy to see. In scripture 'human nature' is referred to as being of 'the flesh'. Circumcision is a cutting off of the flesh and in Abraham's case a promise to serve God and as a token of God's covenants of promise. Abraham's descendants (the Jews) and ultimately his descendant Jesus would live in the land of promise - Israel. So that in a nutshell is circumcision!

Well at least I now know the history.

Please don't reply to this if you are just going to enter into 'bash' mode.

It's unfortunate that people who tend to disagree, or question religious beliefs get called "bashers". A "touchy" subject and probably why so many wars are started. I'll leave it alone Tiggs.

People have a problem with Jews because they are self-serving and sometimes untrustworthy and dishonest.

This sounds like a lot of people of many different ethnic groups.

Is it really due to something that happened 2,000 + years ago?

According to (some) Christians, they committed deicide.

I have heard this claim before, but it was Pontius Pilate who gave out the sentence. So despite Herod's ethnicity, it was still a Roman who orderd the crucifixion.

Regardless, I have never understood how a person's actions could tar an entire people for 2,000 subsequent years.

And the guys who carried out the execution were not Jews, but obedient Gentile soldiers.

Is it really due to something that happened 2,000 + years ago?

According to (some) Christians, they committed deicide.

I have heard this claim before, but it was Pontius Pilate who gave out the sentence. So despite Herod's ethnicity, it was still a Roman who orderd the crucifixion.

Regardless, I have never understood how a person's actions could tar an entire people for 2,000 subsequent years.

And the guys who carried out the execution were not Jews, but obedient Gentile soldiers.

Another inconsistency is that according to just about all Christian denomiantions, it was God's will that Jesus die on the cross in order to absolve the sins of all men.  So how can the Jews (or Romans, or whoemever) be held accountable for thie distant ancestors carrying out God's will and putting into motion perhaps the single biggest tenant of Christianity?

Good book to read is: The war of the worlds by Nial Ferguson, will give a lot of people a very different view of history.

Good book to read is: The war of the worlds by Nial Ferguson, will give a lot of people a very different view of history.

I reckon , George Owell's "1984" would be better, the time is coming.

This is in no way an antisemetic post, rather just a genuine question.

Why?

Is it really due to something that happened 2,000 + years ago? Or is it because they wear funny hats and beards? Because they are as tight as a Scotsman (In which case why aren't the Scots hated)........ Just a convenient scapegoat (But still why?)...... It's certainly not a race thing.

Is there any definitive answer out there as to why the Jews are hated so much...

Because they are good at making money better than your average goy?

Holey moley! First post in 6 months, there, BM!!!

Hey BM, how goes it mate?

..... and he's gone......

if it weren't for the post as evidence, I would doubt my eyes that he actually showed up

Because they are good at making money better than your average goy?

Haha. Maybe the cycle is still running. When the Goyem wake up to the latest fleecing, history will repeat.

Regards.

I ask because I just don't know the answer Alex.

And as mentioned above it has nothing much to do with the Gaza strip. I watched the movie "from hel_l" last night, which is about Jack the Ripper and at one point during the movie there was an attempt to put the blame on "the Jews" and it got me thinking.

My guess is that there is no definitive answer, rather that as a group they make a convenient scapegoat or something.

An even more enlightened inquiry would be to ask: Who are the most hated and persecuted {subliminally}? Any populations that aren't off white {hstorically}. This broad Jewish consciousness - pro, con, whatever - is a very Abrahamic-centred angst. A manufactured one, I might add.

A mention of a famous holocaust denier, David Irving, in a Bedlam thread reminded me of this thread and a question I have that relates to the discussion at hand;

Why are holocaust deniers treated as criminals?

David Irving was denied a visitors visa to NZ a few years ago because he is a holocaust denier.

If a Flat-Earther spouted his beliefs, or a UFO abductee testified to his experiences, they would be treated as misguided at best, delusional or plain crazy.....but not criminal.

If I stood on a soap box in Hyde Park and started ranting that I believe that England belongs to the original inhabitants, Indians, and that the Anglo Saxon population are recent arrivals who wiped out all the original Indians, I would simply not be listened to, and certainly be thought of as crazy.

Why is holocaust denial not simply craziness?

We can say, "Lest we forget". But is that a good enough reason?

Why do the Jews have special treatment in this regard?

Not only Jews; Gypsies, cripples, Communists, homosexuals, anyone who disagreed with the regime.

Yes, the murder of millions deserves special treatment.