Antisemitism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What is it? A religious prejudice, a racial prejudice, both, or a ghastly league of its own? Why does it seem so intractable? How does it relate to other ideas like religious anti-Judaism, political anti-Zionism, and the metaideas present in efforts to context or distinguish the three? Discuss in this thread, and BE CIVIL.

[afleitch]

I think it's perniciously bound in the European experience of 'other'. The history of Europe is a tldr, but when it's supreme religion courted with anti-semitic tropes as part of its own foundational messianic story and when a Jewish diaspora was the most common form of strictly embedded 'other' that could be engaged with (distinct from the social and military interaction with Muslims/Moors etc) within Europe, anti-Semitism becomes sadly self evident.

Part of that European experience has been an 'arc' that all this is 'wrong', which 'liberal' minded people and institutions were able to face, tentatively, long before other 'matter of fact' discriminations based on race, sex etc and before other post industrial social tensions. And long before other minority cultures and religions formed their own diaspora in Europe and faced their own discrimination.

But The Holocaust, still within living memory, is a wound, a void. The very worst mechanised slaughter and annihilation as a cumulation of centuries of both action and thought.

That gives anti-Semitism a distinction in that it gives that particular prejudice an 'end point'. Because we (the West) reached it.

What's contentious, though perhaps that's too strong a word, is that our European/Western/Christian/Secular experience isn't a global experience.

The 'whataboutery' that flows from the personal experience or cultural consciousness of other nations and people's subject to imperialism, mass killings, displacement etc which Western powers haven't truly been made accountable for isn't necessarily coming from a bad place. It's coming from not being heard. History not being heard, discrimination not being heard or addressed.

The distinctiveness which we place on anti-Semitism comes from those who perpetuated it (and can still do so). It was foundational to Europe. It broke us and divided us for fifty years after the the 'end point'.

The rest of the world faced it's own, different, horrors that we perpetuated in imperial nation building. Collectively, but as part of nation building. We've not addressed that appropriately. We also still engage in it, both at home with discrimination against diaspora, and abroad through economic means.

[Horus]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

[wnwnwn]

Mostly a racial prejudice, altrought also a religious one.
That's nowadays, it was the reverse way in the european Middle Ages, I suppose.

[RINO Tom]

Most often throughout history, I’d argue it had more of a religiously motivated prejudice.  However, it is so intertwined with the Nazis in modern history, and their antisemitism had little (if anything) to do with religion at all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think it's perniciously bound in the European experience of 'other'. The history of Europe is a tldr, but when it's supreme religion courted with anti-semitic tropes as part of its own foundational messianic story and when a Jewish diaspora was the most common form of strictly embedded 'other' that could be engaged with (distinct from the social and military interaction with Muslims/Moors etc) within Europe, anti-Semitism becomes sadly self evident.

I think this is on to something. Antisemitism at heart is rooted in a fear/hatred of the Other, but specifically the Other who lives among us. The uniqueness of the Jewish experience in medieval, early modern and modern Europe was that of a people that was distinctly its own and held strong to its cultural distinctiveness, yet at the same time tried its best to make it home wherever it could. There is something about this dynamic that appears uniquely threatening to humanity's most tribalistic instincts, and I think that explains at least part of the uniquely unhinged reaction. Religion for a long time was the main cover for it (even then it was always just a cover) until scientific racism came along and suddenly people had a lot of very rational sounding reasons why Jews deserved all the hate, but fundamentally those are all justifying mechanisms.

Another aspect might be Jewish culture's emphasis on learning and scholarship, which created a natural link between anti-intellectualism (always a favorite of authoritarian personalities) and antisemitism. And with it, the development of a strong secular Jewish culture starting in the 18th century that did have considerable influence over and cultural intermixing with Europe's gentile secular culture (arguably the closest thing we've had to a "Judeo-Christian" cultural phenomenon, and it was an explicit rejection of both Jewish and Christian religious orthodoxy!). For reactionaries of all stripes, this was of course a massive threat, and Jews became a convenient scapegoat for the rise of "subversive" ideas like liberalism and socialism.

There's a lot more to be said about this, but I can tell I'm rambling and that's probably because I'm seriously down with the flu, so I'll just leave it there for now.

[Mopsus]

In a phrase, Impostor Syndrome. Christians and Muslims know in their heart of hearts that Jews are the most logical successors to the religion of the ancient Israelites (although the Mormonism of Joseph Smith was even closer in practice and in theory, which is why it wasn’t allowed to persist), but they can’t admit this even to themselves. Which wouldn’t be so big a deal if there were no Jewish people in society with Christians and Muslims - Enlightenment-era Northern Europeans were free to believe that they were the true heirs of Classical European civilization because there were no actual Italians or Greeks around - but they always have been there, and so…

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think it's perniciously bound in the European experience of 'other'. The history of Europe is a tldr, but when it's supreme religion courted with anti-semitic tropes as part of its own foundational messianic story and when a Jewish diaspora was the most common form of strictly embedded 'other' that could be engaged with (distinct from the social and military interaction with Muslims/Moors etc) within Europe, anti-Semitism becomes sadly self evident.

I think this is on to something. Antisemitism at heart is rooted in a fear/hatred of the Other, but specifically the Other who lives among us. The uniqueness of the Jewish experience in medieval, early modern and modern Europe was that of a people that was distinctly its own and held strong to its cultural distinctiveness, yet at the same time tried its best to make it home wherever it could. There is something about this dynamic that appears uniquely threatening to humanity's most tribalistic instincts, and I think that explains at least part of the uniquely unhinged reaction. Religion for a long time was the main cover for it (even then it was always just a cover) until scientific racism came along and suddenly people had a lot of very rational sounding reasons why Jews deserved all the hate, but fundamentally those are all justifying mechanisms.

This exchange reminds me of this fascinating quote from Armin Shimerman (very much Jewish himself) on the Ferengi from Star Trek:

In America, people ask "Do the Ferengi represent Jews?" In England, they ask "Do the Ferengi represent the Irish?" In Australia, they ask if the Ferengi represent the Chinese. The Ferengi represent the outcast. It's the person who lives among us that we don't fully understand.

Two of these three examples are paradigmatic middleman minorities, although I don't know enough about the Irish experience in England to know if they are or have been one as well.

[afleitch]

^^

Well I'll run with this, because it's interesting.

I can talk of the Irish/Catholic experience in Scotland, which was one of being limited to unskilled agricultural work or mining. Discrimination was found even in the labour and trade union movement in particular into the second half of the 20th century.

My grandfather took his apprenticeship in 1932 but could only find work in the Jewish garment industry.

Various violent proto-fascist 'Protestant Action' outfits did well in local elections in Scotland (31% in Edinburgh as late as 1936) in part answering the 'call' put out formally by the Church of Scotland in 1930 to repatriate the Irish and opposition to The Catholic Education Act.

Indeed the 'legit' fascist outfit that organised in Scotland, that came from Mosley's 'New Party' wasn't initially Mosley's BUF, because the BUF wasn't anti-Catholic (and arguably had quite a healthy Catholic membership) and it folded because it wasn't anti-Catholic enough. Political fascism; the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler was feared to be effectively 'Popish'.

What's problematic is that some significant officials (and possibly voter base, but it is hard to analyse) of these Protestant outfits were Jewish. Possibly to get a foothold in municipal politics. From my own and others understanding of the Jewish experience in Glasgow (I live in a formerly heavily Jewish area) anti-Semitism of the political side (though not the social) was mild, because anti-Catholicism was a distraction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

^^

Well I'll run with this, because it's interesting.

I can talk of the Irish/Catholic experience in Scotland, which was one of being limited to unskilled agricultural work or mining. Discrimination was found even in the labour and trade union movement in particular into the second half of the 20th century.

My grandfather took his apprenticeship in 1932 but could only find work in the Jewish garment industry.

Various violent proto-fascist 'Protestant Action' outfits did well in local elections in Scotland (31% in Edinburgh as late as 1936) in part answering the 'call' put out formally by the Church of Scotland in 1930 to repatriate the Irish and opposition to The Catholic Education Act.

Indeed the 'legit' fascist outfit that organised in Scotland, that came from Mosley's 'New Party' wasn't initially Mosley's BUF, because the BUF wasn't anti-Catholic (and arguably had quite a healthy Catholic membership) and it folded because it wasn't anti-Catholic enough. Political fascism; the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler was feared to be effectively 'Popish'.

What's problematic is that some significant officials (and possibly voter base, but it is hard to analyse) of these Protestant outfits were Jewish. Possibly to get a foothold in municipal politics. From my own and others understanding of the Jewish experience in Glasgow (I live in a formerly heavily Jewish area) anti-Semitism of the political side (though not the social) was mild, because anti-Catholicism was a distraction.

I'm reminded of the joke in Derry Girls where they ask the Protestant RUC officer how many Catholics are on the force and he says that there are three, if they include one Jew in a town some miles away. Something about the Celtic nations' attitude towards Jews has always struck me as unusually opportunistic--intensely antisemitic when it suits, relatively non-antisemitic when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "us" when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "them" when it suits. Would you say there's something to that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something about the Celtic nations' attitude towards Jews has always struck me as unusually opportunistic--intensely antisemitic when it suits, relatively non-antisemitic when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "us" when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "them" when it suits. Would you say there's something to that?

There's something to that. If we take the Welsh case as it is more extreme in its range than the others, on the one hand you have a society that has had a not even undeserved reputation for several centuries as one of the most philosemitic* on Earth, yet one that has also seen incidents from time to time. The Tredegar riots (which certainly had an element that felt a little pogrom-y) would be an example: they came out of a clear sky, were never repeated and were so strangely out of character that the precise details of what actually happened were a point of severe contestation within the Jewish community in Wales even half a century later. It is also the case that one cause of much of the hostility towards Welsh Nationalism from Welsh intellectuals of other political traditions was the sense that Saunders Lewis's strident antisemitism was, on some level, un-Welsh; that it was a sign of the foreign and perhaps Continental nature of his views and those of his followers, much like his Catholicism. And you will find, in certain circles, people who continue to think this way.

_{*Using this to mean the opposite of antisemitic rather than the other usage.}

[afleitch]

Something about the Celtic nations' attitude towards Jews has always struck me as unusually opportunistic--intensely antisemitic when it suits, relatively non-antisemitic when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "us" when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "them" when it suits. Would you say there's something to that?

There's something to that. If we take the Welsh case as it is more extreme in its range than the others, on the one hand you have a society that has had a not even undeserved reputation for several centuries as one of the most philosemitic* on Earth, yet one that has also seen incidents from time to time. The Tredegar riots (which certainly had an element that felt a little pogrom-y) would be an example: they came out of a clear sky, were never repeated and were so strangely out of character that the precise details of what actually happened were a point of severe contestation within the Jewish community in Wales even half a century later. It is also the case that one cause of much of the hostility towards Welsh Nationalism from Welsh intellectuals of other political traditions was the sense that Saunders Lewis's strident antisemitism was, on some level, un-Welsh; that it was a sign of the foreign and perhaps Continental nature of his views and those of his followers, much like his Catholicism. And you will find, in certain circles, people who continue to think this way.

_{*Using this to mean the opposite of antisemitic rather than the other usage.}

The 1919 Riots were equally as 'out of character' when and where they happened but with a different target. Which makes it all the more unusual. It's why it's often helpful (now, as well as then) to centre such things less around visceral eruptions of violence and it's 'you got lifted and you got beaten' outcomes and more around institutional structures and the targeting of marginalised communities. Which is hard because when you do 'fight back' those are defining moments for those communities.

While I can't speak for the Jewish experience, I would think as a short hand Jews were 'othered' but not 'Othered'; Britain's blinkered obsession (and it really was the national past time) with the 'Irish Question' on one side of a global war and then it's obsession with migration from the (initially) Commonwealth the other side. Not to detract from real and personal experiences of lazy or confrontational anti-Semitism that people experienced.

I've only had very limited contact with Glasgow based Jewish history societies and resources and it was some time ago, but even with some nostalgia, the story is not one that's really contemporaneous with the experience of Jews in many other parts of the world at that time. There are similar accounts from elsewhere in Britain. The accounts of an amazing community historian, Harvey Kaplan, looking back at the Gorbals after it had been effectively demolished and it's 14,000 strong Jewish community dispersed is a positive one, to the point that it 'feels' that it has to have been sanitised, but that undercurrent just isn't there.

[LabourJersey]

^^

Well I'll run with this, because it's interesting.

I can talk of the Irish/Catholic experience in Scotland, which was one of being limited to unskilled agricultural work or mining. Discrimination was found even in the labour and trade union movement in particular into the second half of the 20th century.

My grandfather took his apprenticeship in 1932 but could only find work in the Jewish garment industry.

Various violent proto-fascist 'Protestant Action' outfits did well in local elections in Scotland (31% in Edinburgh as late as 1936) in part answering the 'call' put out formally by the Church of Scotland in 1930 to repatriate the Irish and opposition to The Catholic Education Act.

Indeed the 'legit' fascist outfit that organised in Scotland, that came from Mosley's 'New Party' wasn't initially Mosley's BUF, because the BUF wasn't anti-Catholic (and arguably had quite a healthy Catholic membership) and it folded because it wasn't anti-Catholic enough. Political fascism; the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler was feared to be effectively 'Popish'.

What's problematic is that some significant officials (and possibly voter base, but it is hard to analyse) of these Protestant outfits were Jewish. Possibly to get a foothold in municipal politics. From my own and others understanding of the Jewish experience in Glasgow (I live in a formerly heavily Jewish area) anti-Semitism of the political side (though not the social) was mild, because anti-Catholicism was a distraction.

I'm reminded of the joke in Derry Girls where they ask the Protestant RUC officer how many Catholics are on the force and he says that there are three, if they include one Jew in a town some miles away. Something about the Celtic nations' attitude towards Jews has always struck me as unusually opportunistic--intensely antisemitic when it suits, relatively non-antisemitic when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "us" when it suits, seeing Jews as part of the sectarian "them" when it suits. Would you say there's something to that?

If I had to guess, this type of opportunism is probably really common in nations where the Jewish community is very small and is forced into the "middleman minority" stereotype as mentioned above.

[John Dule]

I'm curious if anyone knows why we came to call prejudice against Jews "antisemitism," but prejudice against all other groups is classified as a "phobia" (islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, etc).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm curious if anyone knows why we came to call prejudice against Jews "antisemitism," but prejudice against all other groups is classified as a "phobia" (islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, etc).

I think it has to do with the history of the words and how they came into common usage in English. "Antisemitism" was first used in German in the mid-to-late nineteenth century before making the jump to other European languages, and was at first "neutral" in the sense that antisemitic public figures were just as happy to use it to describe their own views as Jewish or pro-Jewish figures were to use it to describe others. This is why the morphology of the word itself doesn't appear to cast a strong value judgment on the attitude it names; people can be "pro-" or "anti-" any number of things without it being a morally or socially unacceptable bigotry. The use of "-phobia" is generally by analogy to "xenophobia" when it appears in other constructions, and while "xenophobia" is also of late-nineteenth-century origin, it's not a loanword and it was coined to deliberately suggest that prejudice is against foreigners is a morbid fear or other kind of irrational aversion; using the same morphology in "Islamophobia," "homophobia," etc. was a choice to make the same suggestion on the part of the people who coined those words at various points in the twentieth century.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The way it was explained to me was that the Jews loaned money to people over many centuries, a practice not common in other religions.

Muslims did not, and Catholics frowned on loaning with interest. There is a certain term they use which i forget.

So as the Jews controlled the bank loans around the developing world, they became wealthy and drew the ire of many. They would appear more intelligent than most, so success breeds success.

Judaism can appear very isolated and inward looking to outsiders. Jews are very protective and supportive of their own.

These are two great qualities, but to the poor and uneducated, can give off an appearance of selfishness, and this may grow antisemitism.

I do a lot of business with the Jewish community in Australia and the US, and once they give you their word, their word is their bond.

A fundamental attribute of our business success.

[satsuma]

The way it was explained to me was that the Jews loaned money to people over many centuries, a practice not common in other religions.

Muslims did not, and Catholics frowned on loaning with interest. There is a certain term they use which i forget.

Usury. The term is still used for excessively high interest rates that may be illegal, and also used by those who think, as many in the Middle Ages did, that all interest is immoral.

With exclusion from "respectable" occupations and even segregated away from the feudal system of Christian lords and serfs. It seems that over the whole Middle Ages and into the modern era, Jewish people were associated with finances and trade. The many expulsions of Jewish people from cities and kingdoms may have had financial motives but could also be motivated by accusations of crimes and sacrilege.

[Samof94]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

Armenians also parallel the Jews as they too suffered a major genocide in the 20th century. Theirs was during WWI at the hands of the Turks. The difference is the Turks never apologized and still deny it. They also built a racist museum near the Armenian border that is basically says Armenians killed Turks instead of the other way around.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

Armenians also parallel the Jews as they too suffered a major genocide in the 20th century. Theirs was during WWI at the hands of the Turks. The difference is the Turks never apologized and still deny it. They also built a racist museum near the Armenian border that is basically says Armenians killed Turks instead of the other way around.

The West's memoryholing or straight-up denialism of the Armenian genocide for the sake of cajoling an utterly unrepentant nationalist Turkey is one of our greatest shames.

[afleitch]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

Armenians also parallel the Jews as they too suffered a major genocide in the 20th century. Theirs was during WWI at the hands of the Turks. The difference is the Turks never apologized and still deny it. They also built a racist museum near the Armenian border that is basically says Armenians killed Turks instead of the other way around.

The West's memoryholing or straight-up denialism of the Armenian genocide for the sake of cajoling an utterly unrepentant nationalist Turkey is one of our greatest shames.

It's very patchwork. While the US, France and Russia formally recognises it, the UK doesn't (but Scotland and Wales legislatively do) and neither does China. Israel also doesn't formally recognise it.

In some cases it's not about placating Turkey; rather a failure to allow for redress through engaging with the wider Armenian community.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

Armenians also parallel the Jews as they too suffered a major genocide in the 20th century. Theirs was during WWI at the hands of the Turks. The difference is the Turks never apologized and still deny it. They also built a racist museum near the Armenian border that is basically says Armenians killed Turks instead of the other way around.

The West's memoryholing or straight-up denialism of the Armenian genocide for the sake of cajoling an utterly unrepentant nationalist Turkey is one of our greatest shames.

It's very patchwork. While the US, France and Russia formally recognises it, the UK doesn't (but Scotland and Wales legislatively do) and neither does China. Israel also doesn't formally recognise it.

In some cases it's not about placating Turkey; rather a failure to allow for redress through engaging with the wider Armenian community.

Israel not recognizing it (and generally being so chummy with Turkey and Azerbaijan in this climate) is particularly damning, ngl. It's hard not to feel like to a lot of people "never again" really just means "never again to us". Not that that's in any way unique, of course.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In general I do not think that trying to find 'rational' roots for antisemitism makes much (or, frankly, any) sense: in no case did prejudice develop due to an association with occupations regarded as immoral or unclean,* rather those associations were forced by prejudice.

_{*E.g. Yemenite Jews occupying an approximately similar social position to Dalits in India, complete with employment in noxious trades and untouchability.}

[Samof94]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

Armenians also parallel the Jews as they too suffered a major genocide in the 20th century. Theirs was during WWI at the hands of the Turks. The difference is the Turks never apologized and still deny it. They also built a racist museum near the Armenian border that is basically says Armenians killed Turks instead of the other way around.

The West's memoryholing or straight-up denialism of the Armenian genocide for the sake of cajoling an utterly unrepentant nationalist Turkey is one of our greatest shames.

It's very patchwork. While the US, France and Russia formally recognises it, the UK doesn't (but Scotland and Wales legislatively do) and neither does China. Israel also doesn't formally recognise it.

In some cases it's not about placating Turkey; rather a failure to allow for redress through engaging with the wider Armenian community.

Israel not recognizing it (and generally being so chummy with Turkey and Azerbaijan in this climate) is particularly damning, ngl. It's hard not to feel like to a lot of people "never again" really just means "never again to us". Not that that's in any way unique, of course.

Ironically, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria all accept that the Armenian Genocide occurred.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jews were often "middleman" minorities throughout history. Armenians too. Middleman minorities are often at the forefront of envy.

A lot of other reasons as well, of course.

Armenians also parallel the Jews as they too suffered a major genocide in the 20th century. Theirs was during WWI at the hands of the Turks. The difference is the Turks never apologized and still deny it. They also built a racist museum near the Armenian border that is basically says Armenians killed Turks instead of the other way around.

The West's memoryholing or straight-up denialism of the Armenian genocide for the sake of cajoling an utterly unrepentant nationalist Turkey is one of our greatest shames.

It's very patchwork. While the US, France and Russia formally recognises it, the UK doesn't (but Scotland and Wales legislatively do) and neither does China. Israel also doesn't formally recognise it.

In some cases it's not about placating Turkey; rather a failure to allow for redress through engaging with the wider Armenian community.

Israel not recognizing it (and generally being so chummy with Turkey and Azerbaijan in this climate) is particularly damning, ngl. It's hard not to feel like to a lot of people "never again" really just means "never again to us". Not that that's in any way unique, of course.

Ironically, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria all accept that the Armenian Genocide occurred.

I mean, these countries' governments are not exactly fans of that of Turkey. Red Velvet and his ilk are right that that sort of thing is generally what dictates these kinds of double standards, rather than anything else. It's just that this fact is a very bad thing and should be advocated against whenever possible.

The Turkish position on the Armenian genocide and the allegedly-monolithic "African" position on Fiducia supplicans, which is also being semi-actively discussed on R&P right now, seem to me to have a lot in common in some ways. It's the combination of a position that is itself already extremely unsympathetic substantively to anyone who doesn't already hold it (genocide denialism; ridiculously intense homophobia) and a ludicrously high degree of issue emphasis and emotional salience that is placed on that already-unsympathetic position (allowing mostly-symbolic gestures at the position you think is "wrong" to influence or even dictate your geopolitical or religious commitments). Depressing, depressing stuff.

[Senator Incitatus]

It would be impossible to reduce it to any one thing or ascribe all of its many forms to each particular instance—just like every other hatred, only moreso, etc.