This post was intended for “Why did the Japanese side with Hitler? And what was (is) the basis of Anti-Semitism?”, part II, but I was asked to open a new thead or else. So, here I am.
<<My take on most anti-Semitism is that it generally arises because the Jews value their faith enough to resist assimilation with other cultures.>>
Jorge suggested introducing “appearance” into this sentence. I think that “because the Jews* are perceived to value their faith…” *would fix the phrase up. As well as assuming that “other cultures” resisted assimilation of Jews more than the Jews themselves. I’d also widened “faith” or would rather replace it with “religion, culture and history”. So, the rewritten phrase would be “ anti-Semitism generally arises because the Jews value their religion, culture and history, and tend to flaunt it, especially when discriminated by the Gentiles, who resist their assimilation.”
The truth is that most peoples’ recorded history began long after the Jewish one finished, i.e., after the Roman conquest of Palestine. A few peoples, beside Jews, can claim ancient history, and most of them have their own countries and do not care much about their neighbors’ opinion. When cornered, the Jews resorted to the only thing, which made them appear worthy: their deep past. I find this “look down” attitude “natural” and human. The American Indians have used the same “strategy”, against their white conquerors: “We have lived here for thousands of years, you just came”. The African Americans have used it: “You brought our ancestors here by force, but they might have been members of ancient West African royalty”.
Respect and veneration for the elders is a modern day cultural institution; applying the same for peoples is easily understandable.
Having said that, I’d like to stress again that this “weapon” was used only in self-defense, never as a “reason” to resist being assimilated. I am pretty sure that if the Jews were scattered over the face of the Earth as they are, but never prosecuted, they would not have seen the Renaissance. (I understand the desire of the oppressed people to reach to its ancient roots as a countermeasure. This, of course, does not make them “superior”, or others “inferior”. Just “older”. “Old” and “young are non-offensive categories. Nor does it usually make sense for modern day “oppressors”: they are not personally responsible for whatever happened in the past).
As a comparison to the Jewish story, look at the Gypsies. When faced with hostility and arrogance of the host population, they stick to themselves, speak their own language and live as virtual aliens in the contries they were born. I saw nomadic Gypsies in Eastern Europe. They live in tents, several months at each place, the children attend school irregularly, if at all, and the adults are engaged in odd episodic affairs. In this country I saw Gypsies only on PBS documentary. The older ones could speak a few Romany sentences, the younger ones were indistinguishable from their “average” American neighbors. Just another example of the famous wolf/sheep effect.
Zev: I know quite a few people who would disagree with you (in Yiddish, no less). Yes, they are under 70! In some cases, even children. And yes, they speak it as a first language.
I know them too, Zev. But the trend is here, the numbers are rapidly going down. “Assimilation” is real, not “appearing”.
To my shame, I’m not familiar with “The Anguish of the Jews”, will try to read it as soon as possible. But if there was “pre-Christianity anti-Semitism”, it refutes many common misconceptions about actual, not “ bogus anti-Christ” causes of it.
I’d like to ask Tom and all others who may have possible answers: what’s the origin of “the chosen people”? When did it start” By whom? In other words, was it a part of “self-defense” of was it the name given to the Jews?
Finally, about the “success”. First of all, do not think that what you see in today’s America, is ubiquitos. Secondly, as others noted, it’s not unique: the Chinese in the Pacific, etc. In other words, the circumstances stimulate best. This phenomenon was disscussed in previous threads. Other things to ponder: there was no other way to survive, if you are not “successful”, you perish, no “safety net” was provided. The Jews had to be at least twice as good as the Gentiles, to make it. Mind-boggling poverty of the Eastern European Jews in 17-19 centuries notwithstanding, Jewish “success” is akin to the “success” of the fist/second generation immigrants. For the purpose of this discussion, the Jews may be considered “eternal immigrants” in most Diaspora countries.