Not sure I understand this. Surely Israel is where it is because of some belief in its religious significance, no? I mean, they could have been given a chunk of the American midwest, or Canada or someplace if all they wanted was a place to hang out unmolested.
And weren’t Jews - at least at times - given the opportunity to convert or denouce the Jewish faith to avoid persecution? (Or am I thinking of Catholics and Protestants?)
The location was chosen because of its historical connections, but there have been various “homelands” proposed at various times outside of what is now Israel - including Madagascar, Uganda, Siberia, and even Alaska (the latter is the setting for a recent work of alternative-history fiction:
The Yiddish Policemen's Union - Wikipedia )
None were really attractive, as they did not engage the imagination in the way that Israel did.
Also, the point of Jewish ethno-nationalism was not merely to “hang out unmolested”, but rather to create a nation in charge of its own destiny. It was, as it were, an act of mistrust aimed at the rest of the world - that without their own country and (more specifically) their own army, Jews would never “hang out” with any sort of confidence anywhere.
This sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t. It certainly did not work against the Nazis.
If you live in the city, what do you think of suburbanites?
Like they said above, Macs vs. PCs.
Red state values or blue state values? MSNBC watchers or FOX watchers?
We’re fortunate enough to live in societies with strong rule of law and a culture of tolerance so folks don’t kill each other over these, but tribalism sure lives on!
What do you mean a cite?look at any map and Egypt clearly is IN Africa:confused:
Now what do you mean by Arab culture?
Their modern day culture depends in what part of Egypt you are in.
It is split into 4 regions.
The Sinai is mainly Bedouin and they are probably the closest in tradition to Gulf Arabs and these are the ones with Arab roots. They live in tents in the desert. Arabs of the Gulf often leave their palaces to camp in tents to get back to their roots. Egyptians don’t.
Egyptians don’t generally trust Bedouin and are often discriminated against.
If you ask any Egyptian who the Arabs are they will tell you they are the people of Saudi and the Gulf. They do not in any way think themselves like the people of the Gulf.
The Upper Delta region is quite Mediterranean in flavour. Although keeping it’s Egyptian festivals and cultures.
Lower Egypt is fairly cosmopolitan. Festivals like the Christian moulids, Western Christian Christmas, the Coptic Christmas, and the Islamic Ramadan are all celebrated.
The Pharoanic ‘Sham El Naseem’ the festival of Spring is also celebrated there and throughout Egypt. St Valentines Day is also a big thing here.
Upper Egypt is more African/Nubian in tradition although the tourist areas cater for all festivals and cultures.
You have to remember that this is desert. Pharoahs were desert people too.
It is therefore a tribal region. This is how they survived. They moved to find grazing and water. Before the dam they relied on annual flooding and so moved around.
Tribal does not necessarily mean Arab. Tribes are found all over the world. There is and always has been a very strong family bond and extended family bond. In that respect they are similar.
I would say that the only part of Egypt which does not have any real signs of the ancient Egypt is the Sinai. All other parts it would be hard to go any distance without seeing anything pharoanic being sold or exhibited.
Zahi Hawass keeps that part alive and kicking throughout the world. Millions are working in that industry. Only the resorts in Sinai carry all the pharoanic paraphernalia. There are also quite a few Pharoanic sites like Hamam Faroun and the turquoise mines etc. But the bedouin concentrate mainly ( if in tourism) on the ‘Holy Sites’ like St Catherines, Ayn Musa and Gebel Musa.
Maybe Ivan, the English in fact caused the problems and were flushed out or chased with machetes and swam the channel to escape:D
That’s interesting.
So Jews actually felt safer living amongst Muslims. Afraid of living amongst Christians:eek:
The powers to be even thought that.
Doesn’t that speak volumes;)
So what happened then? Obviously Zionism was the problem.
What throughout history made everyone hate the Jews? There has to be a reason for it.
I’m being serious. Has that question ever been answered or asked?
I’m sure more expert folk will chime in, but my suspicion is that it has to do with their maintenance of a tight “clan/tribal” identity, which makes it easier for factions to identify them as the “other” to be scapegoated for a society’s problems.
Add to that their frequent economic success, which makes them an appealing target. Disenfranchise the (relatively) wealthy and you get to divvy up the spoils. A hell of a lot more profitable than disenfranchising the poor!
One more factor, altho this may be somewhat of a result of antisemitism rather than a cause, they infrequently comprised majority factions of governments, which caused them to have fewer direct supporters when they came under attack.
Like I said, this is all my un-expert opinion and, of course, is expressed in gross generalities.
Well, I’m perfectly willing to treat the question as serious, rather than as Jew-baiting.
From an anthropological perspective, the answer isn’t hard to find: Jews tend to be hated for much the same reason the overseas Chinese minority in Indonesia is hated, and indeed any ethnic minority which is both imbedded in a matrix of a minority culture, and culturally predisposed to have certain characteristics - such as a high respect for education, a strong work ethic, and powerful family structure.
The problem here is that most ‘traditional’ majority cultures stress conformity within a well-defined class structure. What is valued is social harmony. Outsiders lacking ties to the majority and having different values disrupt this, and the result is often envy and hatred - the mechanisms that keep harmony within local society, methods of social control, but ineffective on minorities who are already ‘beyond the pale’.
I witnessed an example of this in Indonesia. I was visiting a place called Borobodur, some decades ago - a famous acheological site - when I noticed that all of the food stands for tourists sold much the same food at the same prices. The food was terrible, but cheap. However, there was a small restaurant, obviously doing very well, that sold much better food. It was run by a Chinese fellow, and I got to talking to him - his explaination (for what it’s worth) is that all of the other food stands were run by local villagers, who in effect did not dare to make better food or otherwise compete with each other - because to do so would be to incur hostility: out-competing your own brother-in-law is not a good idea. Plus, gathering or accumulating weath wasn’t really possible, because your brother-in-law was sure to 'borrow" any surplus … however, being Chinese, the locals already did not care for the owner of this restaurant, and he wasn’t included in the local circle of obligations, so he was free as it were to out-compete all of them.
Plus, the Chinese (like the Jews) stressed the importance of education, hard work, etc. whereas the locals stresses the importance of social harmony, liberality with friends & relations, etc.
In this way, the overseas Chinese in effect became a considerable portion of the Indonesian middle class, much to the frustration and anger of the locals - which on occasion boiled over into anti-Chinese pogroms.
This seems to me quite similar to the reasons Jews tended to have a hard time in traditional societies, whereas they do not in North America. Of course it is not a complete answer, because in some places Jews formed traditional-type societies of their own.
I have to agree with Czarcasm on this. You’re still gonna have the tribal dick-waving; I’m not sure that will ever go away. But I think there would be a heckuva lot less suicide bombing and jihad bullshit.
I give up- do you think you’ve caught me in some kind of “Aha! Gotcha!” moment???
Yes, there have been many occasions when Jews who faced heavy persecution and even death in Christian countries were able to find relative safety in Muslim countries. That’s not news to anyone who’s studied even a LITTLE bit of history.
The Middle East consists of large chunks of desert and very limited strips of arable land and oases. Trade was necessary in order to live because there were not enough resources to feed a large population with the agriculture that was available. Anytime this is the case- the Great Basin and the Plains in the U.S. for example- there is going to be conflict, and since you have to have back-up it’s going to be family against family rather than every man for himself, and when your family grows it’ll become clan against clain and then tribe against tribe and finally ethnic group against ethnic group. I always assumed this to be the root of the conflicts and the religious differences just played into the existing argument over who gets what strips of land, what trade routes, and what other resources.
There’s an old saying that I’ve heard attributed to Arabs, Scots, and others and there’s probably a corollary in all of those and most tribal groups where resources are limited:
“My brothers and I fight amongst ourselves. My brothers and I fight against our cousins. My brothers and my cousins and I fight against our neighbors. My brothers and my cousins and my neighbors and I fight against the people from the next village, and all of us fight against a common threat until we can go back to fighting with my brothers.” Of course the divisions aren’t always that neat: there were Scottish clans that allied with the English, there are Muslims who have sided with the Jews, there are Jews who argue for peace with the Arabs, Sioux and Cheyenne fought each other as much as they banded together, etc., but the principal is generally right.
The movie Lawrence of Arabia has a scene based on fact that takes place after the bedouin tribes and some of the urban dwelling Arabs have all banded together to drive out the previously unconquerable Turks who occupied Bagdhad and the rest of what’s now Iraq. The same men who fought side by side are now about to come to blows over which clan controls telephone service v. which clan controls electricity v. which clan controls railroad warehouses, etc., that have been seized from the Turks. I think religion is incidental in such matters- it’s just basically another division that can be convenient for alliances for or against.
So very true. Human nature is odd isn’t it! We just like to fight argue and try to be right or take what we want by force.