Except that in the case of Muslims, it’s not an outdated trope dating from the Middle Ages (no specific anitsemitism history in the Muslim world, though there were anti Jews pogroms or attacks in “Muslim history”, nothing comparable with Europe’s history though).
It is a recent one, completely linked to Israel and the Palestinians. And for decades, it had nothing to do with religion but with specific geopolitics (the whole Muslim angle on the so called confrontation between West and East is recent, dates at the very earliest from the mid eighties). In short antisemitim in the Arab-Muslim world has little to do with traditional Western antisemitism, though it now tends to resurrect the “arguments” of the latter.
Even the Family Circus has covered this
So why don’t you go ahead and give your opinion on the matter? Do you think that the bad reputation the Jews have among some is totally justified, partially justified, or not justified at all?
I don’t get it. Buy low, sell high is good business. Why do the Jews get credit for inventing this?
There were some financial reasons. Jews were involved in banking at a time when Christians observed a self-imposed ban on taking interest. Since banking can be lucrative and was considered dis-reputable and mostly Jews were involved in it, there was a mixture of distaste and jealousy directed against them.
Plague was also a factor. Bubonic plague is believed to have come from the Middle East. Jews were much less impacted by it for several reasons. They were naturally more resistant to it, their ancestors having been exposed to it occasionally in the past. Secondly, the rituals they observed regarding hygeine may have offered protection that the Europeans (who at the time were virtually oblivious to any hygiene to speak of) did not have. Thirdly, the Jews often lived outside of the city proper and were not exposed to the pathogen as extensively as those living where local population density was higher.
They killed Jesus. You might think that Jesus being Jewish might negate this, but applying logic to prejudice often has remarkably little impact.:rolleyes:
Give me a few days, I will get an exact quote, title, and author.
Born to kvetch is the title. I will have to do more research on the passage that I refered to.
I eagerly await your
[quote.]
(Born to Kvetch - Wikipedia) 
This is not accurate. Anti Jewish sentiments in the middle east were different from those in Europe but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a legacy of religrious discrimination. Just that it came in a
different flavor.
Western anti-semitism found such fertile soil precisely because the general dynamic was accepted.
Nor is a phenomena that predates 48, by quite a bit, “completely” linked to it. Nor would that matter even if true “People hate blacks because of demands for reperations/crime/gangsta rap/Rwanda.” not only lacks logical coherence and persuasive power, it is, to put it mildly, the worst type of nonsense. Trying to explain/justify/describe racism in terms of politics is like dancing about architecrure.
actually it is not
Ok. I understand. Thank You, that was very helpful
Yes, in the US it is used very often, that is why i brought it up. I have been told that the majority of places outside of US don’t use it that way very much
I do not know why the jews get mocked, hence why i posted it as a question. if i knew the answer there would be no point in posting this. go back and look at my comments. i have posted “my stance” on here enough already.
The U.S. has more Jews than any other country, and you wouldn’t expect to hear this in Israel. There aren’t that many Jews anywhere else, at least in the grand scheme of things.
Every ethnic group is mocked to some degree. A more interesting question is: Why are the Jews the one ethnic group that produces most of their own ethnic humor? Any given Polish joke probably was not invented by a Pole, but any Jewish joke (beyond the most pedestrian “Why do Jews have large noses?”* variety) is very likely the work of a Jew. In the U.S., at least.
*Because air is free!
Right. Muslim/Jewish relations were generally better than Christian/Jewish ones and pogroms were rarer until modern history, but they weren’t trouble free. In general medieval Muslim attitudes towards Jews can probably be generally summed up as one of tolerant contempt. There were times of relatively high achievement by Jews in Muslim service ( i.e. as in some of the Taifa states of Spain ), but not infrequently they were followed up by repressive backlashes ( as with the Almoravids that absorbed the Taifa states ), often as the general population objected to Jews being in power above them.
Most typically anti-Jewish sentiment in Muslim areas tended to start with local Christians, spread to the poorer Muslims and then up the economic chain, with usually the government being the last to react under pressure ( for most Muslim governments Jewish subjects were “safe” and productive, hence worth protecting up to a point ). Not surprisingly it was politically chaotic and/or economically stressed times that tended to provoke the most animosity in the lower classes.
Accordingly we see European-style anti-semitism really starting to spread in the Muslim world starting with the late 18th-19th century, during a prolonged period of political weakness and economic disruption. This was also the period that witnessed the spread of ethnic nationalism to the region, which likely contributed as well. For example it appears that it was only in the 19th century ( i.e. the Damascus Affair of 1840 ) that the blood libel appears to have been imported into the Muslim Middle East via subject Christians.
The founding of Israel undoubtedly accelerated and fed this new-style anti-semitism, but it had been building for some time before that.
Um…what?
I will have to go to the library to get the quote about Jews being Holy and Gentiles being profane.
That part I stand by as being in the book.
( Please think of John Cleese being held out of a window , upside down, by his ankles as you read the following backpedal)
The " bag of shit " part , after some thought, is no where in the book.
It is a completely erronous interpretation of what was written.
I admit that the error is fully mine, and I apologise for making it.
I deeply regret my lack of understanding.
Exactly
I will have to go to the library to get the quote about Jews being Holy and Gentiles being profane.
That part I stand by as being in the book.
( Please think of John Cleese being held out of a window , upside down, by his ankles as you read the following backpedal)
The " bag of shit " part , after some thought, is no where in the book.
It is a completely erronous interpretation of what was written.
I admit that the error is fully mine, and I apologise for making it.
I deeply regret my lack of understanding.