A better understanding of Antisemitism

My point being that today Jews living outside of Israel might refer to themselves, if asked, that they are "Diaspora Jews," since to Jews the Diaspora was the "forced Diaspora" that the Romans effected when they decimated the Second Temple (aka, the Wailing Wall). That was when rabbinical Judaism supplanted the Judaism with the Pharisees and Saducees, since how can one have high priests in every little shtetl in Eastern Europe?

Now that does not mean that Jews living outside of Israel today collectively believe that anyone in their family's future will eventually go back to Israel, since most Jews today think, in my opinion, of Judaism as a world-wide religion with its own gene pool (that gets infused with new genes once in awhile). In my own opinion, I see the story of the Jewish identity somewhat parallel to the story of Rin Tin Tin. Rin Tin Tin was a descendant of the first German Shepherd that was bred from specific shepherds, that a German aristocrat effected, to give Germany is own breed of shepherd dog. Prior to that German shepherd dogs were from many breeds. And this specific breed, that this aristocrat bred, then became the German shepherd that had many functions in WWI in Germany.

Naturally, Jews did split into Ashkenazim and Sephardim, and now Sabras (in Israel), so we are a little more diverse than Rin Tin Tin.

In my opinion, what is telling, is that Germany today is quick to point out that they admit their WWII atrocities, has attempted to pay the relatives of victims some reparations, and understands the incorrectness of the Nazi theology. However, how many native Germans have ANY REMORSE for what was done?

That might reflect the fact that many Germans, prior to the Nazis, found too much cognitive dissonance in the fact that those tribes, that were in Germany in earlier times, and more currently reflecting the Christian citizens of Germany, found that the German Jews seemed to possess an affinity for those abilities that were required for success in a modern capitalistic country. I am talking about education and/or business acumen in the capitalistic mode. So, the competitition was resented. Competition? No more than the clubbishness that is found in WASP America, or British society. So, who were these interlopers, who after centuries, were percentage wise better off than the majority?

It just comes down to the fact that Europe always had INSIDERS and OUTSIDERS. Jews just being perennial outsiders. So, even today, I am not surprised that Jews in Israel are considered to be up to no good for wanting to protect their homeland. THE TWO-THOUSAND YEAR LEARNING CURVE OF EUROPEAN ANTI-SEMITISM has been learned well by many. Let's be realistic - having two millenia to learn one's lesson will result in learning one's lesson, so well that, it will be hard to teach anything new for a long time.

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the specious claim that christians, in writing history, want to see Jews as subordinate.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck! I believe you should focus on the historical adversarial relations between New York Jews and everyone else in NYC. Jews, to survive in NYC, had to find an economic niche that did not step on other's toes, so to speak. So, it might appear that there was less of an adversarial relationship than some other groups that were competing for the same jobs; however, in my opinion, much of the resentment towards Jews in NYC, hsitorically, and today, come from the reality that Jews assimilate quite fast into the American Dream, even though they arrive here not speaking English, yet in one or two generations seem to function more like those that came here much earlier (the trick in the early 20th century was to use WASP values as their role model, and mimic the way the New York Irish had a command of the language).

But, I do believe that collectively Catholic New York sees Jews as subordinate, if not in actual position, then in theory, since the Catholic Church in NYC wields power and exudes an image of dominance in the public eye, in my opinion. It is just part of the human pecking order that many subscribe to. But, let's not leave out the reality that for many immigrants, coming from a Europe where Jews were ghettoized and sort of pariahs, they felt the cognitive dissonance to see that in the New World Jews can function in a manner that put them in direct competition with Christians. This was too much for many to feel comfortable with, in my opinion.

But, back to the original thought. Christian historians made Jews subordinate by not arguing against the replacement of the convenant God had with the Children of Israel, at the point that Jesus became the Christian Messiah, with the Christian Catechism. One does not have to be a theologan to see that in a Christian Europe or Christian American, Jews are subordinate temporally and spiritually to church going Christians, and specifically to Catholics, since theologically, Jews are really not valued for any bible prophecy to come to fruition (as they seem to be in Evangelical circles). If one is "excess" spiritually, how can one not be considered subordinate?

Once again, your response is not relevant to the specious claim you advanced. You blather on for paragraphs and paragraphs, while failing to substantiate the claim, even by inference. Prating your bigotry and witless references to alleged covenants does not establish your claim. Historians aren't in the theology business--their is just to report the facts as best they can be ascertained, not to comment on people's goofy imaginary friend superstitions.

No. The winners write the history books. The standard history books pander to the temporal powers. Historians need to eat too.

For example, if it wasn't for Christianity adopting the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments, those two items would be relegated to history's "one dollar sale books," in my opinion.

I would not expect you to appreciate my viewpoints, since I believe your perspective is from the other side of the fence, so to speak. But, I think you are aware that there is more than a kernal of truth to what I say, since you are familiar with the balkanized relations in NYC, past and present, and the hubris in certain quarters. I liken a little of that hubris to be like the jutted out (prideful) chin at the Orange Day parade in Belfast, yet it is in NYC amongst some of those that supposedly value their humility. I am not talking about any clergy, but the lay people that are just part of the demographic.

I think it is caused by the fact that belonging to a successful world-wide organization can blind one to its initial purpose. Just my opinion.

It's pathetic how you always trot out some brainless bigotry about the Irish whenever you address me. I'd think by now you'd have realized that i don't rise to your bait.

No, there are not "kernels of truth" at all in what you say. You allege that "the winners" write history. That's another one of the idiotic theses of Napoleon who was obsessed with history and what his place in it would be. He lost, yet he enjoys quite a substantial place in history, including an entirely undeserved military reputation. This despite the fact that his opponents viewed him with the same horror that a late generation would view Hitler. If only the "winners" view of history ever prevailed, we'd never know the "losers" had ever existed.

You're just blathering again. The historical account of the event of the Jewish diaspora is value neutral as regards the Jews themselves. It doesn't attempt to make them subordinate, one of the most breathtakingly stupid things you've said here, which is quite an accomplishment considering the stupidity you routinely peddle here, claiming its history. We know what happened because the Romans preserved a record of what they did to the Jews, even though in your witless scheme, they would be the "winners." It doesn't matter how they viewed the Jews, the record of what they did survived.

I'll not waste any more time on your stupidity. You can sit in your corner and stroke off, puking up your bigotry and bewailing how unjust the world is to Jews. You can do it without me.

My great aunt Flo, who died in the 1970s aged about 90 something, told me that when she was a little girl, her parents told her if she wasn't a good girl, 'Boney' would get her.

At least something good came from Napoleon´s army.
Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte, who became king of Sweden and Norway.
Karl XIV Johan of Sweden and Karl III Johan of Norway

So the concept was that her parents were in league with Napoleon?
Were thay confessing to political disaffection?
Did she question them on that point?
Ask them if thay 'd visited the Tower of London ?





David

No, the concept is that Napoleon was used as a bogeyman to frighten children.

Some of the Romans applied Hannibal to the same purpose (not necessarily with his consent).





David

If the victims had been armed
with a sufficient knowledge of history,
thay coud have defended themselves
by raising questions qua their tormentors' political loyalty.

(Thay coud not use the NKVD; I wonder to whom
political apostacy is referred in England ?)

She was just a little girl at the time. You're going off on a wild tangent Dave.

Bernadotte . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . . what a feckless putz he was . . .

Cmon, I wanna hear the **** about Bernadotte. ALways consider the readers. The only Bernadotte I know of was played by Audrey Hepburn.

Bernadotte was the son of a minor French offficial who joined the army as a private soldier about a decade before the revolution. He rose to the dizzying height of sergeant. After the revolution, as was the case with so many young men, he was rapidly promoted. Before the revolution, one became an officer only if one was a member of the nobility. The revolution necessitated a lot of promotions from the ranks.

Bernadotte enjoyed a more or less successful military career by demonstrating an unwavering grasp of martial mediocrity. Although he rose to the rank of Marshall, at the battle of Wagram--arguably the most crucial battle in Napoleon's career--he was stripped of his rank for failing to obey the Emperor's orders. Shortly thereafter, he decided to get out of the military business and to go into the king business. The Swedes helped him out with that, which is a good thing, as his career prospects were rather poor after 1809.

so, basically he was not unqualified to serve?

Pre-eminently qualified . . .

How easy it is to be sarcastic about something you know little or nothing about.
The family Bernadotte has/had many family members, who are/were artistic, intellegent and have done a lot for their country.
Here is one of them - married to an American lady



Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (in Swedish: Greve af Wisborg; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman noted for his negotiation of the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps during World War II, including 450 Danish Jews from Theresienstadt released on 14 April 1945. In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, though the offer was ultimately rejected.

After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. The decision to assassinate him had been taken by Natan Yellin-Mor, Yisrael Eldad and Yitzhak Shamir, who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel.