Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
QuoteReplyTopic: Jews in medieval history Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 12:02
I am surprised that no one brought Cordoba Caliphate (VIII -
X cent.) in this discussion.
This Caliphate is one of few countries in Europe which
allowed all three European religions to flourish without any discrimination. We
can think of early equal rights place.
Jews and Christians were not prosecuted and achieved quite a lot. There were
Jewish generals and doctors. Accomplishment of Maimonides spans centuries.
This caliphate gave to their subjects a level of tolerance and economic
development that can be hardly matched to this day and proves that a truly
tolerant society is also a prosperous society and deranged zealotry is a threat
to everybody's well being.
Unfortunately, fanatics from North Africa destroyed it
internally and Catholic kings were able to conquer small kingdoms left over.
German Jews were heavily prosecuted during the medieval times and that was the reason Polish King Casimir
the Great (1310-1370) invited them to Poland.
Poland, until
XVIII century was very tolerant.
It tolerated Hussites, Arians, Socynians and any other religious minority that would
trigger a hearty crusade in the rest of Europe.
But yet they are still Jewish. They didn't lose any Jewishness, rather their Jewishness changed, hell movement is itself a form of change, people are affected by their envirment after all, we are not purely inate beings with no ability to adapt. I see the point of view you are making, but its a falicious conservative view IMHO.
I don't think it has anything to do with conservatism. I'm a flaming liberal myself. While the Orthodox Jews who said this seem to be conservative people, in this particular instance it's a matter of categorization of what's Jewish. In fact, only two point of view would render these Jews "still Jewish," one is the Orthodox religious view that a Jew can never become a non-Jew, the other is racialization theory that treats Jews as a race -- now the latter is truly ultra-conservative. (I don't want to make associations between Orthodox Judaism and Nazi racialism, but in this particular instance their conclusion coincided in some aspects, albeit not in all aspects and definitely only reached their conclusion with radically different premises.)
Nobility is a moot point, nobility half the time were forign to the places they ruled, and the underclasses had much to be pissed off about. Just look at Anglo-Saxon sentiment towards the Normans when they first came over, imposed favourtism on their own kind etc. Wether its Franko-Normans ruling Anglo-Saxons, Germans ruling Flemmings or Austro-Castillians rulling Southern Italy, the understanding of difference was there, and frequently came to the forefront when there was grounds for complaint. What you did have though was the ruling classes diverting blame from themselves, hell, alot of outbreaks of anti-semitism can be attributed to this. Sure, the average person didn't feel that the average Jew was 'one of us', but they didn't feel that way towards the nobility either.
What you said in effect places Jews in the European underclass, which was my point anyway. Let's not say that they were worse off than anybody else -- the point is that, when themselves are considered in particular, they were a lower class.
In fact there were many during 2 WW who, if the Nazists didnt come, wouldnt even consider themselves as Jews but Poles.
I think same was in Germany. There were many so well assimilated with the german society that it was a shock for them when they were no longer treated as Germans.
It's not whether they were losing culture as such, but Jewish culture in particular.
But yet they are still Jewish. They didn't lose any Jewishness, rather
their Jewishness changed, hell movement is itself a form of change,
people are affected by their envirment after all, we are not purely
inate beings with no ability to adapt.
I see the point of view you are making, but its a falicious conservative view IMHO.
Nobility is a moot point, nobility half the time were forign to the
places they ruled, and the underclasses had much to be pissed off
about. Just look at Anglo-Saxon sentiment towards the Normans when they
first came over, imposed favourtism on their own kind etc. Wether its
Franko-Normans ruling Anglo-Saxons, Germans ruling Flemmings or
Austro-Castillians rulling Southern Italy, the understanding of
difference was there, and frequently came to the forefront when there
was grounds for complaint.
What you did have though was the ruling classes diverting blame from
themselves, hell, alot of outbreaks of anti-semitism can be attributed
to this. Sure, the average person didn't feel that the average Jew was
'one of us', but they didn't feel that way towards the nobility either.
It's not whether they were losing culture as such, but Jewish culture in particular. That's certianly possible.
I don't think nobility is a moot point here -- while technically it is, but from the point of view of those who are a part of such a society, there seems to be a subconscious sense of "them v. us," and that the poorer, non-nobility Europeans, when comparing to the Jews, might still feel that they can "bask in the glory" of the nobility of "their own kind. Compare this to another case: poor White Americans from the South during the Civil War supported the rich slave owning Southern White Americans.
Tangent: Unfortunately, this kind of psychological tactic is still used by the US government in controlling its people.
I'd have to say that that orthradox view seems a little odd, seeing
that several distinct Jewish cultural groups began to emerge not long
after the initial diaspora. And i also take the view that one can not
truely lose culture, as culture is not static, it fluctuates and
changes through the generations, a natural process, so this seems like
some uber-conservative view to me.
As for Jews and nobility, most of the population had no rights to
nobility because of their identity, they were of the wrong family
lines, no 'blue blood' etc. So the nobility point is moot there.
However, they tended to be regarded as outsiders, and had to win favour
to get by in most places, having done that, the exact specifics would
vary depending on where they are.
I suppose it's an arguable point regarding Jewish identity. I'm basing my opinion on an Orthodox Jewish website's perspective on that Era. Perhaps losing even a bit of Jewishness is too much from that perspective.
Regarding pluralism: I should qualify it and say that this is the trend in America, and the Jews I spoke of are American Jews. American Jews (I actually have a Jewish uncle in New York) tend to be pretty gung ho about their Jewish identity, even if they don't practice religiously.
My point about nobility is that Jews had no rights to it because of their identity, which is different from simply not having inherited it.
With that said, a lot of Jews at the time believed that being granted
citizenship was a sign that they can finally become a part of European
society -- and at the same vein, they decided to assimilate. Marx's
father, for example, converted to Christianity, and Marx himself tried
to get into a seminary to study. There were slogans of sorts for the
German Jews, saying that their holy land is now Germany. That is what
I mean by losing distinctive Jewishness.
Relativly few converted to Christianity, and they'd arguably already
become more 'European' long before the 1700s. But what you say is
hardly losing distictive Jewishness, on the contrary, its creating a new
distinctive breed of Jewishness, German Jewishness, whish was long in
the making anyways (Yiddish), the freer more pluralistic enviroment in Germany in
teh late 1700s early 1800s simply brought that out in the open.
Of course, that seemed to be the theory of the day: right now, the liberal academia favors pluralism
It depends entirely on where you are really, the Netherlands had long
stuck with pluralism, and public opinion there today is moving in teh
opposite direction, to accomadate the issues of muslims living in their
society, there is a call for greater assimilation (in sharp contrast to
to a few decades ago), for each country its different. Maybe everywhere
swings back and fore to their own tune.
Regarding prosperity: while it was possible to become a successful
merchant, for a long time a merchant was not on the same level, as you
said, as a noble.
Obviously, being a nobleman was a heriditory priviledge, most of the country was excluded from that status.
You misunderstood me. Anti-Israeli isn't the same as anti-semitic, but the point is that Europe is increasingly anti-Israeli AS WELL AS anti-semitic. The two things are not the same, and they need not go together, but in Europe's case, they do. (On the popular level, of course, the Arabs aren't exactly treated well either. But at least anti-semitism seems more vocal.)
About losing Jewishness: during the 18th century or so, many Jews wanted to stop being Jews, period. From Orthodox Judaism's point of view, there really isn't such a thing as Jewish race -- certainly, one born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, but Jewishness is also a matter of religiosity. There's, therefore, no such thing as "half-Jewish" from Orthodox Judaism's piont of view. Therefore, when these Jews were trying to lose their distinctive Jewishness, it isn't quite the same as a White person trying to stop being White; it's like one trying to renounce his culture and religion. (Of course, from a religious point of view, a Jew can never stop being a Jew.) With that said, a lot of Jews at the time believed that being granted citizenship was a sign that they can finally become a part of European society -- and at the same vein, they decided to assimilate. Marx's father, for example, converted to Christianity, and Marx himself tried to get into a seminary to study. There were slogans of sorts for the German Jews, saying that their holy land is now Germany. That is what I mean by losing distinctive Jewishness. Of course, that seemed to be the theory of the day: right now, the liberal academia favors pluralism, and many Jews are certainly much more adamant about keeping their Jewishness, even those who do not practice religious Judaism.
Regarding prosperity: while it was possible to become a successful merchant, for a long time a merchant was not on the same level, as you said, as a noble. The Jews were rather forced to take up trades that weren't prosperous: medicine, banking, etc, -- the irony being that these things are now some of the most prestigious professions.
One thing that is particularly interesting is the disproportional success of modern Jews. Some Orthodox Jews say that that's a sign that they are God's chosen people. I'd suggest that sociological explanations can give us some clues. I think it has a lot to do with the history of the Christian West and the Islamic countries, in both of which the Jews had a long history of residence.
You are mistaken in one point: Anti-Israel stance taken by Europe is not anti-semitism. Saying that it is anti-Semitism is as ridiculous as saying that just because Canadian government is an enemy of NK, it is anti-Korean (as a people).
Europe was on the Israeli side all along till very recently, and only France is really changing. Germany is still under the grip of "Nazi guilt", a large portion of East Europe (ie. Poland) is American-dominated in foreign affairs, Italy is rightist Pro-US.
The problem is, even if they could, DID they choose to become more
openly Jewish. I'm relying on a Jewish source here, but it says that
at one point many Jews wanted to lose their distinctive Jewishness.
Well no-one was forcing them to be openly Jewish. But anyways, i was
thinking in particular of Germany, late 1700s through 1800s, granted
near citizenship (possibly even full citizenship?), they effectivly
became a more functuional part of German society in some cities, and
thus became more visible and open, synigogues were no longer hidden
away, but openly declared their purpose etc. Similar thing happened in
the UK after citizenship was granted.
Netherlands is different again, but then they had been a relative
bastian of religious tolerance since the 1400s, hence the reason 35,000
of the jews expelled from spain moved there.
Define 'distinctive Jewishness'. Seems to me most of them were intent
on keeping the basics of their faith, which, above all else, is what
makes them most distinct.
Have some Jews aspired (except in exceptional cases) to the same
level of successful Europeans in Medieval Europe?
In cities where such opportunities were permited, yes, never as
succesfull as noblemen obviously. Theres odd stuff of jews being
promenant in different trades in different cities, shoemakers here,
jewelry there, and so on, partly because they were allowed free reign
in certain niches, probably a way of covering for labour shortages in
certain areas or whatever. Prosporous, untill the local leader(s)
needed a scapegoat.
Millenia? They've only been in much of Europe for the best part of 1 millenium
Actually, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, Europe was one of the places that the Jews mass migrated to. Even prior to that, the Mediterranean area was a main area of the diaspora.
But in general thats very simplistic, the humanism bit didn't encourage most Jews to 'lose their identity', quite the opposite, it created an enviroment where they could be more open about their Jewishness in public, this is especialy true in Germany, which was then met by a move in the opposite direction towards the end of the 1800s, as revolutionary fevour swept the continent, scapegoats were needed, and as nationalism moved from the old rommantic kind, to the more sinsiter varient (that still exists everywhere today) it gave rise to another wave of anti-semitism, especialy in parts of central and Eastern Europe (pograms etc.).
The problem is, even if they could, DID they choose to become more openly Jewish. I'm relying on a Jewish source here, but it says that at one point many Jews wanted to lose their distinctive Jewishness.
And the inquisition didn't touch Jews in the religious sense, they were outright expelled by the state (Spain), or confined to ghettos (Italy), rather, ex-Jews who had converted to Christianity in the 1400s and their desendants of later generations, began to be suspected of retaining parts of their faith (the refusal by authorities to seperate religion from culture), and thus ended up being prosecuted.
Hey, that's exactly what I said According to the Catholic laws the Inquisition wasn't suppose to investigate non-Christian, as it was an effort to find heretics, and heretics are by default Christians who defected from orthodox teachings (Jews and Muslims are therefore never heretics. They are just non-Christians.) A major reason that Jews become involved was the suspicion of insincere conversion to Christianity (something that we've both mentioned, so I don't know what you're argue against here.)
I'd have to contest the comparison to 'Gypsies', the Roma in particular, and other traveler groups in general, were functionaly excluded from urban and settled society on all levels, made worse by the preference for travelling around and not living anywhere permenantly, they were always outsiders regarded with suspicion. The Jews on the other hand, were often given niches in society where they were allowed to establish themselves and even prosper, and general sentiment towards them would fluctuate. Granted, this is still descrimination, but not the absolute exclusion dished out onto the traveler groups.
Interesting distinction.
Same goes to the Anfro-Americans too, Jews could aspite to be near-equals but still outsiders, Roma/gypsies in general and Afro-Americans in their respective societies were scum even at the best of times.
Have some Jews aspired (except in exceptional cases) to the same level of successful Europeans in Medieval Europe?
Modern rise of anti-semitism is much todo with a muslim backlash against Israel, though many in Europe are reluctant to deal with that, it seems they would rather be regarded as anti-Jewish than Anti-Muslim (realities of economics and iplomacy?).
Absolutely. Islam is an important ideological support for anti-semitism today. And yeah, while the US is politically ally of Israel, it seems that Europe is much more the Muslim side of this conflict. Perhaps the real conflict is between US and Europe.
The so called "anti-Semitism" in Europe is just a cliched rubbish. Israel will lable anyone or anything that opposes its goverenment as anti-Semite. Say something like "Israeli government is not doing enough to improve the lot of Palestinians" and accusations of being a nazi will fly in your face.
I'd say Semite-supremeism is a greater threat to the world than anti-Semitism these days. Jews were always victims and just because of that "fact" they have right to take over other peoples' land and enforce an apartheid...
Millenia?
They've only been in much of Europe for the best part of 1 millenium
But in general thats very simplistic, the humanism bit didn't encourage
most Jews to 'lose their identity', quite the opposite, it created an
enviroment where they could be more open about their Jewishness in
public, this is especialy true in Germany, which was then met by a move
in the opposite direction towards the end of the 1800s, as
revolutionary fevour swept the continent, scapegoats were needed, and
as nationalism moved from the old rommantic kind, to the more sinsiter
varient (that still exists everywhere today) it gave rise to another
wave of anti-semitism, especialy in parts of central and Eastern Europe
(pograms etc.).
And the inquisition didn't touch Jews in the religious sense, they were
outright expelled by the state (Spain), or confined to ghettos (Italy),
rather, ex-Jews who had converted to Christianity in the 1400s and
their desendants of later generations, began to be suspected of
retaining parts of their faith (the refusal by authorities to seperate
religion from culture), and thus ended up being prosecuted.
I'd have to contest the comparison to 'Gypsies', the Roma in
particular, and other traveler groups in general, were functionaly
excluded from urban and settled society on all levels, made worse by
the preference for travelling around and not living anywhere
permenantly, they were always outsiders regarded with suspicion.
The Jews on the other hand, were often given niches in society where
they were allowed to establish themselves and even prosper, and general
sentiment towards them would fluctuate. Granted, this is still
descrimination, but not the absolute exclusion dished out onto the
traveler groups.
Same goes to the Anfro-Americans too, Jews could aspite to be
near-equals but still outsiders, Roma/gypsies in general and
Afro-Americans in their respective societies were scum even at the best
of times.
Modern rise of anti-semitism is much todo with a muslim backlash
against Israel, though many in Europe are reluctant to deal with that,
it seems they would rather be regarded as anti-Jewish than Anti-Muslim
(realities of economics and iplomacy?).
The status of Jews in Medieval Europe is actually quite similar to the Gypsies. Also analogous are the African Americans in America. The Jewish Holocaust didn't come out of the blue as a result of Nazism -- Nazism being the direct and principle cause of it, this sentiment had been brewing for centuries of anti-Semitism. The stereotype of the wealthy and successful Jews is a recent thing (really started last century.) For millenia they were the outcasts of Europe (also convenient tools of European monarchs. As Christians weren't allowed to give loans for interests, and as Jews weren't Christians, some Jews became bankers with the support of the states for valuable tax revenue. A lot of money was taxed from these Jewish bankers, and at the same time, the stereotype of the blood-sucking Jewish money lenders perpetuated among the Europeans, who saw the Jews as the taxcollectors of the state. It was a no win situation for the Jews.) The Jews were better off during the first millenium, but their status incrementally worsened during the High Middle Ages. Many were confined to the ghettos (which turned out to be a quite a blessing, ironically, as this solidified the solidarity of the European Jews, and fostered philosophical and religious training thus producing many great minds and perhaps served as a precursor of the tremendous academic successes of the Jews in recent history.) Things only got progressively worse as Southern France saw an increase of Christian heresies, and the Inquisition was born. Originally the Inquisition has nothing to do with the Jews, but as time went by the Jews were also targeted (particularly during the Spanish Inquisition.) Jews who converted to Christianity were viewed with suspicion because the Spanish feared that they were just doing so to avoid trouble. Then the old order of things was receding and the new order of the Enlightenment began, only to make things worse for the Jews. The propaganda in the pretext of humanism convinced the Jews to lose their religious identity and "become everybody else." Many Jews began to renounce their Jewish-ness, and embrace Europe as the Holy Land. Problem being that as much as they want in, the Europeans weren't so welcoming. Racial theories began to flourish in the Enlightenment, and culminated in the eugenic theories of Nazism. Conspiracy theories suggesting that the Jews are trying to take over the world still survives, and European anti-semitism is on the rise. I'm not trying to make Europeans look like the bad guys here: a remarkable amount of Europeans rescued the Jews from the Nazi, and throughout history many Europeans sympathized with the Jews. (Robin Hood himself aided the Jews, after all.) The Church was also instrumental in various occassions in protecting the Jews from the unsympathetic populace. It's therefore wrong to say that the Europeans were always the bad guys; fact remains that the Jews had a really tough history in Europe, that's all.
ok, it seems there where prosecutions ont he first crusade (and the crusades in general) which led to a series of protection laws for Jews (including one where they had to wear distinctive cloth, like in Nazi Germany). only during the great plague (1347-54), 350 jewish communtities in Germany were prosectuted and fled eastwards into Poland. the only major communities left in Germany were in Cologne, Mainz and Prague.
I heard of German peasent-mobs massacring Jews during First Crusade... but I think massacres during Third Crusade is doubtful. At that time Frederik Barbarossa was leading them.
There is a myth about how Jews were docile victims of persecution... but racism and bigotry was mutual. Quotes from Talmud (Jewish religious book used alongside the Torah) are disturbing. The website below gives a variety of examples of racist-fascist quotes.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum