QuoteReplyTopic: Jews in medieval history Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 02:31
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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