Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Origins of Anti-Semitism (1 Viewer)

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"Jewish religious leaders spurred on the
crowds, and they demanded Jesus
be put to death for blasphemy."

The key word in this sentence is "leaders". Zionist leaders are not at all innocent in the hatred and prosecution that their people face (also discussed later in the book). Well I have no doubt that Zionist leaders pushed for Christ's death, this isn't a reflection on Jews as a whole anymore than 9/11 is a reflection on muslims as a whole. Did some muslims celebrate 9/11? Yes. Did the majority? No. At least not in their hearts. If they did celebrate it was out of mob mentality and fear. Just as many Jews did 2000 years ago, and many Germans did 70 years ago (and countless other examples).

Essentially this book as a whole will be about discrediting all leaders and their methods of controling the masses. Hatred and diversiveness are their main tools. Divide and conquer.
 

americanwriter

Senior Member
By too many issues, I mean that the paragraph in which you begin with a discussion of the deterioration of the Roman culture losing its roads, art, culture, etc... and then end with what the argument that it is because the Jewish people are the focus of anti-semitism because they brought guilt to the Roman culture. The paragraph just doesn't seem to fit. It is actually sort of distracting from your earlier argument.

I think you need to narrow your main argument some more. But then, maybe reading this in the context of the whole work would make it seem more focused.

Are you trying to narrow down or pinpoint a specific reason that anti-semitism exists with regard to the Jewish people? Or are you arguing that Christianity and it's conflict with traditional Jewish teaching is the reason anti-semitism continues? Or that Christianity, because of its impact on the consciences of individual men and women in a given culture, like Rome, has had the effect of altering those cultures, and thus those in their altered state of belief are suddenly thrust in a love/hate relationship with their new found beliefs and want a target for their anger?

I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that Judeo-Christian theology was the catalyst for anti-semitism. Anti-semitism, at least by what we know from recorded history, has always existed in its broadest definition.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"Or that Christianity, because of its impact on the consciences of individual men and women in a given culture, like Rome, has had the effect of altering those cultures, and thus those in their altered state of belief are suddenly thrust in a love/hate relationship with their new found beliefs and want a target for their anger?"

That's the one. The erosion of Roman culture ties in with that. (This also ties in with the degradation of culture being a tipping point for anger, frustration and hatred). To use a pop-culture metaphor, it's like when the Simpsons went to Austrailia, and the Austrailian ecosystem couldn't cope with the bullfrogs they brought with them. The European culture is a warrior culture (even Socrates was a soldier first, a philosopher second), whereas the Jewish culture has been traditionally more of a thinking culture. European Christians are the synthesis of those two cultures, and it has often times yielded terrible results, too many to list here. With this book I'm taking the pyschoanalytical route: if people can find the root of the problem, the problem disappears. (that's a little simplified, but you get the idea).

The second question, about whether Christian vs Jewish teachings could be the possible reason for anti-Semitism, I think the answer is no. At least on the level of the common people, which is what I'm dealing with here. I think the Political Thread has proven that differing viewpoints don't matters as much as differing personalities.
 
Well firstly, (and I'll probably get in trouble
for this) I don't "get" the argument of
homosexuality.

I don't equate them with Jews, blacks or
women, when it comes to being a
minority. Why, when you're obviously
liberal-minded (in rejecting traditional
biblical doctrines) and in a country that
promotes freedom, freethinking, tolerance
and equality, would you claim that you
were "born that way?" That you don't have
a choice? America is all about freedom
of choice. And yet you insist that
everyone acknowledge that you're
forced by God, society or evolution
to be this way. You're proud of who
you are...yet, I can't dare say that you
chose your lifestyle. "I was 'born'/I was
forced to be this way."

I think it's just liberal Hollywood's way
of trying to brainwash people much in
the same way the conservative White
House does.

Blacks, Jews and other minorities have
no choice as to their skin color and
nationality. (Insert Michael Jackson
joke or argument here) Someone who
is gay or lesbian has control over their
actions. (Whether or not you're talking
about biblical morality--everything we do
in life is a choice) ANYONE who is a
noncastrated human being has a choice
to be heterosexual, homosexual or
celibate. It is freedom of choice.

There have been many people who were
homosexual, then realized they were
heterosexual after all. Or vice versa.
(I've known some real life cases, and
Anne Heche) Then the argument
becomes, Well, THEY don't count.
Because they were just confused.
Everyone is confused. Everyone
goes through life and makes self-affecting
decisions. And this is a free country that
allows you. Everything is a choice.


Secondly, while I believe the bible was the
primary reason why anti-semitism has
started (over religious reasoning between
Christians & Jews...the Jews rejected
Jesus as a savior, THEN the kingdom was
opened to gentiles) I believe that the
reason it has spread so much must be
related to desensitization. I believe when
the Jews were so notoriously persecuted
by Nazi's, and the news media that
covered the atrocities, and not to mention
the myriads of holocaust dramas that have
been released since, these things have
desensitized many as to what is
acceptable human behavior and what is
animalistic, jungle-like dominance of
one powerful creature over another.
(A radical viewpoint might even be that
if there were never cinematic depictions
of the Jews' cruel torture, there would
not be so much hate. Maybe Schindler's
List opened one person's eyes...but
someone else, not so much)

Don't underestimate HOllywood's influence
either. Preconceptions that the Jews run
Hollywood, and continue releasing and
awarding Holocaust dramas still are
common. Items such as this have become
running jokes in fact in comedies and in
much the same way as some careless
young blacks use "Nigger" as a friendly
greeting to each other. It's all the result
of society's gradual desensitizing to
something that is at first, mysterious and
so evil that is should be unfathomable,
like racism...and yet, is very inherent in
imperfect mankind. You could even
argue that to be racist, that is, to
dominate a person of another race as
if you are greater than he is, is an
instinctive attitude in an evolved mammal
such as man. Despite all the noetic
disputations we make to be fair and civil,
and because it's the moral thing to do,
if not careful, we can all revert back to
animalistic instinct, that unexplainable
mob mentality.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"I don't equate them with Jews, blacks or
women, when it comes to being a
minority"

Firstly, who said anything about women. This isn't going to be a book about everyone and anyone who has been persecuted. This is about the four specific groups of people (I don't think I am, but I might be leaving a group out) that represent the perfect target for people in power to unite the majority.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not really the issue. Basically any group that meets these crieteria are included in the book:

1) Can be found anywhere in the world
2) Live in closely knit communities, more or less isolated from the rest of society (in first-world nation or military 'power' nations only)
3) Large enough in population that they can be an inexhaustable source for prosecution
4) Already a cultural pretext, however flimsy, for being disliked by the majority

Homosexuals, Blacks, Gypsies and Jews all meet this criteria. This is why Hitler singled out these groups for persecution (although the Jews seem to be the only one that get any attention for it, probably because they were the majority in Germany at that time).

Why have I excluded, for example, muslims. They, for the most part, don't meet criterion #2. Muslims can be found in virtually every neighbourhood, in every school. They do not tend to isolate themselves like Jewish communities. You might say that blacks can also be found in every community, but there are definate boundries as far as where blacks are a majority and where they are a minority, not only in America, but in all first-world nations. The same can be said for homosexuals. They exist in virtually every community, yet there are definate areas where they are a majority (San Fransico for example) and where they are a minority. No such boundries exist for muslims. So, if a world leader wanted to single out muslims, he would have to first gather them and isolate them to make them into a visible, communal target. The four group come pre-packaged and have already chosen to isolate themselves. Also, there are first-world nations that have a muslim majority. This is not true of any of the four groups. So if a country chose to persecute muslims, they may face the wrath of muslim nations that have the military power to cause some damage. If you can name one country that has a black majority that can be considered a first-world nation or a world power, I will exclude them from the list. But there are none that I am aware of. And, obviously, there is no nation of homosexuals. Jews no longer have a nation, as you've already said. And gypsies are a godless, nationless group of nomads (for the most part. I should stress that these are generalisations. Individual exceptions are to be expected. But that's not what this book is about, this is about leaders taking advantage of groups of people, not unique individuals. I think we can all agree that gov't and people in power have no use for them).

PS: could you quit using 'you'. I know you're using a euphamism, but I don't want people getting the wrong idea here. Most guys would've flipped out if you did that to them. Fortunately, I don't care that much what people think of me, but just to set the record straight (pun intended).
 
sorry for the formatting but I wanted
to quote some references...


http://www.auschwitz.dk/bullseye/new_page_3.htm

"Why did Hitler hate the Jews?

Holocaust happened because Hitler and the Nazis were racist. They believed the German people were a 'master race', who were superior to others. They even created a league table of 'races' with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. When the Nazis came to power they persecuted these people, took away their human rights and eventually decided that they should be exterminated"


Again, stressing the Lemmings/Evolution
philosophy. Racism stems from a need
for domineering people to feel superior
to others. And like animals, they attack
those whom are "weaker".

Not weaker in the sense of strength or
intellect but perhaps as you suggested,
due to territorial or social status.

Why do so many people attack blacks
and Jews? Because there's a precedent
set, throughout history, they've been
easy targets. And people always attack
easy targets. Originally when blacks
came to America, they weren't
immediately thought of as slaves--at
least not in the demeaning way they
were treated in later years. But
because they were the minority at the
time, eventually, the white man began
to dominate them and invented racism
as a form of control or attack. Jews,
a much easier target, because they
were being persecuted from ancient
bible times, and then later for rejecting
Jesus, and then in Nazi Germany when
Hitler decided they were an inferior
brand of people. Hitler obviously found
it easy to select black people to
discriminate against (because of their
skin) and all sorts of people who stood
out from the norm (including the mentally
handicapped). But why the Jews, since
their skin color wasn't always noticeably
different? While I've heard rumors that
it could have been a bad upbringing in
which he had bad dealings with Jews
(something about being rejected from
art school) or was indoctrinated to believe
Jews were evil by his parents...

I think it's likely that (1) religious
precedent set in the bible that the
Jews lost God's favor. Not to mention
the silence of the Catholic Church
throughout the holocaust. (2) as stated at http://www.maven.co.il/ask/answer.asp?Q_ID=6691&N=&S=

"He learned to hate Jews in Vienna. He says that "just looking at a Jew" was enough to convince him that they were inferior and dangerous. Actually, long centuries of anti-Jewish hatred in Europe forced the Jews to live in separate towns called shtetls and in separate sections of towns known as ghettos. Being SEPARATE, Jews were considered strange and suspicious by their non-Jewish neighbors. Hitler and other politicians took advantage of this longstanding anti-Jewish hatred, even though the Jews in Western Europe had long since entered the mainstream of civilization. Hitler claimed that the Jews were inferior and that the Germans needed to get rid of them to make more "living space" (lebensraum) for the "Master Race" (the Germans). But, looking back, it seems that his main purpose was to use the hatred of the Jews as a way of controlling the hearts and minds of the Germans and other European peoples.
Hatred can be a very strong force"

Whatever is separate, and goes contrary to
the norm will always be hated by the
majority. That is where anti-semitism
developed. HOWEVER, beyond these
years, into our day I have to believe the
majority of anti-semitism or any racism is
because of the Lemmings philosophy.
People have forgotten why they hate--they
are just addicted to it.

Sometimes attacks don't take the form
of beatings. They can be mocking,
jokes, dark humor, and etc. So racism
is a form of attack made by a creature
wishing to convey his dominance to a
"smaller" creature--or at least what he
perceives as a smaller creature.

And the smaller creature would be the
easy targets, with precedent set.
Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals
AND AND AND! Native Americans.
That could be one minority you've
forgotten.


P.S. yes it was a euphemism. sorry
for all the you's. But I know you are
obviously far too busy scoring with
droves of sexy and insatiable female
women of the most feminine form, with
heads of long platinum blonde hair and
ample bosoms, and doing so in purely
heterosexual ways in true masculine
glory to give it anymore worry.
(hope i set the record straight)
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"But I know you are
obviously far too busy scoring with
droves of sexy and insatiable female
women of the most feminine form, with
heads of long platinum blonde hair and
ample bosoms, and doing so in purely
heterosexual ways in true masculine
glory to give it anymore worry.
(hope i set the record straight)"

No..... I prefer redheads.

"Why did Hitler hate the Jews?

"Holocaust happened because Hitler and the Nazis were racist. They believed the German people were a 'master race', who were superior to others. They even created a league table of 'races' with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. When the Nazis came to power they persecuted these people, took away their human rights and eventually decided that they should be exterminated"

I haven't read the link yet, but this is terribly simplified. Anti-Semitism was in full force in Germany before Hitler was even born. The idea of the Germans being superior was thought out in such concepts as Lebensraum, before the Nazi party. Hitler, as leaders do, took the existing situation and simply took advantage of it.

"But
because they were the minority at the
time, eventually, the white man began
to dominate them and invented racism
as a form of control or attack."

Again, I feel this is too simple, as black African leaders also participated in trading their own people for profit (the common theme, as you can tell, power corrupts.....)

"But why the Jews, since
their skin color wasn't always noticeably
different?"

Can you tell the difference between a Korean and a Japanese person? I can't. But they can. It's amazing how easily differences can be seen when you know how to look for them, and the Nazis trained the Germans well.

"AND AND AND! Native Americans.
That could be one minority you've
forgotten."

The natives are a unique case in that they once had several powerful nations that, despite what people may think, could have challenged any in the world in legitimate war. (unfortunately, what the anglos and dutch did to them was not even close to legitimate war). But aside from that, they don't meet the first criterion, and could only by the wildest of imaginations meet the fourth.

I have no doubt that Hitler's hatred for the Jews was genuine. But there's an old saying with politicians and leaders: tell enough lies, and, eventually, you'll stumble onto the truth. (Actually I just made that up right now. Pretty catchy, huh?)

As far as I know, there are only 4 groups that meet the above mentioned criteria. Why is it important that they meet the criteria? Well, take the Natives: because they only exist in the Americas (and even there, their population is too limited to make for a good target), their usefullness as a foil with global implications is limited. With the Jews, Hitler could've attacked almost any country in the world in the name of 'purification', and his people would follow. Also, there is little if any pretext to hate the natives in the modern world. It would be far too difficult to convince the masses that; "The natives, and their evil casinos, are destroying the world. They must be stopped. Zeig Heil!"

The handicapped are an interesting group to consider. Though I think this falls under #4: a pretext for disliking them. Only in Hitler's demented mind was there a pretext for hating the handicapped. I doubt the masses could be easily convinced of this. Why were the Germans? Because I think by that point Hitler was seen as a god, and whatever he said went. But, he didn't use this as his platform for gaining and holding sway over the people; he used the Jews. Once he had the people on his side, he could persecute almost anyone he saw fit, even fellow 'Aryans'. Remember, I'm only interested in how leaders use hatred to unite the majority on their side. Once they are united, said leader can do as they wish. Once they have established a culture of fear and hatred, they can then use that against the masses as means of control, as Hitler did.
 

greggb

Senior Member
Hi. Great grammar and sentence structure, and very interesting and insightful theory as to how anti-Semitism originated. But I think there are some problems with mechanics throughout this entire essay.

From the time Judeo-Christian theology came to the western world, ie Rome, anti-Semitism has seemed to follow proportionately. Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them? The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt. This is especially true when one compares the Jewish culture to the hedonist cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome and to a lesser extent Egypt.

In this paragraph you ask the question, "Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them?" And then immediately after you say "The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt". This is confusing because you ask a question and then start on a new topic not even related to the question you asked.

Throughout your essay I noticed that you shift back and forth between the topics of guilt in the Jewish culture and anti-Semitism, without clear transitions. I understand that what you're getting at in your essay is that anti-Semitism might have resulted from the fact that the Jews introduced a religion that brought with it feelings of guilt. But I had to read your essay 3 times to get that, mostly because of the way your essay is organized.

I'd recommend that instead of shifting back and forth between the concepts of guilt and anti-Semitism that you talk about anti-Semitism for a while, then have one clear transition into the topic of guilt in the Christian religion, and how this guilt might be a cause for anti-Semitism. By organizing your topics into two major sections (1. anti-Semitism and 2. how guilt resulting from Christian beliefs might be the cause for anti-Semitism), you'll make your essay a lot easier to follow, and your points will be stronger. The fewer times you can make me (the reader) have to shift gears, the better.

Gregg
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
Thanks for the advice Gregg.

I was planning on getting rid of the question during the second run through, just because I believe asking questions to the reader is a weak method of getting your point across.

I decided to go with the single linear format, to show why even after paganism, anti-Semitism still grew and even expanded in the Christian era. Also, this shows how hatred develops over time. But if it's confusing I might have to change it.

Keep in mind I will be expanding on the ideas after I do more research, which should help make the connection between guilt and resentment clearer. I don't really see it has switching back-and-forth since guilt and resentment (ie anti-Semitism) go hand-in-hand. Maybe an excerpt from Oedipus Rex will make it clearer (son [Christianity] kills father [paganism] and feels guilt over marrying mother [Judaism] and blinds himself.)

Did anyone else find it confusing?
 

greggb

Senior Member
Here's what I mean by "switching back and forth".

It seems confounding, and yet, it is completely in line with human nature, because along with Christianity, the Jews also brought with them the concept of guilt, that is the concept of feeling bad about something that makes one feel good. A concept previously foreign to Rome and its territories. In fact, it is concept almost uniquely and strangely Semitic. This isn’t to say other cultures were completely unfamiliar with guilt, but only for doing something that in some way harmed someone or something else, a completely linear and rational response. But to feel guilty about doing something pleasurable, that in no way harmed anyone else, and in fact may give pleasure to others as well as to oneself: this was unheard of, particularly in Rome.

Most people would theorise that Anti-Semitism is routed in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Matthew, wherein the Jews are said to be solely responsible for the death of Christ. However, this is not the origin, but is rather systemic of anti-Semitism.

When the fathers of Roman Catholicism were taking religious texts to place in the bible, they elected which articles would be excluded, among these were at least three known Gospels of Christ. The reasoning behind the

Notice how you mention 3 or 4 sentences about guilt, then begin a new paragraph about something different. Then a little while later...

When one thinks of Ancient Rome and Greece, perhaps first is the culture, civilisation, philosophy, art and technology that they developed and spread throughout the world. But closely second was their hedonistic appetites. Roman and Greek life was centred around enjoying everything this world had to offer: their gods were the gods of wine, love, virility, and strength; the Jewish god is the god of Guilt. Considering then this contrast, one can now begin to understand why Romans, even after converting to Christianity, rather especially after converting to Christianity, had such contempt for the Jews. A culture that was once carefree had now been gilded in the cage of Judeo-Christian doctrine. A culture whose people formerly enjoyed orgies, homosexuality, incest, great gluttonous feasts, warring and fighting, now could not so much as think of such things without feeling pangs of guilt and embarrassment. The “pleasures” of life were taken from them, and who was to blame? After all, their new and omnipotent, all-knowing God could not be at fault, nor their lord and saviour Jesus Christ and his followers. But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them. The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed. It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.

As Roman society continued to deteriorate, Rome and its territories gradually fell into what has become known as the Dark Ages. It is during this bleak period that Christianity is at its peak in Europe, and not coincidentally so too was anti-Semitism.

Once again here's a mention of guilt and why it might by the cause for anti-Semitism, and immediately following is a paragraph that doesn't go along with it-- at least I (a reader fairly uneducated on the topics of Roman history and human pyschology) don't see see a clear connection.

I don't really see it has switching back-and-forth since guilt and resentment (ie anti-Semitism) go hand-in-hand.

To you it seems pretty obvious that guilt and resentment go hand-in-hand, but I don't think the average reader will make this connection. I think guilt causes resentment on a more subconscious level, that's not extremely apparent to a lot of people. For that reason I think you should take a little more time to explain how/why guilt causes resentment.

Again as far as structure goes, I'd recommend that you build into the topic of guilt (and how it causes resentment), and once you're on the topic, stick with it long enough for your readers to digest it.

Something else that distracts me from the point you're trying to make (I'm assuming that the theme of your essay is 'guilt might be the cause for anti-Semitism') is when you make reference to the Jews being the people who crucified Christ.

But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them. The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed. It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.

I (the reader) wonder if the Romans resent the Jews because they crucified Christ, or because they introduced guilt (along with the Christian Religion) to the rest of the world. They more than likely resent the Jews for both reasons, but in order to keep your readers focused, I think you need to refrain from mentioning a bunch of other reasons--at least in this particular parapgraph.

I want to say again that I think the theme of your essay is very profound. At a sentence-by-sentence level, it's written very well. Great grammar and vocabulary usage. I just think you need to work a little on the structure/organization, and this will turn out to be a great essay.

Gregg
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
I see what you're saying now, and it is a problem in all of my writing. I simply don't know what is common knowledge and what isn't. I want to bring the reader along to my train of thought, but I don't want to state the obvious thereby insulting my reader's intelligence and also taking some of the steam out of the work. My philosophy with writing is always to assume the reader knows as much as I do, and start from there.

"I (the reader) wonder if the Romans resent the Jews because they crucified Christ, or because they introduced guilt (along with the Christian Religion) to the rest of the world."

The 'Jews killed Christ' is my antithetical argument. It is the common theory for the origin of anti-Semitism, therefore it must be shot down before I can bring my theory to a synthesis. If this needs to be made more clear (and I think you're right, it might be) than I will work to do so. Thank you for your advice.

With the 'Jews killed Christ' theory, the emphasis is on the Jews and their guilt. I mean to shift the emphasis to the anti-Semites and their guilt. I feel that once people realise that the reason for their hatred, fear, guilt, etc. is internal and not external, they can cure themselves of it. A classic phychiatric method, only applied on a social scale.
 
Top