The History of Racial Antisemitism

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Armchair
I think it would be interesting to find out when the idea of a "Jewish race" really took hold. I'd guess it was when both "Christian society" and "Jewish society" were separated by Feudal law.

Or maybe it was (much) earlier?

Prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism.

That's when little Adolf "hinted" to what was to come; after he wrote the first volume of Mein Kampf in 1924 the "hint" became an outright "call" for genocide of "the Jewish race".

[LSD]

I think it would be interesting to find out when the idea of a "Jewish race" really took hold.

Around the mid-ninetheenth century.

Prior to that "scientific" racism was still in its infancy. It was the, mostly, German schollars of the mid to late 1800s who first postulated the concept of "Jewish blood" and "semitic races".

Interestingly enough, though, it was probably a Frenchman, Arthur de Gobineau, who first conceieved of the notion.

Although still rather un-"scientific" compared to what was to come, it was almost certainly his "Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines" that really popularized the notion of a "Jewish race" in European intellectual circles.

Prior to this, it was largely a religious hatred. Jews were despised due to their "customs" and "history" (i.e., usury and "killing Christ"). After Gobineau, Marr, and von Treitschke were through, though, this religious hatred had transformed into fully fledged racism.

That is not to say that there weren't "hints" prior to this, though. As far back as the sixteenth century, there were indications of the emergence of a "racial" anti-Judaism.

With the advent of intercontinental colonialism, there came the need to justify cultural oppression in the context of Christian "brotherly love". The classification of "races" into distinct hierarchies proved a useful means of dehumanizing colonial subject, and attempts were made to extend this to other "undesirables" such as the Jews. But it never managed to develop into the dominant form of anti-Judaism.

Indeed, even the most noted of sixteenth century Jew haters, such as Martin Luther, stuck to a purely religious definition, heaping praises on those Jews who converted to Christianity, and restricting their hatred to those who refused.

Not to derail the thread, but I've studied history way too much not to make use of this knowledge somhow. ;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

It is true indeed that Gobineau pretty much "coined" the concept, which evidently inspired many of philosophical "thinkers" of the time.

The question however was at what point in time did the concept of the Jewish race really "take hold".

Prior to the early 20's, Gobineau's works really didn't "catch on" on a massive scale.

As far as the pre 20's massive majority were concerned, it was "news to them"

[LSD]

Prior to the early 20's, Gobineau's works really didn't "catch on" on a massive scale.

I would disagree.

Especially among intellectuals, such as they were, notions of "scientific racism" with regards to "semiticism" were fully integrated by at least the late 1860s.

Certainly in Germany, there was no doubt that Judaism constituted a race.

After all, Hitler did not derive his racial theories "out of the air", rather he adapted the pre-existing German Romantic Nationalist notions about "Aryan", "Nordic", and "Semitic" races.

Indeed, even before Hitler joined, the DAP (later NSDAP) was already dedicated to principles of Judenhass in the racial, Wilhlem Marr, sense of the word.

Also, if one looks at promiment Jew haters of the nineteenth century, one sees a definitive picture of a racist paradigm.

Wagner, for instance, in his "Das Judenthum in der Musik", says next to nothing about Jewish practices, but speaks at great length about Jewish "nature" and "traits", indicating a belief in a Jewish ethnicity, or at least "national" culture.

Furthermore, the famous "Dreyfus Affair" indicates that the popular form of antisemitism by the close of the nineteenth century was a racial one. The accusations leveled against Dreyfuss and the manner in which they were received clearly demonstrates that it was not his "beliefs" that damned him, but his Jewish "race".

Indeed, the "conspiracy theories" of "Jewish plots" that first emerged around this time could only have developed in an atmosphere of modern antisemitism.

Anti-Judaism as a religious phenomenon is, by its nature, unpolitical. It does not view Jews as a "nation", merely as heretics.

"Racial" antisemitism, however, considers the Jew to be a "foreign nation". It is, accordingly, no surprise that modern antisemitism emerged concurrently with modern nationalism in central Europe.

German (and French to a lesser extent) Romantic Nationalists viewed Jews as a "foreign nation" and hence imagined them "conspiring" against their respective "fatherlands".

If a Jew is merely, as Martin Luther proposed, "ignorant and obstinant" for refusing the "salvation of Christ", he is in no way inherently "unpatriotic". From a "racial" antisemitic perspective, however, any Jew is naturally an enemy of the state.

Hence the animosity towards Dreyfuss and Picard in France, and Wagner's fears of "Jewish influence" in Germany.


As far as the pre 20's massive majority were concerned, it was "news to them"

I think you're giving Hitler too much credit.

While Mein Kampf did sell quite well (especially after 1933 ;)), it did so largely by playing on pre-existing racism rather than by inventing a new one.

The German, and European, people did not need Hitler to "introduce" "racial" antisemitism to them, they were intimately familiar with it.

As, of course, were the Jews.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'm glad I asked about this now. :)

Anyway I remember reading a statement by Bakunin where he said he only liked 5 Jews - Jesus, Marx and three others I can't remember - and that every other Jew could go to hell, or something else decidedly unpleasant.

Anyway, been as it was well known that Marx was an atheist (and indeed his father converted to Christianity) this statement by Bakunin suggests that he thought of Jews as a race and this was back in around 1870 and this fits in with LSD's timeframe.

Anyway, Bakunin was a Slav Nationalist in his youth if I'm not mistaken, so I was wondering whether the idea of "blood Jews" dates even further back and may have originated in Eastern instead of Western Europe?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
I would disagree.

Especially among intellectuals, such as they were, notions of "scientific racism" with regards to "semiticism" were fully integrated by at least the late 1860s.

That's exactly my point: "especially among intellectuals".

Outside of the "thinkers", I feel it was mostly "Chamberlainesque country club rhetoric" in that it carried no actual appeal to the everyday German people.

That is until Adolf connected Judaism with the falling living, monetary and social conditions in Germany; then the masses were "off to the races".


The German, and European, people did not need Hitler to "introduce" "racial" antisemitism to them, they were intimately familiar with it.

As, of course, were the Jews.

I once again disagree.

I simnply cannot find any evidence that suggests the ramblings of Gobineau, Wagner, Chamberlain and a host of other "thinkers" were really "taken very seriously" by the masses prior to 1923.

At least not until until the social conditions in Germany became so dispicable that the people would believe anything so long as social and economic improvement was "promised" to them.

It also didn't hurt that they were given an area of blame that did not include the Christian German population; it allowed them to be completely absolved of any actual responsibilty for the existing conditions.


I think you're giving Hitler too much credit.


Considering what he was able to do in the amount time he did it, I think the shoe fits.

Without little Adolf, I don't think that racialism whould have "caught on" outside of Werner and Heinrich's triple-dog secret Saturday night meetings in the back room of the club house.

[LSD]

That's exactly my point: "especially among intellectuals".

That's right, "especially among intellectuals", but not exclusively.

It was the intellectuals, after all, who were actively "studying" these issues.

But, as always, the ideas of the intellectual classes inevitably filter down into the general population, especially when the ideas are so "juicy" as this one.

The precepts of "scientific racism" were well integrated in mainstream European society by the end of the 19th century. The masses were certainly not anything approaching that we would today call "educated", but literacy rates were actually quite high.

They may not have understood the specifics, but they certainly got the "basics".

In the end, Hitler was merely a part, albeit an important part, of a massive social movment. Individuals simply cannot invent a racism so sweeping and grande as European racial antisemitism, they can only take advantage of them

And, of course, at that, Hitler was undeniably outstanding.


That is until Adolf connected Judaism with the falling living, monetary and social conditions in Germany; then the masses were "off to the races".

Again, Hitler played upon the stereotypes and prejeduces of German society, but he did not introduce them.

After all, one does not achieve such political successes by telling people new things, one does it by telling people things that they already believe.

The fact is that when Hitler came into power there were already antisemitic laws on the books. Certainly nothing approaching what he would later introduce, but antisemitism had been a part of official government policy for decades.

Indeed, one could point all the way back to Bismark to see the beginnings of German antisemitism. Again, it was a product of emergent German nationalism.

Although the nineteenth century was the century of Romantic Nationalism, perhaps no movement can compare to that of Germany.

Going from a disparate collection of tiny kingdoms and pitiful "empires" into a united and dominant nation in less than ten years does not happen accidently. It takes a great deal of planning and social movement.

The mid-nineteenth century marks the end of the age of "Christendom" and the final nail in the coffin of Feudal social relations.

It was a porocess that had begun as far back as the 1630s and that took three centuries to fully develop, but by the 1860s, it was fully realized.

Modern nationalism meant that being a Jew changed from being a crime against the Church, to a crime against the state, with all the ramifications thereof.

Racial "judaism" came along with racial "nationalism" ...and that emerged well before the ascendency of Hitler.


I simnply cannot find any evidence that suggests the ramblings of Gobineau, Wagner, Chamberlain and a host of other "thinkers" were really "taken very seriously" by the masses prior to 1923.

Well, again, I point to the Dreyfuss affair and similar Jewish "conspiracy theories" of the late nineteenth century.

As I already outlined, the theories of "semitic races" emerged concurrently with the emergence of Romantic Nationalism in the mid-1800s, and they largely complemented each other.

Neither was adhered to by everyone, but they were both quite popular.

Again, people well outside of the "racial sciences" were familiar with and proponents of the "racial Jew" theory. People like Wagner and Uhler who knew nothing of science or biology, nonetheless spoke widely of "Jewish blood".


Without little Adolf, I don't think that racialism whould have "caught on" outside of Werner and Heinrich's triple-dog secret Saturday night meetings in the back room of the club house.

Except that Hitler had very little influence outside of Germany and native Austria.

Certainly, very few people in France or Russia took a liking to work, especially given how much vitriolic rhetoric he had reserved for both countries in his little opus.

Accordingly, if your hypothesis is correct, theories of racial Judaism should not have developed in these countries, or at least should have remained marginalized and restricted to intellectual circles.

But that didn't happen.

Indeed, while the Weimar republic was still strong, Pilsudski and others were already enacting brutally antisemitic laws across Eastern Europe.

The pogroms in Russia and Polland were already legendary. But by, at least, the 1880s and certainly by the Kishinev Massacre in 1903, these had already taken on a distinctly racial tone.

Antisemitic organizations like the Black Hundred were overt in their nationalist antisemitism, viewing "the Jew" as a "foreign invader".

Much of this rhetoric, of course, is reminiscint of that which Hitler would use thirty years later. The racial "theories" of Hitler and Drexler and Rosenberg were not of their own making, they were, rather, an appeal to an already existant latent antisemitism in the German population

It's true that Jews were quite integrated in 1920s Germany, but that did not mean that they were not thought of as a race. Quite the contrary, to the average German of the time, Judaism was a race ...he just didn't concern himself with it.

What Hitler managed to do was not "invent" notions of "racial" Judaism, but exploit them.

He didn't tell the German people that the Jews were a "nation", they already "knew" that. He told them that they were an enemy "nation".

And we all know what happened next. :(

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
In the end, Hitler was merely a part, albeit an important part, of a massive social movment. Individuals simply cannot invent a racism so sweeping and grande as European racial antisemitism, they can only take advantage of them

At least we agree on something: Hitler most definitely did not personally invent racialism. He was merely an immense catylyst.

I've already said it and you've already said it; now lets move on.


Again, Hitler played upon the stereotypes and prejeduces of German society, but he did not introduce them.

After all, one does not achieve such political successes by telling people new things, one does it by telling people things that they already believe.

The fact is that when Hitler came into power there were already antisemitic laws on the books. Certainly nothing approaching what he would later introduce, but antisemitism had been a part of official government policy for decades.

Once again I think perhaps you may have misunderstood me as you have re-covered the same material as the previous response.

I was merely pointing out one fact: Hitler associated the Jewish population with the horrible economic and social conditions of then modern Germany to gain massive support.

Do you disagree?


As I already outlined, the theories of "semitic races" emerged concurrently with the emergence of Romantic Nationalism in the mid-1800s, and they largely complemented each other.


We've already covered this topic and I still stand with the fact that I have seen no actual evidence that suggests beyond the initial beginnings of racialism, it was ever accepted by the majority of the population.

My point being, everyone knew about it but only a small portion of the population gave a shit.


Except that Hitler had very little influence outside of Germany and native Austria.

Certainly, very few people in France or Russia took a liking to work, especially given how much vitriolic rhetoric he had reserved for both countries in his little opus.

Accordingly, if your hypothesis is correct, theories of racial Judaism should not have developed in these countries, or at least should have remained marginalized and restricted to intellectual circles.

But that didn't happen.

Of course it didn't happen!

Why?

Because Hitler did exist, he [d]did[/b] conquer most of Europe.

His "influence" developed a great deal further than Germany and Austria; His influence and "law" if you will were thrust into the populations of France and other European countries backed with the threat of execution.

Even in Russia, Hitler had Ukranian SS officials.


The pogroms in Russia and Polland were already legendary. But by, at least, the 1880s and certainly by the Kishinev Massacre in 1903, these had already taken on a distinctly racial tone.

Antisemitic organizations like the Black Hundred were overt in their nationalist antisemitism, viewing "the Jew" as a "foreign invader".

I don't deny this, however the Bolsheviks did a fairly good job of limiting its social impact; I will most definitely give them that.

Leaving us back where we started: Germany.

[boosh logic]

I was merely pointing out one fact: Hitler associated the Jewish population with the horrible economic and social conditions of then modern Germany to gain massive support.

That's right - Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat to blame the economic failure of Germany on, stereotyping them as rich businessmen who were ruining the German economy (which is in a way claiming the Jews to be a seperate race again, as he denied Jews to be German). This was in the time of hyperinflation, so the mass unemployed workforce was desperate for work, and so Hitler gained support.

[Severian]

Marxists long regarded Jews as a nationality or national minority, not just a religious group. Becoming an atheist did not make anyone stop being a Jew. And Marxist programs on the nationality question, particularly the Bolsheviks', addressed the problems facing Jews as well as other oppressed nationalities and national minorities.

It's true that, in earlier times, the persecution of Jews was justified on religious grounds, and those who converted to other religions were no longer considered Jews. While, as LSD says, the mid-19th century saw a shift to pseudoscientific racist justifications for anti-Semitism.

The 19th century was also a time when other kinds of psuedoscientific racist justifications were invented; when the idea that Black people had smaller brains began to replace the idea they were children of Ham. Gobineau's book was a milestone in pseudoscientific racism generally, not just in regard to Jews.

And yes, all these racial "theories" were widely popularized. They largely replaced religion as the major justification for all kinds of national oppression, because of the weakening of the prestige of religion relative to science. It's only during and after WWII that pseudoscientific racism became widely frowned upon; before that it was the dominant ideology of the bourgeoisie and so of society at large.

But you gotta look at what is and was, not just what the shifting justifications were.

It's certainly not true that "Prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism." They were a nationality, and if you go back to precapitalist times, a people-class with a distinct social and economic function. Many precapitalist societies assign particular economic functions to distinct castes, ethnic or religious groups,: overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Armenians and other Christians as well as Jews in the Muslim world, Marwaris in the Indian subcontinent, maybe Indians in Africa.

As Abram Leon pointed out in The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation, even some bishops opposed the conversion of Jews to Christianity...because the Jews invariably changed occupations, depriving the bishops of revenue.

Even in purely feudal times, of course not every Jew was a merchant or moneylender. Some were small peddlers and shopkeepers; others tailors or other artisans, sailors, etc. But the reason for the continued existence of a distinct community was their distinct economic function in precapitalist times.

That continued to mark the functioning of anti-Semitism even after capitalism largely destroyed any special economic role for Jews; it helps explain why it was possible to scapegoat Jews for the effects of capitalism.

[LSD]

I was merely pointing out one fact: Hitler associated the Jewish population with the horrible economic and social conditions of then modern Germany to gain massive support.

Do you disagree?

Absolutely not.

But the reason that he was able to do so so effectively was because the people already viewed the Jews as a "foreign element".

Hitler's accomplishment was associating the "Jewish nation" with the problems Germany was suffering post-Versailles, not inventing the concept of a "Jewish nation".

I in no way wish to minimize this accomplishment because it clearly had significant and long-lasting effects, but the point of this thread is to discuss the history of "racial antisemitism", not examine its more prominent manifestations.

Hitler's "final solution" was basically a very effective and well-organized pogrom, and it was not by any means the first pogrom based on a theory of a "Judaic race".

Even before Hitler was born, the hatred of the "Jewish race" was par for the course in Nationalist circles and quite common in the general European population


My point being, everyone knew about it but only a small portion of the population gave a shit.

Well, that depends on where and when you're talking about.

At various points in history, both prior to and following the rise of National Socialism, racial antisemitism reared its head in mass socially significant ways.

The Russian and Polish pogroms, the antisemitic laws of Pilsudski, the Dreyfuss affair, etc...


Of course it didn't happen!

Why?

Because Hitler did exist, he [d]did conquer most of Europe.
[/b]

In the 1940s, yes, but I was talking about well before that.

Like in, say, the late nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth.

Certainly you cannot credit Hitler for the Kishinev Massacre or the Black Century movement. Neither can you assign him any responsibility for the popularity of "Jewish Conspiracy" theories in the late nineteenth century.

There is no doubt that Hitler was an important figure in the history of antisemitism; he turned a latent prejeduce into a full-on genocide and lead the most successful extermination attempt in history.

That being said, though, AS's initial question was about where the idea of a "Jewish race" came from and why it became so popular. And, although Hitler played a part in institutionalizing that conception in Germany and parts of occupied Europe, he cannot be credited with creating or popularizing it.

When he came to power, it was already the dominant form of antisemitism.

Religious anti-Judaism was completely marginalized by the close of the nineteenth century, if not four decades earlier.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)I in no way wish to minimize this accomplishment because it clearly had significant and long-lasting effects, but the point of this thread is to discuss the history of "racial antisemitism", not examine its more prominent manifestations.[/b]

The initial question was when did the idea of a "Jewish race" really take hold, which is what I am posting about.

It appears that you and I have yet again been arguing two different points of the very same phenomenon...again. :D


Hitler's "final solution" was basically a very effective and well-organized pogrom, and it was not by any means the first pogrom based on a theory of a "Judaic race".

I most wholeheartily agree.

I merely contend that the social Impact of Hitler's lineis far greater and more significant than any other line before him.


At various points in history, both prior to and following the rise of National Socialism, racial antisemitism reared its head in mass socially significant ways.


I'm sure it did, however I don't believe that it had enough "fuel to burn down Rome" so to speak.

I have my doubts as to whether it had enough fuel to even cook a couple wienies!


In the 1940s, yes, but I was talking about well before that.

Like in, say, the late nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth.

I thought you were making a reference to the development of anti-semitism up to the modern era, which is what this post meant to me:


LSD
Accordingly, if your hypothesis is correct, theories of racial Judaism should not have developed in these countries [France and Russia], or at least should have remained marginalized and restricted to intellectual circles.

But that didn't happen.

I was pointing out that my hypothesis could be correct because indeed theories of racial Judaism did develop in these and other European countries.

Countries that were, or nearly were, conquered by Hitler.

I do not believe that without the influence of the Reich, any racial Judaic theory in these regions would have massive significance for any great length of time.

I believe they would have fallen into obscurity, like most philosophical garbage does; only to be "dredged up" here and there by 100 level philosophy geeks at the local starbucks.


And, although Hitler played a part in institutionalizing that conception in Germany and parts of occupied Europe, he cannot be credited with creating or popularizing it.


I agree, once again, cannot be credited with "inventing" the idea; however I will disagree with you (once again) about the popularisation of the idea.

I think we just fell into a rut......again. :lol:

[LSD]

The initial question was when did the idea of a "Jewish race" really take hold, which is what I am posting about.

As am I, and the evidence clearly shows that it was the dominant form of antisemitism well before Hitler took power.

Again, by at least 1880 (probably 1860), antisemitism was a distinctly racial hatred.

How this hatred manifested depended on the specifics of the time and place, but to suggest that without Hitler this hatred would have somehow "dissapated" is ludicrous and your contention that "prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism" is simply not born out by the facts.

To most people in most of Europe, by the close of the nineteenth century, "the Jews" were a race.

That much is clearly documented.


I merely contend that the social Impact of Hitler's lineis far greater and more significant than any other line before him.

And I would agree, but my point is that that "line" was in regards to the significance of the "Jewish race", not its existance.

Hitler's chief innovation was casting the Jewish "race" as the principle antagonist to "western civilization". Prior to this, although racial antisemitism was alive and strong, it was "one among many", much as it is now.

Today, although antisemitism remains present, it is no longer the dominant form of racism. Rather it co-exists with other racial and ethnicist prejeduces across the world.

This is very similar to the situation in Europe prior to Hitler. Pogroms would occur, but they were sporadic; and while Jews were persecuted, they were less so than most visible minorities.

Accordingly, if Hitler had never existed, it is reasonable to conclude that this situation would have persisted into the present day, albeit, obviously, with some modification.

Instead, of course, we had the violent period of active institutional antisemitism between 1940 and 1945, and the gradual return to the pre-war status quo after the conclusion of the occupation.

This status quo, of course, was one with a significant degree of antisemitism. Not because of the Nazis and their occupation, but because it had been a part of European Christian culture for centuries.

Children were taught that Jews were a "foreign race", not because their parents suffered German occupation. That did, after all, barely last four years, but rather because it was what their parents had taught them.

Racial antisemitism as a significant hate is as old as "scientific racism" in the west and and old as the 1880s in the east. Hitler took advantage of this, but he did not make it popular.

Remember, the reason that he was able to recruit from occupied countries was because there was already a strong antisemitic culture in these countries. He never would have gotten the recruitment levels he did if he had been targeting a less hated people.

Again, was Hitler important? Of course.

But was he responsible for the popularization of "racial antisemitism"? Absolutely not.

Indeed, it actually the reverse. You see, in the end, it was a preexisting "racial antisemitism" that allowed for the popularization of Hitler.


I do not believe that without the influence of the Reich, any racial Judaic theory in these regions would have massive significance for any great length of time.

I know you don't, but the history would seem to contradict this.

Again, the history of European anti-semitism, especially in Eastern Europe, long predates Hitler. And "racial" antisemitism can be traced back in Russia as far baack as the mid 1880s.

Movements like the Black Century and Pilsudski laws are clear indications of a large, significant, and mainstream racial antisemitism present well-before Hitler had any influence anywhere.


I think we just fell into a rut......again.

That's what we get for running in circles. :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
The most people in most Europe, by the close of the nineteenth century, "the Jews" were a race.

That much is clearly documented.

I pick up what you're laying down, I simply disagree.

I do not find that it is "clearly documented" at all. The evidence that exists simply does not support anything beyond definite "pockets" of social appeal, yet nothing as consistant as massive social appeal.

If it were, the evidence would be more plentiful indeed, much more than just a few scattered events.


This is very similar to the situation in Europe prior to Hitler. Pogroms would occur, but they were sporadic; and while Jews were persecuted, they were less so than most visible minorities.

Isn't this what I have been stating all along?


Accordingly, if Hitler had never existed, it is reasonable to conclude that this situation would have persisted into the present day, albeit, obviously, with some modification.

The understament of the century.

I would have to say with some heavy modification.


I know you don't, but the history would seem to contradict this.

Again, the history of European anti-semitism, especially in Eastern Europe, long predates Hitler. And "racial" antisemitism can be traced back in Russia as far baack as the mid 1880s.

Movements like the Black Century and Pilsudski laws are clear indications of a large, significant, and mainstream racial antisemitism present well-before Hitler had any influence anywhere.

I simply cannot see how using the same bits of evidence over and over creates anything more than a smoke and mirror effect.

Compared to the level of antisemitism during and after Hitler, I really don't see the relevance of these examples to your case.

After all, the proof is indeed in the pudding and lil' Adolf made tons of that shit; in every flavour.


hat's what we get for running in circles

At least we won't get whacked when we get to old to post.

[LSD]

I do not find that it is "clearly documented" at all. The evidence that exists simply does not support anything beyond definite "pockets" of social appeal, yet nothing as consistant as massive social appeal.

Not in terms of politics, no, but certainly in terms of common knowledge.

Again, the question is not how was racial antisemitism used, it's how and why did it emerge. Where did the notion of a "Jewish race" come from?

Now, the Nazis used "racial" antisemitism to serve their political ends, but they were only able to do so because it already existed pretty much everywhere they went.

The occupations of 40-45 did not "introduce" antisemitism anywhere, rather it played upon preexisting hatreds to serve Nazi purposes.

If most people in Europe did not already see "the Jew" as a foreign race, it wouldn't have mattered how many tanks Hitler had, he would not have been able to convince them otherwise.


If it were, the evidence would be more plentiful indeed, much more than just a few scattered events.

Well, these kinds of hatreds typically manifest in sporadic ways.

Indeed, the entire Nazi period could be described as a "scattered event". In terms of Eastern Europe, it barely lasted five years. Even in germany, it only really existed for ten.

And the events are not what are important, the underlying beliefs are.

My contention was never that antisemitism was "at the forefront" of nineteenth century Europe's mind. It wasn't. It wasn't then and it isn't now. Again, that was a Nazi innovation.

But all that they did was take a preexisting hate and reprioritize it. When they left, so did their priorities.

And the reason the Jews are still hated "racially" by many across Europe today is not because "Hitler was there", but because it's been part of their nationalist culture since the 1860s.


Compared to the level of antisemitism during and after Hitler, I really don't see the relevance of these examples to your case.

Except that the "level of antisemitism" isn't that different between those two periods.

If we examine manifestations of antisemitism across Europe in 1920 and 1960, we find that they are about the same. Indeed, there would probably be a slight decline, especially in the west.

You seem to be basing your argument on the assertion that antisemitism went up following the end of the second world war, but that is simply not borne out by the evidence.

On the contrary, for a time at least, in many areas where the Nazis had been, antisemitism was markedly down, almost certainly due to feelings of sympathy because of the Holocaust.

In the end, of course, ignorance mostly won out and numbers stabilized. But they never went above the turn of the century.

Antisemitism durring the reign of Hiter was and is unparalleled in history. But that period was an aberration. Since his fall, antisemitism has never returned to the levels of Nazi Germany, nor is there any indication that his rule had a significant effect on the long-term European cultural perceptions of Jews.

Four years is simply not enough time to have that profound an impact on so diverse a region.

Again, Hitler was important but he was not essential.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
Again, the question is not how was racial antisemitism used, it's how and why did it emerge. Where did the notion of a "Jewish race" come from?

But that's not what the question was; the question was when did the notion "really take hold'.


If most people in Europe did not already see "the Jew" as a foreign race, it wouldn't have mattered how many tanks Hitler had, he would not have been able to convince them otherwise.


I disagree, the fear of execution by a conquering force is more than enough to "convince" the conquered people.


But all that they did was take a preexisting hate and reprioritize it. When they left, so did their priorities.


They most certainly reprioritised it; we're still seeing the affects today.


And the reason the Jews are still hated "racially" by many across Europe today is not because "Hitler was there", but because it's been part of their nationalist culture since the 1860s.

I still do not agree.

I will still contend that without the Reich's uprising throughout Europe, Jewish "racialism" would be nothing more than an obscure reference to a few absurd philosophers.


If we examine manifestations of antisemitism across Europe in 1920 and 1960, we find that they are about the same. Indeed, there would probably be a slight decline, especially in the west.

I believe this statement to be historically inaccurate.

The levels of racial anti-semitism throughout Europe in the late 19th century were no where near the levels experienced during the years during and after Hitler.


You seem to be basing your argument on the assertion that antisemitism went up following the end of the second world war, but that is simply not borne out by the evidence.

Actually I based my argument with the inclusion of the actions of the Reich; which is not only borne out by the evidence, but it was borne out with sextuplets.


In the end, of course, ignorance mostly won out and numbers stabilized. But they never went above the turn of the century.

I have to question the accuracy of this statement.


Antisemitism durring the reign of Hiter was and is unparalleled in history. But that period was an aberration.

So now we get to the actual "meat" of your argument.

You feel the reign of the Reich should not be statistically inclusive within 20th century because you feel it's aberrant.

I suppose the same can be said about almost anything!


Four years is simply not enough time to have that profound an impact on so diverse a region.

If you can only get the Hitler Channel, I mean the "History" Channel to agree with you we may get to see some different programming!

A bit off topic here but are you a student of dialectics? You have a marvelous talent for it if you are.

I personally loathe it.

[LSD]

But that's not what the question was; the question was when did the notion "really take hold'.

Right, and the answer is the late nineteenth century.

Again, you cannot escape the fact that for the Nazis to pray upon antisemitic racism, that racism had to already exist.

Four years were simply not enough time to develop, introduce, and integrate an entirely "new" form of biggotry into European society.

Antisemitism has been a part of European life for thousands of years. It is nearly as old as Christianity itself.

The question is not when did Europeans start hating Jews, because they pretty much always hated Jews. The question is when did that religious hatred turn into a "racial" hatred and, based on the evidence, putting that date in the twentieth century is incorrect.

Hitler implemented the most vicious "racial" policies in history, but he did so because of the tacit support of a population already steeped in notions of "racial identity".

The "scattered" incidents that you refered to may indeed be sporadic and clearly they were not to the sustained level of Nazi Germany, but what they tell us is the mindset of Christian Europe.

Again, although most people did not act on it, it is clear that by the 1880s at least, "racial" antisemitism had "taken hold" as the dominant, if not exlusive, form of antisemitism.


I disagree, the fear of execution by a conquering force is more than enough to "convince" the conquered people.

Yes, but only while that conquering force is in a position to execute.

Once they leave, so does their threat.

Nazi occupation was sufficient to coerce local populations to accept and even participate in antisemitic policies, but it was not sustained enough to make those policies part of local cultures.

As you say yourself, people cooperated because they were "under the gun". But people also cooperated because they saw the Jews as a "foreign race" and not really "their concern".

Once the Germans pulled out, they took their policies with them, and while they undoubtably had managed to convince some dumbwits durring their brief stay, the vast majority of occupied countries rejected Nazi ideology and shot collaborators.

The antisemitism that persisted after the war was not a perpetuation of German antisemitism because these countries wanted nothing to do with German values.

Rather it was a continuation of the antisemitism that had always existed in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire.

And, because of the "racial" "discoveries" of the nineteenth century, it was a "racial" hatred. Much as it had been in 1900 and 1920, long before the German occupation began.


I will still contend that without the Reich's uprising throughout Europe, Jewish "racialism" would be nothing more than an obscure reference to a few absurd philosophers.

Except that it wasn't "obscure" in 1880, nor was it "obscure" in 1900.

The point that you seem to be missing is that in Europe, antisemitism was intertwined with nationalism fifty years before Hitler even became politically active.

When Hitler joined the DAP it was already a virulently antisemitic party, and it was by no means "unique". Pretty much the entire nationalist movement was antisemitic in the "racial" sense because they were focused on "germany nationhood" and saught to rid Germany of "foreign influences".

Hitler's making the scapegoating of the Jews a central message was a "new touch" on an "old painting", but that was all it was.

In many of the countries he invaded, and indeed even in parts of Germany itself, he was merely adding one more notch on a very long belt.

In parts of Eastern Europe, pogroms were as common as famines and often far more deadly.

The Jews of Russia did not Hitler to explain "racial" antisemitism to them, they were intimately familiar with it.


The levels of racial anti-semitism throughout Europe in the late 19th century were no where near the levels experienced during the years during and after Hitler.

Durring? No.
But after...

Again, you are making the assertion that the rise in antisemitism during the Nazi era persisted after its fall. That is simply not supported by the evidence.

Antisemitism spiked durring the era of German occupation, but following the end of the war, it pretty much returned to where it had been before the arrival of the Nazis.


So now we get to the actual "meat" of your argument.

You feel the reign of the Reich should not be statistically inclusive within 20th century because you feel it's aberrant.

Not at all.

Of course it should be counted as a part of the 20th century. The question, though, is what was it's impact on subsequent years.

You are contending that "racial" antisemitism only "took hold" because of the actions of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. I am attempting to point out how this is not true by comparing the periods before and after his reign.

Obviously durring his rule, antisemitism flourished, and it is undeniable that he and his party had an influence on the shape of antisemitism, but that does not mean that he "pioneerd", "introduced", or made to "take hold" racial antisemitism!

Again, it was already a mainstream phenomenon by the turn of the twentieth century. Hitler's great accopmlishment was in using it, not "inventing" it.


A bit off topic here but are you a student of dialectics?

Not in the least.

I have no need for mediocre Prussian inanity.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
Right, and the answer is the late nineteenth century.

Round and round we go...

I do not agree; I say early 20th century. ;)


The question is not when did Europeans start hating Jews, because they pretty much always hated Jews. The question is when did that religious hatred turn into a "racial" hatred and, based on the evidence, putting that date in the twentieth century is incorrect.

Again, that's not what the question was; the question when did antisemitic racialism really "explode" with the masses.

Putting the date at the mid to late 19th century is incorrect.


Again, although most people did not act on it, it is clear that by the 1880s at least, "racial" antisemitism had "taken hold" as the dominant, if not exlusive, form of antisemitism.

My point exactly.

People in the late 19th century didn't "act" on their feelings; they didn't need to.

Their "underlying" bigotry was nothing more that wispered slurs made to the backs of passing Jewish residents.

However once the "ball really got rolling", the story became different indeed; now it was accepted and even commonplace to not only utter racist slurs but to actually imprison and even execute Jewish people.

They became the target of a failing social stratum.


Nazi occupation was sufficient to coerce local populations to accept and even participate in antisemitic policies, but it was not sustained enough to make those policies part of local cultures.

Unfortunately it was "sustained" long enough to see the holocaust.


As you say yourself, people cooperated because they were "under the gun". But people also cooperated because they saw the Jews as a "foreign race" and not really "their concern".

I agree!

The main difference being of course is that now they are actually acting upon their feelings.

You would be surprised how many people will conduct themselves in the manner of the social majority, regardless of how they truly feel, for fear of being alienated by their peers.

It's the same phenomenon that we see in riots.


The point that you seem to be missing is that in Europe, antisemitism was intertwined with nationalism fifty years before Hitler even became politically active.


I'm not missing your point I'm simply addressing the fact that I have seen little to no actual historical evidence to support your proposal.

I don't deny that antisemitism intertwined with nationalism existed long before Hitler;
I do however deny that it was as socially important to the late 19th century as you make it out to be.

I think you are grossly exaggerating the conditions based on a very amall amount of evidence.


Again, you are making the assertion that the rise in antisemitism during the Nazi era persisted after its fall. That is simply not supported by the evidence.

I never made any assertation to "how long' after the Reich it persisted, you ran with that one yourself.

I do believe however that severe antisemitism continued to rise for a few years after the Reich simply out of social momentum.

I'm sure many post war Jews were targeted by anti semitism simply due to the state of social and economic conditions throughout a war torn Europe.

Social psychology can easily predict that a major portion of the masses will lay blame on the Jews for thier bomb riddled homes.

They would most definitely conclude that if the Jews weren't around, "they" would have never invaded in the first place.

How long did this social condition last? That's definitely debatable. :lol:


I am attempting to point out how this is not true by comparing the periods before and after his reign.

And I am attempting to point out how you are not really comparing the actual social conditions that existed before and after his reign, but merely how you perceive them to be based on some fairly thin evidence.


Obviously durring his rule, antisemitism flourished, and it is undeniable that he and his party had an influence on the shape of antisemitism, but that does not mean that he "pioneerd", "introduced", or made to "take hold" racial antisemitism!

I agree with you on two out of three at least.

I believe he most definitely produced the conditions necessary, and was directly responsible for racial anti-semitism "taking hold".

[travisdandy2000]

http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2006/01/19/

[LSD]

I'm thinking that there may be a misunderstanding between us regarding what we're talking about.

AS's question regarded the "taking hold" of racial as opposed to religious antisemitism.

In other words, when did Jews become a "race" in the minds of Europeans.

Now, while you are correct in most of your points and Hitler did have a significant impact in the manifestation of antisemitism, you have still not shown how he impacted its theoretical development sufficient to the point that you can argue that "prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism".

The idea of a "Jewish race" was not an invention of Hitler's nor was it "introduced" to the masses in the 1920.

Now, there are numerous examples of this fact, but basic logic actually speaks even clearer.

If you are contending that "racial" antisemitism did not emerge until the 1920s, then you must be contending that religious anti-Judaism was still dominant. Clearly, even you must acknowledge that that runs contrary to the available record.

If anti-judaism were still as it were in the time of Luther, Wagner would not have spoken of Jewish "influence" and, perhaps most importantly, the Church would not have refined its position on "good" and "bad" antisemitism.

The fact that the Church felt it nescessary to "remind" Christians that converts were no longer Jewish shows us quite clearly that, to most Europeans of the time, Jews were not merely a religion, they were a "nation", a "people", and a "race".


Again, that's not what the question was; the question when did antisemitic racialism really "explode" with the masses.

Well, "explosion" implies action which is not what we're talking about.

The question was a purely with regards to how Jews were viewed.

Were they a considered religion or were they a "race" and when did they stop being thought of as the one and start being thought of as the other?

Your dating this to the 1920s (or even the 1940s in some instances! :o) is ahistorical.


People in the late 19th century didn't "act" on their feelings; they didn't need to.

Well, clearly some of them acted on their hatreds, but not to the degree of the Nazis and their puppets, no.

But action is wholly irrelevent to this discussion.

We are debating when Judaism became "racial" instead of purely religious. You contended that, to Europeans, "prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism".

And while the examples I've provided are not "conclusive", they clearly demonstrate that both in intellectual circles and in the mass consciousness, by the close of the nineteenth century, Jews were popularly thought of in "racial" terms.


Their "underlying" bigotry was nothing more that wispered slurs made to the backs of passing Jewish residents.

Which is what it largely continues to be today.

Indeed it's how most bigotries manifest.


The main difference being of course is that now they are actually acting upon their feelings.

So they already had these "feelings", then?

If so, why are we having this arugment?

If those "feelings" of "racial" antisemitism predate the Nazi occupation in 41-45, how can you claim that they emerged due to Hitler's influence?

Look, I agree that Hitler played on people's preexisting prejudices and gave them the "freedom" to act on latent hatreds, but that's because I acknowledge that, by that point, those "racist" views had been a part of European society for decades.

It's you who's claiming that they were a byproduct of the Nazi invasion.


I don't deny that antisemitism intertwined with nationalism existed long before Hitler;
I do however deny that it was as socially important to the late 19th century as you make it out to be.

I don't know how "socially important" it was in an externalistic sense, but we're not talking about "grand sweeping changes" here, we're talking about specifically the history of antisemitism.

You asserted that "prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism". In other words, before Hitler, most European thought of Jews in solely religious terms.

I may not have convinced you of much, but surely I've demonstrated by this point that that much is simply not true.

Hitler is important in world history, he's important in European history, and he's important in the history of antisemitism. But what he is not important in is in the development of antisemitic theory.

Hitler, simply, did not invent anything new with regards to "racial antisemitism" theory. He certainly pioneered a great many antisemitic acts, but he largely kept the theoretical aspect the same as when he found it.

The racial ideology of the NSDAP in 1945 is almost indistinguishable from the racial ideology of the DAP in 1919.

The "antisemitism intertwined with nationalism" that you admit predates Hitler, well that was the dominant form by the end of the nineteenth century. Prior to that, it was mainly religious.

It was this period in which, for most Europeans, religious hatred turned to racial. It wasn't when they "acted" on that change, but it's when the change occured.

In other words, it's when it "took hold".


I never made any assertation to "how long' after the Reich it persisted

Sure you did. You contended that it was German occupation that lead to the "racial antisemitism" that persists even today.

You, effectively, argued that the social and cultural impact of the four year Nazi rule in Eastern Europe so dramatically transformed the popular conception of Jews that without it, "racial" antisemitism would be "nothing more than an obscure reference to a few absurd philosophers".

I think that that contention is ludicrous given the pre-occupation history of "racial" antisemitism in these countries and given that religious anti-judaism was largely extinct as a viable school.

The collapse of a real conception of "Christendom" meant that "heretical" hatred was not longer relevent. In light of the social and cultural nature of these countries, a racial substitute was pretty much the only realistic alternative.

Hitler or no Hitler, the "racial" school of antisemitism would never have become "obscure". By the beginning of the twentieth century, it was quite plainly the only school around.

[travisdandy2000]

Marxist have never claimed that Judaism was a nationality. It is and sence ,biblical times, been a religion. The Torah is full of interbredding between the Hebrew and surronding tribes. If you have any question as to what Marx thought about the issue, you only need to read the following link.




http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ish-question/ve (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ve) any

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
I'm thinking that there may be a misunderstanding between us regarding what we're talking about.

AS's question regarded the "taking hold" of racial as opposed to religious antisemitism.

In other words, when did Jews become a "race" in the minds of Europeans.

I've been saying this to you for some time now.

I interpret "taking hold" as to mean the period where Judaic Racial theory had severe social impacts with the masses.


you have still not shown how he impacted its theoretical development sufficient to the point that you can argue that "prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism"

For the common person, that was the case.

I don't know how many more times I have to say it.


The question was a purely with regards to how Jews were viewed.

That's your interpretation.


Your dating this to the 1920s (or even the 1940s in some instances! ohmy.gif) is ahistorical.


History and social science support my statements perfectly.

Considering that you now understand we have been arguing two two different interpretations of the same question (a point I have been attempting to make for some time now) it's only logical that you should agree.


We are debating when Judaism became "racial" instead of purely religious.

Actually you are debating that, I'm debating when the principle was of absolute importance to the masses.


You contended that, to Europeans, "prior to 1920, Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism"

And, once again, that is exactly the case.

Ideas mean nothing if they never manifest themselves socially. Without any tangible social impact, ideas will naturally fall into obscurity with the common masses.

Not with the church leaders, not with the "intellectual circles, not with the political idealogues but with the common masses.

It's a sociological fact.


Sure you did. You contended that it was German occupation that lead to the "racial antisemitism" that persists even today.

It does persist even today.

Without the Reich, modern neo-nazi groups would not be around.



You, effectively, argued that the social and cultural impact of the four year Nazi rule in Eastern Europe so dramatically transformed the popular conception of Jews that without it, "racial" antisemitism would be "nothing more than an obscure reference to a few absurd philosophers".

I think that that contention is ludicrous given the pre-occupation history of "racial" antisemitism in these countries and given that religious anti-judaism was largely extinct as a viable school.

Considering that the Reich is to this very hour still a daily topic in western media, I would have to say that any other contention is what's ludicrous.

Just for the fuck of it I popped on my television, for the record it's 10:17 my time and I have Dish Network, low and behold what's on the History International?

Hitler's Henchmen.

Not Gobineau's Henchmen.

Not Chamberlain's Henchmen.

Not Wagner's Henchmen.

Hitler's Henchmen.

[LSD]

I interpret "taking hold" as to mean the period where Judaic Racial theory had severe social impacts with the masses.

Well, I suppose the answer to that depends on what "severe" means and which "masses" we're talking about.

Certainly "Judaic Racial" theory had a "sever social impact" on the population of Poland well before Hitler invaded. It also, undoubtable, had an impact on the Jewish villages of Russia that were burnt and devastated.

But I suppose these "scattered" incidents don't "count" for you? It needs to be a persisted sustained monumental act of antisemitism to qualify as "taking hold" in your book?

Well if so, then of course, only the Holocaust would qualify. But I don't think that AS's question had anything to do with antisemitic acts.

It had to do with antisemitic theory.

If you want to talk about the history of antisemitic manifestations, that's a seperate discussion. This thread is to discuss when and why the hatred of Jews became "racial" instead of religious as it had been for most of Christian history.

And, again, I place that date at the mid to late nineteenth century. A dating which you have not actually managed to refute.

You have said that by the 1920s people "muttered" behind Jews' backs and had "feelings" of racial antisemitism, all of which support my dating, but then go on to claim that these feelings "don't count" because they didn't "act" on them enough.

Well, I know that there's been some confusion in this thread and we seem to be gotten a bit diverted. But you, originally, claimed that it was Mein Kampf that introduced that masses to the theory of "racial" antisemitism.

The previously "Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism" and viewing Jews as a race was "news to them".

You have not managed to support either of these claims and despite your attempts to dismiss my examples as "scattered" or "isolated", I note that you have not provided a single example of your own.

Clearly, one cannot deny that antisemitism was alive and strong before 1920, so the only question is what was the form of that antisemitism.

Since you are claiming that a "racial" theory was "news to" Europeans in 1920, you must be contending that it was religious "heretical" hatred.

As that position contradicts established historical consensus, I would appreciate some supporting evidence.


Actually you are debating that, I'm debating when the principle was of absolute importance to the masses.

Why?

What does "absolute importance" have to do with anything?

The question was about why anti-Judaism turned into a "racial" hatred instead of a religious one. If you recall, this discussion emerged from a conversation on whether or not Jews constituted a "race" and if not why are they commonly believed to.

The answer to neither of these it Hitler.


Without the Reich, modern neo-nazi groups would not be around.

Sure they would, they'd just be called something else.


Ideas mean nothing if they never manifest themselves socially. Without any tangible social impact, ideas will naturally fall into obscurity with the common masses.

True enough, but that social impact does not need to be "absolute".

"Racial" Antisemitism already had a social impact in Pre-Nazi Europe. It wasn't as "absolute" as it would be under Hitler, but it was certainly there.

Without the Nazis, antisemitism would not have "disappeared". It had, after all, been a part of Christian civilization for two thousand years. That kind of sustained social momenutum doesn't just stop.

So, in light of that, what is it that you're proposing? That antisemitism would have remained religious?

That it would have stayed a "heretical" hatred even into the middle of the twentieth century?

Frankly, that's pretty hard to believe.


For the common person, that was the case.

No it wasn't.

Look, you may be right in that we've been discussing two seperate things, but on this one issue, we are in direct conflict.

You contend that to the average European, before 1920, Jews were not a "race".

In other words, you are claiming that religious anti-Judaism persisted as the dominant form of anti-Judaism well into the twentieth century.

That statement is simply unhistorical and I don't what more I can say to show that to you.

People may not have all "acted" on their belief in a "Jewish race", but they certainly held it.

That much, at least, is pretty much certain.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 9 2006, 11:16 AM
I don't know how many more times I have to say it.
You've said it too many times already; repetition does not produce truth.


Just for the fuck of it I popped on my television, for the record it's 10:17 my time and I have Dish Network, low and behold what's on the History International?

Hitler's Henchmen.

Nonsense. One, the History Channel is not always known for its accuracy.

Two, the title of that documentary is an example of what "the masses" today know about, and associate with the rise of anti-Semitism....it doesn't tell us anything about what people thought in the 1920s, or the 19th century, or any other time under discussion.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)Why?

What does "absolute importance" have to do with anything?[/b]

Are you serious?


It has everything to do with it.

Without definite social impact a "theory" is absolute and utter bollocks.

I guess that's where we differ.


Listen LSD, you're balls are are getting a little bit twisted here so we're just going to have to stop. I'm no more interested in attempting to make you understand my head any more than you are mine.

As can be predicted from the tone of our last posts.

Let us both sit back a while and think to ourselves "why can't this fucking kat understand?"

Dig?


Severian
You've said it too many times already; repetition does not produce truth.


Thanks for your input chief.

Don't forget your shinebox.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I feel I should step in here because it seems the confusion between RAF and LSD has been caused by my original question which I should now clarify.

My original question was....


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 8 2006, 02:21 AM
I think it would be interesting to find out when the idea of a "Jewish race" really took hold. I'd guess it was when both "Christian society" and "Jewish society" were separated by Feudal law.

Or maybe it was (much) earlier?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292017121 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017121)

By this I didn't necessarily mean when did people start thinking of Jews in a negative ("racial") way, rather when did the "common man" consider it - for want of a better phrase - "common knowledge" that Jews were a "race" the same way black people were considered a separate "race".

I suppose that this is a particularly difficult question to answer because - unlike saying "black people" - saying "Jew" can mean two completely different things and therefore the evidence from 1900 (or whenever) about what "common people" thought (despite being scarce) wouldn't really tell us what people meant when they said "Jew".

All that being said, I'd personally say that the idea of the "Blood Jew" gained prominence withing the "masses" (at least in Germany) after the First World War.

At this time Nationalist Groups gained more prominence and that was perhaps when the idea of "Blood Jews" really started to become "common knowledge" (and of course "common scapegoat").

Certainly that's when one of the major "battle cries" - the "Jewish Bolshevik's" - became popular and I think that idea gained a lot of "momentum" in both America and Britain.

Anyway, have fun, I'm certainly enjoying this thread! :D

[LSD]

By this I didn't necessarily mean when did people start thinking of Jews in a negative ("racial") way, rather when did the "common man" consider it - for want of a better phrase - "common knowledge" that Jews were a "race" the same way black people were considered a separate "race".

Right, that's what I figured.

The current historical consensus is that this "common knowledge" emerged around the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Putting it at 1920 or 1918 is a bit too late given the data we have from a few decades earlier.

You're right, it's sometimes tough to tell what people meant by words, especially hundreds of years later. But given the "racial" tenor of prominent antisemites like Wagner and Uhler in the 19th century and given the decidely racial view that pre-war antisemitic movements like the German League or the Black century had of Jews and given the Church's insistance in the late nineteenth century that Christians go back to "good" antisemitism instead of a racial one, I think that we can roughly date this theoretical shift to somewhere between 1860 and 1880.

Now, me and RAF have argued extensively in this thread, largely because we dissagreed on what exactly we were talking about.

Nevertheless, I must still point out that his initial statement that "prior to 1920 Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism" is simply not true.

We don't have much definitive evidence in the history of racism, but on this question, we can pretty accurately date.

We don't know the momment that the ballance tipped and anti-judaism become 50.01% "racial", but we can roughly estimate the decade in which that change occured and it was well before the 1920s.


Certainly that's when one of the major "battle cries" - the "Jewish Bolshevik's" - became popular and I think that idea gained a lot of "momentum" in both America and Britain.

That was due more to the rise of "communism" in Russia than due to the rise of antisemitism.

In fact, the "Jewish Bolshevik" monikor was attempt to turn the masses against communism by linking it to their already latent racial antisemitism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Vesti la giubba gave me new life.


Now, me and RAF have argued extensively in this thread, largely because we dissagreed on what exactly we were talking about.

Nevertheless, I must still point out that his initial statement that "prior to 1920 Jewish people were no more than individuals that practised Judaism" is simply not true.

I think it really goes a bit further than common misunderstanding; I definitely contend that racial anti-semitism would have "burnt out" very early in the 20th century if the Reich was not involved.

I will be more than happy to agree with our friend LSD on many pojnts he makes; specifically about "when" racial antisemitism was invented and by whom it was invented.

I will however bitterly disagree as to when the ideology actually become more than a "fleeting thought" to the majority of people throughout Europe.

I believe I have already defined why, so I reckon it's up to the reader to decide.

(RAF critics please keep you mouths shut unless you have something unbiased to present.)

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:37 AM
http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2006/01/19/
how is this fucking relevant?

It is all very wel claiming we dont see all jews as zionists. However if every discussion of everything jewish - even one such as this centred essentially on the victimisation of jews in europe - is going to be littered with posts like then effectively we are conflating the two!

[Severian]

^^^yes, absolutely. Someone who starts going on about "Zionism" in contexts that are not about the Middle East is probably using it as a codeword for "Jews".

But not "we". At least I'm not part of any "we" that does that.

[travisdandy2000]

Well, I got a warning point for that one, for the record, my father is Jewish, I was raised with Passover and all that. It is just that these days anti-semitism means no one has any right to question Isreal. The holocaust is to Isreal, what 9/11 is to the Bush administration. I am well versed on the plight of the Jewish people, but those times are over, anti-semitism (against those who practice the Jewish faith), has given way to anti-semitism (against the whole Arab nation).

[Severian]

And how is that relevant to this thread?

[Reuben]

But not "we". At least I'm not part of any "we" that does that.

accepted. v true. i shouldn't have implied that dandy's irrelevant commentwasa reflection on what is generally a very good thread.

In relation to the question, i think that in some ways the dichotomy of race and religion is insufficient to understand the changing character of jewish identity. Probably a concept which is has some use is the (admittedly sippery) conceptof ethnicity - shared culture and language whcih (like the idea of race) coresponds to a shared background and is passed between generations. In the late 19th and early 20th cenurythe mass of jews in eastern europe spoke yiddish (yiddish literalyl translates to 'jewish' and was distinct from Hebrew - the language of the jewish religion). consequently jewish literature poery, workers newspapers emerged. it was in this context - as well as the wider context of the developement of liberal nationalism - that he jewish marxist party the jewish workerss bund declared jews to be a 'nation'.