3 ms·

Aha, I thought that referred to both; thanks for the clarification. I have reread the article, I see that I have misunderstood that claim and I apologize. I'm d

Aha, I thought that referred to both; thanks for the clarification. I have reread the article, I see that I have misunderstood that claim and I apologize. I'm definitely not trying to read the article in bad faith; this just seems an overreaction (which is not even supported by the original author IMNSHO): "common wisdom says Jews were fenced in 100% from outside; invert and claim they were fencing themselves in". I do not presume to understand liguistics sufficiently to discuss the second claim beyond "sounds interesting, logical even." (Still curious about the archeological sources supporting the first.) I don't dispute that living in a separated community has its advantages, I don't claim that ghettoes were prisons; in fact, distancing themselves from other, um, "tribes" is even supported by the Law. I'm just deeply incredulous at the claim "we don't want to live outside at all, make it a law of the land:" there are plenty of exceptions in the town statutes saying "want a house outside of the ghetto? Pay up!"; that doesn't quite look as inside influence. Phrased as "chosen separatenes", this is still a far cry from "separate Jewish areas due to Jewish demand, not gentile demand" - to the first part I could mostly agree, to the second, not at all (and there's plenty of textual sources spanning the entire medieval and early modern period for that). I would agree that in a situation of "live in a ghetto or not here at all" (a threat which manifested itself pretty often), the mutual support in a separated community would be welcome.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
I wouldn't dream of claiming that gentiles didn't like it that the Jews lived separately, or would have preferred integration. I phrase it as "due to Jewish demand, not gentile demand" because as I read things the gentiles weren't in a position to be making demands, but the Jews were. (Look at that comment from Rüdiger.) Had it been important to the Jews to live mixed in among the gentiles, they could have forced the issue. In this view, legislation saying that the Jews must live in the Jewish quarter is basically analogous to legislation prohibiting incest -- it's not passed because people would be violating it otherwise, but because people feel that it reflects the proper order of the world, and it passes easily because there is no group that feels threatened by its passage. Maybe they should have felt threatened, since the situation often persisted long after the point where it was a net benefit to the Jews, but it's hard to blame the communities of 1040 for not anticipating the problems of 1940.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  I'm looking at a handful of such comments (which call for Jewish presence as cash cows, mostly) across multiple centuries, and an avalanche of comments, texts and laws saying "get them outta here. okay, maybe let them stay this year if they pay more." I understand that it feels cool to stand up against Established Knowledge, but alas, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; which "archeology supports me in emails" is not. You are cherry-picking facts in the extreme - the "problems of the 1940s" (you mean othe holocaust? What newspeak!) did not just pop out of nowhere, pogroms as ruler-sanctioned way of making a quick buck were a time-honoured tradition spanning the Middle Ages.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Modern US Amish (and related groups like Mennonites) live in their own circumscribed areas in the eastern US. They are exempt in law from some requirements which notionally fall on all residents of the United States equally, and exempt in practice from quite a bit more. They draw that protection from the fact that they live in a cohesive group in a well-defined (though not, as far as I know, legally set) region. They are welcome to leave, but they would lose the special legal status that the Amish enjoy, and they would then be basically unable to practice their traditional lifestyle. Are they being kept in a ghetto? Is it by our demand or theirs? Is it reasonable, if we give them their own laws, that we restrict that to a well-defined area? > I'm looking at a handful of such comments (which call for Jewish presence as cash cows, mostly) across multiple centuries, and an avalanche of comments, texts and laws saying "get them outta here. okay, maybe let them stay this year if they pay more." How often were they actually expelled? > What newspeak! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelism_(rhetoric) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelism_(rhetoric)

thaumasiotes 10y ago

I wouldn't dream of claiming that gentiles didn't like it that the Jews lived separately, or would have preferred integration. I phrase it as "due to Jewish demand, not gentile demand" because as I read things the gentiles weren't in a position to be making demands, but the Jews were. (Look at that comment from Rüdiger.) Had it been important to the Jews to live mixed in among the gentiles, they could have forced the issue. In this view, legislation saying that the Jews must live in the Jewish quarter is basically analogous to legislation prohibiting incest -- it's not passed because people would be violating it otherwise, but because people feel that it reflects the proper order of the world, and it passes easily because there is no group that feels threatened by its passage. Maybe they should have felt threatened, since the situation often persisted long after the point where it was a net benefit to the Jews, but it's hard to blame the communities of 1040 for not anticipating the problems of 1940.

Piskvorrr 10y ago
I'm looking at a handful of such comments (which call for Jewish presence as cash cows, mostly) across multiple centuries, and an avalanche of comments, texts and laws saying "get them outta here. okay, maybe let them stay this year if they pay more." I understand that it feels cool to stand up against Established Knowledge, but alas, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; which "archeology supports me in emails" is not. You are cherry-picking facts in the extreme - the "problems of the 1940s" (you mean othe holocaust? What newspeak!) did not just pop out of nowhere, pogroms as ruler-sanctioned way of making a quick buck were a time-honoured tradition spanning the Middle Ages.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Modern US Amish (and related groups like Mennonites) live in their own circumscribed areas in the eastern US. They are exempt in law from some requirements which notionally fall on all residents of the United States equally, and exempt in practice from quite a bit more. They draw that protection from the fact that they live in a cohesive group in a well-defined (though not, as far as I know, legally set) region. They are welcome to leave, but they would lose the special legal status that the Amish enjoy, and they would then be basically unable to practice their traditional lifestyle. Are they being kept in a ghetto? Is it by our demand or theirs? Is it reasonable, if we give them their own laws, that we restrict that to a well-defined area? > I'm looking at a handful of such comments (which call for Jewish presence as cash cows, mostly) across multiple centuries, and an avalanche of comments, texts and laws saying "get them outta here. okay, maybe let them stay this year if they pay more." How often were they actually expelled? > What newspeak! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelism_(rhetoric) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelism_(rhetoric)