4 ms·

>Just because there is historical evidence of people justifying racism Another instance of retroactively applying terms that didn't apply back then. The misery

>Just because there is historical evidence of people justifying racism Another instance of retroactively applying terms that didn't apply back then. The misery among the dilapidated populace was very real and the rulers of the time acted accordingly, right or wrong. >doesn't mean we should Nor was I implying so. I am simply providing evidence that the terminology used in the BBC article is inappropriate in that context. >(accumulation of wealth is inherently evil) If you can read French I highly recommend you check out the first two references I cited. They are available on archive.org. It doesn't make the case that accumulated wealth is evil, it emphasizes how the liberal use of debt was severely affecting large swath of the population to the benefit of a small merchant class until it had to be restricted. I was hoping people on HN would be able to grasp complex economical issues without immediately waving the scarecrow of racism.

legitster 8y ago
We are not doubting the accuracy of your sources. We find your central premise morally repugnant. I could pull up any number of sources from people making charitable cases for slavery or Jim Crow laws, that the original authors were not actually racist but simply protecting society. But taking racists at their word that their motive is pure or free of ignorance is in its own way ignorant. And just because they did not have adequate words to describe their misdeeds does not forgive them for it. To reply to your original post, medieval Europe was very-very antisemitic. This is not a debate about "complex economical issues". The idea that this refugee class had a "stranglehold" is simply not supported. Especially laughable to think that their "strangehold" was worse than the feudal lords of the day! Jewish people were expelled from England. Full stop. If you can't agree that this was an antisemitic act (they didn't kick out merchants, or just the ultra-rich, or break up the feudal lords), I would implore you to rethink how you approach history.

legitster 8y ago

We are not doubting the accuracy of your sources. We find your central premise morally repugnant. I could pull up any number of sources from people making charitable cases for slavery or Jim Crow laws, that the original authors were not actually racist but simply protecting society. But taking racists at their word that their motive is pure or free of ignorance is in its own way ignorant. And just because they did not have adequate words to describe their misdeeds does not forgive them for it. To reply to your original post, medieval Europe was very-very antisemitic. This is not a debate about "complex economical issues". The idea that this refugee class had a "stranglehold" is simply not supported. Especially laughable to think that their "strangehold" was worse than the feudal lords of the day! Jewish people were expelled from England. Full stop. If you can't agree that this was an antisemitic act (they didn't kick out merchants, or just the ultra-rich, or break up the feudal lords), I would implore you to rethink how you approach history.