4 ms·

Jews were money lenders, which inherently instills a level of hatred.

by rapsey 2y ago

ekianjo 2y ago
not all jews though. Most of them were, I believe, middle class workers. You can see that from the meaning of their last names in the places they originate from.
noduerme 2y ago
Jews were not allowed to own land or engage in trades. What they did have was an ethnic/family presence across national boundaries, which placed a few of them in a unique position to negotiate on behalf of their lords and kings. This led to a condition where a small fraction of Jews became essential to European diplomacy, and subsequently became movers of money. That plus the Christian ban on moneylending and the need for liquidity nonetheless. Those wealthy "court Jews" largely converted to Christianity and assimilated, leaving their poorer brethren to die in pogroms and the Holocaust, while serving as the proof of blame for Jewish conspiracy at the same time.
- oooyay 2y ago
  Honestly it shocks me how unaware people are of some of this stuff and I thought I lived under somewhat of a rock.
  - delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
    Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough it's not even that hard to 'become aware'. Start with the Wikipedia page on the Second World War, for instance, for a blockbuster entry to the topic. The single most marginalised group of people in the West since antiquity have been the Jews (with the Romani a close second). Pretty much every European power has evicted, massacred, initiated pogroms, or otherwise persecuted Jews. The trend continues today. Anyone who says 'anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism' is antisemitic, because that's denying a group of people their homeland or Urheimat. That is classic genocide, by the way.
    - imtringued 2y ago
      Your last sentence makes no sense. Not every Jew identifies as Israeli and by claiming that Israel represents all Jews on this planet you are taking away their agency. Think about how stupid what you wrote is in the context of a hypothetical second Jewish country that also claims to represent all Jews. It is as crackpot as saying Switzerland, Austria and Germany all represent all Germans.
      - delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
        > by claiming that Israel represents all Jews That is not what I said; this is a strawman. I said, 'Jewish people deserve sovereignty over their ancestral homeland' (i.e. Zionism). This is completely orthogonal to 'Israel represents all Jewish people'. That being said... > It is as crackpot as saying Switzerland, Austria and Germany all represent all Germans. I don't think that's crackpot at all. What's wrong with an ethnic state representing its people's and diaspora's interests? Why do you think countries today issue their citizens with passports? Why do some countries give even non-citizens a fast-track path to citizenship or at least an indefinite multiple-entry visa, provided they're of a certain ethnicity? A plurality of countries today are ethnic states, by the way, including essentially every European state. I am very happy to say that the German-speaking part of Switzerland, Austria, and Germany absolutely represent Germans as a whole. As an addendum: printed on the inside front cover of my A1 German textbook was a map of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Make of that what you will.
        andrepd 2y ago
        So many people would have "rights to their ancestral homeland" then.... History is full of conquest and expulsions and genocide. Arabs and Celts were both driven out of what is now my country, at points over a millennium ago. Shall their descendents be entitled to claim part of it as an ethnostate for themselves? Of course not, for that would be ridiculous. Having colonial powers create an state in a place where people already lived, and which did not consent to its creation, was a terrible terrible idea that led to tremendous suffering a loss of life over the past 75 years. Acknowledging this is not antisemitic.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  I only learned recently about usury and the relationship with Jewish groups and their own history. The interplay between local powers needing money at different periods... It was all very fascinating. Especially how simple moral principles (lending for interests) could ripple so far.
Qwertious 2y ago
Jews were merchants engaging in transactional relationships with farmers, which in an agragian society instills a level of hatred due to being fundamentally opposite to the reciprocal relations that farming neighbours participate in. https://acoup.blog/2020/08/21/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-iv-markets-and-non-farmers/ https://acoup.blog/2020/08/21/collections-bread-how-did-they...
imtringued 2y ago
The opposite. Money lenders were non-christians, because Christians were forbidden from charging interest. It is also easier to excommunicate a money lender if they aren't a fellow Christian, so the arrangement was actually to the benefit of Christians. What you are doing is "affirming the consequent". Most Jews were working normal jobs (obviously excluding the ones they were legally barred) like everyone else.
doetoe 2y ago
I think this inverts cause and effect: they often were money lenders because they were excluded from more traditional jobs and/or land ownership
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  It's not inversion, but not going for a root cause far enough. You are of course right. Jews were not allowed to pursue most/all "honorable" professions.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  It's because Christians and Muslims banned lending money with interest, cf usury.
- Yawrehto 2y ago
  I thought deicide and a general concept of 'otherness' fueled antisemitic restrictions which in turn fueled antisemitism. But yes, Jews were often moneylenders because there were no other options available and that niche was conveniently not open to Christians.

Jews were money lenders, which inherently instills a level of hatred.

by rapsey 2y ago

Jews were money lenders, which inherently instills a level of hatred.

not all jews though. Most of them were, I believe, middle class workers. You can see that from the meaning of their last names in the places they originate from.

noduerme 2y ago

Jews were not allowed to own land or engage in trades. What they did have was an ethnic/family presence across national boundaries, which placed a few of them in a unique position to negotiate on behalf of their lords and kings. This led to a condition where a small fraction of Jews became essential to European diplomacy, and subsequently became movers of money. That plus the Christian ban on moneylending and the need for liquidity nonetheless. Those wealthy "court Jews" largely converted to Christianity and assimilated, leaving their poorer brethren to die in pogroms and the Holocaust, while serving as the proof of blame for Jewish conspiracy at the same time.

oooyay 2y ago
Honestly it shocks me how unaware people are of some of this stuff and I thought I lived under somewhat of a rock.
- delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
  Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough it's not even that hard to 'become aware'. Start with the Wikipedia page on the Second World War, for instance, for a blockbuster entry to the topic. The single most marginalised group of people in the West since antiquity have been the Jews (with the Romani a close second). Pretty much every European power has evicted, massacred, initiated pogroms, or otherwise persecuted Jews. The trend continues today. Anyone who says 'anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism' is antisemitic, because that's denying a group of people their homeland or Urheimat. That is classic genocide, by the way.
  - imtringued 2y ago
    Your last sentence makes no sense. Not every Jew identifies as Israeli and by claiming that Israel represents all Jews on this planet you are taking away their agency. Think about how stupid what you wrote is in the context of a hypothetical second Jewish country that also claims to represent all Jews. It is as crackpot as saying Switzerland, Austria and Germany all represent all Germans.
    - delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
      > by claiming that Israel represents all Jews That is not what I said; this is a strawman. I said, 'Jewish people deserve sovereignty over their ancestral homeland' (i.e. Zionism). This is completely orthogonal to 'Israel represents all Jewish people'. That being said... > It is as crackpot as saying Switzerland, Austria and Germany all represent all Germans. I don't think that's crackpot at all. What's wrong with an ethnic state representing its people's and diaspora's interests? Why do you think countries today issue their citizens with passports? Why do some countries give even non-citizens a fast-track path to citizenship or at least an indefinite multiple-entry visa, provided they're of a certain ethnicity? A plurality of countries today are ethnic states, by the way, including essentially every European state. I am very happy to say that the German-speaking part of Switzerland, Austria, and Germany absolutely represent Germans as a whole. As an addendum: printed on the inside front cover of my A1 German textbook was a map of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Make of that what you will.
      - andrepd 2y ago
        So many people would have "rights to their ancestral homeland" then.... History is full of conquest and expulsions and genocide. Arabs and Celts were both driven out of what is now my country, at points over a millennium ago. Shall their descendents be entitled to claim part of it as an ethnostate for themselves? Of course not, for that would be ridiculous. Having colonial powers create an state in a place where people already lived, and which did not consent to its creation, was a terrible terrible idea that led to tremendous suffering a loss of life over the past 75 years. Acknowledging this is not antisemitic.
agumonkey 2y ago
I only learned recently about usury and the relationship with Jewish groups and their own history. The interplay between local powers needing money at different periods... It was all very fascinating. Especially how simple moral principles (lending for interests) could ripple so far.

Qwertious 2y ago

Jews were merchants engaging in transactional relationships with farmers, which in an agragian society instills a level of hatred due to being fundamentally opposite to the reciprocal relations that farming neighbours participate in. https://acoup.blog/2020/08/21/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-iv-markets-and-non-farmers/ https://acoup.blog/2020/08/21/collections-bread-how-did-they...

imtringued 2y ago

The opposite. Money lenders were non-christians, because Christians were forbidden from charging interest. It is also easier to excommunicate a money lender if they aren't a fellow Christian, so the arrangement was actually to the benefit of Christians. What you are doing is "affirming the consequent". Most Jews were working normal jobs (obviously excluding the ones they were legally barred) like everyone else.

doetoe 2y ago

I think this inverts cause and effect: they often were money lenders because they were excluded from more traditional jobs and/or land ownership

ahartmetz 2y ago
It's not inversion, but not going for a root cause far enough. You are of course right. Jews were not allowed to pursue most/all "honorable" professions.
disgruntledphd2 2y ago
It's because Christians and Muslims banned lending money with interest, cf usury.
Yawrehto 2y ago
I thought deicide and a general concept of 'otherness' fueled antisemitic restrictions which in turn fueled antisemitism. But yes, Jews were often moneylenders because there were no other options available and that niche was conveniently not open to Christians.