so, anti-semitism wasnt toxic before Hitler?
just where were your grandparents from?
1 Like
The trick is to say “People” instead of “race”. It is then OK to say say “the X People” are more entitled than others (to their own state or whatever) because (glorious history, superior culture, etc.).
Of course, “People” now means the same as “race” meant pre-WWII.
Peoplism is the new racism.
3 Likes
I heard dreadful stories of murders of returning Jews by Polish Christians after WW II from their surviving relatives who had fled to the U.S. One woman I knew in New York City had heard her mom murdered by their neighbors - her mom had hidden her in an unused wood stove when the neighbors started pounding on the door and shouting threats.
A huge number of Polish Christians were loathsome, despicable and murderous towards Jews - and excused it by citing the anti-Semitic teachings of their church leaders. Has that changed much now?
4 Likes
You misunderstand what I was trying to say.
In the 30’s, Anti-Semitism, eugenics, and fascism were cool. Henry Ford, John D Rockefeller Jr, Walt Disney, the list of prominent Americans who thought Hitler had some really great ideas was long and full of the rich and powerful. Fascist parties were prominent in European politics. Governments in America and Europe felt no shame about implementing openly anti-semitic or eugenic policies.
The Holocaust made those formerly trendy ideas toxic, in terms of public opinion. You could no longer, in polite company, be openly anti-Semitic or in favour of “improving the breed” by getting rid of mental defectives and so on. For several decades after the war, European governments could no longer be in favour of inequality without shame, and fascist parties could not get much headway in the polls. Sadly this did not endure into the new century.
11 Likes
I feel at this point there needs to be a Streisand Effect award, like the Razzies.
4 Likes
6 Likes
Maybe this is a question only a clever psychologist can answer but I cannot fathom how anyone wouldn’t foresee that this move would have any other consequence than the one they didn’t want.
2 Likes
Was it the “Our Fake History” podcast? Really fascinating series- I had no idea that the first crusade included so much intentional killing of Jews and Christians by Christians.
1 Like
It’s no coincidence that Nazis idolised/idolise the Teutonic knights.
5 Likes
Oh, but it does. Not only did they do the above actions, but there were times on the way down to the Holy Land they got hungry and started looting and pillaging Christian towns.
I already knew some of the history of the First Crusade and the later ones, but the Rhenland Massacres was new to me, and apparently, new to you too.
4 Likes
Dear Poland’s far-right, nationalist government:
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”
5 Likes
Easy. Self-righteous pricks usually lack empathy.
3 Likes
Yeah, scary stuff for sure 
Thanks for the links- if you haven’t listened already, the Norman Centuries podcast covers some of the first crusade, following Bohemond in Antioch. Fascinating stuff!
1 Like
I despise this use of the word “tolerate”.
The Jewish community had been an integral part of the region that became Poland for hundreds of years before WWII, and were fully part of the country when it became a country. By its very use a word like “tolerate”, whether used historically, contemporaneously, or as part of a religious edict, when applied to people (rather than, say, behaviors or practices) carries an assumption that the tolerators are the actual owners of a place, the tolerated interlopers petitioning to stay.
My grandparents fled Poland just over 100 years ago, during the last wave of pogroms; after many generations Jews comprised around 10% of the Polish population yet still, apparently with good reason, felt their position was precarious. Here in the US, where the population was well under 2% (and it is still under 3%), they were immediately welcomed and invited to become fellow citizens. There is plenty of antisemitism, but not the kind of outright othering implicit in “tolerated”. A phrase like “Jews were tolerated in the US” doesn’t even make sense.
This kind of language is creeping into our vocabulary with respect to recent immigrants, and Cadet Bonespurs believes all kinds of people aren’t genuine Americans (including a former POTUS), but we need to reject it. Words are powerful, and the language we use in framing a discussion can have a major impact on the outcome without our even noticing it.
23 Likes
I have to correct you on that point : the main issue was the implied legal differences , mainly about marriage (polygamy, repudiation, divorce) that existed under muslim law, incompatible with french law. Anyway it was still a racist apartheid ; but not really on a religious basis.
1 Like
you mean-- the KING?
(also-- in the US, “zero tolerance” is a thing.)
Yah. The Hindenburg had Nazi symbols on it, wonder if that was a cause of its demise in 1937.
China reached out and helped the Jewish people when none of the “Christian” country would take them in…
2 Likes
criticism from Israeli officials
That’s usually an endorsement.
2 Likes
I get your point and I agree. But that isn’t really how I meant it. Calling Poland “tolerant” in comparison with the rest of Europe I didn’t think would be a contentious statement. Obviously my poor word choice has your ire, but please don’t put too much weight into it. Perhaps you could suggest a better word for the future? Accepting?
4 Likes
I don’t think there is or should be a positive term for “oppressed a large chunk of its own population less badly than some other countries did”.
And, I also don’t think it is clear that the (non-Jewish) Polish people in the early 20th century were any more “tolerant” than other countries. There was a variety of reasons many Jews settled in (=fled to) that part of the world during the paradisus judaeorum period, and a variety of reasons they continued to do so in the 19th and early 20th century, in the latter case in part because there were already many Jews living there. Some of this had to do with safety; it was (slightly) safer to be a Jew in Poland than in other places, and with the growth of the population it became safer still, until it suddenly wasn’t. It was also historically easier for Jews to do things in Poland than elsewhere, for example own a bit of land on which to raise your chickens, but that probably had more to do with the geographical instability of Poland as a country than with support for Jewish rights. I think the speed with which the Polish government cooperated with the implementation of the Nazi final solution (contrast with Italy, for example) suggests that such “tolerance” was illusory.
5 Likes
