Some things never change
Did you know that the vast majority of anti-Semitic libels, including accusations of disloyalty and the infamous blood libel, go all the way back to the Roman Empire. Of course Jews were slaughtered and attacked way before Romans became experts at it, but ancient nations like Babylonia and Assyria and Egypt were simply treating Jews the same way they treated everyone: conquest, slavery, high taxes...
Remember that the very, very first historical reference to "Israel" was an Egyptian boast by Merneptah that the people of Israel had been completely destroyed, leaving no offspring. But this boast was included in a long list of destroyed people.
Romans, as far as history tells us, were the first to villify Jews as they killed them. It was no longer a matter of bullying everyone. Jews were singled out in particular.
Apion (1st century BC) gave us the earliest version of the blood libel. The Roman historian Tacitus gave us the suspicion that Jews could never be loyal to their host nation and hence were always under suspicion. Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch all added to the earliest history of intellectual anti-Semitism.
Natrually the Spanish Inquisition, operating throughout Spanish and Portuguese territories, took anti-Semitism to new lows. Until the 1930's, with all due respect to modern Catholics, Catholics were the most rabid Jew-haters in history. Of course Hitler and the Nazis finally took that title.
But many others have vied for the title of most rabid anti-Semites. People wonder why Jews play the perpetual victim. Truth is it is nothing more than a solid understanding of history. Since the Roman Empire we HAVE had to be constantly wary of society turning on us.
And yes, it continues today:
The Polish European parliamentarian, Maciej Giertych, has published, with funds from the Parliament in Strasbourg, an anti-semitic pamphlet called Civilizations at War in Europe. Presented on Thursday 15 February to the European Parliament, this pamphlet explains, inter alia, how the Jews, who are not racially distinguishable (they can be taken for Poles, the author emphasizes) go from one country to another and adopt the local language whilst refusing to assimilate into the host country. (Guysen.Israël.News)
My wife is half Jewish half Polish Catholic. She likes to joke that her ancestors on one side probably oppressed her ancestors on the other side. Sadly, this kind of bullshit continues. So I say to Maciej Giertych: fuck you.
As an aside, I would like to point out that people can and do stand up against this kind of stupidity. My favorite examples from Nazi occupied Europe are Denmark, where the Queen put on the yellow star in solidarity with Jews, and Bulgaria, where, despite their allience with Germany, refused to turn over most of their Jews. While Sephardim in all the rest of the Balkans were practically eliminated, they survived in Bulgaria.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
anti-semitism | Europe | Judaism | Poland
Always Thought
Submitted by JJ Ross on 20 February 2007 - 12:43pm.
the Romans were historically tough on "Christians" too, because like other secular empires the real danger was belief in (whichever) God over State -- or would you argue that this is because early Christians had been Jews first, and so subjugating them even with a doctrine change just carried over?
Not quite.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 February 2007 - 1:08pm.
In the early Empire, basically until after Constantine's Edict of Milan in 327 (tolerating christianity), there was a form of state religion which treated the emperor as divine. Jews and Christians both refused to offer sacrifices to images of rulers - think, in terms of civic meaning, of the pledge of allegiance - with the predictable consequence of seeing their loyalty to the state thrown in doubt.
That's largely where Roman anti-Semitism came from; that, and that awkward habit that the Jews had of revolting every other decade. The Romans didn't have an aversion to Jews comparable to later, medieval and modern anti-Semitism, which was mainly religiously based ("Jesus-killers who use the blood of christian children to make Matzohs") and then of course, "racially". There's been a synagogue in Rome since the late Republic, over 2,000 years ago; the Romans didn't want the Jews to stop being Jews, they just wanted them to worship the emperor like everyone else. From the polytheistic point of view, this whole monotheism business didn't make a lot of sense, hence the persecution.
It's always been astounding to me how many different kinds of people dislike Jews and for how many different reasons. It's as if Jews are a projection surface for every hatred under the sun.
Later
Submitted by mole333 on 20 February 2007 - 4:11pm.
The first Roman attacks on Jews came in the 1st century BCE, before Christ and before the first rebellion against Rome (66 AD). Apion and Cicero being among the earliest. The original Roman view of Christianity would have been as yet another squabbling Jewish sect. But slowly they were seen differently. Even before the first Jewish revolt Emperor Nero singled out Christians, not Jews. I am not sure why. At the time Jews proselytized, but perhaps Christians were more irritating about it so got treated differently.
After the second Jewish Rebellion (against Hadrian) Roman attitudes became even harsher towards Jews... but Jews also could be completely tolerated. Still, the center of Jewish culture shifted away from Roman territory to, ironically, the Babylonian region of the Parthian (later Persian) Empire. When Rome became Christian, the treatment of Jews declined even more in a tradition that lasted until the reformation. Often, protestant groups were more tolerant than Catholic groups. Bottom line, though, anytime church and state get blurred too much, Jews don't do so well.
blood libel
Submitted by Lorraine on 20 February 2007 - 1:48pm.
I think it's important to distinguish between the blood libel and ritual murder accusations. They have different histories. I am not aware of Roman accusations of blood libel, but it's been pretty well documented that the first cases in Christian Europe were ritual murder in 11th century England, and blood libel in 1235 in Fulda, HRE. The go-to people on this are Gavin Langmuir and Deborah Jo Miller. Jo's stuff was a dissertation written at Cambridge, while Langmuir has published extensively.
The blood libel was the belief that Jews drank the blood of Christians at Passover. The ritual murder accusation was the belief that Jews crucified Christian boys. Both are clearly projections about Christian beliefs.
Preachers were able to whip up frenzy against Jews, especially during Holy Week, by making reference to these spurious charges. Ronnie Hsia wrote a book on the Simon of Trent case, which was whipped up by that lovely Franciscan Observant preacher, Bernardino da Feltre.
And, in Poland, there were ritual murder accusations as late as the early 20th century. Interestingly enough, the ritual murder accusation surfaced against Muslims during the Bosnian conflict.
Some things never go away.
By your definition, ritual sacrifice
Submitted by mole333 on 20 February 2007 - 4:04pm.
By your definition, Apion started the ritual sacrifice libel, not blood libel. However, many conflate the two since in many ways they are the same libel, though I understand the distinction you make. Apion claimed that Jews sacrificed "Greeks" (which really meant Greek-speakers) in their temple.
Hrrch.
As I always say to my Polish neighbors - on the rare occasions when we interact, owing to their inability to speak the obscure local language, known as 'English' - I'll take them and their country seriously when their President and prime minister are not twin brothers, and when they stop trying to make Jesus king. Until then, I consider that a half-civilized country on the very fringe of actual Europe, scarcely worthy of notice.