Impper posted:

tapespeed posted:
100% serious question (no troll response please) how much of the classic antisemetism is based in reality (like manipulating much more powerful gov'ts. in their favor as we see here, or the dual loyalty many groups have been accused of in history, but that zionists actually have) as opposed to just the ridiculous stuff (having horns, sitting hunch backed at a table late at night stacking gold coins into towers)

read the jewish century

this is an interesting book though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Contrast_with_Christian_Europe posted:
Lewis states that in contrast to Christian antisemitism, the attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims is not one of hate, fear, or envy, but rather simply contempt. This contempt is expressed in various ways, such as abundance of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. "The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur." The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets are apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians. Lewis continues with several examples of regulations which were symbolizing the inferiority that non-Muslims living under Muslim rule had to live with, such as different formulae of greeting when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims (both in conversations or correspondences), and forbidding Jews and Christians to choose names used by Muslims for their children by the Ottoman times.
Schweitzer and Perry argue that there are two general views of the status of Jews under Islam, the traditional "golden age" and the revisionist "persecution and pogrom" interpretations. The former was first promulgated by Jewish historians in the 19th century as a rebuke of the Christian treatment of Jews, and taken up by Arab Muslims after 1948 as "an Arab-Islamist weapon in what is primarily an ideological and political struggle against Israel". The revisionists argue that this idealized view ignores "a catalog of lesser-known hatred and massacres". Mark Cohen concurs with this view, arguing that the "myth of an interfaith utopia" went unchallenged until it was adopted by Arabs as a "propaganda weapon against Zionism", and that this "Arab polemical exploitation" was met with the "counter-myth" of the "neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history", which also "cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality".

SomeIsraeliFuck posted:
what? several hundred killed in some london pogroms? by this metric you can also say there was third reichism in palestine during the 19th and 20th century.

im not using that metric.

im evaluating the organization of the society. if you exclude the holocaust, which isnt really a serious factor in considering how the reich was organized, then germany wasnt particularly outstanding for a european country in its antisemitic constitution.

Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices". Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. He coined the term "the Jews are our misfortune" which would later be widely used by Nazis. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its use by Renan and others.