Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by afterdark, Feb 23, 2019.
Like that is it Sparky love. Okay I'll just let the tumbleweed accumulate.
Really? After she was tortured by the Nazi's she was used by them. they promised to save her family, the Nazis repaid her self preservation usefulness by murdering them.
Hutu and Tutsi are members of the black race but have different ethnicity so no in my opinion.
OK. Perhaps I was (and Wikipedia was) unfair. We aren't all heroes, and without walking in this woman's shoes, I shouldn't have criticised her actions.
Black is a race?
What is the difference between race and ethnicity? Do you have any clue what you are talking about or are you just making it up?
It looks like some on this thread found her guilty of being Jewish.
"Love" is a sexist term.
And yet you're shouting from the rooftops that you stand for equality.
I was thinking of finding her guilty of helping the Gestapo to round up hundreds of Jews in Berlin, but perhaps I was unfair.
Term of endearment Sparky love
Re-read Riley's Tweet and my post and you'll understand, it's crystal clear.
This is very true and I think it’s particularly important to bear in mind all these different strands of anti-Semitism as it helps people to understand the roots of anti-Semitism and the extent of the issue, and how all this religious, racial, socio-economic, political etc. dynamic of anti-Semitism works together and feed off each other (with naturally, the addition of the particular Palestinian dimension since the early 2000s, roughly speaking what’s been termed “Islamo-gauchisme”, Islamo-leftism, in France where the term was coined).
While these strands are mostly conflated now, they didn’t all appear at the same time, eg the “religious” anti-Semitism strand of anti-Semitism largely predated “economic” anti-Semitism which in turn preceded “racial” anti-Semitism by a good four decades. In France, “economic” anti-Semitism emerged when capitalism became mainstream, so circa the mid-1850s, with the Rothschild family a particular target at the time.
The utopian Socialist Charles Fourier, one of the main French exponents of economic-based anti-Semitism, even advocated that the Rothschilds finance the “return” of the Jews to Palestine. That idea of deporting all jews to some far-flung corner of the planet was popular in the 19th century amongst the anti-Semites, for instance the main proponent of “all-round” anti-Semitism in France, Édouard Drumont, devised elaborate schemes in the late 1880s to send all Jews to French-conquered Madagascar, an idea of course that Hitler would seriously consider half a century later with the Madagascar Plan.
It has to be noted that the Hungarian Jew Theodor Herzl, the first theoretician of Zionism, was in agreement with anti-Semites such as Charles Fourier about creating a Jewish settlement in Palestine (but they obviously came from very different perspectives). Herzl really thought that it would mean peace for Jews and that anti-Semitism would stop. In 1896, in reaction to the Dreyfus Affair that had broke out two years before in France, Herzl expounded his theories in Der Judenstaat, the Jewish State. Just over 50 years later of course, his wish would be realised with the creation of Israel with was created directly as a response to anti-Semitism.
Silvaran, your post very much chimes with the complex way anti-Semitism resurfaced in France from the 1870s onwards after about 75 years of improvement of progress and relative tolerance towards Jews.
In the broad strokes, post French revolution (1789-1799) Jews in France enjoyed a relative period of calm and acceptance. The French Revolution, for all its faults and aberrations, brought more equality and enhanced the status of minorities, such as Protestants, homosexuals (France was the first country in Europe to decriminalise homosexuality, in 1791 – The legalization of homosexual acts between two consenting adults came as part of the French Penal Code of 1791, during the French Revolution; vs 1967 in England & Wales, 1979 in Spain, 1980 in Scotland etc.) or such as the Jews. From the Wikipedia page on Jewish Emancipation:
On September 28, 1791, revolutionary France became the second country of the world, after Poland 500 years earlier, to emancipate its Jewish population. The 40,000 Jews living in France at the time were the first to confront the opportunities and challenges offered by emancipation. The civic equality that the French Jews attained became a model for other European Jews.Newfound opportunities began to be provided to the Jewish people, and they slowly pushed toward equality in other parts of the world.
That certainly doesn’t mean that everything became rosy overnight for French Jews post French Revolution but their situation was made much more bearable on the whole. For instance, many of the Jews, who were real sub-citizens before the French revolution (no access to French citizenship; geographical, linguistic and cultural segregation as they lived in enclaves run under Talmudic laws; Jews were barred from most standard occupations and trades which meant that they specialised in services and money lending/mortgages; etc.) were granted access to French nationality and given the same or similar civic rights as ordinary citizens (80% of the 40,000 Jews in France circa 1790 lived in Eastern and North Eastern France – i.e Alsace-Lorraine –, they’d had fled hostility and violence from Central and Eastern Europe over the decades and many didn’t have French citizenship).
In 1807 for instance, under Napoléon I, Judaism was added as an official religion in France. Napoléon also passed some anti-Jewish decrees (he had an ambivalent position on the Jews, first sympathetic to them but he then turned against them from 1806) and it was a bumpy road for the Jews in the first part of the 19th century (it wasn’t until 1831 that all Jews in France were granted full equal rights) but by and large, their overall status improved subtanstially from the late 1790s to the 1870s. From the Wikipedia page on the History of the Jews in Alsace:
In the 1830–1870 era, urban middle-class Jews made enormous progress toward integration and acculturation, as antisemitism sharply declined.
There was a famous Jewish saying at the time (mid-1850s) that went: “Heureux comme un Juif en France” (As happy as a Jew in France). Another one, coined a little later (end of 19th century) went: "Tout Juif a deux patries : la sienne propre et la France” (All Jews have two countries: their own and France).
However, when the Third Republic (1870-1940) came into being (so, directly in the aftermath of the fall of the very autocratic Napoleon III in 1870, Napoleon I’s nephew, and the last of the kings and emperors to rule France) things started to go into reverse for French Jews. And this is where it becomes more complex and multi-layered, just as you describe Silvaran, religion is only (a small) part of it I’d say.
When the Third Republic got under way in the 1870s, the powerful French Catholic Church started to seriously lose its grip on society. In brief, clerics went from controlling or influencing large sections of French life (education, politics, economy, morals etc.) to being sidelined. As French governments sought to unify the country (geographically, linguistically, constitutionally, politically etc.), anti-clericalism resurfaced fiercely as the clergy was marginalised. This also coincided with the rise across the world of “scientific racism” and “racial anti-Semitism” (which I won't go into otherwise this post will go on forever!).
Anti-clericalism had of course been at its most potent during the French Revolution (the revolutionaries considering inter alia that the Catholic church, with its accumulation of wealth, power and land, had been the main source of oppression against the masses) but when Napoléon I seized power in 1799 he sought to reduce the schism to reconcile the nation and, in 1801, he ushered the Concordat between the French state, the French Catholic Church and the Papacy, a sort of peace treaty between all parties involved. Thus, the might of the religion was slowly reintroduced in France, and with it the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church.
That's a good question Sparky. I think something like this.
I'm happy to be corrected.
Their influence would last for most of the 19th century but from 1880-1890, secularism became the norm in France, eg the establishment of free, compulsory and laïque – secular – education in 1882; the official separation of State and Church, in 1905, being the more notable legal manifestation of secularism.
This sidelining of the Catholic church, as well as the continuous development of capitalism, accelerated the rise of anti-Semitism which started to take hold on a wide scale in the 1880s (it had, of course, existed before during the 19th century but was comparatively low key, albeit very virulent in some quarters, eg the anti-capitalist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, aka the “father of anarchism” who coined the famous slogan “Property is theft”, was fiercely anti-Semitic, he propagated the view – along with some far-rightists – that the Jews were the main beneficiaries of capitalism and the banking sector. Proudhon was close to left-wing journalist-writer Alphonse Toussenel who’s also considered with Proudhon, and Charles Fourier whom I mentioned in part 1, to be the first exponents of “economic” anti-Semitism in France, a type of anti-Semitism sometimes called “left-wing/Socialist anti-Semitism”).
The right and far right, at the time were mostly staunch (traditional) Catholics (or defenders of a Catholic tradition) and any threat to the existence of Catholicism and its attendant privileges was to be fought off vigorously.
Now, I am not saying that the (far) right was solely responsible for the sharp rise of anti-Semitism in France in the 1880s (the factors are many and as we’ve seen with the very left-wing anti-Semites Fourier, Toussenel and Proudhon earlier in the century, the left was also culpable, cf the Dreyfus Affair) but it is undeniable that the (far) right was the main architect behind the vilest manifestations of anti-Semitism, mainly through ideological military-related movements such as Boulangism which were ultra-nationalistic (the defeat against the “Germans” in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, was still sticking in the craw of many hawkish French high-ranking army officers and their “patriotic” followers) and popular figures such as Édouard Drumont (also mentioned in part 1, it's impossible to talk about the history of French anti-Semitism without mentioning him) who created the Anti-Semitic League of France and wrote a fiercely anti-Semitic weighty political tract titled “La France Juive” (Jewish France) which became an instant best-seller and is seen as the basis of contemporary anti-Semitism and developed this sick ideology of a “complot juif” (Jewish conspiracy) across society.
This book echoes what Silvaran writes, about the various guises of anti-Semitism (and is seen as seminal precisely for this reason: for establishing and weaving together several sources of anti-Semitism, which explains why it attracted – and still does – many people from a very wide range of backgrounds, political and otherwise), from the Wikipedia page of the book:
La France juive developed three strands of antisemitism. One was racial, proposing an opposition between non-Jewish ”Aryans” and Jewish ”Semites”. Another was financial. The author argued that finance and capitalism were controlled by the Jews. Even Though some Notable jews like Nissim de Camondo shared their Heritage with Parisian Museums. A third was religious, referring to the Jews supposed complicity in the death of Jesus.
The French context of the time (an acute crisis on many levels – moral, religious, economical etc. – that created severe tensions) is very important, and the Wikipedia page on Édouard Drumont sums it up well (particularly this age-old obsession with finding “easy” scapegoats to a nation’s problems, perceived or real):
The book appeared in France during a period of turmoil that followed the country's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The years after the war saw a religious crisis, as the Third Republic followed a policy of secularisation. The emergence of economic liberalism during this period led to malaise and social tension. The crash of the Catholic Union General bank occurred in 1882, and Drumont blamed the disaster on the Rothschild family.
The Wikipedia bit on Drumont's book in French (slightly differently worded):
La France Juive est la première unification « dans une perspective historique — tour à tour sociale, religieuse, politique — [des] trois sources principales des passions antijuives : l'antijudaïsme chrétien, l'anticapitalisme populaire et le racisme moderne ». Il recycle et donne leur autonomie aux thèmes de l'antisémitisme catholique, affirmant que « la question religieuse même ne joue qu'un rôle secondaire à côté de la question de race qui prime toutes les autres ». Jusqu'à la parution des Protocoles des Sages de Sion, il est l'ouvrage de référence de l'antisémitisme sur le prétendu complot juif.
So, strong rise of anti-Semitism in the late 19th century in France, from both sides of the political spectrum (but particularly from the right and far right, key ultra-nationalistic figures such as Édouard Drumont as we’ve just seen and Charles Maurras, who to this day is still a major inspiration for the ultra-right and neo-fascists the world over, Maurras is actually indirectly linked to what happened in Christchurch, I'll develop on demand; Charles Maurras, like É. Drumont, is another key figure that any serious discussion about the history of anti-Semitism in France and Europe has to include).
This surge of anti-Semitism apexed with the protracted Dreyfus Affair (1894-1906) and the fierce opposition between the “Dreyfusards”, the pro-Dreyfus, and the – mostly Catholic – “anti-Dreyfusards”.Here again, the nationalistic and Catholic elements played an important role in the development of the Dreyfus scandal:
The affair from 1894 to 1906 divided France deeply and lastingly into two opposing camps: the pro-Army, mostly Catholic "anti-Dreyfusards" and the anticlerical, pro-republican Dreyfusards. It embittered French politics and encouraged radicalization.
Post Dreyfus Affair, anti-Semitism then subsided in France to massively rear its ugly head again from the early 1930s through to WWII.
Thank you Fraisier, for taking time to post this. Very informative.
Then there is this:
the DNA of two humans chosen at random generally varies by less than 0.1 percent. This is less genetic variation than other types of hominids (such as chimpanzees and orangutans), leading some scientists to describe all humans as belong to the same race — the human race."
My bold type.
Do you feel corrected Vinnie? Happy now?
Spring Equinox Arrival Bids Farewell to Winter
An annual celestial alignment between Earth and the sun known as the spring equinox announces that the seasons are shifting and spring is on the way.
So it is said.
Even though you have been corrected, and you are presumably happy now that has happened, you continue to post about "race" and "ethnicity" , now posting a link to a text about the United States, which is not particularly relevant to the UK.
"the United States has a racially and ethnicallydiverse population["
"Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality."
If I post about race and ethnicity it is in response to a question. Black is considered a race by some people. The page I referenced shows that.
Personally I agree that there is only one race but you cannot deny there are other definitions of race.
The earth is considered flat by some people.
I consider the Earth to be flat locally.