Someone I know recently asserted that the Jews have been persecuted longer than any other culture and still survived intact. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this?

What about the Pygmies? Their neighbours still eat them in Cameroon and so forth.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of them. The only example I'd come up with alone so far was possibly Indians/Hindus.

I'm sure there are longer or more terrible examples (untilt the 20th cent of course), the difference probably is they are the most well known example.

i think sub-saharan africans are right up there.

enslaved, colonized, carved into unviable states, subject to ethinic cleansing at each others hand, rampant poverty, aparthied, AIDS epidemic, tinpot dictators...

Not even close, the North America Indians (1492- 2004)
and Ukarninans of the 1930s beat them hands down.

The Jews though persecuted, aren't the worse case, just
the best promoted and levered for profit.

In terms of casualties, no the Jews are not the most persecuted.

Nor are they the longest persecuted. Of course, they might think they are.

But the descendants of Ishmael have been persecuted by the Jews since the day of Ishmael's adulthood, so the award goes to the Arabs.

Let's not forget the Aboriginal Tasmanians. They were wiped out.

There are other aboriginal peoples who have been subjected to long-term persecution- the Ainu in Japan spring to mind.

Not even close, the North America Indians (1492- 2004)
and Ukarninans of the 1930s beat them hands down.

The Jews though persecuted, aren't the worse case, just
the best promoted and levered for profit.

I disagree with your statement on the 'North America Indians', firstly all of them weren't discovered in 1492, secondly all of them aren't being persecuted today. Also haven't Jews been persecuted since before Jesus's time like 2000 years ago?


I think a definition of what 'persecuted' means by the originator of this thread is needed for him/her to get a proper answer. Some may think length of matters, some say number of deaths, some may think treated as less than human, some may may think it's by how many different ppl matters, some may think other things are most significant when they mean persecuted.

This thread does seem somewhat related to the poll on, as what ppl in what time was it worst to be, I believe Subsahara African during the 1850s/colonization and Jew during WWII in Germany were the top picks. I think a Carthagan after Rome conquered Carthage was near the top.

I agree with ozz. The Native Americans are pretty much totally wiped of the face of the earth. Only a fraction of them remain.

What about Gypsies?

i think sub-saharan africans are right up there.

enslaved, colonized, carved into unviable states, subject to ethinic cleansing at each others hand, rampant poverty, aparthied, AIDS epidemic, tinpot dictators...

You can't possibly consider AIDS to be persecution, can you? Or were you just running out of examples? :)

I think we need to first define what "persecuted" means?

If it means slaughter and total destruction..then the Native Americans win hands down, followed closely by the San and Khoi peoples of South Africa and the Aboriginal tribes of Australia.

Even if we take uprooting from native land and subjugation in foreign lands goes..it is the blacks of the US who were sold into slavery and subjugated ruthlessly. They will probably be followed by the Jews I guess...

The Jews will "win the prize" for being subjugated by the most number of peoples. Starting with the Egyptians and ending with the Nazis, they have been the target of a lot of persecution of the Persians, Assyrians, Philistines, Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Russians, French, Germans, among a whole lot of others.

Hard to say ,the jews are most known and profiled yes, but its hard to say who has lost the most and for how long....

I think we need to first define what "persecuted" means?

If it means slaughter and total destruction..then the Native Americans win hands down, followed closely by the San and Khoi peoples of South Africa and the Aboriginal tribes of Australia.

Even if we take uprooting from native land and subjugation in foreign lands goes..it is the blacks of the US who were sold into slavery and subjugated ruthlessly. They will probably be followed by the Jews I guess...

The Jews will "win the prize" for being subjugated by the most number of peoples. Starting with the Egyptians and ending with the Nazis, they have been the target of a lot of persecution of the Persians, Assyrians, Philistines, Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Russians, French, Germans, among a whole lot of others.

Babylonians, yes. Persians, definitely not. They were the ones who freed them from Babylonian captivity.

If you consider the people suffering the most, probably not. Some entire people have been completely wiped out. If you consider staying intact, probably yes as their culture has showed a resilience few other people could compare with.

[moral apostle]I think it's tasteless and lacking respect giving a "most persecuted" award. Do you guys realize what you're arguing about? Any people being persecuted won't care about if anybody was more/less/equally persecuted than they are/were.[/moral apostle]

Sorry. Ignore this statement if you want.

I agree with ozz. The Native Americans are pretty much totally wiped of the face of the earth. Only a fraction of them remain.

How do you figure?? In 1492 when Columbus discovered America there were 1.15 million native americans north of the Rio Grande, in 2000 there are 2.5 million. It's not a fraction of what it was it's more than double.

[moral apostle]I think it's tasteless and lacking respect giving a "most persecuted" award. Do you guys realize what you're arguing about? Any people being persecuted won't care about if anybody was more/less/equally persecuted than they are/were.[/moral apostle]

Sorry. Ignore this statement if you want.

It's not an award, just a historical question. Also the 'anbody being persecuted', well thats the problem whats being persecuted? Also in Maniotba here mainly, not all of Canada, many Aboriginals/Natives, claim to be the most persecuted and are always demanding more and more stuff from the government and 'white' people, because 'we owe them', for all the persecution we bore down on them, over 100 years ago.

Having to pay back for persecution against PPLs, may not be a problem in some places, but in Manitoba it is and some what determining how persecuted these people really were can have a very significant impact on our Provincial and Federal economy. Not blaming all Canada's/Manitoba's problem on aboriginals, but it is significant.

Not all persecuted ppl are as noble/perfect/saintly as you are claiming, some will abuse others sympathy and take advantage of being persecuted and milk it for all it's worth. Some persecuted ppl do care if others are/were more/equal/less persecuted than them.

Since the Native North Americans were wiped out, fairly quickly, I don't think they are as persecuted, as ppl who were persecuted over 100s of years. Death isn't the worst thing in the world.

Isreal is not Jewish, its was born out of Jewish persecuted but should'd be viewed with the same sympathy.

Whats happening in Isreal is seperate from what happened to the jews in the past.
To view the isrealis fight as justified against islamic religous extremism is to support the same thing you hate.

How do you figure?? In 1492 when Columbus discovered America there were 1.15 million native americans north of the Rio Grande, in 2000 there are 2.5 million. It's not a fraction of what it was it's more than double.

:crazyeye: An awful lot of books that I have read recently don't agree with that extremely low estimate of their population :confused:

Not all persecuted ppl are as noble/perfect/saintly as you are claiming

I for one can't see that Stefan Haertel made any such claim. The "moral value" of the people persecuted shouldn't factor in anyway. They are just people. Why should they not be petty minded, mean spirited, grasping little gits like the rest of us? ;)

Since the Native North Americans were wiped out, fairly quickly, I don't think they are as persecuted, as ppl who were persecuted over 100s of years. Death isn't the worst thing in the world.

Now that's a fairly extraordinary statement. Have you really thought this through? I mean, come on, the Europeans did an even quicker job on the Tasmanians. That was OK then? (Here I was going to bring up the Nazis, but that would be so blatantly unfair to the context of your comment, that I wont.)

Your criteria for viewing persecution would seem to be: the quicker, the more humane? Don't feel to bad about what was done if it was a quick and clean kill? :rolleyes:

I really can't see how you've figured that one out? Death insn't the worst thing imaginable? Weeel, you have your genocide and you have your democide and one may talk about ethnicide when a whole group of people's language, culture and lifestyle is wiped out. And none of this is really bad if done quickly? Might makes right? Petty opression for centuries is a big NoNo, instead you should go for the more morally defensible mass murder? This isn't what you are suggesting?

And by now I feel compelled to bring up what seems to be the distilled Jewish wisdom gained from millennia of persecution. Save the children. They ensure that there will be new generations and a future for the persecuted. I truly can't help thinking that anyone who states that there are worse things than death is quite far removed from any kind of collective experience of being persecuted. People who have that kind of experience seem to agree that staying alive is of primary importance.

The strange situation with the christian persecution of the Jews in Western Europe was of course that they were always kept around. Plenty of heretics were hunted down, forced to convert or pay the price over the centuries, but the Jews were "kept". They had a role to play in the millenaristic christian scenario for the second coming of Christ. At the same time they were expected to pay for, well, being Jewish, until that day. Giving the Jews a hard time has been the christian thing to do for far too long.

So, in a sense, the persecution of the Jews in the christian West was always simmering, but only occasionally did it flare up. Other groups who got in the way or were considered just plain wrong were usually dealt with in a more... terminal... way. These things makes it hard to compare the persecution of different groups of people.

:crazyeye: An awful lot of books that I have read recently don't agree with that extremely low estimate of their population :confused:

Really?? I pulled it off the internet and we all know everything on the internet is true right??? ;) (what was your CC # and pin # again??)

:D

Seriously, a lot of modern research think that early estimates of the native american population were really low. I don't know the exact details as the books are in storage atm, but they mention studies of certain tribes which worked out that the population of the tribe fell 90% within 100-200 years of meeting europeans. :eek:

:D

Seriously, a lot of modern research think that early estimates of the native american population were really low. I don't know the exact details as the books are in storage atm, but they mention studies of certain tribes which worked out that the population of the tribe fell 90% within 100-200 years of meeting europeans. :eek:

His figures seem correct, though.

The population of Natives in South America by the year 1492 was around 5 million inhabbitants. Since SA was much more populated then the US and Canad, I believe the correct figures would be around 1.5 - 2 million Indians.

Anyway, it's a fact that today there are much more people with Indian blood then in 1492. This does not mean that they were not persecuted, of course. It only means that they managed to multiply, and mixed with the colonists.

An estimate of 1.5 million north of the Rio Grande is unlikely, at best, since many of the figures are rather wrong. An official census of the Incas revealed over 12 million in their Empire, plus about 10 million likely in Mexico, plus the fact that we often underestimate the populations of hunter gatherers (read Guns, Germs, and Steel), would be at least 10 million more, so we're talking close to 35 million in all the Americas, and 5 mil north of the Rio at least. And there is the fact that there wern't just hunter gatherers, but most of them were entering the stage of early farming civilization. All in all, the estimate I think came closest was 50 million that I read in GGS. Though that has no real bearing on the thread topic, as by now, Native Amrican blood is in probably over 200-300 million people's veins, given the populations of Mexico and South America.

Thank you North King, that seems much like what I was reading in American Holocaust. The fact that 200 million+ now live in the south though doesn't mean that millions didn't die in the north.

I think we need to first define what "persecuted" means?

If it means slaughter and total destruction..then the Native Americans win hands down, followed closely by the San and Khoi peoples of South Africa and the Aboriginal tribes of Australia.


I think you first need to define where your brain is. What the hell are you talking about? Get your facts straight fool, total destruction means exactly that! There are about 200,000 Aborigines living in Australia today, about the same as when white man arrived.
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about the British colonization of your country but thats no reason to make up lies about their actions elsewhere.

Someone I know recently asserted that the Jews have been persecuted longer than any other culture and still survived intact. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this?

Persecuted the most? Possibly. It does not entitle them to yell "anti-semitic!" at the drop of a hat though.

I think you first need to define where your brain is. What the hell are you talking about? Get your facts straight fool, total destruction means exactly that! There are about 200,000 Aborigines living in Australia today, about the same as when white man arrived.
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about the British colonization of your country but thats no reason to make up lies about their actions elsewhere.

Modern estimates say that 90% of the aborigenee population was killed. Nobody's blaming you or your country, so there's no reason to downplay it either.

p.s. Have you considered that perhaps he meant "total" in the "overall" sense.

I really can't see how you've figured that one out? Death insn't the worst thing imaginable? Weeel, you have your genocide and you have your democide and one may talk about ethnicide when a whole group of people's language, culture and lifestyle is wiped out. And none of this is really bad if done quickly? Might makes right? Petty opression for centuries is a big NoNo, instead you should go for the more morally defensible mass murder? This isn't what you are suggesting?


'Verbose'? How about 'Embarrassingly Condescending'. I think you simply put meanings behind his words that he may not have intended. But who cares? You intentionally assumed the worst ad absurdum so that you could have grounds to go off on a nice moral lecture.
It's funny, the first critique you made was about him putting words in someone's mouth when you may have done the same. Go ahead and defend that post, it'll be good for some laughs.

Alright, no more flaming and personal attacks pls beyond this line. All warned.

Modern estimates say that 90% of the aborigenee population was killed. Nobody's blaming you or your country, so there's no reason to downplay it either.

p.s. Have you considered that perhaps he meant "total" in the "overall" sense.

Britain is not my country. A lot of Aborigines died of diseases. So to say that they were slaughtered is misleading and uninformed.
I take 'total' to mean exactly that. If he didn't mean it there are plenty of other words he could have used.

They certainly were hunted, however- particularly in Tasmania. While disease was the biggest killer, they were treated appallingly.

Modern medicine and infrastructure has allowed the population levels to recover, but that doesn't eradicate the history.

'Verbose'? How about 'Embarrassingly Condescending'. I think you simply put meanings behind his words that he may not have intended. But who cares? You intentionally assumed the worst ad absurdum so that you could have grounds to go off on a nice moral lecture.
It's funny, the first critique you made was about him putting words in someone's mouth when you may have done the same. Go ahead and defend that post, it'll be good for some laughs.

Could be 'Embarrassingly Condescending' and 'Genuinely Upset' at the same time. ;) And I meant what I said when I ended with the question, that surely this wasn't what he was implying? And started out with the question if he really meant what he said and had thought it through. (Which is the real question in there.) I still wonder what the heck he was thinking, since I consider all of it to be possible implications of his statement.
It's 'may', whether I put words in his mouth or not, even in your post. The 'sarcastic" marker was there for a purpose. Of course I was drawing this to its extreme conclusions. I may not be 'Ridicilously Understanding' ;) of what to me looked like sloppy thinking, and that includes the possible moral implications, even if he didn't think of them.

Could be 'Embarrassingly Condescending' and 'Genuinely Upset' at the same time. ;) And I meant what I said when I ended with the question, that surely this wasn't what he was implying? And started out with the question if he really meant what he said and had thought it through. (Which is the real question in there.) I still wonder what the heck he was thinking, since I consider all of it to be possible implications of his statement.
It's 'may', whether I put words in his mouth or not, even in your post. The 'sarcastic" marker was there for a purpose. Of course I was drawing this to its extreme conclusions. I may not be 'Ridicilously Understanding' ;) of what to me looked like sloppy thinking, and that includes the possible moral implications, even if he didn't think of them.


Very well, but one thing I'd hate to see, and what this particular forum has been relatively free of, is morals coming into play when drawing conclusions from the subject matter. I don't mind your opinion, and you are definately one of the more interesting posters here. Nonetheless, I do not wish for people to be afraid to share their opinions no matter how morally objectionable they may be. In the off-topic forum, people will often lambaste each other on how "ignorant" and callous they are. I just hate to see people with unpopular opinions silenced. When a glaringly false represantation of history is countered with substantiated evidence, that is one thing. But I hold steadfast to the idea of moral relativism, and as such, I dispise the idea of censuring someone simply because of moral scruples.

As far as his "death is not the worst thing" comment, he is very well speaking for himself, and as such had no place in the discussion. But when he spoke of a people who were wiped out quickly, he was making a reference to the definition of "persecuted". What I picked up from this remark was the notion that, the people in question were wiped out faster than other "candidates" and thusly endured persecution for a shorter duration than those who have survived for generations as a recognizable group suffering a pereptual victimization. He was arguing a degree of a specific phenomenon rather than justifying genocide.

But I hold steadfast to the idea of moral relativism, and as such, I dispise the idea of censuring someone simply because of moral scruples.

Fair enough. I’ve been thinking about changing my sig to 'Ridiculously Condescending' anyway. I may have earned it, don’t you think? (It has a certain... ring to it ;) :p.) "Censure" wasn't quite my intention. Of course, I did write that partly in affect and lashed out. I could have simply asked him what he meant without going off in a rant, right? ;) Might have gotten me an answer I probably won't get as things stand. It would also have meant a continuing discussion, which seems to be part of your point here. (Valid one, if so.)
I'm usually in favour of all kinds of relativism (historical in particular), but we are obviously pushing up against my limits here. I tend to think that alive is better than dead. I know full well, that this is not always the choice of everyone. The real problem with persecuted groups, as I see it, is that they seldom have any choice in the matter, or only bad ones. And later on we can always discuss how persecuted they really were... :sad:

As far as his "death is not the worst thing" comment, he is very well speaking for himself, and as such had no place in the discussion. But when he spoke of a people who were wiped out quickly, he was making a reference to the definition of "persecuted". What I picked up from this remark was the notion that, the people in question were wiped out faster than other "candidates" and thusly endured persecution for a shorter duration than those who have survived for generations as a recognizable group suffering a pereptual victimization. He was arguing a degree of a specific phenomenon rather than justifying genocide.

OK, but the whole question of comparison is inherently problematic here. Are we quantifying persecution? Degrees of persecution/brutality? Numbers of persecuted/killed? Over what period of time? Aren’t we are comparing apples and pears? Should we even try? I feel pretty sure that some people are staying away from the discussion in order not to have to be confronted with these things, since they are simply hard to steer around, interesting as they may be.
The rub of it all for me is that I tend to think that as best we can we should stick up for the weaker ones, the persecuted, no matter if they are the most persecuted or not, regardless if they happen to be, or have been, nice people or not. (Extremely hard to do in real life, as anyone who has tried it, and is not a natural, unreflecting paragon of shining virtue, probably knows.)

one thing I'd hate to see, and what this particular forum has been relatively free of, is morals coming into play when drawing conclusions from the subject matter.

You know, I’d say that is a moral position on your part. ;) It seems directed towards the temporary polity of this Forum in order to safe-guard it. Me, I think that a lot of things people discuss of any real value tend to have a moral content. (But I certainly have no intention of trying to infuse whatever I might blurt out in the future with one.) Not in any grand (and certainly not necessarily in any religious) sense, but rather as questions over how we should behave and live together. Any theme dealing with persecution of any kind goes bang to the centre of that. Saying that morals should be kept out of it may be a bit like saying conclusions shouldn't be theory laden. (Probably can't be done, I mean.) Just trying not to has moral implications. :crazyeye:

I think we both may have had moral agendas here, but mine was at least initially anchored somewhere outside of the message board. I wouldn’t say it makes it in anyway superior, just different, and while I’m actually in here I might as well treat the forum as the primary social context from now on. :goodjob:

And by the way, I think we may both be moral relativists in the sense that none of us seem to subscribe to any one natural, necessary form of moral code derived from the exterior. It tends to be what people make of it, and its a social thing. We just might have slightly different takes on how to act upon our convictions. :)

OK, but the whole question of comparison is inherently problematic here. Are we quantifying persecution? Degrees of persecution/brutality? Numbers of persecuted/killed? Over what period of time? Aren’t we are comparing apples and pears? Should we even try? I feel pretty sure that some people are staying away from the discussion in order not to have to be confronted with these things, since they are simply hard to steer around, interesting as they may be.
I think trying to nominate a group for "most persecuted" is in and of itself, a usless endevour, but information relating directly or on the periphery can always come out, and that is worthwhile.
As far as what amounts to more persecuted, that is for the individual to figure out. I am interested in the facts and not the opinions, therefore that is all I look at, and it makes it easier when emotional commitment does not come into play.


You know, I’d say that is a moral position on your part. ;) It seems directed towards the temporary polity of this Forum in order to safe-guard it. Me, I think that a lot of things people discuss of any real value tend to have a moral content. (But I certainly have no intention of trying to infuse whatever I might blurt out in the future with one.) Not in any grand (and certainly not necessarily in any religious) sense, but rather as questions over how we should behave and live together. Any theme dealing with persecution of any kind goes bang to the centre of that. Saying that morals should be kept out of it may be a bit like saying conclusions shouldn't be theory laden. (Probably can't be done, I mean.) Just trying not to has moral implications. :crazyeye:
I see it as more of a pragmatism than morality. I am not trying to bring up any altruistic feeling between the posters, or any kind of empathy with those in the subject matter, but to simply get rid of any disincentive to posting whatever one may wish (within the confines of the rules). This may seem as a sort of ethic stance, but I see it simply as dealing with the resulting information, and could care less about implications outside of that.
I don't really see how the morals of those discussing the subject matter would help to draw conclusions or are even necessary. As far as I'm concerned, morals are simply emotional biases that are in some forms, necessary to promote civil life. But on a intellectual level, they prove to be distracting since often times, those conclusions are altered when they are professed by one with strong moral convictions. Stating only facts and drawing moral conclusions later would be ideal to me.

Someone I know recently asserted that the Jews have been persecuted longer than any other culture and still survived intact. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this?
Probably they have managed to survive intact for a longer time than any other people that has been continually persecuted, but I'm not too sure where the question is rooted. The Jews are persecuted in particularly evil ways, most particularly, by being blamed for their persecution by others -- for example, that they deserve to be slaughtered by terrorists, or that they were behind the rise of Hitler -- and for defending themselves from attempted mass murder. "How dare you duck when I throw things at you?!?" And of course, there's Holocaust denial -- "the Holocaust never happened", or "the Holocaust was exaggerated", or "it wasn't that bad until those Jews started marketing it", or that that the Jews were behind the entire Holocaust.

Anyway, it's a fact that today there are much more people with Indian blood then in 1492. This does not mean that they were not persecuted, of course. It only means that they managed to multiply, and mixed with the colonists.
The estimates of the population prior to 1492 vary quite a lot (even in this thread), and IMHO yours are far too low. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence quoted above, that there are many more people with NA ancestry now than there were then, even ignoring the fact that everyone born here is a native.

The Great Dying began due to introduced diseases, and there wasn't any microbiology back then, so it wasn't persecution that did most of the killing. Bernal Diaz remarked on the empty villages during Cortez' retreat -- villages which may have been emptied by illnesses spread during the earlier advance.

The Conquest of New Spain, by Bernal Diaz
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140441239/sunkencivilizati

I think you first need to define where your brain is. What the hell are you talking about? Get your facts straight fool, total destruction means exactly that! There are about 200,000 Aborigines living in Australia today, about the same as when white man arrived.
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about the British colonization of your country but thats no reason to make up lies about their actions elsewhere.

Who's blaming you or your country now?? :confused:

Are you denying the fact that the Aborigines were not terribly persecuted by the British and first colonizers of Australia??
They didn't exactly have friendly relations with the aborigines and early on the Aborigines did not exactly come off better ffrom their meetings with the Europeans.
Besides, I am still looking for a proper definition of persecution, and you don't need to foam at the mouth for that...

I also find it hard to believe that a people, having lived in contact with the white man, and his medicine and disease DID NOT increase their population for over 4 centuries. Your statistics mean nothing. You are showing one of two things a. The aborigines have a death rate=birth rate without war and epidemic, which means they do not have proper access to Australia's fine medical system or b. They have access to Australia's medical system and their population has grown rapidly in the last few years, in which case, it had come down in the 3 and a half centuries before that, which still validates my point.

Please...think out your posts a little bit, before you reply:)

The Jews are an odd bunch.

From what I can understand, the Jewish faith is restricted to only those people of Jewish decent - so it's a racist religion. Stemming from that, they believe that only the Jewish people have a place in heaven.

In my opinion, such a faith is asking for trouble. Any non-Jewish mad man who reads their stuff is likely to lash out.

Ofcourse, they also believe in an eye for an eye, and as Ghandi pointed out... with an eye for an eye, the whole world ends up blind.

I might be wrong about their faith though. It's just that I was told they don't allow outsiders to join; that the faith is seclusive/elitest.

The Jews are an odd bunch.
Perhaps that's because the Jews come from hundreds of ethnic backgrounds.
From what I can understand, the Jewish faith is restricted to only those people of Jewish decent - so it's a racist religion.
Anyone can convert to Judaism. If they happen to have been Moslem, they run the risk of being murdered by other Moslems, because repudiation of Islam is punishable by death (meaning, any Moslem can murder an ex-Moslem without going through any kind of legal procedure before, during, or after the murder).
Stemming from that, they believe that only the Jewish people have a place in heaven.
Not surprisingly, Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan referred to Judaism as a "dirty religion", but it sounded to everyone who heard his remarks as if he'd called it a "gutter religion". He smugly corrected someone during a short interview I saw at the time. The Nation of Islam is often rejected by traditional Moslems, to an even greater degree than Sufism is rejected, Alawite Islam is rejected, Wahhab is rejected, and every other sect of Islam is rejected by every other sect.

Since the Nation of Islam teaches that a renegade black scientist (who, nevertheless, had a recognizably Jewish name) thousands of years ago created the non-black races in his laboratory in order to oppress his own kind, and also teaches that eventually a UFO will arrive and send out beams which will kill all the non-black races, I think the traditional Moslems are probably on the mark in the case of the NoI.
In my opinion, such a faith is asking for trouble. Any non-Jewish mad man who reads their stuff is likely to lash out.
Or even any non-Jewish person who doesn't read their stuff. :lol:
Of course, they also believe in an eye for an eye.
Of course, no they don't.
I might be wrong about their faith though. It's just that I was told they don't allow outsiders to join; that the faith is seclusive/elitest.
In Roman times Jews were forbidden to welcome converts. The Roman empire had a substantial Jewish population, and not just in the eastern provinces. Jews were exempt from military service because of their observation of the Sabbath, and because there was a massive distrust of the Jews.

FYI -- your source is completely stupid; beware, because your source may also tell you that the Jews caused the Black Death, that they poisoned wells, that they use gentile babies' flesh and blood for their rituals (the "blood libel" refuted continually since ancient times), that they are an odd bunch, or that they deserve punishment by non-Jewish mad men. :lol:

In Roman times Jews were forbidden to welcome converts. The Roman empire had a substantial Jewish population, and not just in the eastern provinces. Jews were exempt from military service because of their observation of the Sabbath, and because there was a massive distrust of the Jews.
Only for a short while. Before that proselytizing was rare if not non-existant. Orthodox Judaism has been an ethnocentric religion for most of its existance.



FYI -- your source is completely stupid; beware, because your source may also tell you that the Jews caused the Black Death, that they poisoned wells, that they use gentile babies' flesh and blood for their rituals (the "blood libel" refuted continually since ancient times), that they are an odd bunch, or that they deserve punishment by non-Jewish mad men. :lol:


What's his source?

Well, the Jews are probably the longest persecuted group in history, but not by any stretch of the imagination the hardest hit- in World War 2, the Slavs suffered infinitely more, and the fact that the Jews still exist, unlike the North Americian Indians is a testament to them being let off easily. In Australia, the survival of the Aborigines was solely down to the fact that there weren't as many white people there as in the US, so they couldn't kill them effectively enough, plus most people thought Australia to be barren and worthless. When you compare the Jews to other peoples, they're not even in the same league, or indeed the same sport.

Can we agree, however, that the Jewish people were the most persecuted (that is, 'oppressed or harassed with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion...or beliefs') in Medieval Europe? This, until the age of colonization, must be nearly 1500 years of western history.

Well, they were in memory the only oppressed peoples in the Medieval ages, except for Pagans and they still weren't oppressed that badly...

Well, they were in memory the only oppressed peoples in the Medieval ages, except for Pagans and they still weren't oppressed that badly...

What about the Cathars, Hussites and so on that the Church ruthlessly attacked for daring to oppose them?

Er... sorry my Medieval history isn't that good, I probably shouldn't have said anthing, really. :)

The Jews are an odd bunch.

From what I can understand, the Jewish faith is restricted to only those people of Jewish decent - so it's a racist religion. Stemming from that, they believe that only the Jewish people have a place in heaven.

In my opinion, such a faith is asking for trouble. Any non-Jewish mad man who reads their stuff is likely to lash out.

Ofcourse, they also believe in an eye for an eye, and as Ghandi pointed out... with an eye for an eye, the whole world ends up blind.

I might be wrong about their faith though. It's just that I was told they don't allow outsiders to join; that the faith is seclusive/elitest.

Although some of your point have already been challenged, the one about "only jews get into heave", let me quote that great site jewfaq.org


According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.

A bit of a bump, but someone here needs to enter a plea for the Ainu, a race so relentlessly persecuted that they appear to have disappeared off the mental map of most people, especially in the West.

The Ainu were the indigenous people of Japan, living in the north of the archipelago in Hokkaido. They lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and their origins are an ongoing puzzle for anthropologists since they did not look Asian. In fact, although they had some Asian characteristics, they looked more Caucasian, with thick beards, light skin, blue eyes and wavy hair.

The Japanese (as we now know them) arrived from the Pacific while Europe was going through the Dark Ages. As the Japanese became more numerous and powerful, they came into conflict with the Ainu - a process which started in around the fourteenth century. By the fifteenth century, the Ainu's homelands in the north were the scene for struggles over power and control between the Japanese and Russia, and so particular efforts were made to "Japanesise" the area, encouraging Japanese settlers and doing everything possible to wipe out the native culture.

The Ainu increasingly suffered the fate of indigenous people everywhere: marginalised and persecuted, their language was forbidden, their culture oppressed, and the Ainu themselves enslaved. They fought their oppressors in a number of battles, and were invariably defeated.

It was in the nineteenth century that the Ainu were really broken. Ravaged by disease, their population fell drastically, and the hard slavery and policies of splitting up families to encourage the decay of their culture meant that they could not recover. In the Meiji period (1868-1912), the Japanese government stepped up the persecution by declaring that it owned all Ainu land. The Ainu were officially homeless, and their land was given to Japanese settlers. This was half a century *after* the Treaty of Waitangi, note, when European settlers in New Zealand at least tried to respect the rights of the indigenous people and their land. The Japanese government, for its part, did enact something called the Hokkaido Aborigine Protection Act in 1899, to provide the Ainu with help in establishing themselves as farmers. In fact, of course, this legislation was designed to gloss over, and indeed assist, the policy of eradicating Ainu culture. It provided Ainu with small plots of land to farm, but all the best land had already been taken by Japanese settlers. Inevitably, the Ainu failed in the new lifestyle that had been forced upon them.

At the same time, Ainu were forbidden from following their traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles, and made to farm the lands that had just been stolen from them. And further attempts were made to eradicate the Ainu language, by making all Ainu children attend schools in Japanese alone.

Here's the worst part of the whole sorry tale. Today, we all know about the struggles of Jews, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Maoris, and the rest. Today, these people are respected and their governments do their best, on the whole, to treat them with dignity. And they themselves are proud of their heritage. None of this is true of the Ainu. True, after WW2, the active persecution and attempts to eradicate Ainu culture ended. Moreover, in 1979, Japan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as part of its own law - an international ruling that protects the rights of cultural minorities to exist and perpetuate their culture. But Japan did not officially recognise that any such minorities existed within its boundaries - in other words, the Ainu's status as a cultural minority was simply denied. It wasn't until 1991 that Japan officially recognised their existence as an ethnic minority, but continued to deny them any rights, land-related or otherwise, as an indigenous people.

Would you believe that it was only in 1997 that the Japanese government officially recognised the existence of the Ainu as an indigenous people in Japan, and offically endorsed the study and preservation of their culture? It was quite a step forward, given the history - but still, the government did not lay down any rights that the Ainu might enjoy as an indigenous people. And if you think that they even hinted at any wrongdoings in the past, or considered apologising for them - well, you're being a tad optimistic there.

And do the Ainu enjoy the respect and pride of the Maori, the Native Americans, and the rest? No. Polls show that most Japanese regard them as a barbaric and rather embarrassing minority. They do not learn about Ainu culture in school, and the only contact most Japanese have with them is in nicely "preserved" villages for the tourist trade. The terrible history of persecution, and the ongoing ethnic strife, is simply swept under the carpet. Like the invasion of Manchuria, the official Japanese line is: "We don't want to know."

Worst of all, the Ainu themselves have learned to be ashamed of who they are. Today they call themselves not "Ainu" ("human being" in their language) but "Utari" ("Comrade"). Hardly anyone speaks the Ainu language, and of course their religion isn't exactly thriving, even by the standards of overwhelmingly secular Japan. Estimates of their numbers vary wildly, hovering around several tens of thousands - they are so inaccurate because many Ainu do not identify themselves as such (intermarriage, of course, has helped to accentuate the "Asian" features of many Ainu over the more striking "Caucasian" ones). Many more don't even know that they are Ainu at all, because their parents didn't tell them, in order to protect them. The attempts by the Japanese over the centuries to erode the cultural and racial distinctiveness of the Ainu has clearly succeeded.

Given the appalling history of Japanese treatment of the Ainu, and their sorry status today compared to more well-known marginalised groups, they get my vote for "most persecuted people".

It may be off topic, Plotinus, but I think you may be right. I've heard of the Ainu, but no one seems to notice how marginalized they are. (I feel slightly guilty having defeated so many Ainu tribes in the Sengoku scenario.) I heard Japan is the most racist country in the world, and this situation seems to support that statement.

Can we agree, however, that the Jewish people were the most persecuted (that is, 'oppressed or harassed with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion...or beliefs') in Medieval Europe? This, until the age of colonization, must be nearly 1500 years of western history.

No, we can't ;)

ALL relgious group were persecuted, depending of the current politics.

The Catholics, Protsants (st barthomas massare of 50,000 huhnengots) , Quakers, Puritans and Jews all felt the lash.

Interesting Thread.
If we look at the Jews thru all of history, starting in old testiment times, (for the sake of arguement here, lets assume that the old testiment can be used as a historical reference for the jews), with them being pushed around forever, by egypt, Babolyon, Persia, and later, in the NT, Rome, and THEN the middle ages and in the 1930's...you could make a pretty good case. The Slavs and Gypsies were hammered during the 1930's too.

Im a little surprised nobody mentioned the mormons. Chased all around the United States, had their leaders and children killed, and the US Goverment looked away. As far as I know, the mormons are the only religion/group that was LEGAL to kill in America. The Mormon Extermination Act allowed a Man to shoot a Mormon, ( i think this was in Missouri), and collect a 25 cent reward from the state. Thats pretty rough. In my country, they are prob the most persceuted people. In the world, thru-out history, I think I can agree with the Jews tho.

I heard Japan is the most racist country in the world, and this situation seems to support that statement.

One hates to say such things, for fear of sounding racist oneself, but I think you could be right. My flatmate grew up there and yesterday told me about a white person resident in Hokkaido who was refused access to the public baths because he wasn't Japanese. The reasoning was presumably that, as a foreigner, he might not know how to behave (eg take soap into the bath or wear swimming trunks or similar behaviour that Japanese find revolting). The notion that this might impinge upon his personal rights is one that simply wouldn't occur to Japanese authorities. Well, he took it pretty seriously and took them to court, before launching a campaign to protect the rights of ethnic minorities. The Japanese authorities are rather bemused by this as it simply isn't the kind of thing that happens in Japan. And as for the bizarre status of people of Korean descent in Japan (they can have Korean passports, even though by any normal reckoning they are Japanese), I'll never understand that.

But this, of course, is entirely off-topic.

Gypsies.

They have always been persecuted and are still persecuted today. Particularly in Eastern Europe. Slovakia for example...

Nazis also killed lot of gypsies. Some hundred thousands... who has ever talked about their tragedy.

Jews are not persecuted today, but THEY ARE PERSECUTING palestinians. Gypsies never persecuted anyone. Gypsies are like Jesus... hippies who have never oppressed anyone. Innocent and pure. :jesus:

No, we can't

ALL relgious group were persecuted, depending of the current politics.

The Catholics, Protsants (st barthomas massare of 50,000 huhnengots) , Quakers, Puritans and Jews all felt the lash."

Dont forget pagans and other religions in Rome. In reality very few christians were persecuted, but when chistians got in to power they didnt allow any other religions.

Christianity is most intolerant religion in the hole history of man kind. I think this is quite indisputable fact.

Interesting Plotinus. I remember my mother once telling me about them but that was the one and only time I ever heard of them until today. One thing I was surprised about, the modern day Japanese came to Japan as late as the European Dark Ages? I thought they were there from before. Anyway that's really interesting and you make a good point about the lack of recognition of their plight. From what I knew of them they didn't look totally Caucasian but definetly did not look Japanese (the type we know). Perhaps this after years of being integrated and supressed. Perhaps the original inhabitants did look more Caucasian.

One hates to say such things, for fear of sounding racist oneself, but I think you could be right. My flatmate grew up there and yesterday told me about a white person resident in Hokkaido who was refused access to the public baths because he wasn't Japanese. The reasoning was presumably that, as a foreigner, he might not know how to behave (eg take soap into the bath or wear swimming trunks or similar behaviour that Japanese find revolting). The notion that this might impinge upon his personal rights is one that simply wouldn't occur to Japanese authorities. Well, he took it pretty seriously and took them to court, before launching a campaign to protect the rights of ethnic minorities. The Japanese authorities are rather bemused by this as it simply isn't the kind of thing that happens in Japan. And as for the bizarre status of people of Korean descent in Japan (they can have Korean passports, even though by any normal reckoning they are Japanese), I'll never understand that.
It's sad but true. The Japanese have never been too tolerant of other groups. Look at what they did to the Chinese and Koreans half a century ago.

Yes, blindside - basically the early history of Japan is extremely obscure, but I understand that it's thought that what would later become the Japanese state first emerged in around 300 (perhaps slightly earlier than I suggested). It's a time shrouded in myth and legend, from which practically no records survive. So quite when the Japanese actually arrived there isn't really known, but they certainly weren't the dominant power on the archipelago for some time.

Christianity is most intolerant religion in the hole history of man kind. I think this is quite indisputable fact.

Well I think that fact may be very disputable. Some People may be very intolerant and think they are christians or doing things as chrisitans, but saying a religion that has many splinters is the most intolerable religion in all of history is very bold statement. I guess intolerance first would have to be more dissected, but then also how many ppl know a lot of all religions through the whole history of mankind, to be able to determine which was/is the most intolerant?

Yes, blindside - basically the early history of Japan is extremely obscure, but I understand that it's thought that what would later become the Japanese state first emerged in around 300 (perhaps slightly earlier than I suggested). It's a time shrouded in myth and legend, from which practically no records survive. So quite when the Japanese actually arrived there isn't really known, but they certainly weren't the dominant power on the archipelago for some time.The first Japanese arrived via Korea - there're probably a few waves.

I know that some of the earliest Japanese courtly aristocrats were actually Korean. Korea proved to a great transmitter to Japan.

The earliest 'tributary' mission fr Japan was recorded during the period immediately after the late Han IIRC (3-4th century CE). There're some dispute over where this 'Japanese' entity was actually located... i.e. whether on Kyushu island or in the Honshu Kansai region...

The Beuthuk of Newfoundland, they are extinct.

The Beuthuk of Newfoundland, they are extinct.
Who are these Beuthuk? Native Americans? It doesn't look like a Native American name... are they (silly guess) Scandinavian, or something? Never hoid of 'em.

Who are these Beuthuk? Native Americans? It doesn't look like a Native American name... are they (silly guess) Scandinavian, or something? Never hoid of 'em.

Native Americans on Newfoundland

Native Americans on Newfoundland

Wouldn't that make them Native Canadian? Or First Nations/Aboriginal?

Wouldn't that make them Native Canadian? Or First Nations/Aboriginal?

Native North Americans, Canada didn't exist.

Native North Americans, Canada didn't exist.
ahhh Ic that sounds better.

In Europe the Jews were obvious the most presecuted people. Example: first in Spain and then in Portugal (that's why many Jews fled to Holland) the Holy Inquisition burned many. And the in WW2