Jews most persecuted people in history?

[Verbose]

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?

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[sabo]

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

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??)

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

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.

 

[North King]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[rilnator]

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.

 

[Mescalhead]

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.

 

[aaminion00]

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.

 

[Mescalhead]

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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Alright, no more flaming and personal attacks pls beyond this line. All warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[rilnator]

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.

 

[Kafka2]

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]

'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.

 

[Mescalhead]

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.

 

[Verbose]

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 .) "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...

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.

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.

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.

 

[Mescalhead]

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.

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.

 

[SunkenCiv]

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.

 

[SunkenCiv]

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