Since i live in the city which was called not long ago (up to ww2 and the german occupation) the Madre de Israelhttp://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Jewish-Museum-of-Thessaloniki i thought that i could start a thread about my view about the reasons of the anti-semitism (and on the other hand of the equally negative pro-semitism) which still exists.
I have fleetingly mentioned my view of this in another thread, however i can now present it more elaborately.
In my opinnion anti-semitism, although negative by itself as any other racism, has some specific elements which make it more complicated as far as its reasons are to be concerned. The fundamental philosophical explanation of it has been given by Nietzsche in many of his later era books. I echoe some ideas from there too in this post.
** The jewish religion, in relation to the other religious traditions **
-Historically the jewish race found itself in very weak positions
-The weak position led to the development of a worhip in a deity which was not only a protector of its worshipers (like the greek or norse gods for example) but a deity which denied the existence of any other deities. Unlike the greek gods, which were often brought to Greece from the middle east or Egypt, and were hellenised or remained mostly something asiatic (as in the case of Dionysus, who was associated with Asia and with Asian ways of life, as can be seen in Euripedes's Bachai where Dionysus is met with distrust due to the dissorganised frenzy of his religion) the jewish god appears out of nowhere, to reveal himself to Moses, and immediately dissalows any other worhip.
-A god which can punish was not a new idea (Dionysus saw to it that Pentheas wa decapitated by Penthea's own mother, who was on a trance provoked by Dionysus; there are ofcourse many other examples of divine fury against the mortals in mythology) however what was new was the totalitatian nature of the deity. Unlike in Greek/Norse theogonia, the jewish god did not co-exist with several other deities which could have their own patronages, and so he only accepted some acts/practices as good and pleasing to him, and some others as bad and displeasing. The divine law (first that according to tradition which was presented by Moses, later on the more complicated judaic law) was the expression of this god's will.
-Although similar cryptic traditions existed in Greece (for example the Kawirian and the Eleusinian mysteries) they were not open to the public, but only to cult members. The mass public could worhip any of the numerous deities they wanted, and it often was the case that they worshiped deities which complimented each other, so that they would get the benefit of all of the patronages. Also more philosophical ideas about religion were present, for example in the Socratic dialogues. Although elements of supposed religious frenzy have been recorded in history, it seems that they were not strictly religious, but mixed with political reasons, as in the case of Alcibiades's exile from Athens after the accusation for the destruction of the heads of the deity-statues. Also it can be noted that in Athens, along with the hundreds of other deities, there existed also an altar to "the uknown god", which should be understood as a continiuation of the attempt ofthose of the ancient Greeks who respected religion to form it in a way which would help them live their own lives more comfortably, through this complimentary patronage of the various deities.
-On the contrary there was no attempt to form religion in such a way which would help everyday life, in the jewish religion. Here the axiom was that the god should be such a one that he would be able to stand for utter salvation of his believers (ie the jewish people, who are seen as chosen from the start, again unlike in Greek theogonia) and utter destruction for the non-believers. The god would ensure this utter destruction, and would do that if only he was worhiped enough by his believers. Any postponement of the utter destruction of Israel's enemies was only down to the inadequate faith the jewish people had in their god, whereas any military victory was caused by adequate faith, even only in some individuals. The entire way of viewing history, therefore, was infested with religion, and nothing was without connections to religion and faith to the god, from the jewish perspective. The jewish god didnt care about non-jews, up to the time of christianity.
** The effect of Christianity, in relation to the jewish god **
-Christianity, if one trusts the new testament, was formed from Jesus and his disciples. Jesus, being a jew, was involved in reading the judaic law, and at some time dissaproved of it. The main points he argued against were the very delicate prescriptions of the judaic law which enables the corrupt jewish clergy classes to be acting in his view against the essense of the law, but on the other hand practising the law to the letter. Jesus from the start moved against the clergy class, of whom he asserted that no one would be saved, whereas people who were of lower class, or of class associated with 'sin' (for example the merchants) could be saved still, if they followed him. The teaching of Jesus targeted always the poor and the needy, the less educated and sick, the simple people. It could be seen as a jewish sect, and at the time it was just that.
-The spread of Christianity first took place in the roman provinces of the older hellenistic empires. While it is difficult to explain the appeal of the new religion (which afterall later led to people being sacrificed to the lions without renouncing it) it can be argued that the bizzareness of it must have played a role, since it was clearly unique in relation to the more free religious customes of the times (even the roman emperors had begun naming themselves deities, like Alexander the great before them). It must be noted that the number of deities worshiped in the roman empire was vast, however all of them were complimentary to each other, unlike the sole jewish god.
-After Christianity became the official religion of the roman empire many large scale murders of old-believers were performed, in tens of thousants, ussually in plots which led them to the hippodromes of the large cities. Christianity had now become the sole religion, and its guidelines were identical to the original jewish religion as far as the non-complimentary quality of the divine patronage. Some acts were permitted and others were seen as anathema. In the future many acts carried the penalty of death, with the most infamous period of such a practice being the inquisition. Aions before, the old testament, which originally was left out of the new religion, was added to the holy book canon. Thus the older, non-christian, utterly judaic canon now became part of the new religion.
-Christianity, however, was not accepted by the jewish people, who for that reason were seen in a negative eye, although the new religion itself was a product of their own religious tradition.
-Christian martyrs, church fathers, theologists, monastic orders, formed a second part of the canon of the church (along with the old and new testaments). This created a new tradition, which although still dependant in its roots from the old judaic religion (and the important concept of the non coplimentary patronage) rapidly reached great proportions.
** The age of secularism and modernity. The holocaust. The jewish image of the martyr**
-With the age of secularism the old ideas of the church lost a lot of credibility, and more importantly a lot of followers. Spirituality was again seen as a phenomenon which was distinct from the church dogma, and this led to many different sects, and many more personal faiths. Freedom to practice a faith, or even to be atheist, was assured by secular law.
-The position of the jewish people in Europe, however, did not improve as a result of that. It is more probable that the underlying reasons for this hostility were economical, and less rellevant with the crypto-dependance of christianity on the judaic canon, however the violent pogroms which took place, and climaced in the holocaust, led to a new phase in the western-jewish relations.
-Although the decline of Christianity, in part, was obvious, in the modern world one would more easily tend to associate the image of the jews not with their religion but with the image of the martyr. This was due to the holocaust, and less due to other pogroms of the past. However the loss of life brought by the holocaust was not in an unprecedented scale in the history of humanity (in was even in a smaller scale than that of the russian people in ww2). It can be noted, ofcourse, that the jews of Europe were not a nation, like Russia, but undefended people, and therefore their destruction had in itself a more symbolic quality; it could symbolise brutality and martyrdom.
-The specific status of martyr, however, which is associated with modern jews (as a second undercurrent, along with the older undercurrent of the crypto-dependance of the christian cannon on the judaic one) inevitably causes the jews to be seen in a negative eye by a non-jew, depending ofcourse on his education/personality etc, as something 'different'. There is no anti-moldavian movement in the Usa, however there are anti-semitic movements. This has a reason, which in my view is not unimportant for the explanation of the phenomenon, that is it is not enough to condemn racism of any kind but one should explain its foundations. Definately the rise of any nation or people to a special status would cause the questioning of such a status by the rest, and the identification with the image of the martyr constitutes such a special status.
** In conclusion **
The special qualities which are attributed to the jewish people as a whole are what breeds the anti-semitism, and also the pro-semitism. These are on the one hand the archaic, not decided upon, effect of the judaic tradition, and on the other the modern image of the martyr. In the past the church had interests in preserving its canon as something sacred, and this by itself led to an idealistic understanding of the judaic law, and to an exageration of its nature. What was, like anything else, a human creation, now became something associated with a deity, and through it, inevitably, after Crhistianity, an entire race, the Jews. Although this was caused by the dynamics of the old religion, and its special qualities (anti-european, due to the difference between the greek and norse theologies with the jewish one) and it placed the jewish people in a more unfavourable light on one hand, on the other it also placed them in a position of being special, albeit as the originators of the canon of the new religion. This special position got enriched by the image of the martyr, created after the holocaust. However it is human nature to not accept without examination the claim that any person, let alone an entire race, is special, and therefore it was inevitable that anti-semitism (and pro-semitism) would exist in modern times, due to those connections with a special status. It is my view that those connections should be examined, and replaced with more logical appreciations, and that such a development would lead to the demise of both anti-semitism and pro-semitism.
I have fleetingly mentioned my view of this in another thread, however i can now present it more elaborately.
In my opinnion anti-semitism, although negative by itself as any other racism, has some specific elements which make it more complicated as far as its reasons are to be concerned. The fundamental philosophical explanation of it has been given by Nietzsche in many of his later era books. I echoe some ideas from there too in this post.
** The jewish religion, in relation to the other religious traditions **
-Historically the jewish race found itself in very weak positions
-The weak position led to the development of a worhip in a deity which was not only a protector of its worshipers (like the greek or norse gods for example) but a deity which denied the existence of any other deities. Unlike the greek gods, which were often brought to Greece from the middle east or Egypt, and were hellenised or remained mostly something asiatic (as in the case of Dionysus, who was associated with Asia and with Asian ways of life, as can be seen in Euripedes's Bachai where Dionysus is met with distrust due to the dissorganised frenzy of his religion) the jewish god appears out of nowhere, to reveal himself to Moses, and immediately dissalows any other worhip.
-A god which can punish was not a new idea (Dionysus saw to it that Pentheas wa decapitated by Penthea's own mother, who was on a trance provoked by Dionysus; there are ofcourse many other examples of divine fury against the mortals in mythology) however what was new was the totalitatian nature of the deity. Unlike in Greek/Norse theogonia, the jewish god did not co-exist with several other deities which could have their own patronages, and so he only accepted some acts/practices as good and pleasing to him, and some others as bad and displeasing. The divine law (first that according to tradition which was presented by Moses, later on the more complicated judaic law) was the expression of this god's will.
-Although similar cryptic traditions existed in Greece (for example the Kawirian and the Eleusinian mysteries) they were not open to the public, but only to cult members. The mass public could worhip any of the numerous deities they wanted, and it often was the case that they worshiped deities which complimented each other, so that they would get the benefit of all of the patronages. Also more philosophical ideas about religion were present, for example in the Socratic dialogues. Although elements of supposed religious frenzy have been recorded in history, it seems that they were not strictly religious, but mixed with political reasons, as in the case of Alcibiades's exile from Athens after the accusation for the destruction of the heads of the deity-statues. Also it can be noted that in Athens, along with the hundreds of other deities, there existed also an altar to "the uknown god", which should be understood as a continiuation of the attempt ofthose of the ancient Greeks who respected religion to form it in a way which would help them live their own lives more comfortably, through this complimentary patronage of the various deities.
-On the contrary there was no attempt to form religion in such a way which would help everyday life, in the jewish religion. Here the axiom was that the god should be such a one that he would be able to stand for utter salvation of his believers (ie the jewish people, who are seen as chosen from the start, again unlike in Greek theogonia) and utter destruction for the non-believers. The god would ensure this utter destruction, and would do that if only he was worhiped enough by his believers. Any postponement of the utter destruction of Israel's enemies was only down to the inadequate faith the jewish people had in their god, whereas any military victory was caused by adequate faith, even only in some individuals. The entire way of viewing history, therefore, was infested with religion, and nothing was without connections to religion and faith to the god, from the jewish perspective. The jewish god didnt care about non-jews, up to the time of christianity.
** The effect of Christianity, in relation to the jewish god **
-Christianity, if one trusts the new testament, was formed from Jesus and his disciples. Jesus, being a jew, was involved in reading the judaic law, and at some time dissaproved of it. The main points he argued against were the very delicate prescriptions of the judaic law which enables the corrupt jewish clergy classes to be acting in his view against the essense of the law, but on the other hand practising the law to the letter. Jesus from the start moved against the clergy class, of whom he asserted that no one would be saved, whereas people who were of lower class, or of class associated with 'sin' (for example the merchants) could be saved still, if they followed him. The teaching of Jesus targeted always the poor and the needy, the less educated and sick, the simple people. It could be seen as a jewish sect, and at the time it was just that.
-The spread of Christianity first took place in the roman provinces of the older hellenistic empires. While it is difficult to explain the appeal of the new religion (which afterall later led to people being sacrificed to the lions without renouncing it) it can be argued that the bizzareness of it must have played a role, since it was clearly unique in relation to the more free religious customes of the times (even the roman emperors had begun naming themselves deities, like Alexander the great before them). It must be noted that the number of deities worshiped in the roman empire was vast, however all of them were complimentary to each other, unlike the sole jewish god.
-After Christianity became the official religion of the roman empire many large scale murders of old-believers were performed, in tens of thousants, ussually in plots which led them to the hippodromes of the large cities. Christianity had now become the sole religion, and its guidelines were identical to the original jewish religion as far as the non-complimentary quality of the divine patronage. Some acts were permitted and others were seen as anathema. In the future many acts carried the penalty of death, with the most infamous period of such a practice being the inquisition. Aions before, the old testament, which originally was left out of the new religion, was added to the holy book canon. Thus the older, non-christian, utterly judaic canon now became part of the new religion.
-Christianity, however, was not accepted by the jewish people, who for that reason were seen in a negative eye, although the new religion itself was a product of their own religious tradition.
-Christian martyrs, church fathers, theologists, monastic orders, formed a second part of the canon of the church (along with the old and new testaments). This created a new tradition, which although still dependant in its roots from the old judaic religion (and the important concept of the non coplimentary patronage) rapidly reached great proportions.
** The age of secularism and modernity. The holocaust. The jewish image of the martyr**
-With the age of secularism the old ideas of the church lost a lot of credibility, and more importantly a lot of followers. Spirituality was again seen as a phenomenon which was distinct from the church dogma, and this led to many different sects, and many more personal faiths. Freedom to practice a faith, or even to be atheist, was assured by secular law.
-The position of the jewish people in Europe, however, did not improve as a result of that. It is more probable that the underlying reasons for this hostility were economical, and less rellevant with the crypto-dependance of christianity on the judaic canon, however the violent pogroms which took place, and climaced in the holocaust, led to a new phase in the western-jewish relations.
-Although the decline of Christianity, in part, was obvious, in the modern world one would more easily tend to associate the image of the jews not with their religion but with the image of the martyr. This was due to the holocaust, and less due to other pogroms of the past. However the loss of life brought by the holocaust was not in an unprecedented scale in the history of humanity (in was even in a smaller scale than that of the russian people in ww2). It can be noted, ofcourse, that the jews of Europe were not a nation, like Russia, but undefended people, and therefore their destruction had in itself a more symbolic quality; it could symbolise brutality and martyrdom.
-The specific status of martyr, however, which is associated with modern jews (as a second undercurrent, along with the older undercurrent of the crypto-dependance of the christian cannon on the judaic one) inevitably causes the jews to be seen in a negative eye by a non-jew, depending ofcourse on his education/personality etc, as something 'different'. There is no anti-moldavian movement in the Usa, however there are anti-semitic movements. This has a reason, which in my view is not unimportant for the explanation of the phenomenon, that is it is not enough to condemn racism of any kind but one should explain its foundations. Definately the rise of any nation or people to a special status would cause the questioning of such a status by the rest, and the identification with the image of the martyr constitutes such a special status.
** In conclusion **
The special qualities which are attributed to the jewish people as a whole are what breeds the anti-semitism, and also the pro-semitism. These are on the one hand the archaic, not decided upon, effect of the judaic tradition, and on the other the modern image of the martyr. In the past the church had interests in preserving its canon as something sacred, and this by itself led to an idealistic understanding of the judaic law, and to an exageration of its nature. What was, like anything else, a human creation, now became something associated with a deity, and through it, inevitably, after Crhistianity, an entire race, the Jews. Although this was caused by the dynamics of the old religion, and its special qualities (anti-european, due to the difference between the greek and norse theologies with the jewish one) and it placed the jewish people in a more unfavourable light on one hand, on the other it also placed them in a position of being special, albeit as the originators of the canon of the new religion. This special position got enriched by the image of the martyr, created after the holocaust. However it is human nature to not accept without examination the claim that any person, let alone an entire race, is special, and therefore it was inevitable that anti-semitism (and pro-semitism) would exist in modern times, due to those connections with a special status. It is my view that those connections should be examined, and replaced with more logical appreciations, and that such a development would lead to the demise of both anti-semitism and pro-semitism.
