--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan wrote: > > > > Also, to understand ones disfavor one must put it in historical > > context. In the 17 & 1800s there was much disdane for Jewish > > comunities becouse they did something specific that was considered at > > the time to be immoral. They lent or barrowed money for intrest. Now > > we do not think anything of such a practice becouse it is no- longer > > considered by our culture to be vial. But you must take anti- semitism > > at the time in context. The very ability to borrow or lend money for > > intrest introduces time value of money. It means that if anyone is > > borrowing or lending for intrest then everyone has to lend for > > intrest, or face a devaluation of the money they do have. Most of the > > issues which we not look on as anti-semitic had to do with the fact > > that none but Jews were religiously allowed to engaged in this > > practice. The resentment then came from the fact that one group was, > > by doing something akin to being illegal, taking money away from > > everyone else. > > Baloney. They all had the power to outlaw usury if they didn't want the > Jews to practice it. It's not as if the Jews had a lot of political > power. They wanted the utility of borrowable money, they used the Jews > for this purpose and then they turned around and used the fact that the > Jews benefited from it as an excuse to persecute them.
In effect what you say is true. Let's get one thing strait (this being a touchy subject and all) The persecution was, and is, wrong, no matter which way you look at it. However, your view seems to me to be a bit of a simplistic one. Political winds change, different groups with different opinions move in and out of power. Just because one set of leaders allows a practice to be legal, does not mean that the next group of leaders will accept this. Yes it did build to the breaking point, in much the same way as what happened to the aristocracy in France. Revolutions have a tendency to be grotesquely violent. (This is one reason democracy is so important.) The question then becomes, was this done on purpose to build support for the persecution, or was the persecution a result. One describes a dastardly plot, the other simply history. But knowing which it was is really not important to understanding the beliefs and feelings of the common gentile at the time. They _were_ getting screwed, and they knew (at least in part) who was doing it to them. This was not a case of blind racial hatred of the sort you get from modern skinheads, and it was not the racial superiority white slave owners felt. It was a class of people who felt they had been wronged by another class. In their simple ignorance they attributed the wrong-doing to a race, or religion, rather than to individuals. Humans can be very dumb and very horrible in this way. Two wrongs to not make a right, no matter what the situation, nothing justifies racial persecution, but if we must remember such atrocities, it is important to remember all of it. It is just as important to understand the mindset of the average persecutor, as it is to remember the wrongness of the persecution. Without such knowledge, how do you spot the early warning signs? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
