Antijudaizam i antisemitizam - filozofsko-semanticke, istorijske i druge perspektive

[Prospero]

pristup univerzitetima za jevreje (pričamo verovatno najpre o američkim, ajviligaškim, gde su postizali najzapežnije rezultate) je još uvek izvor raznih neslaganja, počevši od sredine 20ih kada su uvedeni razni "zaobilazni" načini da se aspiranti ocenjuju mimo školskih rezultata, manje-više prećutnih kvota i šire društvene dinamike u sad tokom xx i početka xxi veka. koga ne mrzi može da počne od ove rasprave.edit: pristup univerzitetima kao sociološko-istorijsko pitanje, ne kao sadašnja politička agenda.

[Lord Protector]

pristup univerzitetima za jevreje (pričamo verovatno najpre o američkim, ajviligaškim, gde su postizali najzapežnije rezultate) je još uvek izvor raznih neslaganja, počevši od sredine 20ih kada su uvedeni razni "zaobilazni" načini da se aspiranti ocenjuju mimo školskih rezultata, manje-više prećutnih kvota i šire društvene dinamike u sad tokom xx i početka xxi veka. koga ne mrzi može da počne od ove rasprave.edit: pristup univerzitetima kao sociološko-istorijsko pitanje, ne kao sadašnja politička agenda.

Tu ima dosta od onog što Indy naziva networkingom.

[Prospero]

onda pođi od jeroma karabela i od unzovog "mita o meritokratiji", pa nastavi sa ovim.pazi, nije ovo priča koja "poklapa" tvoje stavove, samo pokazuje komplikovanost cele pozadine jer ne dozvoljava izvlačenje nedvosmislenih zaključaka.

[Lord Protector]

onda pođi od jeroma karabela i od unzovog "mita o meritokratiji", pa nastavi sa ovim.pazi, nije ovo priča koja "poklapa" tvoje stavove, samo pokazuje komplikovanost cele pozadine jer ne dozvoljava izvlačenje nedvosmislenih zaključaka.

Viđao sam to i ranije, dosta se o tome priča. Mislim da ovde ima ipak dosta politike, u stvari ovo je i pitanje raspodele političke moći, jer se na ajviligaškim univerzitetima gaji ''patricijski'' podmladak establišmenta. ''Aristokratija'' a ne meritokratija. Networking, po definiciji, ali koji ima svoju jasnu svrhu. Edited May 23, 2013 by slow

[Turnbull]

Ako obrazovanje istorijski (bolje reći darvinistički) gledamo, ono može da bude svojevrsni filter manje inteligentnih u nekom dužem periodu (par vekova, milenijum). Dakle, ako su Jevreji istorijski bili usmereni na proučavanje svetih knjiga i obrazovanje, ako se nagrađivala učenost u okviru grupe, ako su učeni rabini bili poštovani i imali istaknut položaj u zajednici, ako su za razliku od hrišćanskih monaha bili prokreativni, opet je morao da postoji genetski momenat u prenosu tih složenih obrazaca tokom tih svih vekova. Meni se čini da je to imalo kumulativni efekat u stvaranju veće inteligencije, ali ona je nastala veoma složenim procesom u veoma dugom vremenskom periodu i ima prevashodno genetske mehanizme.

Zapravo, ni sami Aškenazi nisu funkionisali meritokratski, tako da ova pretpostavka o "filtriranju" najinteligentijih pada u vodu. Problems with reproductive advantage [edit]

In medieval Ashkenazi society, wealth, social status, and occupation were largely inherited. The wealthy had more children than the poor, but it was difficult for people born into a poor social class to advance or enter a new occupation. Leading families held their positions for centuries.^[17] Without upward social mobility, genes for greater talent at calculation or languages would likely have had little effect on reproductive success.^[3]It's not clear that mathematical and verbal talent were the prime factors for success in the occupations to which Jews were limited at the time. Social connections, social acumen, willingness to take risks, and access to capital (through both skill and nepotism) likely played at least as great a role.^[3] As these traits are also heritable, the force of natural selection may have been more dispersed than it appears at first glance.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Syme

[Turnbull]

Inače, Slow, stvarno ne razumem čemu ovo posezanje za najreduktnivnijim mogućim scijentizmom kako bi se objasnile složene istorijske i kulturne pojave. Okej je razmotriti i tu mogućnost, naravno, ali decidno tvrditi da nijedno drugo objašnjenje ne pije vodu do ovo biološki redukcionističko, ne prestaje da me iznenađuje.INače ovo što sada tvrdiš (obrazovanje gledano darvinistički - wtf?) se opasno približava ovom šarmeru.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Syme

[Lord Protector]

Inače, Slow, stvarno ne razumem čemu ovo posezanje za najreduktnivnijim mogućim scijentizmom kako bi se objasnile složene istorijske i kulturne pojave. Okej je razmotriti i tu mogućnost, naravno, ali decidno tvrditi da nijedno drugo objašnjenje ne pije vodu do ovo biološki redukcionističko, ne prestaje da me iznenađuje.

Može i ovako, malo misticizma (gematrije) umesto scijentizmahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFmWhwyA0NU Edited May 23, 2013 by slow

[Turnbull]

:lolol:Pa da!

[Prospero]

Doron Rabinovici. Eichmann's Jews: The Jewish Administration of Holocaust Vienna, 1938-1945. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011. x + 260 pp. $25.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-7456-4682-4.Reviewed by Anton Pelinka (Central European University)Published on H-Judaic (May, 2013)Commissioned by Jason KalmanCollaboration, Resistance, or What? The Story of Jewish Vienna during the HolocaustWhen Doron Rabinovici published the German version of this book in 2000, the topic and the way the author dealt with it touched a very sensitive aspect of Jewish and Austrian history: the behavior and the fate of the Jews who were condemned to cooperate (collaborate?) with the Nazis--specifically with Adolf Eichmann who in 1938 started the process leading to the extermination in Vienna; with Baldur von Schirach, who (as “Gauleiter” of Vienna) was extremely proud to present his city as “free of Jews” (which, by the way, was not completely true); and with all the bigger and smaller wheels that the Nazi regime had established to delegitimize and expel all the Jews of Vienna, about 10 percent of the city’s population. More than a decade later, the English version of the book may feel less provocative. The facts of Jewish cooperation with the Nazis has become a lesser taboo.Rabinovici describes and explains a story that seems to be as simple as it is catastrophic: the story of pogroms, “aryanizations,” and deportations. It is a story that on the surface is the story of “good” and “evil.” And, of course, according to Rabinovici, it is the story of an evil without precedent. But the roles of the good victims and evil perpetrators are more complex.When Hannah Arendt published her book on Eichmann, she provoked a painful debate within the Jewish communities all over the world. Would the Holocaust have succeeded without the naïve policy of Jewish institutions to cooperate with the murderers in SS or police uniforms? Arendt argued that the Jewish cooperation of the Jewish Councils and Elders, especially in the ghettos, was necessary for the efficiency of the Holocaust. The Holocaust, noted Arendt, would have (of course) happened without that kind of cooperation. But a policy of strict noncooperation would have prevented the illusions that Jews (understandably) nourished until the very end; would have strengthened the militant resistance; and would have alarmed the Jewish masses at a time when flight would have still be an option for many of the victims.Rabinovici discusses the Austrian version of the debate started by Arendt half a century ago. The specific Austrian sensitivity concerning Jews cooperating with the Nazi killing machine has one name: Benjamin Murmelstein. Murmelstein was a leading representative of the Jewish self-administration in Vienna and, until the very end of Nazi rule, served as the elder of the Terezin concentration camp. Years after the liberation of the small number of survivors, Murmelstein was treated as a traitor by his own people, a criminal almost comparable to Eichmann. For Rabinovici, this completely negative view of Murmelstein is an oversimplification. Over and over, Rabinovici presents evidence that Murmelstein tried to save Jewish life whenever he saw a chance to do it. To be able to do it, Murmelstein made himself “functional” for the machinery of extermination. He helped the Nazis to select Jews for deportation to the killing fields in the East or directly to the gas chambers. But by selecting some Jews, he tried to save others--for example, the younger generation, to preserve a future for Jewish identity in Europe.Murmelstein may have been influenced by the desire to save himself, but if so, his self-interest had clear limits. When he saw an opportunity to escape to London, between Austria’s incorporation in the Nazi empire and the beginning of World War II, he decided to stay in Vienna. He saw himself responsible to moderate the impact of the Nazi policy, which--in 1939--could not yet be seen in its mass-murderous intention. Until 1941, when the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union put an end to any concept of deporting all Jews from Europe and the extermination of all Jews became the goal of Nazi policy, Murmelstein tried his best: “In those years until November 1941, Murmelstein helped to enable some 128,000 Jews to leave Austria” (p. 76). But beginning with the fall of 1941, Murmelstein, and others in a similar position in all Jewish communities, had to forget about organizing Jewish emigration. He and the whole Jewish administration in Vienna had to assist with the deportations to ghettos and extermination camps.Rabinovici, in his extremely well-researched and well-documented book, does not portray Murmelstein as a hero of resistance. He tells the story of Murmelstein as an authoritarian person, much feared by the Jews under his command. He underlines the functionality of Murmelstein’s (and others’) willingness to cooperate. Without this cooperation, the Holocaust would have worked differently. But it would have worked anyway. Active, armed Jewish resistance in Vienna, after 1938, was (as Rabinovici argues convincingly) no realistic option--and neither was it in Terezin.Schirach’s claim that he had made Vienna free of Jews was never completely true. Jews survived in Vienna, in small numbers, in the underground, as “U-boats”; openly, in “privileged” marriages; and within still existing Jewish institutions--like Murmelstein, who survived in Terezin.Rabinovici does not justify the behavior of Jews who decided to cooperate with the Nazis in a moralistic way. But he tries to understand. “The Jewish functionaries saw no alternative. Cooperation with the Nazis appeared to be the lesser evil. Again and again they cherished the hope of being able to rescue some of the community.... They had no power of their own, they were authorities without power. Even retrospectively, there appears to have been no alternative way out of the dilemma” (pp. 202-203).

[Gandalf]

The Jewish Centuryby Yuri SlezkinePrinceton, 438 pp, £18.95It is often suggested that Jewish advancement in Russia was blocked by the quotas introduced in the 1880s. But Slezkine shows that the quotas ‘succeeded in slowing down the Jewish advance in the professions but failed to halt it’. By 1913, a majority of dentists in St Petersburg were Jewish, as were almost a fifth of its doctors and a large contingent of lawyers. However, the two really important Jewish ‘conversions’ in Slezkine’s argument were not to Christianity but to revolutionary socialism and Russian literature, both of which drove a wedge between generations in many Jewish families. ‘I sailed away with a mighty push, never to return,’ Trotsky wrote. Despising his family’s ‘instinct of acquisitiveness’ and ‘petit-bourgeois outlook’, he too had fallen in love with Russian literature as well as revolution. ‘Many, too many of us, children of the Jewish intelligentsia, are madly, shamefully in love with Russian culture,’ the Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky lamented in 1903. Paradoxically, their eager embrace of ‘the Pushkin faith’ (as Slezkine calls it) made Jewish intellectuals co-creators of the icons of cultural nationalism that emerged in most Central and East European states and would-be states at the turn of the century: it wasn’t a matter just of Pushkin in Russia but of Goethe and Schiller in Germany, Petöfi in Hungary, and Mickiewicz in Polish lands.The steady but relatively small stream of departures from the Pale to major cities of the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries turned into a flood with the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War that followed. The Jewish population of Moscow, Russia’s new capital, grew by a factor of almost ten between 1912 and 1926, and continued to grow until by 1939 it had reached 250,000, making Jews the second largest ethnic group in the city. More than a million first-generation emigrants from the Pale were living elsewhere in the Soviet Union, mainly the big cities, at the outbreak of the Second World War. This demographic shift, which warrants further study, was of enormous significance, not just for the history of Russia’s Jews but also for the social and cultural history of Russia.We come now to the crux of Slezkine’s narrative: Jewish identification with the Revolution and its success in the new Soviet state. The more familiar story of Jews in the Soviet Union is a story of victimisation (which Slezkine also tells); while the success story, or propaganda versions of it, was appropriated by the Nazis and subsequently by other anti-semites, and has tended to be shunned as a result. But avoiding certain questions because one may not like the answers is a kind of intellectual dishonesty, no matter how virtuous the motives (my comment, not Slezkine’s: his work, for all its potential for controversy, is free of polemics). It is, in fact, impossible to understand the victimisation of Jews of the late Stalin period, and its weaker versions thereafter, without understanding the achievements and standing of the group being victimised. Edited May 27, 2013 by Gandalf

[Gandalf]

Heinrich von Treitschke - A Word About Our Jewry (1879)Among the symptoms of a deep chang of heart going through our nation, none appears so strange as the passionate movement against Jewry. A few months ago the oft-heard cry “Hep-Hep”* still echoed in Germany. Anyone is permitted to say unabashedly the harshest things about the national shortcomings of the Germans, the French, and all the other peoples, but any who dared to speak about the undeniable weaknesses of the Jewish character, no matter how moderately or justly, was immediately branded by almost the entire press as a barbarian and a religious bigot. Today we have progressed so far that a majority of the voters of Breslau have sworn under no circumstances to elect a Jew to the state parliament – and this apparently not in wild agitation but with calm forethought. Antisemitic leagues are banding together. The “Jewish question” is being discussed in excited meetings. A flood of anti-Jewish libels is inundating the book market....However, year after year, out of the inexhaustible Polish cradle there streams over our eastern border a host of hustling, pants-peddling youths, whose children and children's children will someday command Germany's stock exchanges and newspapers. The immigration grows visibly, and the question becomes more and more grave: how can we amalgamate this alien people? The Israelites of the west and south belong mostly to the Spanish branch of Jewry, which looks back on a comparatively proud history and has always adapted rather easily to Western ways. In fact, they have become for the most part good Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Italians. This is true to the extent that we can appropriately expect from a people of such pure blood and such pronounced peculiarity. But we Germans have to deal with that Polish branch of Jewry, which has been deeply scarred by centuries of Christian tyranny. As a result of this experience, it is incomparably more alien to the European and, especially, the German essence....Nevertheless, I believe that many of my Jewish friends will concede, though with deep regret, that I am right when I assert that in recent times a dangerous spirit of arrogance has arisen in Jewish circles. The influence of Jewry on our national life, which created much good in earlier times, nowadays shows itself in many ways harmful. Just read the History of the Jews by Graetz. What fanatical rage against the “arch-enemy,” Christianity. What lethal hatred against the purest and mightiest representatives of the Germanic essence from Luther right up to Goethe and Fichte! And what empty, insulting self-glorification! [in Graetz] it is demonstrated in constant, spiteful tirades that the nation of Kant was educated to humanity only through the Jews, that the language of Lessing and Goethe has become receptive to beauty, intelligence, and wit through Heine and Börne. What English Jew would dare defame the land that shielded and protected him in such a way? And this benighted contempt against the German goyim is in no way merely the attitude of an isolated fanatic. Edited May 27, 2013 by Gandalf

[apostata]

Heinrich von Treitschke - A Word About Our Jewry (1879)(...)

Citirati Treičkea kada se radi o Jevrejima je skoro isto kao i kada se u diskusiji o toj problematici argumentuje sa J. Tomićem.Pa njegova fraza "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" je uzeta kao moto Štrajherovog Der Stürmer-a.

[Gandalf]

Citirati Treičkea kada se radi o Jevrejima je skoro isto kao i kada se u diskusiji o toj problematici argumentuje sa J. Tomićem.

Albert S. Lindemann. Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews.Lindemann contends that antisemitism has not been as widespread, pervasive, and destructive as is generally assumed. A Jewish historiography of victimization ("Leidensgeschichte"), he claims, has focused disproportionately on antisemitism as a sentiment among Gentiles and as a force that has shaped the destiny of Jews. Lindemann suggests that the historical master narrative that places antisemitism at the center has been constructed as an "ideology of revenge" (p. 14) against the Gentile majority. Such a view of history also serves the more practical purpose of "preventing suffering in the future, largely by exposing the sinful or corrupt nature of Gentile society and its responsibility for Jewish suffering" (p. 15).In Lindemann's view, antisemitism has not been merely the product of Gentile fantasies about Jews, but has to be understood in the context of real interactions between Gentiles and Jews. One source of Gentile hostility toward Jews, in Lindemann's view, has been Jewish exclusivity. Although he concedes that survival as a despised minority in the corporate society of medieval Europe necessitated internal cohesion, Lindemann argues that Jews and Judaism (in its traditional form) had long maintained an attitude of exclusiveness that many Gentiles found offensive. Lindemann points to the Jewish idea of "chosenness," a Talmudic preoccupation with blood purity (pp. 72-73), and a contemptuous attitude toward "Goyim." The reference to Esau in the book's title reflects Lindemann's contention that Jews have been as guilty of making Gentiles into "the other" as have Gentiles in doing so to Jews (pp. 3-5).As for the book's subtitle, Lindemann argues that hostility toward Jews has been exacerbated in modern times by the "Rise of the Jews" (p. 20), the term used by the author to encapsulate the successes achieved by many Jews in the economic sphere, in the professions, in cultural life, and in politics. While distancing himself from antisemitic theories about Jewish conspiracies, Lindemann argues that there was a high degree of plausibility to the widespread subjective perception among Gentiles that Jews, "a once despised and legally set-apart group, seemed to be prospering more than others," and seemed to be "assuming power over non-Jews" (p. 21). "Anti-Semites," Lindemann writes, "believed that Jews were everywhere, and in a sense they were almost everywhere that counted in modern society, in significantly greater numbers than strict proportionality would have assured" (pp. 19-20)....Lindemann's main concern is not to judge the Jews, but to show how their conduct was perceived by Gentiles at the time. Lindemann, despite some unnecessarily provocative rhetoric, does not mean to justify antisemitic interpretations of Jewish characteristics, but rather to demonstrate the subjective plausibility of such interpretations to Europeans in specific times and places. Edited May 27, 2013 by Gandalf

[apostata]

Je l' ti to meni preko Lindemana želiš reći da Treičke nije bio judeofob, jer judeofbstva zapravo toliko nije ni bilo, a i kada ga je bilo to je uglavnom krivica Jevreja?

[Gandalf]

Je l' ti to meni preko Lindemana želiš reći da Treičke nije bio judeofob, jer judeofbstva zapravo toliko nije ni bilo, a i kada ga je bilo to je uglavnom krivica Jevreja?

procitaj ponovo.

pa jos jednom.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Gandalf