![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jewish people really are over-represented in banking and noticing that fact is not anti-semitic.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cbass2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed this text from the lead. I'm not sure if it belongs in the article at all so I'm putting it here for now.
--Pseudo-Richard 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
[Slrubenstein's comment was originally made on my Talk Page with this . I have moved it here so that it can be more easily seen by all interested editors. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 21:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your invitation. I am afraid that real life obligations give me no time to work closely with WP. I did glance at your draft and have one reaction/suggestion. This reflects my views on anti-Semitism, not just my ideas about how to edit a good article. I cannot give you citations, but I do believe that my view fits with mainstream academic vies of anti-Semitism.
My view has two premises (again, I think many but not all historians would agree) first, one has to distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. They are not unrelated, and many features of anti-Semitism are based on/grew out of anti-Judaism ... so in my view, one task for any article on anti-Semitism is not only to explain how it is not simply anti-Judaism (because one can convert to Christianity and not be victimized by anti-Judaism people, but still be victimized by anti-Semites), but also to explain in what ways anti-Semitism "grew out" of anti-Judaism.
Second, I see anti-Semitism as a set of practices, including social institutions (in other words, it is not just one individual beating me up, it is the state not allowing me to vote), as well as a set of beliefs which can be expressed in words. e.g. the notorious anti-Semitic canards. I think it is obvious that people, individually or collectively, informally or informally, would not engage in anti-Semitic practices unless they already had anti-Semitic beliefs. BUT - and here you and I may differ, because based on a very hasty glance I don't think your draft shows this -anti-Semitic practices and institutions can breed anti-Semitic beliefs. In other words, concrete social relations can produce anti-Semitic feelings.
These two premises are linked in one way that is very important for the article you are drafting:institutions developed as forms of anti-Judaism before the Renaissance or the Enlightenment (English speaking people, and as far as I know French and German and Italian speaking people, did not think of themselves as European until the 17th century, they thought of themselves as living in "Christendom") may be the cause of anti-Semitic beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, in pats of Europe where the Church dictated laws, Jews may have been the only people allowed to lend money for interest, and Jews may have been prohibited from farming land; this is anti-Judaic, because once someone converted to Christianity they were no longer allowed to land money but could own or rent land to farm. Such laws or conventions may have established customs and social relations that outlasted the laws, so that even when Christians were allowed to lend money, many Jews continued to do this too, or even when Jews were allowed to own land, the vast majority of Jews continued to favor urban life. And then this could lead to anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards.
I could be wrong about this, consider it a hypothetical example to show how anti-Judaism could lead to forms of anti-Semitism, and how institutions and practices could lead to belief. For what it is worth, I do think that you will find many mainstream scholars who share this view, but it is a view and there certainly are others who hold different views (although the ones I know of are fringe).
You would of course need reliable sources - articles from peer reviewed journals or books published by major university presses and other presses that serve academe (Berghan, Routledge). But I would encourage you to keep an eye out for views and facts that make sense in light of what I just suggested. And you should consider this when figuring out the best way to organize the article.
Good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has made comments on my Talk Page criticizing this article because it attempts to build on parts of Noleander's failed attempt to write an article about Jews and money. I have freely admitted that my goal has been to salvage the worthwhile parts of Noleander's (now deleted) article. However, this article is not simply a trimmed-down version of his article. It is based on a complete rethinking of the topic that focuses on the specific topic of "Economic antisemitism", a phrase which is used quite frequently in the scholarly literature on antisemitism and that is, in fact, frequently mentioned as the most important form of antisemitism. I have worked mightily to remove the flaws from Noleander's article to the point of either moving entire sections into separate articles or dropping them altogether. I have carefully reworked every section in the article and researched the topic carefully (more carefully than Noleander did). In the end, my article is really about a much narrower topic and actually a different one than Noleander's was. His was about the purported link between Jews and money. Mine is about antisemitism based on economic grounds and using economic means. I can see why his was deleted. I don't believe mine suffers from the same flaws. The topic of economic antisemitism is an important one. See Antisemitism#Forms and History of antisemitism for a fuller exposition of the kinds of antisemitism.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I recognize that this is a difficult topic and I have struggled to make it NPOV although it's really hard when most of the scholarly sources (even Jewish ones!) tend to accept uncritically the POV in question (specifically the prevalence of Jews as moneylenders in the medieval era). There are a couple of sources who reject the premise that Jews were mostly moneylenders. I don't have time to dig up those specific sources right now but, in brief, one comments that in Islamic lands, Jews were distributed across all the occupations and, if there was an imbalance, it was mostly in Northern Europe.
A similar problem exists with the supposed over-representation of Jews in "the professions" (e.g. medicine, law, academia) after the emancipation.
In general, the problem is that most scholars accept these assertions uncritically and labor to explain why these phenomena came to be rather than to question the base assumption (i.e. by recognizing that most Jews were not moneylenders in the medieval period and most Jews were not doctors or lawyers in the modern era).
I would welcome a thoughtful and source-based discussion on these issues rather than one which arbitrarily rejects the topic because of the strong POV among the scholarly sources.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe they are not POV, but: scholarly VER sources?
Zezen ( talk) 18:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the opening is possibly problematic:
Although clumsy - and I am not proposing this - my worry might lead to this modified verision:
Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 09:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
The first sentence is circular and superfluous. ("Economic antisemitism is one of the major forms of antisemitism. It comprises...") Do you really need to tell the reader than antisemitism is antisemitism? Get straight into what it actually is: ""Economic antisemitism comprises various stereotypes and canards based on the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews." PiCo ( talk) 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Earlier I left a comment on an editor's talk page that was reproduced here. Now I would actually like to comment on the article. I have a few concerns. The first two have to do with content, the second two with process. First, I have questions about some sources. Max Dimont, for example, wrote a very popular book on Jewish history - but in addition to the book being dated, Dimont is not a professional historian. I do not think his book is a reliable source because it is (1) not by an expert and (2) out of date. Second, the article juxtaposes very different kinds of sources - this comes very close to violating NOR by synthesizing different views. To comply with NPOV and NOR, it is important to identify views clearly and provide enough context so that we can understand why one view is different from another. Mixing up material from different sources really undermines this. For one thing, I think we need to establish more clearly who it is that believes that "economic antisemitism" is a thing? I can imagine alternate views - that economic differences are a cause of anti-semitism, that an anti-semite is an antisemite and they make fun of Jews for all sorts of things money being one but the antisemitism is fundamentally the same, and so on. Which scholars 'say that "anti-semitism" is an object that in its own right merits study?
Second set of comments, on process. Much of this seems to be from the article written by - I forget, was it Noleander? But there was a huge RfC or ArbCom case over it. the conclusion was that the article written was hopelessly problematic. So i am very troubles that this article has so much in common with that. We should have started with a clean slate, building up from reliable research, and not trying to fix a terrible article. Second, I have never seen a daughter article created de novo. We have an article on anti-Semitism and the editors here have good judgement tested by time. I think the thing to do is to create in that article a section on economic antisemitism, if editors there think this is the best way to incorporate the relevant research into the article. Then, the section could grow as committed editors collaborate on how best to organize and present the information from sources people agree are reliable. Then once this section gets too big, it can be spun off as its own article. But I would be more confident about itsquality, then. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Re Orangemarlin's comment that "trying to prove your bona fide's is very concerning", I was just trying to distance myself from the perceived antisemitism of Noleander. I have been editing antisemitism-related articles for a couple of years and there has not been one squawk about my edits. I don't know of any that have been controversial (except for one guy who seemed to think that the idea of antisemitism existing in the U.S. was ludicrous). I think that earns me at least a modicum of
good faith. This doesn't mean that I expect that everything I have done on other articles or this one to be considered unchallengeable. I'm quite open to discussing any perceived flaws and fixing them. All I ask is that people not question my motives in trying to write this article. And they have done so because somehow they think I am trying to be Noleander's proxy. I state categorically that I am not.
It might be as Slrubenstein suggests that the topic is not encyclopedic (I think it is and will try to demonstrate this later when I have more time). It might be that some of the text in this or other articles falls into unintended antisemitic patterns of thinking. I don't claim to be immune to that. All I'm asking is that you not see my efforts here as a sneaky attempt to push antisemitic text into Wikipedia. I would be hurt, insulted and offended by such an allegation.
As for Slrubenstein's comments about research, I concede his points. Sorry but I'm not going to do that level of research. I don't have the knowledge, resources or the time to do it. I further suspect that 90%+ of Wikipedia is not written that way. If someone wants to come along and "do it the right way", I'll gladly step back and yield to their superior knowledge, resources and time. Until then, let's not let "the ideal get in the way of the adequate". Most of the points made in this article are made in multiple books on antisemitism. A few are not. A few, such as the ones cited to Sombart, need some critical review. Even Foxman, Penslar and Dimont make some assertions that I was not too comfortable with. I will say that Wikipedia is not meant to be a scholarly work. If there are ideas which are in the popular mind, we should mention them even if scholars question them. Then, we should mention the scholarly view as well.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein wrote:
Pseudo-Richard responds:
Slrubenstein wrote: "Which scholars 'say that "anti-semitism" is an object that in its own right merits study?"
Pseudo-Richard responds:
It seems a small number of sources use the phrase, but do they mean the same thing by it? Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Google Books is not a good tool but it's the tool I got so I used it. If somebody has a better tool, it would be great if they would share the results of using the tool they have available to them.
Slrubenstein asked "Are they identifying a new form of anti-semitism, or a facet of anti-semitism?" It seems pretty clear from the sources that they are referring to "a facet of anti-semitism". Often the term is used as part of a group of qualifiers to antisemitism: i.e. economic, social, political, racial and religious. The key point (IMO) that are made is that the religious basis for antisemitism is deprecated for European antisemites after the Enlightenment and the emancipation so they have to find some other reason to argue for antisemitism so the focus shifts to economic grounds throughout much of the 19th century. (NB: economic antisemitism had always been there. It's just that religious antisemitism took a back seat after the Enlightenment and the emancipation.) Later in the 19th century, pseudo-scientific arguments are advanced for the racial inferiority of Jews. All of this sets up the antisemitic context in which Hitler's antisemitism is formed. Hitler's mad genius is to mix in messianism and millenialism to create what a few authors characterize as "apocalyptic antisemitism".
When I admit that "we cannot know these things using Google books", what I mean is that I am admitting that I cannot try to make too much of the Google Books results. What I meant to say is that, you cannot use the numeric results from Google Books, you have to actually go and read the sources. I have read quite a number of sources that came up through Google Books searching. One advantage of using Google Books is that I can provide links to online copies of my sources so other editors can check to see if I have interpreted the source correctly. All of my citations have online links to the sources. (This was raised by one editor as a criticism of Noleander's article Jews and money. Noleander's citations didn't provide links to the sources and many of his citations were to books that were not available online. That is not a requirement of WP:V but at least one editor raised it as an issue. I forget where. It was either during the AFD discussion about Jews and money or in the ARBCOM proceeding.)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 15:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@Pseudo-Richard "I acknowledge that Google Books is not a good tool but it's the tool I got so I used it." Are you kidding? Well, this really shows how unqualified you are for this job. If a carpenter needs to use a screw-driver to drive a screw into something, and doesn't have a screw-driver but has a hammer, do you think she will hammer the screw in? If she did, she would be thrown off the job, even if she were a volunteer. If you do not have the right tools for the job, you just do not do the job. All you end up doing is damage, otherwise. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: I don't like that I am being asked to defend my motives in writing this article but since the question has been asked, I am willing to respond, although with a measure of annoyance. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 15:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein wrote:
My view has two premises (again, I think many but not all historians would agree) first, one has to distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. They are not unrelated, and many features of anti-Semitism are based on/grew out of anti-Judaism ... so in my view, one task for any article on anti-Semitism is not only to explain how it is not simply anti-Judaism (because one can convert to Christianity and not be victimized by anti-Judaism people, but still be victimized by anti-Semites), but also to explain in what ways anti-Semitism "grew out" of anti-Judaism.
Second, I see anti-Semitism as a set of practices, including social institutions (in other words, it is not just one individual beating me up, it is the state not allowing me to vote), as well as a set of beliefs which can be expressed in words. e.g. the notorious anti-Semitic canards. I think it is obvious that people, individually or collectively, informally or informally, would not engage in anti-Semitic practices unless they already had anti-Semitic beliefs. BUT - and here you and I may differ, because based on a very hasty glance I don't think your draft shows this -anti-Semitic practices and institutions can breed anti-Semitic beliefs. In other words, concrete social relations can produce anti-Semitic feelings.
These two premises are linked in one way that is very important for the article you are drafting:institutions developed as forms of anti-Judaism before the Renaissance or the Enlightenment (English speaking people, and as far as I know French and German and Italian speaking people, did not think of themselves as European until the 17th century, they thought of themselves as living in "Christendom") may be the cause of anti-Semitic beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, in pats of Europe where the Church dictated laws, Jews may have been the only people allowed to lend money for interest, and Jews may have been prohibited from farming land; this is anti-Judaic, because once someone converted to Christianity they were no longer allowed to land money but could own or rent land to farm. Such laws or conventions may have established customs and social relations that outlasted the laws, so that even when Christians were allowed to lend money, many Jews continued to do this too, or even when Jews were allowed to own land, the vast majority of Jews continued to favor urban life. And then this could lead to anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards.
OK... I've now had a chance to read the above more closely and I have to say that, based on having read many sources on antisemitism, I think Slrubenstein's view is not completely wrong but it is somewhat off-the-mark, especially in its use of the term "anti-Judaism". This is not, AFAICT, how most scholars use the term. Also, I have not seen any scholars talk about "institutional anti-Judaism" as contrasted to antisemitism. This is not a distinction that I have seen drawn. No doubt there is institutional antisemitism and popular antisemitism and these two do interact but I have never seen a source say that "institutional antiJudaism" led to "anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards". Of course, when I say this, I am discounting Christian apologetics from the sources. There may well be some Christian apologists who take this tack.
The following discussion more properly belongs at Talk:History of antisemitism but I will start it here since Slrubenstein's comment was made here. I'll be glad to move it there if there is general consensus to do so.
I'm sorry it is so long. I started by composing a response to Slrubenstein but it became hard to discuss just "antiJudaism" and "antisemitism" without discussing the whole history of antisemitism.
The best summary that I have found of the history of antisemitism comes from Jerome Chanes. Other sources say similar things but Chanes does the best job of putting it all together in a simple and concise formulation. The following is excerpted from the lead of History of antisemitism
The history of antisemitism – defined as hostile actions or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group – goes back many centuries; antisemitism has been called "the longest hatred." [1] Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:
- Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
- Christian anti-semitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
- Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was - at least in its classical form - nuanced in that it Jews were a protected class
- Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
- Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism
- Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism [2]
Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." [3]
In brief, Chanes is suggesting that there are two major inflection points in the history of antisemitism. The introduction of a religious component with the rise of Christianity and the shift of emphasis away from that religious component after the Enlightenment.
Generally, those who trace antisemitism back to ancient Egypt and classical Greece and Rome acknowledge that the antisemitism back then was different from modern antisemitism. Back then, anti-Judaism/anti-semitism was "primarily ethnic in nature". However, reading what various pagan authors had to say about the Jews, I must say that a lot of it sounds awfully familiar. And at least one source raises the question of why Jews were singled out for this negative qualification. Another source (Feldman) comments that many pagan authors had positive things to say about Jews up until Manetho (ca. 270BC) after which "the picture usually painted is one of universal and virulent anti-Judaism."
There are those who argue that, during the era of early Christianity, anti-Jewish sentiment was rooted primarily in religious polemics as the Christians differentiated themselves and separated from the Jews. However, since the Christians were mostly residents of the Roman Empire, they inherited the classical antisemitic prejudices of the pagan authors mentioned above. One source comments that these antisemitic attitudes mostly came from those in the Greek portion of the Roman Empire. According to the source, the Jews in the Persian/Babylonian regions were not subject to similar vilification.
There is at least one source that asserts that Jews were better off in the period 600-1000C.E. than in the period after 1000C.E. It's not clear to me what changed. Not that many sources make this assertion so, while I am inclined to believe it's true, it doesn't seem to be something the sources focus on. The point to make here is that the comments about antisemitism in the "medieval period" should not be read to cover the entire period from 600-1300C.E. Some of the assertions about "antisemitism in the medieval period" more properly describe antisemitism from 1100-1300.
The Crusades certainly transformed Europe's attitudes towards the Jews. Since there was all this polemic/propaganda/invective in favor of the Christian God and against the infidel, there was a natural focus on the infidel in Europe alongside the infidel in the Holy Land. It is asserted by at least one source that almost every crusade started with a pogrom against the Jews. (of course, pogrom was not the word that was used but it's the most convenient word to use here) At this point, antisemitism is a mix of religious antiJudaism (usually referred to as "religious antisemitism" when discussed in the context of the medieval period) and economic antisemitism. I don't remember any sources using the phrase "anti-Judaism" after the early Christian era or after the Patristic period.
Between 1100 and 1500, the Jews are expelled from England, France, Spain and most of western Europe. Where do they go? Those that don't convert to Christianity go to North Africa, the Ottoman Empire and Eastern Europe where they are generally well-received. A family of Marrano Jews run the finances of the Ottoman Empire. Jews similarly do well in Poland. However, as always, there are poor Jews and wealthy, influential Jews. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that all Jews in these regions were prosperous, wealthy and influential.
There isn't much discussion of antisemitism during the Renaissance and Reformation (or, at least, I haven't focused on those periods enough) with the exception of noting the antisemitism of Martin Luther. Some time during this period, the Jewish quarters transformed into ghettos.
This last fact is significant because Jews are simultaneously envied for their wealth (as merchants, moneylenders and Court Jews) and despised for the poverty of the ghettos.
Thus, when the Jews are emancipated in the 19th century, there are stereotypes of them as poor and dirty. At the same time, they are freer to move in European society and to enter occupations and professions formerly proscribed to them. Their success and "overrepresentation" in doing so leads to a negative response as their success is envied and attributed to clannishness, greed, dishonesty, etc.
19th century pogroms in Eastern Europe and Russia cause waves of mass emigration. Many of these Jews come to Western Europe where they are looked upon as poor, dirty foreigners.
Because the Enlightenment has deprecated the religious basis of religious antisemitism, the focus turns towards economic antisemitism which was always there but becomes more prominent as religious antisemitism recedes (it doesn't go away, it just is no longer the primary focus).
There is, of course, social antisemitism as well although this aspect of antisemitism is not discussed as extensively in the sources.
The key development is the rise of pseudo-scientific racial antisemitism which is ultimately combined by Hitler with the economic, social and political antisemitism of the 19th century to create the "apocalyptic antisemitism" of Nazi Germany. This apocalyptic antisemitism combines elements of messianism and milleniallism to produce the Holocaust.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
1) You're right. Your comment was first made on my Talk Page and it was I who moved it here. What I should have said is: since the discussion is already here, it seems a bit arbitrary of me to move it again to
Talk:History of antisemitism without a general agreement to do so.
2) You're right again. You never used the word "institutional antiJudaism". It's a phrase I coined that conflates your two points above. Your exact wording was "anti-Semitic practices and institutions can breed anti-Semitic beliefs." You further wrote:
These two premises are linked in one way that is very important for the article you are drafting:institutions developed as forms ofanti-Judaism before the Renaissance or the Enlightenment (English speaking people, and as far as I know French and German and Italian speaking people, did not think of themselves as European until the 17th century, they thought of themselves as living in "Christendom") may be the cause ofanti-Semitic beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, in pats of Europe where the Church dictated laws, Jews may have been the only people allowed to lend money for interest, and Jews may have been prohibited from farming land; this is anti-Judaic, because once someone converted to Christianity they were no longer allowed to land money but could own or rent land to farm. Such laws or conventions may have established customs and social relations that outlasted the laws, so that even when Christians were allowed to lend money, many Jews continued to do this too, or even when Jews were allowed to own land, the vast majority of Jews continued to favor urban life. And then this could lead to anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards.
The above text is what led me to the sloppy conclusion that you were arguing for an "institutional anti-Judaism" which was somehow different from "antisemitic stereotypes and canards". I've read some sources that lay out and analyze various explanations for antisemitism including psychological and economic ones. Perhaps the transference that you describe from formalized institutions to popular "anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards" and back would fall into that domain. I don't think this discussion of causes and mechanisms fits properly into this article since the scope is specifically "economic antisemitism". I think it fits better in Antisemitism although it's possible that some sources may make arguments along the lines you made. I didn't see any but I wasn't looking specifically for it either. The closest that I can remember is the general assertion that "religious antisemitism" was supposed to stop as soon as a Jew converted to Christianity. (although the experience of the conversos is a famous example that it didn't actually work that way in reality)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This article needs to be rethought because in a number of places it actually reproduces the same generalizations that are made by economic antisemites. Just because one can site a source for a statement doesn't mean it actually is the best source for information on a particular topic. So a statement on Jewish occupations that just cites a number of sources that make generalizations about Jewish occupations without giving any actual data or statistics on Jewish occupational distributions in any country in any period is engaging in the same stereotypes without data that antisemites engage in, even if the source is from the Anti-Defamation League. If you are going to write about Jewish occupational distributions you need to have data on that topic, not generalizations. I hope that the editors will flag this article and require it to provide relevant data for the statements it is making. And it is ironic that an article that is supposed to be explaining and hopefully discouraging antisemitism, and I would hope that this is one of the missions of Wikipedia, would use similar arguments as the prejudices it is supposedly trying to dispel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosePesotta ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=VK0llzUqQ2YC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=why+were+jews+scapegoats&source=bl&ots=IjjDqZ6yJy&sig=Dehs3EngmZg-0yvVSKV3q2wPg2s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ulcbUOLyLIrJ6wHGuIG4Aw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=why%20were%20jews%20scapegoats&f=false - explains that factors unrelated to economics caused anti-Semitism, and that Jews weren't hated because they lent $, but rather lent $ because they were hated, and thus that itself didn't cause anti-Semitism. The researchers couldn't find any instance of economic factors leading to anti-Semitism, only increasing it. -- Activism 1234 05:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Economic antisemitism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
Everything here looks healthy but the bot may help in the future.
Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained a quite tolerable 77 KB Gregkaye ( talk) 15:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Propination laws caused antisemitism. Not mentioned here. Xx236 ( talk) 07:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It is erroneous to say Bauer and Marx "agreed" on Jews. Marx's views on judaism are, one could argue, antisemitic, but much less so than Bauer's. Bauer's view saw the Jews as inherently objectionable, while Marx's views were a criticism of Jewish culture, from a man who was himself Jewish. In fact, much of On The Jewish Question, is response to and criticism of Bauer. 2601:642:C481:4640:9DB9:2FCB:A5D5:2B48 ( talk) 01:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jewish people really are over-represented in banking and noticing that fact is not anti-semitic.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cbass2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed this text from the lead. I'm not sure if it belongs in the article at all so I'm putting it here for now.
--Pseudo-Richard 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
[Slrubenstein's comment was originally made on my Talk Page with this . I have moved it here so that it can be more easily seen by all interested editors. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 21:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your invitation. I am afraid that real life obligations give me no time to work closely with WP. I did glance at your draft and have one reaction/suggestion. This reflects my views on anti-Semitism, not just my ideas about how to edit a good article. I cannot give you citations, but I do believe that my view fits with mainstream academic vies of anti-Semitism.
My view has two premises (again, I think many but not all historians would agree) first, one has to distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. They are not unrelated, and many features of anti-Semitism are based on/grew out of anti-Judaism ... so in my view, one task for any article on anti-Semitism is not only to explain how it is not simply anti-Judaism (because one can convert to Christianity and not be victimized by anti-Judaism people, but still be victimized by anti-Semites), but also to explain in what ways anti-Semitism "grew out" of anti-Judaism.
Second, I see anti-Semitism as a set of practices, including social institutions (in other words, it is not just one individual beating me up, it is the state not allowing me to vote), as well as a set of beliefs which can be expressed in words. e.g. the notorious anti-Semitic canards. I think it is obvious that people, individually or collectively, informally or informally, would not engage in anti-Semitic practices unless they already had anti-Semitic beliefs. BUT - and here you and I may differ, because based on a very hasty glance I don't think your draft shows this -anti-Semitic practices and institutions can breed anti-Semitic beliefs. In other words, concrete social relations can produce anti-Semitic feelings.
These two premises are linked in one way that is very important for the article you are drafting:institutions developed as forms of anti-Judaism before the Renaissance or the Enlightenment (English speaking people, and as far as I know French and German and Italian speaking people, did not think of themselves as European until the 17th century, they thought of themselves as living in "Christendom") may be the cause of anti-Semitic beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, in pats of Europe where the Church dictated laws, Jews may have been the only people allowed to lend money for interest, and Jews may have been prohibited from farming land; this is anti-Judaic, because once someone converted to Christianity they were no longer allowed to land money but could own or rent land to farm. Such laws or conventions may have established customs and social relations that outlasted the laws, so that even when Christians were allowed to lend money, many Jews continued to do this too, or even when Jews were allowed to own land, the vast majority of Jews continued to favor urban life. And then this could lead to anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards.
I could be wrong about this, consider it a hypothetical example to show how anti-Judaism could lead to forms of anti-Semitism, and how institutions and practices could lead to belief. For what it is worth, I do think that you will find many mainstream scholars who share this view, but it is a view and there certainly are others who hold different views (although the ones I know of are fringe).
You would of course need reliable sources - articles from peer reviewed journals or books published by major university presses and other presses that serve academe (Berghan, Routledge). But I would encourage you to keep an eye out for views and facts that make sense in light of what I just suggested. And you should consider this when figuring out the best way to organize the article.
Good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has made comments on my Talk Page criticizing this article because it attempts to build on parts of Noleander's failed attempt to write an article about Jews and money. I have freely admitted that my goal has been to salvage the worthwhile parts of Noleander's (now deleted) article. However, this article is not simply a trimmed-down version of his article. It is based on a complete rethinking of the topic that focuses on the specific topic of "Economic antisemitism", a phrase which is used quite frequently in the scholarly literature on antisemitism and that is, in fact, frequently mentioned as the most important form of antisemitism. I have worked mightily to remove the flaws from Noleander's article to the point of either moving entire sections into separate articles or dropping them altogether. I have carefully reworked every section in the article and researched the topic carefully (more carefully than Noleander did). In the end, my article is really about a much narrower topic and actually a different one than Noleander's was. His was about the purported link between Jews and money. Mine is about antisemitism based on economic grounds and using economic means. I can see why his was deleted. I don't believe mine suffers from the same flaws. The topic of economic antisemitism is an important one. See Antisemitism#Forms and History of antisemitism for a fuller exposition of the kinds of antisemitism.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I recognize that this is a difficult topic and I have struggled to make it NPOV although it's really hard when most of the scholarly sources (even Jewish ones!) tend to accept uncritically the POV in question (specifically the prevalence of Jews as moneylenders in the medieval era). There are a couple of sources who reject the premise that Jews were mostly moneylenders. I don't have time to dig up those specific sources right now but, in brief, one comments that in Islamic lands, Jews were distributed across all the occupations and, if there was an imbalance, it was mostly in Northern Europe.
A similar problem exists with the supposed over-representation of Jews in "the professions" (e.g. medicine, law, academia) after the emancipation.
In general, the problem is that most scholars accept these assertions uncritically and labor to explain why these phenomena came to be rather than to question the base assumption (i.e. by recognizing that most Jews were not moneylenders in the medieval period and most Jews were not doctors or lawyers in the modern era).
I would welcome a thoughtful and source-based discussion on these issues rather than one which arbitrarily rejects the topic because of the strong POV among the scholarly sources.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe they are not POV, but: scholarly VER sources?
Zezen ( talk) 18:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the opening is possibly problematic:
Although clumsy - and I am not proposing this - my worry might lead to this modified verision:
Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 09:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
The first sentence is circular and superfluous. ("Economic antisemitism is one of the major forms of antisemitism. It comprises...") Do you really need to tell the reader than antisemitism is antisemitism? Get straight into what it actually is: ""Economic antisemitism comprises various stereotypes and canards based on the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews." PiCo ( talk) 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Earlier I left a comment on an editor's talk page that was reproduced here. Now I would actually like to comment on the article. I have a few concerns. The first two have to do with content, the second two with process. First, I have questions about some sources. Max Dimont, for example, wrote a very popular book on Jewish history - but in addition to the book being dated, Dimont is not a professional historian. I do not think his book is a reliable source because it is (1) not by an expert and (2) out of date. Second, the article juxtaposes very different kinds of sources - this comes very close to violating NOR by synthesizing different views. To comply with NPOV and NOR, it is important to identify views clearly and provide enough context so that we can understand why one view is different from another. Mixing up material from different sources really undermines this. For one thing, I think we need to establish more clearly who it is that believes that "economic antisemitism" is a thing? I can imagine alternate views - that economic differences are a cause of anti-semitism, that an anti-semite is an antisemite and they make fun of Jews for all sorts of things money being one but the antisemitism is fundamentally the same, and so on. Which scholars 'say that "anti-semitism" is an object that in its own right merits study?
Second set of comments, on process. Much of this seems to be from the article written by - I forget, was it Noleander? But there was a huge RfC or ArbCom case over it. the conclusion was that the article written was hopelessly problematic. So i am very troubles that this article has so much in common with that. We should have started with a clean slate, building up from reliable research, and not trying to fix a terrible article. Second, I have never seen a daughter article created de novo. We have an article on anti-Semitism and the editors here have good judgement tested by time. I think the thing to do is to create in that article a section on economic antisemitism, if editors there think this is the best way to incorporate the relevant research into the article. Then, the section could grow as committed editors collaborate on how best to organize and present the information from sources people agree are reliable. Then once this section gets too big, it can be spun off as its own article. But I would be more confident about itsquality, then. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Re Orangemarlin's comment that "trying to prove your bona fide's is very concerning", I was just trying to distance myself from the perceived antisemitism of Noleander. I have been editing antisemitism-related articles for a couple of years and there has not been one squawk about my edits. I don't know of any that have been controversial (except for one guy who seemed to think that the idea of antisemitism existing in the U.S. was ludicrous). I think that earns me at least a modicum of
good faith. This doesn't mean that I expect that everything I have done on other articles or this one to be considered unchallengeable. I'm quite open to discussing any perceived flaws and fixing them. All I ask is that people not question my motives in trying to write this article. And they have done so because somehow they think I am trying to be Noleander's proxy. I state categorically that I am not.
It might be as Slrubenstein suggests that the topic is not encyclopedic (I think it is and will try to demonstrate this later when I have more time). It might be that some of the text in this or other articles falls into unintended antisemitic patterns of thinking. I don't claim to be immune to that. All I'm asking is that you not see my efforts here as a sneaky attempt to push antisemitic text into Wikipedia. I would be hurt, insulted and offended by such an allegation.
As for Slrubenstein's comments about research, I concede his points. Sorry but I'm not going to do that level of research. I don't have the knowledge, resources or the time to do it. I further suspect that 90%+ of Wikipedia is not written that way. If someone wants to come along and "do it the right way", I'll gladly step back and yield to their superior knowledge, resources and time. Until then, let's not let "the ideal get in the way of the adequate". Most of the points made in this article are made in multiple books on antisemitism. A few are not. A few, such as the ones cited to Sombart, need some critical review. Even Foxman, Penslar and Dimont make some assertions that I was not too comfortable with. I will say that Wikipedia is not meant to be a scholarly work. If there are ideas which are in the popular mind, we should mention them even if scholars question them. Then, we should mention the scholarly view as well.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein wrote:
Pseudo-Richard responds:
Slrubenstein wrote: "Which scholars 'say that "anti-semitism" is an object that in its own right merits study?"
Pseudo-Richard responds:
It seems a small number of sources use the phrase, but do they mean the same thing by it? Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Google Books is not a good tool but it's the tool I got so I used it. If somebody has a better tool, it would be great if they would share the results of using the tool they have available to them.
Slrubenstein asked "Are they identifying a new form of anti-semitism, or a facet of anti-semitism?" It seems pretty clear from the sources that they are referring to "a facet of anti-semitism". Often the term is used as part of a group of qualifiers to antisemitism: i.e. economic, social, political, racial and religious. The key point (IMO) that are made is that the religious basis for antisemitism is deprecated for European antisemites after the Enlightenment and the emancipation so they have to find some other reason to argue for antisemitism so the focus shifts to economic grounds throughout much of the 19th century. (NB: economic antisemitism had always been there. It's just that religious antisemitism took a back seat after the Enlightenment and the emancipation.) Later in the 19th century, pseudo-scientific arguments are advanced for the racial inferiority of Jews. All of this sets up the antisemitic context in which Hitler's antisemitism is formed. Hitler's mad genius is to mix in messianism and millenialism to create what a few authors characterize as "apocalyptic antisemitism".
When I admit that "we cannot know these things using Google books", what I mean is that I am admitting that I cannot try to make too much of the Google Books results. What I meant to say is that, you cannot use the numeric results from Google Books, you have to actually go and read the sources. I have read quite a number of sources that came up through Google Books searching. One advantage of using Google Books is that I can provide links to online copies of my sources so other editors can check to see if I have interpreted the source correctly. All of my citations have online links to the sources. (This was raised by one editor as a criticism of Noleander's article Jews and money. Noleander's citations didn't provide links to the sources and many of his citations were to books that were not available online. That is not a requirement of WP:V but at least one editor raised it as an issue. I forget where. It was either during the AFD discussion about Jews and money or in the ARBCOM proceeding.)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 15:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@Pseudo-Richard "I acknowledge that Google Books is not a good tool but it's the tool I got so I used it." Are you kidding? Well, this really shows how unqualified you are for this job. If a carpenter needs to use a screw-driver to drive a screw into something, and doesn't have a screw-driver but has a hammer, do you think she will hammer the screw in? If she did, she would be thrown off the job, even if she were a volunteer. If you do not have the right tools for the job, you just do not do the job. All you end up doing is damage, otherwise. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: I don't like that I am being asked to defend my motives in writing this article but since the question has been asked, I am willing to respond, although with a measure of annoyance. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 15:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein wrote:
My view has two premises (again, I think many but not all historians would agree) first, one has to distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. They are not unrelated, and many features of anti-Semitism are based on/grew out of anti-Judaism ... so in my view, one task for any article on anti-Semitism is not only to explain how it is not simply anti-Judaism (because one can convert to Christianity and not be victimized by anti-Judaism people, but still be victimized by anti-Semites), but also to explain in what ways anti-Semitism "grew out" of anti-Judaism.
Second, I see anti-Semitism as a set of practices, including social institutions (in other words, it is not just one individual beating me up, it is the state not allowing me to vote), as well as a set of beliefs which can be expressed in words. e.g. the notorious anti-Semitic canards. I think it is obvious that people, individually or collectively, informally or informally, would not engage in anti-Semitic practices unless they already had anti-Semitic beliefs. BUT - and here you and I may differ, because based on a very hasty glance I don't think your draft shows this -anti-Semitic practices and institutions can breed anti-Semitic beliefs. In other words, concrete social relations can produce anti-Semitic feelings.
These two premises are linked in one way that is very important for the article you are drafting:institutions developed as forms of anti-Judaism before the Renaissance or the Enlightenment (English speaking people, and as far as I know French and German and Italian speaking people, did not think of themselves as European until the 17th century, they thought of themselves as living in "Christendom") may be the cause of anti-Semitic beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, in pats of Europe where the Church dictated laws, Jews may have been the only people allowed to lend money for interest, and Jews may have been prohibited from farming land; this is anti-Judaic, because once someone converted to Christianity they were no longer allowed to land money but could own or rent land to farm. Such laws or conventions may have established customs and social relations that outlasted the laws, so that even when Christians were allowed to lend money, many Jews continued to do this too, or even when Jews were allowed to own land, the vast majority of Jews continued to favor urban life. And then this could lead to anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards.
OK... I've now had a chance to read the above more closely and I have to say that, based on having read many sources on antisemitism, I think Slrubenstein's view is not completely wrong but it is somewhat off-the-mark, especially in its use of the term "anti-Judaism". This is not, AFAICT, how most scholars use the term. Also, I have not seen any scholars talk about "institutional anti-Judaism" as contrasted to antisemitism. This is not a distinction that I have seen drawn. No doubt there is institutional antisemitism and popular antisemitism and these two do interact but I have never seen a source say that "institutional antiJudaism" led to "anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards". Of course, when I say this, I am discounting Christian apologetics from the sources. There may well be some Christian apologists who take this tack.
The following discussion more properly belongs at Talk:History of antisemitism but I will start it here since Slrubenstein's comment was made here. I'll be glad to move it there if there is general consensus to do so.
I'm sorry it is so long. I started by composing a response to Slrubenstein but it became hard to discuss just "antiJudaism" and "antisemitism" without discussing the whole history of antisemitism.
The best summary that I have found of the history of antisemitism comes from Jerome Chanes. Other sources say similar things but Chanes does the best job of putting it all together in a simple and concise formulation. The following is excerpted from the lead of History of antisemitism
The history of antisemitism – defined as hostile actions or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group – goes back many centuries; antisemitism has been called "the longest hatred." [1] Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:
- Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
- Christian anti-semitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
- Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was - at least in its classical form - nuanced in that it Jews were a protected class
- Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
- Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism
- Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism [2]
Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." [3]
In brief, Chanes is suggesting that there are two major inflection points in the history of antisemitism. The introduction of a religious component with the rise of Christianity and the shift of emphasis away from that religious component after the Enlightenment.
Generally, those who trace antisemitism back to ancient Egypt and classical Greece and Rome acknowledge that the antisemitism back then was different from modern antisemitism. Back then, anti-Judaism/anti-semitism was "primarily ethnic in nature". However, reading what various pagan authors had to say about the Jews, I must say that a lot of it sounds awfully familiar. And at least one source raises the question of why Jews were singled out for this negative qualification. Another source (Feldman) comments that many pagan authors had positive things to say about Jews up until Manetho (ca. 270BC) after which "the picture usually painted is one of universal and virulent anti-Judaism."
There are those who argue that, during the era of early Christianity, anti-Jewish sentiment was rooted primarily in religious polemics as the Christians differentiated themselves and separated from the Jews. However, since the Christians were mostly residents of the Roman Empire, they inherited the classical antisemitic prejudices of the pagan authors mentioned above. One source comments that these antisemitic attitudes mostly came from those in the Greek portion of the Roman Empire. According to the source, the Jews in the Persian/Babylonian regions were not subject to similar vilification.
There is at least one source that asserts that Jews were better off in the period 600-1000C.E. than in the period after 1000C.E. It's not clear to me what changed. Not that many sources make this assertion so, while I am inclined to believe it's true, it doesn't seem to be something the sources focus on. The point to make here is that the comments about antisemitism in the "medieval period" should not be read to cover the entire period from 600-1300C.E. Some of the assertions about "antisemitism in the medieval period" more properly describe antisemitism from 1100-1300.
The Crusades certainly transformed Europe's attitudes towards the Jews. Since there was all this polemic/propaganda/invective in favor of the Christian God and against the infidel, there was a natural focus on the infidel in Europe alongside the infidel in the Holy Land. It is asserted by at least one source that almost every crusade started with a pogrom against the Jews. (of course, pogrom was not the word that was used but it's the most convenient word to use here) At this point, antisemitism is a mix of religious antiJudaism (usually referred to as "religious antisemitism" when discussed in the context of the medieval period) and economic antisemitism. I don't remember any sources using the phrase "anti-Judaism" after the early Christian era or after the Patristic period.
Between 1100 and 1500, the Jews are expelled from England, France, Spain and most of western Europe. Where do they go? Those that don't convert to Christianity go to North Africa, the Ottoman Empire and Eastern Europe where they are generally well-received. A family of Marrano Jews run the finances of the Ottoman Empire. Jews similarly do well in Poland. However, as always, there are poor Jews and wealthy, influential Jews. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that all Jews in these regions were prosperous, wealthy and influential.
There isn't much discussion of antisemitism during the Renaissance and Reformation (or, at least, I haven't focused on those periods enough) with the exception of noting the antisemitism of Martin Luther. Some time during this period, the Jewish quarters transformed into ghettos.
This last fact is significant because Jews are simultaneously envied for their wealth (as merchants, moneylenders and Court Jews) and despised for the poverty of the ghettos.
Thus, when the Jews are emancipated in the 19th century, there are stereotypes of them as poor and dirty. At the same time, they are freer to move in European society and to enter occupations and professions formerly proscribed to them. Their success and "overrepresentation" in doing so leads to a negative response as their success is envied and attributed to clannishness, greed, dishonesty, etc.
19th century pogroms in Eastern Europe and Russia cause waves of mass emigration. Many of these Jews come to Western Europe where they are looked upon as poor, dirty foreigners.
Because the Enlightenment has deprecated the religious basis of religious antisemitism, the focus turns towards economic antisemitism which was always there but becomes more prominent as religious antisemitism recedes (it doesn't go away, it just is no longer the primary focus).
There is, of course, social antisemitism as well although this aspect of antisemitism is not discussed as extensively in the sources.
The key development is the rise of pseudo-scientific racial antisemitism which is ultimately combined by Hitler with the economic, social and political antisemitism of the 19th century to create the "apocalyptic antisemitism" of Nazi Germany. This apocalyptic antisemitism combines elements of messianism and milleniallism to produce the Holocaust.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
1) You're right. Your comment was first made on my Talk Page and it was I who moved it here. What I should have said is: since the discussion is already here, it seems a bit arbitrary of me to move it again to
Talk:History of antisemitism without a general agreement to do so.
2) You're right again. You never used the word "institutional antiJudaism". It's a phrase I coined that conflates your two points above. Your exact wording was "anti-Semitic practices and institutions can breed anti-Semitic beliefs." You further wrote:
These two premises are linked in one way that is very important for the article you are drafting:institutions developed as forms ofanti-Judaism before the Renaissance or the Enlightenment (English speaking people, and as far as I know French and German and Italian speaking people, did not think of themselves as European until the 17th century, they thought of themselves as living in "Christendom") may be the cause ofanti-Semitic beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, in pats of Europe where the Church dictated laws, Jews may have been the only people allowed to lend money for interest, and Jews may have been prohibited from farming land; this is anti-Judaic, because once someone converted to Christianity they were no longer allowed to land money but could own or rent land to farm. Such laws or conventions may have established customs and social relations that outlasted the laws, so that even when Christians were allowed to lend money, many Jews continued to do this too, or even when Jews were allowed to own land, the vast majority of Jews continued to favor urban life. And then this could lead to anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards.
The above text is what led me to the sloppy conclusion that you were arguing for an "institutional anti-Judaism" which was somehow different from "antisemitic stereotypes and canards". I've read some sources that lay out and analyze various explanations for antisemitism including psychological and economic ones. Perhaps the transference that you describe from formalized institutions to popular "anti-Semitic stereotypes and canards" and back would fall into that domain. I don't think this discussion of causes and mechanisms fits properly into this article since the scope is specifically "economic antisemitism". I think it fits better in Antisemitism although it's possible that some sources may make arguments along the lines you made. I didn't see any but I wasn't looking specifically for it either. The closest that I can remember is the general assertion that "religious antisemitism" was supposed to stop as soon as a Jew converted to Christianity. (although the experience of the conversos is a famous example that it didn't actually work that way in reality)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This article needs to be rethought because in a number of places it actually reproduces the same generalizations that are made by economic antisemites. Just because one can site a source for a statement doesn't mean it actually is the best source for information on a particular topic. So a statement on Jewish occupations that just cites a number of sources that make generalizations about Jewish occupations without giving any actual data or statistics on Jewish occupational distributions in any country in any period is engaging in the same stereotypes without data that antisemites engage in, even if the source is from the Anti-Defamation League. If you are going to write about Jewish occupational distributions you need to have data on that topic, not generalizations. I hope that the editors will flag this article and require it to provide relevant data for the statements it is making. And it is ironic that an article that is supposed to be explaining and hopefully discouraging antisemitism, and I would hope that this is one of the missions of Wikipedia, would use similar arguments as the prejudices it is supposedly trying to dispel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosePesotta ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=VK0llzUqQ2YC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=why+were+jews+scapegoats&source=bl&ots=IjjDqZ6yJy&sig=Dehs3EngmZg-0yvVSKV3q2wPg2s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ulcbUOLyLIrJ6wHGuIG4Aw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=why%20were%20jews%20scapegoats&f=false - explains that factors unrelated to economics caused anti-Semitism, and that Jews weren't hated because they lent $, but rather lent $ because they were hated, and thus that itself didn't cause anti-Semitism. The researchers couldn't find any instance of economic factors leading to anti-Semitism, only increasing it. -- Activism 1234 05:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Economic antisemitism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
Everything here looks healthy but the bot may help in the future.
Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained a quite tolerable 77 KB Gregkaye ( talk) 15:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Propination laws caused antisemitism. Not mentioned here. Xx236 ( talk) 07:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It is erroneous to say Bauer and Marx "agreed" on Jews. Marx's views on judaism are, one could argue, antisemitic, but much less so than Bauer's. Bauer's view saw the Jews as inherently objectionable, while Marx's views were a criticism of Jewish culture, from a man who was himself Jewish. In fact, much of On The Jewish Question, is response to and criticism of Bauer. 2601:642:C481:4640:9DB9:2FCB:A5D5:2B48 ( talk) 01:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)