Similarities between 1930s antisemitism and todays islamophobia

[DaVinci]

Ironically, the equation of culture with race mirrors the arguments of colonialists who viewed races as inferior due to their cultural backwardness.

Nope. There is no "equation of culture with race".

About the subject (common info):

Racism

Rassismus ohne Rassen - Kultureller Rassismus

Cultural Racism

[athanaric]

Nope. There is no "equation of culture with race".

About the subject (common info):

Racism

Rassismus ohne Rassen - Kultureller Rassismus

Cultural Racism

"Racism without races" (lol) isn't racism at all. I wouldn't trust wikipedia on sensitive issues such as this. There already are words for cultural supremacism etc., no need to throw "racism" into the mix just because you like the word so much.

[VINC.XXIII]

"Racism without races" (lol) isn't racism at all. I wouldn't trust wikipedia on sensitive issues such as this. There already are words for cultural supremacism etc., no need to throw "racism" into the mix just because you like the word so much.

What he meant was ethno-differentialism. But I think peoples who adhere to that concept would definitely reject term "cultural racism", because like you said its non-sense to death.

[Knight of Heaven]

That the Jews and the muslims wont integrate. In both cases the argument claims that even if you make them "secular citizens" they will keep promoting interests that have nothing to do with the interests of their countries

This isnt exactly true. Jews in the 30s, and we are speaking of Germany , but in other countries too, they were deffenitly integrated, a lot of them anyway, plenty of them even amoung the elite on several areas, socialy and economicaly, wich isnt exactly unknowned thing for the jewsih people across history. In a way it has been like taht since ancient times. Jewish comunities were often in positions of wealthy merchants, traders, money lenders, and even ministers of goverments, even in the midle ages.
I cants ay the same for muslims, alltough i know some personaly that are completely integrated, in fact if i wouldnt be a personal friend i wouldnt even guess they were muslims. I guess it also depends on generaions, and origins of Muslims, and context.
Maybe the same could be said of jews in the 30s, but from what i know, they were deffenitly more integrated then lets say Muslims in France right now.

The most anti-semitic people (aka Muslims) begrudge the Jews for the Holocaust and cry that they are the new Jews.
And many among the leftist pseudo-intellectuals support them crying how bad Muslims are treated only because they are Muslims.
Even the smallest critique at them and Islam has been declared by *tolerant, open-minded* People as the same as the persecutions of the Jews.

Laughable.

I dont think it is laughable to protect unprotected minorities, whom ever they might be Muslims or jews etc. You cant or shouldnt generalize like that.
Obviously any person ruled by comon sense, can see the descrepancies of the usual rethoric, that fuels anti semitism, or islamophobia, regardles s of the origin of such rethoric.
In this case a part of the muslim comunity on anti semitism. Yet i dont see how that is a free pass for futher descrimination. Anyone who is against it, it needs to be againts it, in any shape of form.

[Harith]

This isnt exactly true. Jews in the 30s, and we are speaking of Germany , but in other countries too, they were deffenitly integrated, a lot of them anyway, plenty of them even amoung the elite on several areas, socialy and economicaly, wich isnt exactly unknowned thing for the jewsih people across history. In a way it has been like taht since ancient times. Jewish comunities were often in positions of wealthy merchants, traders, money lenders, and even ministers of goverments, even in the midle ages.
I cants ay the same for muslims, alltough i know some personaly that are completely integrated, in fact if i wouldnt be a personal friend i wouldnt even guess they were muslims. I guess it also depends on generaions, and origins of Muslims, and context.

I would like to remind you that the word "ghetto" originated from Jewish only enclaves within cities and communities.

They weren't integrated at all. In fact, a lot of the Jewish people who were bankers and money lenders HAD to become bankers or money lenders because it was outlawed for them to work in any other professional area. The bans weren't uniform or continuous, but they were so common and imminent that the safest profession for a Jew was to be a money lender.

That of course meant only a minority can actually be well off while many led terrible lives. Ironically, this very structure led to the stereotype that they control the states and operate as a parallel structure seeking to enslave nations. Of course this perception didn't rise spontaneously. It was aided by Kings, and later on governments, who accumulated enormous debts and couldn't pay it off.

So it was a convenient tool to balance books and redirect popular anger from "HRM Underwater Palace" (+1 if you get the reference) towards them (Jews).

[athanaric]

This isnt exactly true. Jews in the 30s, and we are speaking of Germany , but in other countries too, they were deffenitly integrated, a lot of them anyway, plenty of them even amoung the elite on several areas, socialy and economicaly, wich isnt exactly unknowned thing for the jewsih people across history. In a way it has been like taht since ancient times. Jewish comunities were often in positions of wealthy merchants, traders, money lenders, and even ministers of goverments, even in the midle ages.
I cants ay the same for muslims, alltough i know some personaly that are completely integrated, in fact if i wouldnt be a personal friend i wouldnt even guess they were muslims. I guess it also depends on generaions, and origins of Muslims, and context.

I think there was a difference between Jews in Germany/Western Europe and Jews in other places, at least after the 18th and 19th centuries. In places like Germany, France, and Britain, I believe your assessment is correct, although it took a long time for the Jews to integrate, for which the blame falls both (although perhaps not equally) on the indigenous and Christian societies and the more conservative elements of the Jewish community.
The large-scale establishment of Muslim immigrant communities (as opposed to unaffiliated individuals), indeed sometimes entire tribes (e.g. Lebanese "Kurds" in Germany), in Europe post-1945 with numbers reaching the millions is unprecedented and certainly bears no resemblance to the Jewish presence here, neither in terms of origin, nor in numbers, nor in the relationship to the indigenous population. And it's not like all of them are bad people (neither were all the European settlers in the Americas). This sort of mess is just nearly inevitable when numbers are this high.

Maybe the same could be said of jews in the 30s, but from what i know, they were deffenitly more integrated then lets say Muslims in France right now.

Absolutely, and what tends to be forgotten, there weren't nearly as many of them. In Germany in the 20 and 30s (1937 borders!), there were about a million Jews, probably even less. FWIW, I've seen figures indicating that Jewish Germans bled as much as the rest of the nation in WWI, relative to their share of the population. I know that because I've actually researched the theory raised in this thread so as to see whether it has any merit (it doesn't).

[DaVinci]

"Racism without races" (lol) isn't racism at all. I wouldn't trust wikipedia on sensitive issues such as this. There already are words for cultural supremacism etc., no need to throw "racism" into the mix just because you like the word so much.

The according wikipedia links reflect the science in the matters of the phenomenon racism, giving a general overview and are full of according links (for example sources).
It's not even commented by me as "my opinion" as you seem to imply, it's just linked information.
Your comment just shows a lack of interest in related researchment departments, rather a refusal.
Of course you are free to refuse everything that fits not to your worldview, but it won't help your credibility - in real life.
In a university (or related public expert discussion) you would fail utterly with your style of approach as shown above.
Here on TWC, where everybody claims to be something like an expert, you find of course quite a lot agreement.

[Sir Adrian]

Hatred based on culture is called xenophobia. Racism is hatred based on skin color, regardless of culture. Learn the ing difference

[Enros]

I read that France has reduced antisemitic attacks by 64% and it only took posting 12,000 soldiers in Jewish neighborhoods and at Jewish institutions. Are these attacks against Muslims so bad that have to attend private schools that look like this?

Many Iraqis can't go to school, because their schools look like this:


How many Muslims did Bush kill again? Like 200,000 or more?

Hatred based on culture is called xenophobia. Racism is hatred based on skin color, regardless of culture. Learn the ing difference

Any ethnic hatred can be called racism. When English people murder Poles for being Polish, that's racism. When black South Africans murder Zimbabwean immigrants, that's also racism. Despite both the perpetrator and victim having the same skin colour in these examples.

[sumskilz]

Many Iraqis can't go to school, because their schools look like this

You think the Iraq war was due to Islamphobia?

How many Muslims did Bush kill again? Like 200,000 or more?

Only if you believe Iraqis are mindless animals who bear no responsibility for their direct actions. Only 13% of documented civilian casualties were caused by coalition forces, meaning the vast majority of causalities were caused by sectarian violence.

[athanaric]

The according wikipedia links reflect the science in the matters of the phenomenon racism, giving a general overview and are full of according links (for example sources).
It's not even commented by me as "my opinion" as you seem to imply, it's just linked information.

It's your opinion, backed up by a non-source.

Your comment just shows a lack of interest in related researchment departments, rather a refusal.

Or it might just show the opposite, see below.

Of course you are free to refuse everything that fits not to your worldview, but it won't help your credibility - in real life.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

In a university (or related public expert discussion) you would fail utterly with your style of approach as shown above.

Speaking of university, you do know that they tell you in every course (not just in the history department, either) not to use wikipedia as a source, or as anything else other than a general introduction and overview? And that's for the less controversial issues such as, say, archaeology or engineering.

Here on TWC, where everybody claims to be something like an expert, you find of course quite a lot agreement.

Yeah because I live on TWC, right? Also if you did a survey, I'm pretty sure you'd find that the educational level of forum members is higher than in the general populace, as is their resistance to BS theories from the "social studies" departments. The term "cultural racism" is a weapon used to deflect criticism and smear critics, just like "islamophobia".

Many Iraqis can't go to school, because their schools look like this:

Non sequitur.

How many Muslims did Bush kill again? Like 200,000 or more?

Yeah because Bush was President of France. Or was it Germany? I always confuse the two.

Also, how many Muslims did Saddam Hussein kill again? Or Assad?

[Sir Adrian]

Many Iraqis can't go to school, because their schools look like this:



Any ethnic hatred can be called racism. When English people murder Poles for being Polish, that's racism. When black South Africans murder Zimbabwean immigrants, that's also racism. Despite both the perpetrator and victim having the same skin colour in these examples.

That's xenophobia. Polish is not a race. White, mulatto, black, brown, yellow are races.

[Harith]

You think the Iraq war was due to Islamphobia?

No. It was because Saddam Hussein was secretly an AlQaeda operative.

Only if you believe Iraqis are mindless animals who bear no responsibility for their direct actions. Only 13% of documented civilian casualties were caused by coalition forces, meaning the vast majority of causalities were caused by sectarian violence.

Keyword here is documented.

''You know, we don't do body counts,''

And then there's of course the timeline issue and how to count the number of possible deaths due to "economic sanctions" that sought to destroy the population.

[sumskilz]

Keyword here is documented.

That 13% is based on 157,531 documented. It's unreasonable to assume that more civilian casualties were caused by coalition forces than by sectarian violence. Playing the numbers game when the disparity in that sample size is so large would just be obfuscation.

[Harith]

That 13% is based on 157,531 documented. It's unreasonable to assume that more civilian casualties were caused by coalition forces than by sectarian violence. Playing the numbers game when the disparity in that sample size is so large would just be obfuscation.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting that US coalition forces killed more civilians than sectarian violence. Rather, I was suggesting that the number of documented killings by coalition forces is unreliable given that it's hard to track, quantify and identify every casualty if the perpetrator doesn't keep the count (the latest ISIS or Yemen airstrikes prove it).

Then again, given the track record of US, I wouldn't rule that out either.

[Love Mountain]

Hmm, I wonder how many Iraqis died from sectarian violence before we invaded as opposed to after.

[sumskilz]

Hmm, I wonder how many Iraqis died from sectarian violence before we invaded as opposed to after.

How far do you want to go back? 25,000-180,000 in the 1991 Shia Intifada. 50,000-182,000 in Saddam’s Al-Anfal Campaign in the late 1980’s. 105,000–375,000 in the Iran-Iraq war. We also don’t know what the Arab Spring would have been like in Saddam’s Iraq. Not to mention that killing each other en masse isn’t exactly the only logical or possible response to foreign occupation.

Iraqis who were killed by other Iraqis didn’t die because of Islamophobia.

[Akrotatos]

We also don’t know what the Arab Spring would have been like in Saddam’s Iraq.

There would be no Arab spring.

[Love Mountain]

How far do you want to go back? 25,000-180,000 in the 1991 Shia Intifada. 50,000-182,000 in Saddam’s Al-Anfal Campaign in the late 1980’s. 105,000–375,000 in the Iran-Iraq war. We also don’t know what the Arab Spring would have been like in Saddam’s Iraq. Not to mention that killing each other en masse isn’t exactly the only logical or possible response to foreign occupation.

Iraqis who were killed by other Iraqis didn’t die because of Islamophobia.

We all know that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed a good couple hundred thousand people to maintain his rule. It still pales to the War in Iraq which led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being killed. If it's a competition then we've won. Creating a climate in which sectarian violence can thrive and then saying our hands are clean because we didn't pull the trigger is .

But no, I don't think we invaded Iraq because we hate Muslims. Clearly there are other, sinister motives at play.

[athanaric]

But no, I don't think we invaded Iraq because we hate Muslims. Clearly there are other, sinister motives at play.

I think the motives were rather banal: greed, coupled with a well-meant but badly implemented strategy to introduce democracy in the region before a violent revolution would happen.
This whole "Muslims are suffering because THE WEST hates them (each one individually, of course) and ISLAMOPHOBIA" shtick is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that ignores the basic facts and the simple, but boring truth.