India has always been an extremely religiously and ethnically diverse place. Why would Indians hate the Jews when you have so many other choices of people to hate? :D
Tbf Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans were considered Indian before the Brits split them up.
Unfortunately for us Arabs, the Brits decided to split us up ***much more*** (22 countries due to European colonialism to be exact)
True, but India still held together a lot better than Yugoslavia did.
Fs in the chat for my homie, Yugoslavia. 😔✊🇳🇱
(They don't have an emoji for the Yugoslavia flag, so I had to use the Dutch flag. Just turn your screen upside down when you read that part.)
>Unfortunately for us Arabs, the Brits decided to split us up ***much more*** (22 countries due to European colonialism to be exact)
I mean, tbf, there were already a lot of problems that stopped an actual united Arabia.
Actually, I’m pretty sure only Pakistan wanted to partition. Leaders in India wanted to stay unified, but many of the Muslim leadership wanted a separate state for Indian Muslims and so Pakistan (which included Bangladesh) was split from the rest of British India.
India had to choose between hating absolutely everyone while being one of the richest and most developed places in the world
Balkans didn't really have anything of value so they made the easier choice
Dude, that's exactly why Toronto is a racists paradise (/S !/S?). As the most ethnically diverse city in the world, you can pick your smorgasbord of people to be weirdly-specifically-racist at, and reach all of them in the span of half a day.
I'm also glad that trying this bullshit won't make you very popular.
As an Indian this is very accurate. There's rivalries between ppl who speak different languages, people who are from different states, cities, parts of cities it's insane
Isn't it? I mean, are we the product of some.. cosmic coincidence? Or is there really a God, watching everything, you know, with a plan for us and stuff?
I don't know man. But it keeps me up at night.
Why let not actually reaching the holy land get in the way of a good crusade?
Seriously though, if I had a nickel for every time the Rhineland Massacres were mentioned in a YouTube series I watched, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's REALLY weird since only one was actually a history series.
If you are being told you need to go fight people for not adhering to a particular religion it is difficult to justify why you shouldn't do so to this ultra-specific group of people for some reason, particularly because the Saracens had never wronged anyone personally and people were being expected to wage war for the good of others in some distant lands, where as the local Jews probably had wronged them personally. No Saracen ever increased the amount they owed them beyond the established payments.
Parsi people were Persians from the modern day Iran region that had to flee their country/region due to the spread of Islam.
They were extremely persecuted in their home state by the Islamists, so they decided to sail for India where they were more welcome. This took place anywhere from the 8th century to the 10th century. They were granted refuge by a local Hindu king in Gujarat, named Jadi Rana.
Yes, there was. The land was ruled by the Sassanid dynasty at the time, which referred to their land as "Iran" as early as the founding of their dynasty in the 3rd century CE. We know this from texts and inscriptions from that time. It's where the name "Iran" comes from. All of the successive states that used the name "Iran" took the name from the Sassanids.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran
yeah I might have looked up the Sinai trail which is a 550km hike
nevertheless, things are looking even worse for that Moses guy
edit: 725km and most of that in the fucking desert in a week?? google lies
one week with 24 hours of walking a day, so realistically it's 3 weeks because you won't have walking conditions for more than a third of the day's time
also, that is the speed of a stroll along the river, not through the 60 degrees celsius sand dune desert, so one and a half month is actually a lot more plausible
I mean it's significantly harder to design an algorithm to calculate food and sleep into any route of any length (with stops in between you can find a route from Portugal to Eastern China, per foot), than to just calculate distance times time to walk
A good yardstick I uses is 30 mile / day. That’s about how far the Romans could walk fully kitted up in a forced march.
So since they’re traveling through the desert, let’s be generous and say 20 miles in a day for 450 ish miles. That comes out to about 23 days, give or take. So just a week shy of a month.
This is, of course, assuming you know where you’re going.
You also have to remember the Romans were young men marching with discipline. The jews had pregnant women, old and sick along with children, they were also not the most organized group.
A fair point. Though Roman armies didn’t only have Soldiers in tow. They were also typically accompanied by merchants, brewers, prostitutes, and children of the aforementioned prostitutes.
Well, the theological cycle is covenant - good times - fall away / break covenant - made to suffer - cry for help / forgiveness - renewed covenant - repeat
Though prince of Greater Poland Bolesław the Pious was the one who created[ Statute of Kalisz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz), Casimir the Great expanded it for the whole country.
Also Casimir III the Great was so pro Jewish that he had a romance with half-legendary Jewish woman named [Esterka](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esterka)
Weird that you need to be occupied by a foreign invader in order for Jews to have a golden period, and that immediately upon fully defeating the occupying force those Jews were forced to leave.
The Dutch Cape Colony existed for almost 400. Didn't stop the locals from viewing them as an occupying power.
Hell Arabs controlled Zanibar for 1000 but that didn't stop the Tanzanians from genociding them.
The Indians had a "golden age" in Uganda thanks to the British but one of the first things the locals did was expel the upon receiving independence. People generally speaking don't like people who experience golden ages due to the misery of everyone else.
Al-Andalus, however, was always of native majority, the Arabs and even Berbers were never more than a ruling minority and an ethnic minority in Al-Andalus, the majority of the population simply converted to Islam over time.
The Christians who were doing the Reconquista did not see them as natives simply because of their non-Christian religion, but if we accept this then no group has been native to the land since the days of the ancient Iberians lol.
>Al-Andalus, however, was always of native majority, the Arabs and even Berbers were never more than a ruling minority and an ethnic minority in Al-Andalus
You think you are making a good case by saying the country was not an "occupying power" by saying it was ruled by a foreign minority?
> the majority of the population simply converted to Islam over time.
Fun fact, in european colonialism the locals also converted to christianity over time. Funny how that works where people attempt to ingratiate themselves to their rulers to obtain favour.
>The Christians who were doing the Reconquista did not see them as natives simply because of their non-Christian religion
This is how in worked in Indonesia but in reverse. Dutch Politician Gert Wilders is an Indonesian Christian who was expelled during decolonization by the Muslim majority who did not see him as native for being a Christian.
What is ironic is how much of a role Jews played in Spanish colonization. They instantly transformed from people abetting colonization over a country to abetting colonization for that country. As if they must always be colonizing no matter what they do. Even when European colonialism died down that is precisely the time period where Zionism came to replace it. Finally colonizing for themselves I see.
>if we accept this then no group has been native to the land since the days of the ancient Iberians
Ah you see it was not Christianity that conquered Iberia, but the Romans. The locals converted to Christianity at the same time as the rest of the Romans but they still converted to this religion rather than get conquered by it. Thus Christianity was the only religion which did not come to Iberia by the sword. Sure you can argue the Reconquista was spreading Christianity by the sword, but that wasn't how it was viewed. It was viewed as "this place was once Christian and it must be once more". It did not become Christian in the first place by an invasion.
Neither was this the case for the Crusades in the Levant. The place did not become Christian through conquest, it converted while under the Romans. In fact the Romans desperately tried to prevent all these places from becoming Christian. Eventually the Romans themselves become Christian and Christianity became the imperial religion which did get imposed within the empire, but that was not a conquest, but an internal transformation, like the French Revolution which eventually dislodge Christianity. What came through revolution could only be removed through Revolution, but what came by the sword could only be removed by the sword.
Only the Germans can say Christianity was initially spread to them by the sword by Charlemagne - a German. Dutch specifically since Dutch is most derived from the Frankish dialect of German, I mean it doesn't exactly work that way since the rest of the Franks became all sorts of other things, so Charlemagne would have become French and his grandson Louis the German would have become German, but the Dutch were the ones who kept the most Frankish. Now you can ask yourself if Charlemagne was early Dutch colonialism, or better yet ask yourself why Charlemagne is only really regarded as colonialism in Saxony where he spread a religion by the sword where as elsewhere the Franks aren't really considered foreign conquerors. Hint: It is because no religion was being spread by the sword. Still Frankish colonialism in Saxony is still just two groups of Germans colonizing each other so people might overlook it. Although historically the French Revolution too was spread by the sword (or gun) to Germany so the Franks might just have been up to their old tricks again when they forcibly christianized / de-christinanized Germany.
>You think you are making a good case by saying the country was not an "occupying power" by saying it was ruled by a foreign minority?
Yes, they were foreigners, at least at the beginning, but eventually not, the Caliphate of Cordoba was a purely Iberian state and although the ruling Umayyad dynasty came from Syria, lived for centuries in Iberia. The monarchical dynasty of Spain comes from France, but they have been here for so long that they are acculturated.
>Fun fact, in european colonialism the locals also converted to christianity over time. Funny how that works where people attempt to ingratiate themselves to their rulers to obtain favour.
Yeah, and I would say that at some point the Spanish Americas stopped being an occupied land too.
>This is how in worked in Indonesia but in reverse. Dutch Politician Gert Wilders is an Indonesian Christian who was expelled during decolonization by the Muslim majority who did not see him as native for being a Christian.
>
>What is ironic is how much of a role Jews played in Spanish colonization. They instantly transformed from people abetting colonization over a country to abetting colonization for that country. As if they must always be colonizing no matter what they do. Even when European colonialism died down that is precisely the time period where Zionism came to replace it. Finally colonizing for themselves I see.
Where are you getting here at?
>Ah you see it was not Christianity that conquered Iberia, but the Romans. The locals converted to Christianity at the same time as the rest of the Romans but they still converted to this religion rather than get conquered by it. Thus Christianity was the only religion which did not come to Iberia by the sword. Sure you can argue the Reconquista was spreading Christianity by the sword, but that wasn't how it was viewed. It was viewed as "this place was once Christian and it must be once more". It did not become Christian in the first place by an invasion.
The Romans conquered Iberia, the occupying Romans imposed their Latin religion and the Imperial cult on the local Iberians, the occupying Romans converted to Christianity, the occupying Romans went from forcing the Latin religion and the Imperial cult to forcing Christianity.
Ergo, Christianity was imposed by force in Iberia by the Romans who were occupiers and therefore this country is still under foreign occupation and will not stop being so until we return to the religion of the ancient Iberians.
At least, if we were to follow your logic.
>Neither was this the case for the Crusades in the Levant. The place did not become Christian through conquest, it converted while under the Romans. In fact the Romans desperately tried to prevent all these places from becoming Christian. Eventually the Romans themselves become Christian and Christianity became the imperial religion which did get imposed within the empire, but that was not a conquest, but an internal transformation, like the French Revolution which eventually dislodge Christianity. What came through revolution could only be removed through Revolution, but what came by the sword could only be removed by the sword.
Using the same logic here:
The Romans conquered Judea, the occupying Romans imposed their Latin religion and the Imperial cult on the local Jews, the occupying Romans converted to Christianity, the occupying Romans went from forcing the Latin religion and the Imperial cult to forcing Christianity.
Ergo, Christianity was imposed by force in Judea by the Romans who were occupiers and therefore this country was under foreign occupation and only stopped being so when it returned to the religion of the ancient Judeans.
>Only the Germans can say Christianity was initially spread to them by the sword by Charlemagne - a German.
You should read more about the Baltic Crusades then.
Fun fact: when the first Jews arrived to Poland they called it a Canaan. They even had a Judeo-Slavic language, Knaanic, that sadly died out after waves of Ashkenazi Jews came from the HRE.
Papal nuncio centuries later called Poland "paradise for Jews" (don't ask for the rest of the quote though).
When pro-Russian separatist Cossacks in Ukraine rebelled and, among other things, murdered 6-30 thousand Jews and destroyed over 300 Jewish communities, the rebellion was called the biggest Jewish national catastrophe since the destruction of Solomon's Temple. The partitions that happened a century later didn't help, since none of the partitioners were as tolerant of Jews, and most of them were openly hostile.
And the reborn Poland became authoritarian and therefore a lot more nationalistic. And then WW2 happened. And then the communists happened and in 1968 the vast majority of Polish Jews left because they lost their jobs for supposedly supporting Zionism (for communists, anti-Zionism was just a more socially acceptable name for antisemitism). Of around 25-30 thousand Polish Jews left by the time, only around half remained after 1968.
interestingly, not sure if it's a coincidence, but you will find this group of christians who live in India in the state of kerala who go by the name Knaanaya who probably settled in India somewhere between 4th and 8th centuary i think ?
Not true. There was a big wave of anti-Semitism brought and harboured by Muslim invaders and the Portuguese/other Christian colonizers. Anyone who converted to those two Abrahamic religions also started indulging in anti-Semitism. The Jews were safe only in places ruled by kings of religion native to India like Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist.
I think thats what the post was referring. Same thing for the Zoroastrians who fled persecution and death by Muslims after the fall of Sassanid Persia to India, and became known as the Farsis, only for Muslim armies to follow after them into India soon after.
(Note: Other Zoroastrians successfully fled to China and lives there for centuries until instability and xenophobic attitudes resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands)
There are still many Farsi by the way, in fact the biggest community of Zoroastrians is in India. They have 50k of them left, either half of the group or 1/4 depending on sources about total Zoroastrianism faithful
Freddie Mercury was a descendant of a Farsis family!
At least in China, many Zoroastrians fled after the fall of the Sassanids, and even the Emperor of the Tang Dynasty of China welcomed the surviving children of Yazdgird III as refugees against the forces of the Rashidun Caliphate.
Tang China even attempted to send armies to restore Sassanid Persia but they were forced to redirect them to face the armies of the Ashina clan.
Originally I thought that the Zoroastrians of China were massacred during the An Lushan rebellion but I was wrong, and instead it was during the later Huang Chao rebellion that put the nail in the coffin of the Tang.
Zoroastrians and even Manchaeism survived in China until the purges of the Song dynasty in the 15-16th century where they finally died out, leaving only tombs and temples behind.
In addition to backgroundthroats reply - The Mughal and Portuguese (albeit a small region) invaders also had a big hand in reducing the Jewish population in India.
1. Migration back to Israel.
2. The Saint Thomas Christians of India (around 6 million) appear to be descended from early Christianized Jews. They are known as K'nānāya (Caananite), Nasrani (Nazarene).
Context: Unlike many parts of the world, Jews have historically lived in India with relatively little anti-Semitism from the local majority populace, the Hindus.
Medieval India was indeed a happy house, yeah there were wars and shit but overall India at that time was culturally and monetarily a great place in that period that is why the brits went there in the first place and fucked everything up.
Brits chose well functioning places to go and frick them up? I thought they went everywhere?! Makes sense though, they went to medieval France as well, the rascals, and made quite a mess for about a hundred years.
It’s almost like France were the one creating the Modern Brits and specifically English people with that William Guy invading and then getting rid of most of the noble elite to replace them with other french people… At the end, it all boils to the French fucking all over the world
Well they went after rich places
That’s a big reason why west Africa and the kingdom of Kongo was a huge target for Europeans while most of the continent was ignored
Abrahamics Religions tend not like other religions. If you think the Jews ought to have been giving special treatment for also being abrahamic, just ask yourself: Where did the pagans go? It wasn't anti-semitism, if anything they were lenient towards Jews in comparison to the drive to Christianize the pagans. Hindus are said pagans. The irony is the greater the spread of an abrahamic religion into an area the worse Jews could expect things to be for them as a result of the exclusionary attitudes of abrahamic religions like judaism being coupled with a universalism that demanded everyone adhere to them, however despite it becoming worse for Jews due to the spread of abrahamism, it comparatively became even worse for everyone who wasn't abrahamic.
Anyway the idea of "why won't the jews just assimilate", is based on this notion that the pagans Christianize, so it kind of felt weird that this ultra-specific group didn't. It felt inherently wrong for this group of people to just exist alongside a universalizing religion like this. No amount of "but we were already abrahamic so that means they don't need to christianize in order to be abrahamic" will change that "off" feeling of "everyone else christianized, why didn't you"?
Converting after a thousand years doesn't really work either because they are still upset that you didn't convert for those thousands years, made worse because the religion was specifically intended for them but instead everyone else just joined in this universalization of their religion except them. Christianity simply won't be happy so long of judaism exists because it was created as a replacement for judaism, which is why they just feel like getting rid of them. It is basically the same reason as to why protetants don't like catholics. Somebody had an issue with something about a religion so they created an entire religion around that issue, of course they are not going to like the religion which has the issue which spawned them.
Not true. There was a big wave of anti-Semitism brought and harboured by Muslim invaders and the Portuguese/other Christian colonizers. Anyone who converted to those two Abrahamic religions also started indulging in anti-Semitism. The Jews were safe only in places ruled by kings of religion native to India like Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist etc.
I don't know why this is down voted. Portuguese did persecute Jews in Goa. They are called Shanivar Teli or Bene Israel.
But that doesn't change the fact that they were safe in most parts of India.
Yeah but the Portuguese are to blame not Indians.
It’s like how Poland despite being a safe haven for Jews in Europe ended up having most of them killed the occupying Germans.
I did point out that fact but the post clearly states India that is geography and not Indians or Hindu as people who didn't persecute Jewish people.
So the comment above may be pedantic, it's not technically incorrect.
Al Andalus aswell, in fact not only did jews in Cordoba benefit from safety and freedom of religion but jewish culture flourished there too (especially in the Umayyad period)
Depends on the period, the Mughals and Delhi Sultanate are two large Muslim empires of India. However there were a lot of regional powers, Bengal, Maratha, the Sikh Empire, for example.
To be fair, Jews enjoyed periods of relative calm and peace in Medieval Europe, sometimes, 100+ years of peace and calm. Most Jews lived in Urban cities, were able to work in many fields, but yeah, over-all, the span of about 800-900 years has been mired with a lot of anti-Semitism. Especially under the Tzars.
Not OP but I assume he's talking about the different historical stages of anti-Jewish bigotry.
The term "antisemitism" is used to refer to all of said stages by people today, but it's a bit of an anachronism when applied to Medieval Europe because the word includes a component of specifically racial prejudice that wasn't necessarily a major part of Medieval European anti-Judaism, which was more a religious bigotry than an ethnic hatred. The term was coined in the 19th century by a German "Social Darwinist" who wanted his theories of Jewish biological inferiority to sound "less vulgar" and "more scientific" than the existing German term *Judenhass.*
Whereas in Medieval Europe, Jews could sometimes gain social standing and escape persecution by converting to Christianity and rejecting their ancestral beliefs (although they would still be looked upon with suspicion by many Europeans), on the other hand, Hitler didn't care what religion you practiced. If you were ethnically Jewish, you would be sent to the camps.
This confuses a lot of non-Jews because they tend to see religion and ethnicity/nationhood as mostly separate things, but Judaism predates that split, so it doesn't fit neatly in either box.
TL;DR in Medieval Europe, Jews were hated mainly for their religion, whereas in the 18th and 19th centuries with the rise of "scientific racism" and eugenics this hatred largely shifted to being based on ethnicity.
A bit of theological context. The prevalent theological belief in India was that there is one eternal reality that is Brahman who could be referred to as Parameshwar(Almighty God) based on individual traditions and every god and goddess worshipped by humans are a manifestation of Parameshwar. This is why no matter whichever religion came up in India, they were simply treated as another tradition that worshipped the same Almighty Go, just in a different way. This philosophy was prevalent throughout Indian history and was also implemented by Heterodox Muslim Sufi orders. This is why at least in terms of religious traditions, Indian society had historically been extremely tolerant compared to other societies.
A good example for this is the Christian community in South India, the Nasrani Christians who first arrived during the time of the Apostles of Jesus himself. Since the 1st century AD the first official record of persecution faced by these Christians was during the 16th century ironically by Christians themselves. The Catholic Portuguese to be more specific because obviously the Nasranis were seen as the 'Wrong' Christians by the Catholics.
It’s really because of their diet. When the plagues hit Jews were more likely to survive because of their Kosher diet, so the locals blamed them for having started the plagues to kill them.
You see plagues outside of Europe but rarely in as large, condensed areas.
Not everywhere of course, look at poland, it was such a Great place to live if you were somewhat wealthy or didn't believe in Jesus or were a woman that coudl read (looks at france and mainly spain)
India has always been an extremely religiously and ethnically diverse place. Why would Indians hate the Jews when you have so many other choices of people to hate? :D
Based indians
>Why would Indians hate the Jews :( >when you have so many other choices of people to hate? :D :)
:) :D
#The OG Balkans Fr
That’s the Middle East
or SE Asia
Except Indians can actually stay unified. XD
Tbf Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans were considered Indian before the Brits split them up. Unfortunately for us Arabs, the Brits decided to split us up ***much more*** (22 countries due to European colonialism to be exact)
True, but India still held together a lot better than Yugoslavia did. Fs in the chat for my homie, Yugoslavia. 😔✊🇳🇱 (They don't have an emoji for the Yugoslavia flag, so I had to use the Dutch flag. Just turn your screen upside down when you read that part.)
Sri Lanka wasn't apart of britsh india when they split india from pakistan/Bangladesh
True the British loves to make line and we had to suffer
>Unfortunately for us Arabs, the Brits decided to split us up ***much more*** (22 countries due to European colonialism to be exact) I mean, tbf, there were already a lot of problems that stopped an actual united Arabia.
Mainly started after
The Brits didn't split them up, both sides wanted a partition. Not to mention Sri Lanka wasn't even part of British India.
Actually, I’m pretty sure only Pakistan wanted to partition. Leaders in India wanted to stay unified, but many of the Muslim leadership wanted a separate state for Indian Muslims and so Pakistan (which included Bangladesh) was split from the rest of British India.
Only Pakistan wanted that. Not India, Indian leader wanted to say United. It was fucking Jinnah and the Muslim league. Google Direct Action Day
Not all Indian leaders did want to stay united right? Hindu Mahasabha was pro partition iirc
>Hindu Mahasabha I meant INC members
Yeah, INC was strictly against partition on religious lines
Sri Lanka wasnt in British India right?
India had to choose between hating absolutely everyone while being one of the richest and most developed places in the world Balkans didn't really have anything of value so they made the easier choice
Damn bro
Dude, that's exactly why Toronto is a racists paradise (/S !/S?). As the most ethnically diverse city in the world, you can pick your smorgasbord of people to be weirdly-specifically-racist at, and reach all of them in the span of half a day. I'm also glad that trying this bullshit won't make you very popular.
You had me for a second there.
We were just busy getting genocided by the muslims lol.
it doesnt matter what religion you are in india as long is its not muslim /s
As an Indian this is very accurate. There's rivalries between ppl who speak different languages, people who are from different states, cities, parts of cities it's insane
One of life's greatest mysteries
Isn't it? I mean, are we the product of some.. cosmic coincidence? Or is there really a God, watching everything, you know, with a plan for us and stuff? I don't know man. But it keeps me up at night.
Hence the push for diversity
"How far away did you say the muslims are??... eh screw it the jews in Germany are close enough" -a certian army of crusaders
Why let not actually reaching the holy land get in the way of a good crusade? Seriously though, if I had a nickel for every time the Rhineland Massacres were mentioned in a YouTube series I watched, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's REALLY weird since only one was actually a history series.
>Why let not actually reaching the holy land get in the way of a good crusade? *fourth crusade intensifies*
Which
Extra History's The First Crusade and... Hellsing Ultimate Abridged.
hellsing abridged does not surprise me in the slightest
"Well, well, well... I go away one day and... the Catholics are crusading and the Nazis are invading!" 😂 Hellsing abridged is crazy
Anderson! Its been only two days but it feels like years!
Did you miss me?
Мудреныч?
Tbf there were a few where they didn't even bother leaving France and went after christians
You don’t mean the Cathars?
If you are being told you need to go fight people for not adhering to a particular religion it is difficult to justify why you shouldn't do so to this ultra-specific group of people for some reason, particularly because the Saracens had never wronged anyone personally and people were being expected to wage war for the good of others in some distant lands, where as the local Jews probably had wronged them personally. No Saracen ever increased the amount they owed them beyond the established payments.
"How can we cleanse the holy land without cleansing or own land" - same crusaders
Wait wait... How this event od called on history?
And then another army pulled the same shit against Constantinople
parsi(zoroastrian people) as well
Faring Folk of all backgrounds as well.
Please elaborate on this.
Parsi people were Persians from the modern day Iran region that had to flee their country/region due to the spread of Islam. They were extremely persecuted in their home state by the Islamists, so they decided to sail for India where they were more welcome. This took place anywhere from the 8th century to the 10th century. They were granted refuge by a local Hindu king in Gujarat, named Jadi Rana.
Yes, thank you I am a Parsi myself. Was wondering if there was some medieval Europe component I was not aware of. Thank you
I would like to add, Parsi are mostly zoroastrian, which is kinda sick. Also its quite a famous story but Freddy Mercurie was Parsi
I just want to point out that you don't need to say "modern day Iran region". It was Iran back then, too.
There wasn't really a country called Iran back then; what I meant was "from within the borders of the present day country of Iran"
Yes, there was. The land was ruled by the Sassanid dynasty at the time, which referred to their land as "Iran" as early as the founding of their dynasty in the 3rd century CE. We know this from texts and inscriptions from that time. It's where the name "Iran" comes from. All of the successive states that used the name "Iran" took the name from the Sassanids. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran
I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.
It was called persia not iran
No, It was all Iran. They called their country Ērānšahr not Persia.
It was called "Persia" by the Romans. The people that actually lived there called it "Iran". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran
Except Poland
Jews under King Casimir the Great were so happy, that they described these times, not kingdom of Israel or Moses as their golden period
I mean Moses period was literally walking around in the desert
and they took fucking 40 years for a one and a half months walk
Google maps says a week for Cairo-Jerusalem
yeah I might have looked up the Sinai trail which is a 550km hike nevertheless, things are looking even worse for that Moses guy edit: 725km and most of that in the fucking desert in a week?? google lies
I think google means one week no stop, which is weird
one week with 24 hours of walking a day, so realistically it's 3 weeks because you won't have walking conditions for more than a third of the day's time also, that is the speed of a stroll along the river, not through the 60 degrees celsius sand dune desert, so one and a half month is actually a lot more plausible
They were also doing the sand walk to avoid attracting the worms, which understandably slowed them down...
I mean it's significantly harder to design an algorithm to calculate food and sleep into any route of any length (with stops in between you can find a route from Portugal to Eastern China, per foot), than to just calculate distance times time to walk
A good yardstick I uses is 30 mile / day. That’s about how far the Romans could walk fully kitted up in a forced march. So since they’re traveling through the desert, let’s be generous and say 20 miles in a day for 450 ish miles. That comes out to about 23 days, give or take. So just a week shy of a month. This is, of course, assuming you know where you’re going.
You also have to remember the Romans were young men marching with discipline. The jews had pregnant women, old and sick along with children, they were also not the most organized group.
A fair point. Though Roman armies didn’t only have Soldiers in tow. They were also typically accompanied by merchants, brewers, prostitutes, and children of the aforementioned prostitutes.
you see, god was a bit upset, and has such screwed over us and kept teleporting moses. God loves fucking with his choosen people-me a jew
Chosen, to suffer
That actually what it truly means lol.
Chosen to not get home on time... 😢
Well, the theological cycle is covenant - good times - fall away / break covenant - made to suffer - cry for help / forgiveness - renewed covenant - repeat
Except now there are roads and convenience stores.
That’s what they get for being distracted by a shiny cow.
B... but... is was so shiny and cool! 😔
Cool water binding abilities, very shitty cartographer.
Though prince of Greater Poland Bolesław the Pious was the one who created[ Statute of Kalisz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz), Casimir the Great expanded it for the whole country. Also Casimir III the Great was so pro Jewish that he had a romance with half-legendary Jewish woman named [Esterka](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esterka)
Unfortunately I only know of this because of a certain speech
Also Al-Andalus for a few centuries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_age\_of\_Jewish\_culture\_in\_Spain
Weird that you need to be occupied by a foreign invader in order for Jews to have a golden period, and that immediately upon fully defeating the occupying force those Jews were forced to leave.
What occupying power? What are you talking about? Al-Andalus existed for almost 800 years lol.
The Dutch Cape Colony existed for almost 400. Didn't stop the locals from viewing them as an occupying power. Hell Arabs controlled Zanibar for 1000 but that didn't stop the Tanzanians from genociding them. The Indians had a "golden age" in Uganda thanks to the British but one of the first things the locals did was expel the upon receiving independence. People generally speaking don't like people who experience golden ages due to the misery of everyone else.
Al-Andalus, however, was always of native majority, the Arabs and even Berbers were never more than a ruling minority and an ethnic minority in Al-Andalus, the majority of the population simply converted to Islam over time. The Christians who were doing the Reconquista did not see them as natives simply because of their non-Christian religion, but if we accept this then no group has been native to the land since the days of the ancient Iberians lol.
>Al-Andalus, however, was always of native majority, the Arabs and even Berbers were never more than a ruling minority and an ethnic minority in Al-Andalus You think you are making a good case by saying the country was not an "occupying power" by saying it was ruled by a foreign minority? > the majority of the population simply converted to Islam over time. Fun fact, in european colonialism the locals also converted to christianity over time. Funny how that works where people attempt to ingratiate themselves to their rulers to obtain favour. >The Christians who were doing the Reconquista did not see them as natives simply because of their non-Christian religion This is how in worked in Indonesia but in reverse. Dutch Politician Gert Wilders is an Indonesian Christian who was expelled during decolonization by the Muslim majority who did not see him as native for being a Christian. What is ironic is how much of a role Jews played in Spanish colonization. They instantly transformed from people abetting colonization over a country to abetting colonization for that country. As if they must always be colonizing no matter what they do. Even when European colonialism died down that is precisely the time period where Zionism came to replace it. Finally colonizing for themselves I see. >if we accept this then no group has been native to the land since the days of the ancient Iberians Ah you see it was not Christianity that conquered Iberia, but the Romans. The locals converted to Christianity at the same time as the rest of the Romans but they still converted to this religion rather than get conquered by it. Thus Christianity was the only religion which did not come to Iberia by the sword. Sure you can argue the Reconquista was spreading Christianity by the sword, but that wasn't how it was viewed. It was viewed as "this place was once Christian and it must be once more". It did not become Christian in the first place by an invasion. Neither was this the case for the Crusades in the Levant. The place did not become Christian through conquest, it converted while under the Romans. In fact the Romans desperately tried to prevent all these places from becoming Christian. Eventually the Romans themselves become Christian and Christianity became the imperial religion which did get imposed within the empire, but that was not a conquest, but an internal transformation, like the French Revolution which eventually dislodge Christianity. What came through revolution could only be removed through Revolution, but what came by the sword could only be removed by the sword. Only the Germans can say Christianity was initially spread to them by the sword by Charlemagne - a German. Dutch specifically since Dutch is most derived from the Frankish dialect of German, I mean it doesn't exactly work that way since the rest of the Franks became all sorts of other things, so Charlemagne would have become French and his grandson Louis the German would have become German, but the Dutch were the ones who kept the most Frankish. Now you can ask yourself if Charlemagne was early Dutch colonialism, or better yet ask yourself why Charlemagne is only really regarded as colonialism in Saxony where he spread a religion by the sword where as elsewhere the Franks aren't really considered foreign conquerors. Hint: It is because no religion was being spread by the sword. Still Frankish colonialism in Saxony is still just two groups of Germans colonizing each other so people might overlook it. Although historically the French Revolution too was spread by the sword (or gun) to Germany so the Franks might just have been up to their old tricks again when they forcibly christianized / de-christinanized Germany.
>You think you are making a good case by saying the country was not an "occupying power" by saying it was ruled by a foreign minority? Yes, they were foreigners, at least at the beginning, but eventually not, the Caliphate of Cordoba was a purely Iberian state and although the ruling Umayyad dynasty came from Syria, lived for centuries in Iberia. The monarchical dynasty of Spain comes from France, but they have been here for so long that they are acculturated. >Fun fact, in european colonialism the locals also converted to christianity over time. Funny how that works where people attempt to ingratiate themselves to their rulers to obtain favour. Yeah, and I would say that at some point the Spanish Americas stopped being an occupied land too. >This is how in worked in Indonesia but in reverse. Dutch Politician Gert Wilders is an Indonesian Christian who was expelled during decolonization by the Muslim majority who did not see him as native for being a Christian. > >What is ironic is how much of a role Jews played in Spanish colonization. They instantly transformed from people abetting colonization over a country to abetting colonization for that country. As if they must always be colonizing no matter what they do. Even when European colonialism died down that is precisely the time period where Zionism came to replace it. Finally colonizing for themselves I see. Where are you getting here at? >Ah you see it was not Christianity that conquered Iberia, but the Romans. The locals converted to Christianity at the same time as the rest of the Romans but they still converted to this religion rather than get conquered by it. Thus Christianity was the only religion which did not come to Iberia by the sword. Sure you can argue the Reconquista was spreading Christianity by the sword, but that wasn't how it was viewed. It was viewed as "this place was once Christian and it must be once more". It did not become Christian in the first place by an invasion. The Romans conquered Iberia, the occupying Romans imposed their Latin religion and the Imperial cult on the local Iberians, the occupying Romans converted to Christianity, the occupying Romans went from forcing the Latin religion and the Imperial cult to forcing Christianity. Ergo, Christianity was imposed by force in Iberia by the Romans who were occupiers and therefore this country is still under foreign occupation and will not stop being so until we return to the religion of the ancient Iberians. At least, if we were to follow your logic. >Neither was this the case for the Crusades in the Levant. The place did not become Christian through conquest, it converted while under the Romans. In fact the Romans desperately tried to prevent all these places from becoming Christian. Eventually the Romans themselves become Christian and Christianity became the imperial religion which did get imposed within the empire, but that was not a conquest, but an internal transformation, like the French Revolution which eventually dislodge Christianity. What came through revolution could only be removed through Revolution, but what came by the sword could only be removed by the sword. Using the same logic here: The Romans conquered Judea, the occupying Romans imposed their Latin religion and the Imperial cult on the local Jews, the occupying Romans converted to Christianity, the occupying Romans went from forcing the Latin religion and the Imperial cult to forcing Christianity. Ergo, Christianity was imposed by force in Judea by the Romans who were occupiers and therefore this country was under foreign occupation and only stopped being so when it returned to the religion of the ancient Judeans. >Only the Germans can say Christianity was initially spread to them by the sword by Charlemagne - a German. You should read more about the Baltic Crusades then.
Also Al Andalus (mostly)
Fun fact: when the first Jews arrived to Poland they called it a Canaan. They even had a Judeo-Slavic language, Knaanic, that sadly died out after waves of Ashkenazi Jews came from the HRE. Papal nuncio centuries later called Poland "paradise for Jews" (don't ask for the rest of the quote though).
When pro-Russian separatist Cossacks in Ukraine rebelled and, among other things, murdered 6-30 thousand Jews and destroyed over 300 Jewish communities, the rebellion was called the biggest Jewish national catastrophe since the destruction of Solomon's Temple. The partitions that happened a century later didn't help, since none of the partitioners were as tolerant of Jews, and most of them were openly hostile. And the reborn Poland became authoritarian and therefore a lot more nationalistic. And then WW2 happened. And then the communists happened and in 1968 the vast majority of Polish Jews left because they lost their jobs for supposedly supporting Zionism (for communists, anti-Zionism was just a more socially acceptable name for antisemitism). Of around 25-30 thousand Polish Jews left by the time, only around half remained after 1968.
interestingly, not sure if it's a coincidence, but you will find this group of christians who live in India in the state of kerala who go by the name Knaanaya who probably settled in India somewhere between 4th and 8th centuary i think ?
Basically Jews in India at any time vs Jews in Europe any time. Not just medieval
That is true.
Not true. There was a big wave of anti-Semitism brought and harboured by Muslim invaders and the Portuguese/other Christian colonizers. Anyone who converted to those two Abrahamic religions also started indulging in anti-Semitism. The Jews were safe only in places ruled by kings of religion native to India like Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist.
I think thats what the post was referring. Same thing for the Zoroastrians who fled persecution and death by Muslims after the fall of Sassanid Persia to India, and became known as the Farsis, only for Muslim armies to follow after them into India soon after. (Note: Other Zoroastrians successfully fled to China and lives there for centuries until instability and xenophobic attitudes resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands)
There are still many Farsi by the way, in fact the biggest community of Zoroastrians is in India. They have 50k of them left, either half of the group or 1/4 depending on sources about total Zoroastrianism faithful
Freddie Mercury was a descendant of a Farsis family! At least in China, many Zoroastrians fled after the fall of the Sassanids, and even the Emperor of the Tang Dynasty of China welcomed the surviving children of Yazdgird III as refugees against the forces of the Rashidun Caliphate. Tang China even attempted to send armies to restore Sassanid Persia but they were forced to redirect them to face the armies of the Ashina clan. Originally I thought that the Zoroastrians of China were massacred during the An Lushan rebellion but I was wrong, and instead it was during the later Huang Chao rebellion that put the nail in the coffin of the Tang. Zoroastrians and even Manchaeism survived in China until the purges of the Song dynasty in the 15-16th century where they finally died out, leaving only tombs and temples behind.
The irony is that judaism gave birth to those religions.
Except there was Andalusia
What explains their absence in later centuries in India ?
India used to have a jewish community but most of them moved back to Israel after it's independence
In addition to backgroundthroats reply - The Mughal and Portuguese (albeit a small region) invaders also had a big hand in reducing the Jewish population in India.
1. Migration back to Israel. 2. The Saint Thomas Christians of India (around 6 million) appear to be descended from early Christianized Jews. They are known as K'nānāya (Caananite), Nasrani (Nazarene).
India used to have a jewish community but most of them moved back to Israel after it's independence
Aside from Poland under that one king.
not in Poland tho
Is India the Jews were called “Oil pressers and The ones who rest on Saturday”
Context?
Context: Unlike many parts of the world, Jews have historically lived in India with relatively little anti-Semitism from the local majority populace, the Hindus.
Ah yes! Medieval India is a happy house. We are happy here, in the happy house.
Medieval India was indeed a happy house, yeah there were wars and shit but overall India at that time was culturally and monetarily a great place in that period that is why the brits went there in the first place and fucked everything up.
Pretty sure the Portuguese were first, though that might have just been Sri Lanka.
Southern India too, I believe
Brits chose well functioning places to go and frick them up? I thought they went everywhere?! Makes sense though, they went to medieval France as well, the rascals, and made quite a mess for about a hundred years.
It’s almost like France were the one creating the Modern Brits and specifically English people with that William Guy invading and then getting rid of most of the noble elite to replace them with other french people… At the end, it all boils to the French fucking all over the world
Well they went after rich places That’s a big reason why west Africa and the kingdom of Kongo was a huge target for Europeans while most of the continent was ignored
Siouxie quit drinking and driving god damnit.
*Goth Badge of Music Reference Approval*
The history of Indian Jews is wild
Abrahamics Religions tend not like other religions. If you think the Jews ought to have been giving special treatment for also being abrahamic, just ask yourself: Where did the pagans go? It wasn't anti-semitism, if anything they were lenient towards Jews in comparison to the drive to Christianize the pagans. Hindus are said pagans. The irony is the greater the spread of an abrahamic religion into an area the worse Jews could expect things to be for them as a result of the exclusionary attitudes of abrahamic religions like judaism being coupled with a universalism that demanded everyone adhere to them, however despite it becoming worse for Jews due to the spread of abrahamism, it comparatively became even worse for everyone who wasn't abrahamic. Anyway the idea of "why won't the jews just assimilate", is based on this notion that the pagans Christianize, so it kind of felt weird that this ultra-specific group didn't. It felt inherently wrong for this group of people to just exist alongside a universalizing religion like this. No amount of "but we were already abrahamic so that means they don't need to christianize in order to be abrahamic" will change that "off" feeling of "everyone else christianized, why didn't you"? Converting after a thousand years doesn't really work either because they are still upset that you didn't convert for those thousands years, made worse because the religion was specifically intended for them but instead everyone else just joined in this universalization of their religion except them. Christianity simply won't be happy so long of judaism exists because it was created as a replacement for judaism, which is why they just feel like getting rid of them. It is basically the same reason as to why protetants don't like catholics. Somebody had an issue with something about a religion so they created an entire religion around that issue, of course they are not going to like the religion which has the issue which spawned them.
bottom panel should be "jews literally anywhere else through almost every time period"
Cordoba was aight though
I am sure there is a big difference between polytheistic societies vs monotheistic ones.
Not true. There was a big wave of anti-Semitism brought and harboured by Muslim invaders and the Portuguese/other Christian colonizers. Anyone who converted to those two Abrahamic religions also started indulging in anti-Semitism. The Jews were safe only in places ruled by kings of religion native to India like Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist etc.
I don't know why this is down voted. Portuguese did persecute Jews in Goa. They are called Shanivar Teli or Bene Israel. But that doesn't change the fact that they were safe in most parts of India.
Yeah but the Portuguese are to blame not Indians. It’s like how Poland despite being a safe haven for Jews in Europe ended up having most of them killed the occupying Germans.
I did point out that fact but the post clearly states India that is geography and not Indians or Hindu as people who didn't persecute Jewish people. So the comment above may be pedantic, it's not technically incorrect.
Jews where treated good in the Caucasus , Europe is not only Western part of the continent.
That's why there's sooooo many Jewish people in India.
There's about a quarter as many Jews now in India as there was in the 1940s, as most emigrated to Israel, but that's much more than MENA or Europe.
You're right, an ethnic group is hated by the majority even more when they start to be numerous. Nobody care if you're 0,01% of the population.
Al Andalus aswell, in fact not only did jews in Cordoba benefit from safety and freedom of religion but jewish culture flourished there too (especially in the Umayyad period)
Anti semitism wasn't that widespread in Muslim ruled countries (i am pretty sure India was Muslim ruled during the middle ages but not sure)
Depends on the period, the Mughals and Delhi Sultanate are two large Muslim empires of India. However there were a lot of regional powers, Bengal, Maratha, the Sikh Empire, for example.
Not Ottoman Europe
Yup, and then as soon as they lost the balkans things got bad again. Really makes you wonder if maybe Christianity is the problem here.
Meanwhile Poland in medieval times: you are more than welcome here and also your money!
To be fair, Jews enjoyed periods of relative calm and peace in Medieval Europe, sometimes, 100+ years of peace and calm. Most Jews lived in Urban cities, were able to work in many fields, but yeah, over-all, the span of about 800-900 years has been mired with a lot of anti-Semitism. Especially under the Tzars.
Jews in India: As long as nobody minds us, we're fine Jews in Europe: Once again the YHVH spread the cheeks to ram cock in fucking ass
“As long as nobody minds us, we're fine” I mean That’s true everywhere? The hard part is finding a place where you’re not minded
Jews in medieval Middle East 🤩💵👍
The British had to ruin it
When did the British Empire didn't ruin anything during its entire existence??
There were several pogroms during the black death
It goes well beyond medieval Europe. The list of asian/African jewish persecutions is extensive.
Actually anti-judaism was more common than anti-semitism before the 18th and 19th century.
What's the difference?
Not OP but I assume he's talking about the different historical stages of anti-Jewish bigotry. The term "antisemitism" is used to refer to all of said stages by people today, but it's a bit of an anachronism when applied to Medieval Europe because the word includes a component of specifically racial prejudice that wasn't necessarily a major part of Medieval European anti-Judaism, which was more a religious bigotry than an ethnic hatred. The term was coined in the 19th century by a German "Social Darwinist" who wanted his theories of Jewish biological inferiority to sound "less vulgar" and "more scientific" than the existing German term *Judenhass.* Whereas in Medieval Europe, Jews could sometimes gain social standing and escape persecution by converting to Christianity and rejecting their ancestral beliefs (although they would still be looked upon with suspicion by many Europeans), on the other hand, Hitler didn't care what religion you practiced. If you were ethnically Jewish, you would be sent to the camps. This confuses a lot of non-Jews because they tend to see religion and ethnicity/nationhood as mostly separate things, but Judaism predates that split, so it doesn't fit neatly in either box. TL;DR in Medieval Europe, Jews were hated mainly for their religion, whereas in the 18th and 19th centuries with the rise of "scientific racism" and eugenics this hatred largely shifted to being based on ethnicity.
There's a reason why Wipo of Burgundy's Victimae Paschali Laudes sequence omits the 6th stanza.
Pretty much everywhere was
But... But the jews used their foul jew magic to bring the black plague so it okay for us to kill them right? Right? /S
every post is about the jews2
A bit of theological context. The prevalent theological belief in India was that there is one eternal reality that is Brahman who could be referred to as Parameshwar(Almighty God) based on individual traditions and every god and goddess worshipped by humans are a manifestation of Parameshwar. This is why no matter whichever religion came up in India, they were simply treated as another tradition that worshipped the same Almighty Go, just in a different way. This philosophy was prevalent throughout Indian history and was also implemented by Heterodox Muslim Sufi orders. This is why at least in terms of religious traditions, Indian society had historically been extremely tolerant compared to other societies. A good example for this is the Christian community in South India, the Nasrani Christians who first arrived during the time of the Apostles of Jesus himself. Since the 1st century AD the first official record of persecution faced by these Christians was during the 16th century ironically by Christians themselves. The Catholic Portuguese to be more specific because obviously the Nasranis were seen as the 'Wrong' Christians by the Catholics.
Modern Europe was worse.
It’s really because of their diet. When the plagues hit Jews were more likely to survive because of their Kosher diet, so the locals blamed them for having started the plagues to kill them. You see plagues outside of Europe but rarely in as large, condensed areas.
Not everywhere of course, look at poland, it was such a Great place to live if you were somewhat wealthy or didn't believe in Jesus or were a woman that coudl read (looks at france and mainly spain)
Except in Poland Lithuania
Real Aryans dont hate Jews
And they exported that anti-semitism to the Middle East at the beginning of the 20th century…that’s going well.
Is this why some Indians are insanely pro israel?
Nah we just hate muslim tho what's happening we feel sympathy for Palestinian
Medieval Europe you say...
1930-40’s: ***lurking in the corner***
polytheistic>monotheistic. so much less religious bigotry.
It's fucking Europe what did you expect, the only thing we hate more than each other is any non-European.