Jewish Intellectualism

[LiamO]

(with apologies for last night's ill-thought out thread... which was a pile of pish tbh)

This article was posted on my FB this week by a female Muslim friend. (I don't know what point exactly she was making, although I suspect it was that while she is an avowed opponent of Israeli violence and oppression, she is an admirer of intellect and is also keen to not be seen as anti-Jewish - so this would balance out her frequent posts about the vilification of Muslims and about Israeli brutality).

http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/22/w...azi-jews-so-high-twenty-possible-explanations

The article raises some interesting questions. which I feel are worthy of proper discussion, as to how such a small percentage of the world's population have been/are so prominent in so many fields, especially those of intellectual endeavour. Not least of which would be the whole nature vs nurture debate and the nature of triumph through adversity (how the exclusion of one generation of Jews rippled out positively for future generations).

Some of it is very simplistic. Some profound.

To be clear. My intention is to discuss social phenomena not conspiracy theories. I believe much of the same discussion could take place around the rise of the children of poor 1960's/70's south asian immigrants in Britain to positions of prominence in 'the professions'.

A similar 'takeover' of the professions is in full swing in the north of Ireland - where previously untermensch Catholics are increasingly prevalent in what were once bastions of Unionism. This is what is really driving the Fleg protests IMO.

Thoughts? I will start off with a few below.

 

[LiamO]

At the height of the Reagan/Thatcher years there were a totally disproportionate number of Jewish lawyers and bankers involved at the cutting edge of the most rapacious Capitalist activities - ie all that Gordon Gekko-style aggressive acquisition and merger shit.

Now some would prefer to convince themselves that this is because of an international Jewish conspiracy.

Malcolm Gladwell noted that the field did seem to be dominated by people of Jewish extraction, so he looked into the 'why', as is his wont, and came up with a much more mundane and practical explantion.


Turns out that in the 1930's, when the public education system had produced the first generation of qualified Jewish lawyers in the US, they could not get jobs at any of the WASP, Ivy-League dominated law firms. There was no hiding behind social niceties in those days and the exclusion of applicants based on their antecedence is well documented.

Jewish lawyers tended to work in the fields which the WASPS thought were beneath them - such as merger and acquisition. It was the only avenue open to them.Thus they were uniquely positioned, in fact were the acknowledged experts, in the 80's to take advantage of the sudden vogue of Monetarist machination. Billions were made in that era by the lawyers.


This echoes some of the stuff in this article where the author states that Jews were banned from owning land in many countries. So they had to become proficient in urban/professional/trading/business field instead. Laws/restrictions introduced to hold Jews back were instrumental in their developing alternative skills which benefitted their children in the long run

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

[quote="LiamO, post: 12436066, member: 48534
how such a small percentage of the world's population have been/are so prominent in so many fields, especially those of intellectual endeavour..[/quote]

The reason is because for centuries, Jews were forbidden from carrying out many occupations, so they tended to concentrate in the ones left open to them. Law, medicine etc - they were allowed to do these things.

It's no big mystery.

 

[DotCommunist]

theres a good bit in 'Warrant for genocide' that explains the prominence of jewish people in the professions at that time- fucked if I can give you a page reff though. Best of reading the whole lot, its a belter anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

Is this some sort of joke? Charles Murray? Babylonian Eugenics?

 

[LiamO]

The reason is because for centuries, Jews were forbidden from carrying out many occupations, so they tended to concentrate in the ones left open to them. Law, medicine etc - they were allowed to do these things.

It's no big mystery.

and yet it is a big mystery... or at least multi-faceted. I'm sure there were other oppressed peoples who never responded in anything like the same way, despite centuries of oppression.

so many arrived in Britain and the US penniless.... worked in textiles etc... whose children went on to prominence in foelds where the barriers were set so high against them... in one or two generations

There are many reasons. The article explores/puts forward a few. Would you like to comment

 

[LiamO]

Is this some sort of joke? Charles Murray? Babylonian Eugenics?

no. it's a valid and polite discussion.

If you have something to contribute... something substantive rather than drive-by, snide remarks, do join us. If not, do feel free to toddle off

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and yet it is a big mystery... or at least multi-faceted. I'm sure there were other oppressed peoples who never responded in anything like the same way, despite centuries of oppression.

so many arrived in Britain and the US penniless.... worked in textiles etc... whose children went on to prominence in foelds where the barriers were set so high against them... in one or two generations

There are many reasons. The article explores/puts forward a few. Would you like to comment

My explanation is the correct one.

 

[cdg]

The reason is because for centuries, Jews were forbidden from carrying out many occupations, so they tended to concentrate in the ones left open to them. Law, medicine etc - they were allowed to do these things.

It's no big mystery.

Were Jews allowed to carry out law over their Christian/Muslim countrymen in a time when law and religion went hand in hand? It's a fact that they were forced into being money lenders etc. in christian countries because christians weren't allowed to, but this was hundreds of years ago.

 

[DotCommunist]

this thread is going to get dodgy as fuck before it even reaches 2 pages, mark my words

 

[LiamO]

Why necessarily so, Dotty?

 

[DotCommunist]

because it will.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

"Economic antisemitism" comprises stereotypes and canards based on the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews. It also includes economic behavior, laws and governmental policies targeting the economic status, occupation or economic behavior of Jews. In some cases, the stereotypes and canards have motivated economic behavior and governmental action targeting Jews; in other cases, the economic behavior, laws and/or governmental policies have fed the propagation of the stereotypes and canards.

ie what your friend is trying to promote in a subtle way. Stereotypes and canards.

Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews were subjected to a wide range of legal disabilities and restrictions, some of which lasted until the end of the 19th century. At times, even moneylending and peddling were at times forbidden to them. The number of Jews permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and were not allowed to own land; they were subject to discriminatory taxes on entering cities or districts other than their own and were forced to swear special Jewish Oaths, and they suffered a variety of other measures.
The exclusion of Jews from many trades and craft guilds began following the First Crusade (1096–1099).[66] The exclusion often came at the urging of clergy and local guild members, state and local governments.[67] Jews were excluded in certain places from certain crafts (excluded by the craft guilds), in certain trades, and - indirectly - agriculture due to bans on land-ownership; these exclusions led Jews of often engage in peddling, second-hand goods, pawnbroking, and moneylending.[68][69][70] In Southern Europe, Christian competitors of Jews in several occupations - including the moneylending occupation - asked their country's leaders to expel Jews, in order to reduce competition.[69]
The result of these occupational restrictions was to push Jews into marginal roles considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, occupations only tolerated as a "necessary evil". Although Jews had not been particularly associated with moneylending in antiquity, a stereotype of them acting in this capacity was developed beginning in the 11th century. Jonathan Frankel notes that this stereotype, though obviously an exaggeration, had a solid basis in reality. While not all Jews were moneylenders, it does seem to have been true that Jews were disproportionately represented in the trade.[71]
Catholic doctrine at the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and it was an occupation forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews made this business their own, despite possible criticism of usury in the Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, this led to many negative stereotypes of Jews as insolent, greedy usurers and the understandable tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) added to social, political, religious, and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could see them as personally taking their money while unaware of those on whose behalf these Jews worked.[citation needed]
Howard Sachar writes that the occupations that were left for Jews to engage in were often the occupations that Christians disdained, such as peddling, hawking and moneylending, and he estimates that three fourths of Jews in Central and Western Europe were occupied in these occupations in the 18th century.[67] Sachar states that "n their [Jews] struggle for livelihood, they generated a sizable underclass of beggars, fencers, pimps, even robbers, thereby creating a self-fulfilling gentile scenario of Jews, one that would endlessly invoked by Jew-haters throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."[67] Similarly, Todeschini writes that the perception of Jews as dishonest and immoral became a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the exclusion from other professions forced them to engage in moneylending and other marginal professions that were regarded as unethical.[72]

One reason that Christians permitted Jews to engage in moneylending, even though it was considered a sinful activity, was because Jews were already considered to be damned, and so they may as well commit the sin of usury, thus saving the souls of Christians that would otherwise be forced to lend money.[77][78] Dimont compares this transfer of sinful behavior to the Jewish practice of Sabbath Goy, whereby Jews have non-Jews perform prohibited tasks on the sabbath.[79]

Moneylending became an important occupation for Jews, beginning in the early Middle Ages, and continuing into the modern era. Moneylending was first noted as a significant occupation in the 9th century, and in the 10th century, some Jews were large scale financiers.[66] This prevalence in the field of moneylending has led to scholarly debate which considered the question of why Jews gravitated towards money-related occupations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Historical_development

 

[LiamO]

because it will.

a little 'determinist' for a man of your intellectual vigour, no?

 

[butchersapron]

no. it's a valid and polite discussion.

If you have something to contribute... something substantive rather than drive-by, snide remarks, do join us. If not, do feel free to toddle off

Drive by remarks? I noted two glaringly dodgy points in the awful article that you've asked us to read 1) reliance on the noted racist Charles Murray 2) Laughable historical suggestions that ignore the entire 2000+ years of Jewish history, emigration and so on. I didn't even bother with the problems with the very concept of IQ. Neither of them points did you respond to.

 

[DotCommunist]

a little 'determinist' for a man of your intellectual vigour, no?

I've just seen how these ones always go.

 

[LiamO]

ie what your friend is trying to promote in a subtle way. Stereotypes and canards.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Historical_development

Only problem with your mind-reading Mystic Meg is that the article is obviously written by a Jewish person - albeit one who is heavy on 'blood-line' and genetics and a little lightweight on explanation. eg the 'Jews have better cleanliness' schtick


e2a in fact a little lightweight on the intellectualism he is crowing about.... maybe he is sephardic

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Were Jews allowed to carry out law over their Christian/Muslim countrymen in a time when law and religion went hand in hand? It's a fact that they were forced into being money lenders etc. in christian countries because christians weren't allowed to, but this was hundreds of years ago.

If you read the quote I cited, it lasted in some instances into the 19th century.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

edit

 

[cdg]

If you read the quote I cited, it lasted in some instances into the 19th century.

I've done my fair share of reading on persecution of Jews and it lasted much longer than the 19th century, and probably still continues, just not in law.

 

[youngian]

No socio-economic analysis or little comment of the sort of people that give up everything to sail across the Atlantic in a tub.

 

[LiamO]

Drive by remarks? I noted two glaringly dodgy points in the awful article that you've asked us to read 1) reliance on the noted racist Charles Murray 2) Laughable historical suggestions that ignore the entire 2000+ years of Jewish history, emigration and so on. I didn't even bother with the problems with the very concept of IQ. Neither of them points did you respond to.

You see. You can write in English. Now I know what the fuck you were on about.

Yes. I agree. There is some dodgy old shite in the article. There is also some stuff worth discussing IMO.

For example, he thinks that the blood-line (nature) is a defining characteristic whereas I would might suggest that a culture of intellectualism within a family would be far more important.

The points about the intellectual dialectic/questioning of everything in Jewish religious exploration is also interesting, especially if you contrast that with the question nothing/ conform to,accept everything/obedience is king nature of other Churches... notably Catholicism and some forms of Islam.

 

[seventh bullet]

So, Liam is starting provocative threads about Jews because Casually Red got banned.

 

[butchersapron]

You see. You can write in English. Now I know what the fuck you were on about.

Yes. I agree. There is some dodgy old shite in the article. There is also some stuff worth discussing IMO.

For example, he thinks that the blood-line (nature) is a defining characteristic whereas I would might suggest that a culture of intellectualism within a family would be far more important.

The points about the intellectual dialectic/questioning of everything in Jewish religious exploration is also interesting, especially if you contrast that with the question nothing/ conform to,accept everything/obedience is king nature of other Churches... notably Catholicism and some forms of Islam.

My first post was in english. It said the exact same as my second one.

 

[LiamO]

I've just seen how these ones always go.

A bit Catholic, that. Are you not a free-thinker. Can you not determine your own destiny? Our hero Martin would be disappointed.

 

[LiamO]

So, Liam is starting provocative threads about Jews because Casually Red got banned.

He got banned? Must be recent. For what?

 

[ferrelhadley]

The article raises some interesting questions. which I feel are worthy of proper discussion, as to how such a small percentage of the world's population have been/are so prominent in so many fields, especially those of intellectual endeavour.

You could make the same claim for any group of West Europeans over the past 500 years. I have seen it put forward for both the Scots and the Irish for example.

 

[LiamO]

My first post was in english. It said the exact same as my second one.

except the second one had lots more words/explanation in it... which was appreciated and I share your views about much of the genetic stuff in yer man's article.

 

[Belushi]

Most Jews aren't prominent Lawyers or thinkers or Business People and never have been. Historically the vast majority of European Jewry were poor farmers and agricultural workers.

 

[kittyP]

So, Liam is starting provocative threads about Jews because Casually Red got banned.

What did he do to get banned?