48 replies to this topic

[fireball]

Well we've mostly been looking at the situation purely in the 20th-21st century industrial country view. None of the previous posters even touched on the fact that the majority of the population of Europe during medieval times had no use for money. Many were tied to the land through the feudal system, while others were simply subsistent farmers. What sort of education were they expected to have when they exist in this type of society?

But I'll agree with you in the modern world that with education and access to an industrial country it's very easy to make money.

At any rate I'm more interested in looking at it more seriously than saying they worked hard and saved money. That's really not difficult to figure out. Unless someone inherits their wealth it's really tough to gain wealth through laying around and being lazy. Well, for most of us anyway hehe. I'm more interested in how their situation truly was. Did all Jews develop the same way? The Italian cities would be a very different environment from the German lands. The Italian cities were much more heavily involved in trade and commerce, while the German lands would be mostly tied to the feudal system until later.

The banning of Jews from many honorable professions and forced them to live in certain areas did not happen in all the countries at the same time. When one country persecuted Jews too much, they packed up and left and went to another place who might welcome them. I remember many Jews packed up and left Spain when the Spanish Inquisition started and they went to England because the English kings (like Henry VIII and his father, I forgot his name) and queen (Elizabeth the first) had a lot of debts and needed to borrow money from someone, anyone, even Jews! Many of Shakespeare’s plays had Jewish characters in it because of the Jewish presence in the English society. Many of the English nobles owed great sums of money to these Jews, and these nobles did not like Jews, so Shakespeare wrote stories of these greedy Jewish money lenders who got their just deserve to please the English nobles who were his major patrons (money do determine the direction of art ).

Some Jews went to Muslim countries like the Ottoman Empire because these countries were more tolerate of Jews and allow Jews to practice their religion without too much trouble for long periods of time. In addition, many of the Muslim countries at the time were under different rulers and fought against each other a lot, so different cities had different policies about Jews. For hundreds of years, Jews were able to live in Muslim countries with pretty equal status as other Muslim citizens. Many Muslim rulers depended on Jews to communicate and trade with the Christian countries.

In addition, the Jews could not engage in the honorable professions, but they might not be banned in the not so honorable ones or from having their own businesses. They just needed to go back to their own part of town at night. During the worst persecutions, they could have their businesses in the Jewish town, and some non-Jews traveled there to buy things or find services from the Jews or got the Jews to bring their goods or services to the non-Jews' homes. I remember reading in the Merchant of Venice that the Jewish money lender went to his client's home (or was it the other way around)? Anyway, the Jewish merchants and money lenders generally lived in the city and served people who had money to spend (or at least the Jewry to spend). Any farm lands or lands were too easily taken away from the Jews and could not be sold quickly so that they could pack up and leave, so I don't think Jews owned too much land until close to more modern days. It was not that the Jews would not own lands or farm lands -- They needed to live somewhere anyway, and Real Estates are/were always very good investment in any era. I just don't think they owned lands or dealt with lands too much beyond being middlemen or for their own use. Anyway, the Jews could be barbers or bakers or tailors or trash collectors without too much trouble, I believe, even in the Christian countries. They could also be maids and servants for some rich men and ladies. Most of the Jews would have better education than most of their Christian counterparts due to the Jewish traditions of valuing education and knowledge. Therefore, Jews could work as secretaries, accountants, administrators for large land owners, etc. I think I read about Jewish secretaries in some records about the medieval time. The Jews would know a few European languages as well as a few languages from the Muslim world due to their people's wide travel and settlements. Many of the Jews would be learning different languages in order to communicate with their far away cousins and business contacts.

I don't think Jews from every city developed the same ways due to different environments. However, due to their wide travels, many of their cultures mingled from time to time more so than their contemporary non-Jews. There were also many famous Jewish Rabbis all throughout the ages, and Jewish young men came from all over the world to study with these great Rabbis, so there got to be the mingling of cultures.

Btw, you would be surprised how much knowledge these farm societies generated in the old time. Besides, the rulers always had money, and the Jews knew how to make money from the rulers, nobles, and rich land owners. Wealth did not just mean the actual money. Silk, spices, Jewries could all be considered wealth, and people do trade them with gold and silver money. Even the farm products of great quantities collected from a lot of farmers could be traded for other more valuable items, like spices or cloths. Even the spice merchants needed to eat. In addition, the Jews were not limited in just the farm societies, and they were generally not the tenant farmers. They were like the Gypsies in Europe and not really tied down by the local land owners and their farms. They traveled much more than their contemporary non-Jews.

My husband mentioned something that I had touched on a little bit before. I mentioned Jews are smart. Actually, this statement is associated with my later statements about Jews are sensitive about their environments and any information around them. My husband, XL5, said (and he will join in later if he has time) that smart is only 15-20% from genes and the rest is from the environment and culture. I agree with him. What we mean (at least, what I mean) is that the Jewish culture and environment made a lot of Jews to be alert for any slight changes in the environments around them. Any information that could be neglected by other non-Jews is/was very much noticed by the Jews. The Jews also think outside of the box and look at problems in various different angles. They would also pounce on any opportunities that came their way because those came their way rarely. They learned to be able to communicate with variety of people because their environment forced them to do so to survive. They were continuously persecuted and had to start from scratch all the time, so they learned to be flexible in order to survive. They also had to be detailed and well organized in order to utilize their limited resources to recover their wealth quickly and efficiently every time they got robbed of their wealth by jealous local nobles or kings or churches.

Actually, all these traits could be learned, and I have noticed that many other ethnic groups that are/were known for being great merchants all showed some or all of these culture traits: for example, the Wu Chinese, the Chow Zhou Chinese, the great merchant princes of Venice, and the Persians.

A lot of Wu Chinese I met (including my own family members) are very much into how to do things efficiently with the minimum effort for the greatest results. Even the maids and the hotel cleaning women in Shanghai and Zhejiang are the same. They mentioned to me how they do things in certain ways because it is more efficient and logical to achieve the best results. My farmer cousins’ wives who had no or minimum education (a few years of elementary school or no schooling at all) and lived their whole lives in the farmlands around Hangzhou (but barely leave their home for more than 10 miles even to go to Hangzhou) said the same things to me. My husband and his family members as well as Jewish friends are the same. They are very detailed and methodological when they approach any problem or do anything. They would try to find an efficient way to do it so that they would get the best results with the least effort and resources.

My dad’s Wenzhou tong xiang (people from the same town) would take advantages of any opportunities that come their ways or even the opportunities that come to the people around them. For example, one of my god sisters’ father (who was also from Wenzhou) would make sure he came over to my house about 20 minutes (the minimum respectable time to visit a friend from any meal time) before our dinner time. If you know the traditional Chinese culture, you would know it would take at least 20 minutes for the initial greetings and to ask for each other’s health, etc. Then, he saw our dinner was ready, and my parents had not invited him to stay for dinner. He would say something like, “Oh. You just go ahead to have dinner, I will sit here and wait for you.” Then, my mom had to invite him to stay for dinner. After he sat down, he would say something like, “How about open that nice Western liquor (brandy or whisky from my dad’s rich clients or friends) you have over there to let me, such a country bumpkin, open my eyes.” He loved his liquor!

I heard when his children (he got 6) were younger; he usually took all of them with him to dinner at someone else’s homes without invitation. After they were grown (in their teenage years), he advised them to get many god fathers and god mothers (those are actually blood fathers or blood mothers like blood brothers, but that sounded too weird, so I always use the equivalent Western terms of god parents) so that they could all split up to go to those god parents’ homes for free dinners in order not to scare the heck out of some poor family when 5 strapping young men and 1 young woman (who eat like a young man) showed up for free dinner.

There was a joke about the Wenzhou people: If a Martian landed on earth, the Wenzhou people would invite him to come home to have dinner with them. During the dinner, the Wenzhou person would ask the Martian, “What are the business opportunities on Mars? What are the things Martians like that we have here? Could you introduce me to any key people on Mars if I go over there to do business?” That is what I meant about pouncing on the opportunities.

I am not saying Jews would necessarily take advantage of others like my god sister's father. Uncle Wang was a typical Wenzhou person with the fine tradition of pirates and mountain bandits. The Jews would be a lot different from the Wenzhou people in that aspect. However, I noticed my Jewish CEO from my previous company was able to get large business contracts from the oddest places every time after he went for a Jewish function. I am not sure how he did it, but ...

Edited by fireball, 30 December 2007 - 12:00 PM.

[One time poster]

I see, so it was a variety of factors including cultural values and circumstances.

Do you think that because Europe was basically overrun by "barbarians" (sorry for lack of a better term) and many things that were learned by the Greeks, Romans and Middle Easterners were either lost or never learned by these newer cultures so the Jews filled a niche that Europeans themselves were not able to fill because they lacked the resources to fulfill? In other words, looking at it from a more modern perspective, were Jews able to fill a job where Europeans were lacking in qualified personel? As far as I know Europeans in the middle ages were not very enthusiastic about education. They considered it to be feminine. Their cultures, at least in the beginning, had higher regards for martial abilities. Besides, a large number of people were tied to the land. They're not likely to have a chance for education or commerce.

Given that Europeans cut off contact with the Middle East, and thus lucrative trade with other parts of Asia do you think that this also gave Jews an opportunity to fill in the gap that Europeans themselves managed to create because of their conflict with the Middle Eastern areas?

And one more question. How do you compare the Jewish situation as compared to other historically (and presently) persecuted peoples who migrated far from their homelands such as the Roma (also known as Gypsies) and the Hmongs (also known as the Meo or Miao)? These two ethnic groups have historically been persecuted and their current situation is not much better. During the Holocaust many Romas were also killed alongside the Jews. Even to this day in Central and Eastern Europe Romas are treated as second class citizens without many of the rights that other groups have. They generally live in squalid conditions as compared to other groups in many Central and Eastern European countries, including many countries who are currently EU members. Likewise the Hmongs throughout history have been persecuted by various peoples including the Chinese and currently the Lao PDR government.

Sorry for so many questions, but given that so many are enthusiastic and seem intimately tied to this subject I figured I'd take the chance to learn more.

[kaiselin]

I see, so it was a variety of factors including cultural values and circumstances.

Do you think that because Europe was basically overrun by "barbarians" (sorry for lack of a better term) and many things that were learned by the Greeks, Romans and Middle Easterners were either lost or never learned by these newer cultures so the Jews filled a niche that Europeans themselves were not able to fill because they lacked the resources to fulfill? In other words, looking at it from a more modern perspective, were Jews able to fill a job where Europeans were lacking in qualified personel? As far as I know Europeans in the middle ages were not very enthusiastic about education. They considered it to be feminine. Their cultures, at least in the beginning, had higher regards for martial abilities. Besides, a large number of people were tied to the land. They're not likely to have a chance for education or commerce.

Given that Europeans cut off contact with the Middle East, and thus lucrative trade with other parts of Asia do you think that this also gave Jews an opportunity to fill in the gap that Europeans themselves managed to create because of their conflict with the Middle Eastern areas?

And one more question. How do you compare the Jewish situation as compared to other historically (and presently) persecuted peoples who migrated far from their homelands such as the Roma (also known as Gypsies) and the Hmongs (also known as the Meo or Miao)? These two ethnic groups have historically been persecuted and their current situation is not much better. During the Holocaust many Romas were also killed alongside the Jews. Even to this day in Central and Eastern Europe Romas are treated as second class citizens without many of the rights that other groups have. They generally live in squalid conditions as compared to other groups in many Central and Eastern European countries, including many countries who are currently EU members. Likewise the Hmongs throughout history have been persecuted by various peoples including the Chinese and currently the Lao PDR government.

Sorry for so many questions, but given that so many are enthusiastic and seem intimately tied to this subject I figured I'd take the chance to learn more.

You bring up a very interesting point that I never really thought about enough to compare.
The Roma /Gypsies were persecuted and were targeted to be eliminated just like the Jews were in WWII.

After the war when the Allies were doling out other peoples lands and reforming countries boundaries to fit their(Allies) own needs rather then the citizens of the areas in question, why did the Jews get Israel and the gypsies get nothing?

Was it because the Jews had always wanted their homeland and the Gypsies had long ago given up the a dream of having an homeland and accepted the life of a traveler that they were not given a homeland too?

or

Was it that the Gypsies , being a loosely knit independent group were not as unified when this was happening,

Or

Was it because so many more of them were wiped out ( because they originally were a smaller population that there were not as many to speak up after.

Or

Does the fact that they did not get offered a homeland show an even deeper hate or distrust for then there was for the Jews among the Allied countries?

(Wouldn't that have been a way for the rest of Europe to rid themselves of the bother of Gypsies to have offered them a land of their own?)
Or were the Allies even more leery of giving the Gypsies any power base at all?

Please do not construe this as being either anti semitic or anti Gypsy, I am just making an observation.
I am not that well versed in the small details in the aftermath of WWII.
Maybe there was some sort of offer that the Gypsies refused. I just have never heard of any sort of reparations made to them.

[fireball]

I see, so it was a variety of factors including cultural values and circumstances.

Do you think that because Europe was basically overrun by "barbarians" (sorry for lack of a better term) and many things that were learned by the Greeks, Romans and Middle Easterners were either lost or never learned by these newer cultures so the Jews filled a niche that Europeans themselves were not able to fill because they lacked the resources to fulfill? In other words, looking at it from a more modern perspective, were Jews able to fill a job where Europeans were lacking in qualified personel? As far as I know Europeans in the middle ages were not very enthusiastic about education. They considered it to be feminine. Their cultures, at least in the beginning, had higher regards for martial abilities. Besides, a large number of people were tied to the land. They're not likely to have a chance for education or commerce.

Given that Europeans cut off contact with the Middle East, and thus lucrative trade with other parts of Asia do you think that this also gave Jews an opportunity to fill in the gap that Europeans themselves managed to create because of their conflict with the Middle Eastern areas?

And one more question. How do you compare the Jewish situation as compared to other historically (and presently) persecuted peoples who migrated far from their homelands such as the Roma (also known as Gypsies) and the Hmongs (also known as the Meo or Miao)? These two ethnic groups have historically been persecuted and their current situation is not much better. During the Holocaust many Romas were also killed alongside the Jews. Even to this day in Central and Eastern Europe Romas are treated as second class citizens without many of the rights that other groups have. They generally live in squalid conditions as compared to other groups in many Central and Eastern European countries, including many countries who are currently EU members. Likewise the Hmongs throughout history have been persecuted by various peoples including the Chinese and currently the Lao PDR government.

Sorry for so many questions, but given that so many are enthusiastic and seem intimately tied to this subject I figured I'd take the chance to learn more.

No problem. I remember there is a saying, "Questioning is the mother of knowledge" or something like that.

Yes, Jews filled a niche in Europe as well as Middle East during the Medieval time. The Muslims were greatly persecuted in Europe being the heathens, so they couldn't trade with the Christian countries directly. The Christians were also afraid of going to the Muslim countries because the Muslims loved to have Christian slaves. Therefore, the Jews could be excellent middlemen between the Christians and the Muslims.

The Europeans were not educated by and large even the nobles, so the educated Jews were valued as well as the Christian priests. If a ruler or a powerful man had dealings that he did not want the church to know, wouldn't he use a Jewish secretary rather than a Christian priest in his dealings? In addition, in the Bible, Christians are not supposed to loan their money to other Christians and charge an interest, so very few people in Christian countries wanted to loan their money out to others -- there was no profits to be had. Thus, the Jewish bankers came into play because they could willingly and gladly charge a nice interest to loan great sum of money to those cash poor kings and rulers.

They are very similar in many ways. However, I think both Gypsies and Hmongs do not value education as much as the Jews, so they are trapped in poverties while Jews rised up from the poverty level. In order for Gypsies and Hmongs to get out of their current situations, they must change and value education and try to send all of their talented people to higher educations and not just a few of their sons. I heard a lot of Hmong girls as well as Gypsy girls are intelligent and wanting to go to schools and higher educations, but their parents do not allow them to go. Instead, the parents forced these girls to get marry early and trapped them into the life of lowly educated wives only for birthing children and keeping homes for their husbands. I read about these around late 1980's and early 1990's. I hope the situation is improved now.

[yarovit]

The Muslims were greatly persecuted in Europe being the heathens, so they couldn't trade with the Christian countries directly.

Example?

[One time poster]

They are very similar in many ways. However, I think both Gypsies and Hmongs do not value education as much as the Jews, so they are trapped in poverties while Jews rised up from the poverty level. In order for Gypsies and Hmongs to get out of their current situations, they must change and value education and try to send all of their talented people to higher educations and not just a few of their sons. I heard a lot of Hmong girls as well as Gypsy girls are intelligent and wanting to go to schools and higher educations, but their parents do not allow them to go. Instead, the parents forced these girls to get marry early and trapped them into the life of lowly educated wives only for birthing children and keeping homes for their husbands. I read about these around late 1980's and early 1990's. I hope the situation is improved now.

I am not as familiar with the Romas as I am with the situation of the Hmong. To make things short the situation is much more complex for the Hmongs. I don't think telling them to get better education shows much of an understanding of their plight. That is similar to Marie Antoinette telling the rabble to eat cake when they had no bread.

However I'd still like to understand the history of the Jewish situation better from our forumers. Any chance you'd chip in Yarovit? I know you're pretty academic and you're quite well versed about history from this region of the world.

[fireball]

Example?

In various parts of Europe from 1000 A.D. to 1800 A.D., even a fellow Christian from a different denomination could get into trouble. I have read about Spanish and Italian inquisitors made a point to torture and burn the passing by Protestants they captured. I believe the Spanish liked to make some of the Protestants into galley or mining slaves after torturing them and trying to convert them into the Catholic religion. France had a great massecre that killed a lot of Protestants, and the French king also attacked his own vassal who believed in a heretic Christian sect and burned everyone in that sect in Southern France. The Bristish Queen, Bloody Mary (Queen Elizabeth I's elder sister), burned and killed many English Protestants and gained her nick name. Those were just a few of the more bloody and noted historical facts.

Spain was occupied by the Moors for 7 centuries, and the Spanish spent a few hundred years to get rid of them and were blood enemies with the Moors (Muslims of mixed Berber and Arab people). The Italians and Spanish had been trying to go past the Ottoman Empire to get to China for silk and tea for years, and both sides had a lot of wars and were enemy states. The captured soldiers at both sides were either killed or made into slaves. Any people who were unlucky enough to be on the boat of one and got caught by the people of the other would become prisoners for ransom if they were lucky. If they were unlucky, they were either killed or sold as slaves. Only Jews had a bit of leave way from both sides because of their religion -- just a bit. However, if the Jews had cousins who were rich or powerful in the cities of the people who captured them, they would get off easy. And Jews frequently had cousins or friends who were rich or powerful in those cities. In addition, after the fall of Jerusalem, many Jews made it a practice to buy back the freedom of any other Jews who were captured or made into slaves. I think it was also written in the old Testiment Bible and the Jewish Torah as one of the good deeds to perform for Jews. Thus, Jews could travel both ways with very little risk. I suspect the Jews would have their own ships and flags that both Christian and Muslim navies and pirates would not attack.

[XL5]

You bring up a very interesting point that I never really thought about enough to compare.
The Roma /Gypsies were persecuted and were targeted to be eliminated just like the Jews were in WWII.

After the war when the Allies were doling out other peoples lands and reforming countries boundaries to fit their(Allies) own needs rather then the citizens of the areas in question, why did the Jews get Israel and the gypsies get nothing?

Was it because the Jews had always wanted their homeland and the Gypsies had long ago given up the a dream of having an homeland and accepted the life of a traveler that they were not given a homeland too?

or

Was it that the Gypsies , being a loosely knit independent group were not as unified when this was happening,

Or

Was it because so many more of them were wiped out ( because they originally were a smaller population that there were not as many to speak up after.

Or

Does the fact that they did not get offered a homeland show an even deeper hate or distrust for then there was for the Jews among the Allied countries?

(Wouldn't that have been a way for the rest of Europe to rid themselves of the bother of Gypsies to have offered them a land of their own?)
Or were the Allies even more leery of giving the Gypsies any power base at all?

Please do not construe this as being either anti semitic or anti Gypsy, I am just making an observation.
I am not that well versed in the small details in the aftermath of WWII.
Maybe there was some sort of offer that the Gypsies refused. I just have never heard of any sort of reparations made to them.

Kaiselin, the questions you pose frame the perspective almost as if one intelligence and one decision could be taken into account: why did the Jewish people get a homeland and not the Gypsies? If one searches the web for the words: Israel and timeline, and you will see many author's perspectives on the events leading to the creation of the state of Israel. And, of course, these chronologies all make no distinction between the latter and the Arab/Israeli conflict. So you must dive into that conflict to understand where the Gypsies were in all this. Answer: They weren't even on the radar, politically speaking. That is, the Jewish emigration into Palestine presented a far more pressing problem.

Let's review some chronologies concerning the creation of the state of Israel. Strap your seat belts on, and please, take everything you read with a grain of salt. There is a lot of historical blurring between fact and fiction...

=================================================================

First, an American point of view, from: http://www.trumanlib...el/palestin.htm

Compiled by Raymond H. Geselbracht from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport, Connecticut, 1997) by Michael T. Benson

May 17, 1939: British White Paper on Palestine

May 25, 1939: Senator Harry S. Truman inserts in the Congressional Record strong criticism of the British White Paper on Palestine, saying it is a dishonorable repudiation by Britain of her obligations.

August 24, 1945: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Near East Agency, writes to Secretary of State James Byrnes that the United States would lose its moral prestige in the Middle East if it supported Jewish aspirations in Palestine.

August 24, 1945: The report of the Intergovernment Committee on Refugees, called the Harrison Report, is presented to President Truman. The report is very critical of the treatment by Allied forces of refugees, particularly Jewish refugees, in Germany.

August 31, 1945: President Truman writes British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, citing the Harrison Report and urging Attlee to allow a reasonable number of Europe's Jews to emigrate to Palestine.

October 22, 1945: Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Robert Taft of Ohio introduce a resolution expressing support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

November 13, 1945: The British government announces the formation of an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to investigate Britain's handling of the Palestine situation. The committee begins work on January 4, 1946.

November 29, 1945: At a press conference, President Truman expresses opposition to the Taft-Wagner resolution. He says he wants to await and consider the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.

April 20, 1946: The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry submits its report, which recommends that Britain immediately authorize the admission of 100,000 Jews into Palestine.

May 8, 1946: President Truman writes to Prime Minister Attlee, citing the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and expressing the hope that Britain would begin lifting the barriers to Jewish immigration to Palestine.

June 21, 1946: A Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum to the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee warns that if the United States uses armed force to support the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the Soviet Union might be able to increase its power and influence in the Middle East, and United States access to Middle East oil could be jeopardized.

September 24, 1946: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to the President to warn that the Soviet Union wishes to achieve complete economic, military and political domination in the Middle East. Toward this end, Clifford argues, they will encourage the emigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine and at the same time denounce British and American policies toward Palestine and inflame the Arabs against these policies.

October 4, 1946: On the eve of Yom Kippur, President Truman issues a statement indicating United States support for the creation of a "viable Jewish state."

October 23, 1946: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Near East Agency, warns that the immigration of Jewish Communists into Palestine will increase Soviet influence there.

October 28, 1946: President Truman writes to King Saud of Saudi Arabia, informing the king that he believes "that a national home for the Jewish people should be established in Palestine."

1947-48: The White House receives 48,600 telegrams, 790,575 cards, and 81,200 other pieces of mail on the subject of Palestine.

February 7, 1947: The British government announces that it will terminate its mandate for Palestine.

February 14, 1947: The British government announces that it will refer the problem of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.

April 2, 1947: The British Government submits to the General Assembly of the United Nations an account of its administration of Palestine under the League of Nations mandate, and asks the General Assembly to make recommendations regarding the future government of Palestine.

May 13, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly appoints an eleven nation Special Committee on Palestine to study the Palestine problem and report by September 1947.

August 31, 1947: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine issues its report, which recommends unanimously (all 11 member states voting in favor) that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date; and which also recommends by majority vote (7 of the member nations voting in favor) that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states.

September 17, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall, in an address to the United Nations, indicates that the United States is reluctant to endorse the partition of Palestine.

September 22, 1947: Loy Henderson, director the State Department's Near East Agency, addresses a memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall in which he argues against United States' advocacy of the United Nations proposal to partition Palestine.

October 10, 1947: The Joint Chiefs of Staff argue in a memorandum entitled "The Problem of Palestine" that the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states would enable the Soviet Union to replace the United States and Great Britain in the region and would endanger United States access to Middle East oil.

October 11, 1947: Herschel Johnson, United States deputy representative on the United Nations Security Council, announces United States support for the partition plan of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine.

October 17, 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: "I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter [the issue of the partition of Palestine, which was being considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine from May 13, 1947 to August 31, 1947] was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it -- I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with."

Ca. November 1947: A subcommittee of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine establishes a timetable for British withdrawal from Palestine.

November 19, 1947: Chaim Weizmann meets with President Truman and argues that the Negev region has great importance to the future Jewish state.

November 24, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall writes to Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett to inform him that British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin had told him that British intelligence indicated that Jewish groups moving illegally from the Balkan states to Palestine included many Communists.

November 29, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly approves the partition plan for Palestine put forward by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem.

December 2, 1947: President Truman writes to former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., encouraging him to tell his Jewish friends that it is time for restraint and caution. "The vote in the U.N.," Truman wrote, "is only the beginning and the Jews must now display tolerance and consideration for the other people in Palestine with whom they will necessarily have to be neighbors."

December 5, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the State Department is imposing an embargo on all shipments of arms to the Middle East.

December 12, 1947: President Truman writes to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, that it is essential that restraint and tolerance be exercised by all parties if a peaceful settlement is to be reached in the Middle East.

February 4, 1948: Chaim Wiezmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, arrives in New York.

February 12, 1948: Secretary of Defense James Forrestal says at a meeting of the National Security Council that any serious attempt to implement partition in Palestine would set in motion events that would result in at least a partial mobilization of United States armed forces.

February 19, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall says at a press conference, when asked if the United States would continue to support partition, that the "whole Palestine thing," was under "constant consideration."

February 21, 1948: Eddie Jacobson, a longtime and close personal friend of President Truman, sends atelegram to Truman, asking him to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

February 22, 1948: President Truman instructs Secretary of State George Marshall that while he approves in principle a draft prepared by the State Department of a position paper which mentions as a possible contingency a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine, he does not want anything presented to the United Nations Security Council that could be interpreted as a change from the position in favor of partition that the United States announced in the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. He further instructs Marshall to send him for review the final draft of the remarks that Warren Austin, the United States representative to the United Nations, is to give before the Security Council on March 19, 1948.

February 27, 1948: President Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

March 8, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to President Truman, in a memorandum entitled "United States Policy with Regard to Palestine," that Truman's actions in support of partition are "in complete conformity with the settled policy of the United States."

March 9, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall instructs Warren Austin, United States representative to the United Nations, that if a United Nations special assembly on Palestine were convened, the United States would support a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine.

March 12, 1948: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reports that "present indications point to the inescapable conclusion that when the [British] mandate is terminated, Palestine is likely to suffer severely from administrative chaos and widespread strife and bloodshed."

March 13, 1948: President Truman's friend Eddie Jacobson walks into the White House without an appointment and pleads with Truman to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman responds: "You win, you baldheaded son-of-a-bitch. I will see him."

March 18, 1948: President Truman meets with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman says he wishes to see justice done in Palestine without bloodshed, and that if the Jewish state were declared and the United Nations remained stalled in its attempt to establish a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, the United States would recognize the new state immediately.

March 18, 1948: The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine reports to the United Nations Security Council that it has failed to arrange any compromise between Jews and Arabs, and it recommends that the United Nations undertake a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

March 19, 1948: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin announces to the United Nations Security Council that the United States position is that the partition of Palestine is no longer a viable option.

March 20, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the United States will seek to work within the United Nations to bring a peaceful settlement to Palestine, and that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.

March 21, 1948: President Truman writes in his diary regarding the confusion caused by the State Department's handling of the trusteeship issue: "I spend the day trying to right what has happened. No luck. Marshall makes a statement. Doesn't help a bit."

March 21, 1948: President Truman writes to his sister Mary Jane Truman that the "striped pants conspirators" in the State Department had "completely balled up the Palestine situation." But, he writes, "it may work out anyway in spite of them."

March 22, 1948: President Truman writes to his brother Vivian Truman regarding Palestine: "I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."

March 25, 1948: President Truman says at a press conference that a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine would be only a temporary measure, intended to establish the peaceful conditions that would be the essential foundation for a final political settlement. He says that trusteeship is not a substitute for partition.

April 11, 1948: President Truman's friend Eddie Jacobson enters the White House unnoticed by the East Gate and meets with Truman. Jacobson recorded of this meeting: "He reaffirmed, very strongly, the promises he had made to Dr. Weizmann and to me; and he gave me permission to tell Dr. Weizmann so, which I did. It was at this meeting that I also discussed with the President the vital matter of recognizing the new state, and to this he agreed with a whole heart."

May 12, 1948: President Truman meets in the Oval Office with Secretary of State George Marshall, Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett, Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and several others to discuss the Palestine situation. Clifford argues in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state in accordance with the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947. Marshall opposes Clifford's arguments, and contends they are based on domestic political considerations. He says that if Truman follows Clifford's advice and recognizes the Jewish state, then he (Marshall) would vote against Truman in the election. Truman does not clearly state his views in the meeting.

May 12, 13, and 14, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett discuss the different views held in the White House and the State Department regarding whether the United States should recognize the Jewish state. Lovett reports to Clifford on May 14 that Marshall will neither support nor oppose Truman's plan to recognize the Jewish state, that he will stay out of the entire matter.

May 13, 1948: Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, writes to President Truman: "I deeply hope that the United States, which under your leadership has done so much to find a just solution [to the Palestine situation], will promptly recognize the Provisional Government of the new Jewish state. The world, I think, would regard it as especially appropriate that the greatest living democracy should be the first to welcome the newest into the family of nations."

May 14, 1948: late morning eastern standard time (late afternoon in Palestine): David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, reads a "Declaration of Independence," which proclaims the existence of a Jewish state called Israel beginning on May 15, 1948, at 12:00 midnight Palestine time (6:00 p.m., May 14, 1948,eastern standard time).

May 14, 1948, 6 p.m. eastern standard time (12:00 midnight in Palestine): The British mandate for Palestine expires, and the state of Israel comes into being.

May 14, 1948, 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: The United States recognizes Israel on a de facto basis. The White House issues the following statement: "This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel." To see a color copy of this document click here.

May 14, 1948, shortly after 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.

May 15, 1948: On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attack Israel.

January 25, 1949: A permanent government takes office in Israel following popular elections.

January 31, 1949: The United States recognizes Israel on a de jure basis.

February 24 to July 20, 1949: Israel signs armistice agreements with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

Compiled by Raymond H. Geselbracht from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport, Connecticut, 1997) by Michael T. Benson

=================================================================

I'm just getting started...

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....flict#1938-1949

November 2, 1917

Balfour Declaration 1917: British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour sends a letter to Lord Rothschild, President of the Zionist Federation, declaring his government would "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

1919-1923

In the third Aliyah, roughly 40,000 Jews arrive in Palestine, mostly from Eastern Europe.

January 18 1919

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement between Emir Faisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization). "We Arabs," said Faisal, "especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement... We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home."

March 1, 1920

Jewish settlements in the Upper Galilee were attacked by Arab forces. Joseph Trumpeldor was among 8 who died defending Tel Hai.

April-June, 1920

Jerusalem pogrom of 1920 April 4-April 7. The violent 3-day riot against the Jews in Jerusalem's Old City prompts the establishment of Haganah on June 15, 1920.

May 1-7, 1921

Jaffa riots.

May 8, 1921

British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel pardons Palestinian Jews and Arabs involved in the 1920 disturbances, including Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.

March 1922

Under Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, Britain splits the mandate of Palestine into the territories of Palestine (west of the Jordan river) and Transjordan. In return for leading the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, the Hashemites are given rule over Transjordan to form an Arab state under British supremacy. Jewish settlement is restricted to the remaining Palestine.[1].

June 3, 1922

The Churchill White Paper, 1922 clarifies the British position regarding Palestine.

July 24, 1922

The League of Nations grants Britain a mandate to administer Palestine. British express interest in Zionism, and describe their main intent of developing a Jewish national home.

1924-1929

In the fourth Aliyah, roughly 82,000 Jews fleeing from anti-Semitism in Hungary and Poland, arrive in Palestine.

1929-1939

In the fifth Aliyah, due in part to the rise of Nazism in Germany, approximately 250,000 Jews arrived in Palestine during this period. However, restrictions imposed on Jewish immigration by the British authorities in response to events such as the Great Uprising curbed Jewish immigration in the later 1930's.

Summer 1929

The 1929 Palestine riots erupt due to a dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall. 133 Jews killed and 339 wounded (mostly by Arabs); 116 Arabs killed and 232 wounded (mostly by British-commanded police and soldiers).

August 23, 1929

In the 1929 Hebron massacre, Arab rioters rape women and kill 67 Hebron Jews. The British evacuate he Jewish communities in the Arab enclaves of Hebron and Gaza "to prevent another massacre", ending the ancient Jewish presence in the cities. Both communities would resume after the 1967 War.

1930-1935

The Black Hand Islamist group led by Shaykh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam uses violence against Jewish civilians and the British.

October 20, 1930

In reaction to the disturbances of 1929, the Passfield White Paper and the Hope Simpson Royal Commission recommend limiting Jewish immigration.

May 7, 1936 — March 1939

The Arab leadership, led by Amin al-Husayni, declares a general strike which rapidly deteriorates into a violent rebellion, known as the Arab revolt, that lasts for three years. The mainstream Jewish defense organization, the Haganah, maintains a policy of restraint, but the smaller Irgun (also called Etzel) group adopts a policy of retaliation and revenge. Roughly 5000 Arabs and 400 Jews are killed.

July 1937

The Peel Commission proposes a partition plan (map), rejected by the Arab leadership as it included a Jewish state. The Jewish opinion was divided as Jewish immigration was limited to only 12,000, and the Twentieth Zionist Congress ultimately rejected the proposal as well.

1938-1949

Lehi (group) (also known as the Stern Gang), as well as other militant Zionist groups, attack British and Arab targets and civilians in Palestine. 1944-1948 the Irgun and then Haganah join in on anti-British attacks.

26 July 1938

Revisionist Zionists detonate a bomb in an Arab Melon market in Haifa, killing 53 Arabs, one Jew and wounding at least 46 more Arabs.[2]

April — August 1938

The Woodhead Commission reverses the Peel Commission's findings, considers two alternative partition plans, known as Plan B (map) and Plan C (map), and reports in November that partition was impracticable. ([39])

October 2, 1938

In the 1938 Tiberias massacre, Arabs murder 20 Jews in the city of Tiberias.

February — March 17, 1939

The St. James Conference ends without making any progress as the Arab delegation refuses to recognize or meet with its Jewish counterpart.

May 17, 1939

The White Paper of 1939 calls for the creation of a unified Palestinian state. Even though the White Paper states its commitment to the Balfour Declaration, it imposed very substantial limits to both Jewish immigration (restricting it to only 75,000 over the next 5 years), and their ability to purchase land.

Between 1939-1948, the Haganah smuggles over 100,000 Jews from Europe to Palestine to provide refuge from the Holocaust.

June 1940

On 19 June twenty Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. June 29, 13 Arabs were killed in multiple shootings during one-hour period.

May 1, 1946

The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry proposes admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees into the Mandate.

July 22, 1946

King David Hotel Bombing. Irgun members detonate bombs in the basement of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where the British had brought a large amount of documents confiscated from the Jewish Agency. The attack kills 91 people and injures 45 more, mostly civilians. The hotel was a center of British administration at the time, although Arabs and Jews were also victims. The Jewish National Council condemns the attack.

February 18, 1947

Great Britain announces intention to hand the Mandate to the United Nations.

UN Resolution

November 29, 1947

With a two-thirds majority international vote, the UN General Assembly passes a Partition Plan dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into two states. The Jewish leadership accepts the plan, but the Arab leadership rejects it.

December 30, 1947

Haifa Oil Refinery massacre. Irgun militants hurl two bombs into a crowd of Arab workers from a passing vehicle, killing 6 workers and wounding 42, damaging the relative peace between the two groups in Haifa. Skirmishes continue in Haifa and around the region.

November 30, 1947

Following the announcement of the Partition Plan, Palestinian Arabs react violently and fighting broke out leading to the "first phase" of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, also known as the "civil war".

December 2-5, 1947

1947 Jerusalem riots. The Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and public protest of the vote. Arabs marching to Zion Square on December 2 were stopped by the British, and the Arabs instead turned towards the commercial center of the City, burning many buildings and shops. Violence continued for two more days, with Arab mobs attacking a number of Jewish neighborhoods. 70 Jews and 50 Arabs are killed.

May 14, 1948

Israel declares Independence from British rule, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight.

=================================================================

Here's someone who attempts to greatly summarize events. Notice how sometimes the truth gets buried when you leave out too many details?

From: http://www.freewebs....us/timeline.htm

1880s: Zionist movement born in Europe.

1917: Britain took over Palestine, issued Balfour Declaration, which promised Jews a state in Palestine.

1919: Faisal-Weizermann Agreement: Arab-Jewish co-operation on development of Jewish state in Palestine.

1920 – 1930: Jewish exodus from Europe to Palestine, majority illegally. Jewish/Zionist agents bought up land from Arab landowners who lived elsewhere; local Arabs angered at alienation, resulting in the 1929 riots.

1936: Great Uprising, Arabs protested, some peacefully, but certain groups violently. Great Uprising lasted 3 years.

1937: The Peel Commission; Britain proposed partition of Palestine between Jews & Arabs. Both parties refused.

1938: Woodhead Commission repealed the Peel Commission; proposed a tiny Jewish state of 1250 sq. km.; Jews strongly rejected it.

1939: White Paper of 1939 proposed one state solution, with government jointly comprised of Arabs and Jews. Also limited Jewish immigration and land transfers to Jews, due to growth of Arab population. Both Arabs and Jews rejected it for varoius reasons.

1947: UN proposes a partition plan, calling for an independent Jewish state and allocating them half of Palestine. Palestinians rejected the proposal as being unfair since the Jews owned only about 6% of the land, as well as being only a third of the population.

1948: Britain leaves Palestine. The Zionists announce the Declaration of Israel as a Jewish State, endorsed by the UN. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, declare war on Israel.

1949: Israel signs Armistice Agreements, giving it control of 78% of Palestine. Israel offers to allow families separated by the war to return, to unfreeze refugee accounts in Israeli banks, and to pay compensation for abandoned lands. Arabs refused to participate on the grounds that they did not recognize Israel as legitimate. Israel takes back the offer, forbids refugees to return. The families of the refugees and their descendents continue to live in refugee camps.

=================================================================

Back to our pursuit of the truth, or at least alternative biases. A pro-Arab view, from: http://www.doublesta...pales_time.html

1914
With the outbreak of World War I, Britain promised the independence of Arab lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, in return for Arab support against Turkey which had entered the war on the side of Germany.

1916
Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized.

1917-1918
Aided by the Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. The Arabs revolted against the Turks because the British had promised them, in correspondence with Shareef Husein ibn Ali of Mecca, the independence of their countries after the war. Britain, however, also made other, conflicting commitments in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with France and Russia (1916), in which it promised to divide and rule the region with its allies. In a third agreement, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised the Jews a Jewish "national home" in Palestine.

1918
After WW I ended, Jews began to migrate to Palestine, which was set aside as a British mandate with the approval of the League of Nations in 1922. Large-scale Jewish settlement and extensive Zionist agricultural and industrial enterprises in Palestine began during the British mandatory period, which lasted until 1948. (Zionism is the political movement and ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the "Promised Land".)

1919
The Palestinians convened their first National Conference and expressed their opposition to the Balfour Declaration.

1920
The San Remo Conference granted Britain a mandate over Palestine. and two years later Palestine was effectively under British administration. Sir Herbert Samuel, a declared Zionist, was sent as Britain's first High Commissioner to Palestine.

1922
The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine.

1929
Large-scale attacks on Jews by Arabs rocked Jerusalem. Palestinians killed 133 Jews and suffered 116 deaths, sparked by a dispute over use of the Western Wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque. But the roots of the conflict lay deeper in Arab fears of the Zionist movement which aimed to make at least part of British-administered Palestine a Jewish state.

1936
The Palestinians held a six-month General Strike to protest against the confiscation of land and Jewish immigration.

1937
The Peel Commission, headed by Lord Robert Peel, issued a report. Basically, the commission concluded, the mandate in Palestine was unworkable. There was no hope of any cooperative national entity there that included both Arabs and Jews. The commission went on to recommend the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a neutral sacred-site state to be administered by Britain.

1939
The British government published a White Paper restricting Jewish immigration and offering independence for Palestine within ten years. This was rejected by the Zionists, who then organized terrorist groups and launched a bloody campaign against the British and the Palestinians.

1944-1948
After the assassination of a British minister, Jewish terrorist groups such as the Stern gang intensified the violence against the British occupiers and the Arab population, using techniques such as nail bombs in Arab markets and the bomb attack in the King David hotel in Jerusalem killing 91 people, including fellow Jews. After 1945 large numbers of Jewish refugees made their way to Palestine, although the British attempted to restrict immigration.

1947
In December the UN passed resolution 181 giving the Jewish population (33% of the total population) 55% of the British mandate of Palestine. The Zionist leaders mostly accepted the partition, but the Arab League was against the establishment of a Jewish colony on their lands. In a fascinating essay by King Abdullah of Jordan in November 1947, he asks why after the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe.

09 April 1948
Early in the morning commandos of the Irgun (headed by future Prime Minister Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. This was done deliberately to terrorise the Palestinians and to cause them to flee.

“Menachem Begin said "The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin." Unashamed of their deed and unaffected by world condemnation, the Zionist forces, using loud-speakers, roamed the streets of cities warning Arab inhabitants "The Jericho road is still open," they told Jerusalem Arabs "Fly from Jerusalem before you are killed, like those in Deir Yassin."”

May 1948
After the withdrawal of the British from Palestine, the Jews declared the state of Israel. The state of Israel calls itself a 'Jewish democracy' although the inherent contradiction between a state based on ethnicity and democracy should be obvious. By the same logic one might call Germany under Hitler an 'Aryan democracy'. Although there are elections and a relatively free press (arguably much more free than the press in the US), the Israeli propaganda about 'the only democracy in the Middle East' is demonstrably misleading.

May 1948
The Israelis purchased arms with financial help from American Jews, fought the invading Arab forces and used terror tactics to gain as much territory as possible.

1949
After the armistice Israel had expanded its territory to 78% of Palestine, and around 750,000 Palestinians had fled their homes. Although Israeli propaganda often states that the Arab population was ordered to leave by radio, or by local leaders, research has disproved this.

================================================================

I would like to add one thing to the last chronology I presented, above. It does not necessarily represent my own views, but I was deliberately seeking the opposing viewpoint on the conflict. Even taking what is common between all of these chronologies is perilous. For example, see the Wikipedia page concerning the Deir Yassin "Massacre": http://en.wikipedia....#Ongoing_debate. I honestly don't know what is fact or fiction anymore, but I believe there is more bias in this last chronology, just from the editorializing of the author. And so I feel obligated to editorialize here as well.

Right. So there you have it. About the Gypsies. I hope you get my point. [Explanation for those who are a bit too busy to read all of this: the world was a bit too busy to deal with the Gypsies at the time.]

[yarovit]

Unfortunately, I am pretty busy right now (that’s why I am silent recently), so I am rather unable to join your debate. However, I would like to point out some issues about the alleged persecution of Muslims in medieaval Europe.:

Muslims weren’t persecuted in Europe. How could they be? There were very few Muslims living in Europe.

One of few places inhabited by Muslims was Muslim Spain. However even al-Andalus (as Muslim Spain was called) was in fact a predominary Christian (Mosarab) country with Muslims mostly composing the ruling class and rich townsfolk. I do not have the exact percentages now, but I have read that even during the height of Muslim power (around 1000 AD), the actual number of Muslims in Spain did not exceed 20 % of entire population. During the gradual re-conquest of Spain, Christian kings were remarkably tolerant. Muslims were allowed to remain and were slowly assimilated by Christian Spaniards in the course of many centuries. The sole exceptions were the Moriscos, i.e. descendants of Grenadine Muslims. They were expelled during the reign of Philip III of Spain. The sole fact, that their fate is so remembered indicates, that what happened to them was unique.

Some Muslims lived also on Sicily. Emperor Frederick II (the titular defender of Christianity) was notorious for admiring their culture and employing them as soldiers against his enemies.

Another case are the Muslim Tatars which lived in Eastern Europe and came under influence of growing Christian states – Poland, Lithuania and Muskowy. Guess what – they survived despite being ruled by the “bloodthirsty Europeans”. In Russian Tatarstan they even today consist a local majority. In my native Poland Tatars first appeared (as settlers, not invaders) in 14th century. They created a thriving community that survived in good shape up to today. Some of them were even promoted into ranks of nobility (Muslim knights!!!). The “Polish Tatars” as they are called are heavily polonized, but retain their religion and distinctive culture.

I do not know how did you came to idea that Muslims could not trade in Europe. In early middle ages much of European trade was in hands of Syrians, some of whom were already Muslims. In later centuries Europe was penetrated by Muslim traders from Levant, Ottoman Empire, Central Asia and Persia. Poland for example had extremely close ties with Persia and thousands of Persian merchants attended the annual fair in city Jaroslaw.

Cheers.

[fireball]

I am not as familiar with the Romas as I am with the situation of the Hmong. To make things short the situation is much more complex for the Hmongs. I don't think telling them to get better education shows much of an understanding of their plight. That is similar to Marie Antoinette telling the rabble to eat cake when they had no bread.

I am pretty familiar with the Hmong problems, and yes, they are very complicated because they involve a lot of culture traditions. However, I have learned in my time as a minority woman among white Americans and in a profession that has very few women about discriminations is that the only way to break out of the discriminations is to make yourself important enough to the people who are discriminating against you that they have to stop discriminating you to get their jobs done or to protect their own interests. They might still discriminate against you in their heart and in their words as well as many of their actions, but they couldn't do anything really damaging against you because you are important to them.

When Chinese in American (or at least California) achieved the critical mass of importance, the white Americans had to stop some of their damaging actions against us. For example, Irvine, California. When I first arrived in Irvine around 1980, Irvine was a predominantly White society. Asian students in my classes of 300 people are about 1/20. Asian female students in my Computer Science classes are about 1/60. The major corporation and land owner of Irvine, the Irvine Company, would not allow Chinese businesses to have Chinese characters on their signs in the open. In addition, they did not allow too many Chinese or other minority businesses open in the same shopping center for fear of making the shopping center too Asian. Therefore, if the shopping center had a Japanese grocery store, a Chinese could not open a book store there. As more and more Chinese came into Irvine in 1990's, the first Chinese grocery store opened with many other Chinese businesses opened inside its building with Chinese signs. I don't quite remember it, but I think it did not have the Chinese sign for itself in the open. Around late 1990's and early 2000, this grocery store (the 99 Market) decided to buy their own lands so that they could make their own decisions in their own shopping centers. By this time, the (White) Irvine Company's control of Irvine were greatly reduced, and there were more Chinese voters to consider for the Irvine mayor and city council members to cater to the Chinese communities in Irvine. Before then, no one would even sell lands to a major Chinese corporation, like 99 Market for fear of creating another Monterey Park (little Taipei) or Westminster (little Saigon) in Irvine. If you did, the rest of the Irvine's white business communities would cause a lot of problems for you. It was understood and not really spelled out. I happened to make friends with a few Chinese business persons in Irvine, so I heard of some of these stories. Once the 99 Market bought its own land, I think they rented out many of the adjacent store fronts to Chinese businesses. Now, they have Chinese signs in the open, and no one say to them you could not have more than one Asian business in the same shopping center. All of these wouldn't happen if Chinese in Irvine did not achieve the critical mass and importance. Now, the white people in Irvine who do not like the minorities moved down south to other cities. I heard from someone that they are trying to get away from all "those people". And I said, "Good riddance".

Same thing happened to me. I had bosses who were very much discriminating against women and a boss who had an affair with one of my colleagues who wanted to get rid of me just because I was a younger woman and could be a possible threat to her relationship with my boss. All of them could not get rid of me or damage my career because I was excellent in my job and important to my bosses' projects and their own careers. I ended up survived all of their malicious intentions and behaviors.

Yes, it would be difficult to educate or improve the education level of Gypsies and Hmong, especially the women because of the culture issues as well as other complicated problems. However, the individual members of the minority groups in U.S. who had broken out of the surrounds of discrimination and malicious intends are all highly educated professionals or people with great skills, like Michael Jordan, the famous basketball player. The minority groups that achieved prominence and broken through poverty lines all have high percentage of highly educated and professional members, like Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Any minority groups that did not improve their education level for the majority of their ethnic group would not move forward much in the actual economic circle and political circle. The American Indians, African Americans, and Latinos did not improve their education level for a long time, and many of their people are still under the poverty lines. Only in recent years, with a lot of help with many successful African Americans who donated and contributed to African American Colleges and scholarships for African Americans, the situations for the African Americans improved. The Latinos achieve the same with the number of immigrants and their willingness to take many low end jobs. When the Americans found out that they could not even keep most of their businesses open when the Latinos went on strikes, the happiness of their Latino babysitters and Latino dish washers and Latino gardeners became really important to them. The Hmong and the Gypsies do not have such great numbers like the Chinese, the Latinos, and the Africans. Then, the best ways for them to breakthrough the discriminations for their groups are through education. Therefore, whether or not the Hmong or the Gypsies like to hear this or not, I still strongly suggest them to try to help pushing education through their elders’ heads because that is the proven ways. There are also some additional helps set up for those who would go forward with or without their elders’ approvals and many people who are not Gypsies or Hmong willing to help.

Personally, I believe and was told that there were/are Hmong lived close to the mountains of my father’s home town. I do suspect our two people (my father’s and the Hmong) had blood relations sometimes in the past, and yes, probably blood debts, too. The Hmong I met in my work actually do look like Zhejiang people, and he told me he had cousins live/lived in Zhejiang. I do care about the Hmong people and wish they would prosper in any places they live. Again, I believe education is the key, and Hmong has too few in numbers to neglect their bright woman.

[fireball]

However, I would like to point out some issues about the alleged persecution of Muslims in medieaval Europe.:

Muslims weren’t persecuted in Europe. How could they be? There were very few Muslims living in Europe.

Sorry, but I did not say Muslims were persecuted in Europe during the Medieval time at all, nor did I say Muslims live in Europe during that time.

Muslims were enemies with the Christians between 11th century and 13th century due to several Crusades from the Christian (Catholic) nations, and the Muslims tried not to go to Catholic controlled Europe and get killed (if the Christians would travel far distances to come to kill Muslims in Muslims' own countries, wouldn't the Christians do so in the comfort of their own Christian countries?) while the Christians tried not to go to the Muslim countries for the same reasons. The few Muslims who lived in Europe were most likely prisoners of war waiting to be ransomed or slaves during the Crusader times. The few Muslims traveled to Europe at that time (the Crusader times) were probably Ambassadors and their entourage from the Muslim countries to the Christian countries to negotiate prisoner exchanges and sums of ransom -- However, I think these detailed negotiations might be done by the Jews as the middlemen. Spain had Muslims lived there from 8th century to the end of the 15th century, but they were the conquerers, so they wouldn't be persecuted by the Spaniard. After the Spaniard chased off the occupying Moors, the Muslims who did not leave with their leaders did get persecuted by the Spanish inquisition later on (it might not be right away, but it did happened some times later), and it was recorded in the history. From what I read about the inquisitions, the left over Muslim population and the Jewish population got a lot of heat from the inquisitions. Many died; many converted to Catholic religion, and many packed up and left. It was possible that the persecuted ones were more likely rich Muslims, and the actual reasons were about their properties and not their religions. However, the religion would be a convenient and nice sounding excuse for those people who wanted to get the rich Jews' and Muslims' properties.

In my opinion, the Medieval Russia and East Europe were more like a big mixture of Europeans and Nomadic tribesmen. There were a lot of Tartars and Huns and later Mongolian tribesmen around there. Actually, from some of the books I read, many West Europeans did not consider them as part of Europe at all till around 17th century and Peter the Great's time. I usually consider them as not influenced by the Catholic cultures too much (they were more under the influence of the Orthodox Church), so they would not be enemies with the Muslims and should be more tolerating of the Muslims (a lot of them had similar heritages like the Muslims -- nomadic, etc.) I did not know there were Muslim tartars around 11th or 12th centuries. When did the tartars became Muslims? From my understanding, most of the nomadic tribes like Huns, Mongols, and Huns had shamanic traditions. A lot of Mongols in East Asia later converted to the Tibetan Buddhism. Mongols in the Middle East probably became the Muslims, but I am not sure whether the Mongols in Russia converted to the Tibetan Buddhism or became Muslims or stayed with their traditional Shamanism. Any way, the Mongols in Russia were high lords until 14th century, so they wouldn't be persecuted. After their defeat, I think they pulled back and lived in the steppe with their own tribesmen, so it would be hard to persecute them anyway. The East European Countries did have a lot associations with the Ottoman Empire from 14th century on. The relationships were peace at one time and war in another. When it was peaceful, all was well. When it was war, blood would flow, for example, the famous Vlad Tepes of Wallachia (the modern day Romania) and his history.

Between 1000 A.D. to 1800 A.D., the politics changed in various ways. Sometimes, there were peace between the Europeans and the Muslim traders would travel freely and settle where they want. Sometimes, there were wars, and no one were safe. Therefore, Jews were able to fill the niche when there were wars between the Europeans and the Muslims because they had ties at both sides.

Edited by fireball, 30 December 2007 - 11:55 PM.

[kaiselin]

Kaiselin, the questions you pose frame the perspective almost as if one intelligence and one decision could be taken into account: why did the Jewish people get a homeland and not the Gypsies? If one searches the web for the words: Israel and timeline, and you will see many author's perspectives on the events leading to the creation of the state of Israel. And, of course, these chronologies all make no distinction between the latter and the Arab/Israeli conflict. So you must dive into that conflict to understand where the Gypsies were in all this. Answer: They weren't even on the radar, politically speaking. That is, the Jewish emigration into Palestine presented a far more pressing problem.

Let's review some chronologies concerning the creation of the state of Israel. Strap your seat belts on, and please, take everything you read with a grain of salt. There is a lot of historical blurring between fact and fiction...

=================================================================

Right. So there you have it. About the Gypsies. I hope you get my point. [Explanation for those who are a bit too busy to read all of this: the world was a bit too busy to deal with the Gypsies at the time.]

Wow, XL5,

I did not expect such a response as what you gave. LOL, I see why you and fireball get along, you give as good as you get. You put a lot into that, and I can see this subject means a great deal to you. I did not ever think that there was “one intelligence and one decision”, in the way you imply, but the Allies did rather act like that .

I did not mean to come across that I thought the Jews should not have been given a homeland, I was not implying that at all.

I also was not looking for the break down of the historic reasons why they were given Israel. There is no argument there.

( I do have opinions on the random borders without that whole area of the world that the Allies imposed. But I really do not want to discuss that here as that is a whole different subject and while I do have my opinions, I can not even begin to throw facts around like you can and am not interested in trying.)

You totally missed what I was asking. I was not in any way making light of the horrible atrocities that happened to the Jews, I am very sympathetic to what happened . But I am also sympathetic to any genocide. Not to take away from the plight of the Jews, but it is just wrong.
In some ways you answered my question, but not in the way you intended, but in your answer to me. Please don’t take offence to this but your comment that the world was too busy to deal with the Gypsies is just the point that I was trying to make. They got over looked because they were a small ethnic group that did not have a lot of fellow Gypsies in safer places in the world to speak up for them. It seems the world really was not that upset about their attempted genocide

(One time poster @ Dec 30 2007, 12:41 PM)

These two ethnic groups have historically been persecuted and their current situation is not much better. During the Holocaust many Romas were also killed alongside the Jews. Even to this day in Central and Eastern Europe Romas are treated as second class citizens without many of the rights that other groups have. They generally live in squalid conditions as compared to other groups in many Central and Eastern European countries, including many countries who are currently EU members. Likewise the Hmongs throughout history have been persecuted by various peoples including the Chinese and currently the Lao PDR government.

I have a friend who just got back from Croatia and was telling me about how the Gypsies are still treated. I have never thought too much on the gypsies before and was just wondering why they were overlooked.
So when I saw this post it made me ask the questions . I just don’t know much about them other then the common negative stereotype shown in movies. In your response I don’t think you realized what I was asking and instead thought I was attacking Jews. Now before you find some insult , none is meant.
I now find it interesting that you see it perfectly all right to write off the Gypsies , when they had the same fate as so many Jews, switch places and you would not feel that way.

Edited by kaiselin, 01 January 2008 - 05:33 PM.

[XL5]

Wow, XL5,

I did not expect such a response as what you gave. LOL, I see why you and fireball get along, you give as good as you get. You put a lot into that, and I can see this subject means a great deal to you.

Actually, I'm just not afraid of being verbose!

I did not mean to come across that I thought the Jews should not have been given a homeland, I was not implying that at all.

You didn't come across that way, so no worries.

I also was not looking for the break down of the historic reasons why they were given Israel. There is no argument there.

You totally missed what I was asking. I was not in any way making light of the horrible atrocities that happened to the Jews, I am very sympathetic to what happened . But I am also sympathetic to any genocide. Not to take away from the plight of the Jews, but it is just wrong.

Actually, my point was that the creation of a Jewish homeland had less to do with the atrocities and more to do with the political situation at the time. You did not come across as being unsympathetic.

In some ways you answered my question, but not in the way you intended, but in your answer to me. Please don’t take offence to this but your comment that the world was too busy to deal with the Gypsies is just the point that I was trying to make. They got over looked because they were a small ethnic group that did not have a lot of fellow Gypsies in safer places in the world to speak up for them. It seems the world really was not that upset about their attempted genocide

I take no offense. In fact, I thought after my post that I should have acknowledged that some of your points were part of my message as well.

I have a friend who just got back from Croatia and was telling me about how the Gypsies are still treated. I have never thought too much on the gypsies before and was just wondering why they were overlooked.
So when I saw this post it made me ask the questions . I just don’t know much about them other then the common negative stereotype shown in movies. In your response I don’t think you realized what I was asking and instead thought I was attacking Jews. Now before you find some insult , none is meant.
I now find it interesting that you see it perfectly all right to right off the Gypsies , when they had the same fate as so many Jews, switch places and you would not feel that way.

Ok, now I take offense, but not for the reasons you cite.

I did not think you were attacking the Jews. Nor was I trying to support the Jews. And, just because history has written-off the Gypsies doesn't mean I think it was a good idea. Yet I have no problem with telling you once again that the world had more pressing political concerns, not because the Jews are more important than the Gypsies, but because the nations at that time had other concerns. Try not to shoot the messenger, please. There is a reason why I posted what I did, and it wasn't for emotional reasons. Rather than repeat those words here, I would ask you to understand that we are actually in agreement on most of your earlier points, but that my post provides the validation and additional clarification to add to your assertions. For example, I found it revealing that the U.S. was already suspecting a U.S.S.R. strategy of dumping Jews on Palestine and then fostering animosity between the Arab population and the West.

So you see (I hope), I didn't post just to agree or disagree, I posted in an effort to shed light on the subject, by quoting supposedly more rigorous (or commonly believed) sources.

Now, for the sake of beating this into the ground, let's be very clear: Whatever your feelings or my feelings are on the subject, that wasn't what I was writing about, and I urge you to avoid inferring such feelings when the author (myself) is trying to be more or less neutral. In short, my point (as was partly yours) was that the homeland creation dynamics weren't at that time a matter of emotional concern, or justice for the wronged (although British/U.S. guilt over refusal to take in refugees may have played a significant part), it was simply about the political events and violence coming to a head at that point in time. How I truly feel about the Jews or the Gypsies, etc., has yet to be expressed by yours truly--but I promise I'll always give notice when I'm expressing my own opinion or bias.

[fireball]

A story to share here.I briefly acquainted a half-Armenian & half-German woman some years ago ( Sylvia was born in Germany and came to America when she was just a baby as DP= displaced person status ),she told me of how her Armenian father was discriminated when he tried to obtain mortgage for the family's first home in then prodominately White Anglo-Saxon neighborhood in Monterey Park ( southern California ) during conservative 1950's.The local bank initially turned down the loan application,later relunctantly approved his loan because an official of Jewish descent stepped in.But,her father must accept a clause in the contract reads " homeonwer of this property must consult with the lender " when he or she decides to sell because bankers didn't want non-Whites there.

Yes. When my mother was selling her house in Seal Beach in Orange County (California) around late 1970's, her white neighbors came over to ask her not to sell to the African Americans. One of the neighbors told my mom, "We don't mind the Asians here, but we sort of don't want 'those people' around here." At the time, most of the Orange County population were white conservative Republicans, and we called the area as "behind the Orange Curtain"!!! Fortunately, soon after I came to this area, more and more Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans, Latinos moved into the area. Now, we have a better mix of people, and we finally got rid of one of the most insanely conservative Representative from Orange County (Bob Dornan) a few years back. He labeled every one who disagreed with him as either gay or coward for men or slut for women!!! He even labeled one retired old soldier (the Chairman of the California Republican Party at the time and the only sensible Republican in California) who had won a few purple hearts on the battle field and was a grandfather of quite a few grandchildren as a coward and a gay!!! I feel he was the embodiment of "those" attitudes like my mom's neighbors'. I was quite happy when a Latino Woman defeated him at the election -- I think he was really mad that he was defeated by a minority girl!!!

kaiselin, regarding your comment about Gypsies and Hmong, personally, I think you were right about Gypsies' number was few, and they were poorer and poorly educated. They have no status in any country, and they are not important enough to any one powerful enough to be able to help them. Jews were much more visible and much more important to the powerful governments -- just think of Albert Einstein and other Jewish scientists!

Both XL5 and I also do not like some of the Israel government's policies, but I think U.S. does have reasons to help Israel -- having a nice and reliable landing field for the U.S. war planes in the Middle East is very important to U.S.

Edited by fireball, 01 January 2008 - 11:50 AM.

[kaiselin]

Actually, I'm just not afraid of being verbose!




You didn't come across that way, so no worries.




Actually, my point was that the creation of a Jewish homeland had less to do with the atrocities and more to do with the political situation at the time. You did not come across as being unsympathetic.




I take no offense. In fact, I thought after my post that I should have acknowledged that some of your points were part of my message as well.




Ok, now I take offense, but not for the reasons you cite.

I did not think you were attacking the Jews. Nor was I trying to support the Jews. And, just because history has written-off the Gypsies doesn't mean I think it was a good idea. Yet I have no problem with telling you once again that the world had more pressing political concerns, not because the Jews are more important than the Gypsies, but because the nations at that time had other concerns. Try not to shoot the messenger, please. There is a reason why I posted what I did, and it wasn't for emotional reasons. Rather than repeat those words here, I would ask you to understand that we are actually in agreement on most of your earlier points, but that my post provides the validation and additional clarification to add to your assertions. For example, I found it revealing that the U.S. was already suspecting a U.S.S.R. strategy of dumping Jews on Palestine and then fostering animosity between the Arab population and the West.

So you see (I hope), I didn't post just to agree or disagree, I posted in an effort to shed light on the subject, by quoting supposedly more rigorous (or commonly believed) sources.

Now, for the sake of beating this into the ground, let's be very clear: Whatever your feelings or my feelings are on the subject, that wasn't what I was writing about, and I urge you to avoid inferring such feelings when the author (myself) is trying to be more or less neutral. In short, my point (as was partly yours) was that the homeland creation dynamics weren't at that time a matter of emotional concern, or justice for the wronged (although British/U.S. guilt over refusal to take in refugees may have played a significant part), it was simply about the political events and violence coming to a head at that point in time. How I truly feel about the Jews or the Gypsies, etc., has yet to be expressed by yours truly--but I promise I'll always give notice when I'm expressing my own opinion or bias.

XL5, ,
You threw so much at me in your first post , I have to admit I missed some of the finer points, as they whizzed by me ( or rather, as I skimmed by them )

As I go back and look at the series of events you outlined,

There is no doubt there was a frame work already being built for the formation of Israel before WWII. I may not have known all the historical facts leading up to the formation of Israel, but I was aware that there was a desire for many years to have a homeland.

All the letters and telegrams etc that Truman makes me think that even if he did not read the pleas, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I guess that was partially what I was trying to get across.

Also did he have a persistent Gypsy friend to storm into his office and speak for their cause.

If ( and I do not know) the Gypsies had wanted something more, they missed their chance while there was world sympathy for all the peoples that the Nazis had hurt, but instead the Gypsies just fell thru the cracks and perhaps that was exactly their wish to slip through unnoticed.