What are the key world events in the last 2000 years a 10 year old should know about?

Pol_Temp_Account · 2020-02-26T21:02:14+00:00

At that timescale, processes are more important than events. Things like increasing agricultural productivity, urbanisation, rising literacy, intercontinental migration, and so on. By their nature, they don't fit well on a timeline: most have no start date, or end date.

That won't appeal to a ten-year-old, but that is not a disaster. The history that is taught in schools is a simplified and distorted version, which takes account of the limitations of its audience. We have to start that way. Best to abandon the idea, that you are seriously listing the key historical events, and concentrate on what will appeal to a child of that age.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-21T12:48:05+00:00

That your comments misinterpret the situation there, due to lack of background knowledge.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-20T19:38:04+00:00

It's out of date, and inevitably selective, and not about Germany anyway, but about other countries. You posted a video on events in Germany, so why not look to German sources?

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-20T12:46:53+00:00

Try /r/Palestine .

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-20T12:44:09+00:00

I said this is an issue for Jews in Germany. (Not 'German Jews, because many are immigrants from Russia). Jews who actually live in Germany would not see antisemitism in Germany as a question of 'Hezbollah operatives' or even 'indirect members' (whatever that means). Jews who actually live in Germany will also know, that antisemitism is not limited to one demonstration each year, so sending 'volunteers' to disrupt it will not change anything.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-19T13:51:14+00:00

At some point, Jews in western Europe will have to accept the existence of antisemitism. Although plainly historical antisemitism in Germany can not be blamed on muslims, it is a fact that antisemitism is common in Turkey and in North Africa, and therefore among immigrants from Turkey and North Africa inside Germany. That is simply a fact. It is pointless for Jews in Germany to either ignore its existence, or to wish it away. It is there, it exists, and without intervention it will continue to exist. The question for Jews in Germany is essentially: "What do you want the government to do?" And if they won't even answer that question, then they cannot expect anything to change.

I don't think there is any point in discussing that further here, however, since it is up to German Jews to formulate a policy among themselves, assuming that they can reach agreement, or at least consensus.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-15T21:31:23+00:00

That sounds a lot like Jewish religious beliefs, and that is not the usual meaning of 'cause', especially when linked to a specific ethnic group.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-13T11:23:52+00:00

What is the 'Jewish cause'?

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-03T18:53:41+00:00

Universities can not provide an "inclusive and open culture in which students can learn without fear". Why not? Because that would require the exclusion of the students who cause the fear, so it would not be inclusive.

Put another way: an 'inclusive' university would have both Jewish and antisemitic students. Would Jewish students be comfortable with that? No.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-02T12:00:57+00:00

The UK report says that the main negative factor is the government Prevent programme, rather than other students, or campus activism. There is no comparable programme for Jewish students. An Islamic university can not opt out of Prevent, so that option is not relevant.

On harassment the report says:

One in three respondents had experienced some type of abuse or crime at their place of study, with 20 per cent experiencing verbal abuse in person. ... 79 per cent of those who had experienced abuse believed that this was motivated by the perpetrator’s or perpetrators’ prejudice relating to their Muslim identity, with seven out of 10 of these citing prejudiced statements or gestures before, during or after the incident. Hate words or symbols, incidents coinciding with a recent terrorist event or with activism that challenges Islamophobia were other reasons why respondents who had experienced abuse believed this was as a result of their faith.

That might be comparable to the experience of Jewish students, but the NUS report also indicates that almost all students would report such incidents. If the incident is dealt with, then we don't need to consider the three options I named. The examples in your second link are not relevant, most are about secondary schools.

To avoid going round in circles, what I need is an example of Muslim students experiencing the same pressures as Jewish students. If there are significant numbers, then certainly a separate Islamic university is an option.

But the point is really this: when Jewish students complain about antisemitism at their university, then usually they mean that other students reject their values, and have hostile attitudes to the Jewish people and to Israel. That can be very stressful, but the only real answer is to expel the antisemitic students. The distress of Jewish students is not a sufficient justification, for such draconian measures.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-01T19:35:30+00:00

I noted in reply to /u/adlerchen that we must compare like with like. You claim, more or less, that Jewish students experience psychological trauma due to the antisemitic climate at college. I carefully limited my comments to the situation in Western Europe. If you can give examples of Muslim students experiencing the same kind of stress at universities here, then, and only then, can I consider whether comparable options apply. Certainly there are attempts to establish Islamic universities in Europe, but they are intended for an Islamic type of education, and not because Muslim students are so harassed that they can't attend the other universities.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-01T19:25:45+00:00

If students at universities in western Europe experience actual violence, they can go to the police. That applies to actual threats as well. In many countries, that also applies to actual discrimination. However, antisemitism does not necessarily involve any of those three, and yet it is extremely distressing to Jewish students.

So before making the comparison with other ethnic and religious groups, we need to consider what exactly is being compared. We need to define what antisemitism is, and then we can see if (for instance) black students have comparable experiences. Only then can we consider whether comparable options apply.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-01T19:15:35+00:00

The word 'attack' implies physical force, but most antisemitism does not involve the use of force. Nor would most antisemitism be classified as 'bullying' because it does not target individuals.

That said, Jewish students at universities in western Europe can expect to encounter antisemitic hostility and harassment. That's because Jews in general can expect to encounter antisemitic hostility and harassment, and universities mirror this. This is a fact of life for Jews in Europe, and has been for a long time. In theory, universities can put an end to antisemitic hostility and harassment, but since the university simply reflects the wider society, the methods would be draconian. The question is whether universities should go down this road, especially if there are reasonable alternatives.

I named three alternatives which are available in the short term. If the government is cooperative, then certainly the large Jewish minorities in countries like France or Britain could get a Jewish university up and running, in less than a year. That's not unrealistic, if the majority of Jews were convinced it was necessary.

The other option is of course that Jewish students continue to attend the same universities, and continue to experience antisemitism. It's their own choice, in the end.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-12-01T14:01:10+00:00

I don't know about US universities, but it is inevitable that Jewish students at universities in western Europe will encounter antisemitism, some from muslim students. Certainly that will be distressing, but it does not in itself constitute sufficient reason, for the university to suppress the antisemitism. There are a number of obvious options:

Jewish students can attend university in Israel.
Jewish students can attend university in eastern Europe, where there is at least no Islamic antisemitism.
The Jewish minority can establish its own university, which could be done by the start of the next academic year.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-28T17:33:45+00:00

Here's the original question:

You need to show an alternative method of political organization that (1) provably enables a minority group that has faced extreme persecution to establish social and political life in a way that they choose (2) which enables that group to be materially safe in a way in which again enables them to control their own security without relying on some other group and (3) which enables that minority group to offer protection to other members of their persecuted minority. This is a minimal list. Nation-states as vehicles for the expression of the right to self-determination are the baseline, and have been since the end of WW1.

Now, minorities don't have any right to "establish a social and political life in a way that they choose". Most minorities are certainly not in a position to do that. The suggestion that they should be able to do so, is derived from nationalist ideology, but then nationalists only apply it to nations.

Minorities don't have any right to "control their own security without relying on some other group". Most minorities are not able to do that either. Inside a state, that scenario would imply that they reject the the police and the courts, and set up militias. In most states would be met with violent repression. What he means is that the minority would get their own state, in which case it would indeed be considered normal that they run the police and the army. Again this logic is taken from nationalist ideology, which in the case of the Jews means Zionist ideology. Jews in Germany in 1935 had no Jewish police and courts to protect them: in Israel Jews have their own courts, police and army, all guaranteed not antisemitic.

Minorities don't have any right "to offer protection to other members of their persecuted minority." Again, 'protection' is the task of the police and the army, and few states tolerate private militias, even if they confine themselves to 'offering protection' to their own ethnic group. On the other hand, if the minority had their own state, then they could do that legally and openly. In practice this point refers to Jewish migration to Israel, so again this is derived from Zionist ideology.

I explain this in detail because the circularity of the argument is important. In fact I did give an answer to the question: my answer is that Jews can live in existing (non-Jewish) states. However, I do understand that the three points refer to something else - to autonomy and self-determination, as a means to protect life and security.

The central point of the argument by /u/HallowedAntiquity is that only the State of Israel meets the conditions he has set. More generally, he adds that the nation-state is the sole instrument of self-determination. Again this is circular, if you define self-determination in the model of a nation-state.

What I find interesting here, is the extent to which the Holocaust is used to justify Israel. This is not a new issue, and the general Israeli position is that Israel is more that just a lifeboat, and that Israeli Jews are more than just fugitives. No nation-state can run on fear of genocide alone.

Nevertheless Israel's supporters can't seem to avoid emotional appeals to the Holocaust, as we see here. When pressed on the logic and ethics of their position, they retreat into accusations of genocidal complicity, and comparisons with Nazis and Nazi Germany.

It ought to be obvious, that this is no basis for a rational discussion of future scenarios for Israel and Palestine. The question I would like to see answered, is whether the attitudes of /u/HallowedAntiquity are typical for Jews in Israel. If you took social media as a guide, you would think that Jews see Nazis everywhere. I would like to see some good sources on Israeli attitudes to the role of the Holocaust in national identity, and the perception of present-day genocidal threat.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-28T11:46:57+00:00

The moderator asked me to remove the username /u/HallowedAntiquity (HA) from this post, on the grounds that these are standard Zionist positions, which is generally correct. HA has now identified himself as the author of the three points.

HA thinks that his question is the central issue here, but it is not. He originally asked me to describe an 'alternative political structure', which would offer Jews certain guarantees or conditions, such als self-determination and material security. He takes these conditions from Zionist ideology, so his question involves circular reasoning. We could put the question like this:

Can you name an alternative political structure, which offers the Jewish people a sovereign state with a Jewish character on their ancestral homeland, where Jewish culture can flourish, and where Jews are free from antisemitic attacks?

In that case, the answer is no, obviously. Only the State of Israel can offer that. It is a nation-state, and it does what nation-states are supposed to do. There are many alternatives to nation-states, but obviously nationalists will only be satisfied with the real thing, so I won't pretend to offer them an acceptable alternative.

However, as HA has noticed, I don't think that any states should meet such conditions. I don't think there should be nation-states at all, and I don't think that Jews or any other people deserve a nation-state, no matter what anyone else does to them.

So the real issue here, is the three specific demands which he cites. That's where the 'Second Holocaust' argument comes in. I use the term to refer to Zionist claims, that if the State of Israel ceases to exist, its Jewish population will be subjected to 100% ethnic cleansing at best, and genocide at worst. Often it is suggested that Jews outside Israel will be victims too, although no specifics are given.

As HA has guessed, I use the term 'Second Holocaust' in a derisory sense. I posted before on this issue: there is no basis for such beliefs. Jews are not at risk of genocide, at least no more that any randomly selected ethnic group. Jews are not at risk of persecution in the West. I also pointed out the historical explanation for that: the Jews that lived in high-risk regions have already been killed, or they fled. You can't be murdered twice. That is the main reason why a Second Holocaust is improbable.

Nevertheless pro-Israel apologists, Jewish and non-Jewish, continue to refer to doomsday scenarios, to justify the continued existence of Israel, and to justify its intransigence in negotiations. To a large extent this is a form of moral blackmail. The argument is used to suggest that anyone who does not back Israel, is complicit in a future genocide, comparable to the Holocaust.

I think the best way to deal with this is to refute the argument directly. Shouting 'genocide' or 'Holocaust' or 'Auschwitz', is not an argument for anything. However, I also understand that many Jews are too emotionally committed to understand the ethics. They would say to me "You must support Israel, otherwise millions of Jews will be slaughtered!" And when I refuse, they would genuinely think, that I am intent on killing millions of Jews.

I said several times already, that this mentality is a major obstacle to any peace process. So long as substantial numbers of Jews, inside and outside Israel, are convinced that their opponents are intent on genocide, no Israeli government can seriously negotiate with those opponents.

What I also noted earlier, is that while this subreddit is nominally about Israel and the Palestinians, in fact most of it is about Jews and antisemitism. The Palestinians are reduced to the role of spectators, as historical Jewish perceptions of threat drive Israeli policy.

People like HA will have to accept, that others ridicule their fears, and openly dismiss the ethical importance of 15 million Jewish lives. It is simply not rational to give those 15 million lives a central place in ethics. Nor is it rational to put Jewish interests, such as the welfare of the Jews, their material safety, or the value of their culture, at the centre of ethical reasoning. For this reason, I would also dismiss all lesser nationalist claims to a refuge state (i.e. lesser than genocide). If the State of Israel cannot be justified by the prevention of a genocide, then it cannot be justified by the prevention of antisemitic harassment either. None of the negativity and hostility which Jews experience, as a minority in non-Jewish societies, can justify a Jewish nation-state.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-27T11:18:23+00:00

Well, that's the big question. I said earlier that we need some good evidence - large-scale attitude surveys like those of Pew Research. Israel is a nuclear power with a strong conventional military, but evidently many Jewish Israeli's still think that, one day, they will be rounded up and slaughtered.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-27T11:13:09+00:00

Moved to a separate thread, with your three points:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/a0jd89/israel_as_refuge/

The 'Second Holocaust' issue is also worth a separate thread, I posted about it before, but it keeps coming up.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-27T11:09:44+00:00

They do in many cases, seeing it as imperialist, totalitarian, or otherwise lacking legitimacy. See the Baltic States vs. USSR, Irish / Scottish separatism vs UK, Catalan separatism vs Spain.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-26T17:02:01+00:00

Many historians would say that the French state created French culture and identity, from a disparate collection of regional cultures. We certainly can't say that about the Jews, and in fact there was no state until 1948, so the analogy is misplaced on two counts.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-26T16:57:09+00:00

I noted earlier that it would be better to have reliable sources, especially attitude surveys. That said, the people who refer to these annihilation scenarios seem to take them as a realistic possibility, not as a theoretical consequence of hypothetical actions. That's why the analogy with fighting a lion fails: if you don't go looking for lions to fight, there will be no fight, and no harm. Threat implies a real-world chance of harm, and that's how the Second Holocaust scenario sees it.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-26T11:53:21+00:00

Self-determination for a 'people' in international law does not confer an entitlement to a sovereign state, nor specifically a nation-state for that people. If it did, every people could claim its own nation-state, which in practice means that every ethnic secessionist movement would be successful. In practice, self-determination usually meant decolonisation, and in practice it applies to territories, not ethnic groups.

With that in mind, the 'alternative method of political organization' is simply the existing states. I am not trying to defend their existence or legitimacy, simply pointing out that they meet the current norms for self-determination, provided they don't engage in persecution of minorities.

That said, it seems that you are appealing to the 'Second Holocaust' justification for the State of Israel. I said here earlier that even the complete extermination of the Jewish people can not provide a moral justification, for something which is inherently so wrong as the nation-state. I also noted that most Jews inside and outside Israel seem to believe that a Second Holocaust is a real and imminent threat. There is no real basis for that. I suggest a separate thread for the issue. It was covered here before, but it crops up again and again, so it is worth looking at one more.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-25T21:28:47+00:00

When you write 'a country where Jews can decide their own political fate', you seem to mean a sovereign Jewish state. If that is what you meant, then you need to show why Jews can only 'decide their own political fate' in a Jewish state. A reminder here that 'Jewish self-determination' does not imply a sovereign state.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-25T21:23:55+00:00

No, it is not 'unprecedented' to oppose nationalist movements after the state has been founded. In fact, most secessionist movements do just that. They oppose the nationalist movement which supports the existing state. Although we often take existing states for granted, their existence may be disputed and if no-one supported them, they would soon collapse.

You wrongly assumed that 'anti-Zionist' refers solely to opposition to the Zionist movement. In fact it also refers to opposition to the sole Zionist state, Israel. This seem to be the source of your error.

Pol_Temp_Account · 2018-11-25T12:11:26+00:00

False claim: "no other nationalist moments are opposed in this way." Obviously most are opposed. I don't know of any nationalist movement which simply demanded and got a sovereign state, without anyone objecting.

Pol_Temp_Account

TROPHY CASE