Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iu70mec wrote

Non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire had to pay extra taxes. Many people didn't want JFK to become president because he was Catholic. Women in the US couldn't vote until 1920. Several countries hold public elections, yet somehow the incumbent dynasty or leading political party always seems to be the one elected by a landslide. This type of shit happens all the time, unfortunately.

51

synonyco OP t1_iu717i3 wrote

Ja, the theory at the time was a devout Catholic would be mandated to obey any order of the Pope which would mean the United States would be under the control of a foreign entity.

18

atlcog t1_iu73wg8 wrote

Are you confusing Catholicism with Judaism? Title says Jews, now you're talking about the Pope. Or, are you just giving another example of religious oppression?

−28

synonyco OP t1_iu740qa wrote

Sorry, I was responding to the backlash against JFK. It was because he was Catholic.

​

Basically, if you weren't a WASP, they didn't want you holding any power.

19

atlcog t1_iu75t4y wrote

Ah, sorry, never mind then.

4

synonyco OP t1_iu78fhe wrote

No worries! We all learn something new every day, ja? Have a great weekend!

3

soolkyut t1_iu746li wrote

They were responding to the comment about JFK…..

5

BradleySigma t1_iu8ha2c wrote

> Non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire had to pay extra taxes.

IIRC, the military comprised of conscripted Muslims, and so the extra tax was essentially an alternative to national service.

12

Legio-X t1_iu9p366 wrote

This was part of the official reasoning. In practice, the tax was designed to be enough of a burden to incentivize conversion.

So were all the restrictions placed upon them: they couldn’t carry weapons, they couldn’t ride horses or camels, they couldn’t build new houses of worship, they couldn’t testify against Muslims in criminal cases, their houses couldn’t overlook Muslim ones, they couldn’t practice their religion in certain ways (no public religious processions, no ringing church bells or blowing the shofar, etc.)…the only way to stop being a second-class citizen was converting to Islam.

9

AlsdousHuxley t1_iu9lh0w wrote

I don’t know if I find comments like these constructive. Addressing historical wrongs (which inform today’s society) requires understanding what happened. Responding to someone saying “something bad happened” with “well, something bad happened to all these other people” doesn’t do much to increase the specificity of our understanding of injustice

1

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iuah52u wrote

Just keeping within context that all groups have been persecuted or exploited at some point in time. And yes, it should stop. Just tired of modern society constantly being expected to answer for the mistakes of the past and it never seems to stop.

1

AlsdousHuxley t1_iuakpdb wrote

I guess. I would be curious why you think that’s important context to keep this within?

1

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iuasz3m wrote

The phrase "stirring up shit from the past" comes to mind.

0

AlsdousHuxley t1_iuaw8zo wrote

Hmm, that’s what I suspected. I don’t see that as compatible with also acknowledging it should stop.

If you agree historical wrongs are linked to modern society, it becomes are a legacy we need to acknowledge. Not to just feel guilty about, but because addressing then requires a specific understanding of their context. As you’ve acknowledged injustice happens to a bunch of groups, all in their own ways, so we can only address it by understanding specifics.

P.S. I hope my tone doesn’t seem off in anyway - this was just a conversation I’ve been hoping to have

2

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iuawuh5 wrote

I choose to live in the present. But I don't disagree with the concepts you've stated. I've just had enough reminders of things that happened years ago that I had literally nothing to do with. Most of these injustices have been corrected and are no longer an issue.

0

AlsdousHuxley t1_iuaxn4g wrote

It’s not you having caused them, it’s whether or not it matters to you to resolve their consequences - and I see the consequences as related and real. Seems you agree their are consequences and they’re related to their history, I guess the disagreement is you feel the consequences are overblown.

1

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iub14e2 wrote

What consequence do you feel I owe for something that happened in 1826? And how do you plan to extract that from me exactly?

1

AlsdousHuxley t1_iub1qbm wrote

I never said owe, and you bringing up extract seems unnecessarily hostile when I said it’s about whether or not it matters to you.

Now you said it did, so if that’s the case and you’re down to assist voluntarily, I think the relevance is that Jews face the highest per capita hate crime rate and tracing why this did not happen randomly but builds on a pattern of both state sponsored and non-state based discrimination is useful to understanding how we ended up in a place where Jews are focused on disproportionately. And this understanding is important to changing this.

1

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iub2pl4 wrote

That's no longer happening in modern US society. You're acting like something from 200 years ago is still happening today. Isolated incidents will always occur, but that doesn't mean Jews are being systematically or institutionally discriminated against, at least not more than any other group in various settings, even those that are referred to as "majority" don't receive fair treatment in many situations.

1