#there needs to be a better way to refer to refer to religious jewish people

[kob131]

Okay first off-

-Jewish people are not white. That's factually just not true. They do not originate from Europe, which is the region where the group of 'white people' come from. They literally come from Israel. So if people native to Israel are not white then the Jewish people as an ethnicity as not white. And in fact, have been discriminated against in 'white' circles for decades if not centuries. I mean, remember all those jokes about rich white clubs that had the rule of 'No Blacks or Jews'? Yeah, that actually rings true.

-The argument for the Jewish people being native to Israel not 'helping' '''indigenous struggles''' should not affect you. You are arguing a moral standard, you must apply said moral standard in all applicable situations regardless of if it benefits you. The entire point of arguing a moral standard is that it helps makes things better for everyone- basically going 'this doesn't apply here because it fucks me over' is surrendering the moral argument. You just want an uneven playing field, not to be moral and principled.

All of this ignoring that if you can just strip the Jewish People of their 'native' card- Well...what's stopping other countries of stripping their natives of their own status? What's stopping the USA from looking at the Natives and saying 'Since no one alive in your communities actually lived during the time that they owned the land, it's ours now' and then just killing them? The whole argument for natives is that other cultures got the chance to build up their own histories so they should too. If said histories no long matter because *insert bullshit here* then anyone can make anything up to justify it.

-I think that if you were to apply that standard to everyone- You would quickly find the world screeching to a halt. Native tribes murdered and conquered each other too. Same with African tribes, who then sold their prisoners in the slave trade. We can't focus on every single atrocities committed because the number of atrocities exceed human comprehension.

-What's even the point here? That you would get sunburned from living in Israel thus it means you have changed so much that you no longer count? You do know that if I dropped you in the middle of Africa, you'd likely die of exposure right? Does that mean all African Americans have no rights to live in Africa?

This is such a dumb argument. Especially if we take the simplified version of 'This happened so long ago that it no longer counts' because to a human, 2000 years and 158 years aren't that different. You basically made the argument 'The US and Europe are off the hook for slavery'.

-And that's the problem isn't it? This isn't about 'what is indigenous?' It's 'what is beneficial for me?' You side only with the people who are a part of your argument. You care only for advancing your own privilege and ensuring everyone else is below you. The same mindset that caused the evils of imperialism.

The African Jews, ironically, have even less of a right to Israel than the 'White' Jews. Because the 'White' Jews have an actual ethnic history there, the African Jews don't. If you actually believed in the standard of 'Ethnic people deserve to have their ancestral home' then you would care more for the Jewish people you disregard than the religious Jews you support. Again, you only care about them because you see it as increasing your own privilege.

-It's literally more of a claim that the sub groups you support by your own logic but okay.

-Gonna be honest here-

You are native to America.

The only reason I accept this conflict in the slightest is because both groups have lived and grown up in that area. They accept that area and it's ideals, culture and beliefs. They are actually native to that area. Your hypothetical does not apply because you did not grow up in England. You did not accept that culture as your own. You do not have a right to it because you never earned it.

The Arabs and the Jewish People in Israel did.

-'still black ppl enslaved in the US-'

Literally been illegal for 158 years, dumbass. To such a point it's not even a part of fringe political discourse. And no, the prison system doesn't count- that isn't slavery.

-'And the discourse around Jewish Indigineity to Isareal won't change anything for other indigenous groups nomatter which way the wind blows.'

Well if the argument that 'being separated from country of origin for X years means you no longer count' is accepted- You're gonna quickly find yourself up shit creek without a paddle.

Gentile leftists, this is a PSA, and I am begging you to listen. Sharing claims that Jews aren’t indigenous to the land of Israel, that Jews don’t come from the Middle East, and/or that the Zionist movement wasn’t created in response to centuries of antisemitism & genocide is fringe revisionist history with a long antisemitic history. These aren’t anti-imperialist or anti-colonial stances. They are just antisemitic conspiracy theories.

And on the flip side, acknowledging the simple fact that Jews are indigenous to the region currently occupied by Israel & Palestine does not imply any opinion about the modern states of Israel & Palestine, their governments, or the conflict in the region. This post is not voicing support for Zionism or the state of Israel. This is literally just historical fact: both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the region where modern day Israel & Palestine are.

If you make this about the politics or conflicts of the modern states of Israel or Palestine—if you comment or send me asks to that effect—you will be blocked.

[writingwithcolor]

Depicting Real World Religions Alongside Constructed Religions

Maya asked:

Hi WWC! Thank you so much for this blog, it's an infinitely wonderful resource! Do you have any suggestions for how I can balance representation of real religions with fantasy religions, or should I avoid including these together? Does the fact that certain things bleed over from our world into the fantasy world help legitimize the appearance of real world religions? I feel like I can come up with respectful ways to integrate representation in ways that make sense for the worldbuilding. For instance, no Muslim characters would practice magic, and both Jewish and Muslim characters would conceive of magic in ways that fit their religion (rather than trying to adapt real religions to fit my worldbuilding). I also have some ideas for how these religions came about that fit between handwave and analogous history (though I realize the Qur'an is unchangeable, so I'm guessing Islam would have come about in the same way as IRL). BTW—I'm referring to humans, not other species coded as Muslim or Jewish. I may explore the concept of jinns more (particularly as how Muslims perceive fantastical beings), but I definitely need to do a lot more research before I go down that road! Finally, I saw a post somewhere (*but* it might have been someone else's commentary) suggesting to integrate certain aspects of Judaism (e.g., skullcaps in sacred places/while praying, counting days from sundown instead of sunset) into fantasy religions (monotheistic ones, of course) to normalize these customs, but as a non-Jewish person I feel this could easily  veer into appropriation-territory.  *One of the posts that I'm referring to in case you need a better reference of *my* reference: defining coding and islam-coded-fantasy

[This long ask was redacted to pull out the core questions asked]

"Both Jewish and Muslim characters would conceive of magic in ways that fit their religion (rather than trying to adapt real religions to fit my worldbuilding)."

Just a note that while having religion be part of magic is a legitimate way to write fantasy, I want to remind people that religious characters can also perform secular magic. Sometimes I feel like people forget about that particular worldbuilding option. (I feel this one personally because in my own books I chose to make magic secular so that my nonmagical heroine wouldn’t seem less close to God somehow than her wizard adoptive dad, who is an objectively shadier person.) I’m not saying either way is more or less correct or appropriate, just that they’re both options and I think sometimes people forget about the one I chose. But anyway moving on—

Your decision to make the water spirits not actual deities is a respectful decision given the various IRL monotheistic religions in your story, so, thank you for that choice. I can see why it gets messy though, since some people in-universe treat those powers as divine. I guess as long as your fantasy Jews aren’t being depicted as backwards and wrong and ignoring in-universe reality in favor of in-universe incorrect beliefs, then you’re fine…

"I saw a post somewhere (but it might have been someone else's commentary) suggesting to integrate certain aspects of Judaism (e.g., skullcaps in sacred places/while praying, counting days from sundown instead of sunset) into fantasy religions (monotheistic ones, of course) to normalize these customs, but as a non-Jewish person I feel this could easily veer into appropriation-territory."

That was probably us, as Meir and I both feel that way. What would make it appropriative is if these very Jewish IRL markers were used to represent something other than Judaism. It's not appropriative to show Jewish or Jewish-coded characters wearing yarmulkes or marking one day a week for a special evening with two candles or anything else we do if it's connected to Jewishness! To disconnect the markers of us from us is where appropriation starts to seep in.

–Shira

To bounce off what Shira said above, the source of the magic can be religious or secular--or put another way, it can be explicitly granted be a deity or through engagement with a specific religious practice, or it can be something that can be accessed with or without engaging with a certain set of beliefs or practices. It sounds like you’re proposing the second one: the magic is there for anyone to use, but the people in this specific religion engage with it through a framework of specific ideas and practices.

If you can transform into a “spirit” by engaging with this religion, and I can transform into a “spirit” through an analogous practice through the framework of Kabbalah, for example, and an atheist can transform through a course of secular technical study, then what makes yours a religion is the belief on your part that engaging in the process in your specific way, or choosing to engage in that process over other lifestyle choices, is in some way a spiritual good, not the mechanics of the transformation. If, on the other hand, humans can only access this transformative magic through the grace of the deities that religion worships, while practitioners of other religions lack the relationship with the only gods empowered to make that magic, that’s when I’d say you had crossed into doing more harm than good by seeking to include real-world religions.

Including a link below to a post you might have already seen that included the “religion in fantasy worldbuilding alignment chart.” It sounds like you’re in the center square, which is a fine place to be. The center top and bottom squares are where I typically have warned to leave real-world religions out of it.

More reading:

Jewish characters in a universe with author-created fictional pantheons

–Meir

[frownyalfred]

Hello! I’m not Jewish and I just learned about Pikuach Nefesh. Being Jewish yourself, I’m guessing you have a lot of thoughts on this and how it relates to Bruce’s no-kill policy. I’d be really interested in hearing them if you want to make a post!

Hey friend!

I absolutely have thoughts, but I must begin with a disclaimer:

My perspective does not cover all Jews, nor is it the authority on what is or isn't Jewish. I grew up Reform/Reconstructionist, in an ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish family, and these are just my thoughts as a Batman blog.

Another important note: different types of Jews hold the halacha (rules/principles) of Judaism to be far more important in their lives. An Orthodox Jew will observe halacha much more strictly than a Reform Jew. Despite what some people will tell you, this doesn't make either of them better. Just different.

Whew, okay. Now that that's out of the way, let's get down to business.

What is Pikuach Nefesh?

In very general terms, Pikuach Nefesh (hard ch sound in the back of your throat) allows Jews to override other religious "rules" or values in the pursuit of preserving or saving a life.

A good example of this is a an Orthodox Jewish person, who, following halacha, will not drive or operate items with electricity during the Sabbath (Shabbat). But what happens if someone has a heart attack and they need to call 911? Pikuach Nefesh would permit them to use electricity, despite it being Shabbat.

If a Jewish person who keeps total kosher is in a situation where they will starve if they do not eat non-kosher food, they are permitted to eat non-kosher food.

Exceptions

There are some notable exceptions to Pikuach Nefesh, which I suspect is what your question is getting at. The threat to an individual's life generally has to be known, urgent, and not abstract.

Murder is another large exception, with some conditions. Generally, the intentional act of killing another person, or injuring them to the point where they might die from their injuries, is not an act that can be permitted by the principle of Pikuach Nefesh.

The slim exceptions to this include highly specific cases of self defense of oneself or another against an aggressor. One may kill to preserve a life in very strict situations, but they cannot murder. There are even times where killing is obligated, such as war.

So how does this relate to Batman/Bruce's no-killing rule?

Okay. So. I've had a lot of discussions with folks about this, and the answer I've learned is: it doesn't. Not really.

Pikuach Nefesh refers to the principle that a Jewish person should preserve life over almost any other rule or halacha. It does, actually, permit Bruce to kill under very specific situations. It does actually forbid him from gravely injuring people and doing so in the name of fighting against abstract threats, which are both things he does in canon.

The last time I wrote about this, I was definitely off about the details of Pikuach Nefesh in regard to Batman. I was corrected and I stand by that correction. I didn't grow up in the Orthodox faith and I don't observe much of their halacha, which is where a lot of religious theory questions arise from. I'm not an expert, and my explanation is only as deep as my own experience.

I think a good way of looking at Pikuach Nefesh is not as a way to define what, if any, killing is acceptable, but rather, what are we obligated to do to save a life?

The more important Jewish principle shaping Batman's ideology (in my opinion)

"Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."

This is much more of an important focal point for Bruce's Jewish-influenced ideology. The flipside of this quote, from the Talmud, is equally important: "Whoever kills one life, kills the world entire."

Bruce's no-killing rule is famously tied to his parents' deaths during his childhood. In a way, his entire world ended with their murder. He sees his mission to clean up Gotham as a way to prevent that loss from occurring for anyone else.

Saving one person, like he tells Barry in Justice League, is enough. That is a viciously Jewish thought. It is frequently quoted in reference to those who acted in support of Jews during the Holocaust, doing what little they could against a fountain of evil.

Conclusion

In that regard, yes -- Pikuach Nefesh tells us that preserving a life is the most important thing above all else. But Bruce's no-killing rule would swiftly be broken if he followed the principle of Pikuach Nefesh closely, in that he would a) likely have to kill someone in self-defense at some point in his duties and b) it would not allow him to injure or hurt people to the extent that he currently does in canon.

More importantly, Bruce's no-killing rule is a better reflection of the Talmudic quote that "he who saves/kills a life, has saved/killed a world entire."

It is not much of a stretch, in my opinion, to connect Bruce's trauma from losing his parents at young age to his outright refusal to kill later in life. The more interesting question, in my mind, is if the creation of this no-killing rule truly was shaped by Batman's Jewish creators and their view on life and death, especially post Holocaust.

Comics became more widely available during and after WWII and the Holocaust, during which time many -- many -- Jews entered the field as writers and artists. Their influences on the characters we see today are obvious, often intentionally Jewish, but just as often un-intentional.

Was Batman's no-killing rule a product of the post-WWII Jewish comic writers who shaped his character? Was it a coincidence that lined up well with the Talmud, but not necessarily all the conditions of Pikuach Nefesh?

How else does Batman represent, or not represent, the goal of Pikuach Nefesh (the necessity that a person act in the preservation of human life, above almost all else)?

[matan4il]

Hey, I just felt the need to vent and see if you or your followers had any advice for me because I feel so stuck.

I don't have any relatives or friends in Israel so sometimes I feel I have no room to talk on the conflict. I'm in the US, I'm 'safe', my family is safe, but I still feel so hurt and the grief from everything happening to 'my people'

I was talking to a friend and I know we have conflicting opinions on everything happening. I just feel so heart broken by him as we were discussing things and he cuts the conversation when I said "Hamas is a terrorist organization". I don't know how I can trust him anymore when he can't even see that. I love him so much. He's essentially my best friend. It hurts so much and I don't know what to do. At this point I just keep quiet but there is resentment building and I hate it.

Any advice would help. Sorry for rambling. I'm just emotional.

Hi Nonnie! I totally understand, you're being legit in how you feel, and I'm sending you many hugs!

I believe I've answered a similar ask at some point since the war, I'm just not sure how to find it, because Tumblr's search option sucks. Maybe through the ask tag, IDK. If anyone's better at handling this site, and can find it and link it in the comments, I'm sure the anon (and definitely me) would appreciate that!

I think that ask was more generalized though, so here I'll refer more specifically to yours.

First of all, if you're Jewish, you have family in Israel. All Jews are one big family, one tribe, and I consider every Jew a part of my extended family. That said, there's actually a good chance that, given enough genealogical research, you'll find that one, two or three generations ago, the family tree split, and there's a branch where people returned to Israel, so you have distant relatives you weren't even aware of here. If you're interested in looking into this, a good place to start is to contact the Anu Museum, which delves into the history of the Jewish people, and also keeps extensive genealogical records for Jews.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, that's not an opinion or debate, it's a fact. People tend to claim that resistance can be seen as terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on one's opinion, and it's true that at times the term "terrorists" has been abused, but there's actually a very simple way to figure out the matter. If an organization intentionally targets civilians with violence, including lethal violence, for the sake of achieving some sort of a political change (and that includes political change in service of an extremist religious cause), then we're talking about terrorists. The differentiation between a regime as a legit target for a struggle, and innocent civilians who should never be targeted with violence, that's the difference between freedom fighters (whether we agree with them or not) and terrorists.

The exact date of Hamas being established as a terrorist organization is not known, most believe it was Dec 1987 (it announced it was joining the First Intifada on Dec 15, when it started on Dec 9. Hamas escalated it considerably, as it did the Second Intifada), while the son of a Hamas founder (Mosab Hassan Yousef. He was repeatedly jailed by Israel for terrorist activity in the service of his dad's organization, but as a teen in prison saw how Hamas was torturing Palestinians. He decided to flip and help Israel in order to save his own people from Hamas) says it was actually slightly earlier, in 1986. Either way, by the end of 1989 (just two years after its first public statement), Hamas was already so brutal and violent, that it was outlawed here. Soon, especially as it started carrying out extensive suicide bombings (the very first one was on Apr 16, 1993), it was also recognized as a terrorist organization and outlawed by multiple governments (including the UK, the US, Jordan, the EU, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Australia and Paraguay).

Not only is Hamas clearly a terrorist organization since its very first act of terrorism, after Oct 7 it is also one of the most successful ones ever (second only to Al-Qaeda after 9/11, though if you look at the number of fatalities per population size, then Hamas have surpassed Al-Qaeda as well). To not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization is to not recognize terrorism, and that it is fundamentally wrong, because nothing ever justifies killing civilians to affect a political change, and THAT is an incredibly disturbing position to take.

On top of that, Hamas is Islamist, it wants a world ruled by an Islamist regime, and sees the eradication of Israel as a first step on the way there. It will only condemn other Islamist terrorist organizations for digressing from this plan of eradicating the Jewish state first, before taking on the rest of the world. Hamas is also genocidal towards Jews. Its founding charter declares this explicitly, that Judgment Day will not come until all Jews are exterminated. Its leaders have continuously and repeatedly expressed themselves in similar ways, calling upon "true believers" to kill Jews everywhere around the world, and in fact since Oct 7, several Hamas terrorist cells have been exposed as operating against Jews outside of Israel.

Someone who can't even admit Hamas are terrorists will likely not recognize the genocidal, antisemitic and extremist Islamist nature of Hamas, either. If you're Jewish, what that means is that your "friend" is willing to turn a blind eye to the declared statements of those who wish to kill you simply because you're Jewish. And if you ask me, that's not a friend at all. But even if you're not Jewish, I think the willingness to allow Hamas' genocidal antisemitism by denying the nature of this organization is morally despicable. I would kind of get it if your friend lived in a non-free country, where he can't get the true info on Hamas. But if you live in a free society, and your friend can get online, and go to one of the sites that share info on Hamas, especially the footage from Oct 7, but he's still denying what this terrorist organization is really like? I think you're very right to be upset by that.

At the end of the day, how you deal with it is up to you. It sounds like this person is really important to you, and I get it. At the same time, it sounds like you're having a hard time living with his views of Hamas, which is beyond justified. If your friend is willing to overlook this, what else is he willing to allow? I guess the question is whether you feel like you can have a talk with him, where you put this all on the table, not just Hamas being a terrorist organization, but also the genocidal, Islamist and antisemitic nature of it, and explain to your friend that it is personally distressing to you, that he can act as if Hamas is a legit organization? Do you feel like you can talk to him, and if he understood what it means to you, he might be more willing to listen? If you don't talk to him about this, do you feel like you can live with his views?

I'll be honest, I personally would not want such a person as a "friend." I would never feel like I could trust him. That doesn't negate all of his other good traits and what he can and does give you as a friend, though. I get that. I understand that it is a loss, if this ends your friendship. And that's why I say that it's up to you. It's up to what you feel is in the best interest of your well being. Do you still trust him to have your back despite his views? Do you think you'd be worse off to lose everything else about your friendship? Or do you think he values your friendship enough to listen? Do you feel like the distress of knowing what he supports is too much, and is bad for your well being? At the end of the day, only you can answer these questions.

Just know that no matter what you decide, you're not alone. There are others who feel like you do, and who would accept you, all of you, anti-Hamas views included, and will be true allies and friends. You def have a friend here. I'm wishing you well with whatever you decide to do, and if you feel like sending follow up asks, please don't hesitate to! Much love, Nonnie. xoxox

(for more of my posts regarding Israel, click here)

If this is a person who you define as your best friend, but they're cool

[nalyra-dreaming]

Heyyy

What are your thoughts on religious symbolism or just religion in general in the story? Cos I started reading the books and was really surprised by how much the characters GET INTO IT lmao it’s really present in the story in a way the show mostly shied away from after the first episode I think, other than a couple exceptions it was mostly not explicit except a few references to hell.

Sooo I’m pretty hyped seeing some crucifixion imagery in season 2, I suppose I makes sense that Louis would be having a religious reckoning after losing lestat, and Armand is a character really defined by his faith so it will be interesting to see how deep they go with it. What are you hoping to see?

Hey!

Yes, there is a LOT of religious symbolism in the books (Anne struggled all her life with it, and that is threaded through). Lestat (and others) has a rather complicated relationship to the divine. In Memnoch he literally encounters God, and drinks his blood. Lestat is often likened to Christ in the books, something the show has obviously picked up on. After his ordeal with Memnoch he is bound and raving mad before he quiets into a coma, in a chapel.

(Young Lestat wants to become a monk/priest, prays to be released from his abusive family, shivers at the vicious futility at the Witches' Place.)

We have other characters who come from a vastly different backgrounds, too, like Marius in pre-Christian Roman Empire, or in the extreme (in a way) Akasha and Enkil in ancient Egypt, building themselves up to (Blood) Gods. For example.

The show has given Armand a muslim background, Daniel might have yet another one, maybe jewish.

I do not actually think they're shying away from all that - but they are giving themselves time to reach the important points here... and, of course, season 1 being told by Louis, put the focus somewhere else, because Louis actually did not wish to think about all that too deeply. Or, better, address it.

Now Louis obviously believed ... enough. Enough to feel deeply and utterly tortured about it all. I think that is true for book and show, and the show has taken the book comment and made it literal:

"What would Christ need have done to make me follow Him like Matthew or Peter? Dress well, to begin with. And have a luxurious head of pampered yellow hair."

Louis goes and runs to church when all else fails, in desperation. He kills the priest there, in the book.

Louis... will lose his faith in god, or, maybe better, switch it over to Lestat as his god, book canonically. (And he struggles with this, for a long time):

"He leaned close to me, and he put his hand on my arm. “ ‘Wither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people’; and because I have no other god and never will, you shall be my god."

Armand has also spoken of "I serve a god", which might be a callback to the events surrounding Memnoch. And, as you say, he is deeply defined by his faith. It will be truly interesting to see where they go for it in the show - how they go for it.

Of course the image of Lestat as if on a cross is imbued with meaning.

Louis himself later mediates on the fact that he "hated Lestat for the wrong reasons", and that the feelings that Lestat arouse in him did not have "hatred among them".

Lestat has been murdered, for sins he did not commit(*).

(*)Of course there is plenty to say about that - and Lestat himself never blamed Claudia! - but that which they (ultimately, simplified) hated him for... was not his fault, not really. Vampirism never freed any of them, it simply could not, and Claudia didn't have a choice in any case... and eternity is a long time to build up emotions. Or hate. (Or forgiveness.)

And so Lestat as Christ on a cross... calls back to that, in Louis' imagination.

So what I hope to see... hmm.

I don't think they'll put Memnoch into the show. I think if anything then Memnoch or a Memnoch-like event has already happened.

I hope... that we will get to see the characters struggling with their faith - or lack of it. I hope that we will get to see Lestat destroy the Parisian coven and the satanic cult there. I hope that we will see Armand struggling to find something to hold onto (and find it!). I want Louis to free himself from the shackles of catholic guilt, whether they go book canon or not. I want Lestat to make his peace with the Witches' Place and the futility of it all, the "dark" moment. I hope that we will see characters reflect and mirror the perceived truths of faith - and destroy the preconceptions.

I want all that.

I hope for all that :)

We'll see if they dare, but... I'm carefully hopeful^^.

Oh yes, and at the end... I want them to find their peace in their own religion, as in the books... their "Blood Communion".

[edenfenixblogs]

The Jews who argue against the word “genocide” do not do so because they support what is happening; they do so because they are arguing that what is happening is better described by the term “ethnic cleansing,” which is also a horrifically bad and inexcusable thing. It just also doesn’t have the antisemitic connotation here.

Hey, need to point out using Ethnic Cleansing (which i only saw used by slightly less radical left) is just as bad and inaccurate to use as Genocide- Jews have experienced Ethnic Cleansing and to label this war as such disregards the actual ethnic cleansing Jews experienced for centuries- most recently SWANA Jews! And I would argue Ethiopian Jews too. Individuals willingly and temporarily leaving their home because it is a war zone (due to a war their leadership systems!) is not ethnic cleansing. We can look to what is happening to Armenians, and Afghans in Pakistan- that is ethnic cleansing.

I really need people to brush up not only on their dictionary terms but on the legal definitions that help determine something. Definitions and the correct usage of them matter! Languages matters- when we use definitions wrongly we water them down.

This is why we have people screaming genocide at something that isn’t one! Because their definition of genocide has been watered down- because every war is suddenly a genocide and every bad person I disagree with is a Nazi.. You get my drift. I’m very sensitive to correct usage of words and definitions.

I absolutely understand this perspective and I refrain from using either term personally with regard to this conflict.

I respect your sensitivity, which is one of many reasons I urge people to try to understand the impact of these words on the Jewish community.

That said, I am sensitive also to the fact that there are dictionary definitions of things and legal definitions of things and scholarly definitions of things. I try to keep in mind that everyone is approaching this conflict from their own cultural context so I am not as intense personally about correcting people's usage of these terms, simply because I'm not expert enough to determine which definition is "best." I think legal definitions should definitely always be used in the context of legal discussions, but I don't know if the legal definition is best in a sociological context.

I want to be clear: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just respecting my own limitations on this subject matter.

Rest assured, we agree on the main point here: It is important to be specific and accurate in the usage of terms. We cannot allow emotions running high to justify the watering down of such serious terms.

People of all identities affected by this conflict should approach discussions of terms in the same way they approach everything else about this conflict: with good faith, an open heart, and a goal of peace.

I respect that you also disagree with the use of the term ethnic cleansing. However, I personally do not agree that it is "as bad." This is not me trying to tell you that you're wrong. I just think this particular discussion point has a lot of equally valid takes. Your take is absolutely valid. But allow me to explain my take on the situation, which I consider to be equally valid:

I think there is a lot more wiggle room in the term "ethnic cleansing" than there is in the term "genocide." When I use the term ethnic cleansing, I am referring to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.

The key takeaways I have from the United Nations here is that ethnic cleansing is not actually a crime under international law. The two very loose definitions offered here are:

… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.

a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

I consider Palestinians to be a an ethnic group. I know some critics do not, but I disagree with those people. So if you do not agree with me on that, I doubt we will agree on the specifics that follow. I think recognizing Palestinian identity is vital to fostering a peaceful future for all currently residing in the Levant. However, I know that there are also politics and political realities in Israel between those who call themselves Arab-Israelies vs. Palestinians. I do my best to stay informed about topics, but this is too fraught for me to parse with any authority. I believe in Palestinian ethnic identity because of several reasons I won't elaborate on here, but can elaborate on upon request.

I am not particularly swayed by the first bullet point. I do not believe that Israel is trying to render Palestine as ethnically homogeneous, even though they are using force on the area.

The second bullet point has merit to me. I do not believe all Jews or all Israelis wish to eradicate and remove Palestinians from the Levant, so I do not consider Israelis in general or Jews in general responsible for the cleansing. Furthermore, even though I am personally a pacifist, I am also pragmatic. I believe there are much less violent ways to eradicate Hamas than the heavy bombing currently taking place. I also know Hamas has been firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas for quite a long time and Israel has every right to treat Hamas like the hostile, terrorist organization it is.

But I do hold Netanyahu and the Likud party responsible for their affect on Palestinian civilians. I was disgusted when Netanyahu justified his violent actions by invoking Amalek. And I believe that by invoking Amalek he did in fact cause all of his actions as commander of the military to be in support of ethnic cleansing. I do not deny the parallels between the Amalekites relationship to the ancient people of Israel and Palestine's relationship to the modern state of Israel: namely, repeated attempts to destroy Israel, repeated attacks on Israeli civilians (including the taking of hostages and the attack of women and children and the elderly as a terror tactic). However, what I cannot and will never endorse is the implication that we should treat Palestine the way ancient Israel treated the Amalekites.

G-d ordered the people of Israel to blot out the living memory of the Amalekites from the earth--to eliminate every living Amalekite as well as their city and livestock so that they would only be remembered for the horror they inflicted.

We cannot and must not treat modern Palestinians in this manner, and by invoking a religious precedent in this manner as justification for the modern assault on Gaza, I cannot really conceive of a way in which this is not a specific, religious directive to violently target a civilian population on the grounds of their ethnic identity.

Before anyone uses this as an excuse to demonize all Israelis or Jews, I want to explicitly shut that down as well. I know for a fact that not all Israelis or Jews support or agree with Netanyahu here. And while Netanyahu's horrific invocation of Amalek must be rejected, that rejection does not mean that there should be no consequences for Hamas terrorists and those who support their terror. What it does mean, is that as long as Netanyahu is directing the military response, he is, in my personal opinion, carrying out an ethnic cleansing. And we must be able to criticize him for that and respect Palestinian civilians enough to give them the grace to use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the horror they are experiencing. Criticizing this does not mean Israel has no justifiable military response. Hamas has been engaging in antisemitic terror and mass violence against Israelis and Jews for a long time, even prior to 10/7, in a way that must be stopped by force. However, the main goal for all people of good faith affected by this conflict should always remain peace, not retaliation or attacks on ANYONE (Jewish or Arab) based on their ethnic identity.

I fully respect that you may disagree with this. As there is no legally widespread accepted definition of ethnic cleansing, you may be operating under a different set of criteria to define the term "ethnic cleansing." That's OK, too. I would not call myself uninformed on the topic of the i/p conflict. I have been actively affected by it for over 25 years. That said, I'm also no scholar or international expert on the topic either. I would rate my knowledge and familiarity with the conflict and relevant terminology to be much higher than average and steeped in years of observation and personal experience. So, if I still view his as a matter up for a variety of interpretations, I cannot fault others for feeling the same way, even if that means they disagree with me. I hope this makes sense, and you are able to see my stance as legitimate, even if you disagree with it.

[gay-jewish-bucky]

image ID for infographics:

orientalism

If your Instagram bio has On [Indigenous name] land and you've been calling Israel "Isnotreal or Israhell", we need to talk.

Referring to "Israel" as "Isnotreal, Israhell, Isr*el, "Israel"," and such is anti-Indigenous, antisemitic, and Orientalist. Let's start with some history.

Archaeologists date the first archaeological record of a reference to Israel to 1205 BC.

And indeed, secular historical record clearly points to The Kingdom of Israel existing on this land. The Kingdom of Israel was a nation made up of tribal peoples called Israelites. Israelites are understood to have been descendants and not conquerors of Canaanites and then the Hebrew tribes. Today, several peoples have Israelite ancestry.

Jews and Samaritans are peoples whose ethnogeneses stem from Israel and who fit all the criteria for Indigeneity. Secular history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, genetics, understandings of ethnicity, migration, and Indigeneity, and more support this.

"Wait, I thought this whole land was called Palestine first?"

Nope! Let's pick up where we left off. Israel then got conquered by empire after empire. This is that imperialism you hate so much. Some of these rulers included: Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and British.

During Roman Empire rule, the region was called Judea, after The Kingdom of Judah, which was a southern Israelite kingdom (Jew literally means of Judah). However, with the Indigenous Jews trying to revolt against imperial rule, the Roman imperialists renamed the land from Judea to Syria- Palaestina. Palaestina is understood to come from Pelishtim aka the Phillistines, a Greek people who had earlier come to settle on land in the region, battled the Indigenous Israelites, and are unrelated to modern day Palestinians. It thought that the Romans renamed the region this to humiliate and punish the Jews for attempting to resist imperialism and to try to sever their Indigenous ties to the land.

When future empires conquered the land, this name given to it by imperialists stuck. The Byzantine Empire used Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Salutaris; the Arab Empire used Jund Filastin; the British Empire used Mandatory Palestine.

Why is it called Israel today?

Jews, who maintained a presence on their Indigenous land while being persecuted by conquering empire after conquering empire, finally declared independence from imperialism (the British Empire this time) in 1948.

This is an example of an Indigenous people seeking and achieving self-determination on their Indigenous land. As we've covered, Jews are a nation with tribal origins (despite the modern framing of them as more of a religious group, which comes in part from their colonizers' attempts to control them, by the way). Take a look at Cherokee Nation's mission: "The Cherokee Nation is committed to protecting our inherent sovereignty, preserving and promoting Cherokee culture, language and values, and improving the quality of life for the next seven generations of Cherokee Nation citizens."

Indigenous peoples all around the world want these things. When deciding what to call the modern state that would be a re-establishment of an Indigenous nation finally free again from imperial rule, Israel using a pre-colonial name like Israel was an act of decolonization. It is thought that they went with Israel (over, say, Judea) to be more historically geographically accurate and inclusive of non-Jewish citizens.

If you live in America and aren't Native American, you may have guilt over being a beneficiary of settler colonialism.

Writing On [Indigenous name] land in your Instagram bio may make you feel better about living on stolen land. It is also a fairly empty gesture in that it doesn't do a ton for Native Americans and takes essentially no sacrifice from you. You don't have to give up any of the privilege you've accrued as a beneficiary of settler colonialism. Telling people in SWANA to get off their Indigenous land may be a way you are assuaging said guilt. But let's be clear: this is anti- Indigenous, antisemitic, and Orientalist. The irony of your telling Indigenous people to get off land to which they're Indigenous while you chill on land to which you're not? Palpable.

Jews aren't a scapegoat for your guilt. Take a look in the mirror and at history and realize you are in a way more whom you accuse Jewish Israelis of being than they are, and you've said they were deserving of being burned alive in their homes, tortured, mutilated, SAed, and more. What might it be like to apply that logic to you? (Though to be clear, Jews are Indigenous to Israel whilst you are not to America.)

While land back by any means necessary may sound sexy and righteous to you for those people over there (again, it doesn't even accurately apply since Jews are Indigenous to Israel), if it were applied to you, you'd be the subject of violence. Promoting violence in SWANA but not wanting it for yourself reeks of Orientalism. Your comfort with violence against Jews enmeshed in erasure, double standards, and scapegoating is antisemitic.

If you care so much about Indigenous people, stop telling Indigenous people to get off their Indigenous land. Maybe focus a bit more on the Indigenous land you, not a Native American, are occupying.

Advocacy for Palestinians need not erase Jewish history.

Living in the West telling Indigenous peoples of SWANA who they are and what to do is Orientalist.

Disagreeing with actions of the Israeli government isn't a free pass making it ok for you to be antisemitic, anti-Indigenous, or Orientalist.

Soviet Antisemitism and Candace Owens:

The antisemitic Soviet propaganda that got Candace Owens, explained:

Background of Soviet antisemitism.

Many are unaware of how antisemitism, at its peak, inspired Soviet propaganda through anti-Zionism. The Soviet Union created and disseminated anti-Zionist conspiracies after initially siding with Israel, then becoming threatened by Israel's growing alliance with the U.S. Observing this threat, the Soviets quickly unleashed some of the most commonly known anti-Zionist theories, today often repeated by fringe leftists, such as:

"Zionism is racism" "Zionism is elitism" "Zionism is colonialism" "Zionism is American imperialism" "Zionism oppresses people of color" "Zionism is bourgeoise classism”, and the like.

In addition, the Soviets argued that anti-Zionism was "not antisemitism," because many Jews endorsed their theories.

Historians argue that the UN's adoption of Resolution 3379 determining that "Zionism is racism" (later revoked by resolution) was orchestrated by the Soviet propaganda machine.

Soviet Anti-Zionism quickly perpetuated communist circles, concretized in writing and becoming required reading in educational & military institutions.

Soviet Holocaust Distortion and Holocaust Inversion.

Alongside its widespread anti-Zionist propaganda campaign, Soviet propaganda is also responsible for much revisionist history known as "holocaust distortion" and "holocaust inversion."

Whether distorting the facts surrounding the holocaust (through denial, minimization, "universalization," or reversal of victim and offender) or inverting the Holocaust (accusing Jews of being Nazis), the central aim of this propaganda tactic is to convince its target audience, just as the Nazis had done, that the Jews are the cause of the world's problems, never the victims.

Examples of Soviet Holocaust Distortion

1) "Universalization"

Universalization sought to convince audiences that Jews were not the "main victims" of the Holocaust, that many others suffered, suffering was "universal," and even that the "real genocide" happened to other ethnic groups.

This is exactly the Holocaust distortion employed by Candace Owens, seemingly considering herself a masterful revelator of "hidden truths," but actually discovering dusty soviet propaganda that has long been explored and rejected as toothless.

The Nazis murdered 98% of Jews that remained during the occupation. No other groups were systematically and sweepingly targeted in the same way as Jews. No amount of distortion and revisionist history can make it so.

Examples of Soviet Holocaust Distortion

2) Denying and displacing victimhood

When the Soviets referred to Nazi Germany, they famously described the "innocent Soviet citizens" as the "real victims." This branched out to other ethnic groups, just as Candace points to the "innocent Germans that suffered genocide" as the "real ethnic cleansing."

While others were targeted before, during, and after the Holocaust, it is well understood that "not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims" Eli Weisel.

This is exactly the juncture where Candace's logic falls short and proves her untoward agenda. The insistence that Jews "love to play the victim" and "it really isn't about you," and "other groups suffered genocide" is the exact universalization of a specific Jewish tragedy and displacement of Jewish victimhood crafted by the Soviet propaganda.

Examples of Soviet Holocaust Distortion

3) Reversing Victim and Offender

Candace's opinion that Germans were the "real victims" is formulated in a void of historical understanding. The Nazi regime was never entirely separate from the people. It is well understood that the Nazi regime was a widespread and deeply infiltrated network, saturating the political, social, cultural, and economic sphere, and spanning from high officials to local Nazi activists, leaders, paramilitary organizers, the SS, the SA, and citizen informants and collaborators.

The "Final Solution" to "the Jewish problem" could not have been achieved without a deep network of collaborators and widespread citizen involvement, both inside and outside of Germany. Antisemitism was so deeply pervasive at the time that only a minority remained immune, with mass involvement at a military, paramilitary, and civilian level.

Candace's reference to "innocent German citizens" as "the real targets" of genocide is not only ahistorical and counterfactual, but more concerningly, a classic Soviet reversal of victim and offender, designed to vilify Jews as either "not the real victims," or worse, the "true aggressors," and thereby, the cause of their own decimation.

"Turn your pockets out!"

An old Jewish Expression goes, "the antisemite does not accuse the Jew of stealing because he actually thinks he stole something, he just enjoys watching the Jew turn his pockets out to prove his innocence."

One of the pleasures antisemites take in constant Holocaust Inversion (you are the real Nazis, prove that you're not), and Holocaust Distortion (you aren't the real victims here, prove that you are) is watching Jews turn out their proverbial pockets.

Every time a new Soviet conspiracy resurfaces, Jewry must rush to defend their history and are condemned to a life-sentence of proving their victimhood, even in the context of arguably the worst genocide in all history, specifically organized around and formed on millennia of virulent antisemitism.

Much like what this post is doing now.

This tactic forces Jewry into a perpetual state of self-defense, evoking pleasure in the antisemite who gleefully smirks as she watches the Jew turn her empty pockets out.

Ultimately, the goal of old Soviet antisemitic conspiracies are to convince the target audience that Jews are never victims, always aggressors, and with monumental historic twists, leaps, flips, and turns, the source of all the world's problems.

Ironically, this is exactly what led to the Holocaust in the first place, a lesson that is too quickly forgotten by antisemites who are so enthralled by watching the Jew turn her pockets out that she cannot see the Holocaust she is reenacting in the Holocaust she is denying.

[mr-president]

I have a question (To be perfectly clear this is not an ask trying to strum up controversy, but just my own curiosity of your views, and I love your analysis and how you say things. But if you have nothing to say on this matter feel free to delete this ask)

There’s some controversy in the funger fandom about the writing of the Bremen army, also in Pav. Some people think it’s too sympathetic or the choices that Miro made are in poor taste. Do you have any opinions on this?

CW: fascism, Nazism, antisemitism, and what have you. also, sorry if i get things wrong, again, it’s been a while.

Yes, I do think that portraying a historical, fascist, genocidal regime in Nazi Germany as the Bremen army was in poor taste. It’s one thing to just have a fantastical, fictional totalitarian government and another to use an actual historical allegory as stand in for history. The Bremen army is an allegory for Nazi Germany, there is absolutely no denying that, and Mr. Haverinen made that conscious, authorial choice to make that connection.

However, and this is my personal opinion, I don’t think he properly understood, articulated, or represented the impact that Nazi Germany had on Europe, the world, and especially for Jewish people. And this is a problem, because Nazi Germany still has lingering influences on society and culture today, and Mr. Haverinen’s choice to not only write Nazi Germany in the story but portray it in such a way is…in poor taste.

I understand why Mr. Haverinen likely used Nazi Germany as an allegorical tool—the same reason why he uses religious allegory throughout the story. Because we are all familiar with WW2 and Nazism, we have a general idea and basic understanding of this fictional totalitarian, colonialist regime. And that is perfectly fine and is a valid shorthand storytelling device.

Additionally, the Bremen Empire is still depicted as Not A Good Thing. Like, that’s very clear within the narrative—Mr. Haverinen is not a Nazi and clearly does not support that ideology. However, I do believe that he could have done better in understanding/depicting a sensitive historical subject beyond showing how they are bad. If that makes sense.

My problems with the Bremen Empire are that it:

fails to articulate a coherent ideology as to why their influence is so vast,

gives them a somewhat “good” motive that kind of validates their existence

does not empathize with or represent the minority group (Jewish people) who were most affected by this historical tragedy.

For 1), though there are references to the Bremen army’s horrific atrocities, it’s kind of hand-wavey as to why they’re really doing it, seemingly only because Le’garde’s general bloodlust and assholeness. I’ll discuss that more in the second point, but I just want to state that Nazi Germany had a legitimate, compelling, and actual ideology behind it that perpetuated the attitude of nonchalance and “justice” that came with the atrocities they committed.

It is not merely power, it was fascism. Fascism cleans up your neighborhood, gives you jobs and school and work, gives you what made you great, and gets rid of what put you down. Fascism creates a problem and posits that the solution is to exclude the…undesirables and raise yourself up to your truest potential.

And here, Bremen fails. Somewhat.

Point 2). Their motive. The ultimate goal of Le’garde’s bullshit is for him to usher in new era of humanity, where he becomes Logic, ascends to new-Old Godhood, and helps humanity overcome the rule of the Old Gods and truly live for themselves rather than their whims.

Ultimately, it’s uncertain if this will be a positive thing, but in Ending A it’s kind of a good thing, especially with Reina becoming Logic instead of Le’garde. Of course, much like Funger 1, it begs the question of “was this suffering all worth it,” but like many people have criticized with Reina’s usage at all, that question doesn’t hit as hard as Funger 1.

And Funger 1 didn’t even need a wholeass Nazi allegory to ask that question. Was the suffering of every innocent civilian worth it to get Logic? To usher in this new era of humanity?

The question seems more on the side of “Yeah” because unlike Funger 1, Logic’s existence is depicted as a good thing for humanity. Thus, Bremen is sort of a “good thing,” that at least it was towards something positive and for the betterment of people everywhere.

Which is…a really awful thing to say when, again, this was an actual fascist regime who discriminated against, subjugated, and had a system that enforced the oppression of numerous minority groups.

Point 3). Not really interacting with the minority groups subjugated. Termina’s cast is pretty much entirely made up of minorities, and many of them do have or would have tangible interactions that conflict with the Bremen army.

Levi and Pav are perhaps the best examples of characters who were genuinely traumatized by the Bremen army, and their actions and characterization are substantial for recognizing the psychological impact colonization has on people.

However…no character or even allegorical minority group is a stand in for Jewish people, who are one of the most affected groups of Nazism.

Ok, there didn’t need to be a Jewish character who actually went through the atrocities of Nazism in graphic, Funger-grade detail. That could be very triggering, and it could also spell problems of getting the story censored. And also, misrepresentation is a genuine thing to fear when depicting something like that.

But to scrub most if not all references of Antisemitism? Isn’t that kinda fucked? I think it’s fucked. Let me know if I’m wrong.

Anyways, I need you (audience) to understand something.

It is imperative to understand that this is Fear & Hunger. These are games which depict suffering, mass, unavoidable, tragic, yet wholly unnecessary suffering. You the player suffer and understand suffering. And then Mr. Haverinen has an allegory for a fascist regime which caused so much mass, tragic, colonialist, yet entirely unnecessary suffering and chose not to depict who were those sufferers.

It’s my own opinion, but if you make Nazi germany you can empathize with the people who suffered from it if your central theses revolve around suffering.

Additionally, I understand that this story is supposed to be a fantastical retelling of history, but girl, like. You could keep the historical allegory and the historical context and just have it be vaguely referenced. But you interact with the Bremen army in the game. Le’garde acts as a stand in for fucking Adolf Hitler.

Like, you could keep the historical allegory and the historical context and just have it be vaguely referenced. But to interact with that history in such a direct manner, on the side of the oppressor? Without much depiction of the oppressed?

In my opinion, Mr. Haverinen doesn’t really have an excuse for depicting what is essentially Nazi Germany in such a strange way. He didn’t need to make an allegory to Nazi Germany. He didn’t need the game to interact directly with Nazis and their leader. He didn’t need to even depict Nazism to begin with, or have it be such a dominant force in the narrative.

For that reason, it is fucking worthy to critique his authorial choices about a major historical tragedy in a game about tragedy.

Of course, you can say “it’s fictional, people shouldn’t be stupid and believe Nazi Germany was actually like this; there are penis gods, don’t be stupid,” but guess what?? People will be stupid. Fiction doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and though I doubt actual Nazis will come about from Funger, I think Mr. Haverinen isn’t absolved of criticism for portraying Nazi Germany in such a way. It still perpetuates harmful narratives about authoritarianism, minimizes the impact of fascism, and what have you.

We unfortunately exist in a society where people could take away that authoritarianism is maybe cool because you get the internet out of it and maybe sovereigns are trying to help society.

We exist in a society where the portrayal of suffering as perhaps a necessary evil for societal gain is the standard. And for a series that seems to want to say something meaningful in portraying suffering, shouldn’t it aim to critique oppression by sympathizing with the oppressed?

Plus, fuck you if you just tell people not to be stupid and to shut up. That has always been a tactic used by privileged individuals to…talk around the issue. But I’m getting off topic—a rant about alt-right or moralist tactics to end or control a conversation is for another day.

Basically, hey. I care enough about this series to write this critique. I care enough about it that I drew it every day in June, and here I am still thinking about it.

Your art can and will be criticized. This is the right of your audience, and you should listen to their critiques. You should be afraid of potential backlash but people will love your work still despite its grievances. And you should try and do better.

And you should talk about problems in representation. That’s like, how things get better. Be a bitch. Don’t let those with the privilege to ignore continued systemic oppression control the narrative and silence you.

On the subject of Pav, I think he’s…fine? He’s basically Russian, and I think the problems with his characters have more to do with the Bremen Empire being poorly written than his character conceptually. Because I think conceptually, he’s fine—illustrates the cycle of abuse, the trauma of war, whatever, whatever.

tldr; oh yeah, it was not a good representation and we should criticize it.

[hypogryffin]

Genuine curiosity as well as making sure I can express myself properly in the future. You mentioned dislike for the term "Abrahamic" when referring to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths as a singular classification. And I totally get that a TON of people saying Abrahamic really just mean Christian.

So, what term would you use if you wanted to refer to the shared origins of these religious groups? Like, what would be the good religious term that is similar to linguistic terms like Germanic or Romantic? Or would you say there really isn't or shouldn't be one term that can refer to all of them?

fyi im a uni dropout in buttfuck nowhere manitoba so my opinion is highly uninformed and furthermore as my credentials are "stranger on the internet who draws good" im crazy underqualified to give you a new term to use.

"abrahamic" is probably the most alright term i know of, since its supposed to be the blanket terms for "[monotheistic] religions that have abraham as a "patriarch" ". this is a fine category of religions that is not exclusive to judaism, christianity, and islam, though those are the 3 most prominent. its distinctive, its not crazy niche or crazy unspecific, and it works. my problem with the term is that people Use It Wrong to the point it kinda ruins my "relationship" (for lack of a better term) with the word. its not that the term belies classification i dislike, its that i hear people Use It Wrong so often that i associate it with people or arguments that i disagree with, think are in bad faith, or are entirely too uninformed on the matter.

if we "needed" a new term, i guess the only things i could "reasonably" suggest would be something to the effect of "monotheistic" (but that widens the category, im just not sure How Much as im, again, not informed on many world religions past my own and the ones i experience) or maybe "western religions" (which is a bit of a disingenuous name for a lot of reasons but first and foremost because all of "the big three" and as far as i can remember at least some of the smaller, less known abrahamic religions were formed in "the middle east").

i cant say there shouldnt be one term to describe the group of religions were talking about or what a better one is, first and foremost because whatever the broad category is called, im literally not using it? i think this post and the one where i first talked abt my dislike of the word are the only times ive used that word outside of middle&high school social studies classes. i think abrahamic is a fine descriptor, because i dont need to describe what its defined as in my day to day life. i just *personally* take issue with the way ive heard people use it.

[a-really-big-cat]

A recent post and a heated response has caused me to think more about the issue of catholic and jewish interactions. i couldn't understand how or why somebody could compare genocide and evangelization, since the difference seems so clear to me. But a friend helped me understand there's emotional and cultural context that autism makes it difficult to see. Here's what they said about it:

i think the situation between jews and christianity is a bit more complicated than that. it seems to me that the person in that post is carrying some hurt about the antisemitism in the church, which is pretty valid. we can't just say "that's not what the catholic church teaches" when there is in fact a long history of people claiming to be christian but acting terribly towards jewish people. its important to recognize this isn't necessarily an academic conversation but an emotional one

it wasn't that long ago that a commonly held belief was that jews were all collectively responsible for Jesus's death, and should all be blamed for it. the Catholic church has repudiated this, but even that was fairly recent. and a lot of this reflection happened after the holocaust. for reference: https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-31_en.html and there's a bunch of christian churches who actually STILL have not disclaimed this idea i've heard catholics talk about how all the jews need to be converted before the second coming. and like that is not at ALL taught in theology, but it is a cultural thing. and its important to recognize that people saying these things, even when its ignorant of and flies in the face of church teaching, will still affect how people view the church in a massive way the religious aspect is part of it. but it's also this huge cultural thing and ethnicity thing that has gone on for quite some time. and is still worryingly sticking around in some internet communities. most conspiracy theories are drawing from antisemitism talking points, about evil people being in charge of the global banking system and secretly scheming to kidnap children and use their blood for dark magic. which sounds ridiculous, but hey, qanon is a thing! which is Very Bad i guess i'm saying that i don't think this person is really talking about the theology of the church at all they're feeling attacked and attributing that to the broader culture of discrimination, which like it or not is culturally christian in a lot of places. think of how we get holidays for christmas but it's difficult for jews to get yom kippur off. thats culturally christian, and for people who've been hurt by antisemitism it's going to sting like that's an intentional slight, whether or not it is

i think a lot of the resistance comes mainly from the idea that the jews are going to be "erased." which was a fear back in Jesus's time! because the jews have been historically oppressed a lot! to some, it probably feels like betraying their family by choosing a new religion or choosing a new culture, because of the number of jewish people who were martyred. i don't think its accurate to say the christian goal is "no more jews". judaism has been fulfilled through the coming of Jesus the Messiah. and there are a lot of jewish traditions that can give catholic traditions lots of meaning, like the canopy over the altar (which is from jewish wedding traditions). but i can see why people would feel that way, especially if they've interacted with people who've told them being ethnically jewish is something they need to atone for, and they must abandon their culture and traditions and language to become redeemed.

i think it's usually a matter of broken trust, and feeling like this "good news" is actually just an attack in disguise. a way to silence them. and thats not an issue with the theology, its an issue with christians. and we need to do better to reach out to those who've been hurt.

[mrlnsfrt]

Your Sins are Forgiven

"The miracle of salvation has to be the greatest miracle of all, for it meets the greatest need, brings the greatest results (and they last forever), and cost the greatest price"  -- Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 p.199

An invitation for a meal.

Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. - Luke 7:37 NKJV

Who were the Pharisees? Pharisees were the most influential of the three major Jewish sects (the other two being the Sadducees and the Essenes). We first read of them in the second century b.c. (see Josephus, Antiquities13.10.5–6 [13.288–98]). In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the existence of angels and demons (Luke 20:27; Acts 23:6–9), predestination as well as free will, and the validity of both the written and the oral law. Politically they were more conservative than the Sadducees, but religiously they were more liberal due to their acceptance of the oral law. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 175.

This is not the only time that Jesus ate with Pharisees. Luke 11:37; 14:1 also mentions Jesus eating with Pharisees. They “reclined to eat” is a better translation than “sat down to eat,” since “sat down to eat” invokes a mental picture of European-style tables and chairs, when they were more likely reclining at a short table. This detail will come in handy later on. That they reclined at the meal indicates that it was a banquet or Sabbath meal. Concerning the latter, it was quite common to invite a visiting rabbi or teacher to the Sabbath meal after he had taught in the synagogue (see Mark 1:29–31). If it was a banquet meal, Jesus may have been invited because of his reputation as a prophet. (Robert H. Stein, p. 235–236.)

According to Wiersbe, “It was customary in that day for outsiders to hover around during banquets so they could watch the “important people” and hear the conversation. Since everything was open, they could even enter the banquet hall and speak to a guest. This explains how this woman had access to Jesus. He was not behind locked doors. In that day women were not invited to banquets.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

Commenting on this passage, Bruce Larson points out that the Pharisee did not invite Jesus as a social equal since he did not provide the usual amenities for Him: the anointing of oil for the head, the ritual footwashing, and a kiss of greeting. This would indicate that the Pharisee invited Jesus out of curiosity. He had heard that Jesus was a prophet and he wanted to see for himself who this questionable celebrity was. (Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 141.

Along these same lines Robert Stein shares that while it was not mandatory, it would have been a kind gesture for Simon (the Pharisee) as the host to have had his servants wash the feet of his guest (foot washing Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam 25:41; John 13:13–14) Simon was not necessarily being rude in neglecting to do this, but he certainly did not go out of his way to show hospitality to Jesus. It is evident that Simon in no way expressed any affection toward Jesus when he came to his home. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 237.

Behold, a sinner.

37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. - Luke 7:37-38 NKJV

Sometimes people are referred to as sinners because of their occupation. For example, tax collectors, tanners, camel drivers, and custom collectors, among others were considered ceremonially impure because of their occupations and could be labeled “sinners.” However, as it will become clear as the story progresses, her sins were not simply a matter of ceremonial uncleanness. (See Luke 7:47-50)

This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee’s house. - A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Lk 7:37.

When this woman, who was a sinner, knew that Jesus was at the Pharisee’s house she brought fragrant oil and came to Jesus’ feet. This is where the height of the table and “sat down” vs. “reclined” at the table makes a significant difference. If Jesus and others were sitting down in a European-style table and chairs she would have had to crawl under the table by everyone else’s feet and make her way to Jesus’ feet. However, if it was a low table and everyone was reclining, perhaps on some pillows, their feet would be behind them, away from the table and not underneath the table.

This woman, who is a sinner, makes her way to Jesus’ feet and begins to weep, she then uses her tears to wash his feet, and her hair to wipe them. This is very humbling, and if that were not enough, she also repeatedly kisses His feet and anointed them with fragrant oil. It is very likely that she had knelt by Jesus’ feet to anoint them with the fragrant oil and did not expect to weep and to have her tears reach His feet before the fragrant oil.

If this man were a prophet…

39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.” - Luke 36:39 NKJV

The Pharisee doubts that Jesus is a prophet. According to the Pharisee’s thinking, if Jesus were a prophet, then He would know that this woman was a sinner and He would not have allowed her to touch Him. Jesus addresses similar issues in Luke 7:34, where He recognizes that people accuse Him of being a friend of sinners. The Pharisee believes that he knows something that Jesus doesn’t, except that Jesus not only knows exactly who this woman is, He even knows what the Pharisee is thinking.

Let me tell you something.

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.” - Luke 7:40 NKJV

I find it interesting that the Bible says “Jesus answered,” yet no question was asked of him, at least not out loud. Jesus is answering the thoughts of the Simon. Jesus had come to Simon’s house, not because it would be an honor to do so. Jesus did not come looking for support or resources. Jesus came to the Pharisee for the same reason he hung out with tax collectors. Jesus knew Simon also needed the forgiveness and peace that He came to offer to all of humanity.

Story Time

41 “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?”

43 Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.”

And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.”

Jesus used stories as a non-threatening way to engage his audience, see for example Luke 10:36 (Parable of the good Samaritan). This parable revealed to Simon that Jesus was indeed aware that the woman was a sinner. The parable also revealed that Jesus was aware of Simon’s thoughts, and not only that, the story revealed that Simon was also a sinner in need of forgiveness.

We don’t know how Simon reacted, but he is exposed. He knew everything about religion, liturgy, theology, ethics, temple worship, and the law. He knew all about the things of God but somehow he missed the essence of it all, which this woman captured. The woman knew how sinful she was. Simon’s problem was that he thought he was better than he was and he misunderstood the nature of God who is the giver of unconditional love. - Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 141.

Do you see this woman?

44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. - Luke 7:44-46 NKJV

Simon thought he knew something that Jesus didn’t, that the woman who was touching Him was a sinner. In reality, it was Simon who had failed to see. Simon had failed to see that Jesus was the Messiah, something the woman clearly saw.  

Everything that Simon neglected to do, the woman did—and she did it better! - Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

It is worth noting that “The parable does not deal with the amount of sin in a person’s life but the awareness of that sin in his heart. How much sin must a person commit to be a sinner? Simon and the woman were both sinners. Simon was guilty of sins of the spirit, especially pride, while the woman was guilty of sins of the flesh (see 2 Cor. 7:1). Her sins were known, while Simon’s sins were hidden to everyone except God. And both of them were bankrupt and could not pay their debt to God. Simon was just as spiritually bankrupt as the woman, only he did not realize it.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198. Bold mine)

The main difference between Simon and the woman is not the amount of sin they had committed, but rather that she accepted God’s free offer of salvation and expressed her love openly. While Simon rejected Jesus’ offer and remained unforgiven. What a tragedy, to be so close to Jesus, yet fail to benefit from what Jesus had to offer.

What a tragedy to know so much about God, yet fail to understand the heart of God.

How tragic to have an intellectual and theological knowledge of God but miss the practical and relational understanding of our great need for the salvation that God offers us.

Have you ever wondered why, out of all the possible ways Jesus could have begun His sermon on the mount He chose to begin with “Blessed are the poor in spirit?” (Matthew 5:3) Because it is those who realize their need of Jesus that benefit from what Jesus has to offer. Simon probably knew much more about God, prophecy, the laws, and history than the woman did, but because that knowledge failed to cause Simon to recognize his need for Jesus it was all worthless. Maybe even worse than worthless, it was dangerous for his theological knowledge gave him a false sense of security. His hope was not found in Jesus or God’s great mercy, but rather in his intellectual prowess and religious discipline.

It was true that the woman had sinned more than Simon (according to the parable) but she is the only one who recognized her need for forgiveness and received it.

Your sins are forgiven

47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” - Luke 7:47-48 NKJV

Jesus did not downplay the sinfulness of the woman. Indeed, she was a sinner who had committed many sins. However, the multitude of her sins did not make her more lost than Simon. How many sins do you have to commit in order to be classified as a sinner? There are degrees of consequences on a human, physical, and emotional level. However, when it comes to salvation, a small or large sin, or one or one million sins don’t make much of a difference. Once again, here on earth, there is a difference, the more you sin or the different types of sins cause varying levels of pain and suffering. But when it comes to salvation, one is all it takes for you to need to be rescued by Jesus.

The fact that the woman had many sins did not matter because she came to Jesus who was more than happy to forgive her of all her sins! Simon, on the other hand, had different sins, sins people would probably refer to as smaller sins, less offensive, less disruptive. However, Simon was also in desperate need of the forgiveness and salvation that Jesus had to offer. His failure to notice that prevented him from experiencing the deep love the woman had for Jesus.

All true penitents have a dear love to the Lord Jesus. - Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1847.

As you read this you might identify with the woman with many sins, or you might identify yourself more closely with the Pharisee. Maybe your life has been pretty good, you might have never done anything terrible. Maybe you don’t feel a great need for Jesus and as a result, you don’t particularly feel much love towards Him. Maybe you look down on those who have more sins, those who have caused more pain and suffering and have also experienced a greater degree of pain and suffering. This story is a warning, lest you forget how you need Jesus’ salvation just as much as the worst sinner this world has ever seen.

Your faith has saved you.

49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” - Luke 7:49-50 NKJV

Though the woman was forgiven much and loved much, her love was a result of her salvation, not the cause of it. She loved much because she had experienced forgiveness. Her forgiveness was a result of her faith.

We are not saved by faith plus works; we are saved by a faith that leads to works. This anonymous woman illustrates the truth of Galatians 5:6, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (NIV). - Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

Onlookers who had not experienced forgiveness to the degree that that woman had probably thought her behavior was over the top. We must be very careful not to judge someone else’s spiritual journey. They may seem fanatic to you, over-zealous, but perhaps they have just experienced God’s love in a way that is still foreign to you. Some dedicate their lives to God in such a passionate way that others wonder how it can be possible for anyone to live like that. Others live lives that barely give any evidence of their love for God.

I am still learning how to live my life in a way that is dedicated to God but sustainable. By this I mean I want to live in such a way that I will be around a long time to serve and bless those around me. However, I want to allow the Holy Spirit to move in me and make me uncomfortable as often as necessary for me to minister to those that God sends my way.

What about you?

What is your spiritual journey like? Is it vibrant and alive? Is your love for God passionate yet sustainable?

Or are you satisfied with a cheap and easy religion? Are you just sitting in your comfort zone judging those you consider less worthy of salvation? Do you love little and judge those who seem to love God way too much?

These are difficult questions. I am always asking God to guide me in this. I invite you to do the same. Ask God to reveal to you what you need to surrender to Him. Ask God to remind you of who you once were, and who you are now thanks to Him and His great love for you.

Instead of grudging greater sinners the mercy they find with Christ, upon their repentance, we should be stirred up by their example to examine ourselves whether we be indeed forgiven, and do love Christ. - Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1848.

Practical application

Jesus is not here for us to anoint his feet. Some of us don’t have hair long enough to wipe His feet, so what should we do?

Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ - Matthew 25:45 NKJV

Though Jesus is not here, there are those in need that we can help because of our great love for Jesus.

So here is my challenge for you. Pray that God will send you someone to help this week. Someone you can help in the name of Jesus. You will help this person not because of anything they can do or has done for you, you will help this person simply because of what Jesus has done for you, a selfless act of kindness, that will reflect your great love for Jesus and your recognition of all that He has done for you.

[merrybrides]

Match Your Values With Your Wedding Vows

As you think about writing your wedding vows, have you considered how to infuse your values into your vows? Whether your values center on your culture, faith, or your family (or all three!), we have tips for making sure that your wedding vows reflect what you value most (plus sharing our favorite examples!).

STYLES OF WEDDING VOWS

PERSONAL, SENTIMENTAL & ROMANTIC

This is perhaps the most classic, traditional style of custom wedding vows. Wedding days are full of emotion, and it’s perfectly normal to feel romantic and sentimental when writing your vows (However, if this isn’t something you’re comfortable with, that’s ok! Our vow books are the perfect place to document vows you prefer to keep more private).

Example:

My sister, Arielle embraced the notion of Love Letter Wine Box ceremony when she married her husband. They were inspired by moments in their dating relationship when they had many great conversations over a glass of wine. It became a ritual for them to open a bottle that they loved and settle in for an evening of conversation. The wedding box ceremony was the perfect way to recognize those special moments and make their ceremony personal and sentimental. It also fits in perfectly with their Napa wedding.

Prompt:

What moment did you know you wanted to spend your life with this person?

What special rituals have you created as a couple?

FUNNY / PLAYFUL

If your relationship is full of laughter and silliness, your vows don’t need to be somber and stiff (although they are serious, they don’t have to be square).

Example:

We love this example we found via Offbeat Bride.  It’s playful, certainly, but we love what’s behind this playful vow: a commitment to know and understand your partner as much as you can, and to do everything you can to make them happy. What a lovely sentiment!

“I promise to give you half the cream cheese I would want on a bagel. I promise to under jelly your sandwiches but over toast them. But most of all I promise to work on this, on us. I promise to try. I promise to choose you and us and our family every day.”

Prompt:

What are your favorite quirks about your partner?

What are yours or their endearing pet peeves?

Is there anything about these that you’ve had to compromise on in your relationship, that’s brought you closer?

RELIGIOUS

Many couples find wisdom in the scriptures to use in their wedding ceremony. No matter your faith, you can choose to involve scripture in your vows or wedding ceremony to express your commitment and sentiments to each other.

Example:

A common scripture from the Christian tradition comes from the books in the bible. In the scriptures, while these don’t necessarily refer to romantic love, they do express the ideals of commitment and love that many people want to have in their marriage, which is why these (and other) verses are so popular.

“Two are better than one. For if they fall, one will lift the other up”Ecclesiastes 4: 9-10

And above all these put on love, which binds everything in perfect harmony.  Colossians 3:14

A common Jewish (and Christian) scripture reading comes from the Songs of Solomon 6:3:“I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine”.

Prompt:

What lines of scripture do you want to inspire your marriage?

If you have a different faith from your partner, what will you blend from each of your faith backgrounds?

CULTURE BASED

Weddings are a universal tradition, and each culture has developed their own beautiful, symbolic, and rich practices around two people pledging commitment of eternal love. Consider adopting a tradition from your own culture, or your partner’s culture.

We love the The Knot Guide To Wedding Traditions which is a fabulous guide for nearly every cultural wedding ceremony tradition you could think of. If you don’t identify strongly with a culture, you may find great beauty in borrowing or adopting a piece of another that resonates with you as a culture.

Example:

We love the Japanese wedding tradition of a sake ceremony. The ritual is called a San San Kudo, literally translating to “Three Three Nine Deliver”. Sake is immensely important in Japanese culture and carries historical and cultural significance. It harkens back to the time in Japanese culture when sharing sake carried weight as a formal bond, much like a handshake in Victorian times.

Here’s how it works:

Each partner drinks 3 sips from both sake cups, then offers sake to both sets of parents. The parents then take sips, making for a total of 9 sips, symbolically solidifying the bond between the families. This celebrates the new formed unity between the families.

Prompt:

What you might bring from your culture into your vows?

Are there traditions from another culture that’s meaningful or symbolic to you as a couple that you might want to adopt?

FAMILY-BASED

If this is your second wedding, you may be blending families together, making your union about more than just your twosome. This is a wonderful opportunity to include sentiments about how you’ll care for each other’s family as you come together. Whether your children are still young or grown with children of their own, blending two families always brings unique challenges, and of course, also requires

Example:

A wonderful trend we’ve seen in blended family weddings is a vow from the parents to the children. This is a time for the new stepparents to express to their new stepchildren how, in choosing their partner, they are also choosing the child for life. This is a wonderful opportunity to strengthen the bond with the child, and publicly declare love and commitment.

Prompt:

How will you incorporate your family into your new life together?

What are your promises individually and together to the children involved

[msfbgraves]

I disagree strongly on Terry being Jewish.

I think he just went to Sensei Rosenthal's Shabbat Service to recruit him. Terry plays all sides; he is as loyal to ideas and abstract thoughts, religion and politics--as smoke and shadow. The only thing he's loyal to is certain people, and only when they are loyal back.

Circulating back, if Terry really is Jewish, than I think that's a mistake on the CK writers part. Oh look, yet another wealthy, evil, money-hungry, power-hungry Jewish man who is the villain...really? I still headcanon him as being Irish-Catholic just like his actor, though only attending mass to again, recruit people. Build up a front, a cover image like a glossy magazine. And again, while 'Silver' might be derived from 'Silber', there are people with that surname, and surnames of jewels etc., who have zero Jewish relation. I'm one of those people with both a first and last name of origin that does not match my ancestry or Catholic religion one bit, so people often assume otherwise.

I think Terry saying Shalom Sensei is just his usual way of being an affable villain, a sinister, yet totally charming man. Like I said, he plays all sides, and will butter people up before slipping them the knife and twisting it in deep.

I agree with your objections on Terry having Jewish heritage (I've made a whole post in november why that is, um, yikes going by so many antisemitic stereotypes), but it was placed there quite deliberately, and in my eyes randomly, by the writers. A dojo is not a place where this naturally comes up.

I agree we do not need another Jewish manipulative billonaire villain who buys influence and endangers children. But others have argued that the writers are Jewish and it reads differently to Americans because many of these antisemitic stereotypes are distinctly European. I honestly have no idea how liberal Californian synagogues are; maybe gentiles are incredibly welcome at services (not where I live! Gentiles are asked point blank not to attend services unless by express invitation...) but the writers put the whole Ashkenazi Germanic name = Jewish coded there themselves (Rosenthal), and well, Silber, like Edelstein, is in the same vein and they are discussing shabbat services!

I headcanon Terry as Irish too but that evidence is also only in the name Terry and the frequent use of "Danny boy". That's less obvious than this.

Honestly, if I'd been in the writer's room I'd have told them not to put it in but they did.

I assure you I am not trying to make him into an antisemitic stereotype but it is text and the two names plus the referring to the religion, unprompted in a situation where religion is not associated with the place the characters are or the activity going is quite a strong suggestion that the writing team, for better or worse, put in there.

Again, I would have suggested Mass, or a charity board meeting, a squash session, a wine tasting, an art show, a baseball game. But no. They chose two people with Jewish coded names meeting up and referring to a Jewish religious service. If I have two characters named O'Sullivan and Murphy refer to a meetup after Mass, well of course that does not prove they are Irish or even Christian, but it quite strongly suggests it.

I don't like it but I can't deny someone put it in.

[psychologeek]

hi!

So, I'm in a better headspace now (hopefully), and can go through this now.

I'd like to be very clear that I'm not denying your right to have your own thoughts, opinions, feelings, etc. I just want to address some of the things you said. But some of the things you said are either inaccurate or very biased, and so I wanted to address them.

I'm not trying to change your (or anyone else's) opinions. I do, however, want to address some of the things you said.

Due to my accessibility needs, this would be divided into several rbs.

in here:

Zionism

Barrier

settlers

religion

indigenous

Zionism

First of all, What is Zionism in your opinion?

This is a key question, as "Zionism" seems to hold very different meanings for people with different views on it.

My definition of Zionism (ציונות) includes 3 key points:

1. Jewish people have the right to live safely and undescriminated. 2. This can only happen when there's a Jewish autonomous state. 3. Due to historical, religious, and other reasons - that state should be located in the area of the Levant between the meditarian Sea and the Jordan River.

This is what I mean when I say Zionism.

Other refers to Zionism as "the right to self-determination of Jewish people", which I agree with, but I don't feel like it's not fully capturing this.

It's also important to remember that there are many types of Zionism. For example, I'm religious-Zionist. For me, this means I believe this land was granted to us by god (though not only for us), but also that if you're looking for salvation you should work towards it. I believe we belong to this land, the way it belongs to us - not ownership, but rather a co-existence? partnership? of that kind.

others have different opinions, of course, and that's okay. I mostly see the "לעבדה ו��שומרה" - "to work (also worship, can also read as "to process, to farm") and keep (/guard)".

The Barrier

For example, once I said I didn't like the separation wall dividing Israel proper from the West Bank but that it was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and they were like "No, that wasn't the wall, it was a change in PA policy."

2001 - 31 terror attacks (84 killed), 2002 - 46 TA (225), 2003 - 22 TA (142). 2004-2017: 1 TA (in 2006), 11 killed.

Other reasons include changes in the military strategy of IDF, and the military operation in 2002 ("Operation Defensive Sheild") that led to many arrests and the destruction of weapons-creating labs.

It is, in many places, a literal fence.

I will not get deeply into it, as my understanding of this subject isn't the best. I can tell that most of the people against it were from the extremist sides of the political map (left and right) and that the supporters were pretty much political-centered

Settlers

Another time I was like "I don't understand [West Bank] settlers, if they want to be pioneers and settle more land they should settle the Negev, where they're not encroaching on Palestinians!" and they explained to me more about the situation between Israel and Bedouins and how that actually still would involve encroaching/displacement.

Have you ever considered asking a "[West Bank] settler" about it? There are several reasons, including security, prices, area, and location.

Ideologically, it varies from "this is our land" to "if we don't live there, it's gonna be like Gaza" (subtext: do you want rockets on Tel Aviv?), and more.

I assume, when you say "[West Bank] settlers", you mean "the small\new villages\living points".

Most of the Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria (and Binyamin) live in cities. 36% are Charedim (mostly Modi'in Illit and Beytar Illit), 35% are Dati-Leumi, and 29% are secular (nonreligious, Hiloni)

religion

They're very religious, and so they had the tools to poke into my "but just open a siddur! you can see all the references to returning to Jerusalem!" and discuss how that differed from and predated zionism the political ideology. They were able to break through my dismissiveness/derision of Chareidi antizionism and help me understand that it has legitimate religious underpinnings. (They're not Chareidi though.) They affirmed for me that they do feel connected to Eretz Yisrael and they love Eretz Yisrael.

are you talking about "Shlosh HaShvu'ot" (the 3 vows?) Bc

1) this is a very Ashkenazi POV.

2) specifically countered by many Poskim (including רמב"ן, רמ"ם, הגר"א, חפץ חיים, and more).

indigenous

They also explained that indigenous doesn't mean "from a place" but rather describes a relationship to colonialism. It still didn't totally click for me, and they and I have both since come to understand that there are a lot of definitions of indigenous, but what it did help me understand was that when people push back against "Jews are indigenous to EY" they're not always trying to say we're not from there.

???

"rather describes a relationship to colonialism" (and, uh, what do you call authority that strips people out of their names, religions, and languages, and puts those who refuse as second-grade citizens?)

So, let me get that straight - Arabs, who colonized the SWANA area, and controlled the area for about 1,200 years (I'm referring to the Islamic Caliphate (s): a pan-Arab Muslim empire/s - Rashdon, Dynasties, Mamluks, Ottomans) are "indigenous to the area".

But Jews (which, btw, comes from Judea - aka reign in Eretz Israel, a tribe, and the last standing Jewish kingdom) are not. Okay. Cool.

This also pretty much denies\ignores the Jewish communities that lived in EY non-stop. And the immigration in and out.

Question - how long does it take before someone loses their "right" to be indigenous? Like, is it a 500-year thing?400? Is it when they move to a different area?

@wiisagi-maiingan @cree-future-rabbi

l I feel like you might have some. Uh. OPINIONS about this definition of "indigenous".

op -

So, just to get this straight - your Zionism was based solely on the Jewish-land connection, and your beliefs that antizionists deny it. So when you found AZ who doesn't deny that connection, that stopped being an issue?

[I'm really confused here, sorry if it sounds offensive. I just. Not really get it?]

Hi! I saw your tags on unlearning zionism and I was wondering if you've ever spoken about that/the kind of processing you had to do? I think it's... Interesting (for lack of a better word) how this is a sentiment I've seen reflected on pretty much all explicitly non-zionist Jewish blogs I follow, and how much that reflects both how closely entwined the concept and Jewishness has become and the fierce zionism in some people.

Obviously you're free to not discuss this at all, I also understand it's deeply personal. (I'm also not intending to make anyone change their mind, I believe this is a process Jewish people should be afforded on their own terms; I'm really just trying to understand where they're coming from). ♥️

The tl;dr was through talking to people, breaking my rigidities, and being lucky enough to encounter people who were kind, committed to dialogue, and not dismissive.

Longer version under the cut.

In winter 2019 I started dating a non-zionist, so a lot of the early stuff was through conversations with them.

Here are the specific things I recall through them:

They validated my experience of having felt traumatized by a negative experience I had at a protest. I felt very on the defense, and dismissed, as a zionist who wanted to be in leftist spaces and they validated that. I don't know if they were faking it or not, but it felt real, and being heard and not dismissed was super important to building trust and safety. Ultimately, building trust and safety was the most important thing.

They would sometimes patiently poke holes in things I said. Matter of factly, not confrontationally. For example, once I said I didn't like the separation wall dividing Israel proper from the West Bank but that it was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and they were like "no, that wasn't the wall, it was a change in PA policy." Another time I was like "I don't understand [West Bank] settlers, if they want to be pioneers and settle more land they should settle the Negev, where they're not encroaching on Palestinians!" and they explained to me more about the situation between Israel and Bedouins and how that actually still would involve encroaching/displacement.

They're very religious, and so they had the tools to poke into my "but just open a siddur! you can see all the references to returning to Jerusalem!" and discuss how that differed from and predated zionism the political ideology. They were able to break through my dismissiveness/derision of Chareidi antizionism and help me understand that it has legitimate religious underpinnings. (They're not Chareidi though.) They affirmed for me that they do feel connected to Eretz Yisrael and they love Eretz Yisrael.

They also explained that indigenous doesn't mean "from a place" but rather describes a relationship to colonialism. It still didn't totally click for me, and they and I have both since come to understand that there are a lot of definitions of indigenous, but what it did help me understand was that when people push back against "Jews are indigenous to EY" they're not always trying to say we're not from there.

In general it helped me break down what I thought an antizionist was. I thought that an antizionist was someone who didn't think Jews had a meaningful spiritual and communal connection to EY, thought we weren't from there, didn't give a shit if all Israeli Jews ended up pushed into the sea, hadn't opened a siddur to see references to return to Jerusalem, etc. I was also pretty rigid in my thinking and had collected a bunch of talking points, mostly that I'd co-created with other members of Jewbook (Jewish facebook). They helped me break out of that rigidity and once I'd done that I was open to learning more.

What happened next is that in fall 2019 is I did a fellowship that, while unrelated to the topic, put me in contact with other Jewish antizionists.

There was one person whose project we visited during an outing on the fellowship, who had discussed their project's antizionism. I was bothered by it and asked them one question: Did they feel Jews were connected to Eretz Yisrael? Did they feel connected to Eretz Yisrael? They responded yes of course.

Another person was my roommate on the fellowship, a leftist antizionist Syrian Jew. For a while one of my sticking points had been Mizrahi support of Zionism -- my thought process here had a few pieces. One, it seemed like white privilege to go against what most Israeli Jews of color believed and wanted. Another was that I felt that a lot of antizionists were dismissive of and racist towards Mizrahim and don't understand or care to understand their needs, history, or motivations (I do still think that's true). I also saw the expulsions from SWANA and the fact that Israel took in the SWANA Jewish refugees as proof of the necessity of Zionism.

So, I think that interacting with a Mizrahi antizionist both taught me expanded perspectives on the issue, and taught me that it's possible to be antizionist and still in solidarity with Mizrahim. I learned more nuance, for example around Israel's taking in of the refugees; I knew they had been mistreated, but I think it helped me connect the dots about what that meant about the entire Zionist project. That was also the year A-WA's album Bayti fi Rasi came out, and when I listened to Hana Mash Hu Al Yaman, I think that's when it clicked for me that Israel taking them in was not some sort of miracle or blessing in disguise but rather a last resort for people who did not want to go but had no choice. The main characters in that song wanted to stay in Yemen which is I think something that hadn't clicked for me before. That may not be the majority Mizrahi perspective but it is a perspective and one I hadn't previously considered.

By the same token, my partner at the time (the one I talked about at the beginning of the post) was raised as a Yiddish speaker, and we talked about Yiddish suppression during the early days of the state, as well as Ben Yehuda's disdain for Yiddish, and the general early Zionist disdain for Eastern European Jewry and "old world" Jewish culture. I was already aware of the New Jew concept (the idea that the old Jew was studious and unathletic, but we should put that behind us to become strong and agricultural). They helped me frame this in terms of antisemitism, connecting it to the vitriol Chassidim receive from other Jews, antisemitism directed towards Jewish men and the ways it's about gender and goyish and Jewish constructions of masculinity, anti-circ rhetoric that depends on the Hellenistic idea of the body as perfection, and Naomi Klein's analysis of the dislike of Yiddish by Ben Yehuda et al as sexist due to their association of it as "feminine" and therefore lesser.

We also talked about the ways that Zionism devalues diaspora culture. I definitely see this in the ways that eg Jewbook zionists used to see the Ashkenazi past in Eastern Europe as simply a time of pogroms and violence with nothing generative or valuable. It seems that zionism posits Israel and Israeli culture as the "right" or "completed" version of Judaism, and discourages us from mourning the loss of culture we experienced during the Holocaust and our subsequent exodus.

I think there is nuance here; there are Israeli Yiddishists, there are people practicing all kinds of diaspora Jewish cultures in Israel, etc. I think this is a case where antizionists take something real and over emphasize it to sound bigger and more harmful than it is. It's not Israel's fault that European Jewry got destroyed and it's not Israel's fault that A-WA's family had to leave Yemen. Sometimes it feels like antizionist project those harms onto Israel and Zionism.

At the same time though, there is a kernel of truth in the way at least that many North American zionists view Ashkenazi culture, thought I can't say how much of that is their Zionism and how much is the legacy of American assimilationism (even among religious Jews).

In any case, 2020 is when I started on my journey to deepen my understanding of old world Ashkenazi culture and history. I started with a day spent in the kids' section of the Yiddish Book Center using the beginner education resources there to start teaching myself Yiddish (I had a lot of familiarity because my extended family speaks it, but I didn't yet). About half a second later the pandemic started, and the chaos from that took all my attention for a while, but by the end of the summer I did a deep dive on my genealogy and spent two weeks tracking down documents and names and towns. At that point my family history was no longer abstract, and I started wondering more about what their lives were like in the old country.

I started watching Yiddish plays on zoom, including a production of the Dybbuk that I fell in love with. I got involved in the shtetlcore movement, which was a social media aesthetic fad that was basically the shtetl version of cottagecore. That spring the duolingo Yiddish course came out and I did a six month streak. The following winter I went to a virtual Yiddish conference. I went again two more times in person, and last summer I went to a week-long retreat where we were only allowed to speak Yiddish. I also do Yiddish drag and burlesque.

With this emphasis and knowledge it's hard for me to accept any framing that the only "right" place for Jews to live is Israel, or that diaspora cultures are lesser-than. At some point I encountered a belief among some zionists (though I don't think most believe this) that the Jewish people's differentiation into a myriad of different cultures was a bad thing, and constituted negatively picking up pieces of non-Jewish culture, and that it's good we're back together in Israel so we can become just one culture again. I obviously strongly disagree and I while I wish we had not had to experience the trauma of Khorban Beis Hamikdash and the ensuing displacement, I think the variety of different cultures we split into is beautiful.

Ironically, Israel is actually a place of great cultural exchange between those cultures. And yes, I do worry there will be cultural loss if everything blends together melting pot style, but that's more of a function of how societies work as opposed to official state policy. And I also think the Jewish subcultures will endure. Also the cultural loss is the fault of the Holocaust, the Soviet Union, and nationalist SWANA countries way way more than it is Israel's.

At this point I've come to view the idea that Zionism is detrimental to Jewish culture as weak, but I still am not a Zionist, and that's because the issue with Zionism is not that it harms Jews but that it harms Palestinians.

In early summer 2020, I, along with many other white people were called to reckon with the realities of white supremacy in the US, and our part in it, far more deeply than we had before. I learned to understand how racism functions as a pillar of the US's underpinnings, how white supremacy morphs to sustain itself, how I as an individual and Jews as a group were being used to maintain white supremacy. It fundamentally shifted how I view these topics and how I understand the way that states function.

It was impossible not to apply these concepts to Israel-Palestine. While it is obviously not a one-to-one comparison and I am frustrated with folks who seem to think it is, the concepts and analyses I learned in June 2020 were very elucidating in understanding Israel as a state, and how white supremacy and Jewish supremacy operate in Israel-Palestine.

One of those concepts is a deeper understanding of power dynamics and the oppressed-oppressor relationship. While that is not the be-all end-all, and it is still possible for an oppressed group to do harm and commit war crimes (as they did on Oct 7), it helped me understand the ways it makes no sense to view Palestinians and Israelis as equal parties or to view Palestinians as "the aggressor" as many zionists do. Riots are the language of the unheard and, yes, so is violence. Do not imagine that I excuse, condone, or celebrate Oct 7, but I understand why it happened.

These past seven months have forced a magnifying glass on Israel-Palestine and I have spent a lot of time thinking and talking about it. I have had many experiences and interactions that have illuminated different things to me, but I'll leave you with this one.

In 1956, a young man named Ro'i Rothberg was killed in Kibbutz Nahal Oz by Palestinians who lived in Gaza. Moshe Dayan came to give a eulogy and in it, he said:

Why should we declare their burning hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate.

Which is to say, he is stating point blank that the Nakba happened, and that Nahal Oz -- and in fact Israel -- is built on land that had been farmed and inhabited by Palestinians. The hasbarist canard of "we didn't steal their land" falls away when Moshe Dayan himself admits it, doesn't it?

He is acknowledging, also, that he understands why the people of Gaza are enraged, and why some of them express this rage as violence. He gives his solution: That the Israeli people, and especially the people of Nahal Oz, must always be on their guard. Must never become peaceniks and forget the rage of the people of Gaza. He says "we are a generation that settles the land and without the steel helmet and the cannon's maw, we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home."

His vision is of an Israel that is always militarized and militant, always on its guard, never to know peace. A people who will send their children to the army generation after generation after generation. Never to rest. Never to be able to lower their guard.

And that is awful! Not just for Palestinians, but for Israelis! Dayan lays out here that if the Nakba is not redressed, this will continue forever. He wants it to continue forever; I want the Nakba redressed.

He knew Nahal Oz would be attacked again. And he was right. On the morning of Simchat Torah of this year, 5784, twelve residents of the kibbutz were brutally murdered. A family that my family knows hid there in their bomb shelter for ten hours with their small children until they were rescued. The kibbutz was destroyed.

And Moshe Dayan knew it would happen, all the way back in 1956. And yet did nothing to change our trajectory. I cannot forgive him that.

In the months since the destruction of Nahal Oz, we have seen Gaza pummeled with a terrifying vengeance. For years I have encountered, albeit few and far between, people who have clammored for Gaza to be "turned into a parking lot." I was horrified by them, but did not take seriously the threat they represented. Yet now, their genocidal flowers have borne fruit. Gaza lies in ruins. 60% of the roads and infrastructure are destroyed. The descendants of refugees are refugees again, chased from their homes by the descendants of refugees. The live in tents, they scrabble for water and food. They live under threat of bombing, or being shot, or dying of illness and malnutrition.

And still Nahal Oz remains destroyed. The Jewish dead of Europe remain dead. The synagogues of Tunis and Algiers remain empty. Nothing is fixed, only more and more broken.

Is it to continue this way? Is this the world we want?

I say no. I say another world is possible. And on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.

[writingwithcolor]

Jewish author writing about antisemitism; should I include racism too?

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a white Jewish person who's writing a story set in a fantasy world with a Jewish-coded culture. It's important to me to explore antisemitism in this distanced setting, and explore what the Jewish diaspora means to me. I have a lot of people of color in my story as well. I don't know whether I, as a white person, should include racism in a story if it isn't necessary, but I also don't want to erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism, and I also don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism, which is obviously not the case. I was thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based rather than ethnically or racially based, but again, I'm not sure how or whether to write about bigotry against cultures + groups based on cultures + groups that I'm not a part of, and people of color in the story would obviously have their own cultural elements. Is acknowledging bigotry necessary?

It's okay to focus on antisemitism

Other mods have important advice on what exactly might be helpful or applicable to include in your story and how. I want to take a moment with the anxiety you express that focusing on antisemitism and not talking about other types of xenophobia will imply to your readers that you think antisemitism is “more serious” than other forms of bigotry. I hear and honor that anxiety, especially since “Jews only care about Jews” is a stereotype that never seems to go away, so I’m going to say something revolutionary:

It’s okay to center Jews in a story about antisemitism.

There, I said it. But I’m not making the case that you shouldn’t include references to or depictions of other types of bigotry in your story. There are a lot of great reasons why you should, because of what it can do for the complexity of your characters, the depth of your worldbuilding, or the strength of your message about the nature of xenophobia, diaspora, etc.

- How your non-Jewish-coded characters react to the things they experience can affect whether they sympathize over or contribute to the antisemitism at the heart of your story.

- How other types of xenophobia do and don’t manifest in your world can help explain why your world has antisemitism in the first place, and what antisemitism consists of in a world that also contains other minorities outside of the fantasy mainstream culture.

- Including other real-world xenophobia can help you set your antisemitism in context and contrast to help explain what you want to say about it.

Both your story and your message might be strengthened by adding these details. But if you feel the structure of your story doesn’t have room for you to show other characters’ experiences and you’re only considering doing it because you’re afraid you’ll be upholding a negative stereotype of yourself if you don’t, then it might help to realize that if someone is already thinking that, nothing you do is going to change their mind. You can explore antisemitism in your story, but you don’t have the power to solve it, and since you don’t have that power you also don’t have that responsibility. I think adding more facets to your story has the potential to make it great, but leaving it out doesn’t make you evil.

- Meir

Portraying xenophobia

As someone living in Korea and therefore usually on the outside looking in, I feel that a lot of people in Western countries tend to conflate racism and xenophobia. Which does make sense since bigots tend to not exactly care about differences between the two but simply act prejudiced against the “other”. Sci also makes a point below about racialized xenophobia. I feel these are factors contributing to your confusion regarding issues of bigotry in your story.

Xenophobia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”. You mention “thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based”, and this description fits xenophobia better than most other forms of bigotry. Xenophobia can be seen as an umbrella term including antisemitism, so you are technically including one form of xenophobia through your exploration of antisemitism.

I understand your wariness of writing racism when it doesn’t add to the plot, especially as a white writer. Your concerns that you might “erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism” is valid and in fact accurate, since exclusion of racism will of course lead to lack of portrayals of the intersections between racism and xenophobia. I want to reassure you that this is not a bad thing, just a choice you can make. No one story (or at least, no story that can fit into one book) can include all the different forms of oppression in the world. Focusing on one particular form of oppression, particularly one you have personal experience with, is a valid and important form of representation.

You also comment that you “don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism”, but I honestly feel that doesn’t need too much concern. Much like how queerness and disability are two separate issues with intersections, racism and xenophobia form a Venn diagram, with large intersections but neither completely including the other. A story focusing on autistic characters that doesn’t also have queer rep doesn’t imply queer issues are less serious. Likewise, a story focusing on antisemitism doesn’t imply racism is less serious.

I am slightly more concerned that there might be an accidental implication of antisemitism being a more serious issue compared to other forms of xenophobia. Of course, exploring antisemitism alone is completely valid representation, and there’s no need to go out of your way to try and portray other forms of xenophobia. A microaggression or two, or maybe a mutual bitch out session with a gentile but marginalized friend should be enough to show that antisemitism isn’t more (or less) serious compared to other forms of xenophobia.

-Rune

Avoiding racialized xenophobia

I think one thing you have to be careful with here is racialized xenophobia. Are your characters of color getting disproportionately more xenophobia than your white characters? You might be falling into the trap of racialized xenophobia, which falls under racism, which you want to avoid. An example would be “all Chinese scientists are untrustworthy, but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones.’” Although this is technically xenophobia, it is also racism.

--Mod Sci

In the case you choose to include even small snippets of other forms of xenophobia in your story, attempting to portray xenophobia without the complications of racism can be a difficult process when they often go hand in hand (especially to a Western audience). So here are a couple of suggestions I have of portraying xenophobia without racism.

First and the simplest method is portraying xenophobia between people of the same race. For example, there is definitely xenophobia against Chinese and Japanese people in Korea, but it would be difficult to claim there is a racial component when all of us are East Asian. (Something you might want to be aware of here is intersections with colorism, where even within the same race, lighter skin and other more westernized features are considered more desirable. I suggest looking through our colorism tag for more details)

Another idea is to include microaggressions for specific cultures rather than something more broad. For example, calling Korean food stinky because kimchi has a strong scent is specifically xenophobic against Koreans, while commenting on small eyes can be directed against Asians in general.

Finally, while antisemitism is a form of ethnicity-based xenophobia, it is also a form of religion-based xenophobia. Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus can absolutely be xenophobic against each other with no racism involved. Should you choose this method, particularly if religious xenophobia is only shown in a shorter scene, I suggest you try and avoid portraying any of the above religions as the Bad or Oppressive ones. As a Christian I will unironically tell you that Christianity is a safe choice for a religiously xenophobic character, as we’re far less likely to face backlash compared to any other religion, and inspiration should unfortunately be overflowing in real life.

-Rune

Other forms of ethno-religious oppression

Here is my TCK perspective as someone brought up in diverse environments where there are often other axes of oppression including religion, ethnicity and class:

Racism and xenophobia can definitely be apples to oranges, so creating a universe where racism no longer exists or has never existed seems doable to me. Perhaps in your fantasy world, structures that buttress racism, such as colonization, slavery and imperialism, are not issues. That still won’t stop people from creating “Us versus Them” divisions, and you can certainly make anti-semitism one of the many forms of xenophobia that exists in this your story. Meir has hinted that your reluctance to declaratively show the harm of anti-semitism indicates a level of anxiety around the topic, and, as someone non-Jewish but also not Christian or Muslim, my perspective is as follows: I’ve always viewed anti-semitism as a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious xenophobia, and while it is a unique experience, it is not the only unique experience when it comes to ethno-religious xenophobia. I think because the 3-way interaction between the Abrahamic religions dominates much of Western geopolitics, that can be how it looks, but the world is a big place (See Rune’s comments for specific examples).

To that effect, I recommend prioritizing anti-semitism alongside other non-racialized forms of xenophobia along ideological, cultural and class-based lines for both POC and non-POC characters. Show how these differences can drive those in power to treat other groups poorly. I conclude by encouraging you to slowly trace your logic when depicting xenophobia towards POC characters in particular. Emphasize bigotry along axes of class and ideology, rather than traits linked to assumed biologically intrinsic features. Ultimately, I think recognizing commonalities between forms of ethno-religious oppression as a whole will help make you more comfortable in depicting anti-semitism with the seriousness it deserves without feeling as though you are trivializing the experiences of other groups.

- Marika

Worldbuilding ethnically and racially diverse cultures

As has been mentioned by other mods, I think it’s completely fine to focus your story on antisemitism and not portray other forms of bigotry if that’s the focus and scope of the story you want to tell. My fellow mods have also offered several valuable suggestions for writing about “culture-based bigotry” in general if that’s what you want to do, while making sure it’s not coming off as racially based. One element I can add is that from a worldbuilding standpoint, it will also help to have your fantasy cultural groups be ethnically and racially diverse. After all, this was common historically in several parts of the world, and depending on which cultures you’re basing your coding on, you could absolutely have fantasy cultures in your world that include characters we would read (according to our modern-day standards) as white, and others that we would read as people of color, within the same fantasy culture. All these characters would face the same culture-based bigotry (such as xenophobia or religious oppression), even though they are read by a modern audience as different races.

As a note, the reason I say “read as” and “according to our modern-day standards” is that the entire concept of whiteness as we know it is very specific to our current cultural context. Who is and isn’t considered white has changed quite a lot over time, and is still the subject of debate today in some cases. Your work will be read by a modern audience, so of course, you need to take into account our current understanding of race and the dynamics surrounding it. However, it’s also helpful to remember that our modern racial categories are fairly new in the context of the many millennia of history of humankind, and that they are certainly not inevitable. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a fantasy culture has to align itself entirely with modern-day racial categories.

- Niki

[jewishconvertthings]

PSA, because I've now seen a few posts floating around like this and also just hear it all the time IRL: Please don't use the term "convert" (or any synonyms) as a stand-in for any other concept or experience except Jews that had to go through a conversion process.

Jews who went through a conversion process may:

Have Jewish ancestry

Have been raised with a Jewish identity

Have a Jewish father

Have a Jewish mother

Have both a Jewish mother and father

Have been raised practicing Judaism as part of their religious upbringing

Have been raised practicing Judaism as their sole religious upbringing

Had a bar/bat/bnei mitzvah as a 12 or 13-year-old

Any combination or all of the above

The reality is that unless and until all branches of liberal Judaism and all branches of orthodox Judaism agree on what's a valid conversion (and I am not personally holding my breath) we are going to have children born to Jewish parents who only practice Judaism and raise their kids as Jews, but whose mother's conversion is not accepted in all branches and therefore must convert to be married in their preferred community, count in minyan, etc.

Those experiences are so vastly different from mine, someone who was a true outsider before my conversion - and everything in between. I personally have far more in common with, say, a halachic Jew from birth who was adopted out to xtian parents and never knew they were Jewish until they became an adult and is now a baal teshuvah. And on the other hand, a convert who went through a conversion process so they could join a more traditional movement has way more in common with halachic Jews by birth who were raised Jewish than me. Yet people (inside and outside the community) use "convert" as a shorthand to refer to people like me when they really usually something more along the lines of "person raised totally outside the community who has had to assimilate in and most likely has no or distant Jewish ancestry."

The only thing that connects all gerim in terms of experiences vis a vis Jewish identity is the fact that we all went through a conversion process to establish our halachic status in our communities. That's it.

tldr; we need better, more varied words to describe the diversity of Jewish experience and identity, but regardless please don't make assumptions about someone's Jewish background based on whether or not they went through a conversion process.