Printable View
It gets very frustrating when you are having a conversation that turns into a research debate because someone decided to pull out the Wikipedia card. That is, "prove me wrong, Wikipedia says I'm right." Although published encyclopedias tend be broadly generalized and sometimes unreliable, they at least must go through an editorial process. Wikipedia does not have such checks. And as such, difficult to take seriously.
Well, your source frustrations aside, are you disputing that what I quoted from Wikipedia, that the rulers of the combined Blue Horde and White Horde (which later came to be known as Golden Horde) converted to Islam in 1250'ies while Il-Khanate converted in early 1300'ies.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
there could be many reasons for jews to be better merchants. the fact that supposedly there were no many other venues for them being one. another - jews were a geographically widely spread (not their free will frequently) but still numerically - a rather small social group.
in trade, who and where you know is very important. imho, jews were a unique social group in a sense that they were polyglot and were likely to personally know "someone" in many trading cities of the medieval age: a mercantile advantage right there. nothing to do with religion, besides having something to relate with that "someone who you know" in the other trading city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derfinsterling
My understanding was that Jew where hated because they where good traders (much as in nazi germany with bankers in more recent times). Not that they chose trading becuase they where hated. they could have done anything, they just seem to have concantrated on trading and got wealthy through it.
Slaists give possible reasons why they where good traders. I wouldn't know myself.
And why The Aztecs too are muslim according to CA?
Historical realism, perhaps? There are some of us who play this game who prefer to have more realism than CA initially provides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
I was under the impression that the Jews were forced into being moneylenders during the Middle Ages because usury was forbidden by the Christian faith. They needed moneylenders, Christians couldn't be moneylenders, so "Here! You, Jew! You're now a moneylender!" Of course, moneylending done correctly makes a lot of money for the lender, so they then proceed to hate the lender for being successful.
For the whole "Golden Horde to Islam" debate.
http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/kell...s/states3.html
Not the most note-worthy of academics, but a good source I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Timothy May
Assistant Professor of History
Young Hall
North Georgia College and State University
A little something about the "Golden Horde":
"Batu's ulus, to which the lands of Rus' were to be subordinated, has been referred to by many names. All of Juchi's ulus, the western sector of the Mongol empire, was designated the White Horde. This term has also been used for Batu's ulus. When referring to Batu's and Orda's portions seperately, the terms White Horde and Blue Horde have both been used. There is some confusion regarding which term should properly be applied to which half of the ulus, but most scholars consider the White Horde to refer to the western half or Batu's ulus. His realm, however, has also been referred to by a variety of other names: Desht-i-Kipchak, the Kipchak Khanate, and most commonly although least accurately, the Golden Horde."
--from Medieval Russia: 980-1584 by Janet Martin (p.135)
The way I understand it is that it wasn't until the reign of Uzbek (1313-41)that the entire horde converted to Islam. However, prior to that point, several Khans personally converted (i.e. Berke (1258-66), Tuda-Mengu (1282-87)). *Martin, 155.
Very interesting read.
Any source which is replete with emotive adjectives is dubious, britannica or universal turth foundation or whateve they may call it. Any source which does not quote their sources is dubious.
The only credible one, for me, is one who does not use emotive adjectives (to encourage an emotional judgement by the reader which favors the author's view), and proves his sources. One that is impartial, as much as is humanly possible.
Then of course there is the question of logic. Some stuff you read is so freakin ridiculous it defies logic, and the author still expects you to believe it.
This is not a statement to judge quotations in this thread, just a statement in general.
It's funny how the term "semite" and "anti-semetic" has become misconstrued to mean exclusively anti-jew... when it really encompasses a lot more than that... I've heard people accuse certain muslims of being anti-semetic... and little do they know that the person they are accusing is a semite... so it wouldn't make much sense for them to be anti-semetic... unless they were some sort of self-hating semite... which wouldn't make sense.
It's weird how language changes ><
If I am not mistaken. "Semetic" actually refers to a linguistic group.
i know wikipedia sucks but this is fairly accurate
The concept of a "Semitic" peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. Those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their forefather Shem. Enemies were often said to be descendants of his cursed brother Ham. In Genesis 10:21-31 Shem is described as the father of Aram, Asshur, and others: the Biblical ancestors of the Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc., all of whose languages are closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named Semitic by linguists. However, the Canaanites and Amorites also spoke a language belonging to this family, and are therefore also termed Semitic in linguistics despite being described in Genesis as sons of Ham (See Sons of Noah). Shem is also described in Genesis as the father of the Elamites and the descendants of Lud, whose languages were not Semitic.
The following is a list of ancient peoples generally characterised as "Semitic" by modern authors (including some stated in Genesis to be descendents of Ham):
* Akkadians — appear ca. 2500 BC and amalgamate with Mesopotamian populations into the Assyrians of the late Bronze Age
* Eblaites — 23rd century BC
* Aramaeans — from the 14th century BC, evolve into the Syriacs of the early centuries AD
* Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
* Canaanite nations of the early Iron Age:
o Amorites (Amurru, Sumerian MAR.TU) — invade Sumer in the 20th century BC
o Ammonites
o Edomites
o Eberites ( Hebrews ) — founded the kingdom of Israel and Judah, the remnants of which became the Jews of Late Antiquity.
o Moabites
o Phoenicians
* Sabaeans of Yemen and Ethiopia, from ca. the 9th century BC, evolving into Semitic Ethiopian peoples from the 5th century BC
* Arabs — appearing from the 5th century BC as Nabataeans
Then I guess we could consider the Carthaginians a "semetic" people, couldn't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaziv
You can consider a lot of people semites... Jews, Muslims & Christians alike. It's more to do with language though, you're right.
It's just weird how in modern times when people think of a semite they automatically associate it exclusively to judaism.
There are a lot of things like that. Language goes through changes just like anything else. Tracing the etymology of words can be fun (and easy, thanks to online etymological dictionaries). Some of my favorites are: trivia, noon, grog(gy), decimate, farm. Sometimes the meanings of words are altered by things that have nothing to do with the root of the word at all.
"Noon," for instance, comes from the Latin Novem (nine). It used to refer to the prayers during the ninth hour of daylight, or 3 p.m. (the day being split into hours of darkness and hours of daylight). At some point (I can't remember when exactly) the Church moved the prayer hour to the sixth hour (12 p.m.) but the name stuck.
Those other ones I listed are pretty interesting too. Check them out if you're into these types of nerdy endeavors.
Doesn't it ? Seems to me many, if not most individuals hate themselves :sweatdrop:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaziv
But I'm just mindscrewin' around here, I know what you mean, and it is true that antisemitism is one of those words that's been thrown around for so long that it has lost almost all of both its litteral and original meanings.
There is a lot of those words flying around (there always was, too), and the linguistic "solution" is always to forget the original meaning and "go with the flow". A word has no meaning in and of itself, it's just a mean to communicate a notion, so when all is said and done it means what the linguistic majority think/believe it means, or the concept they associate the word with.
I know it's irritating to purists, to people who know what the original meaning was and how it now seems devaluated (my personnal pet-peeve is "romantic". How it came all the way from suicidal poets standing on cliff edges, their faces bitten by the bitter winds of self-love, history and weldschmertz to meaning "buying some broad a bunch of flowers", I just can't understand), but it's not. There's merely two different concepts sharing the same word nowadays, that's all.
Etymology is fine and dandy, but usage trumps it, always, even though etymology can say a lot. I've always been fascinated by the fact that the French verb for work, "travail", comes from the latin tripalium, a torture method close to crucifixion.
That is a good impression... though it might be a little wrong in the reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillan
It seems rather unlikely that jews were forced to become moneylenders, but because they were not allowed to own land, and christians weren't allowed usury, it must have been terribly tempting for those who were suddenly without land to become moneylenders.
Also, these moneylenders would then treat their own kind a bit kinder (normal) and as such, the jewish merchants tended to have a small advantage as they could easier make use of good deals when out of funds. Christians would of course see this rather negatively and the rest we know.
a bit funny... how a discussion about whether Mongols should be portrayed as Islamic or Pagan in the game has drifted into a discussion of anti-semitism and whether online popular information are a rubbish or not.
:juggle2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Could be culture as well. I'm Chinese and there's something in our culture that makes a lot of entrepreneurs. Lots of Chinese and their descendants who fled China around WW2 now own the biggest businesses and dominate business in Southeast Asia.
That’s actually what I meant, forced into it by circumstances.Quote:
It seems rather unlikely that Jews were forced to become moneylenders, but because they were not allowed to own land, and Christians weren't allowed usury, it must have been terribly tempting for those who were suddenly without land to become moneylenders.
Also, these moneylenders would then treat their own kind a bit kinder (normal) and as such, the Jewish merchants tended to have a small advantage as they could easier make use of good deals when out of funds. Christians would of course see this rather negatively and the rest we know.
It should be noted that most of my info here comes from a small history piece that was at the start of a video on Nazi Germany I had to watch back when doing history at school. It was a 5 minute piece explaining why Jews where heavily hated even prior to Hitler, and then went on to explain how he used this hatred to get into power.Quote:
I was under the impression that the Jews were forced into being moneylenders during the Middle Ages because usury was forbidden by the Christian faith. They needed moneylenders, Christians couldn't be moneylenders, so "Here! You, Jew! You're now a moneylender!" Of course, moneylending done correctly makes a lot of money for the lender, so they then proceed to hate the lender for being successful.
Since it's a small 5 minute piece and isn't the main subject of the video, It's quite possible the video was wrong.
Let me guess... people flee from first the Japanese (makes sense, they are rather dangerous), those with fund have a better chance of making it to somewhere safe. Some return after the war, others have begun to like to travel or have seen opportunities elsewhere. Then Mao pops up, and again people flee, however this time it is mainly those with money. Generally speaking two types of people had money. Landowners (nobility and greatly hated by the communists) and merchants/industrialists (capitalist pig-dogs).Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
So I find it rather logical that outland chinese are rather industrious, and often own stores ect. Many of them come from a tradition, and in some cases a successful line of people in the same business.
Your notion of social Darwinism rings very true, but you omit one thing. Probably because it is by nature somewhat irrational. The fact is that ethnic, social, religious, any kind of group really, they all tend to operate on the "us and them" basis. That is to say, a Chinese immigrant-turned-successful-banker will be more sympathetic to the plight of a Chinese immigrant fresh from Back Home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
On top of the logical, sensible thing, there's a kind of inbred snowball effect going on there : Jews were being barred from other places of influence out of irrational/religious/racist reasons (and, for the record, I don't believe that "Christianity wouldn't allow for moneylending" crap. Money's money, has always been, and has always trumped every other human consideration. I do believe it was more along the lines of "You lot killed Christ !" "But... Christ was a Jew, wasn't he ?" "SHADDAP ! NO LAND FOR YOU, MURDERER ! (and more for us... )"), so they turned to moneylending.
Those of them who succeed in that field in turn helped their community to succeed in it, and kept the other, non-Jewish moneylenders down, not so much out of vengeance or hatred or bigotry or anti-goyism, but because it was the only way to help their own friends out, the most efficient way, whatever. In turn, the non-Jewish moneylenders felt harmed, attacked etc... and striked back. Cue centuries.
Overtime, the logical, rational reasons turned into an irrational "We hate them because they're filthy <insert racial expletive> unlike us !" on both sides, because it's easier to understand/accept, or because thinking that way makes it easier to justify breaches of morality I guess...
The best thing to do when having a troll argument on the internet is to create a completely new wikipedia page on the topic (usually you will have to think up a slightly different name to the real page) fill it with crap, and then link to it.
Look, this page PROVES that russians invented the internet!
Well, many of those Chinese (at least the ones I have experienced here in Denmark and Jamaica) tend to be single families living among locals, or perhaps more but being very very sublte about it (so it isn't obvious).
Of course they are more likely to help each other, but these people tend to haev 'grown' up together in the new place. So there aren't that many in first place to help the newcomers.
For the jews however, well that is much more true.
But no, christians really didn't dabble with that, unless you went deep into the social mud (akin to modern loansharks), but down there you wouldn't find the good clients. Christians were like the muslims today... no interest and no loans (yeah I know muslims can loan out money at no interest). If muslims can do that now, then christians could certainly do it back then. Only with time have the christians abandoned that practice for... well practicality.
We seem to have drifted off topic from Muslim Mongols to Jewish traders and Wikipedia. :closed: