4

Are Jews racist against non-Jews?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
shlomo
  • 3,097
  • 16
  • 32
  • Cf. http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7792 – msh210 May 25 '11 at 02:36
  • 1
    This question is not clear. If it's asking about Judaism, it's redundant to http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7792. If it's asking about Jews, an answer will require evidence of a sociological study (and none of the current answers address it). If the asker wants to edit the question to reflect his intent, that'd be great: meanwhile, I'm closing as not a real question. – msh210 Dec 19 '11 at 17:03

4 Answers4

14

No. If we were racist, then we would never be able to accept converts.

Tzvi
  • 5,695
  • 1
  • 23
  • 50
12

Whether or not there are Jews who are racist against non-Jews, the Torah places value on all human life. This is, after all, the message of Sefer Yonah where G-d sends a prophet to a non-Jewish nation to provoke them to repent and be spared destruction for their sins.

At the same time Torah teaches that Jews have a special relationship with G-d which non-Jews do not. As others have mentioned a non-Jew may joint the covenant and gain such a relationship, but since there is an ethnic component some people are going to be uncomfortable about this notion.

What matters is the truth value of our special relationship with Hashem (and the various rights and responsibilities which accompany it) rather than whether it can be branded with a derogatory name. Terminology can help us analyze and evaluate ideas, or it can be misused to hastily and thoughtlessly lump together seemingly similar concepts without paying attention to very real and significant distinctions.

Yirmeyahu
  • 13,367
  • 1
  • 44
  • 80
  • http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-13.htm says that jews shouldn't rob their neighbor. The word neighbor means fellow jews. Does that mean robbing christians are okay? In Israel, that's not the case. But David seems to kill plenty of philistines unprovoked. So what about them? At that time, were jews rasicst toward the philistines? – user4951 Nov 15 '11 at 04:47
  • While the Biblical prohibition you mention certainly is a prohibition against stealing from Jews, stealing from non-Jews is certainly prohibited. – Yirmeyahu Dec 18 '11 at 03:18
  • @Yimeryahu So how come David kill a bunch of philistines just to collect their foreskin? I understand that at that time everyone is like that and I am not really blaming. Jews are not racists, at least not a lot. Most people are no longer racists anyway. Ancient judaism seems rascist though. That's assuming that that Dave do not open circumcision clinic with consensual philistines males lining up. – user4951 Dec 18 '11 at 04:42
  • Your assertion that David's killing of Philistines was unprovoked is incorrect. They were a nation at war with Israel, as most people know being familiar with the story of David and Goliath only a few chapters earlier (1 Sam 17). No one says war is pretty, but it is classically, a fight between two nations. – Yirmeyahu Dec 18 '11 at 06:59
  • You're right. War isn't pretty. That's my point. Everybody was racist at that time and area. Including jews. Racism is just one of so many nash equilibrium people use to divide us and others while justifying screwing "others". At that time, and till 60 years ago, it's simply the popular one. Saying that ancient judaism was not racist is like saying they had women suffrage and "civil unions". – user4951 Dec 18 '11 at 10:48
  • #1 Your usage of "racism" is overly broad. #2 Your barking up the wrong tree since the whole point of my answer was that one needs to examine what is going on rather than whether one can apply derogatory labels, as such I did not deny (nor accept) that such a label is applicable. #3 You glossed over the fact that you made factually incorrect statements in trying to prove your point. – Yirmeyahu Dec 19 '11 at 07:20
  • The muslim can also say that they're not racist when Muhammad were killing jews. The jews were their enemy. Even Nazi can claim that they're not racist. They "thought" as in self delusionally but conscious honestly nevertheless, that jews were their enemies for stabbing them in the back. In fact racism is so politically incorrect it always have a mask. However how in the earth the enemies ended up those of different race is due to inherent racist preferences. Jews are NOT more racist than others. Everyone is racist to a certain point and it's unfair to point to jewish racism. That's my point. – user4951 Dec 21 '11 at 12:54
  • Actually I played enough mmo strategy game to learn that most humans are back stabbers. Some are just wise enough to stab first :). Also my understanding of evolutionary theory is that all men are rapists. Again, no body would admit it. They, through self deception, believe that women are consenting if and only if she's more likely to pick them. http://freemarketforever.com/2011/11/05/why-marriage-is-like-concentration-camp/ – user4951 Dec 22 '11 at 04:20
6

When a family member needs assistance that takes precedence. It does not mean you are racist if you care first for your family member prior to everyone else. Even though that is the case, Hatzoloh or Chaverim do not ask you when you call them if you are a Jew. They help anyone who requests it.

Gershon Gold
  • 139,471
  • 12
  • 231
  • 553
  • +1 makes sense. Racism is only dangerous when governments get involved anyway. – user4951 Dec 18 '11 at 04:43
  • @JimThio Racism is dangerous in any and all cases. – HodofHod Feb 14 '12 at 22:57
  • @HodofHod If I am a racist and I refuse to let chinese into my site, then I would lost 1.2 billions potential customers. It hurt my self. When government act, whether out of racism or not, it hurt others. Minimum wage destroy black people. Affirmative action destroy whites. It destroy every body. Fascism is evil. Government, socialism, feminism are all fascists. Racism without government is just personal preference. I am not racist nor would I encourage it. But I would advice that people shouldn't be racists because it's stupid. Not evil. – user4951 Feb 15 '12 at 07:09
  • @JimThio Assuming that your site is actually useful, then you would also be hurting any of the Chinese that wanted to use it. Besides, that's not even what I was referring to. A violent racist does not need the backing of government to kill or damage. – HodofHod Feb 15 '12 at 15:26
  • My point is, without being rascists, government hurts. Even racist people can't do anything on libertarian society. A violent racists are just like violent robbers. It's the violence, not the racism that's the problem. That being said, the racists will have harder time getting friends. I pitty them more than hate them. – user4951 Feb 16 '12 at 01:37
  • The most sexist laws are anti prostitution laws. We don't tell Beckham to learn sewing. We don't tell Michael Jordan to learn sewing. So why do we insist girls making $5500 per hour sew? The most racist laws are minimum wage laws. It's purpose is to make racism cheap for white bosses and keep black guys out of job. It discriminates against non racists white bosses. However, if some 2.5 meter black guys earn millions in NBA. So what? If engineering schools are filled with Asians, there is nothing wrong with that as long as it's private school. And all schools should be private anyway. – user4951 Feb 16 '12 at 01:38
4

We are commanded not to hate the Egyptians, who enslaved us. If we're not allowed to hate our captors, then we aren't allowed to hate any race of people.

zaq
  • 8,864
  • 30
  • 65
  • We are commanded to hate Amalek. Incidentally, the Sudilkover Rebbe shlita says that this is the only thing a Jew is permitted to hate. – yoel Aug 08 '11 at 19:30
  • 3
    Curious... where is the commandment written? :P I think you will find that no halacha involves שונא (hate) – avi Aug 08 '11 at 20:27
  • 2
    @avi: see Rambam sefer hamitzvot. Positive commandment 189: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hamitsvot/ase5-2.htm . There he says that the commandment to "Remember What Amalek did to you" is the commandment to never stop hating Amalek. – Menachem Aug 08 '11 at 20:45
  • In theory, but in practice, who'se Amalek? There's nobody to hate. – zaq Aug 08 '11 at 21:56
  • @zaq -- there is no reason to think that Amalek doesn't still exist. The Rambam notes that the 7 Cananite nations no longer exist, but he makes no such observation about Amalek. – Curiouser Aug 08 '11 at 23:50
  • I think they do exist, (I believe Rashi was of the opinion it's the Germans) but as we don't know who they are, the Mitzvah is filled by making noise over Haman's name. Additionally, It's not their nationality or race that we hate, but their practices. As proof, Rambam holds that we are required to ask them to give up their ways, if they do, we don't have to kill them. – zaq Aug 09 '11 at 01:45
  • @Menachem, reading the hebrew I don't see it saying 'never stop hating', It almost seems to be saying that that is what Amalek did, because they said there is no reward and no punishment. But I could be reading it wrong. – avi Aug 09 '11 at 06:31
  • @avi: here is is in egnlish: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961563/jewish/Positive-Commandment-189.htm – Menachem Aug 09 '11 at 20:35
  • Menachem, thanks. I see I was reading it correctly. The same ambiguity exists in english if you take out the words in brackets. It's the usage of the phrase 'bnei Adam' (for people) instead of 'bnei Yisorel' that has me curious. Unless this is something new about Amalek being a noahide law. – avi Aug 09 '11 at 20:40
  • @avi, read it again. It says that what Amalek did was to attack us. The mitzvah is to constantly remember that they attacked us, to speak of it constantly, to arouse people to wage war against them and hate them, in order that it not be forgotten or the hatred towards them lessened with the passage of time. The obligation to urge bnei adam to wage war against them certainly raises an interesting question. It would seem that we are commanded to urge the nations to wipe out evil from amongst themselves. – yoel Aug 10 '11 at 01:32
  • Yoel, agreed. However, it can also be read as saying. The mitzvah is to contantly remember that they atttacked us, they spoke constantly to arouse 'bnei adam' to wage war against us, and hated us. In order that it not be forgotten of the hatred towards them(the jews) with the passage of time, it is an obligation to remember amalek. Just an intresting ambiguity – avi Aug 10 '11 at 04:53
  • Oh, my mistake, I think I misunderstood what you wrote. I see what you mean now. – yoel Aug 10 '11 at 05:43
  • What about this? http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961564/jewish/Positive-Commandment-190.htm I understand that jews are not unique in subduing neighboring nation at that time. But it seems that God okayed usage of force as bargaining position to get payment between nations. – user4951 Nov 15 '11 at 04:15
  • And why @Avi think that it's ambiguous? Given that israelites do destroy the amalekites during Samuel. Also what about German, that now is very friendly toward jew and far less militaristic? They too attack jews when they were weak just like amalekites. Not encouraging hatred toward germans, but what would jews do to them? – user4951 Nov 15 '11 at 04:18
  • @JimThio the Rabmam is making a distinction between a commandment that exists for all time, and a commandment that existed specifically for 2 particular kings. – avi Nov 15 '11 at 12:44
  • Ah I see. In the past, king David often killed Philistines civilians unprovoked, like Hamas. But that's in the past. Okay... – user4951 Nov 16 '11 at 03:07
  • It's only okay in the past because they had a direct connection to receive commands from Hashem through Prophecy. However, the question at hand is "Are Jews racist against non-Jews?" How do examples of Jews waging war against other nations prove they were motivated by racism. Increasing land, fame and power of the king is not racist - it's ethnocentric and nationalistic, but not racist or driven by hate. – zaq Nov 16 '11 at 03:50
  • @zaq. I am not blaming jews or try to point out they are evil. Racism is not that big of a deal to me anyway. Any wealth acquisition outside capitalistic terms are equally evil. The issue is whether ancient judaism is racists. Is it unusually racists? No. Is it racists? Well, like very other religions at that time, it is. Ethnocentric and nationalism is racists especially when the target are all non jews. We're not racists because racism is politically incorrect and no longer profitable as business. Doesn't mean that our ancestors aren't. – user4951 Dec 18 '11 at 04:47
  • @zag and that direct connection to Hashem sets a really bad precedents. The muslims also claim that when they slaughter jewish banu Nadr. I am not very religious. But I think karma works out of natural game theory. Ancient jews said that it's okay to kill Amaleks because Hashem said so and the victims are jerks anyway. Well guess what. Their descendants get screwed by those who think jews are jerk out of the will of this very same Hashem. What goes around tend to come around. Another pattern I see. Should hang out more on budhist forum too I guess. – user4951 Dec 18 '11 at 04:56