Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
- Main Junction
- CROSSED
- London Zoo
- Freakangels
- Music
- Printheads
- Culturegasm
- Web Nuggets
- WorldWeird
- Blogs
Welcome, Guest
Vanilla is a product of Lussumo:
Documentation and Support.
-
- CommentAuthorlooneynerd
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
@Jess
We're not? :D -
@Looneynerd
No, we're not. Maybe we memorize a certain amount of data relevant to our fields or what we're working on, but we certainly cannot memorize everything. When we want to find something out, we know to where look for certain information, and how to ask ourselves questions that will make our research more fruitful. Basically, there is a research process that we're not sharing.
I certainly don't mean to be offensive to anyone posting to this thread, but I've refrained from participating on many occasions because at times the format just makes me cringe. A bunch of curious people, who sometimes have expressed that they've found history classes to be boring, ask questions and get matter-of-fact answers. And while, again, I think this is helpful, I think we need to be careful about how we decide to share information. Even if you're only providing information off the top of your head, there's no reason why your answer can't also encourage additional research or explain how you came to that conclusion.
What you're sharing is not strictly fact -- it's also your interpretation. -
- CommentAuthorlooneynerd
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
This is true, but this also isn't any kind of formal setting (at all). It's an internet message board, and a thread for the curious. If people want to learn more, or get specific sources or books, well, they can (and in fact, have several times). They're certainly encouraged to do more research on the topic if they want. But this isn't a classroom, and I have a feeling that including source information, in-depth theory, or that kind of thing would simply be pedantic. If people want in-depth knowledge or that kind of thing, sure, they can do their own research or take some classes. This is more of an answering basic curiosity questions for fun. You'll notice it's not just historians answering questions here; a lot of good contributions have been made by armchair history buffs and the like, and in this kind of setting there's no problem with people simply discussing their knowledge. Wikipedia has been sourced here a few times by various people, and I don't have a problem with that either. When I pop in to answer stuff, I'm almost always doing so off the top of my head, occasionally backed up with some (very) fast internet browsing to fill in gaps. I don't have the time to do anything more, and I'm not sure most other people would really get any more out of us explaining how we came up with the information, not in this highly informal setting anyway... -
I do have a question and I would feel stupid for asking it anywhere else, but since I've demonstrated my ignorance many times on this board I have no shame about it now but am having trouble phrasing it.
why are there/does there seem to be 2 different sets of Jews, the Middle Eastern ones, i.e. the ones written about in the old testament of the bible and the Central/Eastern European Jews? I assume they both come from the same origin, Abraham, Isaac and so forth, but when did the split occur? When did the European ones leave Israel? Was it before Exodus, between then and the roman exile? Why the geographical split
Mostly I'm curious because in the past jewish friends of mine have (jokingly) said things along the line of "Don't blame me for the death of Jesus, my ancestors were trudging around eastern europe at the time"
so I'm curious about this if anyone can give me a little history about it.
thanks -
I wouldn't make a distinction between academics and "arm chair history buffs" as historians or not historians, but that has to do with my personal politics about the profession.
There is a middle ground between simply rattling off information and high-level academic work, else we wouldn't be able to teach critical thinking skills to students. I wasn't requesting your personal exegesis on Foucault, but some sort of integration of resource literacy. Ie, when I want to find out information on X, I often look to source Y, and I understand the pros and cons of using source X. Now look, several posts back I indicated just how much I care about the process of teaching history, and part of the reason I think it becomes difficult to teach students is because we're not always thinking about the consequences of what we say in public about history. Often we let our standards drop, be it from some elitist standpoint that "the public can't understand this," or some false sense that unless we tell a basic narrative, everyone will just find what we do boring. Since when is critical thinking boring?
I'm not picking on you, because we all are guilty of generalizations at times and you just happened to engage me in conversation, but a few posts back you said:
"And there wasn't much scientific knowledge on board a ship; chances were the only people that could even read would be the Navigator, possibly the captain, and maybe one or two exceptional crewmen or priests, so scientific knowledge was quite limited. "
Where did this information come from? Illiteracy did not necessarily preclude knowledge of "science," particularly in the early modern/pre-modern era. I highly suspect that you are thinking of science in a modern sense of the term -- because I personally believe that there were many people who contributed to the creation of scientific knowledge (and possessed it) who were neither literate, or chose to communicate in the same way scholars in Europe did. Think about the groups of people who were not likely to be literate -- did they REALLY have no knowledge of the natural world and how it functioned as a consequence of not being able to read? Again, what you are presenting (literacy is necessary in order to have knowledge of science) is not fact, but an interpretation based on something you read. I've seen this argued successfully both ways, of course, depending on how people interpret what historically constitutes scientific practice. I'm afraid, based on my interpretation, you potentially perpetuate a notion that only white elite men tended to know about science because they were more likely to be literate. To a lesser degree, it may also reinforce a sense that one needed a "formal" education to understand science.
Once upon a time I read Bonnie Smith's Gender of History and was struck by how professional historians and the process of professionalism systematically weeded out women and devalued their historical knowledge. This didn't mean that women knew nothing about history because they didn't have access to training. The same is true of the rise of scientific institutions and perhaps the people asking questions in this thread. So I don't think there's a reason to rehash an academic/amateur boundary by being vague about process. Presentation of information as "fact" from a trusted source can also prevent the most skilled historian from asking additional questions, and I personally feel that we have a responsibility to encourage critical thinking regardless of how informal or formal the forum is.
And if anyone is interested in the ways individuals might understand science in a "vernacular" way, you might check out Mary Fissell's or Susan Scott's Parish's excellent work. Both have published articles as well as full length books, and have influenced my own personal thinking on this subject.
Anyway, I've noted that you often stress an economically driven narrative. Because you and I likely have different approaches, I know I would have answered some of the questions totally differently. I don't have any objection to your answers, nor do I think that they are wrong, I just wish you and everyone else might be a bit plainer about how you arrived at them. Ultimately, I respect your choice to do as you please -- but a little extra effort in crafting a response can go a long way. -
- CommentAuthorlooneynerd
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
Again, and not to be disrespectful, but I think you're putting a bit too much merit and seriousness into the thread. I'd completely agree with you if we were on a forum, like say, H-World or something with a little bit more academic substance, but we're not. To be 100% honest, I'm normally just trying to answer the questions as quickly and as efficiently as possible. In most cases, I've failed miserably to do that any way, but I figure, particularly in this type of setting, shorter is normally better. In cases where people want to know more, we can get more in-depth (as happened with the discussion on the Ukrainian Famine a few pages back), but to be honest, I don't foresee most people (myself included) giving more than a pretty quick thought to the thread. Something a bit like intellectual masturbation; you come in, get curious, ask a quick question, get a quick reply, and go on your way knowing a bit more than you did before but otherwise not giving two real jacks about what you've seen. -
I'm a bit flabbergasted that you wouldn't want people to take your answers seriously and think about what they mean. But lest LBA's query gets lost in this conversation, I'll let it go for now.
-
-
CommentAuthorRootfireember
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
I can see citing sources in some instances, or linking to relevant information, but we aren't publishing papers for peer-review here, and I don't know the proper format for historical citations, were I to want to cite;but would probably not want to cite in a formal format for fear of confusing people further, unless one were making a direct quotation. A lack of peer-review format doesn't mean the answer will be taken 'less seriously' here, at least from what I've seen. -
-
@Rootfireember -- No, we aren't publishing papers. But I wasn't demanding that you provide Chicago Manual of Style citations either. I was simply asking that we share a bit of the research process in our responses. Maybe I haven't been sufficiently clear about what I mean by the research process. Basically, one would provide the answer to the question asked, and in the process implicitly answer "How did you arrive at that conclusion?"
It is not necessary for history to be a.) a simple narrative or b.) highly sophisticated academic-ese. I think because I was criticizing a., the assumption is that I want b. Nor do I think that people aren't taking the thread seriously. In fact, I raised the issue precisely because I do think people are taking the thread seriously and it might be worthwhile to explain some other things that have been going on "behind the scenes" as it were. :) -
- CommentAuthorlooneynerd
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
@LBA
I'm not real up on my Jewish history, but I'll try to answer as best as I can using knowledge of surrounding peoples backed up by some quick wikipedia research. A big part of it has to do with deportation. The easiest way to subjugate a conquered land was to simply deport anybody that might try to stand against you, sell them into slavery, etc. Early empires like the Assyrians did that to greater or lesser extents, spreading Jewish populations all over the ancient world. You have groups of Jews leaving Israel under some of these empire willingly, seeking to establish their own autonomous communities elsewhere. You've also got normal, good-old emigration which, while not necessarily widespread then as it is now, still wasn't unheard of. Why do we have Lebanese in Toledo? Good economic, political, or religious opportunities. Same thing here ( I would assume). Wars also cause people to spread out. The Roman-Judeo wars were really difficult on the Jewish population in the Levant, and the destruction of the temple, the slaughter of populations at places like Massada, and general persecution under certain emperors (cough Trajan cough) convinced many people to leave for good. Then you get multiple slaughters in the area, whether they be at the hands of romans or arabs or crusaders, and what's left of the population is greatly diminished by the time the (largely) accepting Muslims arrive. For instance, we see big Jewish populations in Spain because the Spanish Muslims were far better rulers to live under than the likes of Charlemagne or the Crusader states. I.E., you have people moving to places and away from Israel simply because they're better places to live at the time for different reasons.
This Wiki Article covers some of the facts pretty well. I'd also look up articles on the Crusades, Roman-Judean wars, Muslim conquest of the holy land, and the history of israel. -
-
CommentAuthorRootfireember
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
@Jess-
AH! I see what you're getting at. I misunderstood, thinking that you wanted formal citations for everything (Chicago style isn't one I've dabbled in). What would you suggest the average joe use to seek more knowledge on the interwebs or from their local library, if they didn't have access to First Search or Peer Reviewed Journals? Also, within First Search, are there any specific databases you'd use? -
-
@LBA I am certainly not qualified to answer your question, but if you are looking for some decent soure material take a look at The Jew in the Medieval World as well as Under Crescent and Cross both provide an indepth look at Jews in the middle ages. The 2nd was a very good read
-
To add to what Looneynerd provided, you might try www.jewfaq.org, LBA. Are you asking about the difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews? (Though I will warn that many Jews find this categorization oversimplified...!) This might be helpful: http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm
@rootfireember -- It depends on where you are, to be honest. Connecticut, for example, has public access to a variety of databases like Heritage Quest and Hartford Courant Historical just by having a CT library card. You can purchase a Philadelphia library card out-of-state and get access to Early American Imprints, but Philly residents get this for free. Boston Public also has a number of sites, so I always like to check with my public library to see what they subscribe to.
Many databases that are free for public use are very specific ones, and I am mostly familiar with the ones pertinent to my own work. However, I listed a bunch in another thread a while back, so let me see if I can hunt up that list again for you. I probably can be more helpful if you asked about resources related to a particular topic of inquiry.
Can you link to the database called First Search? I don't know if my university has a subscription to it, unless we call it something else. I googled it and Worldcat came up, but Worldcat is a global library listing and I wasn't sure if that was what you were referring to.
EDIT:
Here are some databases worth exploring if you just want to get familiar with primary sources, or if you're just looking to learn a little more about a particular topic. Generically, if I was looking for something, had limited access to databases, and wanted a sense of both primary and secondary sources, I might try checking books.google.com and playing with the advanced filters. I will add that this is better for questions about the last 300 years. But I tend to specialize in the early modern/modern era. Someone else may have to fill in the gaps about how they conduct e-research for earlier time periods.
Although I am always a fan of getting to know your local archivists and puttering around in an archive if it makes sense to do so.
http://dohistory.org (Based on Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's Midwife's Tale)
http://iconn.org (Connecticut Residents only, or access with valid CT library bar code -- gives access to Heritage Quest and Proquest Hartford Courant Historical Archives)
http://www.whitmanarchive.org/ (Walt Whitman Archives)
http://www.shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/ (Shay's Rebellion)
http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/index.faces (Transatlantic Slave Database)
http://www.davidrumsey.com/farber/ (Farber Gravestone Collection, courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society)
http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq (A New Nation Votes, American Election Returns 1787-1825)
http://www.letrs.indiana.edu/web/w/wright2/(Wright American Fiction Database)
http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/vwwp/vwwp-links.html (Victorian Women Writer's Project) -
-
CommentAuthorRootfireember
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
FirstSearch is a database collection of various journal articles, abstracts and books under a variety of fields, will see if I can link to it after work. -
-
- CommentAuthorlooneynerd
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
jstor.org is a really valuable journal service, if you have access to it. If you're not involved with any of the 6,000 universities or libraries that use it, you can pay a small fee to use it. There are a ton of other sites like this (project muse pops to mind), but Jstor is what I most often use for basic papers and the like. -
Thanks -- my only other thought is that you might be referring to what we call Academic Search Premier, else it's a database I'm entirely unfamiliar with. I usually use JStor/Project Muse to search journals.
-
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
"why are there/does there seem to be 2 different sets of Jews, the Middle Eastern ones, i.e. the ones written about in the old testament of the bible and the Central/Eastern European Jews? I assume they both come from the same origin, Abraham, Isaac and so forth, but when did the split occur? When did the European ones leave Israel? Was it before Exodus, between then and the roman exile? Why the geographical split"
After the Sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jews were forbidden from living within a certain distance of Jerusalem (50 miles or so from memory).
By this time, there was already a big Jewish diaspora all over the roman world. Alexandria was supposedly 50% Egyptian, 25% Greek, 25% Jewish for example.The last great Jewish uprising in 120 AD was called "the rising of the East" because it took place in almost ever major city in the eastern half of the Empire.
So Jews spread out all over the then-known world. Because there was a religious requirement that Jewish men know how to read, they had a leg-up in the profession and trade in a world where the majority of people were illiterate.
After the sack of Jerusalem there was no longer a central religious authority within Judaism. Rabbis wrote extensively and shared each others works and some post-70AD authors were highly influential but none of their work was regarded as authoritative or divinely inspired by all Jews and different Jewish communities started to develop their own interpretations of the law and their own theories abotu matters where the Torah was silent.
On many issues there's far more divergence within Judaism than within Christianity or Islam. For example, some branches of Judaism teach reincarnation, others don't.
(I've just realised that answering this question in full will take a LOT so I'm going ot break here and provide some links.
Short version of the answer: Jews in Europe were treated very different to Jews in other parts of the world (including other Christian areas.) They developed their own language (Yiddish) based primarily on German while Jews in the Islamic states in Spain developed a language (Ladino) based on Spanish. European Jews from the late middle ages onwards were forced to live in ghetttoes restricted in what jobs they could hold disrciminated agaisnt in legal proceeding etc.
In the Muslim world and in other Christian countries like Georgia and Ethiopia Jews lived much more like their non-Jewish counterparts.
After the reconquest of Spain by Christians the Spanish Jews were expelled and most moved to North Africa and Asia Minor where they intermarried with the local Jewish populations. The Spanish Jewish community had been one of the largest, richest and most educated in the world and they tended to assume positions of leadership in the Jewish communities which they joined and introduced Ladino and their particular schools of Judaism.
There was always some contact between the different branches of Judaism and they all shared Hebrew as a liturgical language but sheer distance led to their cultures developing differently.
Today there are three major groups of Jews: Ashkenazim (from Ashkenaz the Biblical name for Germany); Sephardim (from Sepharda the Biblical name for Spain) and Mizrahi (literally "People of the East"). Mizrahi is a neologism for all the various smaller groups from the middle east and points further east (Persia, Pakistan, the Caucasus etc.)
Even that's a vast oversimplification because there are other groups than don't fit into these categories like the Romaniote Jews of Greece who are directly descended from Jews who lived in Greece and what's now western turkey since Roman times. -
I'll suggest another way to look at it.
Every people from every country spread out: in war and peace, invasion and trading, as colonists, emigrants, refugees, retirees, skilled labourers, etc. This "everyone" includes Romans, for example, Greeks, Phoenecians, Franks, Vikings, all spread out all over the known world. A remarkable feature of Jews in particular, compared with other peoples, is that their culture (to do with inter-marrying, or even eating together) encouraged their remaining a distinct people. The remarkable thing, compared with ancient Romans for example, isn't that they spread out but that they persist as distinct/identifiable through the centuries. -
- CommentAuthorlooneynerd
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
I'd also like to interject here and point out that Jews actually started moving back towards Jerusalem after the reconquista. The Sultans Mehmed II and Beyazid II each issued invitations for Jews to re-settle in Ottoman lands, realizing that the Spanish Jews were, in large part, responsible for the vast wealth that had been enjoyed by the Almoravids and other Muslim states in Al-Andalus. Because of this, the population of Jews in Jerusalem increased 20-fold between 1490 and 1500. Thessaloniki, now in Greece, became a sort of new Jerusalem with upwards of 50,000 Jews living there at its height and the Hakham Bashi (Leader-Rabbi), who nominally was stationed in Istanbul, largely governed the Ottoman jews from there. They became so influential that several of the Defterdar, which were a fusion of finance and treasury ministers who reported directly to the Sultan, were Jewish. However, populations were kept in check by certain, limited, area restrictions to keep them from gaining too much direct power in the empire (these restrictions were imposed on all minorities and Millets, not just Jewish citizens).This kept many populations fairly isolated and spread thin across the empire, and largely prohibited particularly large groups from re-settling near Jerusalem or other city centers. Many of the empire's Jews, therefore, settled in Eastern Europe, where such restrictions were largely circumvented or outright ignored in favor of more pressing matters (like all of those Slavic rebellions). When the Empire fell apart after the first world war, many Ottoman Jews were persecuted by Arab and Persian populations in the former empire, not for being Jewish but for their ties to the old empire.
@Fan
You have to remember, especially in the different Muslim empires where their populations flourished, they were purposefully kept as a distinct ethnic minority. This wasn't necessarily because of any inherent prejudice (in fact, all minority groups, including Christians and even minority Muslims) were treated the same way. Why? Well, this all comes down to economics, really. Non-Muslims (and non Sunni's or Shi'a or Sufi, depending on the empire) were expected to pay more in taxes. That's why we don't see forced conversions in most cases in Islamic states; it didn't make good financial sense. All minority religions, then, in a sense were seen like the jews; not only a religion but also as a distinct race and ethnic group, even though that certainly was normally not the case. -
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
Looney my understanding was that the additional tax non-Muslims was supposed to make up for the religious tax Muslims were required to pay to the religious authorities rather than to the temporal ruler.