Jewish group asks France to rename 'Death to Jews' hamlet

wicklowstevo · 14-08-2014 09:11PM

lets see how far freedom of speech relates to boards shall we ?

if the jews have been hated ostracized from main stream society in cultures as far back as ancient Egypt and beyond does no one think there is a good and valid reason for this ?

im not interested in the nonsense flag waving and hillbily racism but at the end of the day if walks like a duck quacks like a duck and craps duck crap at what point do you say , hey ! a duck !

Tony EH · 15-08-2014 11:36AM

While certainly not a "valid" reason, imo, the hatred (or distrust) in Europe for Jews came from religious divides. European Christians viewed the Jews as "Christ killers".

In addition, a lot of European Jews chose not to integrate into the societies they moved too and set up their own enclaves in many European countries, which inevitably caused distrust among the natives, as it were. And those that did integrate were often viewed as suspicious. So, in many ways they were damned if they did and damned if the didn't.

But, bottom line, it's basically religion that was at the heart of European antisemitism.

Although, it should be made clear that Europe wasn't this crazy place where everybody hated Jews with a pathological fervor. For centuries Jewish communities within European countries in peace and greatly prospered too.

pickarooney · 15-08-2014 11:49AM

Never understood that Christ killer bollocks.

Did the (pagan) Romans not crucify him?
Was he not himself a Jew (how do you hate the founder of your own religion?)
Didn't he half to die horribly in order for their whole religion to come about? If he didn't would they not be pagans or Jews themselves?
What are they, five years old?

Tony EH · 15-08-2014 11:59AM

Never really got it myself, tbh. But, in saying that, I've never really felt that compelled to look deeper into it either.

Isn't there something about Pilate washing his hands of the matter and Christ being betrayed by Jewish leaders. Who the hell knows?

Hey...it's religion.

MistyCheese · 15-08-2014 12:00PM

Of course the name must be changed, it's highly offensive! I suggest Murder to The Jews.

DeadHand · 15-08-2014 12:43PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Never understood that Christ killer bollocks.

Did the (pagan) Romans not crucify him?
Was he not himself a Jew (how do you hate the founder of your own religion?)
Didn't he half to die horribly in order for their whole religion to come about? If he didn't would they not be pagans or Jews themselves?
What are they, five years old?

He was, (apparently) betrayed, condemned and handed over to the Romans by his own people. Jealousy is a bitch, what with his flashy magic powers he was putting the local holy men to shame. Hence the historical and often Catholic Church promoted Christian hate.

The religious element was/is obviously a huge element in Europe's historical and ongoing anti-Semitism. Another factor that was at least as large as the religious element in the past and is much larger today is simple envy. The Jews tend to be successful and wealthy wherever they are. Nothing arouses antipathy quite like success.

Then you have the whole Israel debacle, people ignorantly equating that state with the entire Jewish race. Then you have the various nonsense conspiracy theories casting the Jews as global pantomine villains.

If anti-Semitism was not one of the few forms of racism still subtly seen as acceptable and even trendy, the "debate" on this thread would not exist.

No-one here would argue that hamlet named "Death to Muslims", "Death to Negroes" or "Death to Sodomites" should be allowed to keep it's name and rightly so.

But, hey, it's only the Jews!

wicklowstevo · 15-08-2014 01:13PM

DeadHand wrote: »

He was, (apparently) betrayed, condemned and handed over to the Romans by his own people. Jealousy is a bitch, what with his flashy magic powers he was putting the local holy men to shame. Hence the historical and often Catholic Church promoted Christian hate.

The religious element was/is obviously a huge element in Europe's historical and ongoing anti-Semitism. Another factor that was at least as large as the religious element in the past and is much larger today is simple envy. The Jews tend to be successful and wealthy wherever they are. Nothing arouses antipathy quite like success.

Then you have the whole Israel debacle, people ignorantly equating that state with the entire Jewish race. Then you have the various nonsense conspiracy theories casting the Jews as global pantomine villains.

If anti-Semitism was not one of the few forms of racism still subtly seen as acceptable and even trendy, the "debate" on this thread would not exist.

No-one here would argue that hamlet named "Death to Muslims", "Death to Negroes" or "Death to Sodomites" should be allowed to keep it's name and rightly so.

But, hey, it's only the Jews!

i think that you should be able to call your home what ever you like, i really doubt its a recent development (the name )
why demand the change now ?
While i acknowledge that you cant tar a whole race or religion with one brush arrogance does seem to be a trait of almost all Jewish people that ive met or seen interviewed.

darkpagandeath · 15-08-2014 01:16PM

DeadHand wrote: »

He was, (apparently) betrayed, condemned and handed over to the Romans by his own people. Jealousy is a bitch, what with his flashy magic powers he was putting the local holy men to shame. Hence the historical and often Catholic Church promoted Christian hate.

The religious element was/is obviously a huge element in Europe's historical and ongoing anti-Semitism. Another factor that was at least as large as the religious element in the past and is much larger today is simple envy. The Jews tend to be successful and wealthy wherever they are. Nothing arouses antipathy quite like success.

Then you have the whole Israel debacle, people ignorantly equating that state with the entire Jewish race. Then you have the various nonsense conspiracy theories casting the Jews as global pantomine villains.

If anti-Semitism was not one of the few forms of racism still subtly seen as acceptable and even trendy, the "debate" on this thread would not exist.

No-one here would argue that hamlet named "Death to Muslims", "Death to Negroes" or "Death to Sodomites" should be allowed to keep it's name and rightly so.

But, hey, it's only the Jews!

Again with this ? If you don't agree changing a place name form the 11th century your an anti Semite. Really is that the level of the argument that people can come up with. I find it very interesting whenever it’s this religion, If you don't agree your Anti Semitic. I don't agree with Catholicism am I anti catholic, same with all organised religions. And since when is a Religion a Race.

15-08-2014 01:19PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Again with this ? If you don't agree changing a place name form the 11th century your an anti Semite. Really is that the level of the argument that people can come up with. I find it very interesting whenever it’s this religion, If you don't agree your Anti Semitic. I don't agree with Catholicism am I anti catholic, same with all organised religions. And since when is a Religion a Race.

If you don't agree with changing the anti-semitic name then you're going to look like an anti-semite.

Semitic doesn't refer to a race either.

Tony EH · 15-08-2014 01:19PM

DeadHand wrote: »

If anti-Semitism was not one of the few forms of racism still subtly seen as acceptable...

Utter bloody nonsense.

darkpagandeath · 15-08-2014 01:37PM

Candie wrote: »

If you don't agree with changing the anti-semitic name then you're going to look like an anti-semite.

Semitic doesn't refer to a race either.

The name will still appear on historical maps, They wont let this group into museums with tippex and get rid of it. It will just be removed from Google, and possibly changed by the locals. So what is the actual point ? other than garnering yet more attention for this group. And no you don't get labelled an an anti Semite for not agreeing to change a name. Were do you stop, this group does not like part of European history. Change that change this, is this not how we end up in bad situation. Can other groups then start to demand oh well were offended by this change that. I am very suspect of any group going out of there way to change stuff.

15-08-2014 01:41PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The name will still appear on historical maps, They wont let this group into museums with tippex and get rid of it. It will just be removed from Google, and possibly changed by the locals. So what is the actual point ? other than garnering yet more attention for this group. And no you don't get labelled an an anti Semite for not agreeing to change a name. Were do you stop, this group does not like part of European history. Change that change this, is this not how we end up in bad situation. Can other groups then start to demand oh well were offended by this change that. I am very suspect of any group going out of there way to change stuff.

The point is that'll sound more like a civilised place existing in the 21st century rather than some medieval centre of the Inquisition unwilling to move with the times. History won't change with the name, a name change denies nothing. It's a name that has no place in the modern world though.

It's an offensive name. I can't believe anyone is defending it's retention.

Mountainsandh · 15-08-2014 01:42PM

No I don't agree either with your last bit Deadhand.

I reckon if indeed the name was Death to Muslims, or blacks, or whoever, the situation would be the same. I wouldn't think it acceptable to call an official place (street, square, village...) by such a name nowadays, because our moral values have changed; but the name was not given recently, it does have some historical value, and so it is right that it would take a bit of hassle changing it. You know, that people cannot change place names on a whim is a good thing.

I honestly don't think the presence of this name on an old French map, and in a corner of the google map database has caused any hurt to anyone Jewish or other. The first possibly Jewish person coming across it recently might have been a bit shocked and offended, no need for a dramatic response though.

darkpagandeath · 15-08-2014 01:48PM

Candie wrote: »

The point is that'll sound more like a civilised place existing in the 21st century rather than some medieval centre of the Inquisition unwilling to move with the times. History won't change with the name, a name change denies nothing. It's a name that has no place in the modern world though.

It's an offensive name. I can't believe anyone is defending it's retention.

You don't have the Right to be offended. As I have said yes its a distasteful name.

15-08-2014 01:50PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You don't have the Right to be offended. As I have said yes its a distasteful name.

I don't subscribe to the choice hypothesis, some things are inherently distasteful, like child abuse, people eating with their mouths full, and place names calling for the death of a specific group of people.

darkpagandeath · 15-08-2014 01:54PM

Candie wrote: »

I don't subscribe to the choice hypothesis, some things are inherently distasteful, like child abuse, people eating with their mouths full, and place names calling for the death of a specific group of people.

Can you point out what law governs the "right to be offended" As if there was such a law human interaction/communication would become impossible. Nice hyperbole with the child abuse comment, Thought this was about a place name ?

15-08-2014 01:56PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Can you point out what law governs the "right to be offended" As if there was such a law human interaction/communication would become impossible. Nice hyperbole with the child abuse comment, Thought this was about a place name ?

What are you talking about? Did I refer to a law? No.

Hyperbole yourself.

darkpagandeath · 15-08-2014 01:57PM

Candie wrote: »

What are you talking about? Did I refer to a law? No.

Hyperbole yourself.

You quoted me ? And on the choice part that's cultural, not everything innately causes disgust. There are some things that do. A place name would not be one of them.

Mountainsandh · 15-08-2014 01:59PM

Candie wrote: »

It's an offensive name. I can't believe anyone is defending it's retention.

Candie actually maybe I missed some posts but I haven't seen anyone saying it should be retained. People are simply pointing out how the big fuss and outrage are not justified.

People have to stop bandying about the term offensive as if it can bulldoze through anything in our society.

Many things are offensive. Thankfully nowadays if someone announces they find something offensive, they're usually listened to, and some changes may or may not be made. There's no need to lay it on thick in the dramatics department.

darkpagandeath · 15-08-2014 02:02PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Candie actually maybe I missed some posts but I haven't seen anyone saying it should be retained. People are simply pointing out how the big fuss and outrage are not justified.

People have to stop bandying about the term offensive as if it can bulldoze through anything in our society.

Many things are offensive. Thankfully nowadays if someone announces they find something offensive, they're usually listened to, and some changes may or may not be made. There's no need to lay it on thick in the dramatics department.

Aye they seem to think just because you don't agree with this we are going to fill out a petition to stop the name being changed. I will not lose any sleep either way, if it gets changed or not. I would not get anything done if I got outraged with everything that's in the paper on the TV or a forum.

Mountainsandh · 15-08-2014 02:14PM

Same here. It will become an interesting part of history that in 2014, someone spotted the old record, and some further action had to be taken to appease a particular organisation.

It will be telling enough in some decades to look at the historical context in relation to this little news event.

Let's stress again that no one has been using the name in years, there are no visible signs, it is not a postal address, it simply appears on the old cadastre records, and the simple reason it was spotted is that someone were trying to sell their property in that area and the old land records/contemporary records drawn from the old version were consulted.

Edit : it feels a bit like it were an Irish person asking to have all images of the "no blacks no Irish no dogs" poster in that b&b window burnt and digitally deleted, because it is offensive. The hamlet name is not in use, just like that poster.

DeadHand · 15-08-2014 03:05PM

wicklowstevo wrote: »

i think that you should be able to call your home what ever you like, i really doubt its a recent development (the name )
why demand the change now ?
While i acknowledge that you cant tar a whole race or religion with one brush arrogance does seem to be a trait of almost all Jewish people that ive met or seen interviewed.

You acknowledge that you can't tar people with the same brush... Then you go and tar people with the same brush without even pausing long enough for a fullstop.

Classic post.

Almost as paradoxical as all the "I'm not an anti-Semite, but "Death to Jews" is a perfectly acceptable place name" posts we've had.

Tony EH · 15-08-2014 03:09PM

DeadHand wrote: »

Almost as paradoxical as all the "I'm not an anti-Semite, but "Death to Jews" is a perfectly acceptable place name" posts we've had.

Oh yeh...like that was said by anybody.

More shite talk.

wicklowstevo · 15-08-2014 03:27PM

DeadHand wrote: »

You acknowledge that you can't tar people with the same brush... Then you go and tar people with the same brush without even pausing long enough for a fullstop.

Classic post.

Almost as paradoxical as all the "I'm not an anti-Semite, but "Death to Jews" is a perfectly acceptable place name" posts we've had.

A statement quantified and then backed up by first hand knowledge ?
i dont see your point. or is it that any point of view other than your own is wrong ? seem to be a lot of that around here.

Jimoslimos · 15-08-2014 03:29PM

I think the debate here is more on how much should we alter history.

Should the current (very rarely used) name be amended for use in all future documents? Yes of course.

Should old historical documents be changed? No.

On a related point I wonder how people would view old works of literature. Should The Merchant of Venice be amended due to fairly obvious anti-Semitic undertones and stereotypes (although some would argue that Shakespeare was trying to be sympathetic to Shylock's plight in a manner)

Shakespeare's Sister · 15-08-2014 03:39PM

People don't always "choose" to take offence. You've got your Joe Duffy phoning types who look for offence everywhere, yes, but you've also got those instances where people can't help being offended, it's not voluntary.
I'm always quite suspicious of people who say "You can choose to be offended" in relation to even grossly horrible stuff. They know perfectly well people don't always choose to be offended in these cases, and it just smacks of wanting it to be ok for people to say awful things.

wicklowstevo wrote: »

lets see how far freedom of speech relates to boards shall we ?

What makes you think Boards claims to have freedom of speech? Not that there is such a thing as freedom of speech anyway.

if the jews have been hated ostracized from main stream society in cultures as far back as ancient Egypt and beyond does no one think there is a good and valid reason for this ?

I don't. I think the problem would be more with those who choose to hate a group just because they are that group. What are the grounds for this hatred? I have never known of a decent explanation for hatred/suspicion towards Jewish people in general (they're not all the Israeli government/IDF/supporters of same) only the tinfoil-hat "They control the world's banks" stuff. But actual real reasons? Never known them.
I don't think Ireland is endemically an anti-semitic nation - I think self flagellating types/big fans of the IDF just like saying this.
But I do think, globally, there is a bit of a Jew-hating bandwagon. For no real reason, just... it's the "edgy" thing to do.

Shakespeare's Sister · 15-08-2014 03:40PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

although some would argue that Shakespeare was trying to be sympathetic to Shylock's plight in a manner

That's how I'd read it. There is a scene where Shylock refers to the persecution he experiences just because he is a Jew.

DeadHand · 15-08-2014 04:37PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh yeh...like that was said by anybody.

More shite talk.

Another brilliant contribution. Well done, that man.

And you even (sort of) use bad language to get your "point" (using the term loosely) across...

You're so edgy, like.

DeadHand · 15-08-2014 04:39PM

wicklowstevo wrote: »

A statement quantified and then backed up by first hand knowledge ?
i dont see your point. or is it that any point of view other than your own is wrong ? seem to be a lot of that around here.

How many Jews have you actually met? In what context? How did you know they were Jews?

Roquentin · 15-08-2014 04:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What an unusual name, are there any unusually named places places (in Irish or English) in Ireland that might need to be renamed as they could cause offence to someone?

I can't think of any..

a village called effin in limerick and also a village called hospital which could cause confusion for people not acquainted with the region:pac:

Jewish group asks France to rename 'Death to Jews' hamlet

Comments