Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 3/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Conservative Racism

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conservative Racism
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 953 (853815)
06-01-2019 12:27 AM


Take away political preferences, and many (on both sides) are indeed racist.
Trump has, no doubt whatsoever, caused increasingly higher numbers of Democrats to see their own - previously held - views as racist, while they won't admit how much they held (or secretly hold) the views.
quote:
EDITOR'S NOTE - MAY 1, 2019
Editor’s Note: Immigration Has Upended Our Opinions
Conservative writer David Frum has stirred a hornet’s nest on the issue of immigration, and since that’s a topic that sharply divides Americans, I think it is worthwhile to dive in and provide local perspective.
Frum’s article in the April issue of The Atlantic - “How Much Immigration is Too Much?” - is not about The Wall. That’s because he rightly points out a barrier along the Mexican border will not change the essence of America’s immigration system. Almost all new immigrants arrive legally, or they come legally as tourists or students and then remain illegally, or they come to border crossings as asylum seekers. A wall stops none of that and it certainly has little direct effect on Hawaii’s immigrant situation.
....
Trump has skewed the traditional Democratic and Republican positions on immigration. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were both big advocates of immigration. Back in 2015, when Trump was largely considered a joke candidate, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders expressed what had once been a common Democratic concern with immigration: “What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. . I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Editor's Note: Immigration Has Upended Our Opinions - Hawaii Business Magazine
I am sorry to see that Frum seems to be anti-immigration. I always thought he was pro-immigration. I just discovered his (new) position as I read this article (I have yet to read his own, but will try, if the computer loads).
But, to the issue of "right" and "left".
Democrats seem to be moving away from their anti-immigration past, but I wonder just how much of the pro-immigration momentum will continue when a few things chance. The first question is whether Democrats will feel so strongly about immigrant's suffering when Trump is no longer around to remind them of it (due to his mouth and style, which encourages media coverage of previously obscure border patrol/detention issues). The second issue has to do with the concern for migrant rights when the unemployment is higher than the current situation of a business cycle peak.
I hope that the always-increasing percentage of minorities in the total Democratic membership might somehow lock in a pro-immigration Democratic party ("Democrat" registered minorities tend to be made up of the more pro-immigration members of the communities) , but that might not make the issue so simple if the overall country (both whites and minorities) feels strongly hurt by immigrants.
Trump has made things simple (on immigration)
G. W. Bush made things simple (on war).
The big question is what Democrats do after the "simple" ones leave.
Will they do a 180?

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-04-2019 4:16 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 75 of 953 (854235)
06-06-2019 1:08 AM


Democrats and Republicans.
Eventually, immigration policy will need to have the engagement of the population.
That includes the numbers of "legal immigrants" allowed in each year, illegal crossings (and the public policy complications), plus the citizenship issues.
There will be policy and then its implementation will be seen plus the way it plays in the real world.
What Democrats can simply call "racist" today (since the Republican President gets hit by the dart), will clearly not be described as such (by many of the same Democrats) when they are in charge.
It probably should be called the same thing, but the problem is that Republicans will typically not call immigration laws "racist", so there won't even be a loyal opposition to Democratic laws against immigrant's ability to travel freely and to get work.
The Democratic party is unique, among the two political parties, in that it's members get to decide when laws against immigrants can be called "racist" or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 06-06-2019 9:20 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 78 by JonF, posted 06-06-2019 9:25 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 06-06-2019 11:12 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 134 of 953 (854480)
06-08-2019 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by JonF
06-06-2019 9:25 AM


Re: Democrats and Republicans.
quote:
I saw some wise words recently.
Republicans oppose Democrats because of what Republicans say Democrats do.
Democrats oppose Republicans because of what Republicans do.
It's true.
Democrats flip flop on their favorite darts.
Bush 43 was endlessly called "evil" over the issue of war, but it wasn't too long until Democrats attempted to shove Hillary Clinton down the nation's throat. Clinton was way more pro-war (and in a way that was not even intelligent either; her debates with Trump saw her presenting Iran and Assad and I.S.I.S. as somehow on the same side).
Now Trump is called "evil", but the nation is too used to endlessly (1 trillion times a day) hearing Democrats calling Republican Presidents "evil" and "racist". (like from 2000-2009 for example, just a little decade there)
Partisan Democrats even called Ronald Reagan "racist".
What happened to the "evil" war dart?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by JonF, posted 06-06-2019 9:25 AM JonF has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 349 of 953 (858568)
07-22-2019 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2019 12:05 AM


The ethnic identification issues are up and running.
This was part of post 255, and it was part of a reply chain that you got involved in.
quote:
A joke, perhaps, but now, 66 years after the death of ******, 183 years after the massacre at the Alamo and 18 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks we're faced with "The Squad" the new face of the Democratic Party is a Massachusetts socialist, a descendant of the Conquistadores and two Muslims!
The only thing saving Republicans from all of the blame is that one of the Muslims (the one from the St. Paul & Minneapolis district) has been attacking Jewish folks in a really disgraceful way.
It is all ugly regardless.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2019 12:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by xongsmith, posted 07-22-2019 4:41 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 351 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2019 9:44 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 368 of 953 (858693)
07-22-2019 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by xongsmith
07-22-2019 4:41 AM


Re: The ethnic identification issues are up and running.
quote:
No she hasn't. She is only attacking Netanyahu, the fascist dictator of sad Israel and his Likud assholes.
I don't want to talk about Middle East politics, and it is pretty irrelevant to more problematic part of the Minnesota congresswomen's comments (though the Israel comments were quite bad too, and calling the comments bad says nothing about the caller's views on Middle East politics or mindset toward Arabs and Israelis).
I doubt many people here get into the conversations with real people that I do.
I am regularly told (by people who don't even know who any of these Muslim congresspeople are, and have little care about politics to the level of knowing about congresspeople) how "powerful" Jewish people are (as opposed to the powerless individuals they actually are), and it was last night actually. The issue of "Zionism" and "banking" comes up as reasons why Jewish people are so evil, and all the persecution comes from there (and the actual persecution is always mentioned with a side note that "Jews make up stories of persecution" and "Jews seed false media stories about hatred" "they haven't been as hated as they say, but all the 'dislike' - not 'hate' - has been from their own evils", which are "banking" and "Zionism").
"Powerful" and a "force" seem to be buzzwords about "The Jews". I hear them all the time.
I HARDLY KNOW WHERE TO START.
I used a phone last night to demonstrate hatred directed against Jewish people comes from pre-Zionism and decided to go to the KARAITES Wikipedia article, for starters (this is a tiny minority sect of Jews that are distinct from Rabbinical Jews and have a 1000-2000 year history of existence). Russian Karaites, about 125 years ago, got the idea to "prove" to the Russian Empire that they were in Crimea before Jesus was born, so they could escape the Blood Guilt the Empire officially saw Jews to have. The bogus historical evidence - making Karaites seem to be residents of Crimea for 2000 years - actually was accepted in courts, but the Russian authorities told them they were still living under the Blood Guilt that all Jews were under.
The fact is that it doesn't take much for many people to bring up their hatred of Jewish people. They will then say they don't hate Jewish people. They just hate the "hateful things" the "powerful people do". "I hate Zionism".
The ironic thing is the blood guilt idea was defended by these same bigots once I told them what the Gospel of John said ("The Jews somehow killed all the Prophets" according to the Gospel of John).
I always get comments that there is still "love" (or at least no "hate" for individuals).
(There is so much more crap to the typical accusations, often Jewish people get accused of controlling the media and then "The evil media Jews" actually get blamed for "dividing people". I have been told multiple times - by ethnic Mexicans - that Jewish people are actually responsible for anti-immigration policy and Donald Trump. Really! And these are people who otherwise are nice.)
(It should be pointed out that many ethnic Mexicans are actually Pro Trump, and even those folks are often anti-Semitic. I hate to make too much of the ethnic issue because many don't care about the fact that they are Hispanic or ethnic-Mexican. Many are born American and don't know Spanish, and don't care one bit, but it is amazing how much they care about Jewish issues. It is a wake up call when you see people you think aren't racist show different colors when it comes to Jewish issues.)
Here are the troubling comments about the supposed Jewish "POWER" by the congresswomen:
quote:
I want to talk about the POLITICAL INFLUENCE in this country that says it is OK to for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask, why it is OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA or fossil fuel industries or big pharma, and not talk about a POWERFUL lobbying group that is influencing policy?
quote:
Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.
quote:
It's all about the Benjamins baby.
quote:
I am told every day that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic
All "about the Benjamins" reminds me of the really tired and lackluster response a guy (descended of Polish Jews who escaped in the 1930s, though he himself is not Jewish) gave to an aggressive anti-Semite who said the "Jews have been hated for their banking and money" claim (plus Zionism). I was aggressively arguing against the tropes & canards, but the part-Polish guy was speaking about academic studies on anti-Semitism and essentially conceded the points to the attacker.
The attacker started asking which type of Jew people were. His point was that he hates Zionist Jews but respects Orthodox Jews (he presented those 2 as the only options). Then he said he hates nobody anyway.
I brought up the Blood Guilt issue and then talked about the Gospels - especially the Gospel of John.
I talked about the Russian Empire, but then told how the Gospel of John was not written by John, nor was it called "The Gospel of John until about 200 A.D. It wasn't written until after 100, or quoted till 150. I even mentioned how the "beloved" Apostle might not have been talking about "John". I even explained how King James himself thought John and Jesus had homosexual sex based on the identification of John with "the beloved".
Then he (a Hispanic) - and the other attackers (non Hispanic whites who bought into his crap) - ended up giving evangelical arguments on Christianity and how "we serve the same God", as if he was debating Jewish folks (neither me nor the other guy who opposed him were Jewish, but I was the only actual debating opponent - the other guy on my side was worthless).
I was friends with all of them. We hang out. The vocal anti-Semite is also a 9/11 Truther. He attacks me for watching CNN. The media is all controlled by the Illuminati and the "Jews" who run it all. He just can't understand how people - like me - see Jews are the least powerful people on Earth. He feels I am brainwashed. He said they (Jews) were "Powerful" beyond all others before I said they are not.
He probably does not know who 3 of the 4 "Squad" members are. I assume he knows who AOC is, but he might not. She is an amazing celebrity to pro-immigration ethnic Mexicans (they know she is Puerto Rican), but he is more of an anti-immigration type though he says he "loves all people". He and my super-liberal part-Polish friend (descended of Jewish folks who fled during the turmoil of the 1930s) are always fighting on politics, though he feels everybody politician is part of some evil conspiracy and he hates politics. He cares almost nothing of his grandparents Mexican ethnicity though (both his parents are "100%" Hispanic and essentially both ethnic-Mexican). He did not sound racist at all until he starts talking about Jewish people (I heard hints of this anti-Semitic stuff for a while from him, but it got lost in all the conspiracy theory talk and joking).
He concluded by saying Jews are under a blood guilt but he hates no person regardless.
"Jews" are "POWERFUL" is indeed anti-Semitic.
Jewish "big bucks baby" is ALL ABOUT THE BANKER CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
(Jewish communities often were expelled from entire countries when people did not want to pay their debts - often war debts - so they blamed those evil bankers WHO ALSO HAPPENED TO BE THE SAME PEOPLE WHOSE MONEY JESUS KICKED OVER, before "those evil Jews murdered him")
This stuff is all about attacks on the Jewish people.
(and attacking Jewish people is THE POPULAR POSITION in the world!)
Israel is not the actual issue.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by xongsmith, posted 07-22-2019 4:41 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2019 7:22 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 372 of 953 (858787)
07-23-2019 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by NosyNed
07-23-2019 7:22 AM


Re: The Benjamins
quote:
I don't have time right now to look up the actual context of your quotes. Which is what I asked for and you avoided.
The context was "the Jews" are a power (capitol P?) to be stood up to.
Power needs truth told to.
Stand up to the powerful villains
quote:
But "It's all about the Benjamins baby." seems to not be about the usual screeds about Jewish money but rather the lobbying done on behalf of and by Israel. She has apologized for her remarks but I haven't found anything yet that is worse than careless wording.
It was about taking on Jews, the powerful powerhouses that need to finally be stood up to.
She feels it should be considered courageous, so she said it with heat.
quote:
It seems she is suggesting that Israel carries some of the blame for the state of affairs in the middle east. If she is saying it is completely to blame then I disagree with her but carry some blame it does.
I'm sure this "I am not anti-Semitic, I am just anti-Zionist" will be the excuse that never will concede the obviousness of its blatant lie.
quote:
If this is the quality of your agrument I'm not impressed.
I know what people say about the Jewish people. I know what she was saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2019 7:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 373 of 953 (858788)
07-23-2019 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by NosyNed
07-23-2019 7:22 AM


Re: The Benjamins (one more thing to clarify)
quote:
But "It's all about the Benjamins baby." seems to not be about the usual screeds about Jewish money but
A lot of the "usual screeds" are actually far more innocent (almost cartoonish).
This was not some simple-minded "a few rich people are Jewish and run a masonic lodge (or the 'Illuminati')" type of stuff.
This was vile anti-Semitism of the most dangerous sort.
Not an attack on a small number of "Jewish bankers", but an attack that comes from the thought strain that hates the Jewish people to the point that even 0.2% of the world being Jewish is just too many Jews. I am not saying she wants people murdered, but she clearly does not like the idea of Jewish people having any real "power" to deal with their endless problems. She sees a lot about Jewish existence as the problem, no doubt.
I am sure she sees the ADL as some sort of overly-powerful group. I think the ADL lacks power in this world, and that is the truth. I support free speech 100%, but Jewish people have gotten some bad PR for a long time, and it is still pretty bad in the 21st century.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2019 7:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 381 of 953 (859336)
07-31-2019 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
05-30-2019 2:38 PM


Democrats need to make voters vote on immigration.
quote:
These demographic changes which none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like are strongly related to immigration.
56% of 18-34 Americans feel illegal immigration should be punished with a fine, not criminal charges.
18-34 males are 61% supportive of decriminalization (only 23% feel there should be criminal charges)
https://thehill.com/...il-fines-for-illegal-border-crossings
There were 250 18-34 year olds polled.
141 (or 56%) said there should only be a fine, while 61 (24%) said there should be criminal charges, and 48 (19%) were undecided.
There were 260 35-49 year olds polled.
69 said fine ( 27%). 110 said it should be a crime (42%). 81 were not sure (31%).
That is 510 under 50, and 210 to 171 supported decriminalization, with 129 not sure.
8% more support, among 18-49 year old Americans, for changing the current criminal status to a NON CRIME immigration offense.
The younger they are, the more pro immigration they come.
There were 280 50-64 year-old Americans polled, and 210 65+ year's old people polled.
The 280 50 to 64 year olds were only 23% supportive of reducing the penalty to a fine, and 50% favored keeping the criminal status that is the current law.
The 210 Americans over 64 were only 21% in favor of decriminalization with 48% favoring the criminal charges.
Overall, there is a 41% to 32% breakdown in favor of keeping the criminal charges policy verses reducing the penalty to a fine.
But 16 months from now will see the anti-immigration side loosing many of its elderly members. They will be replaced by very pro-immigration youngsters.
Democrats need to take this issue to the voters. I want to see what they have to say. There might be a slight edge in favor of decriminalization if Democrats offer a choice and make the case. Never mind the age demographics bringing a different political landscape in future years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2019 2:38 PM PaulK has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 607 of 953 (860976)
08-14-2019 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by Chiroptera
08-14-2019 1:36 PM


I though anti-immigration conspiracy theorists knew about Lazarus?
quote:
Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, has sparked a new wave of criticism about the promise of US immigration enshrined in the inscription on the Statue of Liberty by saying it was for "people coming from Europe".
Amazing, and not just because this guy was Italian (many folks from Italy, especially Semitic Sicily, were not seen as "white-European", but were allowed to immigrate during the "open border" times pre-1924).
This was quite a whopper.
quote:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
....
The "huddled masses" refers to the large numbers of immigrants arriving in the United States in the 1880s.[14] Lazarus was an activist and advocate for Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Czarist Russia. [15]
The New Colossus - Wikipedia
Lazarus would not have been seen as quite the European, herself.
quote:
Emma Lazarus was born in New York City, July 22, 1849,[5] into a large Sephardic Jewish family.[a] She was the fourth of seven children of Moses Lazarus, a wealthy Jewish merchant[7] and sugar refiner,[8] and Esther Nathan.[9] One of her great-grandfathers on the Lazarus side was from Germany;[10] the rest of her Lazarus and Nathan ancestors were originally from Portugal and resident in New York long before the American Revolution, being among the original twenty-three Portuguese Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam fleeing the Inquisition from their settlement of Recife, Brazil.[11][8] Lazarus's great-great-grandmother on her mother's side, Grace Seixas Nathan (born in New York in 1752) was also a poet.[12] Lazarus was related through her mother to Benjamin N. Cardozo, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Her siblings included sisters Josephine, Sarah, Mary, Emma, Agnes and Annie, and a brother, Frank.[13][14][15]
Emma Lazarus - Wikipedia
The fact that everybody TODAY considers Italians (even from Sicily) & others - like Jewish folks -, with partial middle-eastern ancestry, as European, might not be the best support for saying the Statue of Liberty's poem was for "Europeans only".
It is true that there was a severe crackdown against non-white migrants just before the statue was erected.
But it was not just people from the continent of Europe that enjoyed the "open borders" rights. Sicilians were allowed to immigrate here like "Europeans". I know that for a fact. It was not all about the continent of Europe.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by Chiroptera, posted 08-14-2019 1:36 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by JonF, posted 08-15-2019 8:30 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2342
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 610 of 953 (861099)
08-17-2019 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 608 by JonF
08-15-2019 8:30 AM


Anti-immigration EUROPEAN ONLY folks & Lazarus (L.A. Times
There is no comment on the part about people only being European.
The piece forgets to mention that her ancestors came from Brazil (and there is an quite an immigration story to how they got to Brazil in the first place)
First the L.A. Times piece.
quote:
OPINION
Editorial: Cuccinelli is wrong: ‘Poor, huddled masses’ are an inextricable part of our history
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD
AUG. 16, 2019 3 AM
Now the Trump administration is trying to rewrite history and poetry.
In an interview with National Public Radio this week, Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said that the storied lines on the Statue of Liberty urging the world to give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free was an invitation to only those immigrants who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.
Um, no. In fact, the huddled masses line is part of a 14-line sonnet, The New Colossus, that Emma Lazarus considered the nation’s first important Jewish poet wrote in 1883 for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty would eventually stand. The poem was written a year after the first Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1882, the first significant efforts to limit immigration into the United States. Yes, the latter required new arrivals to show they had the means to survive in what then was a nation without safety nets, a rule that has remained on the books ever since.
Yet Lazarus’ poem doesn’t mention exclusions and financial requirements. Rather, she specifically refers to embracing the wretched refuse of your teeming shore and the homeless, tempest-tost. Her poem says clearly and eloquently that the land of liberty should welcome immigrants from the lower economic classes the poor, huddled masses and not just those carrying purses full of gold. Lazarus, incidentally, was born in the United States but was descended from Portugese Sephardic Jews, and she was involved in helping Russian Jews settle in New York after fleeing pogroms the very sort of displaced peoples the current White House has worked so assiduously to turn away.
Ken Cuccinelli displayed deep ignorance of American history, not to mention poetry, when he said the poem affixed to the Statue of Liberty referred only to those who could "stand on their own two feet."
There is more in the piece.
But no mention of Brazilian ancestors.
But look at why they were in Brazil.
Converso - Wikipedia
quote:
Over half of Spain's Jewish origin population had converted to Catholicism as a result of the religious anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms which occurred in 1391. As a result of the Alhambra decree and persecution in prior years, it is estimated that of Spain's total Jewish origin population at the time, over 200,000 Jews converted to Catholicism, and initially remained in Spain. Between 40,000 and 80,000 did not convert to Catholicism, and by their steadfast commitment to remain Jewish were thus expelled. Of those who were expelled as unconverted Jews, an indeterminate number nonetheless converted to Catholicism once outside Spain and eventually returned to Spain in the years following the expulsion[2] due to the hardships many experienced in their resettlement. Many of Spain's Jews who left Spain as Jews also initially moved to Portugal, where they were subsequently forcibly converted to the Catholic Church in 1497.
Most of the Jews who left Spain as Jews accepted the hospitality of Sultan Bayezid II and, after the Alhambra Decree, moved to the Ottoman Empire,[3] where they founded communities openly practising the Jewish religion; they and their descendants are known as Eastern Sephardim.
During the centuries following[4] the Spanish and Portuguese decrees, some of the Jewish-origin New Christian conversos started emigrating from Portugal and Spain, settling until the 1700s throughout areas of Western Europe and non-Iberian realms of the colonial Americas (mostly Dutch realms, including Curaao in the Dutch West Indies, Recife in Dutch areas of colonial Brazil which eventually were regained by the Portuguese, and New Amsterdam which later became New York) forming communities and formally reverting to Judaism. It is the collective of these communities and their descendants who are known as Western Sephardim, and are the subject of this article.
As the early members of the Western Sephardim consisted of persons who themselves (or whose immediate forebears) personally experienced an interim period as New Christians, which resulted in unceasing trials and persecutions of crypto-Judaism by the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisitions, the early community continued to be augmented by further New Christian emigration pouring out of the Iberian Peninsula in a continuous flow between the 1600s to 1700s. Jewish-origin New Christians were officially considered Christians due to their forced or coerced conversions; as such they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church's Inquisitorial system, and were subject to harsh heresy and apostasy laws if they continued to practice their ancestral Jewish faith. Those New Christians who eventually fled both the Iberian cultural sphere and jurisdiction of the Inquisition were able to officially return to Judaism and open Jewish practice once they were in their new tolerant environments of refuge.
As former conversos or their descendants, Western Sephardim developed a distinctive ritual based on the remnants of the Judaism of pre-expulsion Spain, which some had practiced in secrecy during their time as New Christians, and influenced by Judaism as practiced by the communities (including Sephardic Jews of the Ottoman Empire and Ashkenazi Jews) which assisted them in their readoption of normative Judaism; as well as by the Spanish-Moroccan and the Italian Jewish rites practiced by rabbis and hazzanim recruited from those communities to instruct them in ritual practice. A part of their distinctiveness as a Jewish group, furthermore, stems from the fact that they saw themselves as forced to "redefine their Jewish identity and mark its boundaries [...] with the intellectual tools they had acquired in their Christian socialization"[5] during their time as New Christian conversos.
Spanish and Portuguese Jews - Wikipedia
Lazarus was from a Western Sephardim family.
That is why they were in the place they were when in Brazil.
This family would be considered "Hispanic" today, especially if they remained in their "Christian" state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by JonF, posted 08-15-2019 8:30 AM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024