Just those things that Goyim do!

I was looking something up the other day and got a result from the 1930s subreddit, and there was a comment that had been removed by the moderators, but to which someone had replied (and that was still up) telling them they were an antisemite for saying that Jews are the cause of all the abuses in Hollywood and that they’d never generalize like that about any other group of people. this doesn’t mean there haven’t been abusive Jewish men, especially in positions of power, there certainly have been, and we know who they are, and the Jewish community as a whole overwhelmingly condemns them, but their individual behavior is used to smear and demonize world Jewry in a particular way. it’s scary seeing the stereotypes and suspicions and vitriolic attitudes continue to grow.

People Without History Are Dust

Queerness remains one of the most stigmatized and overlooked aspects of Holocaust history, often erased due to the lingering homophobia of survivors. People Without History Are Dust challenges this silence, weaving together compelling stories of German, Dutch, Czech, and Polish Jewish Holocaust victims and survivors - including Anne Frank, Molly Applebaum, Margot Heuman, and Gad Beck - whose experiences help illuminate the hidden history of queerness in a time of genocide.

Drawing on extensive archival research, this groundbreaking book uncovers the lives of those who were doubly marginalized, not only persecuted as Jews but also as queer individuals. In doing so, it confronts the ways in which history has excluded or minimized their experiences, urging us to question normative accounts of the Holocaust.

By shedding light on these long-overlooked stories, People Without History Are Dust deepens our understanding of identity, survival, and memory, reminding us why an inclusive and complex approach to history is essential - not just for the sake of the past, but in service to the present and the future as well.

Imagine ID: #no but fr wtf is those tags in that screenshot

The tags in question are "#gee I wonder why Jewish victims didn't talk about being persecuted for being queer #maybe because being Jewish was the more pressing issue"

I am going to start assuming you're asking in good faith and not writing off Jews talking about the Holocaust.

Being Jewish was the more pressing issue. The Nazis were going after Jews and Roma. The reason gay people were targeted was because the Nazis believed Jews wanted to destroy the nuclear family and had created queers to destabilize families. Does that make a lick of sense? No, but nothing about Nazism does. Queer people died because of antisemitism.

Furthermore, queer people could hide. Hiding isn't a privilege, but it did allow people to survive the Holocaust without being put in a camp. There were plenty of closeted German men who never saw a death camp because they never dated a man. Hiding being Jewish, though, was a different matter.

It does not matter how observant you were. Your ethnicity, which was Jewish, was written on your birth certificate. You were listed as Jewish in census records. That's how Nazis knew who to round up. It's why the resistance blew up records offices. There were people who converted out of Judaism who were still marked because they had Jewish blood. They still lost rights. Your best bet to avoid this was to shed your identity and move to a different town but a) it's hard to leave your family behind, b) it looked suspicious if you move suddenly, and c) no one knew how bad it would get for Jews. So people didn't shed their birth identity, and they died. It doesn't matter if they were Orthodox or fully assimilated; they were murdered for having Jewish genes.

Being Jewish was seen as a genetic disease. The Nazis wiped out whole families because everyone has Jewish DNA. Meanwhile, being queer was a moral failing. If you were caught with another man, your wife and children weren't going to the camps. Just you.

I've spoken about the difference in how queer people and Jews were treated during the Holocaust here.

Ultimately, the deaths of queers was a side project. It was a fun little detour, rounding up people who might destabilize Germany, but it wasn't the goal. And to make that point, please consult this graph:

I don't know how to do an image ID for graphs. But the graph shows the Jewish death toll at 6 million, non-Jewish Polish death toll at 3 million, disabled and Romani deaths at least than a million each, and gay arrests are barely visible. There are no exact numbers given.

Please note that the other columns are deaths. That tiny orange blip? That's ARRESTS.

Anne Frank was not persecuted for being Queer. She was persecuted - and murdered - for being Jewish

Anne Frank, by today's standards, may well be considered Queer, to the delight of everyone who thinks discussions of the Holocaust are a matter of representation, but she never got to determine that, because

Anne Frank was murdered for being Jewish

You could, if you don't think a child being murdered for being Jewish is tragic enough, argue that it's a tragedy that she never got to fully explore that part of herself, but that's about as far as you can go.

And this is in fact exactly what the tags in the screenshot seem to be talking about - Anne Frank did not talk about being persecuted for being Queer because being Jewish was the more pressing issue.

Since it was placed earlier this week, community members have expressed anger about the Lake Theater and Cafe’s marquee advertising screenings of Christopher Nolan’s new film “The Odyssey.”

The south-facing marquee reads “Before there were the Jews, there was… The Odyssey.”

The reference has concerned many in the local Jewish community, specifically because of the current political environment in which the Jewish community faces heightened criticism — and bigotry — following escalating violence in occupied Gaza, and many feel that the marquee is antisemetic and ahistorical.

Bob Horenstein, The Jewish Federation of Greater Portland chief community relations and public affairs officer, said the federation has received dozens of messages from concerned community members. The Review also received many emails expressing concerns and many people have posted on social media about it.

“There’s drawing attention, and then there’s being offensive … What I wrote to (Lake Theater) yesterday was, we’d received over three dozen (email and calls) at least that members of our community feel very unsettled by the sign and I said we do not know the reason behind the choice of language, nor are we suggesting that there is necessarily any ill intent,” he said. “But to understand that, given the current climate of rising anti-Semitism, any reference to ‘the Jews’ is immediately suspected, rightly or wrongly, of having nefarious intentions, and that we would respectfully urge you to remove the current language and simply promote the movie.”

Jordan Perry, the general manager of the Lake Theater, said the marquee text would be taken down.

In a text message, he said the point of the remark was to push back on what is constituted as antisemitism and said he was surprised by the negative reaction it has received.

“My intention is never to influence opinion or fan flames, but to say: it’s okay to raise eyebrows, though I hope my messages reflect a depth of understanding others find in themselves but not always in the world around them,” said Perry by text message. “Through the media I consume, I believe modern-day antisemitism is exaggerated, mostly as a defense for Israel’s actions in the Middle East and its involvement in our politics, and my intention in referencing Jewish people on the marquee was to prod at everything being seemingly antisemitic with a statement that couldn’t possibly be construed as antisemitic.”

He added: “My intention was not to offend anyone, but rather to push back culturally back on what constitutes antisemitism, to signal, in solidarity, that it’s not about ‘the Jews,’ that it’s about Israel, and Palestine, and Lebanon, and Iran, and AIPAC. This is my ‘humor,’ this was the point, intentionally subtle, of what I put on the marquee.”

Perry added that the marquees reflect his personal views, not those of the business, and are “meant to connect with open-minded members of the community on a personal level, not as a business, and anyone coming to the business should only expect good food and drink, a relaxing environment, friendly staff, with a sort-of cynical guy sometimes behind the register who also runs food and cleans toilets.”

Rabbi Eve Posen, of Congregation Nevah Shalom, connected the marquee with accusations by members of the U.S. Congress that Israel is committing genocide in Palestine and said that a member of the community’s car was recently vandalized with swastikas.

“None of the individual moments, taken on their own, would necessarily warrant a public reflection. We live in a world where people disagree. We debate policy. We challenge history. We confront acts of hatred. But when these moments come one after another, layering upon one another in the span of a single day, they tell a story that is impossible to ignore,” Posen wrote via social media.

She also felt that there was no good reason for the Lake Theater to bring up the Jewish community while advertising the new film.

“The statement is historically false. More importantly, it raises a painful question: why invoke Jews at all? A clever movie promotion could have celebrated one of the oldest stories ever told without unnecessarily positioning Judaism as an afterthought or a comparison. In a moment when antisemitism is already at historic levels, casually inserting Jews into a narrative where we do not belong doesn’t feel harmless. It feels like another reminder that our story is somehow expendable, that our history can be rewritten or diminished for the sake of a punchline,” she wrote.

The north-facing marquee also referenced the new movie with the message, “Do you watch TV w/ subtitles? We’ve got The Odyssey w/ subtitles! (Not always, but sometimes).”

Many people commented that the story of The Odyssey – Homer’s original Greek epic passed down through an oral tradition – isn’t definitively older than evidence of Israelite tribes in ancient Canaan.

MR. SPIRO: Do you give these lectures at all of your depositions? MR. BANKSTON: I do, and you can watch them.

is ESPECIALLY hilarious to me having listened to multiple depositions Mark has had to take in the Sandy Hook case, where he has needed to lecture EVERY. SINGLE. ATTORNEY. at some point in the case about how they're violating Texas Rule XYZ, because they all, to a one, did something seriously ethically questionable during the deposition.

It. Literally. Doesn't. Matter.

Spoiler alert: trans people can be antisemitic!

Franz Kafka was a real person who died not too long ago, and just because a trans person relates to his writings doesn't mean they can claim he's trans. It's not the same as relating to a fictional character. You can't 'headcanon' an actual person. I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman. He was an actual person, not a fictional character you can project on. An treating Franz Kafka like a fictional character you can project any label onto and separate him from his actual life is dehumanization and *also* antisemitic.

It's no different than queer people co-opting Anne Frank's memory and erasing her story to just herald her as a "bi icon" when she never had the chance to live long enough to label herself. Queer gentiles need to stop dehumanizing Jewish people and turning them into blank slates they can project onto.

I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman.

At some point relatively recently, people seem to have come to the conclusion that you can't empathize with a character (or real fucking person, in this case, and I cannot stress how gross that is) unless you're just like them. "Oh, I, a nonbinary person can identify with this cishet man? He must actually be nonbinary!" "Oh, I, an autistic person, can identify with this Ambiguously Quirky™ person? She must actually be autistic!"

Being able to relate to a person--real or fictional--who isn't just like you is a good thing. It's good that you see yourself in the writings of a cisgender man! Maybe it will teach you that cis people aren't the enemy. It's good that an autistic character resonates with NT people! Maybe they'll gain new insight into their autistic friends and family!

It's called empathy, and it's so important to understand that you are going to see your experiences reflected in people who are unlike you. Those connections are important. Deciding that Kafka must be a trans woman because you're a trans woman is missing the entire fucking point. It means that you do, in fact, have some things in common with a cisgender man, and conversely, it means that cisgender men have things in common with you. To flatten them out so they're just like you is missing out on so much of what they have to say.

People are beautiful and rich and layered and the fact that we can connect with other people and share experiences despite how different we are? That's the whole fucking point. That's what makes life worth living.

Because we've seen that before. We see it very often because it's a fundamental premise of some incredibly antisemitic forms of Christianity, and when it turns out that we're real people with real opinions and real beliefs and real feelings who don't just exist to validate someone else's perception of who and how we could be, people don't just abandon their pretense at allyship, they get violent.

It's also a common failing in how the Holocaust is taught. People like to present this lens of "it was random violence that came out of nowhere and could've happened to anyone. It could've happened to you! Imagine if you'd been one of the victims! That would've been a tragedy wouldn't it?" And the thing is, that's bullshit. If you were just a random German citizen at the time? You would've been one of the perpetrators. And it was a tragedy in and of itself; it doesn't become a tragedy by imaging a scenario in which people who were perfectly safe would've actually been potentially in danger (never killed, of course, because Holocaust education is also commonly sanitized, which is a different rant).

Edited to take out a rant that was in drafts and got added to this by mistake, but. Well, the Tl;dr, since that's been reblogged

But in the Kafka conversation there is an element I think so many non-Jews just straight up refuse to understand. That is the fact that Jews have our own culture.

The societal gender ideals non-Jews in the West grow up with ... Aren't really in Jewish communities the same way. (Though cultural osmosis means we've picked up a lot along the way).

ALL our masculine role models, the ones we're told to admire, are shepherds. That's important bc shepherds lead the heard from behind, not in front. It speaks to a different leadership mindset. Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, etc. we're soft spoken, humble, slow to action, intellectually inclined. Even when they have tempers or are warriors, those aspects are critiqued or minimized. (It's why when Jews depict King David, he's playing his harp or herding sheep. When non-Jews depict him, he's fighting Goliath.)

Compared to the very Roman/Western ideal of masculine power might-makes-right, Jewish masculinity is inherently softer.

That's not to say we DON'T value male strength. But it's just one factor and mostly understood that physical prowess has a time and place. It's not the ultimate standard for our masculinity.

Especially when you consider femininity in Jewish communities. Our matriarchs were all outspoken, all defied their husbands/men at key moments without punishment (some were even rewarded by God.) Some were prophets, judges and leaders (Miriam, Judith, Devorah, Hannah) in their own rights. Jewish women certainly do not fit the mold of a Roman/Western quiet, docile, submissive woman.

And don't forget, while there very much is misogyny in Jewish communities, our traditions often challenge it. Men are expected to praise their wives every Friday night in front of the family (Eshet Chail), men are halacically responsible for their wives' physical pleasure, Rabbis have denounced marital rape as a sin far longer than it's been illegal in MOST modern nations and women are excempt from time based religious obligations as they are considered closer to God (though that comes with it own problems).

In short, religious or not, Kafka would have grown up with that different understanding of gender norms and what it means to perform gender. He would have understood gender completely different to how a modern non-Jew in the West would.

To erase his Jewishness from the conversation - to ignore the cultural difference between how you see gender and how he likely would have - is a pretty severe historical distortion. And makes this weird history AU even more problematic.

The Jews in Western Europe during the middle ages were often perceived as distinct from other people not only in their religion, but also by virtue of peculiar physical characteristics. Male Jews were circumcised, which made them physically distinct in the sexual realm. They were believed to have a flux of blood due to hemorrhoids that was thought to more abound in Jews because they consumed salty foods and gross undigested blood, and were melancholic. By the late medieval and early modern periods, the male menstruation motif had become closely connected to the theory of the four humors and the balance between bodily fluids. Men in general were thought of as emitting extra heat, whereas women were considered to be physically cooler. While most men were generally able to reduce their heat naturally, there was a perception that womanish Jewish males were unable to do so, and thereby required “menstruation” (i.e. a literal discharge of blood) in order to achieve bodily equilibrium. The Jewish male image as having menses due to bleeding hemorrhoids was an anti-Semitic claim that had a religious explanation: Jews menstruated because they had been beaten in their hindquarters for having crucified Jesus Christ. This reflection is one of the first biological-racial motifs that were used by the Christians. Preceding this, anti-Semitic rationalizations were mostly religious. However, once these Christians mixed anti-Semitism with science, by emphasizing the metaphorical moral impurity of Jews, the subsequent belief that Jewish men “menstruated” developed—a belief that would have dire historical consequences for the Jewish communities of Europe until even the mid-twentieth century. This topic has direct applicability to current medical practice. The anti-Semitic perspective of Jewish male menstruation would never have taken hold if the medical community had not ignored the facts, and if the population in general had had a knowledge of the facts. In the same way, it is important for present-day scientists and healthcare professionals to understand thoroughly a topic and not to deliberately ignore the facts, which can affect professional and public thought, thereby leading to incorrect and at times immoral conclusions.

Wow you're so progressive congratulations. Fandom-tier dumbfucks like this will believe anything. Including debunked racial pseudoscience. Anything to feel closer to the fandom blorbo-dolls they've constructed from real historical figures except actually being normal about Jews.

Okay, sure, let's have it out. I imagine I'll pretty much piss off everyone with this.

First: the only confidence I have in my understanding of the political situation of the Middle East is that I have no fucking understanding whatsoever of the political situation in the Middle East. Sure, I've read plenty. I have friends of many many stripes. But I'm not a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, folks: I know enough to know how much I don't know, and how much I know is tons.

Second, you say that person is a "zionist." There are three things I find pretty annoying about this as a defense attorney. One is that the term is not defined, and the other is that there is a complete lack of evidence. The third is the implicit assumption that being a "zionist" is enough to wholeheartedly condemn anyone.

Let's tackle these one by one. And, once again, I am neither a scholar of Jewish history nor Middle Eastern history nor anything except American criminal law.

First: definition. There are many possible meanings of zionist that I see people use. One potential meaning of "zionist" seems to be "is Jewish, but fails to disavow Israel as fast and loud as I personally want them to." Sometimes the meaning of "zionist" is just "is Jewish." Sometimes it's "a Jewish person who wishes for a return to a very distant ancestral homeland." Sometimes it's "wholehearted supporter of Israel's war crimes." A lot of pointless arguing, it seems to me, is centered around someone saying they are zionist, i.e., they would like Jewish people to someday have a nice homeland where they don't feel like a strange political chunk in another country, and another person hears that they are zionist, i.e. they enjoy wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Second: No evidence. Self-explanatory. You are an anon. I don't know why I'm supposed to trust your word. I read police reports for a living and I am supposed to be able to trust them, and let me tell you how many lies they contain.

Third: the assumption of condemnation. I literally defend the human rights of sex criminals in court. I defend murderers. What we are talking about, right now, at best, is a human person expressing an opinion, however potentially damaging and offensive (depending on definition of zionism and truth of accusation). Do you think I'm gonna say that Jewish people who express an opinion are inhuman and deserve segregation from the rest of us?

Do you think I'm ever going to stop reaching out my hand to people who use violence? Do you think I'm ever going to lose the hope that someday they will lose the fear that makes them resort to violence?

Finally, now that I've spent some time listing my problems with your case, so what.

Let's use an example closer to home. I'm an American, and I do in fact believe that America is a nation and will continue to be so, and that tearing down all government to give it back to indigenous people (something that is, to be clear, to my understanding, not comparable with any kind of political situation in Israel) is not possible as things stand. And yet nobody's here interrogating me about Donald Trump and his bombing of Iran or whether I support ICE's jackbooted thuggery.

A little further from home? If I met a Russian person, my first ask would not be "Tell me in detail your thoughts on Ukraine and Putin."

And in those two examples, I myself and this hypothetical Russian person are actually members of the country in question that is doing the thing. A Jewish person who is not Israeli isn't even that.

Listen. I think there's a lot to be unpacked about how the insularity of Jewish culture and the separateness of it from the countries where it lives is both in the interest of continuing the Jewish ethnicity and in the interest of the people who want Jewish people exterminated, and how the double-pull of those two interests maintain a tension that otherwise might dissipate. I think there's something real to be analyzed about how modern anti-semitism isn't a recurrence of medieval anti-semitism but a different thing, a sign of fascist thinking.

I think there is a horrific tragedy for everyone involved that the group who was decimated beyond belief in the blackest events in human history now has a very loud and visible nation channeling their survival into rage and violence.

I think that there are lots of Arab nations around Israel that would gladly see every person in it subject to that same rage and violence, and I'm not down with that shit either.

I think the history of who colonized who and when and what pogroms did what and how violence and why are all too fucking complicated to untangle.

I think the only way truly forward for Israel and Palestine is some kind of truth and reconciliation type thing and that Israel as it stands is too scared to see all their atrocities come to light.

I was raised atheist with college professor parents, so you can bet Jewish people in academia were part of my life from an early age. I don't understand antisemitism literally at all. It's completely incomprehensible to me. I also think Arab culture is gorgeous and studied Arabic in college. I don't discount the idea that I have subconscious biases; I've done my best to unpick them, but it's lifelong work.

The whole goddamn clusterfuck is a great example of why violence begets violence begets violence. I reject the idea that One Final Ass-Kicking on anyone's part will solve any one of these problems. The only thing that ends violence is not choosing violence. And that can't happen until enough people in and out of power want the violence to stop. There. Not here. There. It can't be imposed from outside. It has to come from within.

And that's a decision -- I must add -- that I seriously could not have less to do with. White Americans should not be making any of the related decisions.

Here endeth the essay, with one final note.

"I am Jewish; I have seven kids... we never cover up that we are Jewish"

It follows a bank clerk who wakes up one day, and is arrested/prosecuted for a crime, but he is never told what he did wrong, and the police just keep moving the goal posts and coming up with new ways in which he is guilty.

*looks straight into the camera like I'm on the office*

THAT IS THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING A JEW. OMG. The fact that reddit and other discussions are fuckin allergic to acknowledging Kafka's jewishness.

-XYZ is Catholic

-XYZ is bisexual.

-XYZ is Muslim.

also wikipedia:

-XYZ is of Jewish descent.

-XYZ has Jewish parents.

but later on they clarify that she freed herself from being “ethnically charged” so it’s all good now