Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews

When I sat GCSEs, a perspective-distorting 17 years ago, I don't remember any questions like this:

Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews (AQA Religious Studies 2012)

And it's got everyone very irate. I'm disappointed in the Secretary of State who has claimed that it shouldn't have been set because it 'suggest[s] that antisemitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned.' I've always had time for Mr Gove's pursuit of academic rigour, if not in agreement of this methods, but I'm now thinking I have overestimated him. There is transparently no tension between explanation and condemnation and that kind of reaction makes me think he is thick. In fact, I think that kind of reaction makes me want to have them set the question. Understanding why hideous things happen helps us stop them. I'll return to whether it belongs in a GCSE below.

For the record, and off the top of my head, I'd suggest the following answer:

1. Let's assume by prejudice we mean irrational hostility, not a response to genuine enemies. For example, I would suggest the Philistines were not 'prejudiced' against the Jews, but rather fighting a war (see 1 Samuel 17)
2. Said prejudice is probably borne out of 'problems at home', perhaps fear or poverty, i.e., they're lashing out at a target (I simplify, but we brevity has been stipulated). As GCSE students won't have studied any history, they'll all talk about the depression and the Holocaust, but they could also point to other examples, perhaps the Great Persecution in an insecure Empire Galerius 
3. At which point you might ask, why the Jews. And there are two ways of tracing this: said prejudice is old, and modern antisemitism draws directly on historical hostility to Jews. There's lots of this, but I think it can squarely be rooted in the Jewish nations resolute non-identification with the establishment in antiquity. The Jews rejected the Emperor-cult in Pagan Rome and obviously the Christian identity that followed. That's bound to make you unpopular. Of course, you could suggest that the modern Islamic antisemitism also owes something to the position of Israel and have a useful discussion over which came first, drawing in the career of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
4. The second point to trace is extraordinary tenaciousness of the non-geographic national identity of the Jews. many groups draw hostility but national hostility tends not to last if they don't. I don't have views on the undesirability of Goths as neighbours (OK, I do, but that's rare - they'd be fine). The Jews don't, and they're exceptional in that respect. Unfortunately this functions as a multiplier effect for prejudice for much of their history, which is unfortunate. 

Of course, it's actually much more complex than that, but I think it's pretty interesting, and important. I'm not sure how useful it is to ask 16-year-olds as they don't have the breadth of knowledge and understanding to say anything meaningful. I don't think they should be taught the Nazis and the Holocaust in history either, so I would be very happy if they objection was that this stuff is hard and complex, so we should delay it. However, it's not. The objection seems to be that the world is unpleasant, so we shouldn't examine it. And that's pathetic.

Why are we still talking about the marriage thing?

I didn't watch QT last night, but everyone (well, everyone on twitter) seems to think Mary Beard was excellent. I'm not surprised, though of course I've not actually seen any of her programmes, but I do enjoy her blog.

MB and I disagree politically though, so it was nice to see her in complete accord with me (or v.v.) on her latest. Fittingly, this was based on what was prepared for last night, not what was said. Expecting a question of gay marriage, she'd worked out her answer. Here it is:

First, get some bright civil servant to ... get the rules tidied up and simplified. Second, give everyone gay or straight a civil partnership, and make that the gold-standard and leave "marriage" as the optional extra, the religious ceremony, on whatever terms the religions concerned manage to hammer out (and no business of the state at all). 

I had started to write a longer version of this two months ago when the consultation kicked off, but I think that's a succinct as it needs to be. It also stops the quite frankly bizarre spectacle of heterosexuals saying they are discriminated against because they don't have access to the lesser form (supported by Peter Tatchell).

So, abolish all civil marriage. I really don't see how this is complicated, and I really don't see why we need a consultation. Even Britain's Got Talent montages refered to civil partnerships as marriages this week, and that's on ITV.

As an aside, I note that for all the rhetoric about change and equality and different lifestyles, there is never a campaign to recognise polygamy (or I suppose polyandry), yet by the same logic the State should allow those kind of partnerships too. I suspect quite a few people are squeamish about that, but that's just bad logic.

Bibliography, April 2012

Read: 6


BOTM: M. Lewis, Moneyball


C.E. Hill, Who chose the gospels?
G. Redmonds et al. Surnames, DNA and family history
D.L. Sayers, Have his carcase
D.L. Sayers, Busman's honeymoon
E. St Aubyn, Mother's Milk

Last decent month for a while I feel. I've noted this parenthood thing doesn't give you a lot of time for novels. Best was probably Moneyball, though St Aubyn had his moments (ultimately let down by a slightly flat ending, whereas the start was great). Moneyball has been slightly overhyped, but its fascinating, even if it does have a breathless admiration for 'stats' as if they've done some more complex analysis than they in fact have. In reality the triumph isn't one of statistical method, but one of data. Nonetheless, it's great.