Serious question about anti-Semitism.

[Cherico]

Cherico....
Nowhere in the story are we ever told why Shylock had such a huge grudge against Antonio. And was Antonio an "asshole" for borrowing money in order to lend it to a friend? Foolish, sure. The Book of Proverbs has clear warnings against standing surety for loans. It was not Antonio's fault that all three of his overseas trading ventures failed, when presumably one alone of his ships returning safely to Venice would have put him back in liquidity enough to repay the debt, no problem.
Also, Shylock was repeatedly offered repayment of the loan at 300% of the principal. But no, he wanted to cut someone's chest open instead.

Antionio and shylock had history Antinio was an outspoken anti semite, at first Shylock didnt want to lend Antionio money because the man had been an utter ass to him and because he under cut his business model when ever possible so yeah lots of bad history there. Then his daughter elopes with some rando steals his shit and on top of that takes a ring that is one of the few things he had left of his dead wife.

And Antionios ships are left at sea and Antionio has every motive and a history of fucking with Shylock, and with his community and Shylock after a life time of being fucked over says no.

No not this time, this time I'm getting some fucking pay back, and Antionio isnt blameless in this and knows it. The contract didnt involve interest, and at the time he considered the terms fair. If Portia had minded her own god damned business because she doesnt have the legal training to be a judge or lawyer or juridiction to the case. Antionio would have lost a pound of flesh.

It would have hurt like a bitch, but he would have probally survived with a nasty scar, and a story and Shylock would have gotten his revenge.

 

[Scottty]

Then his daughter elopes with some rando steals his shit and on top of that takes a ring that is one of the few things he had left of his dead wife.

That's bad, but how was it Antonio's fault?

It would have hurt like a bitch, but he would have probally survived with a nasty scar, and a story and Shylock would have gotten his revenge.

No, Antonio would have died, from infection if not from immediate blood loss. The story was set in the 17th century or earlier, and Shylock didn't even want a physician to be involved.
The Venitian judge called it right - Shylock was demanding that the legal system allow him to commit a murder, there in the courtroom, "right in front of a cop".

@Cherico most people of modern sensibilities who read Merchant of Venice are inclined to think Shakespeare a bit anti-Semitic for depicting Shylock, the explicitly and plot-relevantly Jewish character, as acting with the motivations he did. Are you seriously telling us that your problem with the story is rather than Shylock was not allowed to win?

But that is part of the genius of Shakespeare, I believe. The "bad guys" in his plays are written in such a way that people in the audience can, and often do, feel on their side. Right and wrong in his stories is not always simple and clear.

 

[Terthna]

Antionio and shylock had history Antinio was an outspoken anti semite, at first Shylock didnt want to lend Antionio money because the man had been an utter ass to him and because he under cut his business model when ever possible so yeah lots of bad history there. Then his daughter elopes with some rando steals his shit and on top of that takes a ring that is one of the few things he had left of his dead wife.

And Antionios ships are left at sea and Antionio has every motive and a history of fucking with Shylock, and with his community and Shylock after a life time of being fucked over says no.

No not this time, this time I'm getting some fucking pay back, and Antionio isnt blameless in this and knows it. The contract didnt involve interest, and at the time he considered the terms fair. If Portia had minded her own god damned business because she doesnt have the legal training to be a judge or lawyer or juridiction to the case. Antionio would have lost a pound of flesh.

It would have hurt like a bitch, but he would have probally survived with a nasty scar, and a story and Shylock would have gotten his revenge.

The play also ends with Shylock being forced to will everything he owns to Antionio's friend Lorenzo and his thieving daughter, as well as convert to Christianity. The Merchant of Venice is clearly of its time; it took until the second world war for the western world (particularly Europe) to finally (mostly; for a while at least) stop treating the Jews like they were the literal source of all evil in the world.

That's bad, but how was it Antonio's fault?



No, Antonio would have died, from infection if not from immediate blood loss. The story was set in the 17th century or earlier, and Shylock didn't even want a physician to be involved.
The Venitian judge called it right - Shylock was demanding that the legal system allow him to commit a murder, there in the courtroom, "right in front of a cop".

@Cherico most people of modern sensibilities who read Merchant of Venice are inclined to think Shakespeare a bit anti-Semitic for depicting Shylock, the explicitly and plot-relevantly Jewish character, as acting with the motivations he did. Are you seriously telling us that your problem with the story is rather than Shylock was not allowed to win?

But that is part of the genius of Shakespeare, I believe. The "bad guys" in his plays are written in such a way that people in the audience can, and often do, feel on their side. Right and wrong in his stories is not always simple and clear.

Except none of that was intentional on his part; Shylock is supposed to be the villain. And, from a 16th century English perspective, he unambiguously is. All this nuance you describe comes across to me like little more than blue curtains.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Cherico....
Nowhere in the story are we ever told why Shylock had such a huge grudge against Antonio. And was Antonio an "asshole" for borrowing money in order to lend it to a friend?

Uh, yes we are. It's explicitly in the scene where Shylock lends them the money, and moreover, Antonio is so virulently anti-Semitic that he can't resist repeatedly insulting Shylock even though he's demanding a huge sum of money with no collateral but his own word.

SHYLOCK
Signior Antonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto you have rated me
About my moneys and my usances:
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug,
For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.
You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog,
And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine,
And all for use of that which is mine own.
Well then, it now appears you need my help:
Go to, then; you come to me, and you say
'Shylock, we would have moneys:' you say so;
You, that did void your rheum upon my beard
And foot me as you spurn a stranger cur
Over your threshold: moneys is your suit
What should I say to you? Should I not say
'Hath a dog money? is it possible
A cur can lend three thousand ducats?' Or
Shall I bend low and in a bondman's key,
With bated breath and whispering humbleness, Say this;
'Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;
You spurn'd me such a day; another time
You call'd me dog; and for these courtesies
I'll lend you thus much moneys'?

ANTONIO
I am as like to call thee so again,
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too.
If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friends; for when did friendship take
A breed for barren metal of his friend?
But lend it rather to thine enemy,
Who, if he break, thou mayst with better face
Exact the penalty.

The play also ends with Shylock being forced to will everything he owns to Antionio's friend Lorenzo and his thieving daughter, as well as convert to Christianity.

Not only that; this specifically happens because the authorities, at Antonio's demand, declare Shylock guilty of "conspiring against a Christian" by loaning him money.

 

[Scottty]

I think I need to get hold of the actual text of the play and read it again... it's been a while.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I think I need to get hold of the actual text of the play and read it again... it's been a while.

I quoted the primary lines, just not the entire passage. Note that Antonio doesn't even apologize for repeatedly insulting and even assaulting Shylock both personally and for being Jewish even when he's demanding an obscenely enormous personal loan; in fact, he explicitly reiterates that he will continue to "spit on thee and spurn thee too".

 

[Arch Dornan]

Do you know who black israelites are?

 

[Doomsought]

Do you know who black israelites are?

They are coocoo for cocopuffs. Its a anti-semetic, revisionist, black supremacist, cult.

 

[Arch Dornan]

They are coocoo for cocopuffs. Its a anti-semetic, revisionist, black supremacist, cult.

They're a strange bunch. They appropriated Jewish culture to replace it with their own and pretend they were the original descendants of Israel.

 

[Cherico]

They're a strange bunch. They appropriated Jewish culture to replace it with their own and pretend they were the original descendants of Israel.

We're perfectly willing to accept black people into the tribe, beta Israel has been a thing for over a thousand years after all.

 

[Arch Dornan]

We're perfectly willing to accept black people into the tribe, beta Israel has been a thing for over a thousand years after all.

Like a normal conversion I can understand.

These ones are just odd in how they came to be but looking up their founders they're just one of the many splinter faiths popping up in America like the Mormons.

 

[Cherico]

Like a normal conversion I can understand.

These ones are just odd in how they came to be but looking up their founders they're just one of the many splinter faiths popping up in America like the Mormons.

After the worlds worse camping experience ever we kind of can't be as picky as we used to be about converts. Yes the BI's are a pain in the ass, but were hoping they mellow out and join the rest of us soon.

 

[Arch Dornan]

After the worlds worse camping experience ever we kind of can't be as picky as we used to be about converts. Yes the BI's are a pain in the ass, but were hoping they mellow out and join the rest of us soon.

As of now I don't see it happening but maybe later. Even Malcom X mellowed out after his hajj.

 

[Scottty]

We're perfectly willing to accept black people into the tribe, beta Israel has been a thing for over a thousand years after all.

I gather that they rather want to have their own tribe, from which they can exclude you.

 

[Cherico]

I gather that they rather want to have their own tribe, from which they can exclude you.

we've been around for thousands of years, we can afford to wait a century or two for them to grow up.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I gather that they rather want to have their own tribe, from which they can exclude you.

Yes, but that's because this is a specific ideological sub-group, as opposed to generally or generically, "black people who are Jewish".

 

[Deleted member 88]

Just as a matter of curiosity, who has actually read the Anti Semitic Bible? The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

I actually read it this Fall.

Its talked about a lot, and is often referred to with regards to Anti Semitic ideas or canards, but I have seen few commentaries that analyze or reflect on its content(though the Atlantic had a fairly interesting look at it sometime ago).

The book has an undertone of pro Czarism and anti Liberalism-that is the destruction of inegalitarian institutions such as the nobility and Church leave the people vulnerable to a malevolent outside force. Also communism and socialism are explicitly declared as false, something the Jewish masterminds invented, which show their superiority for not believing. Just about every reactionary at the time, would have nodded their heads in response to that passage.

Narratively speaking, its clear why the book has such an enduring impact. The tone of the unnamed speaker is malevolent as it is, triumphant, the atmosphere of the book pervades with a certain dawn ennui.

The book doesn't just claim in a bland history writing sense, "there is a Jewish conspiracy", it takes the reader to where the secret meeting is held, and presumes to show not someone saying its happening, but to show it in action. The narrator is portrayed as cunning as he is relentless.

He comes off as a well written super villain, who balances between devious guile, triumphalism, and a calm analysis, that doesn't make him look hammy or farcical.

The book endures I think, where a lot of other Anti Semitic writings have faded or at least are more obscure because of this grandeur, this visceral portrayal of a world spanning conspiracy that is so close to victory, but it doesn't name names or even give a location. Which gives it an air of mystique, and numinous terror and awe in the minds of the readers.

Its gripping in a narrative sense, and that is why I think its so prevalent.

If we want to understand Anti Semitic sentiments and beliefs, its necessary to read their literature so that we might better grasp why they believe these things.

 

[Doomsought]

He comes off as a well written super villain, who balances between devious guile, triumphalism, and a calm analysis, that doesn't make him look hammy or farcical.

So it something a writer whould keep on their shelf right next to time cubed as reference material for when they need a character to put on some crazy?

 

[Deleted member 88]

If you want to write an evil mastermind, the Protocols of Zion actually serve as a good model for writing a believable yet dynamic villainous monologue.

So any prospective writers who want their super villain's monologues to be both convincing and terrifying-well the Elders of Zion could be a good model on how to write villain monologues.

That's how compelling and terrifying the book is-from a literary perspective(moreso if you believe its true and are thus an anti semite).

 

[Arch Dornan]

Just as a matter of curiosity, who has actually read the Anti Semitic Bible? The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

I actually read it this Fall.

Its talked about a lot, and is often referred to with regards to Anti Semitic ideas or canards, but I have seen few commentaries that analyze or reflect on its content(though the Atlantic had a fairly interesting look at it sometime ago).

The book has an undertone of pro Czarism and anti Liberalism-that is the destruction of inegalitarian institutions such as the nobility and Church leave the people vulnerable to a malevolent outside force. Also communism and socialism are explicitly declared as false, something the Jewish masterminds invented, which show their superiority for not believing. Just about every reactionary at the time, would have nodded their heads in response to that passage.

Narratively speaking, its clear why the book has such an enduring impact. The tone of the unnamed speaker is malevolent as it is, triumphant, the atmosphere of the book pervades with a certain dawn ennui.

The book doesn't just claim in a bland history writing sense, "there is a Jewish conspiracy", it takes the reader to where the secret meeting is held, and presumes to show not someone saying its happening, but to show it in action. The narrator is portrayed as cunning as he is relentless.

He comes off as a well written super villain, who balances between devious guile, triumphalism, and a calm analysis, that doesn't make him look hammy or farcical.

The book endures I think, where a lot of other Anti Semitic writings have faded or at least are more obscure because of this grandeur, this visceral portrayal of a world spanning conspiracy that is so close to victory, but it doesn't name names or even give a location. Which gives it an air of mystique, and numinous terror and awe in the minds of the readers.

Its gripping in a narrative sense, and that is why I think its so prevalent.

If we want to understand Anti Semitic sentiments and beliefs, its necessary to read their literature so that we might better grasp why they believe these things.

I only read bits about the Khazarian Mafia and I can tell it's ludicrous.