The path from Jewish emancipation in law to Jewish integration in practice was slowed and stymied by antisemitism at every turn, to greater and lesser degrees in different countries. It is hard to believe that Jews were ever regarded as true equals, broadly, in a country which willingly handed over so many to the Nazis. And of course in Spain, Jews were not full citizens and the practice of Judaism was simply forbidden entirely until 1978.
No. The revocation of that law from the Reconquista didn't change anything immediately. Jewish residents, some of whom were the descendents of those who had been there since Roman and even Phoenecian times, were not recognized as full citizens in modern Spain until 1978.
the people who “handed over so many to the nazis” - what makes you think they wouldn’t or didn’t gladly hand over non-jews if the regime demanded it?
your point about judaism being forbidden in spain until 1978 is shocking, thank you for that.
I would strongly recommend the following essay, which I read in an ethics class and found extremely powerful. The essay argues that humans can relatively easily be persuaded or intimidated into helping murder other humans, as long as they are introduced to it in the “correct” way. So we should understand what that way is and be vigilant against it.
Destroying the innocent with a clear conscience: A sociopsychology of the Holocaust
John P Sabini, Maury Silver
Survivors, victims, and perpetrators: Essays on the Nazi Holocaust, 329-358, 1980
It may interest you that private confession of Islam was legal under Franco, but public practice of Islam, or the building of mosques, was banned in Spain until 1989. All of this goes back to the Reconquista and the Inquisition in the late 1400s, when Muslims and Jews were forced to convert, synagogues and mosques were repurposed as churches (and not coincidentally, ham became the national dish). Franco's version of fascism was merely a continuation of that.
That being said, you can't practice Christianity or Judaism openly in Saudi Arabia to this day. Looking at it from Mecca, the point of origin of the Caliphates, to their furthest extent into Europe in Spain (or the Balkans) you can still see the traces of extremist religious bans existing on both sides. Jews tend to get caught in the middle and slaughtered at each turn, as they need to seek accommodations with whichever larger religion is in power in order to survive, and then are seen as enemies by the other one.
All this is written on the streets and buildings of Granada, Spain, where ancient Jewish stars adorn old buildings where there are no Jews, where the oldest church was once a mosque, and the Alhambra, symbol of the Caliphate and its civilization, is the largest tourist attraction in Europe... where the markets sell everything Arabic yet the day to day interaction of Muslims and Christians is fraught, each understanding very well their own history in the place. And where it is very, very strange to be one of the only Jews... with both Christians and Muslims hating you and claiming to protect you.
> what makes you think they wouldn’t or didn’t gladly hand over non-jews if the regime demanded it?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Would someone need to exclusively repress Jews for that repression to meaningfully affect Jews' economic and human rights trajectory?
the parent implies: difference in status of jews -> repression of jews
My point is that the status difference is not required for a regime to repress some group. It might make it easier, but not required.
>Destroying the innocent with a clear conscience: A sociopsychology of the Holocaust
That sounds as a very weak perspective to start with. That is, what if "they" are not "innocent"? There is definitely a standard out there that will allow to judge us as guilty of some heretic behavior, whoever we are.
Surely it would not be very wise to judge a book by its title, though.
indeed, would love your thoughts on the essay itself - iirc the title refers to a situation where a Nazi camp guard writes in their diary of a “special action” (which refers to the burning alive of prisoners) followed by a description of the soup that was served that day - the title seems appropriate to that situation at least. tbh its been a long time since I read it, so I may have got some minor details wrong. and I agree with your point about defining the victims as “guilty” might be part of the process. But the point of the essay seemed to be that almost no-one was making a considered moral judgement that what they were doing was correct, they were doing what they were told and had essentially “outsourced” their moral responsibility to the regime.
