Migrants fleeing persecution and poverty settled with their children in the East End of London. As believers in one God they were devoted to their holy book, which contained strict religious laws, harsh penalties and gender inequality. Some of them established separate religious courts. The men wore dark clothes and had long beards; some women covered their hair. A royal commission warned of the grave dangers of self-segregation. Politicians said different religious dress was a sign of separation. Some migrants were members of extremist political groups. Others actively organised to overthrow the established western political order. Campaigners against the migrants carefully framed their arguments as objections to "alien extremists" and not to a race or religion. A British cabinet minister said we were facing a clash about civilisation: this was about values; a battle between progress and "arrested development".

All this happened a hundred years ago to Jewish migrants seeking asylum in Britain. The political movements with which they were closely associated were anarchism and later Bolshevism. As in the case of contemporary political violence, or even the radical Islamism supported by a minority of British Muslims, anarchism and Bolshevism only commanded minority support among the Jewish community. But shared countries of origin and a common ethnic and religious background were enough to create a racialised discourse whenever there were anarchist outrages in London in the early 20th century.

Most anarchists were peaceful, but a few resorted to violent attacks such as the bombing of Greenwich Observatory in 1894 - described at the time as an "international terrorist outrage". Anarchist violence was an international phenomenon. In Europe it claimed hundreds of lives, including those of several heads of government, and resulted in anti- terrorism laws. In the siege of Sidney Street in London in 1911, police and troops confronted east European Jewish anarchists. This violent confrontation in the heart of London created a racialised moral panic in which the whole Jewish community was stigmatised. It was claimed that London was "seething" with violent aliens, and the British establishment was said to be "in a state of denial". East End Jews were said to be "alienated", not "integrated", and a "threat to our security" a long time before anyone dreamed up the phrase "Londonistan".

Today the Middle East is the focus of a challenge to American political and economic hegemony, which is being presented as a "civilisational conflict with Islam". Nearly a century ago, the Russian revolution sent shockwaves through western states and financial markets. Anti-semites argued that Jewish involvement in revolutionary politics was part of a conspiracy by "the homeless wandering Jew" to replace European states with their "Hebrew nation". Winston Churchill, as secretary of state for war in 1920, wrote an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald claiming there were three categories of Jews - good, bad and indifferent - and arguing that they were part of a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development".

Jews were the first non-Christian, yet monotheistic, religious minority in Britain. They are also one of its earliest "racialised" people. Despite important differences, the treatment of British Jews provides an illuminating comparison with contemporary anti-Muslim racism. There are recurring patterns in British society that racialise Jews and Muslims, which we need to understand if we are to develop an effective strategy for national security.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2004258,00.html

Thoughts?

Thoughts?
It's too long to read.

Seems like immigrants in themselves tend not to be seen as threatening, but the combination of immigrants and politics, which are relatively alien, tends to create suspicion/fear.

A summary from samcdkey once in a while would be much appreciated.
On the rare occassion I present a link, I provide the url and then say "basically what it's saying is..." because people don't like reading quotes or clicking on links.

I'd rather write a boring post like this than read an interesting quote...

Thoughts?

"All this happened a hundred years ago..."

After I read that part, nothing else seemed very important to the realities of today.

Baron Max

"All this happened a hundred years ago..."

After I read that part, nothing else seemed very important to the realities of today.

Baron Max

We learn from history, disregard it at your peril.

There is a difference between the earlier Jewish immigration and the current Muslim immigration...there were fewer Jewish immigrants per head of host-nation population and the Jews did not want to set up their own laws to govern over the entire host nation....so I think the Guardian article uses a bad analogy.
More recently, the levels of violence used by extremists have increased and have also been used to blackmail the host nation.

There is a difference between the earlier Jewish immigration and the current Muslim immigration...there were fewer Jewish immigrants per head of host-nation population and the Jews did not want to set up their own laws to govern over the entire host nation....so I think the Guardian article uses a bad analogy.
More recently, the levels of violence used by extremists have increased and have also been used to blackmail the host nation.

So your argument is that because there are more Muslims than Jews this analogy does not hold?

a few resorted to violent attacks such as the bombing of Greenwich Observatory in 1894 - described at the time as an "international terrorist outrage". Anarchist violence was an international phenomenon. In Europe it claimed hundreds of lives, including those of several heads of government, and resulted in anti- terrorism laws. In the siege of Sidney Street in London in 1911, police and troops confronted east European Jewish anarchists. This violent confrontation in the heart of London created a racialised moral panic in which the whole Jewish community was stigmatised. It was claimed that London was "seething" with violent aliens, and the British establishment was said to be "in a state of denial". East End Jews were said to be "alienated", not "integrated", and a "threat to our security"

Yes - in terms of the degree of cultural variation that the host-nation must incorporate.

What do you think of this?
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1413


After 1881, when systematic pogroms set Russian and Polish Jews to begin their exodus to the west, large numbers of them settled in the East End, first in Whitechapel then fanning out towards Stepney and Mile End.

Anti-Jewish agitation, loud or muted, active or latent, had existed in the East End since the time of the first large Jewish settlements. 'The Jews' were long an issue in the East End labour movement. Some labour leaders sometimes joined in agitation against 'the Jews', while others attacked the anti-semites. In the early 20th century, the British Brothers' League and the Londoners' League organised systematic anti-semitic campaigning. Although those organisations declined after the passing of the 1905 Aliens Act, which restricted Jewish immigration, anti-semitism continued. In 1917 there were riots in Bethnal Green against recently arrived Jews, who were not subject to conscription.

In this whole period of British history, liberal humanitarianism did not have the authority it enjoys now. ?Bashing? and stereotyping 'the Jews' was a common part of social and literary discourse. For example, in 1920, Winston Churchill wrote: "This (Jewish and Communist) world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development ? has been steadily growing." Anti-Jewish prejudice was deeply ingrained, even on the left.

The leading left-wing and anti-fascist periodical, the New Statesman, could, while condemning the BUF, write in 1936 of the conflicts in East London: "The average poorish Jew has a different glandular and emotional make-up...Jews are often much more 'pushful'...there is a widely spread, rough, rarely expressed, smouldering anti-semitic resentment much resembling the feeling our native squirrel might have towards the grey interloper...the shouted insults, window-breaking and beard-pullings to which decent law-abiding-but-money-seeking-at-any-price-to-others Jews have been subjected". It was a different, pre-Holocaust world.

The material basis for East End anti-Jewish feeling was the discontent of a materially deprived and angry "native" population, living side by side with a large number of immigrants and their descendants, whose cultural distinctiveness cast them easily in the role of scapegoat. All that was needed to make this resentful scapegoating erupt into an aggressive force was a political formation seeking to exploit anti-semitism.
Mosley the ex-minister could speak louder than the traditional East End anti-semite. What he said was not new, but it struck a strong chord in the East End.

From its inception the BUF had displayed flashes of anti-semitism. In speeches and articles, some of its secondary leaders, such as William Joyce and A K Chesterton, showed themselves as the hard core anti-semites they were. But Mosley himself at first showed signs of wanting to eschew 'extreme' anti-semitism. The British Nazi, Arnold Leese, of the Imperial Fascist League, dismissed Mosley as a 'kosher fascist'.

In 1934 anti-seimitism became central to both the BUF's propaganda and its activities. Its turn to intense anti-semitic campaigning after October 1934 was an outright 'declaration of war' on the Jews. That was central to building BUF support in the East End.

They had a profound effect, but they never 'captured the East End'. The large Jewish minority which provided them with the opportunity through scapegoating of winning grassroots support, also, by its presence in the neighbourhoods and on the electoral roll, prevented them from winning control of whole districts and confined fascist local street dominance to smaller areas.

The story later propagated by the Communist Party, of an East End united against the anti-semitic Blackshirts, does not tally with election results. Nor do eyewitness accounts - from people unconnected with the BUF of Mosley on informal evening walks through East End streets surrounded by a 'forest' of arms raised in the fascist salute.
In the 1937 LCC elections the fascists stood in Bethnal Green, Stepney and Shoreditch. They lost everywhere but proved the existence of a substantial body of support, coming second in Bethnal Green.

In East London fascism set the agenda for political life. In school playgrounds the game of 'cowboys and Indians' was replaced by 'Jews and Blackshirts'. Streets, estates, and 'patches' were marked off as either fascist or anti-fascists (Jewish or Communist or both), and were off limits to members of the other side. Indeed for some time an unofficial state of warfare existed between the two factions. Such a conflict could not have been maintained without substantial local support for the fascists.

It was against this background that, in September 1936, Mosley announced that the BUF would march through the East End on 4 October. It was to be the biggest show of fascist strength ever, in this their strongest area. It could have developed into a pogrom. For Jewish immigrants and their British-born families, refugees from persecution in Russia and Eastern Europe, it meant that the Nazis were coming.

'kosher fascist'.


Now isn't that familiar? :p

I lived in East London and worked in Whitechapel so I know the area well and I also took it upon myself to research the area's history - in fact when I was in school it was a historical topic as was the Holocaust. One of the most striking images of my youth was the film taken by British soldiers as they entered Belsen concentration camp. However these scenes are becoming commonplace in the media and normalization to genocide is occurring.

The problem that fundamentalist immigrants pose to the host-nation and its integrated immigrant population is a threat of far greater magnitude today than it was during the misconceived validation of the 'Battle of Cable Street'. Rather than upsetting a few racist bigots, fundamentalism is concerning the liberal, democratic base of the host-nation.

'The Last Kabbalist in Lisbon' by Richard Zimler covers the persecution of minorities well.

So your argument is that because there are more Muslims than Jews this analogy does not hold?

That, sure. But, Sam, how many violent demonstrations did the early Jews hold in the streets of London? In all of England? How many Jews over the world were known to commit criminal acts of violence?

And curious, but how many Jewish terrorists of that time, and in the world, were blowing up innocent women and children in suicide attacks around the world? And how many terrorist attacks happened in London? In all of England?

No, Sam, the analogy does not hold ...not even close!

Baron Max

Sometimes the religion of peace has to break a few heads to get its message of love across. Just like the Land of the Free has to break a few heads to get its message of democracy across. Seems the two are made for each other.

There is a difference between the earlier Jewish immigration and the current Muslim immigration...there were fewer Jewish immigrants per head of host-nation population and the Jews did not want to set up their own laws to govern over the entire host nation....so I think the Guardian article uses a bad analogy.
More recently, the levels of violence used by extremists have increased and have also been used to blackmail the host nation.

Wrong.
There are some problems with British Born Muslims, I’m not just talking about Asian Muslims, I’m talking White, Black and Mixed race Muslims. Were there any problems in the 60s/70s when immigrants from Pakistan and India came? what about those Yemeni immigrants (make up the longest-established Muslim group in Britain) that came back in the what early 1900s, any bombs going off? Any terrorist attacks? The early immigrants worked hard, they lived very hard lives, I hear about it all the time. Why didn’t they resort to extremism or terrorism?

and the Jews did not want to set up their own laws to govern over the entire host nation....so I think the Guardian article uses a bad analogy.

Poppycock. Muslims in the UK do not want to set up their own laws, that is just the usual misinformation. There are Muslim MPs and countless Muslim councillors throughout the UK, I believe Muslims are well represented, in my town we have Muslim councillors, we’ve had a Muslim mayor, we have Muslims as school governors etc. Muslims, traditional Labour supporters are part of the democratic system and are always taken seriously. To label Muslims in the UK as outsiders is pure folly, Muslims are doing well for themselves, you’re from East London, you should know all about that.

There was no real problem with terrorism and extremism before 9/11, what’s changed?

the levels of violence used by extremists have increased and have also been used to blackmail the host nation.

Erm, No.
What incidents are you referring to? :confused:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2004258,00.html

Thoughts?

Thanks for the article sam.

Multiculturalism doesn't work. As we can see, it's not working now. People try to avoid this truth with many random articles.

Wrong.
There are some problems with British Born Muslims, I’m not just talking about Asian Muslims, I’m talking White, Black and Mixed race Muslims. Were there any problems in the 60s/70s when immigrants from Pakistan and India came? what about those Yemeni immigrants (make up the longest-established Muslim group in Britain) that came back in the what early 1900s, any bombs going off? Any terrorist attacks? The early immigrants worked hard, they lived very hard lives, I hear about it all the time. Why didn’t they resort to extremism or terrorism?

Poppycock. Muslims in the UK do not want to set up their own laws, that is just the usual misinformation. There are Muslim MPs and countless Muslim councillors throughout the UK, I believe Muslims are well represented, in my town we have Muslim councillors, we’ve had a Muslim mayor, we have Muslims as school governors etc. Muslims, traditional Labour supporters are part of the democratic system and are always taken seriously. To label Muslims in the UK as outsiders is pure folly, Muslims are doing well for themselves, you’re from East London, you should know all about that.

There was no real problem with terrorism and extremism before 9/11, what’s changed?



Erm, No.
What incidents are you referring to? :confused:

I'm just saying that the Guardian article uses a bad analogy....its not about race - its about fundamentalist ideology. Early immigrants were happy to come to Britain and accept the hospitality, improved standard of living and democracy offered by their host-nation...they integrated...no need to resort to extremism or terrorism...they were generally happy or I guess they would have moved elsewhere. Britain benefitted from the skills and labour that our immigrant peoples brought also their contribution to our cosmopolitan British culture.
More recently fundamentalism has been an emergent property of immigration without integration.


Addressing your second point: There is far more involvement of people from all places and from all 'levels' of society in politics today. The number of women MP's is slowly moving towards a representative level and eventually I hope democracy will represent all of Britain's diverse genetic make-up. Democracy is a good thing and I welcome it.

However you are wrong to use this as foil to deny that there is a significant undemocratic ideology that supports the idea of a Muslim state in Britain and that the terrorism by Muslims (e.g. 7/7) is not coincidental to this (albeit not being demonstrated as causally related).

Did 100,000 Jews agree that terrorism against their new nation was justified?

I'm just saying that the Guardian article uses a bad analogy....its not about race - its about fundamentalist ideology. Early immigrants were happy to come to Britain and accept the hospitality, improved standard of living and democracy offered by their host-nation...they integrated...no need to resort to extremism or terrorism...they were generally happy or I guess they would have moved elsewhere. Britain benefitted from the skills and labour that our immigrant peoples brought also their contribution to our cosmopolitan British culture.
More recently fundamentalism has been an emergent property of immigration without integration.

You’ll find that the extremists paraded around by the media are British born, its not about immigration without integration, I believe that is a separate issue. I know of immigrants that settle in the UK, they aren’t well integrated, they can’t really speak English, they live simple lives (work and sleep, that’s it) and only mix with their own kind, its not like that just with Muslim immigrants, it’s the same with others (Kosovans, Poles etc.), its just like when the first Asians came in the 60s/70s. Regarding extremism, you’ll find that all those that have gotten into trouble have been born and raised in Britain, they live and breathe England, there are other forces at work.

Addressing your second point: There is far more involvement of people from all places and from all 'levels' of society in politics today. The number of women MP's is slowly moving towards a representative level and eventually I hope democracy will represent all of Britain's diverse genetic make-up. Democracy is a good thing and I welcome it.

Yeh, absolutely, it is the way forward.

However you are wrong to use this as foil to deny that there is a significant undemocratic ideology that supports the idea of a Muslim state in Britain and that the terrorism by Muslims (e.g. 7/7) is not coincidental to this (albeit not being demonstrated as causally related).

The ‘Islamic state in Britain’ idea was parroted by a fringe group (Al-Muhajiroun) that has now been disbanded. They didn’t represent the Muslims of Britain, the media made them, they were used to misrepresent the Muslims in the UK, much to the frustration of your average Muslim. The Muslim Council of Britain which is an umbrella organisation for most of the Mosques in Britain doesn’t advocate such nonsense. The many Muslim organisations throughout the UK never advocate such nonsense. The ideology promoted by such extremist groups (Al-Muhajiroun etc.) is supported by Tony Blair’s friends, the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia. I hope you watched the recent Dispatches - Undercover Mosque. Traditional Islamic teachings tell us that Muslims must obey the laws of the land in which they live (whether the country is Muslim or Non-Muslim), vigilantism is out of the question.

I don’t believe there is a significant undemocratic ideology that supports the idea of a Muslim state in Britain. I do believe that a significant amount of Muslims in Britain feel isolated and are frustrated with events happening both at home and abroad. I think its important to make that distinction, its wrong to assume all aggravated Muslim want an Islamic state in the UK, we should never take things at face value. The idea of an Islamic state is pretty silly anyway, out of all the Muslims in the UK only a fraction would actually want an Islamic state, they would make up less than 1% of the UK pop. What are the chances of these guys actually doing anything, what about all those that would oppose them. Its just silly.

Did 100,000 Jews agree that terrorism against their new nation was justified?

Well, we'll have to look at the opinion polls for that, you know what its like. I'm sure there is some damning evidence out there.

;)

The ‘Islamic state in Britain’ idea was parroted by a fringe group (Al-Muhajiroun) that has now been disbanded. They didn’t represent the Muslims of Britain, the media made them, they were used to misrepresent the Muslims in the UK, much to the frustration of your average Muslim. The Muslim Council of Britain which is an umbrella organisation for most of the Mosques in Britain doesn’t advocate such nonsense. The many Muslim organisations throughout the UK never advocate such nonsense. The ideology promoted by such extremist groups (Al-Muhajiroun etc.) is supported by Tony Blair’s friends, the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia. I hope you watched the recent Dispatches - Undercover Mosque. Traditional Islamic teachings tell us that Muslims must obey the laws of the land in which they live (whether the country is Muslim or Non-Muslim), vigilantism is out of the question.

I don’t believe there is a significant undemocratic ideology that supports the idea of a Muslim state in Britain. I do believe that a significant amount of Muslims in Britain feel isolated and are frustrated with events happening both at home and abroad. I think its important to make that distinction, its wrong to assume all aggravated Muslim want an Islamic state in the UK, we should never take things at face value. The idea of an Islamic state is pretty silly anyway, out of all the Muslims in the UK only a fraction would actually want an Islamic state, they would make up less than 1% of the UK pop. What are the chances of these guys actually doing anything, what about all those that would oppose them. Its just silly.

You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine and we can agree to disagree - but for the benefit of readers of the thread I must point out that Al-Muhajiroun have merely reformed under another name and if you were well informed and did not want to present a biased account you would have mentioned this and I believe it is this oversight that devalues your opinion that these guys wouldn't actually do anything - this is a matter best left to those with an informed perspective.
And you admit that some Muslims do want to establish a Muslim state in the UK which was my initial point.

You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine and we can agree to disagree - but for the benefit of readers of the thread I must point out that Al-Muhajiroun have merely reformed under another name and if you were well informed and did not want to present a biased account you would have mentioned this and I believe it is this oversight that devalues your opinion that these guys wouldn't actually do anything - this is a matter best left to those with an informed perspective.
And you admit that some Muslims do want to establish a Muslim state in the UK which was my initial point.

I think most people (particularly Muslims) know Al-Muhajiroun reformed under another name, assuming that I’m not aware of this is naive. I myself know members of ‘Al-Muhajiroun’, I’ve had run ins with them many times, I’ve been invited to dinner with a senior member, I’ve spent a fair amount of time studying their literature and also debating with them. I’m involved with people that actively work against extremist teachings, I believe I am part of that effort, I could go on but I’ll stop there. As a British born Muslim, I believe I have greater insight into extremism and the Muslims of the UK than a person such as yourself, fair comment?

What I was trying to do was open up new avenues with my previous post, if you want to leave with ‘Muslims do want to establish a Muslim state in the UK’, and thats it, so be it. That is just an opinion and something I can't take seriously.

"As a British born Muslim, I believe I have greater insight into extremism and the Muslims of the UK than a person such as yourself, fair comment?"

Disagree...no more to add to this thread. Thank you.

"As a British born Muslim, I believe I have greater insight into extremism and the Muslims of the UK than a person such as yourself, fair comment?"

Disagree...no more to add to this thread. Thank you.

You've got nothing to add? you just disagree?!

Cool.