Difference Between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews in Modern Times Essay Example for Free

Difference Between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews in Modern Times Essay For the most part, modern Jewish history deals with the political, social and economic advancements achieved by the Ashkenazi communities in Europe, America, and later Palestine. Because of its relatively small size and involvement in the affairs of civilized countries of Europe and America, the Sephardi branch of Judaism is rerely dealt with in the context of modern Jewish history. Their development is however, though not as influential upon the flow of the mainstream history as that of the Ashkenazi jewry, is nevertheless an area of interest to anyone undertaking a serious study of Jewish history. The theological difference between the two movements, the Sefardi and the Ashekenazi, lies in the traditional laws more than in written ones. Both take an Orthodoxal approach to the written law of the Torah, and the differences in its interpretation are subtle enough to be dismissed. However the traditions acquired , and at times given the power of laws, in the course of the long centuries of diaspora differ considerably from one branch of Judaism to another. Just as the worldwide language of the Ashekenazim, Yiddish, is a mixture of Hebrew with German, the common language used by the Sephardim Ladino, still in use in some parts of the world, is a dialect formed by combining Hebrew with Spanish. The Sephardim who have historically been more involved into the lives of the gentile societies where they settled dont have as strict a set of observances as do the Ashkenazis who have been contained in closed ghettos up until two centuries ago. The official doctrine of the Sephardis does not for example prohibit polygomy, whereas it hasnt been allowed in the Ashkenazi law since Middle Ages. Although the Ashkenazi traditions are somewhat stricter than those of the Sephardim, a greater percentage of Ashkenazi Jews have over the past century and a half stopped observing these traditions, becoming either secular Jews, atheists, like the American Freethinkers, or simply converting. An even greater part have chosen to follow only a part of the traditional, or oral, laws, forming widely popular Reform and Conservative movements. This phenomenon, if present within the Sephardic community exists on such a small scale that it can be discounted. The reason for this difference in the adherence of the tradition is the way in which the tradition itself was first put into effect. In the case of the Ashkenazi Jews the traditions have been instated by the long centuries of enforced separation, and when the barriers were let down, the communities that were held together by pressure from the outside started to degenerate. With the walls of the ghetto gone, but full emancipation not yet granted, many believed that if they had integrated themselves into the gentile societies, they would gain acceptance. Secular education replaced religion, rather than complementing it. This however was not the case with Sephardim, whose less strict traditions were developed in the environment of toleration. While the Ashkenazi Jews were restricted to the ghettos of Europe, held at bay by the Catholic church, the Sephardim of Middle East, North Africa and Ottoman Empire were living as dhimmies, or people of the pact, and though not fully equal with their Muslim hosts, were to some extent intregrated into their societies. For this reason, the traditional laws of the Sephardim are less demanding, but more enduring. Unlike the Ashkenazi population that has over a century of immigration spread itself all over the world, The Sephardic communities tend to concentrate mostly around a few areas. Today most of the Sephardic Jews reside within Israel, amost other Middle-Eastern communities having been reduced to virtual nonexistance by the migration of Jews out of Arabic countries after the creation of Israel. A substantial community is still maintained in Turkey, where historically Jews have received good treatment. Of the Western countries, the only one where the population of Sephardic Jews is comparable to that of the Ashekenazis is France, where a considerable number of Jews have resided since the Middle Ages. While Sephardi Jews were the first people of Jewish faith to arrive in the US, and their number in this country is still quite large, they are but a drop in the bucket when compared to the overall number of Jews currently residing in America today. The Spehardic Jews have historically lived in the areas more or less tolerant of Judaism. They therefore had more of an opportunity to integrate themselves into the host societies than did their Ashkenazi counterparts living in the countries where Jewish communities were forcebly segregated from the rest. Thus they never really formed separate self-governed units, and the impact made upon the countries of their residence can be traced only through the outstanding Jewish personalities that had effect on the history of those states, and not actions taken by the community as a whole. Whereas in the history of American Jews one may encounter occurrences of political decisions being influenced by the pressure of Jews as a communal force, the history of Middle-Eastern countries is only able to offer examples of brilliant Jewish individuals, but rarely actions taken by the whole communities. The Sephardis (the word itself comes from a Hebrew word for Spain) first came to Europe in the early middle ages across the Straight of Gibraltar to the Iberian peninsula, following the wave of muslim conquerors, into whose society they were at the time well integrated. With the slow reconquest of the peninsula by the Christians a number of the Jews stayed on the land, at times serving as middlemen in the ongoing trade between the two sides of the conflict. Prospering from such lucrative practices, the Sephardic community of the newly created Spain grew and gained economic power. With the final expulsion of the external heretics, the Spanish, devoted Catholics have turned within in their quest for the expulsion of the unfaithful, and around 1492 a decree had forced the Jews of Spain to convert or leave country. While some Jews of Spain have chosen to convert rather than face relocation and possibly relinquish their economic position, (though some of those continued practicing Judaism in secrecy) many of them have migrated to the Ottoman empire, where the Sultan Bayazid II offered them safe haven. In later years as the Ottoman rulers continued the policy of toleration, the Sephardic community of Turkey grew to considerable numbers. Other members of the Spanish Jewry migrated to nearby Portugal from where they were promptly expelled in 1496. From here, some people migrated North to France, where they were tolerated in the southern provinces, and Netherlands. Others went eastward to the Ottoman Empire and Middle East. The Sephardic community of France had maintained a realtively constant population, a fact that allowed it to exist in obscurity, and thus continue to be tolerated. The people who settled in the Netherlands, by this time a country of religious tolerance, had enjoyed for a period of time the equality unparalleled at this point anywhere in the Western world. The main flux of Sephardi immigrants took almost a century incoming to the Netherlands, finally reaching that country around 1590. When half a century later Netherlands began active trade with the South America, Jews were greatly involved because they could speak Dutch and were literate enough to keep records of the trade. They gained a great deal economically through this lucrartive practice, and it was by the way of this trade that first Sephardic Jews have arrived in the Americas. The Ottoman empire, which in its golden age spanned from North Africa to the Balcans, had attracted Jewish immigration from as early as the 1300s. The Sultans sympathy to the Jews went so far that in 1556, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent had requested from the Pope Paul IV the release of the Ancona Marranos which he declared Ottoman citizens. Over the years, Jews exiled from Hungary, France, Sicily and Bohemia came to the Ottoman empire in search of home, and they found it. A letter sent by Rabbi Yitzhak Sarfati (from Edirne) to Jewish communities in Europe invited his coreligionists to leave the torments they were enduring in Christiandom and to seek safety and prosperity in Turkey. (1) Three centuries after the expulsion of Jews from Spain, the Ottoman cities of Istanbul, Izmud, Safed and Salonica became centers of Sephardic prosperity that was compairable to the period of muslim domination of Spain. While there arent many records of Jews as a community taking historically important actions in the course of their stay in the Ottoman Empire, many individuals worthy of notice are encountered in history. The first printing press in the Empire was established in 1493 by David and Samuel ibn Nahmias, only a year after their exile from Spain. A number of Jews had been diplomats for the Sultan (one of them, Salamon ben Nathan Eskenazi had established first contact with the British Empire), court physicians and otherwise influential people. The Zionist movement was met with drastically different reactions by the two movements. Among the by now enlightened Ashkenazim, where many have come to consider their states objects of primary alligiance, the idea of a return to Palestine was met with suspicions. Some of the people were genuinely afraid that if they acted in support of a Jewish homeland, their loyalties to the countries of their residence would be questioned, and the progress made toward emancipation that had taken long centuries to achieve would be destroyed in a single blow. Among the Sephardim, the ideas of Zionism were met with much greater enthusiasm. (3) The Jews of Middle East, whose religious convictions were at that time much better preserved, had embraced the idea of return to the land of their forefathers. The traditions ran strong among them, and the young generations did not feel resentfull for being forced to obey laws that they felt were outdated. Modernization for European Jews meant catching up with the secular education studies of their hosts, this word hoever, took a totally different meaning when applied to the Jews of Middle-East and Asia, areas to which modernization came later, and which at that point were far behind the technological progress made in the countries of the West. Therefore, while the Jews of Europe had to battle for their equality in a society the education level of which was arguably supperior to that of their own, the Jews of Middle-East had to modernize together with their host nations, and sometimes even ahead of them. The speed of the progress of Middle-Eastern Jews was enhanced by their Western-European counterparts who have by this time established for themselves not only political equality, but also economic prosperity in their adopted homelands. These well-to-do Jews who have for the most part abandoned some or all of their traditions, and have justly considered themselves to be enlightened, wished to bring this enlightenment in the way of Europeanisation to the Jews living outside of the civilized world. (2) The educational institutions created by the Alliance Israelite Universelle have had such great impact on the education of the Jews of the then-decaying Ottoman Empire, that even today, a considerable part of older generation Turkish Jews think of French as their primary means of communication. In Israel the farming communities founded in the late 1800s with the funding of rich European Jewish families as a part of the project to re-settle Palestine, have now grown to become well established businesses. Currently the Israeli Jews represent the only substantial Jewish community left in the Middle East. The surrounding countries, where up until the 1940s many Jews coexisted with Muslim majorities, have over the course of the past half-century lost most of their Jewish population to immigration due to racial and ethnic tensions brought about by the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In fact, the governments of states such as Syria have after the creation of Israel considered the Jews living on their territories to be hostages in this confrontation, and have treated them accordingly. The immigrants from the Arab states being predominantly Sephardic, Israel, a once Ashekenazi dominated country, now has an about even division between the two movements. With their increasing number, the Sephardi influence is also growing in the Israeli legislature, and in the last few years a Sephardi party Shaas has gained substantial power within the Knesset, Israels governing body. The state of Israel is unique in that it is the first country in over two thousand years where Jews have been given the right of self-rule. This raises problems that the Jews in other times, and even the Jews outside of Israel today do not have to deal with. Throughout Israels brief history, a debate as to the extent to which the secular laws should follow the religious doctrine of Judaism had been an ongoing one. Such debates are naturally meaningless in the rest of the world, where the Jews are to follow the laws of the land. The different historical background of the two movements of Judaism has created a noticeable gap in their culture, their traditional laws and their adherence of those laws. It has shaped the manner of their development and the final result of it. The history itself was shaped by the environment in which the exiled Jews found themselves, and the attitude of the people who surrounded them. This attitude was in turn based around their religious doctrine. (1) Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (2) Harvey Goldberg, Sephardi and Middle Eastern Jewries, introductoin p15 (3) Norman Stillman, Sephardi and Middle Eastern Jewries Essay 1, Middle-Eastern and North African Jewries p67 1996, Lev Epshteyn, SUNY Binghamton.

Sending Technology Back in Time :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Sending Technology Back in Time The hot sun was shining high in the sky, as wind picked up dirt and threw it through the air. A tall, dark haired man stepped carefully behind a wooden plow. The animal that pulled the wooden, manmade creation was a shaggy, dark-gray donkey. The field is approximately two acres, and will probably take from sunrise to sunset to plow. In the distance, a brown horse and buggy slowly move along a flat dirt road. The long and tedious trip to the nearest town will take all day. John, the man guiding the plow, will have to take the same journey in a few days. For the most part, John is able to stay on the farm and perform daily tasks. The farm is self-sufficient. The lives of John and his family are devoted to taking care of the farm; without it, they would have nothing. Days are long on the farm and the five children that are old enough work a full day. The oldest children help in the fields with the plowing or planting. The younger children help with the simpler tasks and the two youngest run and play. The work is laborious and time consuming, and John's body aches after each day of work. The setting sun in the west tells John that it will soon be time to stop. When the only light that revealed any of the outside world was from the small glow of a gas lantern, John finally called it quits. Glad that the day was over, he headed back in the house. Dinner was already on the table, and all the kids were seated around it, hands and faces washed. John's wife, Anne, spent nearly the whole day preparing the meal of foods that were all acquired from their farm. When all the food was cleared from the plates, John headed to bed. He dreamed of little, knowing that all he had to wake up to the next morning was more work. As the sun began to creep through the blinds of the windows, a loud, obnoxious beep rang through his room. John woke with a jump to find that the noise was coming from a small box with a clock face on the front. The beeping continued until, John was finally able to find the off switch. The sound was still ringing in his ears, as he took a glance around his room.

However, the German people who were hungry and bitter wanted new faces, they wanted to see change

â€Å"The war was now lost,†1 a quote from General Ludendorff's evidence to a post war assembly. It was 1918 and Germany had been defeated. Kaiser Wilhelm had fled to Holland on the advice of General Ludendorff, who had also urged an armistice. To preserve the reputation of the military forces of Germany, Ludendorff wanted the creation of a civilian government, in the hope that a civilian government could take the blame for Germany's defeat, a revolution from above, to maintain the vision of a still, strong, military force. The country of Germany had to repair itself to survive. The old constitution had to change, not that it could be classed as old. Germany was a relatively new country, unified in 1871, but because of growing popular unrest and economic discontent, the hierarchy of Germany had to be seen as making changes for the benefit of the population. The age of monarchy was dissolved and replaced by a new civilian government. The new constitution would be known as the Weimar Constitution. The new constitution would embrace democracy, it would be an elected government, headed by a president, and elections were to be every seven years. The parliament was known as the Reichstag. All men and women over the age of twenty were entitled to vote. All Germans were deemed equal under the law. In consequence of this, professional people such as doctors, lawyers and teachers did not want to be equal to proletarians or the lumper proletarians, professional, middle class people believed they were better, why should the whole of society be given an education and opportunities. In addition, social rights were given to the people, such as, free speech, a country free of censorship, education for all, religious freedom, and the entitlement to negotiate for better working conditions as well as having protection from the state. Unfortunately, Germany was a conservative, traditional country, too much freedom all at once could be too much to cope with, progressive free liberties, introduced on a slower scale might have worked better. Fredrich Ebert was the leader of the social democratic party, who had the following of the majority of the people and in November 1918, was made the first chancellor of the new constitution. Included within the constitution was article 48, this article gave permission for the president to dissolve the Reichstag, and act on his own, with the aid of, if necessary, military force. Consequently it could be argued about who was actually in charge of the constitution, was it the representative assembly or the elected head of state. The elected president had the right to interfere with legislation; it seemed a contradiction of a democratic republic. This immediately throws into disarray the whole idea of a democracy, as well as according to a USPD deputy â€Å"if some henchmen of the Hohenzollerns (the royal family), a general perhaps were to be at the head of the Reich,†2 article 48 could be a weakness exploited by military men to use to their advantage as a military coup. Ebert needed the army on side, particularly to cease uprisings by the left wing. Ebert was a socialist but not a communist, neither to his favour was General Groener, who Ebert forged a deal with to win his support, Ebert would keep the authority of any existing officers, thus, the army would defend the new government so uprisings from the left were easily suppressed. This went against the constitution. The Left Wing unified with the extreme Right over this, because they saw it as a supression to prevent revolution from the middle classes. The KPD co-operated with the extreme Right in efforts to destroy the constitution. Furthermore, Ebert kept existing civil servants and members of the judiciary in their positions, keeping the people he needed to rely on in favourable positions. In addition to this, Ebert needed experienced people to try and keep the infa-structure of Germany on a stable footing. However, the German people who were hungry and bitter wanted new faces, they wanted to see change. To keep things as they were was not a democracy, according to an anonymous exiled SPD member, the German working class should have taken over the old state, to leave things unchanged was a grave historical error and not a good start to a new democratic, republican state. Many of he German people refused to accept the new constitution as being legitimate; these people were not used to as much freedom as was being promised. They were battered from the war and not ready for such a change. If the new constitution was going to be part of their lives, maybe initiating it alongside a monarchy would have been more successful in winning them over traditionalists and nationalists cannot be changed overnight. The first real threat for Weimar was The Treaty of Versailles in 1919†³Death rather than slavery,†3 quoted the nationalist newspaper, Duetsche Zeitung. The whole of Germany rejected the Treaty, but the constitution had no choice but to accept it,†There is no alternative to accepting the armistice terms. It is however, already apparent that these conditions will not produce a just peace. The sacrifices on us are tremendous; they must lead to our peoples doom,†3 Germany was brought to its knees by reparations, loss of territory, war guilt and the limitations of a reduced military force, which country would survive, historian A.Nicholls,4 (1979) sums up the Treaty and the impact on the Weimar republic, â€Å"Germany's economy was ruined by reparations and her security undermined. Much more serious was the political demoralisation which the treaty caused with in the Reich itself †¦ The real damage the treaty did to Germany was to disillusion the more moderate men who might otherwise have supported their new republic†¦The peace settlement continued to poison the political atmosphere in Germany for many years.†4 The Treaty helped the radical right wing political party's gain support and challenge the new Weimar republican government. The main right wing parties rejected the republic and its principles and wanted to destroy the democratic constitution and go back to a nationalist system, the signing of the Treaty only reinforced that the new government wasn't working for the people. The aim of the Right Wing was to abolish the constitution and instead have a conservative, authoritarian regime, unlike other conservative political parties in well-established democracies. It was in March 1920 that the first major problem from the Right occurred. A right wing coup named after its leader Kapp was initiated. It only failed due to a general strike. After marching on Berlin the governments troops refused to fire on the freikorps, the support for a democratic republic was not where the army's loyalties lay, after all it was only because of secret talks between Ebert and Groener, and the fact that Groener was only protecting his position that the army only HAD to support the new Republic, through orders of their commander, they did not support the republic voluntarily. The judiciary dealt with the people involved with Kapp leniently, showing that the judiciary was not in favour of a democratic country, they were still in favour of the old nationalist Germany. The Right wing consisted of the military, financial elites, state beurocracy, the educational system and some of the press. However, the Kapp Putsch did demonstrate weaknesses in the New Constitution, democracy in Germany lost its way, there was no political control over the military, the government could not enforce its authority even in its own capital; the government could not put down a challenge to its own authority and only because of mass power was government authority re- established. It wasn't due to support of the constitution that people supported a general strike. It was due to the fact that peace was more important than political beliefs and who would want a revolution in their town. In addition to this the failure of Kapp being brought to justice led to a spate of assinations committed by the Right Wing against supporters of the Weimar Constitution. Over 350 political murders took place between 1919 and 1923. Again the perpetrators were dealt with leniently, showing support for the nationalists, and the weak decision of keeping the same people in their jobs, â€Å"when the republic was created, these judges held over from the monarchy found it impossible to transfer their allegiance to the new organisation of the state†¦They created a private law and subverted (undermined) the public law of the Republic by refusing to administer justice in an equal manner to all people, â€Å"5Kurt Tucholsky, left wing satirist. Ebert was in an impossible situation, the Treaty was the major factor in undermining the democratic constitution, and money for the reparations had to be found, promises of a welfare state and a new age for Germany and the rebuilding of great German country seemed impossible. It was no fun for those having to live under the crippling conditions imposed by the Treaty. In addition to this, Ebert's new Republican foundations were established in debt from the reign of the Kaiser and the war; the country was already weak economically from the war. The only way to remedy a weak economy and pay off debts was through taxes and inflation. War cost, lack of confidence in the currency, reparations, trade deficit and the governments apparent solution to print more and more money, all led to an economic crisis. People on fixed incomes and the middle class lost out to hyperinflation. Whilst people with debts, mortgages, tradesmen, industrialists and estate agents benefited through hyperinflation. In addition to this, levels of unemployment were kept down and new, international investments were encouraged. Despite the negative effects of hyperinflation, workers were economically better off due to increased levels of economic activity. Unfortunately, the Weimar Republic weakened with hyperinflation due to ill health suffered by the population; this was the result of inflation-induced poverty, the new constitution was blamed for this, again injuring the constitution.†The savings, hopes, plans and assumptions and aspirations of huge numbers of people were swept away in a whirlwind†¦ Even when the worst material impact was over, the psychological shock of the experience was to have longer lasting effects, confirming a deep-seated dislike of democracy†6 In June 1920, the Weimar Constitution lost its majority. A constitution that had been run by coalition governments, needed that majority, other parties were dissatisfied with the constitution, and because none of the other party's gained 50% of the vote, unstable coalition governments ruled Germany. Add to this bickering and lack of agreement on both domestic and foreign policies, co-operation became lax and there were too many minorities and no majorities. Elections were built around suffering and proportional representation. What could be seen, as a strength was actually a weakness. Because everybody was allowed to vote, including extremists from the left and the right. Which meant that with proportional voting, that the minor parties got seats in the Reichstag, thus, disrupting proceedings and make the leading party and the constitution look weak. In conclusion the Weimar Republic looked on paper like a sure, fire hit but because of the introduction of democracy and no strong patriarchal leader problems were bound to arise. The Kaiser was much loved and respected by a traditional and loyal Germany, the Germans were confused. They were being promised greatness and security but because of the Treaty and the in -fighting the German people never saw what was promised. They only saw problem after problem. Ebert was a great statesman but circumstances prevented the constitution being a success, and it does take time for new ideas to begin to work, if the Treaty had never been signed by the countries involved Germany would have been great, maybe the blame should be put upon the USA, Italy, France and Britain. The new constitution never stood a chance.

Interview With The Personality Theorist - 1318 Words

Mocked Interviews The purpose of this assignment is to prepare a transcript for a mocked interview with four personality theorist. The four personality theorists included in this interview are; Horney, Erikson, Jung, and Adler. In this mocked interview, one will pretend to ask each theorist a combination of questions about the viewpoints of Sigmund Freud, and his daughter, Anna Freud. In addition, each theorist will explain what impact they believe their work has had on psychology as they see it today. Outline of Interview Interviewer: Kathleen Johnson (Student) Interviewees: Horney, Erikson, Jung, and Adler (Personality Theorists) Interview Setting: Interview was conducted in North Central University Psychology Lab at 3:30 PM on†¦show more content†¦They were ecstatic and they all agreed to it. Starting Interview (1) Interviewer: What do you think Freud just didn t get about the psychology of women? Horney: In my opinion, I don’t believe that Freud had a good understanding about the psychology of women, nor did he know what they wanted. His theory of feminine psychology was unreasonable because he based most of his theories on gender and sexuality. Interviewer: How did you try to overcome that gap? Horney: To overcome the gap of Freud’s gender theory, I developed my own personality theory and one that I believed gave more clarification of the psychology of women and their experience. In addition, I focused on the strategy of moving toward, against, and away from Freud’s demeaning views. Interviewer: What impact do you believe your work has had on psychology as you see it today? Horney: As the first psychoanalytic feminist (1967), I believe that my work has had a most positive impact on today’s psychology. I have contributed my time and work to helping individual’s understand the women of psychology. I have rejected Freud’s penis envy theory and I developed the neurosis theory. The neurosis theory is still prominent today and has helped me to show the relationship between personality and relationship. Interviewer: Do you think that Freud provided enough evidence to back his theories? Horney: