First, source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/03/28.htm
It is a very fascinating article, and if you are interested in the politics and history of the period, I highly suggest reading it in full.
What interests me about this article is the manner in which everything is framed. Indeed, only a small portion of it even discusses the quarrels between the parts of the ruling class (muslim rulers) and the oppressed (the jewish population). The article does not even portend that this was the only such example of oppression, nor does it say that it was unique to this group. Indeed “To make these Jews more miserable, England and Prussia appointed, in 1840, an Anglican bishop at Jerusalem, whose avowed object is their conversion.”
This article spends a great deal of time explaining the wider policies of religious oppression of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey, for those out of the loop. And Türkiye, for turks who see so fit to call it). Indeed, historically, the Ottoman empire repressed a lot of religious minorities, whether they be muslim, or not. The Kurds, the Alevi and many more are being oppressed to this day by what remains of the empire, despite falling under the wide umbrella of “muslim”. It would be inaccurate, then, to explain this today as Marx does, unifying “mussulmans” under one umbrella and “jews” under another.
A lack of mention of Palestinians is to be expected from a man who used broad strokes to explain an issue to his audience (or perhaps had no clue of the specificities of ethnic separations). It is difficult to claim the author to either side of any modern debates. Indeed he also states: “The Jews, however, are not natives, but from different and distant countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosaphat, and to die in the very places where the redemptor is to be expected.”
This article, then, is the relatively decent explanation of a complex political issue that took place in a far corner of the world, where the author has a relatively decent grip, but not a comprehensive one. Many old articles fall into this category, it just so happens that this was written by a man who would go on to become very famous.
Why develop all of this? Nuance and through reading is old fashioned, I know. And yet it is important. This is a curious piece of outdated, yet fascinating historical artefact, which reveals more about the context in which it was written than the specifics discussed, despite the author’s decent analysis.
The better question is: why bring this up at all? The fact that the Ottoman Empire oppressed religious minorities is no shock, and it is a commonly agreed upon (and I hope commonly known) fact. What purpose does it serve to take such a historical fact from a random journalist– who would only later come to be known in leftist circles– and only expose the portions which depict a struggle between a nebulous “mussulmans” and “jews”?
I will make no attempt to divine the intentions of the person who commented on this article before me. I will, however, say that this can incite people to believe in the continued existence of a broader relationship of hate between “mussulmans” and “jews”.
If you, dear reader, are one who has reached such a conclusion from this article, and take this as an example in your belief system, then I can only beg that you ask yourself: Should Greece declare war upon Turkey, its now ally in nato? Should the whole of the Balkans engage in such an act? Should we revitalise the war between the Catholic and the Anglican church too? All of these are conflicts of the era which the article brings up, often with numbers of ethnic populations as well. I suspect you will answer “no”.
Why then, bring this portion of an old, outdated, article up? Because it feeds a narrative of mutual hate, one which has failed to die, unlike some of the others mentioned in the article. And because grounding present day conflicts in a lineage of hatred serves as a great trick to confuse people into continuing to hate each other, baselessly.
To go back two paragraphs, “jews” and “mussulmans” do not desire anything. How could they? They do not exist. A jewish person can desire, and so can a muslim, but such amalgamations do not live, or breathe. As many teachers of history will tell you “countries do not feel”, and neither do ethnic or religious groups. But you, dear reader, can. You can choose to feel hatred, or you can choose to feel calm, or you can choose to not care. Or you can choose to fight against hatred, and a lineage of mistakes. How much of your feelings you take from the dead, the outdated, the forgotten, the irrelevant… that is your choice.
Thank you, and I hope you have a good day.
