Talk:History of the Jews in Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Why does this article look like its writer has never seen a wikipedia article before? Why must people grind their nerves trying to mend up nonsense like Lapushneanu and whatever, just because the original contributor did not bother to check things out? Is there any link in the article? And: isn't this copyvio?Dahn 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be copy-pasted from 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which is public domain, so, no it's not a copyvio, but it might be outdated. bogdan 13:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey folks, it is indeed largely from the Jewish Encyclopedia for the early history, and from other sources for the more recent stuff, as I said in my edit summary: "Lots of material, much from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. More cleanup and wikilinking later." I have done a many of these articles starting from the 1906 Encyclopedia, and the end result is something like the History of the Jews in Poland or History of the Jews in Spain, it just takes awhile to clean up and wikilink everything, but it is a heck of a lot easier than starting from scratch. Feel free to help, or I will plug away at it over time myself, but it will eventually be fully wikified. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at the "early history" section, I'm afraid it's full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Someone should check the facts against some "modern" reference. bogdan 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me some pointers to the inaccuracies that you spotted? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
For example, I'm a bit skeptical about Jewish presence before the Roman conquest. Then, the "desolation" of Dacia is not accepted nowadays. Also, the decree of the Roman emperor in 397 refers to Dacia Mediterranea, which is in Bulgaria and Serbia, not in Romania. bogdan 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Great, I will do my best to review and improve, it would be great if you did the same. I know considerably more about relatively recent Romanian Jewish history, but much less about the older stuff, so I was planning on fleshing out the 19th and 20th centuries first. I have some sources around that are useful on the ancient history, but it'll take awhile before I am fully up to speed. One way to handle this is to aggressively trim the most dubious stuff, since the Jewish Encyclopedia is wordy anyway. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
And the medieval history says very little of the Sephardi Jews of Wallachia, focusing on the Ashkenazi of Moldavia. Hm.. I wonder if I have some references... bogdan 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] currencies

One here that I've never heard of -- galbeni (plural of galben, "yellow") -- and another -- löwenthaler -- that could certainly use an article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Galben" is a name given to several types of golden coins. "Löwenthalers" were Dutch coins, which apparently were quite popular in here. The name of "Leu" is derived from it. bogdan 09:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, löwenthaler I know, but they could use an article, which I'll try to remember eventually to write if no one else does. Galbeni I don't know enough to even know where to start. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary says: Nume dat mai multor monede străine de aur, de valori variabile, care au circulat şi în ţările româneşti., A name given to several types of foreign golden coins, of various values, that circulated in the Romanian Countries. bogdan 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

See if one can't be tied to this: Thaler. Dahn 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISurvived

I gather that there has been a big fight back and forth on the ISurvived site, variously simply in, simply out, and in with a qualifier. I believe the last is correct. As of this writing, it is simply in. I believe that the following is accurate and should follow the link. - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The ISurvived site has been subject to some criticism for its skeptical remarks about several individuals. However, none of these criticisms seem to refer to the Romania-related materials. For the controversies, see, Jonathan Tilove, Dachau Survivor's Reputation Wanders Turbulent Terrain of the Internet, Newhouse News Service, July 20, 2006. The Tilove piece characterizes ISurvived as follows: "ISurvived is mostly a compendium of Holocaust information built through links to hundreds of reputable Holocaust archives and Jewish education sites… The one section bearing Brattman's personal imprint is the 'Holocaust Controversy Page'"; with reference to that section, Tilove discusses several criticisms.

If as you stated "none of these criticisms seem to refer to the Romania-related materials," then WHY is that matter posted in here? One possibility could be that you dislike profoundly that website http://isurvived.org . In any event, I noticed that they have posted a reply to Tilove's article at http://isurvived.org/Tilove-refute.html

No, actually, I have no problem with the site at all; I don't really take the Tilove criticisms all that seriously. But they are from a reputable source; the disclaimer was the upshot of someone removing all instances of the ISurvived site from Wikipedia, and trying to come to a viable compromise. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear why you are spaming this site with matters unrelated to the History of the Jews in Romania. That "someone" --that you are referring to, and YOU perhaps are Holocaust deniers --and that is fine with me. Tilove is a serious, good, and careful reporter. The issue that you are avoiding is NOT about Tilove but about YOU that are using this forum to advance your agenda of hate towards a website and its editor that is presenting the story of the Holocaust and it has an excellent material on the Holocaust in Romania.

The editor of iSurvived is the one with e personal agenda and a website filled with attacks on Holocaust survivors. Webville's only response to revisions of his spamming is that it is the work of "Holocaust Deniers"

Joe,

You stated: "I have no problem with the site Isurvived at all; I don't really take the Tilove criticisms all that seriously" and yet you keep putting that irrelevent information in here!!! WHY?

Where are you getting all this hate from? Are you a Holocaust denier believing that the Holocaust did not exist within the territories of Romania?

What is your beef and hate towards iSurvived website and its editor and WHY you are using this forum to unleash your hate here? Again what all this has to do with the subject of this article?

Not only that you are spaming this discussion section but now you have vandalized the article itself. What is your sick pleasure in all this?

Just FYI all, User:Webville has been banned for linkspamming isurvived.org, so it's safe to assume the issue is dead. -Elmer Clark 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from their first mention on what is nowadays Romanian territory

There's a definition problem that is probably obvious to Dahn. Either the previous definition needs a change, or the article should exclude Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine. Dpotop 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are confused. For starters, the mention refers solely to what has been established as a strating point - no matter what, that mention does refer to Jews having lived in "what is now Romanian territory" (somewhere in Transylvania), and not some place else. It states: "The history of Jews in Romania concerns the Jews of Romania and of Romanian origins, from their first mention on what is nowadays Romanian territory", and not "The history of Jews on what is nowadays Romanian territory concerns the Jews of Romania and of Romanian origins, from their first mention".
The statement does not involve all or any subsequent mentions.
Furthermore, the text does not trully deal with Bukovina or Bessarabia - or at least not with the history of communities there, which belongs on History of the Jews in Ukraine and Bessarabian Jews respectively (both are indicated as separate links on this page). It will inevittably deal with regions outside of present-day Romania, to the measure where these have been affected by specific policies of the Romanian state (the Holocaust); as I have said, this does not actually contradict the statement in question or its relevancy to the text. Look throughout the text and tell me if you see something that contradicts these guidelines: the only thing I can see is the mention of Benjamin of Tudela and his contacts with Vlachs - I've kept it in only because it appeared to have some anecdotic relevancy to the two sources used that mention the event, but I'm prepared to accept any initiative to delete it.
So, in effect, the article does exclude Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. As it should. Dahn 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This text is a big lie !

A decree of the Roman emperor (397) granted protection to the Dacian Jews and their synagogues (Cod. Theod. de Jud., xvi. 8), but at that time Roman troops had retreated from most of the current Romanian territory, and only remained in Dobruja (the reference itself was most likely made to Dacia Mediterranea).

  • In year 271 the Emperor Aurelian retreatted from Dacia Traiana (Romania) the army and the administration, in the south of Danube, in Moesia, and made a new Roman province called Dacia Aureliana (today the land of Bulgaria). So Dacia Traiana (Romania) and Dacia Aureliana (the land of Bulgaria are different, and someone wants to transfer the facts from the south of Danube in Romania. It is just a manipulation!
Now, if you would actually read the fragment you copypasted... Dahn 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The term Dacian Jews is a contemporan word invented to manipulate the true about the history. You may say Romanian Jew which means a Jew having Romanian citizenship, borned in Romania, speaking Romanian. But did not exist Dacian Jews because at that time did not exist citizenship, and Dacia was an ethnic kingdom, and more that that, there are no certain proves about the existance of Jews on Romania's territory. So the term Dacian Jews is a big lie!
  • The Jewish protocronist theory, which claim that Dacia Traiana (Romania) was colonized by Jews before the Romans, was invented as a reason of making an European Israel.
  • Conclusion: The text is a big lie having wrong intentions!
Actually, there is nothing like that in the text. It's not my responsability to read it for you. Dahn 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, your comments about the "European Israel" et al... They are the more troubling fantasy of the two. Dahn 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you hear about woodrow wilson? At Paris Convention of Peace (1919-1920)he sustained a plan for an Israel European. you shoild read more about this subject even if you do not like to hear about it. Daos 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You should not trust every piece of propaganda that reaches your high school. Dahn 09:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
you should learn to read because this text tells about Dacians in a Roman province where lived Thracians! Daos 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Where? Point it out to me. Dahn 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In Moesia later Dacia Aurelia, lived Thracian tribes not Dacians. Daos 08:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of that. Now do point out to me where the text says otherwise. Dahn 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is the meaning of this text if it tells about Dacian Jews but in the same time it says that in Dacia did not happened? First makes a statement and then deny it! And more important than that, please show me where says in the original text abot Dacian Jews because this is an contemporan invention and a big lie. I've read the Latin text of Mommsen and I saw nothing about this stupid text! It is just a big manipulation! Daos 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Listen, Daos: that part of the text is based on the original Jewish Encyclopaedia section, which indicated that the Codex speaks of Dacian Jews (which is to say "Jews in Dacia, not "Jews of Dacian stock"). The issue of Dacia Mediterranea was first brought up on this talk page a year ago - when I decided to clean up the text, I have added the mention, to indicate what the text was talking about (precisely so it does not seem like it was addressing Romania's territory). Now, if you mean to say that the Codex says nothing about Jewish Dacians, you're right, but you're also talking to yourself (since no one and nothing is contradicting you). If you want to say that the Codex does not mention Jews at all, I'd rather trust an encyclopaedia over your "proofreading".
And, for God's sake, learn some English, will you? Dahn 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Bunul simt ar fi trebuit sa-ti spuna ca nu exista Dacian Jews si ar fi trebuit sa te documentezi inainte sa ma pui sa comentez un text ilogic, dar nu esti decat un escroc care face propaganda mincinoasa. Daos 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Fallacy and personal attack. Dahn 12:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You attacked me first! Daos 12:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't attack you at all. But whatever. Dahn 12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not your job to tell me what to learn! I know myself which is my level in English. You just wanted to hurt me saying that and it was an attack. Daos

[edit] Comunist Jewish Activity

This article tells nothing about Comunist Jewish activity, their intention to make an European Israel in Basarabia (woodrow wilson-Paris 1920), and later a Soviet Republic (Stalin promise). It shows only that Romanians are criminals! Daos 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not even deserve an answer. It is merely a variation on the theme of collective guilt with a bunch of sophisms and fallacies thrown in it. Dahn 13:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Romanians are guilty for everything! And people like Ana Pauker, Mihai Roller, Valter Roman who brought the comunism in Romania are some angels. Daos 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Fallacy. Dahn 12:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You are in eror!Daos 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I was about to write a big paragraph about how the above argument has a false framework from a logical point of view (including the view which it takes of the present text), as well as being factually wrong. Stating the obvious does not deserve as much energy. Instead, I will suggest that you inform yourself of the facts, not interpretations in what are, I suspect, very biased comments about the facts. I will, however give you a general advice: a painting of a smoking pipe is not a smoking pipe. Dahn 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Dahn is right here; your ad hominem argument is really weak. Just because Ana Paucar et al, all Jews, supported Communism, that does not mean Communism was "brought in Romania" solely by Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VMSolo (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Paucar ==> Pauker. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
whatever--VMSolo 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at anyone who does not know Romanian history and might be trying to decipher your remark. Looking up the misspelled name wouldn't get them anywhere. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Inteleg ca domnul Jmabel stie romaneste, asa ca il rog sa citeasca link-ul: Amintiri din iad Toti cei indicati in link ca au adus comunismul in Romania sunt evrei. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.77.7.239 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Repet: poza unei pipe nu este o pipa. Dahn 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Asta e o zicala a propagandei mincinoase

Link In English: Memories From Hell

[edit] The Latin Text

  • The Latin text says nothing about Dacian Jews. Jewish enciclopedia lies and make a false propaganda. I suppose you are payed very well to sustain such a manipulation theory. Did you get a grant, or a good job for making such a stupid propaganda? You will make a great career sustaining lies because it is nowdays very appreciated this kind of crap! THEODOSIANI LIBRI XVI:
    • It's possible to disagree with someone or point out errors that they may have made without flinging accusations around or resorting to offensive language. Please remember to exercise a bit of courtesy and respect for others here. Thank you. Silverhelm 10:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
      • As a Romanian he claim to be (Dahn), he knows very well that did not existed Dacian Jews and I was angry because he did not want to ask himself if I might have right and to search for the true. Daos 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I will disregard the above and attribute it to the editor's newbieness. I will repeat the fact that Daos misinterpreted the succession of words to mean that there were "Dacians who were Jews", whereas "Dacian Jews" stood for "Jews in Dacia" (explaining that this was about Dacia Aurelia etc.). The accusations based on some anti-Zionist theory of his which I have never heard of before deserve no attention. Dahn 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Explanation: The words Dacia and dac are the Latin words for Dacians. As you may see below Iudaei is for Jews. And the only this 2 decrees are in Cod. Theod. de Jud., xvi. 8, year 397:
16.8.12 Idem aa. Anatolio praefecto praetorio Illyrici. Excellens auctoritas tua rectores conveniri praecipiat, ut percepta notione cognoscant oportere a iudaeis irruentum contumelias propulsari eorumque synagogas in quiete solita permanere. Dat. XV kal. iul. Constantinopoli Caesario et Attico conss. (397 iun. 17). 16.8.13 Idem aa. Caesario praefecto praetorio. Iudaei sint obstricti caerimoniis suis: nos interea in conservandis eorum privilegiis veteres imitemur, quorum sanctionibus definitum est, ut privilegia his, qui illustrium patriarcharum dicioni subiecti sunt, archisynagogis patriarchisque ac presbyteris ceterisque, qui in eius religionis sacramento versantur, nutu nostri numinis perseverent ea, quae venerandae christianae legis primis clericis sanctimonia deferuntur. Id enim et divi principes Constantinus et Constantius, Valentinianus et Valens divino arbitrio decreverunt. Sint igitur etiam a curialibus muneribus alieni pareantque legibus suis. Dat. kal. iul. Caesario et Attico conss. (397 iul. 1). Daos 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seemingly contradictory information about the late Roman period

I've removed this from the "Early history" section:

A decree of the Roman emperor (397) granted protection to the Dacian Jews and their synagogues (Cod. Theod. de Jud., xvi. 8), but at that time Roman troops had retreated from most of the current Romanian territory, and only remained in Dobruja (the reference itself was most likely made to Dacia Mediterranea).

Perhaps it's the truth but not the whole truth? Theodosius II wasn't emperor in 397. Possibly someone's conflated two different things? Silverhelm 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Then that was the Jewish Encyclopaedia. I left much of the text as it was, just brought the info about Dacia Aurelia into it. Dahn 12:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Dahn please stop behaving like this! Daos 12:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Dobruja was not a part of Dacia Mediterranea ! Daos 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep flogging dead horses? In case you want to know, the answer is obvious: "at that time Roman troops had retreated from most of the current Romanian territory, and only remained in Dobruja" (ie: of the current Romanian territory, Roman troops only held Dobruja); "the reference itself was most likely made to Dacia Mediterranea (what do you think the word "itself" means?). I could continue to "prove" my good faith to one who accused me directly of supporting I-don't-know-what-conspiracy, but I would at least expect that person to understand the phrase he is questioning. Dahn 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a confusing sentence. I understand nothing from it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.77.7.240 (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
And you are? Dahn 10:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jewish immigration

The article tells nothing (I do not count the vague history of Jews since Roman times as a real solution) about how the Jews got here (mainly immigration). Keith Hitchins (in "Romanians 1774-1866" but also in his contributions to the compilation "Istoria românilor") mentions repeatedly the phenomenon of immigration and their settlement rather in urban areas and the consequent significant participation of Jewish population to the elite of these territories.

So far I've added only a note, which now I'm realizing it is not very well placed (the paragraph speaks of late 19th century, the author argues for a much earlier date), but I guess this aspect should be improved. Daizus 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is actually an entire paragraph about immigration.

Following the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople (which allowed the two Principalities to freely engage in foreign trade), Moldavia, where commercial niches had been largely left unoccupied, became a target for migration of Ashkenazi Jews persecuted in Imperial Russia and the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria - by 1838, their number seems to have reached 80,000,[31] and over 195,000, or almost 12% of the country's population, in 1859 (with an additional 50,000 passing through to Wallachia between the two estimates).[32] Despite initial interdictions under the Russian occupation of 1829 (when it was first regulated that non-Christians were not to be regarded as citizens), many of the new immigrants became leaseholders of estates and tavern-keepers, serving to increase both the revenue and demands of boyars - leading in turn to an increase in economic pressures over those working the land or buying products[33] (usual prejudice against Jews accused tavern-keepers of encouraging alcoholism). At the same time, several Jews rose to prominence and high social status - most families involved in Moldavian banking around the 1850s were of Jewish origin.

Here's a question: does the Hitchins quotation back the notion that the anti-semites theorized about "a Romanian middle class being impaired", or does he talk about immigration? The quotation claims that he justifies immigration was real - note that it is made clear that immigration was real for an entire paragraph of the text. Furthermore, the quotation is about a fact involving Bukovina, but following a fact involving Moldavia... Not only different contexts, but different jurisdictions. And may I ask: is the use of "for instance" validated by the source, or is it the person who read the source said argues there were more such instances? Because it look to me like Hitchins is strictly talking about immigration in Bukovina, and does not draw any conclusion about it. Dahn 13:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read the article in rush, searching for "immigration" as keyword because I was puzzled by the way it started (and also noted some weird discussions here in the talk page). Yes, that paragraph is good but still I guess there's more info to be added. I'll try to make an overview of what I can find in Hitchins.
In "Istoria românilor" (can be found online, I already have downloaded it), in the section written by him ("Desăvârşirea naţiunii române" covering 1821-1947), he says

Imigraţia (in the first half of 19th century), în mod deosebit a evreilor în Moldova, a contribuit şi ea la creşterea populaţiei. (p. 362)

and

Evreii formau singura minoritate semnificativă în România în această perioadă (mid 19th century to 1914). Numărul lor a continuat să crească în a doua jumătate a secolului, în special datorită imigrărilor din Rusia şi din Imperiul habsburgic. în 1912 numărul lor era de 240 000 sau 3,3% din populaţie. Evreii locuiau în special în oraşe, ei formând 14,6% din locuitorii oraşelor. Această concentrare era izbitoare în special în Moldova, unde evreii formau aproape 32% din populaţia urbană." (p. 402)

He also says on Bukovina:

(from 19th century to 1914) Cea de-a doua problemă majoră era iredentismul. Mulţi români acuzau guvernul austriac că subminează caracterul istoric românesc al provinciei încurajând imigrarea rutenilor şi favorizându-i pe germani în administraţia civilă şi pe evrei în economie. (p. 411)

And on Romanian antisemitism:

Mişcările de dreapta erau însă alimentate în continuare de antisemitism. Acesta nu era câtuşi de puţin un fenomen postbelic ci începuturile sale, în forma sa modernă, puteau fi datate în primele decenii ale secolului al XlX-lea, când imigraţia evreiască în Principate a dobândit proporţii de masă. în perioada interbelică, un susţinător de frunte al acţiunii contra evreilor a fost Alexandru C. Cuza (1857—1947), profesor de economie politică la Universitatea din Iaşi. în 1923 Cuza a înfiinţat Liga Apărării Naţional-Creştine, care avea ca scopuri primordiale expulzarea evreilor din toate domeniile vieţii economice şi culturale şi educarea tinerilor în spirit creştin şi naţionalist. (p. 434)

On Romanian demographics before WWII:

Din punct de vedere etnic, românii formau vasta majoritate a populaţiei. în 1930 ei reprezentau 71,9% (12 981 324) din totalul populaţiei, în timp ce maghiarii, minoritatea cea mai numeroasă, formau 7,2% (1 415 507), urmaţi de germani 4,1% (745 421), evrei 4% (728 115) şi ucrainieni 3,2% (582 115). Dar aceste proporţii variau în mod semnificativ de la regiune la regiune. De exemplu, maghiarii formau 29% din populaţie în Transilvania şi 23% în Crişana şi Maramureş, în timp ce germanii reprezentau 24% din numărul locuitorilor din Banat şi 8% din Transilvania. Evreii erau cei mai numeroşi în Bucovina (10,8% din populaţie) şi Basarabia (7%). Minorităţile au constituit un segment important al populaţiei urbane. Evreii reprezentau 30% din populaţia urbană în Bucovina, 27% în Basarabia şi 23% în Moldova. în Transilvania, între 1910-1930, în ciuda schimbării graniţelor, proporţia de neromâni care trăiau în oraşe a crescut, chiar dacă populaţia urbană românească a sporit şi ea de peste două ori. în 1930, 27% din maghiari, 23% din germani şi 10,1% din români (faţă de 10,6% în 1910) locuiau în oraşe. (p.441))

Now moving to his other book, Romanians 1774-1866, beside the aforementioned pages on Bukovina I've also found (on immigrations but also other aspects of life):

Among other foreigners, Jews represented a significant and growing addition to the population, especially in Moldavia. The first Jewish community, formed by immigrants from Turkey, probably settled in Iaşi about the middle of the 17th century. From that time until 1834 the Jews of Moldavia enjoyed a separate organization, the hahambaşie (haham, rabbi) under a chief rabbi. First recognized in 1666 and confrimed on numerous occasions afterwards, it allowed Jews to practice their religion undisturbed and to settle among themselves matters related to their own community, an organization which resembled the autonomous religious communities of the Ottoman millet system. By the beginning of the 18th century Jews, drawn by economic opportunities and relative toleration, had already become sufficiently numerous in certain towns to make possible the formation of their own merchant guilds. By the end of the same century as a result of steady immigration from Austrian Galicia and Bukovina they had also settled in many villages and on the estates of boiers, where they engaged in certain occupations - the lending of money at interest and the sale of spirits, particularly holercă (brandy) imported from Poland - which Christians had tradionally shunned. The first serious complaints against Jewish immigration now began to be heard (note 16: E. Pavlescu, Economia breslelor in Moldova, Bucharest, 1939). In 1782, a large number of boiers urged Prince Alexandru Mavrocordat to drive the Jews from the villages because they were forcing the peasants into debt by usury and thereby causing serious economic harm to landlors. Although the prince acceded to the boiers request, his successors did not pursue the banishment of Jews from the countryside and the situation remained essentialy unchanged. Many princes were motivated by self-interest. They found wealthy Jews merchants and moneylenders useful and depended upon them for loans and other assistance in satisying Ottoman demands for supplies. As early as 1785 Jewish merchants in Iaşi were lending large sums to the prince's treasury (note 17: N. Iorga, 'Istoria evreilor in ţările române', Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice, 1913-1914). Many of these merchants who came from Galicia becaame Austrian sudiţi thereby gaining exemption from local laws and putting their indigenous competitors at a disadvantage. They were, for example, able to elude the prohibition against the leasing of land by Jews, which had been enacted on the grounds it was wrong to allow them to be the 'masters' of Christians. In the early decades of the 19th century a number of Jews thus leased the estates of boiers, who welcomed the opportunity for profit. These lease-holders were the forerunners of those who founded the great land-leasing trusts at the end of the century.

In the first 3 decades of the 19th century the Jewish population of Moldavia tripled from 11,732 in 1803 to 36,956 in 1831, 70% of it being urban. The increase in Iaşi in the same period was even more dramatic, from 2,420 to 17,570, or roughly 36% of the total population.

Although Jewish merchants from Turkey settled in Bucharest as early as the latter half of the 17th century, Jews in Wallachia remained less numerous than in Moldavia. An official census of 1820 showed only one signficant community, that of Bucharest, which was composed of just 127 families. Other documents indicate the presence of a small colony in Craiova and a few individuals in other cities. In 1831 the Jewish population of Wallachia was only 3,316, about 70% of them living in Bucharest. The small number of Jews in Wallachia at this time was undoubtely owing to the principality's distance from the chief centres of Jewish migration.

Manifestations of anti-Semitism based upon racial hatred were absent during the period. The hostility with Jews encountered was that commonly directed against the foreigner and the economic competitor, although religious antagonism, harking back to an earlier era of religious polemics, was also evident. (pp. 71-72)

I've wrote a lot, I know it's only one author, one POV, but maybe it would be nice to integrate the missing relevant information somehow. I also have at home some studies of Oişteanu on Jew's image in Romanian mentality along centuries, maybe some information from there it's worth be put in this article, too. Daizus 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My actual concerns were more editorial: using one quotation from Hitchins' 500 pages book would have looked horrible. I knew he said much more (and still more than you kindly provided), but I don't have access to his entire text. That is to say, we should always welcome more sources, and thank you for providing them. (Also note that other facts mentioned by Hitchins are disseminated throughout the text, and addressed in other paragraphs - since authors I've researched for this seem to arrange information along very diverse criteria, chronology took the precedent here). You see, I was not questioning if the info was factual, just its completeness and placement in the text, while wondering if you were not taking him out of context (by focusing on one of the least characteristic statements in his lengthy analysis of Jewish immigration, and by sending the reader to one page to for what you actually read on other pages - that is why I urged you, in my edit summary, to "use more of him" ).
Feel free to add the info from both sources in the text, but please mind what the text already says. And, yes, more from Oişteanu would also be nice. Dahn 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New points of view

Browsing a study of Andrei Oişteanu - "Evreul imaginar" vs "Evreul real" ("The imaginary Jew" vs "The real Jew") (in Mythos & Logos, Nemira, 2nd ed., 1998, pp. 177-263), the author discusses the "Jew in Romania" topic from some points of view, which IMO they should make it to this article, as well:

  • the image of the Jew in Romanian traditional culture
  • the ethnic stigma (has also focus on Romanian history)
  • antisemtism and nationalism in Romania between World Wars

Should these aspects make new sections or somehow get inserted in the existing ones? Daizus 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To the measure where it is feasible, I think they should be merged into existing sections - generally, articles and sections that focus on historiography alone vs. history with brief historiographic comments duplicate content and verge on the unencycopedic. The best way I can see this done is if you use him as a reference for facts (either backing existing facts or presenting new ones) and evidencing his comments as his own comments ("based on this, Oişteanu has concluded..." etc.). My 2 cents. Dahn 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_the_Jews_in_Romania_f1a2.html"