why are there so many jews in finance and so few in agriculture

interesting blog entry backed by research done by impressive sounding european names so it must be legit

-

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/02/07/why-jews-dont-farm/

In the 1890s, my Eastern European Jewish ancestors emigrated to an American Jewish farming community in Woodbine, N.J., where the millionaire philanthropist Baron de Hirsch provided land, tools, and training at one of the nation’s first agricultural colleges. But within a generation, the family had settled in Philadelphia where they became accountants, tailors, merchants, and eventually, lawyers and college professors.

De Hirsch had a vision of American Jews achieving economic liberation by working the land. If he’d had a better sense of history, he would have built not an agricultural college but a medical school, because for well over a millennium prior to the settlement of Woodbine, Jews had not been farmers—not in Palestine, not in the Muslim empire, not in Western Europe, not in Eastern Europe, not anywhere in the world.

You have to go back almost 2,000 years to find a time when Jews, like virtually every other identifiable group, were primarily an agricultural people. Around A.D. 200, Jews began to quit the land. By the seventh century, Jews had left their farms in large numbers to become craftsmen, artisans, merchants, and moneylenders—the only group to have given up on agriculture. Jewish participation in farming fell to about 10 percent through most of the world; even in Palestine it was only about 25 percent. Everyone else stayed on the farms.

(Even in the modern state of Israel, where agriculture has been an important component of the economy, it’s been a peculiarly capital-intensive form of agriculture, one that employed well under a quarter of the population at the height of the Kibbutz movement, and less than 3 percent of the population today.)

The obvious question is: Why? Why did Jews and only Jews take up urban occupations, and why did it happen so dramatically throughout the world? Two economic historians—Maristella Botticini (of Boston University and Universitá di Torino) and Zvi Eckstein (of Tel Aviv University and the University of Minnesota)—have recently been giving that question a lot of thought.


First, say Botticini and Eckstein, the exodus from farms to towns was probably not a response to discrimination. It’s true that in the Middle Ages, Jews were often prohibited from owning land. But the transition to urban occupations and urban living occurred long before anybody ever thought of those restrictions. In the Muslim world, Jews faced no limits on occupation, land ownership, or anything else that might have been relevant to the choice of whether to farm. Moreover, a prohibition on land ownership is not a prohibition on farming—other groups facing similar restrictions (such as Samaritans) went right on working other people’s land.

Nor, despite an influential thesis by the economic historian Simon Kuznets, can you explain the urbanization of the Jews as an internal attempt to forge and maintain a unique group identity. Samaritans and Christians maintained unique group identities without leaving the land. The Amish maintain a unique group identity to this day, and they’ve done it without giving up their farms.

So, what’s different about the Jews? First, Botticini and Eckstein explain why other groups didn’t leave the land. The temptation was certainly there: Skilled urban jobs have always paid better than farming, and that’s been true since the time of Christ. But those jobs require literacy, which requires education—and for hundreds of years, education was so expensive that it proved a poor investment despite those higher wages. (Botticini and Eckstein have data on ancient teachers’ salaries to back this up.) So, rational economic calculus dictated that pretty much everyone should have stayed on the farms.

But the Jews (like everyone else) were beholden not just to economic rationalism, but also to the dictates of their religion. And the Jewish religion, unique among religions of the early Middle Ages, imposed an obligation to be literate. To be a good Jew you had to read the Torah four times a week at services: twice on the Sabbath, and once every Monday and Thursday morning. And to be a good Jewish parent you had to educate your children so that they could do the same.

The literacy obligation had two effects. First, it meant that Jews were uniquely qualified to enter higher-paying urban occupations. Of course, anyone else who wanted to could have gone to school and become a moneylender, but school was so expensive that it made no sense. Jews, who had to go to school for religious reasons, naturally sought to earn at least some return on their investment. Only many centuries later did education start to make sense economically, and by then the Jews had become well established in banking, trade, and so forth.

The second effect of the literacy obligation was to drive a lot of Jews away from their religion. Botticini and Eckstein admit that they have little direct evidence for this conclusion, but there’s a lot of indirect evidence. First, it makes sense: People do tend to run away from expensive obligations. Second, we can look at population trends: While the world population increased from 50 million in the sixth century to 285 million in the 18th, the population of Jews remained almost fixed at just a little over a million. Why were the Jews not expanding when everyone else was? We don’t know for sure, but a reasonable guess is that a lot of Jews were becoming Christians and Muslims.

So—which Jews stuck with Judaism? Presumably those with a particularly strong attachment to their religion and/or a particularly strong attachment to education for education’s sake. (The burden of acquiring an education is, after all, less of a burden for those who enjoy being educated.) The result: Over time, you’re left with a population of people who enjoy education, are required by their religion to be educated, and are particularly attached to their religion. Naturally, these people tend to become educated. And once they’re educated, they leave the farms.

Striking parallels to brahmins. Brahmins started to abandon land fromaround 200 years back.

truthbetold wrote:Striking parallels to brahmins. Brahmins started to abandon land fromaround 200 years back.

What is the next parallel? Food restrictions?

truthbetold wrote:Striking parallels to brahmins. Brahmins started to abandon land fromaround 200 years back.

There is something the article or you fail to notice.

Both the jews and brahmins (in many areas) were targetted and the first thing an oppressor does is to take the land away, then homes, then jewelry, then women, etc..

naturally, brahmins started losing land/farming 200 years ago, while jews lost land/farming 2000 years ago...

What is there to research - just common sense, and understanding of history and human behavior.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Striking parallels to brahmins. Brahmins started to abandon land fromaround 200 years back.

There is something the article or you fail to notice.

Both the jews and brahmins (in many areas) were targetted and the first thing an oppressor does is to take the land away, then homes, then jewelry, then women, etc..

naturally, brahmins started losing land/farming 200 years ago, while jews lost land/farming 2000 years ago...

What is there to research - just common sense, and understanding of history and human behavior.

fail. bad fail.

equating jews and brahmins is very self serving. did brahmins suffer genocide and extermination? no comparison.

besides the persecution parallels bullshit that uppili and a couple others peddle in pathetic self-aggrandizement-by-spurious-association attempts (very similar to NI brahmin attempts to align themselves with "white aryans"), they were involved in very very different occupations and had very very different histories over the ages. history of europe, jewry or otherwise, is extremely different compared with that of india's. history is supposed to be an accurate record of what happened and not one that can be bent and interpreted to suit one's purpose by applying "common sense".

Propagandhi711 wrote:besides the persecution parallels bullshit that uppili and a couple others peddle in pathetic self-aggrandizement-by-spurious-association attempts (very similar to NI brahmin attempts to align themselves with "white aryans"), they were involved in very very different occupations and had very very different histories over the ages. history of europe, jewry or otherwise, is extremely different compared with that of india's. history is supposed to be an accurate record of what happened and not one that can be bent and interpreted to suit one's purpose by applying "common sense".

Haven't you heard that history is written by the victorious. Any history written by the losers will talk about victimization and unfair treatment.

jews faced genocide - until the WW2 no one talked about Jewish genocide. Hindus - brahmins were targetted on a large scale - were systematically eliminated over a 1000 years and the number killed run into 10s of millions.

there is no pity or accusation or playing victims. That is what the history says and I am giving my interpretation. People who are defeated were robbed of their land and they move to another location. Jews did that for 2000 years and the brahmins did that for 200 tears. no one is sayng one is worse than the other. It is just the way it is.

===> Why is the Jewish holocaust so special?

Is it because they were mostly Europeans?

The Jewish Holocaust was precedented and superseded by Leopold’s 30M Holocaust of Africa’s Congo

http://www.newsrescue.com/2009/06/the-jewish-holocaust-was-precedented-and-superseded-by-leopolds-30m-holocaust-of-africas-congo/

Stalin butchered 20 million Ruskies.

2 million Armenians were butchered by the Turks.

Pol Pot massacred some 4 mil.

Gypsies were butchered throughout their history.

Every "tribe" thinks it was massacred at some point. The Koreans, the Chinese, Japs.

Even the jewish massacre was mostly economics although religion was used as a reason.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Stalin butchered 20 million Ruskies.

2 million Armenians were butchered by the Turks.

Pol Pot massacred some 4 mil.

Gypsies were butchered throughout their history.

Every "tribe" thinks it was massacred at some point. The Koreans, the Chinese, Japs.

Even the jewish massacre was mostly economics although religion was used as a reason.

And don't forget the biggest massacre that Will Durant won't Durant; the partition in 1947.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Both the jews and brahmins (in many areas) were targetted and the first thing an oppressor does is to take the land away, then homes, then jewelry, then women, etc..

naturally, brahmins started losing land/farming 200 years ago

Who was the oppressor of the brahmins who started oppressing them 200 years ago?

Thanks for posting this article DUT.

Interesting read, am always curious/ interested in reading about the so called "Chosen people"

Migration patterns were also factors, besides Religion and Education. You may have heard about Sephardi(c) Jews (a subtribe, if you will), think were/are more inclined to lean towards Agriculture.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Stalin butchered 20 million Ruskies.

2 million Armenians were butchered by the Turks.

Pol Pot massacred some 4 mil.

Gypsies were butchered throughout their history.

Every "tribe" thinks it was massacred at some point. The Koreans, the Chinese, Japs.

Even the jewish massacre was mostly economics although religion was used as a reason.

1) parallels with brahmins?
2) your first two numbers are exaggerated by a factor of 2.

Maria S wrote:Thanks for posting this article DUT.

Interesting read, am always curious/ interested in reading about the so called "Chosen people"

Migration patterns were also factors, besides Religion and Education. You may have heard about Sephardi(c) Jews (a subtribe, if you will), think were/are more inclined to lean towards Agriculture.

Genesis 12:2

Ah, thanks Angel!

They have been certainly blessed..aren't they (used to have a problem as a child with that.."how come they are the chosen/blessed people?") And the kind Adults would try to pacify me and explain..but, I think with time..have reconciled with that! Although..well, today is Shrove Tuesday- prep for Lent..will move on!

Unfortunately got to work..and No Mardi Gras fun..just a nice Pancake supper tonight! (A lot of work- helping to make thousands them *usually about a thousand people are invited, but, it's fun too:)

I dont think the Jews are the chosen ones .They might think so

From time immemorial they have controlled the purse strings of the world selfishly too and thats why hounded throughout Europe

they are not labourers

to give them credit they make the best composers scientists inventors

overall they are the most liberal people with an open mind

Even in the US when Indian rallies are held its the Jews who attend .They are what make up the ACLU ( civil liberties )

Made a niche for themselves in the US .. hard to dislodge for anyone now

Chameli,

I was simply talking about perceptions in various environments- influences growing up.

Frankly, if I ever believed that any "group" of people was chosen over others..my Christian faith would be of no value (to me!)

My tax dollars and my dear Govt's support of Israel may be chosen, but, I do have problems with that..a lot of policy issues..

Having said that..I recently met two young Israeli Jews, one male and one female in their 20s as co passengers during my long transatlantic flights..had some very interesting conversations..with them and gained some insights..about how they feel. I am not sure if they were so liberal..but they have such "unwavering"..pride as Jews- the support they get from their Govt seems to be on a whole diff. level..adds to their "security" of feeling the way they do.

Maria S wrote:Chameli,

I was simply talking about perceptions in various environments- influences growing up.

Frankly, if I ever believed that any "group" of people was chosen over others..my Christian faith would be of no value (to me!)

My tax dollars and my dear Govt's support of Israel may be chosen, but, I do have problems with that..a lot of policy issues..

Having said that..I recently met two young Israeli Jews, one male and one female in their 20s as co passengers during my long transatlantic flights..had some very interesting conversations..with them and gained some insights..about how they feel. I am not sure if they were so liberal..but they have such "unwavering"..pride as Jews- the support they get from their Govt seems to be on a whole diff. level..adds to their "security" of feeling the way they do.

The best reason to support Israel, beyond ideology, is one of pragmatism. That is the best bulwark against a Pan-Islamic empire.

The best reason to support Israel, beyond ideology, is one of pragmatism. That is the best bulwark against a Pan-Islamic empire.

__________

Whether it is the "right thing" to do or not..agree that there is some strategic basis also to it.

But, it's the "multiple standards"...while using this 'strategic excuse'..at the same time, we can't continue to support and also pour money into the Rich Regimes/Dictators (like Saudi Arabia) which are hardcore Islamic..while not being compassionate to the Arab masses..who are paying the price.

I understand it's like a chess game..moving pieces all the time..

I just hope Israel does not get US into a war with Iran at this time, what a waste- that would be.

Hellsangel wrote:The best reason to support Israel, beyond ideology, is one of pragmatism. That is the best bulwark against a Pan-Islamic empire.

As far-fetched arguments for supporting Israel in its excesses go, this one takes the cake.

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The best reason to support Israel, beyond ideology, is one of pragmatism. That is the best bulwark against a Pan-Islamic empire.

As far-fetched arguments for supporting Israel in its excesses go, this one takes the cake.

oh no. the admin is supporting the enemy. this can't be good. THINK THINK. do something.

Who is the enemy Tracy? Me? Angel?

Care to enlighten me?

I feel like I am lost in the Middle East now..not sure who is who's enemy or friend !

M, I am just channelising someone else. I am not sure if I am supposed to take his name or not, purported, or real, or purported real, or handle, or even nick name.

so scary, this new space is.

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The best reason to support Israel, beyond ideology, is one of pragmatism. That is the best bulwark against a Pan-Islamic empire.

As far-fetched arguments for supporting Israel in its excesses go, this one takes the cake.

Not really. There is one Democracy and only one Democracy that thrives in the Middle East. Ideologically Pan-Islamism cannot reconcile with democracy. Can you imagine a world where Israel is not in a position to hit back at the Hamas and Hezbollah?

Maria S wrote:I understand it's like a chess game..moving pieces all the time..

Indeed. Those who want to support Israel for religious reasons now advance post-facto reasons like "it's a bulwark against a pan-Islamic empire." Nonsense. There was no threat of pan-Islamic empire when America decided to support Israel, mostly for religious reasons. The original alliance of US Jews and evangelical Christians who see the recreation of Israel as a precursor to the second coming of Christ came together very much on religious lines. They successfully exploited the sympathy that most Americans felt for the Jewish people in the wake of the Holocaust to create the political support America has always extended Israel. If anything, the threat of pan-Islamic empire is increased by America's abiding support for Israel even as Israel's extreme policies.

M, I am just channelising someone else. I am not sure if I am supposed to take his name or not, purported, or real, or purported real, or handle, or even nick name.

_______

!

I am so out of the loop..did not know/don't want to know more!

I am withdrawing my question, thanks Tracy!

Hellsangel wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The best reason to support Israel, beyond ideology, is one of pragmatism. That is the best bulwark against a Pan-Islamic empire.

As far-fetched arguments for supporting Israel in its excesses go, this one takes the cake.

Not really. There is one Democracy and only one Democracy that thrives in the Middle East.

Israel should not call itself a democracy until it lets all the people within its territory vote. Israel is as much a democracy as apartheid South Africa was. That is not much of a bulwark against any sort of empire.

Hellsangel wrote:Ideologically Pan-Islamism cannot reconcile with democracy. Can you imagine a world where Israel is not in a position to hit back at the Hamas and Hezbollah?

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah would exist in a world without Israel's occupation of Palestine and the treatment of its people as third-class citizens.

Indeed. Those who want to support Israel for religious reasons now advance post-facto reasons like "it's a bulwark against a pan-Islamic empire." Nonsense. There was no threat of pan-Islamic empire when America decided to support Israel, mostly for religious reasons. The original alliance of US Jews and evangelical Christians who see the recreation of Israel as a precursor to the second coming of Christ came together very much on religious lines. They successfully exploited the sympathy that most Americans felt for the Jewish people in the wake of the Holocaust to create the political support America has always extended Israel. If anything, the threat of pan-Islamic empire is increased by America's abiding support for Israel even as Israel's extreme policies.

________

Well said Carvaka !

charvaka wrote:

Maria S wrote:I understand it's like a chess game..moving pieces all the time..

Indeed. Those who want to support Israel for religious reasons now advance post-facto reasons like "it's a bulwark against a pan-Islamic empire." Nonsense. There was no threat of pan-Islamic empire when America decided to support Israel, mostly for religious reasons. The original alliance of US Jews and evangelical Christians who see the recreation of Israel as a precursor to the second coming of Christ came together very much on religious lines. They successfully exploited the sympathy that most Americans felt for the Jewish people in the wake of the Holocaust to create the political support America has always extended Israel. If anything, the threat of pan-Islamic empire is increased by America's abiding support for Israel even as Israel's extreme policies.

The reality of the situation is Israel exists. The Arab nations hope to secretly destroy it and hope the terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will do the job for them after what happened in the 48, 67 and 73 wars. The Pan-Islamic empire concept has existed since the times of the Ottoman empire. How else would you explain the Khilafat movement?

The reality of the situation is Israel exists. The Arab nations hope to secretly destroy it and hope the terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will do the job for them after what happened in the 48, 67 and 73 wars. The Pan-Islamic empire concept has existed since the times of the Ottoman empire. How else would you explain the Khilafat movement?

__________

I think the world has changed a lot..Arabs are far more sophisticated now..and every Arab country has its "own self-interests"..and not interested in building any common "empire"..sure, they are sympathetic toward Palestinians and want a Palestinian Homeland, but, that's about it..and if Israel by some miracle- allows that to happen, feelings will dramatically change, imo.

We can dehumanize Orgs- like Hamas and Hezbollah..but, to "their" people who support them..they are Orgs- who fight for their freedom and rights..and are no match to the Israel's power and might.

I think..the trend in general, in the future will be to break up into smaller countries (like what happened in the Soviet Union )..and not build big Empires.

*On a different note, nice to see you write paragraphs today:)! I remember the days..when we did talk more as Mr. Libertarian and Ms. Democrat:) Since then..I have become more of a Ms. Independent..looks like you have become more of a Mr.Republican!

Hellsangel wrote:The Arab nations hope to secretly destroy it

That's a conspiracy theory. Wikileaks memos showed that the Arab regimes actually support Israel's plans vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear program, for instance. They secretly hope that Israel will bomb Iran to stop the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. That should show you how big the schism within Islam is, never mind this bogeyman of a pan-Islamic empire. If Israel never came to be, the Middle East would still be unstable today, thanks to the Sunni-Shia rivalry. For all the ambitious talk of Islamic ummah and all that nonsense, there has not been a single ruler since Mohammad who kept the Muslims all united under one government.

Hellsangel wrote:The Pan-Islamic empire concept has existed since the times of the Ottoman empire. How else would you explain the Khilafat movement?

The concept has existed just like the Zionist concept and the European concept of Christianity conquering the whole world. But the reality is that even the Ottoman Empire fought lots of Muslim regimes, the most prominent of them being Safavid (and later) Iran.

Maria S wrote:The reality of the situation is Israel exists. The Arab nations hope to secretly destroy it and hope the terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will do the job for them after what happened in the 48, 67 and 73 wars. The Pan-Islamic empire concept has existed since the times of the Ottoman empire. How else would you explain the Khilafat movement?

__________

I think the world has changed a lot..Arabs are far more sophisticated now..and every Arab country has its "own self-interests"..and not interested in building any common "empire"..sure, they are sympathetic toward Palestinians and want a Palestinian Homeland, but, that's about it..and if Israel by some miracle- allows that to happen, feelings will dramatically change, imo.

We can dehumanize Orgs- like Hamas and Hezbollah..but, to "their" people who support them..they are Orgs- who fight for their freedom and rights..and are no match to the Israel's power and might.

I think..the trend in general, in the future will be to break up into smaller countries (like what happened in the Soviet Union )..and not build big Empires.

*On a different note, nice to see you write paragraphs today:)! I remember the days..when we did talk more as Mr. Libertarian and Ms. Democrat:) Since then..I have become more of a Ms. Independent..looks like you have become more of a Mr.Republican!

Genesis 16:11

Oh, No! What have I done! I have jinxed the nice paras now !

Well, I guess prophecies..have to unfold! I wonder about them too..

truthbetold wrote:Striking parallels to brahmins. Brahmins started to abandon land fromaround 200 years back.

It is amusing to see the many directions this thread took. The parallels I saw were (a) both Jews and brahmins stuck to education for religious reasons even in times of minimal benefits. (b) Both left rural areas and left farming to seek better future in towns. (c) both effectively used education to reach top of modern knowledge society.

I can add few more similarities that are not touched upon in the article. Both Jews and brahmins are.intensely attached to their cultures and try to preserve it even in distant lands.

Finally both are very argumentative.

Charvaka,
brahmins were forced out of villages more due to economic opportunities than social oppression. But it is also true that invading armies were particularly brutal to brahmons. Annamaya ancestors were said to from gangs plains who escaped persecution

One more similarity between Jews and brahmins. Compared to rest of the society, individuals belonging to these communities are hugely successful in higher education. They make up disprotionately larger chunk of high paying professional, knowledge workers.

truthbetold wrote:brahmins were forced out of villages more due to economic opportunities than social oppression.

If brahmins left the villages for better economic opportunities in the cities, I won't consider that being "forced out." It is a process that still plays out today, for a number of other communities that still live off the land. As agricultural productivity rises with mechanization, more and more people will find more value for their labor outside agriculture. I don't consider that persecution of any sort.

truthbetold wrote:But it is also true that invading armies were particularly brutal to brahmons. Annamaya ancestors were said to from gangs plains who escaped persecution

I don't know if that always played out in that direction. Brahmins played important roles in the administrations of various Islamic states, thanks to their focus on learning and literacy. When Sher Shah Suri and later Akbar formalized administration in India, literacy and knowledge of multiple languages became important attributes for government employees. Brahmins -- thanks to their historical roles as priests -- had an inherent advantage there. There is a subcaste within Telugu brahmins (niyogis) for instance who gave up priestly responsibilities many generations ago, and focused exclusively on public administration. I suspect you will find similar examples of brahmin communities elsewhere in India.