The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Historic place names should not be changed to appease the Jews.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 53614
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




The small town of Castrillo Matajudios in Spain has had its name since 1492 but now, 522 years later, meddling Jews from Israel and other parts of the world are demanding the town change its name just because "matajudios" happens to mean "kill the Jews" in Spanish. [1,2]

While it is true that there used to be a sizeable Jewish population in Spain, most of them were killed, exiled or converted during the Spanish Inquisition, so these days only 0.03% of the Spanish population are Jewish, and none of them live in Castrillo Matajudios. [3]

Therefore, the town's name is unlikely to cause widespread offense in Spain but, nevertheless, Jews from abroad have putting pressure on the mayor to do their bidding and because he is desperate not to be labelled as an "anti-Semite" he was obliged to put the issue of the town's name to a vote. [4]

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in the United States, the Jews forced the residents of Mont Vernon to vote to change the name of a nearby body of water called Jew's Pond because the verb "Jew" now means to cheat and "Jew down" means to aggressively bargain on a price [5,6}.

Similarly, "Jewry" has now become a byword for unscrupulous business practices [7] and there are roads in The City of London called Old Jewry and Jewry Street [8,9]. I would hate to see the Jews put pressure on the Lord Mayor of London to change these ancient street names as well.

Following the Second World War, very generously, but with hindsight, somewhat recklessly, the British gave the Jews a homeland in Palestine [10]. If the Jews want to meddle with ancient place names they should do so there, but nowhere else. Certainly, we must not cave in to their demands if they do.

Thank you.



If it makes some Jews happy, and nobody else minds, then why not? It's not like they're forcing anyone to change place names. They're just bringing up things they think are issues, and trying to get them changed. They're not trying to force anyone to change them. So why not? Let's now turn to refuting your examples.

Let's start with Carleton pond. This name was first officially used around 1920, which doesn't make it very historical. It's been knows as Carleton pond and spring pond as well for most of that time, anyway. Also, there was a town vote about it. It was changed to make the town happy, not just a group of angry Jews.

Matajudios will also be put up to vote soon, so if it is changed it will be a decision of the town. If your still concerned about the historical value, it is thought the original name was not Castrillo Matajudios, but rather Castrillo Motajudios, Hill of the Jews.

I have yet to hear word of complaints about the name of the financial centre of London, Old Jewry Road. In fact I would think many Jews would be flattered.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent seeks to portray Jews as happy-go-lucky types who do not have a persecution complex but the evidence suggests otherwise.

In a recent op-ed in Israel National News relating to Castrillo Matajudios the commentator wrote: "It doesn"t matter whether that Spanish town changes its shameful name. Europe still dribbles for the view of a Jewish bloodbath. It still romanticizes and celebrates the death of Jews." [1]

This, of course, is patent nonsense. I have lived in Europe all my life and I am happy to confirm that not everyone, in fact no one I have ever met, is a frothing racist who is clamouring for someone to finish the job that Hitler started.

As well as having a persecution complex many Jews are openly aggressive and yearn for Palestinian civilians to be bombed in their refugee camps. In another Israel National News op-ed the author wrote; "If ever there was a need for a pre-emptive surprise strike to take out these missile batteries, it is the present. If the "Palestinians" chose to locate these missile batteries in and around their civilian population centres, any collateral damage should be of no concern to Israel."

The author then calls youths who throw stones at Israeli Defence Force (IDF) troops who illegally occupy Palestine as "terrorists" and says the army should open fire on them: "The gloves coming off should include bringing an end to all hostility in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. No longer should the IDF be taunted by rock throwing Arabs and be expected to do nothing. In short the IDF"s current restraint and paralysis in this arena should be the failed policy of the past and any future acts of terror be confronted by ruthless and overwhelming force."

The author goes on to suggest that the Jews should seize the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam: "Israel should finally take control of the Temple Mount, Judaism holiest site, where both Temples stood."

Then he suggests that Israel should deny the Palestinian people humanitarian supplies and charities criticise this move should be expelled: "Now it is time for Israel to take unilateral action on borders, hand the welfare of people outside those borders to the UNHCR, Jordan, Egypt or whoever and to expel all foreign and hostile NGO"s."

Moving on to the Bedouin Arabs in Israel he suggests that the Israeli government should confiscate their land: "Bedouin land claims in the Negev need to be once and for all denied".

The future looks bleak for black people in Israel too: "(the) 60,000 Africans (living in Israel) need to be deported en masse."

Regarding the future status of Jerusalem he has this to say: "Arab fantasies about a capital in Jerusalem should no longer be entertained, the Palestinian Authority"s office in east Jerusalem shut down and a warning given that the slightest provocation will ensure that supplies of electricity to the "Palestinians" from the Israeli grid will no longer be available 24/7." [2]

You may say these are the rantings of a right-wing extremist, and you"d be right, but you will see that he gets unanimous praise from his fellow Jews in the comments section and, remember, the Israel public have elected an extreme right-wing government, so his views are clearly representative.

In conclusion, the Jews (wrongly) believe that they are widely persecuted against and use this as an excuse to persecute other groups and also to impose votes on towns abroad with whose names they have objections.

Thank you.



I only had to read about a quarter of that to realize it was just a drawn out attack on Israel and its inhabitants, with not much relation to the argument. Every nation and race has people you aren't going to like, and people that aren't too bad. You can't generalize a whole race based on the few that make the headlines.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mantizah 2 years ago
Now THAT is some cool history.
Posted by Watchemoket 2 years ago
Although nowhere near as significant, there has been a movement in Rhode Island, USA, to change that state's name for reasons of the evolving meaning of a word. The full name of Rhode Island is "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" (the smallest state with the longest name). When the original colony was founded in 1639, the word 'plantation' meant a farm. Many years later, the 'plantations' of the American South were run using slave labor. That connection between 'plantation' and slavery seems to have permanently tainted the former.
To date, the issue has simply simmered.
Posted by Mantizah 2 years ago
old jewry london
No votes have been placed for this debate.