Is that part aimed at me...?
You made a mealy mouthed hint that is was “possible” that in other places “some” of the oppressors were not white. Implying that there was never oppression where white people were involved. And you’ve made it very clear you think the majority of the oppression in history was done by white people.
It’s simply not true. For a relatively short period in the past it was true. But it that is only one example out of thousands and thousands of examples of oppression in history. It’s a selective and biased interpretation of history.
....
I did not make any of these points.
Back to the possible anti-Semitism and whether I 'misinterpreted' your comment:
You made a comparison between imo occasionally misguided but still primarily non-violent reactions to the many cases of systematic oppression perpetrated by white people
and the 'reactions' Jewish people faced for hundreds of years for imagined wrongdoings like deicide or doing their best to deal with employment restriction laws and systematic discrimination (=money lending...)
or the money making activities of a few money lenders or blacksmiths. But a poor peasant Jew living on the Steppes or a child living in Hamburg or a teenage girl in Amsterdam or pregnant Jewish women in medieval London were to blame.
Still sounds to me like the money lender was indeed to blame (in your opinion)...
Seeing as you're making an argument about not blaming a whole race for the real wrongdoings (like systematic oppression) by certain individuals/past generations...
It gives accusation of deicide, inhuman money lending practices (or modern banking conspiracies...) An unfortunate amount of... Respectability.
It's a bit like using the 'original sin' and how it caused / was used to justify sexist medical practices when trying to make an argument about not blaming all men for the actions of a few rapists.
It's apples and oranges. Or more like... Spinach and ice cream.