Another look at "anti-semitism".

[Pogo]

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Really? You DO understand that one's religion and one's language is directly related to the culture one was born into and raised with, yes? Obviously, both religion and language are PARTS of that culture.

That's kind of what I'm saying. In order to be Jewish--- is it necessary to speak Hebrew? Or Arabic? Or Amharic? If your native tongue is English does that somehow prevent you from being Jewish? Can you not speak German or Russian or Hungarian and still follow Judaism?

I was raised Catholic --- yet I do not speak Latin. Am I off the hook for all those lost years?

 

[Pogo]

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Your being this deliberately obtuse reveals your agenda more than you know.

Hey dood --- I'm just following exactly what the title says. Deal with it. My "agenda", as I already said back on page one, is linguistic clarity.

 

[Shusha]

That's kind of what I'm saying. In order to be Jewish--- is it necessary to speak Hebrew? Or Arabic? Or Amharic? If your native tongue is English does that somehow prevent you from being Jewish? Can you not speak German or Russian or Hungarian and still follow Judaism?

Well, I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be Jewish and not have at least some understanding of Hebrew. I would also argue that the removal of a language (such as Hebrew, or Catalan or Te Reo or Salishan) from a culture would invariably be the result of some sort of destruction of that culture through invasion, conquest, colonization or some other ultimately negative interaction with external influences.

 

[Pogo]

That's kind of what I'm saying. In order to be Jewish--- is it necessary to speak Hebrew? Or Arabic? Or Amharic? If your native tongue is English does that somehow prevent you from being Jewish? Can you not speak German or Russian or Hungarian and still follow Judaism?

Well, I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be Jewish and not have at least some understanding of Hebrew. I would also argue that the removal of a language (such as Hebrew, or Catalan or Te Reo or Salishan) from a culture would invariably be the result of some sort of destruction of that culture through invasion, conquest, colonization or some other ultimately negative interaction with external influences.

I would agree with part two, don't know enough about part one though I'm pretty sure there are Jews in good Jewish standing who don't have Hebrew.

On the other hand the most common Semitic language isn't Hebrew -- it's Arabic. By orders of magnitude. And the second most common is Amharic -- further illegitimizing the term "antiSemitic", even if it were logical to equate language with religion.

 

[Shusha]

I would agree with part two, don't know enough about part one though I'm pretty sure there are Jews in good Jewish standing who don't have Hebrew.

Arguable. You are applying non-Jewish standards of what it means to adopt a religious faith to an entirely alien way of thinking about religion and how it relates to and intersects with culture. The Jewish people don't have that distinction. The entire distinction is meaningless to Jews. Further, if any particular Jewish person does not have Hebrew, it is a direct result of the destruction of the Jewish culture through invasion, conquest, colonization and dispersion. Fortunately, the Jewish culture is remarkably difficult to root out, in part because of the intersection of religion and culture.

On the other hand the most common Semitic language isn't Hebrew -- it's Arabic. By orders of magnitude. And the second most common is Amharic -- further illegitimizing the term "antiSemitic", even if it were logical to equate language with religion.

Again, this is due to both the destruction of other Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Aramaic) and the wide spread of the Arabic language through invasion and conquest.

 

[Pogo]

I would agree with part two, don't know enough about part one though I'm pretty sure there are Jews in good Jewish standing who don't have Hebrew.

Arguable. You are applying non-Jewish standards of what it means to adopt a religious faith to an entirely alien way of thinking about religion and how it relates to and intersects with culture. The Jewish people don't have that distinction. The entire distinction is meaningless to Jews. Further, if any particular Jewish person does not have Hebrew, it is a direct result of the destruction of the Jewish culture through invasion, conquest, colonization and dispersion. Fortunately, the Jewish culture is remarkably difficult to root out, in part because of the intersection of religion and culture.

On the other hand the most common Semitic language isn't Hebrew -- it's Arabic. By orders of magnitude. And the second most common is Amharic -- further illegitimizing the term "antiSemitic", even if it were logical to equate language with religion.

Again, this is due to both the destruction of other Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Aramaic) and the wide spread of the Arabic language through invasion and conquest.

What it's "due to" is irrelevant. If some guy is going to coin a phrase meaning "anti-Jewish", it is not logical for him to (a) conflate languages with religions, and (b) if he's going to do (a), to then use a general umbrella term that in most cases doesn't even apply to his relgio-linguistic term anyway. In other words it would have been more logical to coin "antiSemitic" to mean opposition to Islam ---- even though, once again back to (a) --- "being a Muslim" and "speaking Arabic" are still two different things.

Or to express it another way we can safely say that far more people who speak a Semitic language are Muslim, than are Jewish. It's possible more are Christian than are Jewish too.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Your being this deliberately obtuse reveals your agenda more than you know.

Hey dood --- I'm just following exactly what the title says. Deal with it. My "agenda", as I already said back on page one, is linguistic clarity.

Do you think you are actually fooling anybody with that one, little boy?

I knew the meaning of the term 50 years ago, and not only am I anything but Jewish, but I grew up in an extremely rural area with no Jewish people for miles.

You have no excuse, yet you keep prattling on making a complete fool of yourself. .

 

[Pogo]

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Your being this deliberately obtuse reveals your agenda more than you know.

Hey dood --- I'm just following exactly what the title says. Deal with it. My "agenda", as I already said back on page one, is linguistic clarity.

Do you think you are actually fooling anybody with that one, little boy?

I knew the meaning of the term 50 years ago, and not only am I anything but Jewish, but I grew up in an extremely rural area with no Jewish people for miles.

You have no excuse, yet you keep prattling on making a complete fool of yourself. .

--- and it 50 years it never occurred to you to question its validity.

Yeah exactly.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Your being this deliberately obtuse reveals your agenda more than you know.

Hey dood --- I'm just following exactly what the title says. Deal with it. My "agenda", as I already said back on page one, is linguistic clarity.

Do you think you are actually fooling anybody with that one, little boy?

I knew the meaning of the term 50 years ago, and not only am I anything but Jewish, but I grew up in an extremely rural area with no Jewish people for miles.

You have no excuse, yet you keep prattling on making a complete fool of yourself. .

--- and it 50 years it never occurred to you to question its validity.

Yeah exactly.

Unlike you, I understood the reason it was coined and knew how it was trying to legitimize a hatred.

Of course, my IQ is considerably Higher than yours, so I do not arrive at a position without understanding it.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

That's kind of what I'm saying. In order to be Jewish--- is it necessary to speak Hebrew? Or Arabic? Or Amharic? If your native tongue is English does that somehow prevent you from being Jewish? Can you not speak German or Russian or Hungarian and still follow Judaism?

Well, I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be Jewish and not have at least some understanding of Hebrew. I would also argue that the removal of a language (such as Hebrew, or Catalan or Te Reo or Salishan) from a culture would invariably be the result of some sort of destruction of that culture through invasion, conquest, colonization or some other ultimately negative interaction with external influences.

I would agree with part two, don't know enough about part one though I'm pretty sure there are Jews in good Jewish standing who don't have Hebrew.

On the other hand the most common Semitic language isn't Hebrew -- it's Arabic. By orders of magnitude. And the second most common is Amharic -- further illegitimizing the term "antiSemitic", even if it were logical to equate language with religion.

Of course Jews around the world don't know Hebrew like Israeli Jews. But I would be presumptuous enough to say that most Jews have some kind of elementary or rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, even if it's only to get thru their Bar or Bat Mitzvah. They would, at the very least, know the Hebrew alphabet. The more educated a Jew is, the better his or her Hebrew is, and Jews prize education. When someone converts to Judaism, they almost always start learning Hebrew right away. I don't know if it's that way with Catholics and the Latin language.

 

[Pogo]

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Your being this deliberately obtuse reveals your agenda more than you know.

Hey dood --- I'm just following exactly what the title says. Deal with it. My "agenda", as I already said back on page one, is linguistic clarity.

Do you think you are actually fooling anybody with that one, little boy?

I knew the meaning of the term 50 years ago, and not only am I anything but Jewish, but I grew up in an extremely rural area with no Jewish people for miles.

You have no excuse, yet you keep prattling on making a complete fool of yourself. .

--- and it 50 years it never occurred to you to question its validity.

Yeah exactly.

Unlike you, I understood the reason it was coined and knew how it was trying to legitimize a hatred.

Of course, my IQ is considerably Higher than yours, so I do not arrive at a position without understanding it.

Izzat right.

Why don't you essplain to the class how Semitic speakers are "Jews" then.

 

[Pogo]

That's kind of what I'm saying. In order to be Jewish--- is it necessary to speak Hebrew? Or Arabic? Or Amharic? If your native tongue is English does that somehow prevent you from being Jewish? Can you not speak German or Russian or Hungarian and still follow Judaism?

Well, I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be Jewish and not have at least some understanding of Hebrew. I would also argue that the removal of a language (such as Hebrew, or Catalan or Te Reo or Salishan) from a culture would invariably be the result of some sort of destruction of that culture through invasion, conquest, colonization or some other ultimately negative interaction with external influences.

I would agree with part two, don't know enough about part one though I'm pretty sure there are Jews in good Jewish standing who don't have Hebrew.

On the other hand the most common Semitic language isn't Hebrew -- it's Arabic. By orders of magnitude. And the second most common is Amharic -- further illegitimizing the term "antiSemitic", even if it were logical to equate language with religion.

Of course Jews around the world don't know Hebrew like Israeli Jews. But I would be presumptuous enough to say that most Jews have some kind of elementary or rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, even if it's only to get thru their Bar or Bat Mitzvah. They would, at the very least, know the Hebrew alphabet. The more educated a Jew is, the better his or her Hebrew is, and Jews prize education. When someone converts to Judaism, they almost always start learning Hebrew right away. I don't know if it's that way with Catholics and the Latin language.

Eh - not really. There was a time when a congregation had to call-and-respond in Latin even if you didn't know what you were saying. And altar boys had to know more. But again, if someone coined a term that would mean a hatred of Catholics, they'd be unlikely to go with "anti-romancism". Wouldn't make sense. Why not just say directly what you mean, sez I.

As for Hebrew, even if we could say all Jews spoke it--- any given "Semitic language speaker" anywhere is far more likely to be speaking Arabic than Hebrew. And in either case it still wouldn't tell us anything about the speaker's religion.

 

[Shusha]

If some guy is going to coin a phrase meaning "anti-Jewish", it is not logical for him to (a) conflate languages with religions, and (b) if he's going to do (a), to then use a general umbrella term that in most cases doesn't even apply to his relgio-linguistic term anyway. In other words it would have been more logical to coin "antiSemitic" to mean opposition to Islam ---- even though, once again back to (a) --- "being a Muslim" and "speaking Arabic" are still two different things.

Sure. It would have been more logical to come up with a more accurate term if one's goal was to create an accurate linguistic term. Languages don't always work that way. The term has already been coined. It has an accepted and readily understood meaning. That has been the meaning since the beginning, and it remains the meaning now. Sure. Let's call it a poor choice.

The question on the table is why one would deliberately insist on removing the meaning of an already accepted and readily understood term to mean something else. What purpose does it serve? We don't buy your explanation that it is strictly an interest in the English language.

 

[Pogo]

If some guy is going to coin a phrase meaning "anti-Jewish", it is not logical for him to (a) conflate languages with religions, and (b) if he's going to do (a), to then use a general umbrella term that in most cases doesn't even apply to his relgio-linguistic term anyway. In other words it would have been more logical to coin "antiSemitic" to mean opposition to Islam ---- even though, once again back to (a) --- "being a Muslim" and "speaking Arabic" are still two different things.

Sure. It would have been more logical to come up with a more accurate term if one's goal was to create an accurate linguistic term. Languages don't always work that way. The term has already been coined. It has an accepted and readily understood meaning. That has been the meaning since the beginning, and it remains the meaning now. Sure. Let's call it a poor choice.

The question on the table is why one would deliberately insist on removing the meaning of an already accepted and readily understood term to mean something else. What purpose does it serve? We don't buy your explanation that it is strictly an interest in the English language.

Simply because it doesn't mean what it means to mean. What other purpose could there possibly be?

Who's "we"? A royal "we"?

 

[Shusha]

--- and it 50 years it never occurred to you to question its validity.

Yeah exactly.

Why would one question the validity of a perfectly and easily understood word?

Do normal people question the validity of the word "peanut"?

 

[Sixties Fan]

If some guy is going to coin a phrase meaning "anti-Jewish", it is not logical for him to (a) conflate languages with religions, and (b) if he's going to do (a), to then use a general umbrella term that in most cases doesn't even apply to his relgio-linguistic term anyway. In other words it would have been more logical to coin "antiSemitic" to mean opposition to Islam ---- even though, once again back to (a) --- "being a Muslim" and "speaking Arabic" are still two different things.

Sure. It would have been more logical to come up with a more accurate term if one's goal was to create an accurate linguistic term. Languages don't always work that way. The term has already been coined. It has an accepted and readily understood meaning. That has been the meaning since the beginning, and it remains the meaning now. Sure. Let's call it a poor choice.

The question on the table is why one would deliberately insist on removing the meaning of an already accepted and readily understood term to mean something else. What purpose does it serve? We don't buy your explanation that it is strictly an interest in the English language.

Simply because it doesn't mean what it means to mean. What other purpose could there possibly be?

Who's "we"? A royal "we"?

Maybe one should ask the person who coined the term, why he did so:

Anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.

Anti-Semitism

 

[Pogo]

If some guy is going to coin a phrase meaning "anti-Jewish", it is not logical for him to (a) conflate languages with religions, and (b) if he's going to do (a), to then use a general umbrella term that in most cases doesn't even apply to his relgio-linguistic term anyway. In other words it would have been more logical to coin "antiSemitic" to mean opposition to Islam ---- even though, once again back to (a) --- "being a Muslim" and "speaking Arabic" are still two different things.

Sure. It would have been more logical to come up with a more accurate term if one's goal was to create an accurate linguistic term. Languages don't always work that way. The term has already been coined. It has an accepted and readily understood meaning. That has been the meaning since the beginning, and it remains the meaning now. Sure. Let's call it a poor choice.

The question on the table is why one would deliberately insist on removing the meaning of an already accepted and readily understood term to mean something else. What purpose does it serve? We don't buy your explanation that it is strictly an interest in the English language.

Simply because it doesn't mean what it means to mean. What other purpose could there possibly be?

Who's "we"? A royal "we"?

Maybe one should ask the person who coined the term, why he did so:

Anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.

Anti-Semitism

Apparently this Wilhelm Marr was either not too bright, or laden with an extreme tunnel vision or both. By "tunnel vision" I mean his ass-umption that the only Semitic-speaking peoples he and his neighbors in Europe were likely to encounter frequently would have been Jews, and therefore speakers of Arabic, Amharic and other Semitic languages could be for the purpose of the term, dismissed as nonexistent.

That's already a problem right there. Sometimes a word's derivation makes its own statement without even standing next to a verb.

After reading up on Marr apparently he did contrive his anti-Jew philosophy on a racial basis, as if "Jews" were a race unto themselves independent of religion, which makes it all the more curious that he'd go for a linguistic term rather than some racial one. Also interesting is that he was married to a Jewish woman, apparently happily, until she died which left him bitter, and also he later renounced his own anti-Jewish sentiments ("antisemitism") begging forgiveness from the Jewish people, maturing his observations of history into the realization that it was the Industrial Revolution that brought about the stresses he had previously attributed to Jews.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

--- and it 50 years it never occurred to you to question its validity.

Yeah exactly.

Why would one question the validity of a perfectly and easily understood word?

Do normal people question the validity of the word "peanut"?

Oh, come on, Shusha. It may be a legume, but it sure isn't a pea, and it doesn't form an actual nut, either!


.....and don't you EVER mention pineapple. Good grief, I would have to devote at least 20 posts to debunking that one, especially considering that I am an antibromeliadite and want to mask that particular fact.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Apparently this Wilhelm Marr was either not too bright, or laden with an extreme tunnel vision or both.

You two have much in common.

I imagine he was also stubborn, childish, and often made a fool of himself by doubling down on puerile arguments that only revealed his agenda.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ It should be interesting to learn what comes out of this visit ]

Student leaders to be taken to Auschwitz in bid to combat campus anti-Semitism