earlier today on another message board because I used the term A Jew . I was instructed to use Jewish person and informed it was a “slightly” racist thing to say, whatever that means. Specifically I said, “The writer of the second article [cited by someone else] is a Jew reporting on the Palestinian situation, so credibility issues should be obvious, especially in the absence of any ackowledgement of political alignment or lack thereof.” The context was a calm discussion, not a flaming session.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know everything and I’m prepared to consider that I might be wrong. However, without giving any explanation, I declare with confidence that I am not a racist and I didn’t consider what I said racist. I’m open minded- what do you think?
Right, I knew that. I guess I was just going with what the other party said without giving it much thought. Sorry. I guess around here (Kentucky) “racist” is commonly used to refer to any form discrimination, discriminatory thinking, or oppression based on differences in nationality and/or religion, or ethnicity.
I don’t know that there’s anything necessarily wrong with the phrase “a Jew”. It just seems to have an anti-Semitic connotation, perhaps because it sounds a little derogatory (think “he’s a black” rather than “he’s black” or “he’s a black person”), as it identifies the person as a member of a group rather than containing aspects of that group within his own persona. Hell, it might just be the acoustically harsh sound of “a Jew” versus “Jewish”.
On the other hand, I do wonder why you don’t consider your assumption of “credibility issues” with Jews reporting on the Palestinian situation anti-Semitic.
I’ve found that on some birth/death certificates “Jewish” is listed as the race. I’m thinking that the determination if “Jew” is a race or not lays with the individual Jew himself.
I’m (by background) “a Christian” and have no problems being called such, rather than “a Christian person.”
Nor do I mind being called “a Brit” as opposed to “a British person” or “an English person.”
All are fine.
No, it’s not anti-semitic, at worst it’s paranoid(?) - like if I were to express skepticism over the impartiality of a Muslim writing about the Palestinian situation.
It may be an unfair judgement or suspicion that the reporter is biased, but it’s not “anti-semitic” or “anti-islamic” or “anti-arab” per se.
You need to be more careful with bandying around the term “anti-semitic.” Anti-semitism is a disgusting form of racial prejudice. But criticism of certain Jews/Jewish people/Israelis does not necessarily equate to anti-semitism, likewise criticism of certain Christians/Arabs/Hindus/whatever.
“On the other hand, I do wonder why you don’t consider your assumption of “credibility issues” with Jews reporting on the Palestinian situation anti-Semitic.”
Hardly. After all Israel styles itself as the “Jewish state” and most Jews probably have a certain amount of attachment towards Israel. The idea that this might create a possible bias in commenting on the Arab-Israeli disupte is common sense not “anti-Semitism”. The same goes for Arabs or that matter any other ethnicity regarding some ethnically related issue.
However, I’m pretty sure it’s insulting to call a Japanese person a ‘Jap’.
I figure that’s because it was a term used during WWII when we were at war with Japan.
Was ‘Brit’ an offensive term 150 years ago? I don’t know. Maybe ‘Jap’ won’t be offensive 150 years from now.
Bullwinkle, that would be correct. “Jap” is insulting.
More than a few British people I know find the word “Brit” to be insulting. They often respond with “Yank”. In my mind, Yank can be neutral unless of course “Yank” is being used as the “polite” form of “septic” at which point it does cross the line.
Just an observation. You can almost always find someone, somewhere that will take offense at a word that might possibly have a racist connotation in certain contexts. In my humble experience, some of the people who assume the greatest offense over the smallest possibility, are often not a member of the group in question. Eg, a gentile taking offense at “a Jew.” Not saying that’s what happened in your example, but I have seen this multiple times.
That’s a good point, Bullwinkle. I think it is usually rude at best to use a chopped version of a racial or ethnic term. Briton certainly isn’t a racial term and probably isn’t an ethnic term either (I have heard Briton used to describe a distinct ethnic group, but the example I’m thinking of referred to the 4th Century A.D., pre-Anglo-Saxon).
Basically, I think you can play around a lot more with the names of national groups than you can with ethnic groups. “Brit”, “Frenchy”, “Yank”, “Russky”, and the like don’t raise too many eyebrows; they convey a rough, backslapping sort of familiarity rather than ethnic prejudice. If the Japanese were just a nationality, rather than a distinct ethnic group, maybe you could get away with just the first syllable.
None of this has anything to do with the word “Jew”, which isn’t a slang modification of anything and stands alone just fine as a noun. It is offensive to use it as an adjective (good catch Splanky) or a verb, though.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Splanky *
[Although, using Jew as an adjective is very upsetting and offensive (Jew lawyer). To me and most Jews, at least.
Funnily enough, my doctor (who is Jewish) had to refer me to a neurologist back in September. When I mentioned that I’d like to be referred to a very reputable one and not just some name off a HMO-list, he replied, “Don’t worry, he’s a Jew doctor.”
I guess I looked taken aback, because he smiled and said he was kidding.
On my last visit a few weeks ago, he made another comment while discussing my upcoming EEG: “Well, you had this car accident, but you got two Jew doctors and a good Jew lawyer so you’ll come out all right.”
Maybe he just likes the word Jew, and says it a lot? Most Jewish people I’ve known find this kind of usage offensive, so it was really surprising to hear him say it so glibly.
Oh well, maybe I’m all wrong. Dictionary.com says “Russky” is offensive and ChinaGuy’s British pals don’t like “Brit”. I’ll just slink away and we can pretend this never happened, 'kay?
I don’t know anyone who finds ‘Brit’ offensive. I’m one myself an like the term. Likewise I wouldn’t consider Yank or Jap or Russki insulting. I wouldn’t use the terms unless I was speaking to someone I knew reasonably well, mainly because they are so informal. Personally, if someone was offended by the use of such terms, I would think the offendee is probably more at fault than the offender.
My husband thought “Jew” was derrogatory, but I never have, because I’ve picked up my cue from Jews who use the word. I can’t think of one who doesn’t. Now, if you say, “dirty Jew” or something along those lines, that’s bad. By itself, I think it is universally accepted.
That’s sort of the innerpolitics of a word though. Such as the case with the “n” word with African-Americans or “fag” with Gay-Americans. It’s a familiarity and a joviality of familiarity. To be an “outsider” of said groups and to use the term towards them would be construed as offensive however.
It’s all in the context. I try not to slap the “racist” charge on anybody unless it’s perfectly clear that their intent was to use a certain word in a racist way. When it’s not so clear, the speaker always gets the benefit of the doubt. This should be doubly true for text communications where the intent is often vague because you don’t have speaker’s vocal cues & facial expressions to help you judge context.
I don’t know about that. I have two Russian friends and when they speak in their native language, it sounds to me like “Ruskie” is a perfectly normal word for a person from Russia.