Pet peeve: it's "Jews"

Why why why do writers (and/or copy editors) keep trying to avoid the word “Jews”? To the point of being ungrammatical as in:

“California is home to 1.2 million Jewish, according to The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE).”

Seriously - WTH. Same with the previous paragraph:

“The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) estimates there are currently 14.2 million Jewish people in the world today. That estimate approaches 16.2 million, the number of Jewish people in the world before World War II, when Nazis and their collaborators killed 6.1 million Jews.”

Just because the organization name is “Jewish People Policy Institute” (which is a perfectly cromulous name and you couldn’t substitute “Jews” in there), you don’t have to use “Jewish people” where “Jews” would work perfectly well everywhere. Especially if you decide, finally, to use the dreaded word “Jews” at the end of the paragraph.

because “Jew” can be either a descriptor or a slur, depending on how you say it. Louis CK had a bit about that.

Because some Jewish people find “Jew” a little rude. I don’t personally (assuming it isn’t done with a tone) but some do.

“California is home to 1.2 million Jews” is a little rude?

“…there are currently 14.2 million Jews in the world today” is a little rude?

I don’t think so.

You do know that yours is not the only opinion on the matter.

There’s nothing to be assumed about using ‘Jewish people’ in the place of ‘Jews’. ‘1.2 million Jewish’ is odd though readily understood. I don’t get it really, I’ve never met a Jew who objected to the use of ‘Jew’.

In Beyond the Fringe, Jonathan Miller had the immortal line, “I’m not really a Jew, you know, just Jewish.”

Sure, cuz, of course, having “14.2 million Jewish people in the world today” in the same paragraph as “Nazis and their collaborators killed 6.1 million Jews” is perfectly logical.

After all, who knows, maybe referring to live Jews as “Jews” is “a little rude”, but referring to murdered Jews as “Jews” is perfectly fine. In someone’s opinion, at least.

I’ve met a few whose preference is “Jewish, Jewish people or Hebrew depending on how you say it and the context.” (That’s basically a quote from a friend I’ll be seeing tomorrow when he corrected me)

It seems, especially in some of the older folks, that they heard the word “Jew” used so much as a slur that their first reaction on hearing it from anyone is more negative than not. They are friends and I respect their wishes on it although I will admit to not being as careful everywhere (like here) as I am when I am around them.

I’m not Jewish but have a lot of Jewish friends. I confess that the word “Jew” sounds so curt to me, and of course has historically so often been used as a slur, that I almost invariably refer to “a Jewish [man, woman, person, etc.]” rather than just say “Jew.”

That’s exactly the problem. You have been trained to think of “Jew” as a slur. It is not. And it should not be. And people should not be afraid or reluctant to use the word.

Constant use of “Jewish people” when “Jews” fits fine, or, even worse “California is home to 1.2 million Jewish” (shudder) is an acknowledgement that the word “Jew” is a slur and thus being a Jew is something that should be euphemized. Which is ridiculous.

I can’t recall hearing ‘Catholic people’ or ‘Baptist people’ or ‘Hindu people’ or whatever used in this sense, so it is a unusual.

I agree with you that the term shouldn’t be avoided.

I’m not thinking of common cases where ‘Jews’ is used as a slur in the context of a count like that. I can imagine someone saying “California has Jooozzz”, but saying “California has 1.2 million Jooozzz” de-emphasizes the scare number that is the point of the sentence. But when you write it down it takes a lot more context to consider the word to be intended as a slur.

Well, I certainly agree that using an adjective as a noun is bad. Similarly, it always sounds weird to me when Catholics use “religious” as a noun, meaning priests and nuns.

You forgot the capping final part of that remark: “Not the whole hog.”

I wonder if they are drawing the distinction between Jewish and Judaist, as Jew would cover both?

I think there may be a bit of an in-group vs. out-group thing here: Jews are happy to use the word for themselves, but are wary of outsiders using it to refer to them.

Isn’t that a French language thing?

I know. Me neither.

Until my friend Seymore Hershstein wanted to sell me his lawnmower for fifty bucks and when I tried to Jew him down to twenty-five he got pissed. Go figure.

I’m not a dog. I wasn’t “trained” to think of it as a slur, it was a slur. Growing up being bullied and beaten up, all the while being called a “fucking Jew”.
Too long ago for you? Just a week or so ago a co-worker decided to give me a compliment - “you know, if you were Christian, you’d go to Heaven!” (because I had done her a favor)
Wait a sec, I asked, because I’m Jewish, I’m going to hell? “Well, you know you Jews can’t go there [pointing up to the sky]”.

So yeah, the stupid is strong out there. Don’t tell me what should and shouldn’t offend me.

Problem arises because “ish” is both a suffix, and also a modifier meaning “kinda-sorta,” as in “monogamish.”

Call a Jew a Jew, but then the Amish Ams, though that makes them sound Buddhist. We could call English people Engs. England: land of the Engs. And have a frank discussion on the origins of the French. Or call an Irish person an Ire. Since they do carry a lot of anger.

Reason enough for me right there. Why are “some people” so insistent on using words that hurt people?