I’m afraid I emblematized your dear Mr Jackson as a symbol for the pull-together feel good, support the troops, kill terrorists (who are only incidentally mostly from the middle east) sort of feeling that the media has fostered since 9/11.
Do excuse me.
My, My. Did we eat nasty flakes for breakfast?
My impression that anti-arab sentiment is prevalent and socially acceptable does not require a cite.
Now, the whole ‘semite’ thing that has set you off so, was from a discussion about how it might be enlightening to encompass arabs as ‘semites’ for the purposes of anti-semitism. (No, I don’t have a cite that this conversation ever took place.) A little social godwinism to remind people that the holocaust started with bigotry that became institutionalised. But, like, whatever. America loves the arabs, I must be way off base to think otherwise.
Oh, and fuck you. Don’t talk to me anymore. I’m not liking it.
Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. You are confusing etymology with definition.
Please review the difference between the phrase ‘might be enlightening’ and ‘is’.
depending on what your definition of ‘is’ is.
First of all, I eat nasty flakes not only for breakfast but for lunch, dinner and dessert also. Secondly, I’ll continue to talk to you, and I don’t give a shit whether you like it or not. Who the fuck are you anyway? What sewer did you climb out of? I’ve been here for years and this is the first time I’ve ever seen your stupid-sounding username.
Anyway, you’re a fool, you’re a distorter of facts and a huckster, con artist, cheat, and sleaze. This tactic of yours, insisting that anti-Semitism is the same as anti-Arab-ism, is so transparent that it’s absurd.
Historically, the people who have been anti-Semitic have usually not had any problems with the Arabs. Hitler called them “our Aryan brothers” and was tight with the Mufti of Jerusalem. I’ve read my share of Stormfront and there are a surprising number of neo-Nazi guys who sing the praises of the Arabs and hope that they “finish Hitler’s job” by destroying Israel.
I am a Jew and I am not going to stand for your fucked-up, misdirecting, semantic bullshit.
This is a problem that I have with fandom in general. I have no problem with someone who watches cartoons about anthromorphic animals, but that doesn’t mean you have to close ranks with the sickos.
Nah, I’m sure that bigotry against people who believe in pixies and unicorns will last just as long as bigotry against the religious.
Well, strictly speaking not all Jews are semites.
The word you need to hear is ‘dogwhistle’.
In fact, you need not go that far.
The Iraq invasion depends on the view, widely put about and accepted by the usual suspects that ‘9-11-ers, Afghans, Iraqis - whatever, they’re all the same’.
At the risk of getting reamed on this topic again: it doesn’t strike you as weird at all to invoke Hitler as an authority on how antisemitism should be understood? Sure, he may have thought it meant “bigotry against Jews alone,” but he also thought it was justified. I submit that Hitler’s opinion on these matters is suspect.
Isn’t it possible that Hitler, and the people who coined “antisemitism” to mean “bigotry against some Semitic peoples but not others,” were just wrong? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have separate terms to distinguish “bigotry against Semites of Jewish ancestry” from “bigotry against the Jewish religion?” It seems like the word was just not very well thought out to begin with. On the face of it, the attitude that “non-Jewish Semites cannot claim to suffer from antisemitism” seems a bit like the notion that black people can’t be racist.
If the meaning of “antisemitism” expands to encompass “bigotry against all Semitic people,” what’s the worst that could happen as a result? What catastrophic repercussions are being averted here?
For one, you’ll have idiots saying things like “Arabs can’t be antisemites” or “I’m not an antisemite - I have no problem with Arabs.” The weaseling potential is limitless.
Yes, and this is why - although I hate throwing around accusations of racism or bigotry - in this case, I really do think most of these people who whine “anti-Semitism means Arabs toooooo” have some kind of axe to grind against Jews, and use this semantic issue as a misdirecting tactic to try to justify genuine anti-Semitism.
Well, there are also we word-nerds who look at the word and think “but Arabs are Semites, too…” and get all indignant about how the word doesn’t actually mean what it says if it just applies to prejudice against Jews, but realize it’s more a political/social phenomenon than a semantic one and keep our mouths shut about it because we DON’T have an agenda on it that goes any further than “but the word means xxxxx, not just xxxx”. Of course, inside our heads we’re being stubborn little gnomes and thinking “But it doesn’t mean what it says, then!”
Yeah, but people are already doing that now, aren’t they? Which is kind of my point: the term invites it by its very construction. The weasel room is built-in. That’s why it would be a good idea to adopt more rigorous terms to characterize “anti-Jewishethnicgrouperism” or “anti-Jewishreligiosity.” (“antijewligion?” Okay, I officially suck at coining jargon. But I’m sure someone could devise a snappier neologism.)
“Antisemitism” was no doubt a perfectly serviceable approximation in 19th-century Germany, where the Jewish community was the only Semitic presence worth speaking of. But it’s less effective in situations where Jews are rubbing elbows with other Semitic groups, who are justifiably asking, “Hey! What the hell?” Why give them the opportunity to grind their axes by clinging to an outdated term that never made much sense to begin with?
I think the principle " ‘Semite’ doesn’t always mean ‘Semite’ " may be to ethnic relations what the principle " ‘No’ doesn’t always mean ‘no’ " is to dating relationships. Potentially spices things up, but probably not a good idea in general.
The classic term is “Jew-Hatred.” Feel like going back to that?
I agree that it’s not a perfect term - but what can you do? You fight the war with the language you have, not the language you wish you had. I just don’t see people supportng a movement to have it changed, just so they can accomodate some arbitrary linguistics. Actually, I’m mistaken. I *can * see people campaigning to change it - people who want to hide their own motives. People like that, whatever they’re for, I’m against.
“Anti-semitism” is an unfortunate term, but I agree that it means what it means - Jew-hatred - for the simple reason that this is what it was always intended to mean.
I often use the term “Jew-hatred” simply to avoid the inevitable, tired semantic hijack.
The reason why “Jew-Hatred” doesn’t work anymore is because that was a Medieval term that was more about religion than culture or “race.” Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of more recent times - it’s the idea that Jews are inferior not because of their religion but because of their race. Because they are Semitic, not because they are Jewish. There were a lot of elements that combined to create modern anti-Semitism: there were still remnants of the old religion-based prejudices, combined with junk science and phony biology, and a very heavy dose of cultural bigotry based upon the Jew’s mere status as an “other” and as a “wandering tribe” with no homeland at a time (the 1800s) where the idea of nationalism was becoming very, very important to Europeans. These are all of the things that mixed together to form what we now know as anti-Semitism, which is a bigotry against Jews as a culture, not just as a religion.
[Had to look that up, thanks for the new word]
I think several hundred years would be a very generous estimate for total miscegenation. Could be thousands of years. I don’t see it outside the realm of possibility that people could outgrow hating each other because of the color of their skin by then. A few generations of world government could probably do it (not saying we’re ready for world government or that I want it, but it’s inevitable somewhere in our descendents’ future if humans continue to prosper.)
Yeah, “Jew-hatred” has problems as well; its great virtue is cutting off the hijackers at the knees.
Oh hell no, that’s even worse. It could concievably signify “hatred toward Jews” OR “hatred by Jews toward others,” OR hatred toward or by an individual Jew.
Okay. A prejudice against people who question the term ‘antisemitism.’ That’s almost irony, I guess.
I assume that’s where lissener was coming from too. I wasn’t just pointing out an unexpected inconsistency in etymology; I was laying a trap.
But a trap for what? You and Argent Towers assume that these objections all reflect some vague nefarious hidden agenda. Fine, but what in hell could it even be? As I asked earlier, what’s the worst thing that could happen?
Say tomorrow morning these plans all come to fruition: a rogue nation detonates the Semantic Bomb, and everyone in the world wakes up believing that the term ‘antisemitism’ refers to bigotry against all Semitic peoples. What’s the fallout from this? How does this profit the forces of darkness? The only possible result I can see would be an increased tendency for Jews and other Semitic peoples to empathize with each other.
I think anyone who’s not Jewish is just never going to “get” this, and should stop trying.