Is the cry "Anti-semetic" overused?

[Tao_Equus]

The Nazi death camps of the holocaust are now over 60 years behind us. Nobody with any humanity can deny that they were an appalling effort of genocide and an act against humanity. No westerner, except maybe a bunch of extreme right wing nutcases, can deny that this was the single most terrible event of the 20th century. Most westerners have a relative that fought and possibly died to bring such evil to an end. I know I have several.

The seizure of Palestine to make the new state of Israel, a state that had never previously existed, has given the Jewish people a homeland. But the nature of that seizure has led to animosity and conflict across the middle east. The peoples of Palestine have been annexed into the poorest, most infertile peices of land. Subjected to constant Israeli humiliations at every turn the Palestinians have sought to turn their basic weaponry to fight for their own survival. Israel answers back with tanks and sophisticated American supplied appache helicopter gunships. Or fires indescriminate salvos of artillary from offshore warships into Palestinian districts. The death toll at present I believe to be about 28 Palestinians for every Israeli.

Yet to criticise the policy of Israel, or to link any Jew to any wrong doing seems to pull down the accusation of anti-semetism or of having an extreme right wing agenda. There are many humanitarian individuals that have no anti-jewish opinions at all, but are simply anti Israeli policy, that end up under fire with the label anti-semite. This is wrong. Jews are not a perfect people they are a people like any other. Their leaders make mistakes and should be criticized when they do without fear of this wolf cry of anti-semite.

Israel funds organisations across the world that searches high and low for any criticism of its policy. In America such organisations have been convicted in court of infiltrating and stealing FBI files, wire tapping, and breaking and entering. They are absolutely prepared to go to any lengths regardless of any laws to compile dossiers on anyone who dares say a Jew does something bad. This overt sensitivity may be born of great injury done to the Jewish people but governments should be able to realise that a criticism of its policy does not infer that individual is anti-semetic.

To sum up:
My contention is that Israel and Jewish organisations and individuals cry anti-semite or fascist too often and without fair cause. And that they do this to deflect criticism rather than because they think it true.


Any opinions?

TE

 

[cyberpi]

Any opinions?

Yes... Europeans might do well to broaden their understanding of what an anti-semetic is:

Semitic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Giving it to the racial Jew line seems to be par for the course. The overwhelming majority of people who died in WWII were not Jew. Most were Christian and/or European... the Russians took a huge hit. I'm told the UK did too... were those London bridges falling down, or Jewish bridges?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yes... Europeans might do well to broaden their understanding of what an anti-semetic is:

Semitic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Giving it to the racial Jew line seems to be par for the course. The overwhelming majority of people who died in WWII were not Jew. Most were Christian and/or European... the Russians took a huge hit. I'm told the UK did too... were those London bridges falling down, or Jewish bridges?

Well as you point out i poorly understood the origins of the word, and failed to spell it correctly too!! Think death toll for WW2 was 13m? Almost half were Jewish...maybe not all but a significant enough percentage for them to feel like they were the target.

TE

 

[flowperson]

Yeah...the "semitic" label has been misused for so many years now that it has become a brand name like "kleenex" or "xerox". In the ways that it is used it, IMHO, automatically causes conflict within the societies of the East. Jews bad mouthing Arabs and Arabs bad mouthing Jews are both technically being "anti-semitic".

Putting the beautiful diversity of the human family inside of an ideological box and then branding and sloganeering it to death is one of the many and great societal plagues brought upon us all and invented in the twentieth century by advertising and public relations "experts". Joseph Goebbels comes to mind. It's all so evident and obvious at election times and in times of conflict, because it stirs emotions.

Today we might think of it as "corporate speak" wherein impersonal entities rename something and then sell its use for nefarious purposes. Very toxic stuff.

flow....

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yeah...the "semitic" label has been misused for so many years now that it has become a brand name like "kleenex" or "xerox". In the ways that it is used it, IMHO, automatically causes conflict within the societies of the East. Jews bad mouthing Arabs and Arabs bad mouthing Jews are both technically being "anti-semitic".

Putting the beautiful diversity of the human family inside of an ideological box and then branding and sloganeering it to death is one of the many and great societal plagues brought upon us all and invented in the twentieth century by advertising and public relations "experts". Joseph Goebbels comes to mind. It's all so evident and obvious at election times and in times of conflict, because it stirs emotions.

Today we might think of it as "corporate speak" wherein impersonal entities rename something and then sell its use for nefarious purposes. Very toxic stuff.

flow....

Toxic is a good word for it.

 

[dauer]

Absolutely it is used too much. Jews have been called antisemitic by other Jews simply for being against certain Israeli policies or for supporting the Palestinians. I've been accused of suggesting someone was antisemitic before when I did no such thing, simply because it's become such a Jewish stereotype. It's ridiculous.

However, despite its etymological roots, antisemite has come to mean anti-Jew and not anti-semite. It might be linguistically faulty, but that is the meaning it has acquired. The folks most behind the push to spread the idea that antisemite really refers to any semite are often those Arab groups who have a specific beef with the Jewish people as a means to distract and confuse terms. That is to say they can then go ahead and state, "Oh, we're not antisemitic. We are semitic."

Sometimes a distinction is, however, made between antisemite and anti-semite, where without a hypen it refers specifically to Jews.

Dauer

 

[cyberpi]

Well as you point out i poorly understood the origins of the word, and failed to spell it correctly too!! Think death toll for WW2 was 13m? Almost half were Jewish...maybe not all but a significant enough percentage for them to feel like they were the target.

TE

13m? Where does the number 13 million come from? Is that the total number of deaths of only the Allied Powers of World War ONE? Is that the Military deaths only, of the Allied powers only, of WW2... without counting China? Is that the civilian deaths only of WW2, minus the military deaths, minus several million... without counting the Jews who died in concentration camps? Is that the total number of people who died in ghettos and concentration camps?

Do Europeans today still think that it is civilized practice to ban someone from their presence whom they think is uncivil?

Jews bad mouthing Arabs and Arabs bad mouthing Jews are both technically being "anti-semitic".

So if a European bad mouths a European does that make him/her an 'anti-European'? If an American bad mouths Europeans does that make him/her an 'anti-European'? Or, as you suggest, if a Frenchmen bad mouths Germans does that make him/her technically 'anti-European'?

 

[flowperson]

So if a European bad mouths a European does that make him/her an 'anti-European'? If an American bad mouths Europeans does that make him/her an 'anti-European'? Or, as you suggest, if a Frenchmen bad mouths Germans does that make him/her technically 'anti-European'?[/QUOTE]

Hi Cyberpi:
I figure that my rant was really about the deterioration of precise language usage over the decades. The media has had a big hand in all this. After all they are always selling time, space, and adverts as their prime objective at the insistence of investment bankers and share holders. So branded labeling strategies are used to imprint an image upon the public psyche through just the use of a word or two.

In the case of your three observations:
1. Yes, self-criticism works in the long run and has the attribute of sometimes bringing about large scale governmental changes. That's why obejective media sources are so badly needeed these days. Yes if Europeans bad mouth Europeans then massive systems of self-reflection are activated and you see new things such as the European Union come about over thirty years.

2. Yes, to an extent. Americans sometimes have distorted views of Europeans depending what they are used to seeing through the media. I've only had one trip to Europe in the past to France on business and pleasure. I'm sure my vision of Europeaness is distorted since my personal-live experiences are twenty five years old and that that affects my ability to know as much as possible.

Hell...there were Gendarmes walking around on the streets of Paris with machine guns back then, but am I anti-European ?...no I don't believe that I am. I am a regular listener to the BBC and Radio Netherlands, so I'm getting as much objective news as I can these days.

But I'm sure there are anti-American Europeans these days, especially when we keep doing things like rejecting Germany's and England's suggestions to talk about workable long-term carbon emissions reduction proposals. People to people I believe that Americans and Europeans like each other quite a bit...but when Government and political strategies gets in the way....

3. This is a case of anti-French Europeans and anti-German Europeans not liking each other sometimes. Don't you love adjectives ?

flow....

 

[cyberpi]

Absolutely it is used too much. Jews have been called antisemitic by other Jews simply for being against certain Israeli policies or for supporting the Palestinians. I've been accused of suggesting someone was antisemitic before when I did no such thing, simply because it's become such a Jewish stereotype. It's ridiculous.

However, despite its etymological roots, antisemite has come to mean anti-Jew and not anti-semite. It might be linguistically faulty, but that is the meaning it has acquired. The folks most behind the push to spread the idea that antisemite really refers to any semite are often those Arab groups who have a specific beef with the Jewish people as a means to distract and confuse terms. That is to say they can then go ahead and state, "Oh, we're not antisemitic. We are semitic."

Sometimes a distinction is, however, made between antisemite and anti-semite, where without a hypen it refers specifically to Jews.

Dauer

From my perspective, an anti-semite is a European... and an antisemite is a German. No sense accusing the Mexicans. For example, Heinrich von Treitschke, Wilhelm Marr, or Wilhelm Scherer were antisemitic. Did they not coin the word? They were German, and they were European. Am I wrong? They were NOT Arab. I am fairly certain the English word 'antisemitism' did not come from an Arabic word, so I question why 'Arab' groups are the accused for disobeying the German linguistic coinage. I disobey it, and I am neither Arab, nor semitic, nor antisemitic. I am a Gentile.

 

[Sunny C.]

We need a word specifically for race motivated hatred for Jews. Antisemite is a lousy word, but that's the word we use. Cyberpi makes an interesting point about antisemitism being a white man's game. Nowadays I think we should try to be more specific. If it's anti-Israeli, for example, it would be good to call it that.

 

[cyberpi]

...

 

[dauer]

From my perspective, an anti-semite is a European... and an antisemite is a German. No sense accusing the Mexicans. For example, Heinrich von Treitschke, Wilhelm Marr, or Wilhelm Scherer were antisemitic. Did they not coin the word? They were German, and they were European. Am I wrong? They were NOT Arab

No, but there are arab antisemites too, like Hassan Nasrallah who has said, among other things, " "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli."

It's not about the origin of the word, it's about the way it's used today.

I am fairly certain the English word 'antisemitism' did not come from an Arabic word, so I question why 'Arab' groups are the accused for disobeying the German linguistic coinage.

You're right, the word antisemitism didn't come from arabic, but if they're going to use English then absolutely they should be following the standard usage of the word. If they wanted to use an arabic word and say, "This arabic word we are using is for persecution of both Jewish and Muslims" then that would be different, but they're not. They're choosing to use another language's terms for anti-Jew, regardless where it came from, that's what it's come to mean.

I disobey it, and I am neither Arab, nor semitic, nor antisemitic. I am a Gentile

Never said only arabs do it. I said that's the primary fodder for this case of linguistic acrobatics that serve no purpose but to confuse the matter of responsibility and ownership.

Dauer

 

[Tao_Equus]

Dauer: It's not about the origin of the word, it's about the way it's used today.

Indeed, that is all that it is important. We have anti-Zionist, of course, for the state of Israel as apposed to Jews as a whole, but this tends to be used by non-Jews and anti-semite tends to be an accusation levelled at non-Jews by Jews. Anyhow no point getting lost in semantics, we all know what we mean.

TE

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, dauer!

...linguistic acrobatics that serve no purpose but to confuse the matter of responsibility and ownership.

Very astute! I see this all too often.

As our esteemed Buddhist friends remind us; the word is not the thing, the menu is not the food.

Origins of words is important to linguistic anthropology, and perhaps related applications to such as interpretation of various religious scriptures.

Apart from this, I fail to see the connection to current applied usage.

At the risk of opening myself for unmerited criticism, allow me to use the example of the word "***." It can mean a variety of things, depending on context and implication. In a derogatory sense, it can mean a homosexual. Or in a slang sense it can be a cigarette. Without looking up the etymology, I do know that in times past a *** was a piece of wood headed for a / the fire.

The linguistic acrobatics I am observing here (by no means for the first time on this site or in the world at large) is conflating various associated meanings of the term anti-semite / antisemite. Sometimes it may be intentional, for purposes I can only guess. Most times I suspect it is because a person may not be fully paying attention, and as was alluded to earlier by another, falls victim to the "corporate speak" brainwashing that echoes in one's mind.

I believe someone here once referred to this as "cognitive dissonance." In this context, I agree.

 

[dauer]

Tao

but this tends to be used by non-Jews and anti-semite tends to be an accusation levelled at non-Jews by Jews

No, that's an oversimplification. It's used by some of the zionists on the right against anyone who doesn't support their agenda, which includes Jews like myself. And it's not only used by Jews on the right. I've seen fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews as antisemitic and self-hating becuause they don't support the actions of the Israeli gov't, which is by no means a requirement of our religion anyway. Calling it an issue of the way Jews use the word about gentiles instead of an issue of the way a specific group of Jews use it against everything else including fellow Jews is just a generalization and the continuing of a false stereotype that Jews are by definition rabid zionists who salivate at the chance to call their detractors antisemites. I do consider myself a zionist, and in that I support the people, not the government. For that matter I also support the Palestinian people, but not the government. War stinks. It's a lose-lose situation and both sides are at fault.

However, you are absolutely correct to say that the term anti-zionist would be more appropriate at those times.

Dauer

 

[Tao_Equus]

Ok ...

Thanks for the corrction

 

[cyberpi]

I am verbally opposed to racism of all kinds. A word like 'antisemitic' or 'Zionist' means to either promote or to oppose a portion of a population depending on the perspective of the person that falls on one side or the other of the discriminator. Both are similar to a concept like "White-supremacist". I am repulsed by the discriminator and anyone who has an agenda with it, whether white or non-white or to promote or to oppose. The meaning of the words include some form of discriminator or shibboleth, combined with a position promoting or opposing one side of it. I denounce the concept of both antisemitism, and Zionism, as either racism or ethnocentrism depending on how a person defines the discriminator or shibboleth within those words.

One way to verbally oppose racism of all kinds is to use a discriminator closer to the root of the problem... like, "discrimination", and yet that is more generic or encompassing to defy the man made discriminators or walls that would otherwise be chosen. In the case of "antisemitism" there is obvious racism, ethnocentrism, and religious intollerance that has built up real walls in the Middle East, which has existed in Europe. I oppose those walls. I think a majority of the people on both sides of that wall are equally opposed to each other, but each side says the following: 1. "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our children." 2. "They hate us, but we do not hate them." Both statements reveal discrimination. I have heard both mantras sung in many places, especially by governments including the present US administration. So, I will consciously oppose those walls and defy the people who impose them by recognizing a more generic or encompassing definition of the word, and consciously using it.

That is precisely why I favor the more generic, logical, and actually historical use of the word 'anti-semite'. Would the other, 'pro-aryan' be any better? I can see how any definition of "anti-semite" could be a problem in Europe, so maybe it is best to just fall back on an even more generic but appropriate word like "Racist" or "Supremist" and incorporate anyone including the Jew, the Aryan, or the Arab who calls for preferential treatment with a racial or ethnocentric agenda.

And if anyone opposes that and wants to get specific, then lets get specific with the discriminator alone. Tell me what defines a 'Jew', a 'Palestinian', a 'European', or a 'Semite'. Is it: Ancestry? Government? Religion? Language? A personal choice? Lets compare the definition that people here might suggest with the one that some large groups of people in the world have been discriminating people by.

 

[dauer]

I am verbally opposed to racism of all kinds. A word like 'antisemitic' or 'Zionist' means to either promote or to oppose a portion of a population depending on the perspective of the person that falls on one side or the other of the discriminator. Both are similar to a concept like "White-supremacist".

Would you also suggest that affirmative action is racist, and that those groups who organize to help a specific community are racist, because they're not focusing on everyone? Is it wrong to oppose a certain perspective, for example if someone is opposed to fundamentalist christians?

btw judaism is not a race. or an ethnicity. It's a religion and a people, more akin to a civilization, nation, or tribe.

I denounce the concept of both antisemitism, and Zionism, as either racism or ethnocentrism depending on how a person defines the discriminator or shibboleth within those words.

It's important to distinguish people and causes. The issue isn't the use of terms that distinguish us, which is necessary in order to interact, but when it becomes triumphalist or us vs. them. There is healthy zionism and there is unhealthy zionism. As part of the organismic whole of the jewish people, or of the people of the world, when it becomes cancerous it's a problem. When it is not cancerous it is healthy.

One way to verbally oppose racism of all kinds is to use a discriminator closer to the root of the problem... like, "discrimination", and yet that is more generic or encompassing to defy the man made discriminators or walls that would otherwise be chosen. In the case of "antisemitism" there is obvious racism, ethnocentrism, and religious intollerance that has built up real walls in the Middle East, which has existed in Europe. I oppose those walls. I think a majority of the people on both sides of that wall are equally opposed to each other, but each side says the following: 1. "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our children." 2. "They hate us, but we do not hate them." Both statements reveal discrimination. I have heard both mantras sung in many places, especially by governments including the present US administration. So, I will consciously oppose those walls and defy the people who impose them by recognizing a more generic or encompassing definition of the word, and consciously using it.

This is the first intelligent thing I've seen you say in this thread, and you make a very valid point. However imo while it is necessary to recognize that it is all simply discrimination and intolerance, it is also important to notice historical and contemporary trends of discrimination and intolerance.

That is precisely why I favor the more generic, logical, and actually historical use of the word 'anti-semite'. Would the other, 'pro-aryan' be any better? I can see how any definition of "anti-semite" could be a problem in Europe, so maybe it is best to just fall back on an even more generic but appropriate word like "Racist" or "Supremist" and incorporate anyone including the Jew, the Aryan, or the Arab who calls for preferential treatment with a racial or ethnocentric agenda.

Here I have to completely disagree. Falling back on the etymological roots of antisemite doesn't actually make it a universal term, only a larger one that in most contexts makes a lot less sense and confuses things. I think it makes a lot more sense when you talk about focusing on universal language than on changing specific language to mean something different than it's understood meaning.

Tell me what defines a 'Jew', a 'Palestinian', a 'European', or a 'Semite'. Is it: Ancestry? Government? Religion? Language? A personal choice? Lets compare the definition that people here might suggest with the one that some large groups of people in the world have been discriminating people by.

Different for each. I'll give dictionary definitionsm all from wikipedia:

Jew: The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes

Palestinian: In its common usage, the term "Palestinian" refers to a person whose ancestors had lived in the territory corresponding to British Mandate Palestine for some length of time prior to 1948. This definition includes the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including Dom and Samaritans, but excluding Israeli settlers and most Armenians), the Israeli Arabs (including Druze and Bedouin), the Israeli Jews whose families moved there prior to The founding of the State of Israel, and the Arab refugees and emigrés from 1948 and their descendants (though not the pre-Israeli Independence (1948) non-Bedouin population of Jordan.)

European: A European is primarily a person who was born into one of the countries within the continent of Europe. Additionally, a person can also become a naturalized European by taking citizenship within a European country. A number of people, who were not born in Europe or hold citizenship there, identify themselves as European due to a strong sense of identification with their European ancestry, language and/or culture.

Semite: Semitic is an adjective referring to the peoples who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages or to things pertaining to them. Genetic analysis suggests that the Semitic peoples share a significant common ancestry, despite important differences and contributions from other groups. ...

Dauer

 

[cyberpi]

btw judaism is not a race. or an ethnicity. It's a religion and a people, more akin to a civilization, nation, or tribe.

Jew: The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes

What amazes me is how the definition in the world shifts so rapidly depending on the topic. If the topic is racism as a victim, then the definition is based on ancestry. If the topic is racism as an oppressor, then the definition is based on religion instead. If the topic is belief or a relationship with God, then the definition is based on ethnicity. But if the topic is justifying Israel then the definition is again based on ancestry or ancient history instead. I deplore that shiftiness as a double standard... a triple, or a quadruple even. I consider it to be discrimination at its best. It is an ever-changing shibboleth with an interest to control, oppress, or pacify people. I consider the discrimination by the shifty discriminator to be an absence of faith, a lack of love for others, and a sheer lack of honesty or justness. I will lump the discrimination together into one and call it racism / ethnocentism / intolerance.

Lets look honestly at the discriminator that a country or two in the world are using when they accept immigrants of one type, yet reject another. Is it religion? ancestry? ethnicity? What is the discriminator when a people employ one type of person but reject another. What is the discriminator when a people socially accept people of one type but ban the other. What is the discriminator when a people fight and kill people of one type but love the other. What is the discriminator when a people oppose and bulldoze the buildings of inhabitants of one type, but oppose, herd, coral, and force march out a people of the other type. What is the discriminator when the plane lands and someone wants to immigrate... is it religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry? When the advertisement hits the airwaves begging the world for money to pay for that immigration... is the discriminator religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry?

Would you also suggest that affirmative action is racist, and that those groups who organize to help a specific community are racist, because they're not focusing on everyone?

If there is a discriminator along the same line then yes. Racism does not remove from racism... it duplicates it or adds to it.

Is it wrong to oppose a certain perspective, for example if someone is opposed to fundamentalist christians?

Wrong by who? It depends entirely on the method of opposition.

 

[dauer]

If the topic is racism as a victim, then the definition is based on ancestry. If the topic is racism as an oppressor, then the definition is based on religion instead. If the topic is belief or a relationship with God, then the definition is based on ethnicity. But if the topic is justifying Israel then the definition is again based on ancestry or ancient history instead.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I said it isn't a race and the definition from wikipedia never calls it one. I would not label antisemitism as racism. It's not accurate. I don't really understand what you mean when you say, "If the topic is belief or a relationship with God, then the definition is based on ethnicity."

At least as Judaism is concerned, ethnicity doesn't play into that at all. Jewish identity is determined, as per the Jewish religion, by either having a Jewish a mother or conversion to Judaism. As a tribal religion, matters of peoplehood and religion are extremely intertwined, as they also are among Native Americans. That's how tribal religions generally work.

But if the topic is justifying Israel then the definition is again based on ancestry or ancient history instead.

Are you going to respond to me and what I'm saying or are you going to continue to ignore my posts and act as if a much more conservative and imo backwards Jewish voice is my own?

is it religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry? When the advertisement hits the airwaves begging the world for money to pay for that immigration... is the discriminator religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry?

I have no idea what you're trying to get at by repeating permutations of the same phrase over and over again. Instead of asking vague questions, could you instead speak your piece?

If there is a discriminator along the same line then yes. Racism does not remove from racism... it duplicates it or adds to it.

Pointing to the creation of laws and organizations to offer benefits to needy minorities, or to focus on one of one's own communities and calling them racism does not make them racism, no matter how many times you repeat that mantra. I think you'll find that the majority of people would be a bit appalled to find the organization of aide specifically for minorities in Darfur, or to help untouchables in India, or to benefit a tribe that lives apart from the modern world whose home is being demolished called racism.

Do you feel the same way about organizations that specifically help women, or people of a certain age, from a certain locality, with a particular illness?

Dauer