Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 7

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Martin, as you are describing the debate, it is agreed that hatred of Jews is "anti-Semitism," whereas "antipathy" toward Jews is considered by some not to be "anti-Semitism." A quick look at Webster's dictionary gives me a definition of "antipathy" as "a deep, habitual dislike, aversion." "Hate" is defined as "intense dislike, extreme hostility." In other words, you want to make the distinction between "deep, habitual dislike" (not anti-Semitic) and "intense dislike" (anti-Semitic). That's not a question of NPOV or not. That is pure rhetoric. (It can also be used to justify certain anti-Semitic behaviors. For example, when Jews were denied membership in country clubs in the United States, was that only because of deep habitual dislike, or was it intense dislike?) Danny

Can you stop at a word-book definition, if the words hate and love have a broader usage in USA than in many other countries?
-- Ruhrjung 11:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

It sounds to me, Danny, like you accept the existence of this debate, but you feel that these particular choices of words (ie, "antipathy") are sub-optimal in expressing it - would that be accurate? Martin

What's gained by a definition of Anti-semitism which is that very narrow that most anti-semitism by a normal usage (think of the Dreyfus affair) are excluded? Ruhrjung 12:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I added some stuff - the debate is not between "deep, habitual dislike" and "intense dislike", rather it is between "intense hostility" and "prejudice" Martin

Your claim is actually intensely inaccurate Martin. I do not at all accept the debate. Now, let me see if I am getting this straight. Intense hostility is anti-Semitic but prejudice isn't? What exactly does that mean? (That is a rhetorical question. It means nothing). A prejudice against people because they are Jewish is an anti-Semitic prejudice. Danny

I removed "generally speaking." When it is not generally speaking does it not mean that? I also removed:

There is some debate over how widely the term anti-Semitism should be applied. Some dictionaries suggest that anti-Semitism refers only to intense hatred, while others broaden the definition to include any form of anti-Jewish prejudice. For example:
  • Merriam-Webster: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews..."
  • Cambridge International Dictionary of English : "the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people"
  • American Heritage Dictionary: "Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews..." or "Discrimination against Jews..."
  • Cambridge Dictionary of American English): "hate or strong dislike of Jews..."

The first definition states "hostility" or "discrimination." The second states "strong dislike" (in other words, hatred) or "unfair treatment" (i.e., discrimination). The third one states "hostility or prejudice" or "discrimination". Only the fourth, which happens to be a different edition of the second (both are Cambridge), says only "hate or strong dislike" without discrimination. For one thing, you are reading far too much into these definitions. For another, you are then claiming that the "Cambridge Dictionary of American English" says hatred but not discrimination, so hatred of Jews is anti-Semitic, but discrimination against Jews is not. Then what is discrimination against Jews? THe Nuremburg Laws were discriminatory, but since they do not fit the final Cambridge definition, are you saying they are not anti-Semitic? Danny

I would call discrimination against Jews "anti-Jewish discrimination". Some discrimination against Jews I would call anti-Semitic. Some I would not. Single-faith schools do not admit people who are not of the relevant faith. In the case of a non-Jewish single faith school, this is discrimination against Jews. I would not call that anti-Semitic, though I would call it misguided. The Nuremberg Laws were based in hatred and fear, and I would call those anti-Semitic.
Since you do not approve of my use of the dictionary definitions, I will try to find you alternate references. But first, I'm going to quote you from Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 5):
I also agree with [stevertigo] that the term anti-Semitism often has "too wide a context" (your term). For me this means that the term is bandied about too freely (I would even go so far as to say as a hyperbolic phrase used to score political points, but that is just my POV). That is why I believe that a carefully worded definition is so important". Danny 00:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
What you were saying back then, it seems, is that some people use the term anti-Semitism widely ("bandying it about"), and that you disapprove of this usage. And I agree with you that a carefully worded definition is important. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that some people use the term more "freely" than others, as you yourself have said!
Regarding "generally speaking", see my comments above: when one "speaks broadly", one speaks in generalities and simplifies details. Here, we are simplifying details by not speaking (yet) of the considerable debate, which you yourself have taken extensive part in, as to the meaning of the word anti-Semitism. If you can think of a better way of putting this, please do. Martin 15:05 21 May 2003 (UTC)
No Jewish person claims that it is discrimination that Christian schools that teach Christianity only accept Christians as students, and not Jews or others. That is not discrimination; that is religious freedom. No Jews, Muslims or atheists can force Christians to violate precepts of their religion. Similarly, no one should ever accuse Jews (or Muslims, etc.) of discriminating against others if their own religious schools are meant to teach members of their own faith! That is not what Danny meant when he was talking about people discriminating against Jews. RK

Hi everybody!! :) - 豎&#30505sv

Question about the usage of the word "semitic": I have read and understood that Semites include Arabs, and thus anti-semitism (as a racial term) would include bias against both Jews and Arabs. Is there strong opposition to writing this alternative understanding of Semitism into the article? If not, I'll get to work, but I'm not especially interested in getting involved in an editing war on this page which seems to be somewhat controversial. Silver Maple

Yes, for four reasons:
1) racial categories are largely products of 19th century European ideology. They are not scientific and certainly shouldn't be applied historically as if they were scientific -- or as if they are used in a logical (consistent) way.
2) properly, "semitic" refers not to races but to languages. Yes, Arabic and Hebrew are both semitic languages. Of course, two people living in completely different parts of the world, who do not share any ancestors *well, until 40,000 years ago, let's say), may speak a "semitic" language, and read the same books -- and even share values. But this is not "race."
3) the person who coined the term "anti-semite" and "anti-semitism" singled out Jews. There is no logical reason, or is there any strong empirical correlation, that supports the notion that because one hates Jews one will also hate Arabs, or vice-versa.
See the paragraph (which is the result of a couple of edits back and forth):
A seemingly similar type of hostility has increased in Western Europe during the latter half of the 20th century, as a growing number of Arab and/or Muslim refugees and immigrants has arrived and come to constitute visible, often ghettoized, minorities in larger towns and cities. Several populist political parties have recently gained victories on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments. Critics of politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands and Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, sometimes brand them as "anti-Semites". Even if these political forces really are hostile towards the Jewry, which some of them without doubt are, such a usage is not advisable in English. It confuses the matter rather more than it contributes to clarity, as with many other emotionally charged words. Ruhrjung 10:47 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Inter alia outside of a few people here at Wikipedia I have never heard anyone claim that anti-semitism means hatred of Arabs. You say this is an alternative understanding -- well, whose understanding is it? I have never heard any representitive of the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee characterize racism against Arabs as "anti-semitic," for example. Conversely, what term would you use to describe hatred specifically targeted at Jews? I guess we could have an article on "Jew-Hatred," except anyone reading such an article would think "Oh, this is about 'anti-semitism.'"
For meself, I use antijudaism and antizionism for the two things usually encompassed by antisemitism. Whatever the origin of the latter term, I am convinced the more rabid Zionists (also needed, a section on Zionist antiZionism, cf the recnt New Yorker on Chomsky) have perpetuated the usage. It seems to be a version of the accusation-in-the-mirror propaganada trick; as some Orthodox Jews point out, rabid Zionism does as much harm to Jews as Arabs. Kwantus
4) there is another term for someone who hates both Jews and Arabs and expresses his or her hatred in racial terms. It is "racist."
Slrubenstein
My refactoring (written back in early Feb) of the "anti-Semitic =?= prejudice against Semites" argument is at Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology). Worth reading (thinks me). Martin 23:47 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
rm answered question - thank you Slrubenstein

Where has anyone seen evidence that Saudi Arabia bans Jews from entering? I would remove that mention of it if no evidence is found. --mr100percent

"Several populist political parties have recently gained victories on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments. Critics of politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands and Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, sometimes brand them as "anti-Semites"." (taken from the fourth paragraph of the Etymology and Usage section.)

First of all, I think that the whole paragraph that this passage came from detracts from the article. It seems confused and confusing and it doesn't add much to the subject of the article. Anti-semitism is generally more than an issue of immigration, IMO.

Secondly, is the term "populist" the most appropriate here? At least in American political history, "populism" has referred to ideas that are rather on the left side of the political spectrum (public ownership of important utilities, support for the poorest workers, etc). Jean-Marie Le Pen (the only example I know anything about), at least, does not fit into this category. He is quite clearly a right wing politician, with positions that more resemble Fascism than Populism. I don't know about the others, but it doesn't seem clear that they should be called "populists," either.

Finally, the syntax of the second sentence quoted is strange and makes it sound like the three examples given are the "Critics of politicians" (an extremely vague phrase) and that they are calling the so called "populists" (who are others, presumably) "anti-semitic"! I vote to get rid of the whole paragraph. The last two sentences of it simply explain that we shouldn't call them anti-semites. And, if so, what is the point of the paragraph? --Jesse

Populist - left wing? That is completely wrong. Most populist leaders and movements on the right. Populist means appearing to the masses, or the 'mob' as it used to be put, saying what was needed to win support, often without any coherent intellectual structure behind it. Some left wingers do that but it is mostly associated with the right. The current prime minister of Italy is a classic populist. Hitler was. Ditto Mussolini. In modern politics the neo-gaullists in France, Fianna Fáil in Ireland etc are classic populist parties. In some states, public ownership of important utilities and support for the poorest workers may appeal to people and so for that reason be adopted as policy platforms. But they aren't definition of populism, merely vehicles of populism. (In most states outside the US those things are so automatic that the vast majority of people across the parties believe in them.) Populist leaders can adopt religion, nationalism, secularism, fascism, communism, whatever it takes to gain mass support. FearÉIREANN 22:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It may depend on where you are whether populists are typically left- or right-wing. I agree with your examples, but there are quite a few examples of left-wing populists as well. For example, many "Marxist" revolutionary groups are populists, attaching themselves to whatever issue may curry them favor (and hopefully, money, arms, and support). Some examples include the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and numerous South-American groups. (Some of these groups initially were ideological Marxist groups, but have since become primarily populist). --Delirium 23:07 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yeah. The bottom is that populism is neither left nor right. It adopts the issues that are popular in its political system. If they are left wing issues, there it will be left wing. If in other places they are right wing, populism will adopt a right wing stance. It can be argued that the Pinochet dictatorship was populist, as was the left wing regime it replaced. The point I am making is that Jesse's situation that populism means left wing is wrong. It simply follows the crowd takes whatever stance it deems necessary. FearÉIREANN
Ok, perhaps populists can be both left and right wing. However, the ideology that motivates it seems inherently to be (to some extent or another) in contradiction with what motivates most right wing politics, which is a sort of elitism and contempt for the masses. I agree that many right wing leaders (e.g. Hitler) have used populist rhetoric to gain influence and power, but it's pretty easy to see how hollow that rhetoric actually is. From populism:

In the twentieth century populism gained an altogether more ominous character when dictators such as Juan Peron, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Huey Long used demagogery and populist rhetoric to achieve their privileged leadership positions. It could be argued that none of these men were genuine populists because they usually saw the masses as not fit to govern for themselves and therefore their elitist and privileged style of leadership was needed to govern and regulate the behaviour of the masses.

If you count everyone "who gains mass support" as populist, the term kind of loses all meaning. For example, a person could gain mass support by a campaign of terror. That wouldn't make them a populist. Or suppose a country comes to believe that some form of elitism is the preferrable form government and elects a leader based on that premise. Even though he may enjoy mass support, that doesn't make him a populist. Not every elected leader in the world is by definition a populist.
In any case, I don't think the paragraph in question belongs. I'll try to think of a better way to present the contentious nature of the word 'anti-semitism,' and then present it here. --Jesse

Then you have to appostrofe the usage of anti-Semitism for prejudice-based hostility towards Semites and not only Jews in a better way. Take it all away, and it won't take long until that debate pops up again. The important thing is to define this article's usage in a way which don't invite to further editing. A proposition might be: In other parts of the world, "anti-Semitism" can be used also to denominate anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim hostility. In this article, however, we follow the US/Anglo-Saxon usage, according to which anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic are synonyms.
-- Ruhrjung 11:22 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that something should be said about the term's usage. However, I think that arguments on both sides--that the "minority" usage that includes other semitic groups is anti-Jewish; and that "anti-semitic" meaning only anti-Jewish gives special preference to the Jews and is therefore racist--are a little bit rediculous. We don't have to try to appropriate language to fit our own specific agendas (something that might demand questions about ones agenda)--that is not legitiment.

That being said, I think that both usages are acceptable. The word is a derivation of three clear (Latinate?) parts. I don't think we should be saying that it's combinational meaning, the logical meaning which flows from its parts, should be excluded. We certainly can't prevent anyone from using the word in such a way.

However, in this article, we should make a note that "anti-semitic", at least in Western European and American culture, has historically been used as an idiom. And it is that usage which has predominated. Furthermore, the topic of the article (from my understanding) is the particular historical phenomenon of Jew-hating. The word "anti-semitism" is only a pointer to a discussion of that topic, which happens to be the idiomatic meaning of the word "anti-semitism".

I don't mean to suggest that nothing about hatred and discrimination against other semitic groups should be mentioned in this article. That is fine, and even preferrable, I think. However, it should be brief and to the point, perhaps providing links to other wiki-articles that could expand upon these phenomena. The paragraph referred to above, however, is neither brief nor to the point, IMO. --Jesse

I rewrote the statement Tacitus, for example, writes disparagingly of the refusal to work on the Sabbath. Actually, Sabbath observance is about the only supposed Jewish practice that Tacitus does NOT write disparagingly about. The full text is here.

He writes: In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well (emphasis my own, of course). As noted a scholar as Father Edward Flannery in his seminal work on the history of anti-Semitism (The Anguish of the Jews) notes this as an example of Tacitus's anti-Semitism, noting the word indolence (p.21). I don't care if it's out but let's be accurate. Danny 23:04, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Danny, the text I removed was not about 7th years, but 7th days. Tacitus disapproves of it from the viewpoint of his own work ethic, but if you read the whole chapter you will see that his disapproval is very mild by his standards. Sabbath keeping and not eating pork are described with only a mild hint of disapproval, and only after that does he begin a stronger tirade with "The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness." My point is that if we want to give an actual example from Tacitus we should give one that demonstrates the point unambiguously. -- zero 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Zero0000, what we need is a named advocate who believes as you do - preferably someone who can be set against Flannerry as a viable authority. Then we can add that dispute to the aricle on Tacitus, and replace the example in this article with one that both authorities agree is an example of anti-Semitism.
I have no objection to Tacitus being given as an example on this page, I was just noting that the choice of Sabbath keeping was a strange one as that is one of the practices of the Jews that Tacitus is the least critical of. If that was the only thing Tacitus ever criticised about Jews then I'd argue that it isn't an example of anti-semitism at all; however there is much more in Tacitus than that as you will see if you read the web page I cited above. -- zero 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What is, however, interesting about Sabbath observance is that it is a recurring motif in Roman jeers at Jews. Tibullus, Ovid, Horace, Martial, Juvenal, Petronius, and Seneca all cite it as an example of Jewish indolence. Esentially, it came into conflict with Roman attitudes toward work. See here for some examples. An argument can be made (though let me stress that I am not making it here) that this attitude had an impact on Christian perceptions of the Sabbath (Sunday rather than Saturday; relaxed attitudes toward work). Once again, if you think some other statement of Tacitus is more worthy of mention instead, by all means go ahead. Danny 11:19, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Difficult to find half-remembered references, I know, but could you take a look? Martin 23:19, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Even if these political forces really are hostile towards the Jewry, which some of them without doubt are, such a usage is not advisable in English. It confuses the matter rather more than it contributes to clarity, as with many other emotionally charged words.

Wikipedia is not an English-language usage guide. DanKeshet 23:38, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)