As an American (atheist) Jew, I appreciate TYT’s coverage of certain topics, including the topic of anti-semitism. Ana made a point today about how calling so many people anti-semitic without justification has tended to make it harder to identify actual anti-semitism,which actually does exist.
This fits in with my own view of Netanyahu as having made it harder and worse, not only for Palestinians, but for Israel’s future, and for Jews around the world. (I realize that it is in the US that anti-semitism is being thrown around so much as an accusation, but I think if Netanyahu et al had not been so anxious to fling this accusation all over the place, they’d be more able to speak up now that others are so clearly treating the matter so sloppily.)
Great points, @jlaz and @patrie I would like to add another. For years I assumed that anti-semitism meant anti-Jewish, thinking that Jews were Semitic. Then one day I looked up the definition of Semitic, only to find that it has NOTHING to do with religion. The term “Semitic” is refers to persons who spoke one of the 8 Semitic languages, as well as their descendants. Several of them (Akkadian, Aramaic, Moabite, Phoenician, Assyrian and Babylonian) are apparently “dead” languages. Hebrew is the 7th language, and THAT’S what makes them Semitic. But guess what the 8th language is? Arabic. That’s right, the largest modern population of Semitic peoples on the planet are Arabs, yet they can be defamed, insulted, persecuted and killed without anyone placing the label of “ant-semitic” on those who carry out such atrocities against them. Make it make sense.
Yes, the problem for me is that the vernacular here is clearly understood by just about everyone: “anti-semitic” to most people simply means bigoted (largely by genetics, but also by culture and other ways) against Jews (however “Jew” may be defined is a lengthy discussion for some of us, and a quick discussion by others). And when something is largely used in the vernacular by so many people in a certain way, then it is hard to have conversations… we need to honor research such as yours which shows that the word itself is botched (rests on badly incorrect thinking in some way), but we also need to continue to have conversations and name the thing. So, what do we call it? Anti-Jewry? Anti-Jew? Anti-Jewish? Anti-Tribe-Of-Israel? (On this last one, I’m not really serious, but a side-note that I tend to identify sometimes as a “member of the Tribe Of Israel” rather than Jewish, as it brings into the discussion that some members of other “tribes” often do not believe in the creation myths of the tribe, or in some cases even speak the language or have the upbringing, but may for some purposes be considered part of the broader tribe).
I am not sure if there is a different word we can transition to which will be clearly understood in the vernacular, and so I am good with Ana and others using the word “anti-semitic” until maybe another word arises which is not “loaded” with baggage but is just accurate and useful. At the same time, I may be very wrong, but I do think it’s useful to discuss the word “anti-semitic” and see if we can find an improvement. Maybe ardent researchers have already hashed this out and have nominated one or two of the best candidates that we could try using. I haven’t really looked around properly on this question.
Yes, the word has been used in this so often and for so long, it is hard to abandon it. But I’m not suggesting that we do so. My idea is to simply expand the use of the term to reflect it’s full meaning. The term “racism” describes discrimination against those of another race. It is not strictly applied one particular race or another. If I can use it to refer to anti-black discrimination, yet still apply the term to bigotry against other races, why can’t “antisemitism be the same? Antisemitism against Jewish people, antisemitism against Arabs, etc.
In last week’s video chat with Cenk, I made the same point. At first he was hesitant. By the time I finished, he had changed his mind. The word has so much power, my not use it to protect Arabs too? I’m waiting for him to use it during a debate. “You say all Palestinians are violent and can’t be trusted to have a state of their own? You’re an antisemite!
This makes me want to come back to the question of what better wording would there be. I do think accurate words are needed so I would suggest maybe:
“anti-Jewish bigotry”
”anti-Arab bigotry”
”anti-Persian bigotry”
Maybe also:
”anti-Muslim bigotry”
a challenge here is that “Jewish” can mean not only a religious belief grouping, but a cultural (and linguistic?) group, a group related by language, an ethnic group I guess, and perhaps some aspects of political and geographic group.
a challenge here also is that while “anti-Muslim bigotry” and “anti-Jewish bigotry” do exist, these terms also conflict with leaving room for people innocently to engage in harsh criticism of religious belief systems without being accused of being bigoted. For example, I despise not only a belief in the supernatural mythology of the Torah, but also arguably in some of the underlying moral principles. Does this make me an “anti-Jewish bigot”? I hope not.
Some people would definitely say “yes” to the question you ask at the end there, because you are challenging something they have accepted and internalized without question. It has become a matter of fact for them, thus anyone who challenges it is, in their eyes, denying reality. Who questions reality? Those who don’t WANT it to be true. And why don’t you want it to be true? Because you are bigoted against their religion. It’s similar to the way the morality of zionism has come to be seen as self-evident, thus everyone who opposes it is also a bigot.
That being said, I still like the idea of expanding our use of the term antisemitism to include bigotry against all semitic people. The word has gained a tremendous amount of power over time. Instead of surrendering that power, allowing it to continue protecting just one group of semitic people, let’s deploy it in defense of ALL semitic people. My approach to doing that is to continue confronting and correcting the selective way the word is used, not only during public discourse, but also in everyday conversations.
Well, just to be clear, I think if you and I and others are going to start doing better to ask that the word “anti-semitism” be used accurately, then I think we have to be ready with additional suggested words to describe the less broad age-old bigotry that comes up. I’m guessing that many have worked on and debated which are the best words, but those are the words that come to mind for me.
by the way, as to the etymological history of “semitic” being applied exclusively to Jews and obscuring its use for other group, I once heard this practice was either put into place, or strengthened, by the Nazis. Still, I don’t know if that’s true.
Wow, I’ve never heard that. It makes, though. It either happened organically, or was intentionally orchestrated. If it was the latter, the Nazis would have to be numbered among likely suspects.
I have 2 words for that: Anti-Jew and Anti-Zionist. Anti-Jew would be anyone that is against somebody being Jewish. Anti-Zionist would be against Zionist Jews which would be Zealots like an Evangelical Christians or Shiite Muslims but of the Jewish faith
These two links seem like decent starting points for adding to our understanding of how we got to this confused place. I wasn’t able to find information that the Nazis were the ones who were sloppy and started using the word anti-semitism or anti-semite in reference just to anti-Jewishness. Instead, in my hasty very fallible look a few minutes ago, it appears that during the nineteenth century, and a little bit in the 18th century, we had the invention (in Germany?) and use of the word(s) semite and such, I guess with the meaning understood to refer to Jews, Arabs and others, but it also seems there were times that intellectuals started using the word “semitic” to refer to Jews.
”….Semite(n.)
1847, “a Jew, Arab, Assyrian, or Aramaean” (an apparently isolated use from 1797 refers to the Semitic language group), back-formation from Semitic or else from French Sémite (1845), from Modern Latin Semita, from Late Latin Sem, Greek Sēm “Shem,” one of the three sons of Noah (Genesis x.21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites in Bible-based anthropology, from Hebrew Shem. In this modern sense it is said to have been introduced by German historian August Schlözer in 1781….”
also:
”…anti-Semitism(n.)
“also antisemitism, 1881, from German Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite.
“Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try Hermann Adler’s Judaeophobia (1881). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in The Athenaeum of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature. Jew-hatred is attested from 1881. As an adjective, anti-Jewish is from 1817….”
I guess this does play into the idea that the intellectual predecessors of the Nazis arguably bore some responsibility for the intellectual sloppiness that we have in front of us today, but so far it does not mean that we can blame the Nazis themselves for the actual confusion. Still, I would be curious to hear from a real expert on the deeper research into this matter. One of the quotes I gave refers to at least some reading, but I do not have the time myself.
I have to partly disagree. “Anti-Jew”, or I think maybe in some cases it could be better to say “anti-Jewish”, bringing in some distinction of the adjective, is I think one of the candidates to replace common usage of “anti-semite” and “anti-semitic”. There are still problems here loaded into the topic since the terminology is not inherently clear as to whether it is focusing in on the Jewish belief system, or “dna” or language, or other cultural aspects, …. but it could be a good start in our group efforts to have more clear conversations.
However, in my opinion, anti-zionist and anti-zionism should be defined simply as against zionists and zionism, and not as being against only zionism when it is extolled by Jews. To my mind, a Christian who strongly supports zionism is very much a zionist. Their views and motives may (in many cases) not be identical to those of many Jewish zionists, but they are still a zionist. So, if one is opposed to zionism, then one is opposed to the views extolled by that Christian as much as one is opposed to the zionist views of others. Being an anti-zionist would mean being against all zionism (including that which is extolled by non-Jews).
Note that I don’t know that I agree with every single aspect of the anti-Zionist stance, but the goal here is to have clear and reasonable and widely-understood logical word usage, and not to settle all nuances of all dicussions.
I may have confused things a bit by posting the research and then accidentally deleting it some time later, and then reposting it. Sorry about that. But yes, I do think when we get a chance, the conversation is worth continuing.
I have been thinking about the coverage that TYT and others have been doing of the situation in Gaza and the slow-walked slaughter of dozens of thousands of unarmed civilians in Gaza by the IDF, under pretense of the IDF going after Hamas as hard as they can. Yes, Hamas has some responsibility for dead Gazan civilians, but the Israelis have contributed mightily to the idea that they are fine with treating unarmed civilians as not-human and killing many of them.
With all of the coverage that TYT has done of the horrid damage that Israel has done to Gaza, to civilians, and indeed in its way to the US and US politics, I haven’t had time to really get a sense of additional points which are important to me, so I’m asking:
How much has TYT also been covering:
the extent to which Netanyahu, and his many supporters in the US and Israel, have done irreparable damage to Israel’s future in the world?
the extent to which Netanyahu, and his many supporters in the US and Israel, have contributed mightily to anti-Jewishness around the world by supporting the perversion of the definition of anti-Jewishness (such as redefining it to mean folks who oppose Netanyahu’s policies), and by generally committing heinous acts in the name of Israel, which so many people around the world will associate with those Jews who did support those acts? I think this thread started with some good points by Ana on this topic, but I want to underscore that this is a very real problem. As a US atheist of Jewish heritage, I have seldom in my life had cause for concern, and I have to avoid playing the victim here (I’m not) so I won’t try to claim I run into anti-Jewishness in my community, but I follow the attacks on Jews and they do seem to be increasing. As they discussed briefly on South Park, Netanyahu and his supporters have made it harder to be Jewish around the world.
Well, I assume that TYT is covering this, so I just want to underscore my support.
let’s ask for coverage from TYT, when they can, of the Israel voting and constitutional system. If Israeli voters cannot put a stop to their government slaughtering unarmed civilians, and if they cannot remove a Prime Minister who is guilty of having aided Hamas significantly in past years, and so has helped significantly to put Hamas in a position to succeed, then Israel needs to stop referring to itself as a Democracy, or whatever terminology they are using (just as American voters are at that precipice, if not past it).
While I am undoubtedly behind on TYT’s coverage of various things, and so they may also have covered this extensively, I want to mention that a few months ago I was chatting with a fellow Jew who lives in Asia and who mentioned to me how horribly some (but surely not all) Israelis were behaving overseas in the community they are in. This didn’t have to do just with discussing Gaza. It was also a comment on their poor attitude toward the community in which they were visitors. They were apparently, in some cases, in conducting business, contemptuous of some upset they were causing locally.
Anyway, there have been various cases (IIRC) of Israelis behaving belligerently in different countries. It could be a good topic to cover, if some strong point could be made that is not about being anti-Jewish.
