![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A summary of past arguments about etymology. See
Talk:antisemitism for more of the same. Summarised by
Martin who has got stuff wrong twice today, and is very depressed at the failure of
Godwin's law, so don't trust this stuff for accuracy.
See Talk:Antisemitism/Etymology complete for the unsummarised version.
The term antisemitism was coined in 1879 by the German political agitator Wilhelm Marr, the author of a book called "The Victory of Judaism Over Germanism," to distinguish between old-fashioned Jew-hatred and a more modern, political and ethnic opposition to the Jews. The term caught on immediately. With the swelling tide of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany, Marr founded the Bund der Antisemiten or "Antisemitic League." In 1881 an "Antisemitic Petition" bearing 225,000 signatures was presented to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and by 1882 there was an official "Anti-Semitic Party" in Germany that won several seats in the Reichstag.
The below comments and arguments are largely irrelevant given this reality. The term antisemitism has always been Jew-specific, and never was used for any of the other semitic peoples. Yes, technically, the term should apply to all semitic people, but it doesn't. So yes, other semitic people can indeed be "antisemitic," because it's invention and primary usage ever since has always been as a euphemism for "Jew-Hatred." Justin G. 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I tried for a categorisation like below, but rapidly realised I couldn't accurately guage people's positions, with some exceptions. Also, some people didn't sign their posts, so they forfeited their vote.
One question is how old the minority usage is. Some believe that if it's only been around a few years then we can probably ignore it, but it requires a bit more respect if it's been around for over, say, 50 years.
Various examples have been given of the minority usage in practice.
Most are modern, with the Webster entry being the oldest (1913). Some feel this is significant. I've not been able to confirm the Webster claim, though.
Arguments for accepting the existance of a minority usage generally revolve around pointing at the minority usage and saying "LOOK! IT'S RIGHT THERE!".
Not valid because the writers are incompetent:
Not valid because it's a deliberate political ploy:
Not valid because it's too rare:
What a load of crap. Another eample of Jews trying to hijack the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.64.37 ( talk) 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Another argument against the minority usage is practical. If all usage for "anti-Semitism" is changed to the current minority usage, during the transition there will be confusion as to what it means. After the transition, it will simply be dropped from the language, since anything that "anti-Jewish-ism" and "anti-Arab-ism" have in common can be covered by another concept; that Jews and Arabs are both Semitic has no relevance outside of fields like linguistics and anthropology. Also, both during and after the transition, there will be confusion to the meaning of the word "anti-Semitism" in pre-transition texts.
For all of this confusion, what benefit do we get? Take the argument that "he" shouldn't be the gender-neutral pronoungeneric third person pronoun]], because it affects the way we think and view the world; making such a change would cause a lot of confusion and trouble, but might be worth it if using "he" does have the claimed affects. What affects does the current usage of "anti-Semitism" have, that changing it would bring about benefits? -- Khym Chanur
Wikipedia states that the term anti-Semitic is a misnomer, a euphemism, a source of endless, harrowing, unnecessary debate, and not a neutral term. The solution is for Wikipedia to stand back and take a neutral position: make the main entry "anti-Judaism" (which has none of those problems) and cross-reference it to "anti-Semitism". Korky Day 20:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't anyone going to comment on Anti-Judaism as a neutral term? (See above section.) Korky Day 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Other etymology debates:
I don't care about this, so I'm not going to bother summarising it. Martin
Well.... for one thing, the "minority" definition actually makes more sense to people who know what semitic means. Also, looking at the current state of the world, the Jews don't look like they're the only semitic people to face ongoing persecution for their cultural identities. Even in America, which is a fortress of the civil rights movement, there is widespread persecution of Arab semites for nothing more than their ethnic origin. See [1] for a report. Silver Maple
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A summary of past arguments about etymology. See
Talk:antisemitism for more of the same. Summarised by
Martin who has got stuff wrong twice today, and is very depressed at the failure of
Godwin's law, so don't trust this stuff for accuracy.
See Talk:Antisemitism/Etymology complete for the unsummarised version.
The term antisemitism was coined in 1879 by the German political agitator Wilhelm Marr, the author of a book called "The Victory of Judaism Over Germanism," to distinguish between old-fashioned Jew-hatred and a more modern, political and ethnic opposition to the Jews. The term caught on immediately. With the swelling tide of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany, Marr founded the Bund der Antisemiten or "Antisemitic League." In 1881 an "Antisemitic Petition" bearing 225,000 signatures was presented to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and by 1882 there was an official "Anti-Semitic Party" in Germany that won several seats in the Reichstag.
The below comments and arguments are largely irrelevant given this reality. The term antisemitism has always been Jew-specific, and never was used for any of the other semitic peoples. Yes, technically, the term should apply to all semitic people, but it doesn't. So yes, other semitic people can indeed be "antisemitic," because it's invention and primary usage ever since has always been as a euphemism for "Jew-Hatred." Justin G. 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I tried for a categorisation like below, but rapidly realised I couldn't accurately guage people's positions, with some exceptions. Also, some people didn't sign their posts, so they forfeited their vote.
One question is how old the minority usage is. Some believe that if it's only been around a few years then we can probably ignore it, but it requires a bit more respect if it's been around for over, say, 50 years.
Various examples have been given of the minority usage in practice.
Most are modern, with the Webster entry being the oldest (1913). Some feel this is significant. I've not been able to confirm the Webster claim, though.
Arguments for accepting the existance of a minority usage generally revolve around pointing at the minority usage and saying "LOOK! IT'S RIGHT THERE!".
Not valid because the writers are incompetent:
Not valid because it's a deliberate political ploy:
Not valid because it's too rare:
What a load of crap. Another eample of Jews trying to hijack the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.64.37 ( talk) 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Another argument against the minority usage is practical. If all usage for "anti-Semitism" is changed to the current minority usage, during the transition there will be confusion as to what it means. After the transition, it will simply be dropped from the language, since anything that "anti-Jewish-ism" and "anti-Arab-ism" have in common can be covered by another concept; that Jews and Arabs are both Semitic has no relevance outside of fields like linguistics and anthropology. Also, both during and after the transition, there will be confusion to the meaning of the word "anti-Semitism" in pre-transition texts.
For all of this confusion, what benefit do we get? Take the argument that "he" shouldn't be the gender-neutral pronoungeneric third person pronoun]], because it affects the way we think and view the world; making such a change would cause a lot of confusion and trouble, but might be worth it if using "he" does have the claimed affects. What affects does the current usage of "anti-Semitism" have, that changing it would bring about benefits? -- Khym Chanur
Wikipedia states that the term anti-Semitic is a misnomer, a euphemism, a source of endless, harrowing, unnecessary debate, and not a neutral term. The solution is for Wikipedia to stand back and take a neutral position: make the main entry "anti-Judaism" (which has none of those problems) and cross-reference it to "anti-Semitism". Korky Day 20:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't anyone going to comment on Anti-Judaism as a neutral term? (See above section.) Korky Day 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Other etymology debates:
I don't care about this, so I'm not going to bother summarising it. Martin
Well.... for one thing, the "minority" definition actually makes more sense to people who know what semitic means. Also, looking at the current state of the world, the Jews don't look like they're the only semitic people to face ongoing persecution for their cultural identities. Even in America, which is a fortress of the civil rights movement, there is widespread persecution of Arab semites for nothing more than their ethnic origin. See [1] for a report. Silver Maple