Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 5

Rather than arguing with you on this, I will simply quote:
 * ''"Essentially, anti-Semitism means either of the following: (1) hostility to Jews as a group which results from no legitimate cause or greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation; or (2)a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly grundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggerration.


 * "These definitions can place an atypical and somtimes unwelcome burden on historians, who must consequently make ethnical judgments a central part of historical analysis. Whyen is a cause legitimate or a provocation genuine? At what point does a generalization become irrational or a response exceedinly unethical. Most anti-Semites have unfortunately made such evaluations very simple, but, as Shaye Cohen indicates in his contribution to this volume, these questions become particularly acute when one deals with anti-Semitism in antiquity."''

As for other historians and consensus, have you read Robert Wistrich? His work is seminal in the field. How about Almog? Arendt? Cohn-Sherbok? Hay? Littell (he's great!)? Valentin? Weinberg? (and these are people who covered the general topic, not just specific spisodes and eras. How much of Berger have you read? Exactly what historians are you talking about? Danny 16:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Danny, it seems as if this quote states the opposite of what you initially claimed. You initially wrote that the two sentence you added explained what anti-Semitism is. Your new additions show that David Berger believes that those two definitions are problematic. This conflates modern-day anti-Semitism with an entirely different phenoneon, ancient anti-Jewish beliefs held by non-Jews in antiquity. RK

Danny, we need to revert your reversion, and add back some or all of the new material. Why? Because the entire point of an encyclopedia article is to explain a concept in simple terms that the casual reader can understand. You need to stop deleting contributins from anyone which explain the common-useage of this word. That is what the beginning summary of any article requires. The two sentences you offer are not at all clear or enlightening. If you have a better definition than the various new ones, feel free to add to them. If you think they should be clarified, then please edit and clarify. But don't just totally delete every commonly held definition, except for the two sentences that you happen to like. RK

Do others agree that the new material below, defining anti-Semitism, is clear and useful?


 * Hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
 * "The attributing of all or part of one's own misfortunes,and those of one's country, to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, and proposing to remedying this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights; by keeping them out of certain economic or social activities, by expelling them from the country,by exterminating them etc. (Jean Paul Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew")
 * "Attitudes and actions against Jews based on the belief that they are uniquely inferior, evil, or deserving of co ndemnation by their very nature, or by historical or supernatural dictates. ("Anti-Semitism: The Causes and Effects Of A Prejudice", Crosser & Halperin)
 * "The hatred and persecution of Jews as a group; not the hatred of persons who happen to be Jews, but rather the hatred of persons because they are Jews" (Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, "Christian Beliefs & Anti -Semitism")

''Hostility toward Jews resulting from no legitimate cause or in a degree that greatly exceeds any legitimate greivances ... Disdain for supposed physical or moral features of Jews, whether baseless, exaggerrated, or rooted in excessive generalization.''

Who wrote this crap? This isn't Slashdot. Chadloder 20:31 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. Worse, it is badly written, and unintentionally anti-Semitic! Consider its language: It says that anti-Semitism is illegitimare hatred of the Jews...but therefore wouldn't it not be anti-Semitic to have a legitimate hatred of the Jews? Duh...every anti-Semite thinks that their hatred of Jews is legitimate. Even the author of that quote points out that this definition is very problematic, and I don't understand why Danny deletes all other definitions to the exclusion of this one.

I agree with Chad- its goyim bashing, as usual.


 * Hmm, I am not following at you. Where do you see attacks against all gentiles? RK

Lets not fight, here. If left at its purest level, anti-semitism is, simply "racism, specifically against Jews" - a dictionary entry, and this is not a dictionary. -Stevert

how about:


 * Anti-semitism, in a nutshell, is racism against Jews. Racism is often unlcear, however, and anti-semitism often takes anti-ethnic forms, as well as anti-religious forms, as well; often all of these are used interchangable, and, some critics say, is often a word thats purpose is to derisively scapegoat people for voicing opinions which are contradictory to mainstream Jewish opinion. This is the core debate between whether someone is an anti-Semite (racism) or an anti-Zionist (politically opposed to Zionism). Once again, these are not the same, despite the fact that Anti-Zionists may often exhibit anti-semitism. Stevert

I don't think Stevert's paragraph is incorrect, but I think it would be better to have a dictionary-style entry as the first paragraph, and then expand it with examples of anti-semitism throughout history, pointers to other pages which discuss anti-semitism or anti-Semites, and maybe a closing paragraph explaining how the term has become more politically loaded, with some saying it is used unfairly to brand anyone critical of the state of Israel or its policies. Chadloder 20:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Danny provided a quote defining anti-semitism, attributed to David Berger, a professor of history at Brooklyn College. Chadloder wrote, "Who wrote this...?" Chad, the answer is right there, please read the page you are quoting! RK wrote that the Berger himself finds the definition problematic. RK, I have only read the quotes Danny provided, and if there is additional context you want to share with us, please do. But based solely on the text quotes, I donot agree with your reading. I believe Berger is saying that these definitions of anti-semitism create problems for historians, but that is not the same thing as "problematic." To me, problematic suggests the definitions are wrong or limited; but I think Berger is saying that there is something limited about conventional history, and that the study of anti-semitism challenges historians to be more creative or engaged or innovative in their work.

In any event, I agree that an academic definition may not be the best way to frame the whole article. But I certainly do think that an encyclopedia article is meant to report on scholarship. Chad and Stevert, it doesn't matter whether we like Berger's definition or not. This article is not about what you or I think. It is an account, based on a survey of scholarhsip, of a particular topic. If Jewish leaders (e.g. how does B'nai Brith define anti-semitism), and academics like historians, sociologists, and otehrs, have differing definitions of anti-semitism, our task is not to choose which one we like the most, our task is to present these definitions and enough context so that readers can understand why there are different, even conflicting, definitions. Slrubenstein

- Some responses to RK, Chadloder, and Svertigo.

RK, you seem to think that Berger is refuting himself in the second paragraph I cited. Hardly. A "burden on historians" is not a refutation--he is simply saying that in some instances, historians hold a subjective view of whether a particular act was anti-Semitically motivated or not. An example of that appears below--the ransacking and razing of the Jewish Temple at Yeb (Elephantine), which was an act against Jews but not necessarily anti-Semitic. As for simply saying anti-Semitism is racism, that is an over-simplification of Berger's second point. Briefly put, Berger's points are A) hostility toward Jews without any cause ("I just don't like Jews") or in excess of just cause ("A Jew ripped me off, so all Jews are dishonest"); and B) Stereotyping, similarly groundless ("Jews hate Christians") or based on exaggeration and generalization ("Some Jews have big noses, so Jews have big noses"), this later can be both physical ("Jews are dirty") or ethical ("Jews are cheap"). It should be obvious that all of the above statements in parentheses are examples of this.

As for calling it racism, this too is not accurate. Anti-Semitism can be racist, but it does not have to be (the claim that there were a preponderant number of Jews in the trans-Atlantic slavetrade, as refuted by Faber, is anti-Semitic but not racist; similarly, pointing out that the number of Jews involved in the Russian Revolution can be anti-Semitic while not racist). This is an important distinction too, since it serves as the difference between medieval Christian anti-Semitism, which could be rectified through the act of conversion, and Nazi anti-Semitism, which could not.

Berger's definition is encompassing all variations of anti-Semitism, ancient and modern. The two are different, and there are various shades in between. I have yet to hear you give an alternative source from Berger, where he defines anti-Semitism any differently. What is your basis for saying that he does? (oh, and I have also read several hundred pages of Berger, and they were on the topic of anti-Semitism). If you do not have one, then it is you, noty me, who is misrepresenting his views.

I found the other definitions inadequate. Here is why:
 * 1) Webster: What about if Jews are in the majority? Can the Arab minority in Israel be anti-Semitic? If you say yes, this definition is inadequate.
 * 2) Sartre: What if you don't think the Jews are the cause of your misfortune, but you personally do not like them? Let them do what they want as long as they do not live on my street or join my country club. According to a strict reading of Sartre, that is not anti-Semitism either.
 * 3) Grosser and Halperin: Ditto. Jews are not evil. They are just culturally different, so I prefer to avoid them. According to their definition, that is not anti-Semitism either. By the way, read their next paragraph, which actually clarifies this: "This definition may or may not apply to attacks against Jews apparently motivated by considerations such as philosophical differences [such as the Church--my reading], power struggles [Palestinian-Israeli conflict, also my reading] and political maneuverings [Jesse Jackson's Hymie-town remark, also my reading]]; however, it does apply when culturally-induced, subconscious or surrounding prejudices are consciously or unconsciously utilized. Hmmmm.
 * 4) Glock and Stark: This one is closest to a real definition, but I find it inadequate because it fails to actually describe the various forms that their "hatred" can take. The definition I propose does.

By the way, why do you think those are commonly held definitions? The only one that has any claim to that is the Webster definition, and even that is problematic. As in Glock and Stark, it fails to delineate the various forms of hatred, covering them up in a general blanket statement.

What you think of my historical writing is pretty irrelevant. Your platitudes about me being potentially a "great" contributor are pretty meaningless too. I do not trash stuff because you write it. I will remove stuff that is inaccurate, poorly worded, overly-simplistic, false, incomplete, or confused. We can also turn your question around, of course. Why do you feel so threatened when I challenge your work? Don't bother answering. I don't really care. I am taking your advice. I stick to scholarship, not pop answers. I would hope you do the same.

As for Chadloder, exactly why is it crap? What is wrong with it? It is a definition by a scholar. You can be more specific than that. Back to RK. You write that you agree with Chadloder that it is crap. Forget me, for a minute. This is the definition Berger gives (read the book--you'll see it is). Are you saying his definition is crap?

As for Svertigo: How is it the hyperbolic "goyim-bashing"? In fact, if you read it carefully, you will see that it is anything but that. In fact, ten pages down, the author of the original actually takes a position that might surprise you: The failure of the Arabs to embrace the Zionist immigrants was hardly unexpected and is not in itself grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism. In other words, he rejects some of the popular notions of what is and what isn't anti-Semitism and takes a more stringent view of it. On the other hand, your proposed definition does not define what racism is. Furthermore, calling it racism begs the assumption that Jews are a race. Not a statement I'd be willing to make.

Finally, do what you want. Once again, I am sorry if the fact that I have actually studied the topic, write about the topic, and teach the topic is a hindrance to your preconceivced notions about the topic. As with the timeline for Jewish History, we have yet another topic that I have been chased away from because I commit the crime of actually knowing something about it. And when will you be graduating, RK? Danny 22:01 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * I hope that Wikipedia users are aware that Danny is making things up. Danny was never chased away from that entry. In fact, I repeatedly asked him to contribute to that entry, and said that if he has problems with it, then go ahead and edit it. If someone takes the time to review the records, they will find that the real problem was that Danny vandalized the article by deleting it entirely, and he refused to do any edits on, despite our requests. Honestly, I can't figure out this man's needless hostility. RK

--- I appreciate the long, well thought out above by Slrub and Danny. I'm speaking as a non-Jew, who is obviously not informed as to the nuanced history of anti-semitism, but Im not speaking out of ignorance, nor, do I think Im in dasagreement with any major points above except those few that seem to attempt to confuse the thrust. (like we deal with on other high controvesy articles) But speaking as a novice, and with an ability to articulate my impressions decently, Im keen to point out poorly written leads, (first thing I see).

Lets start with my idea that the nuanced details belong, in some order in the article. Then lets add to this my readership, perhaps as an "ignorant NPOV" (like in neural net programming), and I'm seeking clarification; The article should lay out clearly. But this is not new. Lets suppose the reality, that someone comes to this article with some vague, biased, or otherwise concept of what anti-semitism is: There needs to be the tie to the general, to place it all in some inteeligent frame. Here's my prejudice :


 * Anti-semitism is a vulgar term for racism and other forms of ethnic discrimination against Jews. It's history is long, and nuanced, and it has threads in nearly all parts of the world. The reasons, are linked closely to xenophobia, and its trait symptoms.


 * Anti-Semitism's long history, has developed the maintenance of this record, as a historical science; :human history/ethnic conflict/racism/antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a specialized aspect of racism. But because Judiasm is not simply an issue of race, but of religion, and of (currently) nationality, the term anti-semitism has come to be applied to many aspects of Jews and Jewish culture, though many of these be identical aspects in discrimination of other cultures; Arab physical traits, for example bear familiarity with Jewish traits.


 * working conclusion: So, its not invalid for some to argue that anti-semitism often has too wide a context, to encompass any aspect of conflict with Jews, though these conflics are not race related.

So a decision must be made then: Either one says anti-Semitism is: ethnic discrimination against Jews, (thus, a valid basis for historical research) or it must be represented as a colloquial referent: unclear and with broad usage in its meaning. (not valid as a basis for historical research) Both should be included, but in a way that clearly marks the line between its scientific usage and its political usage. see: here for a simplified breakdown on my "deep thoughts" of this word's use.

Thus, from my point of view, its valid to state anti-Semitism as a subset of historical science ( human history/ethnic conflict/racism/anti-Semitism) and contain within said heading the history of... But's its also valid to point out anti-Semitism has a recent and relevant history of political use, as a derisive word. In the US, anti-semitism gets "all the press"; as a novice, im wondering, how is it that other forms of ethnic based discrimination must share the word "racism," while Jews are priveliged their own special word for racism, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination...ad inf.. ? What misconceptions am I operating under, please, before I dive in and start another NPOV based edit war. ? -;) ---Stevert

Svertigo, thank you for your comment. I hhave to run out for an hour but I will answer you as soon as I get back Danny 23:48 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Back. Svertigo, I am not sure I properly understood everything you wrote, but I will try to answer as I do understand it. I apologize if I misread what you are saying.

First of all, I agree with you that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the hatred of a specific group (I am hesitant to use the term racism because of the implication that Jews are a race), and that this phenomenon has distinct parallels in other forms of hatred and racism, such as, for example, the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans, etc. They are all subsets of a much larger phenomenon of xenophobia.

I also agree with you 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. It will help us to determine whether charges of anti-Semitism are based in fact or rhetoric (this will be especially important today when discussing the anti-Semitism-anti-Zionism discussion. Personally, again, I believe that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic--in fact up to WW2, most Jews were.).

I disagree that anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic discrimination. One can be racist without discriminating against someone. Segregation is officially ended in America, but that is not to say that anti-Black racism has disappeared, or that it will never retransform into discrimination.

I also believe (and I have solid grounds for this) that anti-Semitism played an important role in the emergence of Western culture. Furthermore, Jews and Gypsies were the most visible ethnic minorities in Europe for centuries. This in itself makes anti-Semitism worthy of an article. It also relates to why it has a distinct name, unlike other forms of racism. In fact, anti-Semitism was a political philosophy in 19th century Europe: it was part of the platform of some parties and the raisôn d'etre of others. While my take on it is that scapegoating was an easy way to deflect criticism of the government or ruling elites (for instance, Russia and the Hapsburgs), the fact that this could even become a political platform is worthy of an article.

That being said, I agree with you that anti-Semitism is worthy of an article since it is a prominent subset of xenophobia that had a lasting impact on society (the Holocaust, for one, but there are also many other instances, including the rise of the middle class and settlement in the New World, all of which relate in one way or another to anti-Semitism). As for the "privileged" special term to describe anti-Jewish sentiment--well, it was coined by the anti-Semites to describe themselves. I wish they hadn't coined it, but then again, I wish they weren't anti-Semitic either. In other words, the fact that there is such a word shows how rampant anti-Semitism was in the culture of the time. And yes, calling people anti-Semitic to score political points is deplorable. That makes an accurate and carefully worded definition all the more important. Danny 00:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about the "definition" of anti-semitism in the current version of the article. I don't care who the author was or what college he teaches at. Crap is crap. If it takes a simple thing and makes it less clear than it ought to be, it's crap and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm withdrawing from further discussions about this topic. I don't think this HAS to be politically charged, but you are making it so, and I don't have the time to argue with you. If you want to grind your axe here, go for it. Chadloder 01:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Well I dont see how this is so politically charged, and rather find it a well conducted clarification - (wikipedia isnt a chat after all;) I did however see a diasporic (?) debate going on, and thought Id better jump in, so people could unite in debasing my POV.

Ill stipulate that we aggre heavily, Danny, and I found much of it informative; It also doesnt sound like you and RK are arguing over much in particular. So ill limit my comments here to the interesting parts which I might chime in on, and leave it at that for a while:


 * "I disagree that anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic discrimination" One can be racist without discriminating against someone. Segregation is officially ended in America, but that is not to say that anti-Black racism has disappeared, or that it will never retransform into discrimination."

This struck me as antithetical to everything I believe in about ethnic conflicts, although in an innocent sorta way. Ethnic discrimination is quite a broad genre, and anti-Semitism, in order to not fall under it, would have to be highly-specialized indeed. And the typical problem with specialized charachterizations is that nobody knows what the definitons of this and that are, and so nobody agrees, and therefore it remains an island unto itself, for its own sake, and forsaking all reason. -SV


 * Okay. My understanding of "discrimination" is specific acts taken against another group. You seem to have a wider definition. We may not be in disagreement after all. Danny

sv continued: On the other hand, if you accept ethnic discrimination, (as a factor of ethnic conflict, and a universally applicable, humanist term for classification of this phenomenon) then we seem to be making sense. Maybe were not in agreement after all, but anyway...


 * "I also believe (and I have solid grounds for this) that anti-Semitism played an important role in the emergence of Western culture."

LOL - this is like my theory (seriously) that pedophilia drove the formation of the Church's social structure. hehe... I like your theory, and I think its almost axiomatic: Jews, unlike most other ethnic groups (in addition to having a long history, belonging to the founding relgion from which sprang Christianity, Islam...etc ) have a distinction of sticking it out where they were not "wanted", in one way or another, either out of facility, or sticktuitiveness, or some other "ethnic" traits that's best left to mere speculation. As such, Jews must have played a role in ethnic identity developments in the west, simply by being the everpresent xenoculture.-Stevert


 * In a sense, sure. Not sure if I would use the word "sticktuitiveness" (lol) but I certainly agree with what you say about the "everpresent xenoculture." That, accompanied by the Jewish roots of the Church, make for an interesting outcome.


 * BTW, thanks for the comments. They forced me to clarify my position, and that is always a good thing. Have a great night. Danny 02:11 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Some way back, someone asked if legitimate hatred of Jews was anti-Semitic, in response to the definition in the article. My response is no: if Fred and Joanne beat me up and steal my money, and Fred and Joanne happen to be Jewish, and as a result of getting mugged I hate Fred and Joanne, then that hatred is not anti-Semitic, unless I hate them in a degree that greatly exceeds my legitimate grievance at getting mugged. However, if I mis-generalise to saying that all Jews are muggers, or that all Jews in England are muggers, then I am anti-Semitic. Martin


 * Hehe :He also misstated the question: "Hatred of..." a general group.. If the question is: "is it alright to hate Fred and Joanne", then I dont see how RK can reasonably disagree with you. Although, he doesnt seem to need reason, unless he reasons one.-Stevert


 * Well, even for a general group, if a Palestinian has his house demolished by the Israeli army, and consequently hates Israeli soldiers, the Israeli politicians who order them, and the Israeli civilians who voted for those politicians, then that's not anti-Semitism, unless sie hates them in a degree that greatly exceeds hir legitimate grievance at losing hir home and all hir possessions. If sie mis-generalises to hating Israelis who are too young to vote or serve in the army, and Jews living in other countries, or people who died before the creation of the state of Israel, then that's anti-Semitism. Martin