Unnecessary bashing. The OP singled Jews out, which framed this discussion mostly around Jews. Prejudice against Jews is called anti semitism. There's really nothing to see here, nobody implied that there was no discrimination against other groups.
Well in the first place framing this discussion mostly around jews is precisely the problem. Don't you understand why it is offensive?
The same way it's offensive when my jewish relatives claim the Nazi genocide was the worst catastrophe in all history, conveniently forgetting the Cultural Revolution, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the Armenian Genocide etc etc
So I don't like the use of the word "anti-semitism" in the first place. But what really annoys me is that it is a euphemism, and a hyped one at that. To a first approximation, anti-semite means Nazi. Prejudice against jews is correctly called judeophobia instead.
shmerl managed both to commit this abuse of language
and complain about the use of stupid euphemisms at the same time.
And what he was complaining about - affirmative action to mean discrimination - is a far smaller abuse of language.
Sorry, I don't see the offense in framing a discussion around one instance of something. Don't get me wrong, if someone claims to be fighting for a general cause and then repeatedly talks about one instance, that's wrong. But I really don't see a problem with someone offering a story about one instance. At no point did the OP imply that there was no discrimination against other groups.
Claiming that the Holocaust (I'm guessing you don't like that word either) was the worst catastrophe in all of history is a different matter. Now you're dealing with a statement of fact that should at least in theory be either 'right' or 'wrong'. In practice though, I don't think it makes any sense to split hairs around wether it was the 'worst' catastrophe in human history. Who cares, it was pretty damn bad. It's hard to see why you would be offended - there's plenty of defensible views of the word 'catastrophe' that could make the holocaust the 'worst' catastrophe, and if by some other reasonable view of 'catastrophe' the holocaust only comes in at number 7, why would you view it as offensive if someone disagreed?
Same goes for your insistence on the right way to call 'prejudice against jews', where you also manage to find offense. Any mainstream dictionary will define anti semitism as something around discrimination or prejudice against Jews, which would make it's use in this discussion 100% legitimate.
Perhaps you could enlighten us - what exactly is the problem with Jews talking about ways in which they were hurt as a group in the past?
what exactly is the problem with Jews talking about ways in which they were hurt as a group in the past?
The problem is with shmerl saying we can't use the phrase "affirmative action".
At no point did the OP imply that there was no discrimination against other groups.
From the Frenkel article: "People of other nationalities, like Tatars and Armenians, against whom there were prejudices and persecution—though not nearly on the same scale as against the Jews"
One who thinks the Soviets hurt anyone more than the Ukrainians and Chechens is deluded.
The basic problem here is that Russia is blatantly, horrifically racist in general. I'm sharing an apartment with a Russian Jew who shows no outward signs of Jewish practice or culture, but whose father nonetheless had to live a double-life between Russia and America just because he was descended from Jewish stock. That's plainly racial antisemitism and every bit deserving of the word.
Are you clear that "anti-semitism" carries some meaning other than "prejudice against jews"? So if you use it to mean "prejudice against jews" it is a euphemism. I can give you the history of the term if you like.
It's hard to look into your head and understand what exactly anti-semitism means to you. For anti-semitism to qualify as a euphemism, we'd have to establish that:
1. It actually has some substantial meaning outside of 'prejudice/discrimination against jews'
2. It is offensive beyond the offence that one might take from being accused of prejudice/discrimination against jews
As for (1), here's some dictionary definitions:
Merriam-Webste: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
Collins: prejudice or hostility towards Jews
Cambridge: the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people
I'm not clear on what sort of historial narrative you could provide that would 'load' this term with substantial additional meaning and offense, but it would have to be very convincing.
No, your criteria are bogus.
We simply have to establish that it is not literal usage.
Calling someone anti-semitic when you mean prejudiced is euphemistic in exactly the same way it is euphemistic to call someone a Nazi instead when you mean prejudiced. This cannot be literal unless said person is a member of the NSDAP.
Which is almost never the case because the NSDAP hasn't existed or had any members since 1945. In fact, "anti-semite" is approximately a synonym for "Nazi", though it is in fact an older term.
The term "anti-semite" was invented by 19th century German racist theorists to describe themselves, based on their social-Darwinistic style theory of race war. (This is also why your dictionary definitions are wrong. Look it up.)
The term strictly cannot apply to anyone who does not buy into 19th century race war theory.
For example, it is strictly a nonsense to call the Spanish Inquisition (or anything else before the 19th century) "anti-semitic".
It is also highly erm, dubious, to call a Russian communist believer in Marxism an "anti-semite".
The correct term is "judeophobe".
You should call someone prejudiced against jews "judeophobic", not "anti-semitic", unless (for example) he is wearing a Gestapo uniform.
The same way you call someone prejudiced against blacks a "racist", not a "White Supremacist", unless he is wearing a Klan uniform.
It was actually shmerl and not me who was getting all hissy about euphemism; I was merely calling him (her?) on his bullshit.
I realize that common usage may be sloppier which is why I did tag my post as being pedantic. I am disinclined to continue posting on this topic.
Universities had national census not only for Jews obviously. This doesn't preclude the fact of that it was manifestation of antisemitism. If you don't get it - there is little point in explaining it to you.
Comments
Don't call semi-officially government sanctioned antisemitism with stupid euphemisms. It's plain insulting.
Don't conflate prejudice with anti-semitism. It's plain insulting.
Better don't tell this "wisdom" to those who were discriminated in Russia. They won't appreciate it.
Universities had national census not only for Jews obviously.
Then complain in your comment about all the people treated unfairly, don't mention anti-semitism only.
If you don't get this - there is little point in explaining it to you.
I don't need to complain. Just further ignore your pointless flaming in this thread.
Right back at you
You weren't talking about those who were discriminated against in Russia, you were talking about jews who were discriminated against in Russia.
Implying that all the others who were discriminated against don't count.
And there were lots of them. Including, by these articles, victimized by MGU admissions.
EDIT: check out in the article where it says "These problems were designed to prevent Jewish people and other undesirables"
Unnecessary bashing. The OP singled Jews out, which framed this discussion mostly around Jews. Prejudice against Jews is called anti semitism. There's really nothing to see here, nobody implied that there was no discrimination against other groups.
Well in the first place framing this discussion mostly around jews is precisely the problem. Don't you understand why it is offensive?
The same way it's offensive when my jewish relatives claim the Nazi genocide was the worst catastrophe in all history, conveniently forgetting the Cultural Revolution, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the Armenian Genocide etc etc
So I don't like the use of the word "anti-semitism" in the first place. But what really annoys me is that it is a euphemism, and a hyped one at that. To a first approximation, anti-semite means Nazi. Prejudice against jews is correctly called judeophobia instead.
shmerl managed both to commit this abuse of language and complain about the use of stupid euphemisms at the same time.
And what he was complaining about - affirmative action to mean discrimination - is a far smaller abuse of language.
Sorry, I don't see the offense in framing a discussion around one instance of something. Don't get me wrong, if someone claims to be fighting for a general cause and then repeatedly talks about one instance, that's wrong. But I really don't see a problem with someone offering a story about one instance. At no point did the OP imply that there was no discrimination against other groups.
Claiming that the Holocaust (I'm guessing you don't like that word either) was the worst catastrophe in all of history is a different matter. Now you're dealing with a statement of fact that should at least in theory be either 'right' or 'wrong'. In practice though, I don't think it makes any sense to split hairs around wether it was the 'worst' catastrophe in human history. Who cares, it was pretty damn bad. It's hard to see why you would be offended - there's plenty of defensible views of the word 'catastrophe' that could make the holocaust the 'worst' catastrophe, and if by some other reasonable view of 'catastrophe' the holocaust only comes in at number 7, why would you view it as offensive if someone disagreed?
Same goes for your insistence on the right way to call 'prejudice against jews', where you also manage to find offense. Any mainstream dictionary will define anti semitism as something around discrimination or prejudice against Jews, which would make it's use in this discussion 100% legitimate.
Perhaps you could enlighten us - what exactly is the problem with Jews talking about ways in which they were hurt as a group in the past?
what exactly is the problem with Jews talking about ways in which they were hurt as a group in the past?
The problem is with shmerl saying we can't use the phrase "affirmative action".
At no point did the OP imply that there was no discrimination against other groups.
From the Frenkel article: "People of other nationalities, like Tatars and Armenians, against whom there were prejudices and persecution—though not nearly on the same scale as against the Jews"
One who thinks the Soviets hurt anyone more than the Ukrainians and Chechens is deluded.
The basic problem here is that Russia is blatantly, horrifically racist in general. I'm sharing an apartment with a Russian Jew who shows no outward signs of Jewish practice or culture, but whose father nonetheless had to live a double-life between Russia and America just because he was descended from Jewish stock. That's plainly racial antisemitism and every bit deserving of the word.
Agreed.
<pedantic>
Are you clear that "anti-semitism" carries some meaning other than "prejudice against jews"? So if you use it to mean "prejudice against jews" it is a euphemism. I can give you the history of the term if you like.
</pedantic>
It's hard to look into your head and understand what exactly anti-semitism means to you. For anti-semitism to qualify as a euphemism, we'd have to establish that:
1. It actually has some substantial meaning outside of 'prejudice/discrimination against jews' 2. It is offensive beyond the offence that one might take from being accused of prejudice/discrimination against jews
As for (1), here's some dictionary definitions:
Merriam-Webste: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group Collins: prejudice or hostility towards Jews Cambridge: the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people
I'm not clear on what sort of historial narrative you could provide that would 'load' this term with substantial additional meaning and offense, but it would have to be very convincing.
No, your criteria are bogus. We simply have to establish that it is not literal usage.
Calling someone anti-semitic when you mean prejudiced is euphemistic in exactly the same way it is euphemistic to call someone a Nazi instead when you mean prejudiced. This cannot be literal unless said person is a member of the NSDAP.
Which is almost never the case because the NSDAP hasn't existed or had any members since 1945. In fact, "anti-semite" is approximately a synonym for "Nazi", though it is in fact an older term.
The term "anti-semite" was invented by 19th century German racist theorists to describe themselves, based on their social-Darwinistic style theory of race war. (This is also why your dictionary definitions are wrong. Look it up.)
The term strictly cannot apply to anyone who does not buy into 19th century race war theory.
For example, it is strictly a nonsense to call the Spanish Inquisition (or anything else before the 19th century) "anti-semitic".
It is also highly erm, dubious, to call a Russian communist believer in Marxism an "anti-semite".
The correct term is "judeophobe".
You should call someone prejudiced against jews "judeophobic", not "anti-semitic", unless (for example) he is wearing a Gestapo uniform.
The same way you call someone prejudiced against blacks a "racist", not a "White Supremacist", unless he is wearing a Klan uniform.
It was actually shmerl and not me who was getting all hissy about euphemism; I was merely calling him (her?) on his bullshit.
I realize that common usage may be sloppier which is why I did tag my post as being pedantic. I am disinclined to continue posting on this topic.
Universities had national census not only for Jews obviously. This doesn't preclude the fact of that it was manifestation of antisemitism. If you don't get it - there is little point in explaining it to you.