Anti-Semitism vs. Antisemitism

Several years ago, I had the pleasure of hearing Christopher Browning talk at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln on Antisemitism and the origins of the Final Solution. Something he spent a long time talking about was the difference of Anti-Semitism and Antisemitism (subtle difference: hyphenation). Since then, I've forgotten what the difference was, but I've employed his philosophy off and on for years. Today in class, then, we were finalizing comments on the class (redundant, right, but the course is basically Medieval Christian and Jewish relations), and I thought about this concept. I brought it up to the class and the professor couldn't tell me the difference, so I had to look it up. The difference, I think, is subtle, but very important. Here's an article I found by the CFCA and also here (circa 1989) that I think explains it in a pretty clear fashion.

Let me know what you think -- is it worthwhile to differentiate with or without the hyphen?

What's in a Hyphen? by Shmuel Almog

A seemingly minor point crops up from time to time but grows in importance the more you reflect upon it. Should one write 'anti-Semitism' with a hypen or 'antisemitism' as one word?

What is the importance of such a technical question and why should anyone, apart from type-setters and proof-readers, worry about it?....

Let me start at the beginning: When did the word 'antisemitism' make its first appearance? It is generally attributed to Wilhelm Marr, who was called by the Israeli historian Moshe Zimmermann "The Patriarch of Antisemitism." Marr coined the term in the 1870s to distinguish betwee old-time Jew-hatred and modern, political, ethnic, or racial opposition to the Jews. This term made great advances and soon became common usage in many languages. So much so, that it applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but--against all logic--was attached to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present. Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past, when one had no inkling of this modern usage. Purists no longer cry out in dismay against such anachronistic practice; it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred.

Let's go back to the hyphen then. What's the difference? If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words 'Semitism', 'Semite', 'Semitic' as meaningful. They supposedly convey an image of a real substance, of a real group of people--the Semites, who are said to be a race. This is a misnomer: firstly, because 'semitic' or 'aryan' were originally language groups, not people; but mainly because in antisemitic parlance, 'Semites' really stands for Jews, just that.

And mind you, Jews are not a race at all. They do not all have inherent characteristics in common that may distinguish them from other people. What unites them is a tradition, culture, history , destiny maybe, but not genetics. If you do assume for a moment that Semites are a special race, consider also the implication that this so-called race comprises both Jews and Arabs. One often talks of the kinship between these two, who are now at loggerheads with each other. Be that as it may, antisemites talking against 'Semites' do not generally refer to Arabs; they mean Jews. So did the Nazis who killed the Jews and invited cooperation from the Arabs.

It is obvious then that 'anti-Semitism' is a non-term, because it is not directed against so-called 'Semitism'. If there is any substance to the term, it is only to denote a specifically anti-Jewish movement. Antisemitism is a generic term which signifies a singular attitude to a particular group of people. As the late philosopher Zvi Diesendruck pointed out, "There has never been coined a standing term for the merely negative attitude" to any other people in history. Only antisemitism; only against Jews.

So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your 'anti-Semitism', you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests Strike out the hyphen and you will treat antisemitism for what it really is--a generic name for modern Jew-hatred which now embraces this phenomenon as a whole, past, present and--I am afraid--future as well.

Are you kidding me?

I really ... really want to know who thought making a Holocaust float for the Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Carnival parade was a good idea. I mean ... really. Beware: That site has a picture of the float on it, so, prepare to be maybe offended.

"A guy dressed as Hitler atop a pile of dead Jews, that's too much. It's beyond
the limits of common sense. There is no way we could accept that," said Sergio
Niskier, president of the Rio federation, hailing the judge's decision.

Too much? I think it's more than "too much." It's the most moronic idea ever. I don't know what the Viradouro Samba School was thinking. I wish they had a website ... and I wish I knew what their decisionmaking process was. Because, seriously. WTF?

If they go ahead with the float, they'll be fined a mere $110,000 for the float and $28,000 for the Hitler impersonator.

Super.

Ann Coulter strikes again!

In my humble opinion, I think Ann Coulter is probably the worst thing to happen to women, and perhaps to punditry (after folks like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, etc.). I take anything and everything she says with, well, not even a grain of salt. It's like reading the tabloids or staring through a window at a white wall. But it's also like a trainwreck -- sometimes you just have to look. Curiosity is piqued, and you want to know "who are you, and when are the aliens coming to take you home?" On that note, I'd like everyone to head over to PerezHilton.com to this little gem of a transcript from Ms. Coulter's recent interview on CNBC with Donny Deutsch, who just so happens to be Jewish. She basically says that Jews need to be "perfected" and that Christianity is the one true way because they follow the laws and that the Jews lose because G-d was always pissed because we couldn't figure out how to follow all the laws, thus making Christians G-d's favorite child and the Jews those folks who just haven't figured it out yet!

Among the gems of the article are the following:

COULTER: No, it’s true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that’s really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it’s like they have a chip on their shoulder. They’re just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —

DEUTSCH: I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don’t see any more or less chips there either way. That’s erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire “Seinfeld” episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you’re lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some “Seinfeld” episode? OK.

Obviously she digs Seinfeld; maybe her and Jerry should sit down and have a heart to heart about perfecting themselves?

COULTER: No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be. I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is “Christ died for our sins.” We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

Let it be noted: This woman is a babbling moron.

The most ridiculous anti-Semitic site on the planet.

I really, REALLY hate giving anti-Semitic sites traffic, but WOW have I found a doozy. Such a doozy that it's almost laughable. I'm talking, the most ridiculous site I've seen in a really long time. It says the Oklahoma City bombing was orchestrated by Zionists in Elohim City, Oklahoma. It cites a 1950s case of several missing children who obviously were stolen by Jews and bloodlet to bake the matzo. Not to mention that it chocks the whole Aruba missing teenager thing up to Jews. Black Dahlia? Yup, Jews. Lindberg baby? Jews. Jews Jews Jews ... yes, we've done it all, folks. Mostly in the name of bloodletting.

This web administrator should probably read some history. A book, perhaps. Yes, a book. Several of them maybe.

A "I can't believe this just happened to me" Moment

Place: Chicago, IL; Addison Red Line Stop
Time: 6:08 p.m.
Scene: Reading "My Holocaust" by Tova Reich outside the station while waiting for Ian to arrive so we can go to shul. I have just taken my head phones out in anticipation of Ian's arrival. I return to reading "My Holocaust," which I had just purchased and was very involved in. A man, smoking a cigarette, wearing an old cap, a screen-printed T-shirt and jeans, looking very ... well ... not Chicago, walks near me, crosses to the other side, and gazes at the book I am reading.

You read that stuff, eh?
Yes ...?
Ever read the 'Third Reich'?

I stare blankly at the man. With a slight, irritated grin ...

I assume it's about Hitler, yes?
Sure is (he says with a large, toothy, satisfied grin).

A long pause. I fiddle with my necklace, a star of David.

I'm Jewish.

He looks at the book again, tilts his head ever so slightly and takes a puff off his cigarette.

Oh!!! It says ... what's that ... Jo ... Jova Reich?
It's Tova Reich. She's a Jewish author.

Ian walks up.

Hey, how's it going?

The man, who must be in his mid-20s, takes one look at Ian and stops speaking and walks away. I am in dismay. Irritated, frustrated, appalled. It was brief, disturbing, altering. This man visibly digs Hitler. This man visibly thought I, too, dug Hitler. He wanted to share his shit literature with me, because I guess I looked like someone ... someone who would cut a crown out of construction paper just to place it on the fully-haired head of a tyrant of modern times and indescribable proportions.

What the hell?

Anti-Semitic? I sure as hell think so.

Okay, so I knew Kirk Cameron had gone all Jesusy and had his own ministry going on. But while watching an old, old episode of Full House, I decided to look at his website to see what he's up to (he was guesting on the show, that is). On his ministry's website, there is a detailed description of answers to 100 common questions. Among them is "How Should I Witness to a Jew?" The answer? Well, by golly, be prepared for those stubborn, unsavory, non-religious heathens!

Sadly, many of today’s Jews profess godliness but don’t embrace the Scriptures as we presume they do. Therefore, it is often difficult to reason with them about Jesus being the Messiah. This is why it is imperative to ask a Jew if he has kept the Law of Moses—to "shut" him up under the Law (Galatians 3:23) and strip him of his self- righteousness. The Law will show him his need of a Savior and become a "schoolmaster" to bring him to Christ (Galatians 3:24), as happened to Paul, Nicodemus, and Nathaniel. It was the Law that brought 3,000 Jews to the foot of the cross on the Day of Pentecost. Without it they would not have known that they had sinned (Romans 7:7), and therefore would not have seen their need of the Savior. See Luke 18:20 footnote for how to use the Law in evangelism.

Seriously. This incenses me. It often is "difficult to reason with them" ... well geepers! Sorry we made it so *hard* for you to convert us all into the truth and light of Christianity. Then they say you should ask the Jew whether he's devout, "to 'shut' him up under the Law and strip him of his self-righteousness." UGH. Seriously. WTF? I can't even create coherent thoughts, because this is downright offensive. For more fun go here: Way of the Master.

Jedwabne, where they killed their neighbors.

I finished Jan Gross's "Neighbors" this morning on the ride in and then while in the office. It's an incredibly quick read and doesn't strike me as harrowing as the short version that appeared in a magazine, which is what I read while taking an Ethnic Conflict course in college. What is striking, though, is the bounty of testimony from individuals about what went on and the words written in pleas for clemency by those who perpetrated the murder of (the estimated) 1,600 Jews of Jedwabne in Poland. It was not the Germans who committed the killing and torture, but the neighbors of the Jews, their Polish neighbors and -- at one time -- friends. The tragedy of the event, though, is that so few survived to tell the story and because of the tense nature of Jewish/Polish relations (even to this day), few speak about it or cite the truth of the incident as opposed to citing myths or false explanations/excuses for the death of nearly all of the hamlet's Jews.

As I finished up the book, I began to wonder about the Polish/Russian relationship, as so many of the excuses cited regard the Russians as the faulters, mostly because the Jews "supported" the Russians and the Polish were at complete odds with the Russians during the occupation. It was a question of the lesser of two evils, but part of me wonders whether the Polish still hold resentment against the Russians for the pain and anguish during the war. But this is for another time.

A few websites worth examining if you know nothing or are curious about the Jedwabne massacre, or the others like it in Poland during the occupation:

-- Articles about the controversy surrounding Gross's book and the massacre here. The controversy surrounding the book comes largely from deniers and unbelievers.
-- The Jedwabne memory book online is here.
-- And of course, there's always good ole Wikipedia clickin' here.

Next on the list is a book, "Solinca," about the disappeared Jews of Greece. I'm not on a Holocaust kick by any means, but the vanished presence of Jews in the tiny and great places in the world is fascinating. What's more so, is the idea of neighbors breaking down the doors of those they shared water wells and dreams with, only to strike them down because of ages-old myths and legends, jealousy, spite or for the sake of conformity. Explain that to me, neighbor.

It never goes away.

Because you accosting Elie Wiesel will really scare the man who survived the horrors of the Nazi death camps. Really cool, man.

The human rights advocate was accosted in a hotel, a man has claimed to have committed the assault on an antiSemitic Web site. See the story HERE.

Bastards.

Another Movie!

At 3 hours and 1 minute long, "Sunshine" starring Ralph Fiennes was sort of hard to put into the DVD player. The last 3-hour-long flick I watched was probably Titanic, and that was more years ago than I care to count. I had to set aside plenty of time to watch the flick, because those who know me know I'm the type of person who refuses to stand down when a movie is started. I've never walked out of a theater and have only shut one movie off mid-flick (it was "Mafia"). I'm a get-through-the-movie kind of person. It's just how I am. But this movie, this movie turned out brilliant. Three hours felt like moments.

The film is based on three generations of a Hungarian family, and all of the patriarchs are played by Fiennes. We travel from the 1800s into World War II and into the 1950s. The story begins with the elder (not played by Fiennes) of the family leaving his shtetl-type village to take the family liquor recipe to the city. He becomes incredibly wealthy with his 'Sunshine' booze and sets the family on a well-seated path. Then, as imdb.com says, the elder's son "becomes a prominent judge but is torn when his government sanctions anti-Jewish persecutions. His son converts to Christianity to advance his career as a champion fencer and Olympic hero, but is caught up in the Holocaust. Finally, the grandson, after surviving war, revolution, loss and betrayal, realizes that his ultimate allegiance must be to himself and his heritage."

The fascinating thing about the movie is the ebb and flow of this family. The loss and the struggle of identity. The original family name is Sonnenschein (which means sunshine), but in order to further his career, the lawyer son changes his name to Sors, a Hungarian last name. Thus he and his son go through much of their lives without others acknowledging their Jewish heritage. It is only when the fencer wants to join a fencing club that he must acknowledge his heritage and convert to Christianity. But even still, the Nazis play no favors to Jewish converts and his son is persecuted even still.

The use of Fiennes as each patriarchal figure is a fascinating trick, because it shows a continuity of struggle within the family identity. And let it be known, that this film isn't full of Orthodoxy or anything of the sort, but still the Jewishness is ever present. It traverses familial struggles between the old and new, tradition versus change. And the end of the film brings us full circle, but I won't give that away. I think it's better that the viewer take it on.

Another flick I recommend, darn't!

Really? SERIOUSLY?

Right in my own backyard. Ugh. When will politicians start thinking before they speak?

A veteran Virginia lawmaker from suburban Richmond ignited a hot exchange in the House of Delegates on Tuesday after criticizing a proposal for the state to issue an apology for slavery and likening it to requiring Jews to apologize for "killing Christ."

Story is here.

Where I've been.

So I've been out of town. I spent about three days in Chicago this past week. It was a minorly spur-of-the-moment trip to visit the city that I call my "happy place," to hopefully see some snow (which I didn't), to get away from the monotony of my existence in Washington and to see someone very special to me. Aside from the unfortunate bit with the snow (the storm showed up a few days after I left), it was everything I could have hoped for. The kind of days you pray for, that lift you up and give you hope. That rekindle the fervor for life. The kind of days you want to live everyday. What does this mean? Well, it means that hopefully by summertime, I will have moved to Chicago. I don't have a job lined up, I don't have school lined up, I don't have anything but a place to put my head and stuff lined up. (I hope.)

I'm not a very spontaneous person, but if there's one thing I've figured out while being completely alone out here on the coast with nothing but Torah, reading and coffee to keep me company, it's that I spend too much time considering how easy things are that I don't put enough effort in changing them. I waited till the last minute to take the GRE and apply to graduate school. I should have started the process in May or June. Instead, I waited till November and gave myself a month to figure things out. My desperation opened my eyes to a lot of things.

So I'm going to go after the things that make me happy. There's a person, there's a city and a job can't be that hard to find in a city thriving with the Jewish presence. Graduate school will come when it's ready, and if I get accepted to Connecticut or Michigan, well, I'll figure that out when I get there. But I want to give myself a better shot at things. Because there are ways in which we can fulfill happiness, and it's how we prioritize those things that expresses who we are. I need my Shabbat, I need a warm bed, I need the feeling of love and warmth and kindness. Ani mevinah. It took awhile, but ani mevinah.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In completely unrelated news, I was riding the Metrobus the other day and was shocked to find this written on a cushion of the bus I was on. It was my normal bus route, and the seats typically are covered with all sorts of scrawlings in permanent marker by teens in "gangs" like the "Lench Mob." It's incredibly sad, but sort of amusing that these middle schoolers are sporting gang names and symbols years after the bloods and crips -- two of the bloodiest gangs -- called it even. Yah, MS-13 is still around, but they're an incredibly DIFFERENT breed of hoodlum (if you don't know about them, they're a Salvadoran group, almost more like the mob, as they're known for using machetes to remove people's body parts). These kids are kids. But I saw this and have no clue what the writing below the "NO JEWS" stands for. If anyone knows, I'd be curious to know for sure. It's the first bit of anti-Jew scrawling I've seen, ever, in graffitti.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And no Torah this week. Next week, though. Sh'mot got my attention, but not as much as it deserved. I'll proceed with Exodus next week, and perhaps pick up some of the questions/thoughts I had from Sh'mot.

Be well!

On this day in history:

Today, being Jan. 5, is the anniversary of the Dreyfus Affair, an infamous act of antiSemitism within the French government. Most know of it, but I feel the need to explicate bits and pieces for the sake of educating whoever happens to pass by this blog. It's also because my desperation to become a teacher/professor leads me to this ... it isn't really self-fulfilling, just what I enjoy. But the Dreyfus case has an incredibly interesting connection to Zionism. So read on.

In sum, Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, a French citizen and Jew from a prosperous family, was accused and convicted of treason in the late 1800s. He was degraded, his badges ripped off and his sabre broken -- he was sentenced to life until death on Devil's Island. After that newspaper bit showed up publicizing the issue (in January 1898), the French government ended up in a sort of scandal regarding Dreyfus. It all went down in 1894 when he was accused of passing secrets along to the Germans (HA!), and it all happened incredibly abruptly. The evidence at hand was a list of promises to the Germans, which didn't even resemble Dreyfus's handwriting. Unfortunately, by the time the French realized this, it was too late to backstep, so instead they began an elaborate coverup campaign. They were digging a hole, so to speak.

The case was reopened in 1899 -- a good 5 years later -- and was reconvincted and ordered to spend 10 years more in prison. He was subsequently pardoned, but it was not until 1906 that he was exonerated. It took 12 years for the French government to "admit" fault. He then was recommissioned in the French army and served in World War I (though I often ask myself WHY he would return to such a situation after everything that'd happened).

A rift appeared in French society between those who supported Dreyfus and those who didn't. Comics appeared in papers and the issue was covered across the country and the world. The connection of Dreyfus to Zionism is that Theodor Herzl, a journalist, was assigned to write about the case and its aftermath. In 1896, Herzl wrote The State of the Jews and founded the World Zionist Organization. Both which called for the creation of a Jewish state. There's a split among historians about whether Herzl was isnpired to fervently take on the creation of a Jewish state because of the Dreyfus affair or because of the rise of an antiSemitic mayor in Vienna, Herzl's home city. The chronology of events doesn't agree with some philosophies, as the "scandal" of the Dreyfus affair seems to have come after the pro-Dreyfus camp appeared.

I think it's safe to say, though, that both events probably worked their way into the composition of the book and subsequent efforts for a Jewish state. I think it's ignorant to assume that the Dreyfus affair had no affect on Herzl's views of the Jewish condition in Europe. Then again, I've got a bucketload of thoughts about Herzl and Zionism ...