My son, the Pope?
Tony Cooper
Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris. Lustiger was born Jewish and converted
to Catholicism during WWII.
There are those that say that a person born a Jew is always a Jew no
matter what religion that person may practice. If, when they announce
"Habemus papam", the choice is Lustiger there will be some interesting
theological discussions. And, some jokes.
I'm looking forward to Letterman's Top 10 List of things a Jewish Pope
would do differently.
MC
Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The short-list for a successor to the present Pope includes Cardinal
> Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris. Lustiger was born Jewish and converted
> to Catholicism during WWII.
>
> There are those that say that a person born a Jew is always a Jew no
> matter what religion that person may practice.
I wonder if they therefore say that applies to Jesus.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I'm not at all sure what religion Jesus practiced if he practiced any
specific branch of religion. Certainly not Catholicism. Religions
were based on the teachings of Jesus, but not on the religion of
Jesus.
Of course, I should add that the above is a comment of a person that
is hardly a religious history scholar or even all that interested in
religious history. As far as I'm concerned, most of what most people
take as gospel is based on a series of short stories with morals.
Dena Jo
> I'm not at all sure what religion Jesus practiced
Old joke.
How do we know Jesus was Jewish?
He lived at home until he was thirty, he went into his father's
business, and his mother thought he was God.
<groan>
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
CyberCypher
Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was the
messiah didn't make him a Xian.
R F
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I'm not at all sure what religion Jesus practiced if he practiced any
> specific branch of religion.
Judaism, Coop. Geez.
> Of course, I should add that the above is a comment of a person that
> is hardly a religious history scholar or even all that interested in
> religious history. As far as I'm concerned, most of what most people
> take as gospel is based on a series of short stories with morals.
_Aesop's Fables_?
J. W. Love
>Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>There are those that say that a person born a Jew
>>is always a Jew no matter what religion that person
>>may practice.
>I wonder if they therefore say that applies to Jesus.
Not to mention St. Peter and other early popes.
Padraig Breathnach
>Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
>Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
>him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was the
>messiah didn't make him a Xian.
My understanding is that he was a religious dissident among Jews,
possibly associated with the Essenes. New Testament accounts depict
him as being at odds with the priests of the Temple.
I don't know if there are good grounds for suggesting that he believed
that he was the messiah; later adherents to his teaching certainly
did.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
J. W. Love
>the present Pope
and
>a Jewish Pope.
Over here in Leftpondia, most of us lowercase titles in the abstract, but
capitalize them when they specify a particular titleholder: <the pope> but
<Pope John Paul II>, <the queen>, but <Queen Salote of Tonga>. Of course, to be
safe, subjects of a queen, cringing in dread of her awful majesty, might want
to capitalize at all times. Likewise Roman Catholics in reference to their
organization's CEO.
John Dean
> On 01 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
>> I'm not at all sure what religion Jesus practiced
>
> Old joke.
>
> How do we know Jesus was Jewish?
>
> He lived at home until he was thirty, he went into his father's
> business, and his mother thought he was God.
>
> <groan>
Newer, but still old, joke :
If he was Jewish, how come he had a Mexican name?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
John Dean
> The short-list for a successor to the present Pope includes Cardinal
> Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris. Lustiger was born Jewish and converted
> to Catholicism during WWII.
>
> There are those that say that a person born a Jew is always a Jew no
> matter what religion that person may practice.
Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as a
religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
Clearly, it can be a standalone religious term - Sammy Davis Jr converted to
Judaism and therefore became a Jew in religious terms but not by ethnicity.
And, IIRC, Liz Taylor converted to marry Mike Todd. Many other examples.
But ethnically, again IIRC, Jews will regard you as a Jew if your Mother was
Jewish, regardless of what, if any, religion you practice. And Gentiles will
often regard you as a Jew if you have only one Jewish parent, even if it's
your Dad.
And some will regard any Jewish ancestry as definitive.
Padraig Breathnach
>Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as a
>religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>
I don't know the answer, but I think your question omits another
reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
PB
CyberCypher
day
> CyberCypher <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
>>Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
>>him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was
>>the messiah didn't make him a Xian.
>
> My understanding is that he was a religious dissident among Jews,
> possibly associated with the Essenes.
The modern day Essenes claim him as "The Master" and say that Mary
and Joseph as well as a whole bunch of the other founders of Xianity
were members of the secret brotherhood of the Essenes. They also say
this:
[quote]
Despite some fear and joking, due to the rejection of that which one
does not know, the people as a whole felt respect and esteem for the
Essenes because of their honesty, their pacifism, their goodness,
their discretion, and their talent as healers, devoted to the
poorest as well as to the richest. They knew that the greatest
Hebrew prophets came from their lineage and their School.
[/quote] http://www.essenespirit.com/who.html
The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Essenes:
[quote]
Essenes
One of three leading Jewish sects mentioned by Josephus as
flourishing in the second century B.C., the others being the
Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Concerning their origin, history, and tenets there has been much
inconclusive controversy. The only ancient authorities we have are a
few paragraphs in Philo Judeaeus, a somewhat lengthier description
in Josephus, and a scanty notice in Pliny. The following synopsis is
derived mainly from the first two.
[/quote] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
It appears from these two sources at least that the Essenes were
Jews and were considered Jews and are still considered to have been
Jews. That's just my inference from painfully little research, but
it's as much as I need to know at the moment.
> New Testament accounts
> depict him as being at odds with the priests of the Temple.
Martin Luther was a religious dissident among Roman Catholics, but
that didn't make him not a Catholic when he tacked up his 95 theses
in 1517. It was only after his excommunication in 1521 that he
became the founder of his own brand of Xianity.
> I don't know if there are good grounds for suggesting that he
> believed that he was the messiah; later adherents to his teaching
> certainly did.
That's what I get for gleaning most of what I think I know about the
guy from movies and stories and from preachers that claim he said
things like that God was his father --- I took all that stuff
literally only because Xianity does, but maybe he meant it
metaphorically. That would be a kick.
Laura F Spira
Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish. I'm
not quite sure what this means: it seems to imply, in a rather defensive
way, that they have not quite severed all links with the Jewish
community. At the most superficial level, this seems to involve
expressing a preference for gefulte fish over cod and chips. I also know
several non-Jews who, although not going so far as to convert formally,
are deeply involved in the cultural aspects of our local community and
identify closely with it.
Of those few Jews I have known who have formally adopted another
religion, all have become Catholics. Of those I have known who have
converted to Judaism, most have done so in order to marry Jews but I
have encountered two people who converted prompted by
religious/spiritual feelings: both had been brought up as Catholics.
For many years, a nun, in traditional habit, used to attend our High
Holy Day services. What was far more remarkable was that she travelled
to them on a large motorbike.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Frances Kemmish
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>
>> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as a
>>> religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know the answer, but I think your question omits another
>> reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
>
>
> Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
> religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish. I'm
> not quite sure what this means: it seems to imply, in a rather defensive
> way, that they have not quite severed all links with the Jewish
> community.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "in a defensive way". I think
that, in the region of the USA where I live, describing oneself as
"culturally Jewish" would be no more defensive than being "culturally
Italian" or "culturally Polish". The difference is, of course, that
hereabouts the Jewish community is very large, and includes members from
the ultra-observant to the barely noticing.
At the most superficial level, this seems to involve
> expressing a preference for gefulte fish over cod and chips. I also know
> several non-Jews who, although not going so far as to convert formally,
> are deeply involved in the cultural aspects of our local community and
> identify closely with it.
>
> Of those few Jews I have known who have formally adopted another
> religion, all have become Catholics. Of those I have known who have
> converted to Judaism, most have done so in order to marry Jews but I
> have encountered two people who converted prompted by
> religious/spiritual feelings: both had been brought up as Catholics.
>
I remember, from a time when my children were in elementary school,
hearing an acquaintacne explain that she had converted to Judaism,
because it was her husband's religion, and so that her children could
share their parents' spiritual life. What I wanted to ask was how
"spiritual" this kind of "conversion of convenience" would be. I didn't
ask, though, because it became clear that her conversion - while it may
have begun as a convenience - had become a very sincere belief.
> For many years, a nun, in traditional habit, used to attend our High
> Holy Day services. What was far more remarkable was that she travelled
> to them on a large motorbike.
>
I suppose she wouldn't have been able to do that if she had become a
convert.
Fran
R F
Even Marx made clear that he wasn't a Marxist. I don't think it's ever
useful to classify person X as an "X-ist" or an "X-ian" (so to speak)
even if those who purport to follow that person's teachings are
themselves called X-ists or X-ians.
Padraig Breathnach
>The inimitable Padraig Breathnach <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> stated one
>day
>
>> CyberCypher <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
>>>Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
>>>him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was
>>>the messiah didn't make him a Xian.
>>
>> My understanding is that he was a religious dissident among Jews,
>> possibly associated with the Essenes.
>
<snip details>
>It appears from these two sources at least that the Essenes were
>Jews and were considered Jews and are still considered to have been
>Jews. That's just my inference from painfully little research, but
>it's as much as I need to know at the moment.
>
>> New Testament accounts
>> depict him as being at odds with the priests of the Temple.
>
>Martin Luther was a religious dissident among Roman Catholics, but
>that didn't make him not a Catholic when he tacked up his 95 theses
>in 1517. It was only after his excommunication in 1521 that he
>became the founder of his own brand of Xianity.
>
I didn't mean to suggest that Jesus was not a Jew, or that he was
likely to see himself as other than a Jew.
>> I don't know if there are good grounds for suggesting that he
>> believed that he was the messiah; later adherents to his teaching
>> certainly did.
>
>That's what I get for gleaning most of what I think I know about the
>guy from movies and stories and from preachers that claim he said
>things like that God was his father --- I took all that stuff
>literally only because Xianity does, but maybe he meant it
>metaphorically. That would be a kick.
>
I'm not an authority on such matters. Don't take my opinions as
gospel. Possibly you should not take the gospels as gospel, either, as
they were written for purposes more ambitious than the mere recording
of events.
Javi
in news:qcqlnvoveu1lg42av...@4ax.com gave utterance as
follows:
> CyberCypher <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
>> Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
>> him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was the
>> messiah didn't make him a Xian.
>
> My understanding is that he was a religious dissident among Jews,
> possibly associated with the Essenes.
I recall having read that the Essenes felt Jesus as one of them, though he
never explicitly joined them, and that Judas, a fervent Essene, betrayed
Jesus because he did not act, as they had expected, against the Romans and
Pharisees.
> New Testament accounts depict
> him as being at odds with the priests of the Temple.
Probably in the same sense that nowadays liberation theologists are at odds
with the Vatican.
> I don't know if there are good grounds for suggesting that he believed
> that he was the messiah; later adherents to his teaching certainly
> did.
Jesus, if existed, was very clever and, I believe, never explicitly said
that he was the messiah, though he made the people quite clearly believe
that he was.
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as a
>>>religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know the answer, but I think your question omits another
>> reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
>
>Good point.
>
I'm glad you say so, because your voice has more authority in this
discussion than mine has.
PB
R F
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Frances Kemmish wrote:
> Laura F Spira wrote:
> > Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
> > religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish. I'm
> > not quite sure what this means: it seems to imply, in a rather defensive
> > way, that they have not quite severed all links with the Jewish
> > community.
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "in a defensive way". I think
> that, in the region of the USA where I live, describing oneself as
> "culturally Jewish" would be no more defensive than being "culturally
> Italian" or "culturally Polish". The difference is, of course, that
> hereabouts the Jewish community is very large, and includes members from
> the ultra-observant to the barely noticing.
I'm not sure it seems "defensive", but it seems to show some effort to
make clear that one doesn't have much affinity for Judaism the religion,
as if to make sure that the person being spoken to doesn't get the wrong
idea. "Culturally Italian" is something I've never heard, whereas I've
heard "culturally Jewish" used by people in describing themselves. I
think this is mainly because of the separation, if only at the level of
language, between Italian-ness and Roman-Catholic-ness. I suppose you can
get close sometimes, like if an Italian family were following some ancient
tradition related to, say, food eaten on Christmas Eve or whatever, but it
takes more than eating some eels to unify "culturally
Italian" with "Roman Catholic in a culturally Italian sort of way".
Might just be that Catholicism has this pretty strong trans-ethnic
character. (Not everywhere, though; one Connecticut community I'm
familiar with has, or had 15 years ago, a Sicilian church, a Polish
church, and an Irish church, all quite separate. But I think that's unusual.)
Putting it differently, "culturally Italian" in an American sort of
context suggests, to me, an effort to distinguish oneself from a highly
"assimilated" American of Italian descent (e.g., anyone from metropolitan
Chicago who's of Italian descent and, say, can eat Chicago-area "pizza"
without experiencing psychic as well as digestive discomfort). But this
really doesn't have to bring religion into the matter at all, because
whether or not you're 'assimilated' in that context is orthogonal to
whether or not you're Catholic, post-Al-Smith anyway. I guess I don't see
things being much different wrt American Jews: whether you're into
Judaism is orthogonal to whether or not you're ethnically Jewish in any
significant way. But that could come from growing up in a region of the
US where Jews, both religious and non-religious, are fairly numerous.
It's like, yeah, maybe in Chicago and places like that you have to bother
to explain to people that you're "only culturally Jewish, not religiously
Jewish", because, well, you know, that's how people out there are.
As for "culturally Polish", that's more of a Chicago thing I suppose. Is
"Polish" actually used as a *noun* in ChiE for "Polish sausage"? There
are certainly lots of places in Chicago that use the bare word "POLISH" as
a signifier that Polish sausages are prepared therein. One of the cable
channels I get is a Polish-language channel, and it shows things that you
wouldn't expect to see on English-language American television of the
non-premium sort.
John Dean
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>
>>> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as
>>>> a religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer, but I think your question omits another
>>> reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
>>
>>
>> Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
>> religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish.
>> I'm not quite sure what this means: it seems to imply, in a rather
>> defensive way, that they have not quite severed all links with the
>> Jewish community.
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "in a defensive way". I
> think that, in the region of the USA where I live, describing oneself
> as "culturally Jewish" would be no more defensive than being
> "culturally Italian" or "culturally Polish". The difference is, of
> course, that hereabouts the Jewish community is very large, and
> includes members from the ultra-observant to the barely noticing.
>
not ethnically or religiously so. I find it difficult to see how that split
would work, as I find it difficult to imagine how 'culturally Italian' could
exist separately from 'ethnically Italian'. If you had no Italian ancestry,
in what way could you be culturally Italian? The only example that springs
to mind is the bike rider in 'Breaking Away' and I don't see that kind of
imitation as 'being culturally Italian'. I have, AFAIK, no Italian ancestry.
What would it take for me to become culturally Italian? What, for that
matter, would it take for me to become 'culturally Jewish'?
I have to say, I don't believe either to be possible.
Frances Kemmish
> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>
>>Laura F Spira wrote:
>>
>>>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as
>>>>>a religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know the answer, but I think your question omits another
>>>>reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
>>>
>>>
>>>Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
>>>religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish.
>>>I'm not quite sure what this means: it seems to imply, in a rather
>>>defensive way, that they have not quite severed all links with the
>>>Jewish community.
>>
>>I don't quite understand what you mean by "in a defensive way". I
>>think that, in the region of the USA where I live, describing oneself
>>as "culturally Jewish" would be no more defensive than being
>>"culturally Italian" or "culturally Polish". The difference is, of
>>course, that hereabouts the Jewish community is very large, and
>>includes members from the ultra-observant to the barely noticing.
>>
>
> Padraic was suggesting there was a way of being culturally Jewish even when
> not ethnically or religiously so.
I think the distinction between culture and ethnicity is fuzzy at best -
there certainly has to be a great degree of overlap. My question,
however, was about the defensive nature of the description, rather than
the accuracy of the particulr choice of words.
I find it difficult to see how that split
> would work, as I find it difficult to imagine how 'culturally Italian' could
> exist separately from 'ethnically Italian'. If you had no Italian ancestry,
> in what way could you be culturally Italian?
Perhaps the children of British (for example) expatriates, reared in
Italy, speaking Italian, and educated in Italian schools etc. would be
"culturally Italian", while not having Italian ancestry.
I have an acquaintance of Japanese ancestry, and Canadian citizenship,
who converted to Judaism, and is now married to a British citizen, and
living in Israel. I can identify her religion, and her citizenship, but
the rest is a little difficult to categorise.
The only example that springs
> to mind is the bike rider in 'Breaking Away' and I don't see that kind of
> imitation as 'being culturally Italian'. I have, AFAIK, no Italian ancestry.
> What would it take for me to become culturally Italian? What, for that
> matter, would it take for me to become 'culturally Jewish'?
> I have to say, I don't believe either to be possible.
>
I too doubt that you would find it easy to become "culturally Jewish" -
especially while living in Oxford.
Fran
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraic was suggesting there was a way of being culturally Jewish even when
>not ethnically or religiously so. I find it difficult to see how that split
>would work, as I find it difficult to imagine how 'culturally Italian' could
>exist separately from 'ethnically Italian'. If you had no Italian ancestry,
>in what way could you be culturally Italian? The only example that springs
>to mind is the bike rider in 'Breaking Away' and I don't see that kind of
>imitation as 'being culturally Italian'. I have, AFAIK, no Italian ancestry.
>What would it take for me to become culturally Italian? What, for that
>matter, would it take for me to become 'culturally Jewish'?
>I have to say, I don't believe either to be possible.
My suggestion may have arrived looking like that, but it departed from
here with a different appearance.
Set aside the question of religion. Is there an ethnic group which we
can describe as Jewish? That depends on what you mean by "ethnic". If
you mean a group which is strongly linked genetically, then I have
some doubts. I suspect that the diaspora has led to some -- perhaps
considerable -- genetic mixing with other groups. It might be that
Jewish people are not genetically identifiable.
The people we know as Jews generally share a religious tradition, but
many people who see themselves as Jewish do not subscribe to the set
of beliefs held as Judaism.
So in what sense are they Jews? Not by religion, and possibly not by
race. They identify with Jewishness; they share some cultural
components with observant Jews -- not least, a sense of shared
history.
Or so I think. But I don't know for sure. I was putting the idea up
for consideration.
Skitt
Ach, das ist recht lustig, nicht wahr?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Robert Lieblich
There is scholarship that suggests he deliberately chose the path
that the Jewish religious authorities of his age said was set out in
the Bible for the messiah to follow. I read a book about this many
years ago (*The Passover Plot*, interesting but poorly written and
probably an oversell) and have seen mentions of this idea
periodically over the years. Certainly many of the acts attributed
to him jibe with the predictions extracted or inferred from the
Hebrew Bible of what the messiah would do.
The Jews as a people obviously were not persuaded. Those
individuals who were persuaded became the earliest Christians.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who thinks he's got it right
Javi
news:blf9n5$bdq18$1...@ID-61580.news.uni-berlin.de gave utterance as follows:
Ach was!
Robert Lieblich
>
> The short-list for a successor to the present Pope includes Cardinal
> Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris. Lustiger was born Jewish and converted
> to Catholicism during WWII.
>
> There are those that say that a person born a Jew is always a Jew no
> matter what religion that person may practice. If, when they announce
> "Habemus papam", the choice is Lustiger there will be some interesting
> theological discussions. And, some jokes.
>
> I'm looking forward to Letterman's Top 10 List of things a Jewish Pope
> would do differently.
A first draft:
Matzo balls in the chicken soup
Vaican TV reruns The Jackie Mason Show
Mah jongg sets for the nuns
A cardinal archbishop for West Palm Beach
"Ave Maria" replaced with "Hava Nagila"
Holy seltzer instead of holy water
Giottos taken down, Chagalls put up
The complete Philip Roth translated into Latin
Penitents say twenty Kaddishes
And the number one thing a Jewish Pope would do differently:
He moves to Jerusalem!
--
Bob Lieblich
Shalom, y'all
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>
>> CyberCypher <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
>> >Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
>> >him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was the
>> >messiah didn't make him a Xian.
>>
>> My understanding is that he was a religious dissident among Jews,
>> possibly associated with the Essenes. New Testament accounts depict
>> him as being at odds with the priests of the Temple.
>>
>> I don't know if there are good grounds for suggesting that he believed
>> that he was the messiah; later adherents to his teaching certainly
>> did.
>
>There is scholarship that suggests he deliberately chose the path
>that the Jewish religious authorities of his age said was set out in
>the Bible for the messiah to follow. I read a book about this many
>years ago (*The Passover Plot*, interesting but poorly written and
>probably an oversell) and have seen mentions of this idea
>periodically over the years.
>
I don't know much about the scholarship; I have read some
non-scholarly pieces, and even those I have not read recently. I am
aware that there was an effort of some sort to show Old Testament
prophecies being fulfilled, but it might be that the effort was in the
subsequent writing-up of the story rather than in the acts of Jesus.
I am open to correction; this is not a field in which I know much, and
most of the little I know is poorly-remembered.
>Certainly many of the acts attributed
>to him jibe with the predictions extracted or inferred from the
>Hebrew Bible of what the messiah would do.
>
>The Jews as a people obviously were not persuaded. Those
>individuals who were persuaded became the earliest Christians.
>
Who thought, for a while, that they were also Jews.
Richard R. Hershberger
> CyberCypher <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course they do. Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi; he was not a
> >Christian. Only those who followed his teachings and who accepted
> >him as the Christ were Christians. That he believed that he was the
> >messiah didn't make him a Xian.
>
> My understanding is that he was a religious dissident among Jews,
> possibly associated with the Essenes. New Testament accounts depict
> him as being at odds with the priests of the Temple.
>
> I don't know if there are good grounds for suggesting that he believed
> that he was the messiah;
It depends on how much of the New Testament one is willing to throw
out in order to achieve the desired result. Consider, for example,
Mark 8:29-30:
"And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter
answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged
them that they should tell no man of him."
"Christ" is the Greek for "annointed one", while "messiah" is the
Hebrew for the same thing. So one would either need to ignore this
text or impose a tortured reading onto it. Those who play this game
show more about their own opinions than any of Jesus.
Richard R. Hershberger
Tony Cooper
I was born and raised Catholic. Therefore, I automatically capitalize
Jesus, John F. Kennedy, the Virgin Mary, and the Pope. If I write
about them, I capitalize "the Sisters that taught school". This is
not an issue of usage; it's an issue of fear and early training. I
also say "The Church".
The fact that I am no longer a practicing Catholic has nothing to do
with it. The fact that I no longer accept what I am supposed to accept
has nothing to do with it. It's like being left-handed. I am what I
am.
Tony Cooper
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> The short-list for a successor to the present Pope includes Cardinal
>> Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris. Lustiger was born Jewish and converted
>> to Catholicism during WWII.
>>
>> There are those that say that a person born a Jew is always a Jew no
>> matter what religion that person may practice.
>
>Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as a
>religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>Clearly, it can be a standalone religious term - Sammy Davis Jr converted to
>Judaism and therefore became a Jew in religious terms but not by ethnicity.
>And, IIRC, Liz Taylor converted to marry Mike Todd.
She was already a Jewess. I saw her in "Ivanhoe", so I know. My
God, but she was incredibly beautiful in those days.
Tony Cooper
>Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<35llnvcj55mhfslhk...@4ax.com>...
>> The short-list for a successor to the present Pope includes Cardinal
>> Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris. Lustiger was born Jewish and converted
>> to Catholicism during WWII.
>>
>> There are those that say that a person born a Jew is always a Jew no
>> matter what religion that person may practice. If, when they announce
>> "Habemus papam", the choice is Lustiger there will be some interesting
>> theological discussions. And, some jokes.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to Letterman's Top 10 List of things a Jewish Pope
>> would do differently.
>
>Personally, I HATE how "Jewish" is considered an ethnicity (or, I
>guess you people would say a "race"). A religion should be a religion
>should be a religion! People shouldn't be thought of as less of a Jew
>for not ethnically having been a "Jew", or as less of a Christian if
>they were born a "Jew". If he's French, then he's not even ethnically
>a "Jew", is he?
?
> He's Caucasian, whatever that means.
There are no French non-Caucasians?
> IMO, anyone and
>everyone should be free to believe whatever they HONESTLY believe. If
>this bishop just posed as a Christian to avoid the Nazis, then that's
>not legit and he shouldn't be a priest, let alone the pope. If he
>really is a Christian though, then so what?
What possible reason could you have for even suggesting that Cardinal
Lustiger's conversion had anything to do with "posing"?
Padraig Breathnach
I have already acknowledged that I make no claim to expertise in this
area.
But it is reasonable to wonder if this is a fair account of a
conversation which actually occurred, or if it was written to persuade
later adherents.
Those who accept this text at face value equally show a great deal
about their own opinions.
I take no sides: I don't know the truth, nor do I think I know it.
Padraig Breathnach
Just to pre-empt others (and because it's true) I will now say that I
don't like the use of the word "Jewess".
I agree that Liz Taylor was a great beauty when she was young.
MC
Padraig Breathnach <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
> Just to pre-empt others (and because it's true) I will now say that I
> don't like the use of the word "Jewess".
Here's the AHD entry:
Jewess (j??is) noun
Offensive.
A Jewish woman or girl.
Usage Note: Like the feminine forms of other ethnic terms, such as
Negress, the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
Where reference to gender is relevant, the phrase Jewish woman can be
used: As a Jewish woman, Rosa Luxemburg was doubly sensitive to the
discrimination that underlay social attitudes in late 19th-century
Europe. See Usage Note at Negress.
My question:
If we accept all of the above, must we extend it to every such word that
identifies a person as female?
There are many who don't like "actress" for example.
But what about "Frenchwoman" (as opposed to "French woman")? I don't
recall ever having come across any serious objection to that...
Arcadian Rises
[quoting AHD]:
>Usage Note: Like the feminine forms of other ethnic terms, such as
>Negress, the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
>since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
>sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>
Sorry, I didn't get it. Can a gentle soul explain to me in plain English why is
it offensive to use the feminine form for ethnicity? Since I am an ethnic
female, I want to know why I should be offended.
Skitt
The way I see it, in the minds of some, maybe many, you are beneath them in
some regard. Now they are trying to hide that fact by rejecting some of the
words they have used to set you apart. Other words serving the same purpose
remain perfectly alright, though. It's an ongoing game.
MC
arcadi...@aol.com (Arcadian Rises) wrote:
I *can't* explain it! I can only imagine that it is one of those things
that changes with fashion and time, like the various words for "black"
-- including "black" itself -- which have gone back and forth from
acceptable to offensive and back to acceptable again for no reason that
I have ever been able to fathom.
When I was growing up "negro, and "coloured" were polite, and "black"
was not.
And now? I'm losing track, and I really don't know who decides these
things.
Padraig Breathnach
>In article <rtgmnv4ajrgi90fes...@4ax.com>,
> Padraig Breathnach <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
>
>> Just to pre-empt others (and because it's true) I will now say that I
>> don't like the use of the word "Jewess".
>
>Here's the AHD entry:
>
>Jewess (j??is) noun
>Offensive.
>A Jewish woman or girl.
>
>Usage Note: Like the feminine forms of other ethnic terms, such as
>Negress, the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
>since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
>sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>
>Where reference to gender is relevant, the phrase Jewish woman can be
>used: As a Jewish woman, Rosa Luxemburg was doubly sensitive to the
>discrimination that underlay social attitudes in late 19th-century
>Europe. See Usage Note at Negress.
>
>
>My question:
>
>If we accept all of the above, must we extend it to every such word that
>identifies a person as female?
>
It's probably not workable.
>There are many who don't like "actress" for example.
>
It's less often used pejoratively than is "Jewess", but it can, in
some contexts, have negative connotations, as in "MAW". I think usage
is moving, and that "actor" will become the general term. But it will
take some time. Let's all check on progress in, say, thirty years'
time.
>But what about "Frenchwoman" (as opposed to "French woman")? I don't
>recall ever having come across any serious objection to that...
>
Nor I; neither do I see a good alternative. "Frenchie" is generally
regarded as pejorative, and "Freedomwoman" doesn't solve the problem.
Padraig Breathnach
>When I was growing up "negro, and "coloured" were polite, and "black"
>was not.
>
>And now? I'm losing track, and I really don't know who decides these
>things.
Isn't that what AUE is for?
Dena Jo
> Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
> religious identification, describe themselves as culturally
> Jewish. I'm not quite sure what this means
That's how I describe myself, and I'm not quite sure what it means
either. But I think it's more than just eating bagels and lox (which,
let me tell you, is difficult to find in Prescott). It's something of
a mind-set, but that's as far as I can go in figuring it out.
[..]
> Of those few Jews I have known who have formally adopted another
> religion, all have become Catholics.
Hmm. The one Jew I know of who converted also became a Catholic. I've
have several opportunities to attend mass (for various social reasons),
and I found the whole thing felt familiar and comfortable.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Arcadian Rises
<ski...@comcast.net> writes:
I still didn't get it, but I decided to take offense nevertheless.
Arcadian Rises
<copeS...@ca.inter.net> writes:
>
>In article <20031001173457...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
> arcadi...@aol.com (Arcadian Rises) wrote:
>
>> >Usage Note: Like the feminine forms of other ethnic terms, such as
>> >Negress, the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
>> >since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
>> >sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't get it. Can a gentle soul explain to me in plain English
>why
>> is it offensive to use the feminine form for ethnicity? Since I am an
>ethnic
>> female, I want to know why I should be offended.
>
>
>I *can't* explain it! I can only imagine that it is one of those things
>that changes with fashion and time, like the various words for "black"
>-- including "black" itself -- which have gone back and forth from
>acceptable to offensive and back to acceptable again for no reason that
>I have ever been able to fathom.
>
Perhaps I'm not the only one with a reading comprehension problem. While I
understand somehow the vagaries of political correctness, I still fail to
understand this explanation from AHD:
>the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
>since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
>sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
Why is "the conjunction of Jewishness and female sex" offensive?
What is offensive about belonging to "a distinct racial or social category"?
Skitt
> MC <copeS...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>> When I was growing up "negro, and "coloured" were polite, and "black"
>> was not.
>>
>> And now? I'm losing track, and I really don't know who decides these
>> things.
>
> Isn't that what AUE is for?
Absolutely, but without knowledge of who the Grand Poobah is, there are
problems in getting the AUE edicts properly approved.
Tony Cooper
I gave that consideration when I posted. However, if you remember
"Ivanhoe" (the movie) , the fact that she (Rebecca) was a Jewess is
essential. I don't see how "Ivanhoe" can be mentioned without
thinking of Rebecca as a Jewess.
I think that was probably the first time that I heard the word used.
At least, the first time I noticed the word in use. The fact that
Elizabeth Taylor was one (in the movie) made it something desirable to
be. If that was a Jewess, then that was certainly nothing to be
disliked in any way.
Any change in my feelings about the use of the word came much later in
life than 1952. Actually, I think I probably went 20 years or more
without hearing or seeing the word again. Except for the discussion
here a bit back, I can't recall ever hearing the word used
disparagingly.
Donna Richoux
> Perhaps I'm not the only one with a reading comprehension problem. While I
> understand somehow the vagaries of political correctness, I still fail to
> understand this explanation from AHD:
>
> >the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
> >since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
> >sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>
> Why is "the conjunction of Jewishness and female sex" offensive?
> What is offensive about belonging to "a distinct racial or social category"?
Insult and offense do not lie in the actual words themselves. The words
pick up hateful associations because of the unpleasant tone of voice and
the harmful intentions of people who uttered them. Once those
associations are firmly recognized by the target audience, then it
doesn't matter who says the same words, no matter how innocently --
offense is taken because the association with insult is so strong.
Witness the several stories of people getting into big trouble for
saying "niggardly," which merely has a chance resemblence to an insult.
Somewhere, sometime, a sufficient number of people used "Jewess" in a
nasty sort of way. That wrecked the word for any neutral use. The
literal origin and meaning become irrelevant.
I think the dictionary was trying to point out with "distinct racial or
social category" that the unpleasant use by non-Jews was along the lines
of, "She is different from us, she is in a distinct social category, she
is not part of our race -- she is not One of Us."
Well-known illustration of how the "other" can shift to "not human."
From "Huckleberry Finn":
"...We blowed out a cylinder-head."
"Good gracious! anybody hurt?"
"No'm. Killed a nigger."
"Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt...
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
CyberCypher
day
[...]
> I'm not an authority on such matters. Don't take my opinions as
> gospel. Possibly you should not take the gospels as gospel,
> either, as they were written for purposes more ambitious than the
> mere recording of events.
I take the gospels as anything but gospel in that sense. I'm not a
Xian. I don't take much on faith, except what I need to in order to
live a reasonable life. All the rest --- that I will not have a
motorcycle accident today or be mugged and murdered or be killed in
a huge earthquake --- I just don't think about.
John Varela
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > I'm not at all sure what religion Jesus practiced if he practiced any
> > specific branch of religion.
>
> Judaism, Coop. Geez.
Well, yes, but what branch of Judaism? Certainly not the centralized Temple
cult. Was he an Essene? Some have argued he was actually a Pharisee. It has
also been argued that he led a fanatical band of Zealots who tried to start a
rebellion (i.e., the Romans were justified in executing him for sedition).
Did he belong to a strange sect that lived in the desert and washed in streams
instead of mikva'ot? Or was he a mystic who originated his own branch of
Judaism that morphed into something else?
--
John Varela
John Dean
> John Dean wrote:
>> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>>
>>> Laura F Spira wrote:
>>>
>>>> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> a religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
>>>> religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish.
>>>> defensive way, that they have not quite severed all links with the
>>>> Jewish community.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand what you mean by "in a defensive way". I
>>> think that, in the region of the USA where I live, describing
>>> oneself
>>> as "culturally Jewish" would be no more defensive than being
>>> "culturally Italian" or "culturally Polish". The difference is, of
>>> course, that hereabouts the Jewish community is very large, and
>>> includes members from the ultra-observant to the barely noticing.
>>>
>>
>> Padraic was suggesting there was a way of being culturally Jewish
>> even when not ethnically or religiously so.
>
> I think the distinction between culture and ethnicity is fuzzy at
> best - there certainly has to be a great degree of overlap. My
> question,
> however, was about the defensive nature of the description, rather
> than
> the accuracy of the particulr choice of words.
I just took that to mean that if you asked such a person if they were
Jewish, they'd so 'No .. not that there's anything *wrong* with being
Jewish. I just opted out of the religion. I'm still *culturally* Jewish.
Indeed, many of my best friends ...'
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
MC
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> I just took that to mean that if you asked such a person if they were
> Jewish, they'd so 'No .. not that there's anything *wrong* with being
> Jewish. I just opted out of the religion. I'm still *culturally* Jewish.
> Indeed, many of my best friends ...'
I think it was Jonathan Miller in 'Beyond the Fringe' who had that line,
"I'm not a Jew. I'm more sort of Jew- - - -ish."
Michael West
I don't know what a gentle soul can explain, but I
believe the point of these sorts of sensitivity issues
is that many people are offended to find themselves
pigeonholed on the basis of some ethnic, religious
or physical characteristic. "She is Jewish" seems to me
to be a mere statement of fact, and (absent some
anti-Semitic context) a non-judgemental, neutral
description. "She's a Jewess", on the other hand, sounds
as if the speaker is categorizing someone, or identifying
the person with some suggested type or stereotype, as
if all "Jewesses" were alike in some important way.
Some words have a bad vibe for some people, and
words like "Jew" and "Negro", given their history in
recent times, have the potential to be offensive when
they are used in an apparent attempt to categorize people
rather then to describe them in their uniqueness and
individuality.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
CyberCypher
>>From: MC copeS...@ca.inter.net
>
> [quoting AHD]:
>
>>Usage Note: Like the feminine forms of other ethnic terms, such as
>>Negress, the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as
>>offensive, since it seems to imply that the conjunction of
>>Jewishness and female sex is sufficient to establish a distinct
>>racial or social category.
>>
>
> Sorry, I didn't get it. Can a gentle soul explain to me in plain
> English why is it offensive to use the feminine form for
> ethnicity?
For a few decades now, it's been offensive to remind women that they
are female, men that they are male, and ethnic minorities that they
are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
> Since I am an ethnic female, I want to know why I should be
> offended.
Because you can be. Read the thread about the people who were
offended simply because the word "niggardly" sounds something like
"nigger" and refused to stop being offended when they were informed
of the totally unrelated origins and meanings of the two words. In
one case,
[quote] http://tinyurl.com/penn
From Wisconsin, we have news of Amelia Rideau, an African-American
student who was upset when a professor used the word "niggardly" in
quoting the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer.
Rideau talked it over with the professor, who explained the
definition of the word. But when he used "niggardly" in class again
to give the entire group a definition, Rideau left the room in tears
because it offended her so much.
Now she is asking the University of Wisconsin faculty senate to
adopt a speech code that would discipline professors who make
remarks offensive to students, no matter what their intent. Rideau
said she prefers that proposal to one that would require proof that
a professor was intentionally trying to offend someone with his or
her comments.
[/quote]
In another case,
[quote] http://tinyurl.com/pent
Use of a word that sounds like a racial slur has landed a New
Hanover County [, Delaware,] teacher in the middle of a controversy.
Stephanie Bell, a fourth-grade teacher at Williams Elementary
School, taught the word "niggardly" to her class last week in an
effort to improve her students' vocabularies. Now, a parent wants
her fired.
Although the word means stingy, Akwana Walker said it was
inappropriate to use it because it sounds similar to a racial slur.
She said she doesn't think fourth-graders can distinguish between
the two words.
[/quote]
See? If you can be offended and make others cower and kowtow, then
you ought to. It's the American way.
Richard R. Hershberger
My point is simply that once we start playing the game of throwing out
bits of the text in a quest to find the "historical" Jesus, we
inevitably throw out those bits which are inconvenient. What's the
point? All we end up with is learning what it is what the
investigator wishes the Bible said. If you approach the Bible as a
sacred text (of your own religion, that is) then you don't get to pick
and choose which bits are really the Bible. This isn't to say that I
reject textual or historical criticism as a tool for understanding the
Bible, and it certainly isn't to say that I advocate proof texting.
But the Bible is what it is. Does this tell you something about me?
Well, I am a Christian. But I would have been willing to tell you
that up front, had the question arose.
Richard R. Hershberger
R J Valentine
...
} In another case,
}
} [quote] http://tinyurl.com/pent
} Use of a word that sounds like a racial slur has landed a New
} Hanover County [, Delaware,] teacher in the middle of a controversy.
This is suspect right here. Delaware doesn't have but the three counties:
New Castle County (The First County in the First State), Kent County (the
one in the middle), and Sussex County (the southernmost). The circle you
see on the map is twelve miles from the old courthouse in New Castle,
formerly the seat of that county (which is now at Wilmington, where you
send most of your credit-card payments). Who is doing the explaining
about Hanover County, Sensei, you or your source. If you, shame. If the
source, you might want to make it clear whose brackets you're quoting.
} Stephanie Bell, a fourth-grade teacher at Williams Elementary
} School, taught the word "niggardly" to her class last week in an
} effort to improve her students' vocabularies. Now, a parent wants
} her fired.
}
} Although the word means stingy, Akwana Walker said it was
} inappropriate to use it because it sounds similar to a racial slur.
} She said she doesn't think fourth-graders can distinguish between
} the two words.
} [/quote]
}
} See? If you can be offended and make others cower and kowtow, then
} you ought to. It's the American way.
Pretty flippant. Suppose you explained to your class about the chinks in
your English education, and someone objected. Suppose then that you came
back the next day and used the word again. Would you expect mercy?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
No New Hanover County in Maryland, either.
Kent County, Maryland, touches Kent County, Delaware; but Kent Island
(First English Settlement in Maryland) is in Queen Anne's County.
Peter Moylan
You've never revealed your ethnicity here, as far as I know, but let's
suppose for the sake of argument that you're Greek. If so, how would
you feel about being called a Greekess? All Greek women I have known
would have described themselves as Greeks. If someone throws in
a redundant "ess", I can't help wondering about hidden agenda.
Having said that, I have to add that there is nothing _inherently_
wrong with "Jewess". It became offensive because it was so often
used by people who intended to give offense. Ditto for "Negress".
Ditto, for that matter, for "Negro", which used to be an
inoffensive word but which turned up a few times too often in the
utterances of people who were obviously using the word in a
disparaging way.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
R F
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Arcadian Rises wrote:
> Perhaps I'm not the only one with a reading comprehension problem. While I
> understand somehow the vagaries of political correctness, I still fail to
> understand this explanation from AHD:
>
> >the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
> >since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
> >sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>
> Why is "the conjunction of Jewishness and female sex" offensive?
> What is offensive about belonging to "a distinct racial or social category"?
I think what's relevant is that you can't really use -ess in general to
form "female member of national/ethnic/religious/racial category". The
-ess words where this is done are few -- what other ones are there besides
"Negress" and "Jewess"? What's also relevant, though you get into a
chicken/egg thing, is that these are archaisms. Even an erstwhile polite
term can become insulting or ridiculous if it's since become archaic;
"Negro" is a good example of this. I don't know if this is because the
archaism gets associated with the baggage of the time in which it was
actively used, or what.
My impression is that most past usages of "Jewess" were suggestive of
exoticism, and thus assumed the marginal cultural status of the referent.
I don't think AHD's explanation is a very helpful one.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Such a person deserves to be poleaxed.
CyberCypher
> On 2 Oct 2003 03:51:05 GMT CyberCypher
> <huizhe.at...@nospam.net> wrote: ...
> } In another case,
> }
> } [quote] http://tinyurl.com/pent
> } Use of a word that sounds like a racial slur has landed a New
> } Hanover County [, Delaware,] teacher in the middle of a
> controversy.
>
> This is suspect right here. Delaware doesn't have but the three
> counties: New Castle County (The First County in the First State),
> Kent County (the one in the middle), and Sussex County (the
> southernmost). The circle you see on the map is twelve miles from
> the old courthouse in New Castle, formerly the seat of that county
> (which is now at Wilmington, where you send most of your
> credit-card payments).
When I used to send credit card payments, it was to Oakland, CA, to
Wells Fargo Bank.
> Who is doing the explaining about Hanover
> County, Sensei, you or your source. If you, shame. If the
> source, you might want to make it clear whose brackets you're
> quoting.
They're my brackets, and I guess I made the wrong assumption about
where the Willington Star is published and what counties in what
state they might be interested in writing about without identifying
the name of the state. But there could be a Wilmington, Alabama, for
all I know. But it turns out to be in North Carolina. That's the
explanation. I don't see any map or any circle on the page I dredged
up from Google's cache. Mea culpa.
[...]
> }
> } See? If you can be offended and make others cower and kowtow,
> } then you ought to. It's the American way.
>
> Pretty flippant. Suppose you explained to your class about the
> chinks in your English education, and someone objected. Suppose
> then that you came back the next day and used the word again.
> Would you expect mercy?
I'm afraid, RJ, that I don't understand this. The teacher used a
normal word found in any college-level dictionary of English. The
offended mother told her daughter not to do the part of her homework
that contained that word. The mother knew full well what the word
meant and that it wasn't related to the offensive term it sounded
like. The teacher apologized to the mother and wrote letters of
apology to all the parents of all the students in her class. The
mother wasn't satisfied with that. She wanted the teacher fired for
something that was obviously not racially motivated and did not
include the intent to offend. [I will now emulate Young Joey's
stellar misuse of the language and say] That's fascist! Seriously,
though, that kind of attitude is scary as hell, but that is exactly
what linguistic PC has degenerated into. This is an example of
attempted intimidation by the self-righteous and thin-skinned. It's
clear that the mother in this case was demonstrating her racist
intolerance and hypocrisy.
Michael West
> Perhaps I'm not the only one with a reading comprehension problem.
> While I understand somehow the vagaries of political correctness, I
> still fail to understand this explanation from AHD:
>
>> the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
>> since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
>> sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>
> Why is "the conjunction of Jewishness and female sex" offensive?
> What is offensive about belonging to "a distinct racial or social
> category"?
I believe, as I may have explained in another post,
that it is not belonging to a category that is in itself
offensive or demeaning. It is, rather, having this label
applied to you as if it defined you or somehow summed
you up. I may be demographically "white" and "male", but
saying that about me in no way describes who or what
I am. I would be offended if someone said, "Oh, well,
you're a white male, so of course you ..." (whatever).
"White male" does not define me, explain me, or contain
me. The label is reductive rather than explanatory, and
I don't like being reduced to a statistic.
What is it about "Jewesses" that makes them worthy
of being set apart (terminologically) from other women,
other Jews, and other humans? Are they all the same?
Laura F Spira
> On 01 Oct 2003, Laura F Spira posted thus:
>
>
>>Good point. Some Jews of my acquaintance, who have abandoned any
>>religious identification, describe themselves as culturally
>>Jewish. I'm not quite sure what this means
>
>
> That's how I describe myself, and I'm not quite sure what it means
> either. But I think it's more than just eating bagels and lox (which,
> let me tell you, is difficult to find in Prescott). It's something of
> a mind-set, but that's as far as I can go in figuring it out.
Judging by the discussion elsewhere in this thread, I guess that this is
something that you may only understand if you are Jewish, in that it may
signify a different idea from the inside than from the outside. There is
also a difference in its manifestation between the US and the UK. (And
I'm on the lox and bagels case but I'm still waiting to hear from
Phoenix...)
>
> [..]
>
>
>>Of those few Jews I have known who have formally adopted another
>>religion, all have become Catholics.
>
>
> Hmm. The one Jew I know of who converted also became a Catholic. I've
> have several opportunities to attend mass (for various social reasons),
> and I found the whole thing felt familiar and comfortable.
Isn't that interesting? I've never attended a mass but I found myself
with time to spare the other day and wandered into Westminster Cathedral
[1] where I felt quite at home. When I was young for a time I wanted
to be a nun - there is still something very enticing about the
contemplative life.
[1] A miserably gloomy place inside but a refreshing contrast to the
others I had seen recently around the Baltic, although the one in
Helsinki was plain and simple and much like a synagogue in many ways, I
thought.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Laura F Spira
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>
>> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>
>>> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which brings us to the old argument. Do you regard being Jewish as a
>>>> religious state, an ethnic state, or both?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer, but I think your question omits another
>>> reasonable possibility: that being Jewish is cultural.
>>
>>
>>
>> religious identification, describe themselves as culturally Jewish.
>> defensive way, that they have not quite severed all links with the
>> Jewish community.
>
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "in a defensive way". I think
> that, in the region of the USA where I live, describing oneself as
> "culturally Jewish" would be no more defensive than being "culturally
> Italian" or "culturally Polish". The difference is, of course, that
> hereabouts the Jewish community is very large, and includes members from
> the ultra-observant to the barely noticing.
The defensiveness is perhaps only perceptible from the standpoint of
another Jew and there are shades of meaning that are not easy to
articulate, more than just the distinction between the ends of the scale
of observance. There are very significant differences between being
Jewish in the US and in the UK which relate not only to the individual
or his/her community but to bigger cultural and historical issues. On a
smaller scale being Jewish in Oxford is different from being Jewish in
London or Leeds.
[..]
Laura F Spira
> John Dean wrote:
>
What, for that
>> matter, would it take for me to become 'culturally Jewish'?
>> I have to say, I don't believe either to be possible.
>>
>
> I too doubt that you would find it easy to become "culturally Jewish" -
> especially while living in Oxford.
On the contrary, it would be very easy for John to do, were he so
minded. Our small community is unique in the UK (possibly in the world)
in the ways in which it embraces an extensive range of approaches to
Judaism. Identification with the community through cultural, rather than
religious, activities is quite common and some non-Jews are members of
our cultural socities. This sort of identification would be far more
difficult in a larger traditional Jewish community.
Gefulte fish, OTOH, would be a little more difficult...
Steve Hayes
>>From: MC copeS...@ca.inter.net
>
>[quoting AHD]:
>
>>Usage Note: Like the feminine forms of other ethnic terms, such as
>>Negress, the word Jewess has come to be widely regarded as offensive,
>>since it seems to imply that the conjunction of Jewishness and female
>>sex is sufficient to establish a distinct racial or social category.
>>
>
>Sorry, I didn't get it. Can a gentle soul explain to me in plain English why is
>it offensive to use the feminine form for ethnicity? Since I am an ethnic
>female, I want to know why I should be offended.
Gender does not play as big a role in English as in some other languages, and
especially other European languages. And the relationship between sex and
gender is different in different languages.
In some language, sex and gender are closely related - the gender of Russian
surnames, for example, immediately indicates the sex of the bearer. In such
languages, correspondence of sex and gender seems unremarkable.
In English, however, it often seems artificial and contrived.
English often uses the same word for both sexes, and the addition of a special
version to indicate the female implies that the male is the self-sufficient
norm, the default faor, and the female an appendage or afterthought.
So a person who writes books or articles is an author, whether male or female.
But speaking of an "authoress" makes it sound like some kind of freak.
The -ess suffix is only justified where it signifies a different role or
activity. But where it is the same, it is unjustified. Why Jewess? Is there a
Muslimess, a Christianess, a Hinduess or an Atheiess?
One can speak of the abbot and abbess of a monastery, because monasteries are
usually for only one sex only, and so though their way of life may be similar,
the sexual segregation means that it points to a significant distinction. But
there is no such justification for talking of a Jewess or a sculptress. One
doesn't speak of a doctress or a farmeress.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Simon R. Hughes
> English often uses the same word for both sexes, and the addition of a special
> version to indicate the female implies that the male is the self-sufficient
> norm, the default faor, and the female an appendage or afterthought.
>
> So a person who writes books or articles is an author, whether male or female.
> But speaking of an "authoress" makes it sound like some kind of freak.
>
> The -ess suffix is only justified where it signifies a different role or
> activity. But where it is the same, it is unjustified. Why Jewess? Is there a
> Muslimess, a Christianess, a Hinduess or an Atheiess?
>
> One can speak of the abbot and abbess of a monastery, because monasteries are
> usually for only one sex only, and so though their way of life may be similar,
> the sexual segregation means that it points to a significant distinction. But
> there is no such justification for talking of a Jewess or a sculptress. One
> doesn't speak of a doctress or a farmeress.
I had a discussion, a couple of years ago, with someone who held a
similar opinion: we shouldn't use "-ess". But the opinion becomes
ridiculous when the speaker tries to speak of Anne, the Prince
Royal; the Prince and Prince of Wales; etc.
He's an actor, she's an actress.
He's an author, she's an author.
He's Jewish, she's Jewish.
(I have never felt comfortable with "a Jew".)
He's a Christian, she's a Christian.
He's a prince, she's a princess.
He's a queen, she's butch.
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- http://www.mirrorproject.com/mirror?id=17972 -->
mb
> Pretty flippant. Suppose you explained to your class about the chinks in
> your English education, and someone objected. Suppose then that you came
> back the next day and used the word again. Would you expect mercy?
If anyone objects to it, in the armor or in the education, you don't
expect mercy, you expect the protesting moron to shut up. In a free
country. Ha.
Jerry Friedman
To give an example that's at least related, Padraig recently mentioned
that Laura Spira spoke with more authority than he did on the question
of Jewish identity. He might have added without giving offense,
"because you're a Jew." But if someone had added, "because you're a
Jewess", it would have suggested that Laura's being female had
something to do with her authority on this question. Of course, her
gender is irrelevant to the point. And in the major English-speaking
countries, mentioning people's--especially women's--gender when it's
irrelevant is often seen as sexism or a relic of sexism.
I don't know how words such as "Englishwoman" and "Frenchwoman" are
currently perceived, though.
What other people have mentioned about the associations of "Jewess"
and "Negress" is also important here.
--
Jerry Friedman
Dena Jo
> religious, activities is quite common and some non-Jews are members of
> our cultural socities. This sort of identification would be far more
> difficult in a larger traditional Jewish community.
My best friend in high school was Lutheran, and she looked every bit the
part -- straight blonde hair, pert little nose, etc., etc. But all her
friends were Jewish, and she spent her entire life in schools where, if you
were white, chances were really, really good you were Jewish. So while she
looked like the quintessential gentile, the minute she opened her mouth, she
sounded like a Jew. Same thing with my best friend from college, who to
this day sounds like a Jew with a Southern accent. They both felt most
comfortable hanging out in Jewish circles.
I once asked a friend of mine who converted to Judaism why she chose
Judaism. She replied, "Because Judaism didn't ask more of me than I could
give."
Dena Jo
Skitt
> Pretty flippant. Suppose you explained to your class about the
> chinks in your English education, and someone objected. Suppose then
> that you came back the next day and used the word again. Would you
> expect mercy?
Gosh! Once you find a chink in his armor you don't give him a Chinaman's
chance, do you?
Skitt
> Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't get it. Can a gentle soul explain to me in plain
>> English why is it offensive to use the feminine form for ethnicity?
>> Since I am an ethnic female, I want to know why I should be offended.
>
> You've never revealed your ethnicity here, as far as I know, but let's
> suppose for the sake of argument that you're Greek. If so, how would
> you feel about being called a Greekess? All Greek women I have known
> would have described themselves as Greeks. If someone throws in
> a redundant "ess", I can't help wondering about hidden agenda.
>
> Having said that, I have to add that there is nothing _inherently_
> wrong with "Jewess". It became offensive because it was so often
> used by people who intended to give offense. Ditto for "Negress".
> Ditto, for that matter, for "Negro", which used to be an
> inoffensive word but which turned up a few times too often in the
> utterances of people who were obviously using the word in a
> disparaging way.
Yabbut, if I call you Peter Moylan in a disparaging way, will you change
your name?
Javi
news:96efe132.0310...@posting.google.com gave utterance as
follows:
> "Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<3f7bcba0$0$137$45be...@newscene.com>...
>
>> What is it about "Jewesses" that makes them worthy
>> of being set apart (terminologically) from other women,
>> other Jews, and other humans? Are they all the same?
>
> To give an example that's at least related, Padraig recently mentioned
> that Laura Spira spoke with more authority than he did on the question
> of Jewish identity. He might have added without giving offense,
> "because you're a Jew." But if someone had added, "because you're a
> Jewess", it would have suggested that Laura's being female had
> something to do with her authority on this question. Of course, her
> gender is irrelevant to the point. And in the major English-speaking
> countries, mentioning people's--especially women's--gender when it's
> irrelevant is often seen as sexism or a relic of sexism.
But then why do some women, avowed feminists, insist in being called
"chairwoman", "policewoman", etc.? I have met some here in Spain (and I
believe that in France there are similar cases), where words can be gendered
more easily than in English, who insist in being called by the feminine
form. It seems inconsistent. When I've remarked that the gender of the
person should not be relevant, they answer angrily and say that doing
otherwise is "machismo". Who can understand women?
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.
Armond Perretta
>
> ... He might have added without
> giving offense, "because you're a Jew." But if someone had added,
> "because you're a Jewess", it would have suggested that Laura's
> being female had something to do with her authority on this
I am failing to see the offense. Isn't this the in the same category as
denoting Meryl an actor, or an actress, or a thespian, or whatever term
escape one's lips?
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com
Armond Perretta
>
> ... best friend from college, who to this day sounds
> like a Jew with a Southern accent ...
This I gotta get the CD.
Padraig Breathnach
>... Who can understand women?
>
At least half of the human race. That enough for starters?
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
Arcadian Rises
<huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> writes:
>
>For a few decades now, it's been offensive to remind women that they
>are female, men that they are male, and ethnic minorities that they
>are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
>
Isn't it even more offensive to *overlook* (i.e. "forgive") the fact that
certain individuals belong to a category that used to be considered
underprivileged? In other words: "I know you belong to the weaker sex, but I
forgive you and I promote you to the sexless category of 'person'", or "I know
you're a Yenta, but since I need your vote, I shall deprive you of your ethnic
identity, which is demeaning - the ethnic identity per se is demeaning, not my
intent to deprive you of same- in exchange for your vote".
Arcadian Rises
Richoux) writes:
>Insult and offense do not lie in the actual words themselves. The words
>pick up hateful associations because of the unpleasant tone of voice and
>the harmful intentions of people who uttered them. Once those
>associations are firmly recognized by the target audience, then it
>doesn't matter who says the same words, no matter how innocently --
>offense is taken because the association with insult is so strong.
>Witness the several stories of people getting into big trouble for
>saying "niggardly," which merely has a chance resemblence to an insult.
>
>Somewhere, sometime, a sufficient number of people used "Jewess" in a
>nasty sort of way. That wrecked the word for any neutral use. The
>literal origin and meaning become irrelevant.
>
You can make the same case about the word "Jew".
Arcadian Rises
<rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
>I think what's relevant is that you can't really use -ess in general to
>form "female member of national/ethnic/religious/racial category".
You left out the blue blooded females: princesses, baronesses, countesses...
>The
>-ess words where this is done are few -- what other ones are there besides
>"Negress" and "Jewess"? What's also relevant, though you get into a
>chicken/egg thing, is that these are archaisms.
I guess that explains why the women of blue blood still get the "ess".
Arcadian Rises
(Steve Hayes) writes:
>Gender does not play as big a role in English as in some other languages, and
>especially other European languages. And the relationship between sex and
>gender is different in different languages.
Thank you. This is the most satisfactory explanation.
Skitt
> Jerry Friedman gave utterance as follows:
>> "Michael West" wrote:
>>> What is it about "Jewesses" that makes them worthy
>>> of being set apart (terminologically) from other women,
>>> other Jews, and other humans? Are they all the same?
>>
>> To give an example that's at least related, Padraig recently
>> mentioned that Laura Spira spoke with more authority than he did on
>> the question
>> of Jewish identity. He might have added without giving offense,
>> "because you're a Jew." But if someone had added, "because you're a
>> Jewess", it would have suggested that Laura's being female had
>> something to do with her authority on this question. Of course, her
>> gender is irrelevant to the point. And in the major English-speaking
>> countries, mentioning people's--especially women's--gender when it's
>> irrelevant is often seen as sexism or a relic of sexism.
>
> But then why do some women, avowed feminists, insist in being called
> "chairwoman", "policewoman", etc.? I have met some here in Spain (and
> I believe that in France there are similar cases), where words can be
> gendered more easily than in English, who insist in being called by
> the feminine form. It seems inconsistent. When I've remarked that the
> gender of the person should not be relevant, they answer angrily and
> say that doing otherwise is "machismo". Who can understand women?
Exactly. In other words, it all depends. The tricky part is to figure out
what it depends on and whether to open a door for a woman or wait for her to
open it for you.
Mike Oliver
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>... Who can understand women?
>>
> At least half of the human race.
Sure about that?
Arcadian Rises
<poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>But then why do some women, avowed feminists, insist in being called
>"chairwoman", "policewoman", etc.? I have met some here in Spain (and I
>believe that in France there are similar cases), where words can be gendered
>more easily than in English, who insist in being called by the feminine
>form. It seems inconsistent. When I've remarked that the gender of the
>person should not be relevant, they answer angrily and say that doing
>otherwise is "machismo". Who can understand women?
>
Different strokes for different... folklores.
I believe it's a matter of semantics, rather than intricate female psychology.
As Steve Hayes pointed out in this thread
Padraig Breathnach
Look, Mike: if you want trouble, go and bring it on yourself; don't
involve me.
PB
Laura F Spira
Yenta - now *that's* an offensive word.
Javi
news:20031002143403...@mb-m03.aol.com gave utterance as follows:
I see. Because some of my ancestors demeaned women, because some American's
ancestors demeaned non-WASP people, now we have to flatter women and
non-WASP people saying something like "I am aware of your gender and your
ethnicity, I reckon that it is important, but in the opposite sense used by
my ancestors".
I do not believe that this is the best way of ending gender and racial
discrimination.
Arcadian Rises
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
I'm glad you got my point, but I'm surprized you didn't mention "the weaker
sex" barb.
Laura F Spira
> In article <3F7C773C...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>, Laura F Spira
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Xns1FDC087890...@130.133.1.4>, CyberCypher
>>><huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For a few decades now, it's been offensive to remind women that they
>>>>are female, men that they are male, and ethnic minorities that they
>>>>are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't it even more offensive to *overlook* (i.e. "forgive") the fact that
>>>certain individuals belong to a category that used to be considered
>>>underprivileged? In other words: "I know you belong to the weaker sex, but
>>
>>I
>>
>>>forgive you and I promote you to the sexless category of 'person'", or "I
>>
>>know
>>
>>>you're a Yenta, but since I need your vote, I shall deprive you of your
>>
>>ethnic
>>
>>>identity, which is demeaning - the ethnic identity per se is demeaning, not
>>
>>my
>>
>>>intent to deprive you of same- in exchange for your vote".
>>
>>Yenta - now *that's* an offensive word.
>>
>
>
> I'm glad you got my point, but I'm surprized you didn't mention "the weaker
> sex" barb.
I wasn't agreeing with your analysis. I was just observing that of all
the epithets mentioned in this thread "yenta" is, to me, the most
offensive so far.
Arcadian Rises
<poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> The carbon unit using the name Arcadian Rises <arcadi...@aol.com> in
>news:20031002143403...@mb-m03.aol.com gave utterance as follows:
>> Isn't it even more offensive to *overlook* (i.e. "forgive") the fact
>> that certain individuals belong to a category that used to be
>> considered underprivileged? In other words: "I know you belong to the
>> weaker sex, but I forgive you and I promote you to the sexless
>> category of 'person'", or "I know you're a Yenta, but since I need
>> your vote, I shall deprive you of your ethnic identity, which is
>> demeaning - the ethnic identity per se is demeaning, not my intent to
>> deprive you of same- in exchange for your vote".
>
>
>I see. Because some of my ancestors demeaned women, because some American's
>ancestors demeaned non-WASP people, now we have to flatter women and
>non-WASP people saying something like "I am aware of your gender and your
>ethnicity, I reckon that it is important, but in the opposite sense used by
>my ancestors".
You don't need to "flatter" the formerly underprivileged by acquiescing their
existence.
>
>I do not believe that this is the best way of ending gender and racial
>discrimination.
Me neither. I don't even know what is the best way. Perhaps the gender and
racial discrimination will come to an end when calling the formerly
underprivileged by their respective names will not be demeaning.
>Saludos cordiales
Aloha.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Dena Jo wrote:
> >
> > ... best friend from college, who to this day sounds
> > like a Jew with a Southern accent ...
>
> This I gotta get the CD.
What you really gotta hear, if there are any left, is a little old
Jewish lady who came straight from the shtetls of Eastern Europe to
Texas and learned her English with a Texas accent overlaid on her
Yiddish accent. I knew one or two such during my days in San
Antonio, grandmothers of my friends. Their English wasn't all that
bad overall, but the accent made it almost incomprehensible anyway.
I suppose they're all gone now, but don't accept any CD that doesn't
include some archival tapes of at least one specimen.
--
Bob Lieblich
I remember it well
R F
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Arcadian Rises wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu>, R F
> <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
> >
> >I think what's relevant is that you can't really use -ess in general to
> >form "female member of national/ethnic/religious/racial category".
>
> You left out the blue blooded females: princesses, baronesses, countesses...
>
> >The
> >-ess words where this is done are few -- what other ones are there besides
> >"Negress" and "Jewess"? What's also relevant, though you get into a
> >chicken/egg thing, is that these are archaisms.
>
> I guess that explains why the women of blue blood still get the "ess".
Sure, if this is mainly an AmE thing. We don't have princesses,
baronesses or countesses here, other than European expat nobility. Those
concepts have more than a little suggestion of mediaevality to me.
R F
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Arcadian Rises wrote:
True 'nuff, which may be why noun "Jew" seems to be somewhere along the
path of getting replaced by "Jewish [man, woman, person, etc.]". I'd say
the same is true of "black" used as a noun, not an adjective, to mean
"black person" (and "white" used as a noun for "white person"). These are
starting to sound archaic to me, and anyone speaking of "a black" or "a
white" should be prepared for his or her usage to cause offense. I'm
fairly sure I've witnessed the nouns "white" and "black" used consciously
as insults. But "white person", "black person", these aren't particularly
seen as offensive beyond the offensiveness that inheres in any racial sort
of term.
Very tricky thing, but that's how it is.
R F
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Armond Perretta wrote:
> Dena Jo wrote:
> >
> > ... best friend from college, who to this day sounds
> > like a Jew with a Southern accent ...
>
> This I gotta get the CD.
Say, what ever happened to Barry Farber?
Tony Cooper
Is it? Really? It's not a word that I use, but it's a word that I
see and hear often. Good thing you posted if it really is offensive
because I might have used it.
Damn, but being Jewish must be neat. You've got all those special
words that the rest of us* really don't know how to use. We think we
do, but you keep us off balance by occasionally saying "xxxx is really
offensive" when we thought it to be innocuous.
Most Jewish people that I have been close with have an exceptional
sense of humor. I don't know if this is a Jewish characteristic, or
if I just normally gravitate towards people with a good sense of
humor. If you have the type of sense of humor that my Jewish friends
have, I would not put it past you to say "Yenta" is offensive just to
mix us* up.
Yes, it's an "us" and "them" world. Always has been, always will be.
Javi
> In article <blht27$chjn0$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Javi"
> <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> The carbon unit using the name Arcadian Rises
>> <arcadi...@aol.com> in
>> news:20031002143403...@mb-m03.aol.com gave utterance as
>> follows:
>
>>> Isn't it even more offensive to *overlook* (i.e. "forgive") the fact
>>> that certain individuals belong to a category that used to be
>>> considered underprivileged? In other words: "I know you belong to
>>> the weaker sex, but I forgive you and I promote you to the sexless
>>> category of 'person'", or "I know you're a Yenta, but since I need
>>> your vote, I shall deprive you of your ethnic identity, which is
>>> demeaning - the ethnic identity per se is demeaning, not my intent
>>> to deprive you of same- in exchange for your vote".
>>
>>
>> I see. Because some of my ancestors demeaned women, because some
>> American's ancestors demeaned non-WASP people, now we have to
>> flatter women and non-WASP people saying something like "I am aware
>> of your gender and your ethnicity, I reckon that it is important,
>> but in the opposite sense used by my ancestors".
>
> You don't need to "flatter" the formerly underprivileged by
> acquiescing their existence.
>
>>
>> I do not believe that this is the best way of ending gender and
>> racial discrimination.
>
>
> Me neither. I don't even know what is the best way.
I'm beginning to think that there is not only one way. Maybe the most useful
way is to assume that most people do not react logically, but emotionally.
In this sense, it might be a good way, for that people, to demean themselves
to use some words in a humilliating sense.
> Perhaps the
> gender and racial discrimination will come to an end when calling the
> formerly underprivileged by their respective names will not be
> demeaning.
Surely. The problem is how to reach it. Probably my way is not the way that
works for others.
Laura F Spira
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:06:36 +0100, Laura F Spira
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yenta - now *that's* an offensive word.
>
>
> Is it? Really? It's not a word that I use, but it's a word that I
> see and hear often. Good thing you posted if it really is offensive
> because I might have used it.
>
> Damn, but being Jewish must be neat. You've got all those special
> words that the rest of us* really don't know how to use. We think we
> do, but you keep us off balance by occasionally saying "xxxx is really
> offensive" when we thought it to be innocuous.
I referred elsewhere to the difference between being Jewish in the UK
and in the US. One illustration of this is that many expressions that
would in my childhood only be heard within the Jewish community in the
UK have become part of the common language in the US. The influence of
US culture is changing this here. Recently a non-Jewish [1] friend of
mine used the word "shlep", much to my surprise. The shibboleths are on
the move.
>
> Most Jewish people that I have been close with have an exceptional
> sense of humor. I don't know if this is a Jewish characteristic, or
> if I just normally gravitate towards people with a good sense of
> humor. If you have the type of sense of humor that my Jewish friends
> have, I would not put it past you to say "Yenta" is offensive just to
> mix us* up.
There are Jews who lack a sense of humour but IME they are rare. But I
am offended that you would suspect me of such deviousness in the serious
forum of aue!
Here's the NSOED definition of yenta:
yenta /"jEnt<schwa>/ n. N. Amer. Also yente.E20. [Yiddish, orig. a
personal name.] A gossip, a busybody; a noisy, vulgar person; a scolding
woman, a shrew.
Frankly, I'd rather be called a Jewess.
[1] if I'd used the word "Goyishe" instead, that might have been offensive.
Padraig Breathnach
>... if I'd used the word "Goyishe" instead, that might have been offensive.
That's the sort of thing one does not learn in the ordinary course of
life in Ireland. How about "gentile", which I have heard Irish Jews
use?
PB
Skitt
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>> ... if I'd used the word "Goyishe" instead, that might have been
>> offensive.
Sometimes (MWCD10 says), but "shiksa" would be worse, I'd say.
> That's the sort of thing one does not learn in the ordinary course of
> life in Ireland. How about "gentile", which I have heard Irish Jews
> use?
No harm in that one, I believe.
Michael West
> But then why do some women, avowed feminists, insist in being called
> "chairwoman", "policewoman", etc.?
Easy. Because people are different. Nobody said "Jewess"
was always and only offensive.
> I have met some here in Spain (and
> I believe that in France there are similar cases), where words can be
> gendered more easily than in English, who insist in being called by
> the feminine form. It seems inconsistent. When I've remarked that the
> gender of the person should not be relevant, they answer angrily and
> say that doing otherwise is "machismo". Who can understand women?
You've never encountered males who say and do things
that are inconsistent or illogical, or who take offence
where none is intended? Welcome to AUE.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
Laura F Spira
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>
>>Laura F Spira wrote:
>
>
>>>... if I'd used the word "Goyishe" instead, that might have been
>>>offensive.
>>
>
> Sometimes (MWCD10 says), but "shiksa" would be worse, I'd say.
True. Especially since my friend is male.
>
>
>>That's the sort of thing one does not learn in the ordinary course of
>>life in Ireland. How about "gentile", which I have heard Irish Jews
>>use?
>
>
> No harm in that one, I believe.
Probably not.
Javi
in news:3f7c94ae$0$127$45be...@newscene.com gave utterance as follows:
:-) Thank you, I've been here for a while. I'm learning a lot.
Arcadian Rises
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
And I don't like strawberries.
I hope you got my point: no need to share with me your likes and dislikes. So
far, you only answered my messages to point out my misspellings, or otherwise
correct and criticize me. I suggest you stop stalking me and direct your
resentment somewhere else.
Anyway, plonk!