Editorial

In ce priveste originea si uzajul istoric al termenului "antisemitism", va sugerez sa cititi eseul pe care il atasez mai jos, de la un istoric de mare tinuta si care nu scrie "dupa ureche". Pe scurt, v-as recomanda sa incercati a nu confunda speculatia etimologica si sensul istoric pe care cuvintele il dobindesc. Cuvintele nu au intotdeauna sensul literal pe care UNA dintre posibilele asamblari a partilor componente l-ar putea sugera, intr-un exces de literalism. Altfel, o expresie compusa precum "apa de toaleta" ar putea insemna cu totul altceva decit ceea ce DE FAPT inseamna.

Sa auzim de bine,
Marc

[Oxford Concise Dictionary:
"Anti-Semitism = hostility to or prejudice against Jews"]


Semites and Anti-Semites
By Bernard Lewis
from Islam In History


In the Economist of 9 November 1968, a reviewer of two books on
Jerusalem reminded the Jewish authors that "the Arabs too are Semites,
and have the long Semitic memory". A few weeks earlier, on 26 October
1968, another or possibly the same reviewer, discussing a collection
of essays by the late Isaac Deutscher, remarked that "he [Deutscher]
might have added that Palestinians, Jew and Arab, are all Semites, and
that both races have a noble heritage of supra-nationalism from which
to work".

Deutscher would not of course have added anything of the kind. Though
frequently misguided, he was a sensitive and a literate man, and would
no more have called a Jew or an Arab a Semite than he would have
called a Pole or an Englishman an Aryan.

The Semite, like the Aryan, is a myth, and part of the same mythology.
Both terms -- Semite and Aryan -- originated in the same way, and
suffered the same misuse at the same hands. Primarily linguistic, they
date from the great development of scientific philology during the
late 18th and early 19th centuries, when European scholars made the
momentous discovery that the languages of mankind were related to one another and -- formed recognizable families. The term Aryan, of Indian origin, was first applied to a group of languages spoken in south
Asia, to which Sanskrit and its derivatives belonged, and then
extended to a larger group of languages in Europe and Asia, more
commonly known as Indo-European. Semitic was applied at about the same time to another family of languages including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, and, later, some other languages of the Middle East and North Africa.

The name of course comes from Shem, one of the three, sons of Noah,
from whom, according to the Book of Genesis, the Jews and most of
their ancient neighbors were descended. The term Semite in this sense
seems to have appeared in print for the first time in 1781, in a contribution by A. L. von Schlozer to J. G. Eichhorn's Repertoriumfur
biblische und morgenlandische Literatur.

Though these terms were strictly linguistic in origin and use,
nevertheless confusion between language and race seems to have
appeared at quite an early date. The German philologist Max Muller is
quoted as saying that one can no more speak of a Semitic or an Aryan
race than one can speak of a brachyce-phalic or dolichocephalic
dictionary. Scholars did in fact speak of Semites, but as a convenient
shorthand for people speaking a Semitic language and having a culture
expressed in a Semitic language. In this sense -- of the speakers of a
language, the carriers of a culture, "Semite" was frequently and
respectably used as a substantive. Scholars have never failed to point
out -- repeatedly and alas ineffectually -- that this linguistic and
cultural classification has nothing to do with the anthropological
classification of race, and that there is no reason whatever to assume
that people who speak the same language are of the same racial origin.
Indeed, if one looks at the speakers of Hebrew and of Arabic at the
present time -- not to mention English -- such an assumption is
palpably absurd. Speakers of Arabic include the racially highly
diverse peoples of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq on the one hand, and of the
Sudan and North Africa on the other; and even the small state of
Israel, after the "ingathering of the exiles" from all over the world,
shows a diversity of racial type even greater than that of the Arab
world. One may call the Arabs and Israelis fellow-Semites in the sense
that both speak Semitic languages, and that is all. To assume or imply
any further content would be rather as if one were to describe the
English and, say, the Bengalis as fellow-Aryans, and to suggest that
they have some common identity because of that. Racialist mythologies,
based on certain false assumptions concerning Semites, Aryans and
other groups, became very popular during the 19th century, when they
provided, for those who needed it, an ideological justification for
rejecting Jews, to replace the religious rationalization which was
ceasing to satisfy secularized Christians. If Jews could no longer
decently be persecuted because they were unbelievers, then they might
be persecuted because they were members of an alien and inferior race.
Religious prejudice was old-fashioned and obscurantist; racial
discrimination in contrast appeared, to the 19th century, as modern
and scientific. The important thing was of course that the Jews should
be kept down, and that some intellectually and socially acceptable
reason should be found for this. A further advantage of the new,
racial dispensation was that it deprived the Jew of the opportunity,
open to him under religious persecution, of deserting his own side and
joining the persecutors. The present, third phase, in which politics
has superseded both race and religion in anti-Jewish action and
propaganda, has restored this option.


Anti-Jewish propaganda in Western and Central Europe had long had
racial overtones. In 16th-century Spain the forced mass conversion of
Jews and Muslims gave rise to a virulent racialism directed mainly
against "new Christians" of Jewish origin and their descendants, and
an obsession with purity of blood -- limpieza de sangre. Racial themes
appear occasionally in the 18th century, in the writings of the French
Enlightenment. They became commoner during the 19th century, and were given a more systematic form in Germany, where the term anti-Semitism was first used. [Eseul continua, dar aceasta este portiunea relevanta]

La 2005-04-18 00:11:19, Marc a scris:

da` da "apa de colonie"ai auzit?

> 
> In ce priveste originea si uzajul istoric al termenului
> "antisemitism", va sugerez sa cititi eseul pe care il
> atasez mai jos, de la un istoric de mare tinuta si care nu scrie
> "dupa ureche". Pe scurt, v-as recomanda sa incercati a nu
> confunda speculatia etimologica si sensul istoric pe care cuvintele
> il dobindesc. Cuvintele nu au intotdeauna sensul literal pe care UNA
> dintre posibilele asamblari a partilor componente l-ar putea sugera,
> intr-un exces de literalism. Altfel, o expresie compusa precum
> "apa de toaleta" ar putea insemna cu totul altceva decit
> ceea ce DE FAPT inseamna.
> 
> Sa auzim de bine,
> Marc
> 
> [Oxford Concise Dictionary:
> "Anti-Semitism = hostility to or prejudice against Jews"]
> 
> 
> Semites and Anti-Semites
> By Bernard Lewis
> from Islam In History
> 
> 
> In the Economist of 9 November 1968, a reviewer of two books on
> Jerusalem reminded the Jewish authors that "the Arabs too are
> Semites,
> and have the long Semitic memory". A few weeks earlier, on 26
> October
> 1968, another or possibly the same reviewer, discussing a collection
> of essays by the late Isaac Deutscher, remarked that "he
> [Deutscher]
> might have added that Palestinians, Jew and Arab, are all Semites, and
> 
> that both races have a noble heritage of supra-nationalism from which
> 
> to work".
> 
> Deutscher would not of course have added anything of the kind. Though
> 
> frequently misguided, he was a sensitive and a literate man, and would
> 
> no more have called a Jew or an Arab a Semite than he would have
> called a Pole or an Englishman an Aryan.
> 
> The Semite, like the Aryan, is a myth, and part of the same mythology.
> 
> Both terms -- Semite and Aryan -- originated in the same way, and
> suffered the same misuse at the same hands. Primarily linguistic, they
> 
> date from the great development of scientific philology during the
> late 18th and early 19th centuries, when European scholars made the
> momentous discovery that the languages of mankind were related to one
> another and -- formed recognizable families. The term Aryan, of
> Indian origin, was first applied to a group of languages spoken in
> south
> Asia, to which Sanskrit and its derivatives belonged, and then
> extended to a larger group of languages in Europe and Asia, more
> commonly known as Indo-European. Semitic was applied at about the same
> time to another family of languages including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic,
> and, later, some other languages of the Middle East and North Africa.
> 
> 
> The name of course comes from Shem, one of the three, sons of Noah,
> from whom, according to the Book of Genesis, the Jews and most of
> their ancient neighbors were descended. The term Semite in this sense
> 
> seems to have appeared in print for the first time in 1781, in a
> contribution by A. L. von Schlozer to J. G. Eichhorn's Repertoriumfur
> 
> biblische und morgenlandische Literatur.
> 
> Though these terms were strictly linguistic in origin and use,
> nevertheless confusion between language and race seems to have
> appeared at quite an early date. The German philologist Max Muller is
> 
> quoted as saying that one can no more speak of a Semitic or an Aryan
> race than one can speak of a brachyce-phalic or dolichocephalic
> dictionary. Scholars did in fact speak of Semites, but as a convenient
> 
> shorthand for people speaking a Semitic language and having a culture
> 
> expressed in a Semitic language. In this sense -- of the speakers of a
> 
> language, the carriers of a culture, "Semite" was frequently
> and
> respectably used as a substantive. Scholars have never failed to point
> 
> out -- repeatedly and alas ineffectually -- that this linguistic and
> cultural classification has nothing to do with the anthropological
> classification of race, and that there is no reason whatever to assume
> 
> that people who speak the same language are of the same racial origin.
> 
> Indeed, if one looks at the speakers of Hebrew and of Arabic at the
> present time -- not to mention English -- such an assumption is
> palpably absurd. Speakers of Arabic include the racially highly
> diverse peoples of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq on the one hand, and of the
> 
> Sudan and North Africa on the other; and even the small state of
> Israel, after the "ingathering of the exiles" from all over
> the world,
> shows a diversity of racial type even greater than that of the Arab
> world. One may call the Arabs and Israelis fellow-Semites in the sense
> 
> that both speak Semitic languages, and that is all. To assume or imply
> 
> any further content would be rather as if one were to describe the
> English and, say, the Bengalis as fellow-Aryans, and to suggest that
> they have some common identity because of that. Racialist mythologies,
> 
> based on certain false assumptions concerning Semites, Aryans and
> other groups, became very popular during the 19th century, when they
> provided, for those who needed it, an ideological justification for
> rejecting Jews, to replace the religious rationalization which was
> ceasing to satisfy secularized Christians. If Jews could no longer
> decently be persecuted because they were unbelievers, then they might
> 
> be persecuted because they were members of an alien and inferior race.
> 
> Religious prejudice was old-fashioned and obscurantist; racial
> discrimination in contrast appeared, to the 19th century, as modern
> and scientific. The important thing was of course that the Jews should
> 
> be kept down, and that some intellectually and socially acceptable
> reason should be found for this. A further advantage of the new,
> racial dispensation was that it deprived the Jew of the opportunity,
> open to him under religious persecution, of deserting his own side and
> 
> joining the persecutors. The present, third phase, in which politics
> has superseded both race and religion in anti-Jewish action and
> propaganda, has restored this option.
> 
> 
> Anti-Jewish propaganda in Western and Central Europe had long had
> racial overtones. In 16th-century Spain the forced mass conversion of
> 
> Jews and Muslims gave rise to a virulent racialism directed mainly
> against "new Christians" of Jewish origin and their
> descendants, and
> an obsession with purity of blood -- limpieza de sangre. Racial themes
> 
> appear occasionally in the 18th century, in the writings of the French
> 
> Enlightenment. They became commoner during the 19th century, and were
> given a more systematic form in Germany, where the term anti-Semitism
> was first used. [Eseul continua, dar aceasta este portiunea
> relevanta]
> 
> 
> 
> 

Isi faceau toaleta: se dadeau cu 'odicolon' ca sa atenueze mirosurile mai intepatoare.

La 2005-04-18 02:06:01, Ted a scris:

> La 2005-04-18 00:11:19, Marc a scris:
> 
> da` da "apa de colonie"ai auzit?
> 
> > 
> > In ce priveste originea si uzajul istoric al termenului
> > "antisemitism", va sugerez sa cititi eseul pe care il
> > atasez mai jos, de la un istoric de mare tinuta si care nu scrie
> > "dupa ureche". Pe scurt, v-as recomanda sa incercati a nu
> > confunda speculatia etimologica si sensul istoric pe care cuvintele
> > il dobindesc. Cuvintele nu au intotdeauna sensul literal pe care UNA
> > dintre posibilele asamblari a partilor componente l-ar putea sugera,
> > intr-un exces de literalism. Altfel, o expresie compusa precum
> > "apa de toaleta" ar putea insemna cu totul altceva decit
> > ceea ce DE FAPT inseamna.
> > 
> > Sa auzim de bine,
> > Marc
> > 
> > [Oxford Concise Dictionary:
> > "Anti-Semitism = hostility to or prejudice against Jews"]
> > 
> > 
> > Semites and Anti-Semites
> > By Bernard Lewis
> > from Islam In History
> > 
> > 
> > In the Economist of 9 November 1968, a reviewer of two books on
> > Jerusalem reminded the Jewish authors that "the Arabs too are
> > Semites,
> > and have the long Semitic memory". A few weeks earlier, on 26
> > October
> > 1968, another or possibly the same reviewer, discussing a collection
> > of essays by the late Isaac Deutscher, remarked that "he
> > [Deutscher]
> > might have added that Palestinians, Jew and Arab, are all Semites, and
> > 
> > that both races have a noble heritage of supra-nationalism from which
> > 
> > to work".
> > 
> > Deutscher would not of course have added anything of the kind. Though
> > 
> > frequently misguided, he was a sensitive and a literate man, and would
> > 
> > no more have called a Jew or an Arab a Semite than he would have
> > called a Pole or an Englishman an Aryan.
> > 
> > The Semite, like the Aryan, is a myth, and part of the same mythology.
> > 
> > Both terms -- Semite and Aryan -- originated in the same way, and
> > suffered the same misuse at the same hands. Primarily linguistic, they
> > 
> > date from the great development of scientific philology during the
> > late 18th and early 19th centuries, when European scholars made the
> > momentous discovery that the languages of mankind were related to one
> > another and -- formed recognizable families. The term Aryan, of
> > Indian origin, was first applied to a group of languages spoken in
> > south
> > Asia, to which Sanskrit and its derivatives belonged, and then
> > extended to a larger group of languages in Europe and Asia, more
> > commonly known as Indo-European. Semitic was applied at about the same
> > time to another family of languages including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic,
> > and, later, some other languages of the Middle East and North Africa.
> > 
> > 
> > The name of course comes from Shem, one of the three, sons of Noah,
> > from whom, according to the Book of Genesis, the Jews and most of
> > their ancient neighbors were descended. The term Semite in this sense
> > 
> > seems to have appeared in print for the first time in 1781, in a
> > contribution by A. L. von Schlozer to J. G. Eichhorn's Repertoriumfur
> > 
> > biblische und morgenlandische Literatur.
> > 
> > Though these terms were strictly linguistic in origin and use,
> > nevertheless confusion between language and race seems to have
> > appeared at quite an early date. The German philologist Max Muller is
> > 
> > quoted as saying that one can no more speak of a Semitic or an Aryan
> > race than one can speak of a brachyce-phalic or dolichocephalic
> > dictionary. Scholars did in fact speak of Semites, but as a convenient
> > 
> > shorthand for people speaking a Semitic language and having a culture
> > 
> > expressed in a Semitic language. In this sense -- of the speakers of a
> > 
> > language, the carriers of a culture, "Semite" was frequently
> > and
> > respectably used as a substantive. Scholars have never failed to point
> > 
> > out -- repeatedly and alas ineffectually -- that this linguistic and
> > cultural classification has nothing to do with the anthropological
> > classification of race, and that there is no reason whatever to assume
> > 
> > that people who speak the same language are of the same racial origin.
> > 
> > Indeed, if one looks at the speakers of Hebrew and of Arabic at the
> > present time -- not to mention English -- such an assumption is
> > palpably absurd. Speakers of Arabic include the racially highly
> > diverse peoples of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq on the one hand, and of the
> > 
> > Sudan and North Africa on the other; and even the small state of
> > Israel, after the "ingathering of the exiles" from all over
> > the world,
> > shows a diversity of racial type even greater than that of the Arab
> > world. One may call the Arabs and Israelis fellow-Semites in the sense
> > 
> > that both speak Semitic languages, and that is all. To assume or imply
> > 
> > any further content would be rather as if one were to describe the
> > English and, say, the Bengalis as fellow-Aryans, and to suggest that
> > they have some common identity because of that. Racialist mythologies,
> > 
> > based on certain false assumptions concerning Semites, Aryans and
> > other groups, became very popular during the 19th century, when they
> > provided, for those who needed it, an ideological justification for
> > rejecting Jews, to replace the religious rationalization which was
> > ceasing to satisfy secularized Christians. If Jews could no longer
> > decently be persecuted because they were unbelievers, then they might
> > 
> > be persecuted because they were members of an alien and inferior race.
> > 
> > Religious prejudice was old-fashioned and obscurantist; racial
> > discrimination in contrast appeared, to the 19th century, as modern
> > and scientific. The important thing was of course that the Jews should
> > 
> > be kept down, and that some intellectually and socially acceptable
> > reason should be found for this. A further advantage of the new,
> > racial dispensation was that it deprived the Jew of the opportunity,
> > open to him under religious persecution, of deserting his own side and
> > 
> > joining the persecutors. The present, third phase, in which politics
> > has superseded both race and religion in anti-Jewish action and
> > propaganda, has restored this option.
> > 
> > 
> > Anti-Jewish propaganda in Western and Central Europe had long had
> > racial overtones. In 16th-century Spain the forced mass conversion of
> > 
> > Jews and Muslims gave rise to a virulent racialism directed mainly
> > against "new Christians" of Jewish origin and their
> > descendants, and
> > an obsession with purity of blood -- limpieza de sangre. Racial themes
> > 
> > appear occasionally in the 18th century, in the writings of the French
> > 
> > Enlightenment. They became commoner during the 19th century, and were
> > given a more systematic form in Germany, where the term anti-Semitism
> > was first used. [Eseul continua, dar aceasta este portiunea
> > relevanta]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> >>> Mi-ai luat vorba din gura, Ted : la apa de colonie ma gindeam si io ( am preferat sa postez insa un comentariu nou, da' vad ca cenzorul de la ' ziua' are toane si ma ' taie ' iar; o fi menopauza, ori andropauza, ca altfel nu-ti poci iezplica ce si cum, din moment ce nu ai injurat si nici instigat la ura !?...)...Altfel spus, te invita, georgeii, pi forum, da' te aproba cum " vor muschii lor " ( iti pierzi vremea de pomana cu scrisul ,ca doar nu sintem toti stenografe ! )...