Chat

"Anti-semitism" is a frightening word. It harkens back to imagery of leather boots, supremacy and the Holocaust. For years and years the word has meant one thing and one thing only: prejudice and hatred against Jews.

But, as should be apparent, Semites are not Jews, though Jews can be Semites, but not if they are converted Jews. Why? Because though "semite" is largely about linguistic history, it can be seen as a common denominator for several people groups, including among others Arabs and Asyrians. As always, it's about people who share a language tree, geographical history and cultural similarities, as defined by people groups.

Why then is it when we say anti-semitism, per definition, we mean persecution against the Jews? I've alluded to the answer in the first paragraph. The first time it was really used was by, you guessed it, pre-first world war Germans, as a more scientific and clinical term replacement for Jew hatred. Among the many battlefields, we find scorched earth even on Wikipedia, as the edit warriors have been vying for territorial control over paragraphs, because some of these warriors want anti-semitism to mean one thing and one thing only.

Etymology works like this: someone puts together some words, nevermind how aptly or even logically, and as it becomes popularized said definition gets written into stone. It doesn't matter how nonsensical the word or phrase is. Once it's common parlance, it's common parlance. Not only that, but since Semite is largely about language groups and not about people groups anymore, that word changes as well, as it's mostly used when discussing middle Eastern language trees. But, also, nationalists and authoritarians of the past have historically persecuted people for not using their ratified language, and the reason for that should be apparent to everyone. It's not just he who defines history who wins the war, but he who defines the language.

Which brings us to today. The word "anti-semitism" has been a favourite deflection word for the authoritarian right wing government of Israel, and if you don't like that definition, tough titty: political definitions are not defined by common parlance, no matter how much certain politically inclined people who play ball with moving goal posts would want them to. It's been used to deflect any sort of criticism against the Israeli government, as a politically form of saying "rumpel stiltskin". All your detractors sort of get Thanos snapped out of the conversation.

What defines words still isn't up to politicians though. It's still up to the people. So what if we say old, Nazi scientists don't get to define our words, and neither does nationalists with yamucka's. Let's say Semites is still a set of people groups with overlapping history. Let's say that it includes Arabs, Assyrians, Palestinians, etc, because there is still some cultural and historic overlap, much like with Germanics. Germanic language and history tree, started it's life in the Nordics, a tree that worked it's way down south. But it's so far back in the past that it also is largely used in language studies and language studies alone, as the cultural overlap has long since replaced with a cultural gentle nod instead.

As a quick aside, "islamophobia" is in a similar way abused by certain extremists Imam's and Mosques, who find the term equally politically advantageous, just like those crazy Christian denominations your aunty is apart of, that the family collectively treats as a propaganda spewing elephant in the room, as they too lay their persecution fetish on the dinner table. Does that mean that islamophobia isn't real, or that Christians don't get persecuted? Not at all. People generally have the capacity to be awful and it's best to call out prejudice, social paranoia and subverted political intentions wherever they may be found.

It just goes to show that when political interests take over scientific language and definitions, that it is almost always bullocks. The word "terrorist" for instance means absolutely nothing but "who is our enemy today", from a political perspective. The term is used by governments all across the world to justify curbing dissent while trying to avoid being defined as a persecutor, as well as justifying invasions to uphold the petroleum dollar.

Personally, whenever anyone says "anti-semite" to me, I'll be sure to remind them who technically are defined as Semites, and that the language being used to define "the one true heir to the land" is some old European, Crusader-ass bullshit that literally means nothing, discounts hundreds of years of social development and geopolitical changes and has the simple job of whitewashing everything Netenyahu and his cabinet of blood thirsty maniacs does.

I'd be pleased to know what Assyrians, Arabs and Jews think about this. Did I say anything wrong? None of us are above being wrong, and in the way you correct people will be pertinent to how that information gets spread, and also intrinsically how language is shaped. It's up to us then to form responsible, apt and correct language to dispell language being weaponized for political purpose.

As always; use your words and use them responsibly.

Thanks for reading.