I started playing this game long ago when I noticed how often journalists refer to something as “controversial” when they (their masters, that is) want to make it look undesirable. In some contexts – such as religion or sociology or historical studies -- certain words, such as “controversial”, were almost sure to be followed with references to what might be described as Jewish concerns. Also, when the “news” repeatedly reports something which seems oddly out of proportion to its importance – for example when a movie in the making gets tremendously more coverage than other films, or a celebrity’s DUI arrest is headlined repeatedly (e.g. Mel Gibson) -- there will very often be something of “Jewish concern” under the surface. When I saw the incredible amount of coverage being given to filmmaker Gibson’s drunk driving offense and something unspecified he said to a law officer, my antennae went up and in a couple of days I saw for the first time a reference to his “antisemitic rant”. There were even complaints that the sheriff's office had not publicized the ever so important anti-Jewish remarks earlier!
An early example: While I was living in England in the early 1970’s, it was impossible to overlook that the British government was harassing and persecuting Scientologists, who had an international campus in the south of England. I knew enough about Scientology that I could see no reason why they should be singled out for such blatantly unfair treatment. And so I played my word game, watching for clues in the newspapers, and soon found, “Accusations of Anti-Semitism: Scientology Teaches Power of International Bankers.” The item went on to explain that “international bankers” is a code word for “Jews”. Huh? What if you’re really talking about international bankers?
In the article which follows, as soon as I saw the word “controversial” in the first paragraph I guessed correctly that some reference to Jews would ensue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-07-latin-mass_N.htm?csp=15
‘VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday formally made the majestic, complex and controversial millennial-old Latin Mass more accessible to Catholics, who have said the Mass in their modern local languages for four decades.
‘ . . . many church leaders are opposed to restoring and expanding a Mass they say . . . includes an offensive Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, asking God to lift their "blindness." . . . Criticism also came from Jewish leaders, unhappy with the restoration of a prayer for their conversion, which is spoken once a year during Easter Week. The Anti-Defamation League called the move a "body blow to Catholic Jewish relations."’
For 2000 years the Latin Mass was the only Catholic Mass. Then in the 1960s, “Vatican II's efforts to modernize the church replaced it" with a version to be spoken in the local vernacular.
The traditional Latin Mass is being brought back because so many Catholics want it, even to the point of staging sit-ins to demand it. ‘A growing number of Catholics of all ages have sought out the elaborate Mass with its sonorous Latin prayers, Gregorian chants and formal choreography of gestures.’
‘"Anyone who seeks religion seeks a sacred moment with God, and that requires a certain reverence that comes with the old mass and its other worldliness," said South Carolina resident Brian Mershon.’
‘Historian and linguist Eric Hewitt . . . regularly attending Latin masses, finds it "more symbolic, which I think makes it more difficult but also more powerful" than the modern Mass.’
I wrote the above on Saturday, and on Sunday the following headline was conspicuous. Note that by now the Pope’s decision is not just “controversial” but “highly controversial”.
Pope's move on Latin mass 'a blow to Jews'
Jason Burke in Paris
Sunday July 8, 2007
The Observer
‘Jewish leaders and community groups criticised Pope Benedict XVI strongly yesterday after the head of the Roman Catholic Church formally removed restrictions on celebrating an old form of the Latin mass which includes prayers calling for the Jews to 'be delivered from their darkness' and converted to Catholicism.
‘In a highly controversial concession to traditionalist Catholics, Pope Benedict said that he had decided to allow parish priests to celebrate the Latin Tridentine mass if a 'stable group of faithful' request it.
The Latin Mass was the keystone of Catholic worship for almost 2000 years and was effectively replaced (partly due to Jewish pressure) only 40 years ago at Vatican Council II, but, “The Observer” continues, ‘the older rite's prayers calling on God to “lift the veil from the eyes” of the Jews and to end “the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ” - used just once a year during the Good Friday service - have sparked outrage.’
‘Yesterday the Anti-Defamation League, the American-based Jewish advocacy group, called the papal decision a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations". ”We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted," said Abraham Foxman, the group's national director, in Rome. “It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.”
The reporter’s use of the word “bewilderment” in the next paragraph is akin to “controversial”. It is designed to form a certain opinion in the reader. Exactly who was bewildered, and why?
‘The Pope also sparked bewilderment when he made no mention of anti-Semitism . . . in a speech last year at Auschwitz. He also failed to acknowledge that there might be some degree of collective responsibility of the German people.’
My feeling about the whole thing is, “Tend to your own religion and don’t meddle in other people’s . . . and that includes not telling the Pope what he should put in his speeches."
Play my little word game. It’s fun and educational.
Showing posts with label Jews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jews. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2007
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Words as Mines in a Minefield
VIEW FROM THE MOON frequently criticizes Israel, Zionists, the Israel Lobby, and certain activist Jewish organizations such as The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the American Jewish Committee (described by the “New York Times” as “an ardent supporter of Israel”).
Most of the people within those categories are Jews. Therefore when I criticize those categories I am criticizing Jews . . . but -- and this is the important point -- not all Jews.
My difficulty as a writer comes from the sensitivity that surrounds the words “Jew” and “Jewish”. It is almost impossible for a non-Jew to use those words in the context of criticism without attracting a charge of antisemitism – an emotionally loaded smear word which is supposed automatically to defeat any opponent and any argument.
It is very convenient -- instead of pitting facts against facts -- to use the illogical “reasoning”: (a) The ADL is composed of Jews. (b) You have lambasted the ADL. (c) Therefore you are an antisemite (one who hates all Jews).
Or: (a) Israel is a Jewish state run by Jews. (b) You have severely criticized Israel. (c) You are therefore antisemitic (i.e. evincing hatred of all Jews).
“Antisemitism” is a misleading word anyway because it includes “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia, including Hebrews and Arabs”. (Webster) As misused today, it refers solely to Jews. In that specialized sense its dictionary meaning is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group.” It is more commonly intended by its wielders to mean “hatred of Jews as a group.” That was the meaning advocated by an ADL official I encountered at a deposition. Incidentally, he had difficulty choosing a word to describe Jews as a group. He rightly declined the word “race” and settled on both “a people” and “a nation”. It is interesting that he did not include “a religion” because, he said, not all Jews are “religious Jews”.
My problem is to write as smoothly as I can while at the same time making clear that I am using the word “Jews” in a particular restricted sense, depending on the context. Writing can become very awkward if words have to be qualified every time they are used. In most circumstances readers apply their common sense, but not the wielders of the battleaxe “antisemitism”.
Marlon Brando called Jewish fire and brimstone down upon his head when he said, "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews.” That seems a simple statement of fact, right or wrong (in that case right) as in “the Mormons are the most powerful group in Salt Lake City”, and yet Brando was declared antisemitic. Would he have been spared the charge of antisemitism if he had said, using less of a generalization, “Hollywood is run PRIMARILY by Jews; it is owned primarily by Jews”? I don’t think it would have saved him any more than the broader statement “Hollywood is run by THE Jews; it is owned by the Jews” would have put him in deeper muck. The tactic is for any criticism of any Jews to be branded with the scare word, “antisemitism”. There is no logic involved, and therefore argument over the niceties of language is pointless.
Nowhere in this blog -- when I criticize groups that are Jewish or primarily Jewish -- am I referring to all the people who consider themselves Jews. If I refer to “the Jews” wreaking havoc in Palestine or Lebanon, I am talking about those Zionist/Israeli Jews who are involved in those activities, and not to every Jew in the world.
I’m very much aware from personal experience that all Jews are not Zionists and do not support Israel, and that there are Jews who question the conventional “Holocaust” story and its use for political ends, and that there are even Jews who do not like Jews. In Washington, D.C. I worked with and was good friends with attorney Mark Lane (“Rush to Judgment”), who was Jewish and strongly anti-Zionist. He became emotional as he described his observations in Israel -- for example, Palestinian crops and orchards dying for lack of water because Arab water had been diverted to the swimming pools of the conquering Jews.
Having said clearly that I do not include Jews as a group in my criticisms of particular Jews and Jewish organizations, I am now going to write an extension of this post based on an article in today’s “New York Times” entitled, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”.
Most of the people within those categories are Jews. Therefore when I criticize those categories I am criticizing Jews . . . but -- and this is the important point -- not all Jews.
My difficulty as a writer comes from the sensitivity that surrounds the words “Jew” and “Jewish”. It is almost impossible for a non-Jew to use those words in the context of criticism without attracting a charge of antisemitism – an emotionally loaded smear word which is supposed automatically to defeat any opponent and any argument.
It is very convenient -- instead of pitting facts against facts -- to use the illogical “reasoning”: (a) The ADL is composed of Jews. (b) You have lambasted the ADL. (c) Therefore you are an antisemite (one who hates all Jews).
Or: (a) Israel is a Jewish state run by Jews. (b) You have severely criticized Israel. (c) You are therefore antisemitic (i.e. evincing hatred of all Jews).
“Antisemitism” is a misleading word anyway because it includes “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia, including Hebrews and Arabs”. (Webster) As misused today, it refers solely to Jews. In that specialized sense its dictionary meaning is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group.” It is more commonly intended by its wielders to mean “hatred of Jews as a group.” That was the meaning advocated by an ADL official I encountered at a deposition. Incidentally, he had difficulty choosing a word to describe Jews as a group. He rightly declined the word “race” and settled on both “a people” and “a nation”. It is interesting that he did not include “a religion” because, he said, not all Jews are “religious Jews”.
My problem is to write as smoothly as I can while at the same time making clear that I am using the word “Jews” in a particular restricted sense, depending on the context. Writing can become very awkward if words have to be qualified every time they are used. In most circumstances readers apply their common sense, but not the wielders of the battleaxe “antisemitism”.
Marlon Brando called Jewish fire and brimstone down upon his head when he said, "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews.” That seems a simple statement of fact, right or wrong (in that case right) as in “the Mormons are the most powerful group in Salt Lake City”, and yet Brando was declared antisemitic. Would he have been spared the charge of antisemitism if he had said, using less of a generalization, “Hollywood is run PRIMARILY by Jews; it is owned primarily by Jews”? I don’t think it would have saved him any more than the broader statement “Hollywood is run by THE Jews; it is owned by the Jews” would have put him in deeper muck. The tactic is for any criticism of any Jews to be branded with the scare word, “antisemitism”. There is no logic involved, and therefore argument over the niceties of language is pointless.
Nowhere in this blog -- when I criticize groups that are Jewish or primarily Jewish -- am I referring to all the people who consider themselves Jews. If I refer to “the Jews” wreaking havoc in Palestine or Lebanon, I am talking about those Zionist/Israeli Jews who are involved in those activities, and not to every Jew in the world.
I’m very much aware from personal experience that all Jews are not Zionists and do not support Israel, and that there are Jews who question the conventional “Holocaust” story and its use for political ends, and that there are even Jews who do not like Jews. In Washington, D.C. I worked with and was good friends with attorney Mark Lane (“Rush to Judgment”), who was Jewish and strongly anti-Zionist. He became emotional as he described his observations in Israel -- for example, Palestinian crops and orchards dying for lack of water because Arab water had been diverted to the swimming pools of the conquering Jews.
Having said clearly that I do not include Jews as a group in my criticisms of particular Jews and Jewish organizations, I am now going to write an extension of this post based on an article in today’s “New York Times” entitled, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)