Please spare us your stupid reductionist bullshit. Your attempt to deny a Christian component to antisemitism is not only historically inaccurate, but a malicious form of revisionism. We know you're on the evangelical teat, but distorting history on their behalf is a bit much. Hitler didn't have to "phrase his argument" in Christian terms because Christianity was already an integral element of German culture. His innovation was combining it with eugenics and presenting it as a popular phenomenon.

FYI: 

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

(Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, pp. 19-20.)

Click here for more quotes that destroy your specious argument.

In its annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, B'nai Brith Canada reported that New York Jews still do not believe that Montreal bagels and smoked meats are superior to their own, an act viewed as an assault on and intimidation of Canadian Jews. Leading Canadian Zillionaires Bronfman, Belzberg and Black could not be reached for comment because they were all too busy enjoying subsidized prescription drugs and pleasuring themselves to Hockey Night in Canada.

 In related news, the Ottawa Senators are expected to lose to the Pittsburgh Penguins this Monday night in spite of a last minute attempt by Ottawa resident Irwin Cotler to put what he called "a hex" on the Penguins. The Sens would never have beat Detroit in the upcoming Stanley Cup anyway, but that's another matter.

Providing for lingual nerds since 1997.

zbird:

By "nice platitude" I meant just that: a trite comment with good intentions. I don't agree with him, but don't think he meant ill. Also, I don't think he intended on dehumanizing Yiddish speakers, but just the opposite - to deify them. By claiming they are inherently nonviolent, he's making a parallel, conscious or not, with Christ. 

invisible_hand: 

His point doesn't stand. Don't rely only on the two examples I gave. There are hundreds of Yiddish words for violent acts: Matthue's "potsh" can be first among them. There's also frask, trask, and zbeng, among may other terms for a direct hit.

More important here is the fact that Burg was paraphrasing Bashevis-Singer. The original quote is:

The high honor bestowed upon me by the Swedish Academy is also a recognition of the Yiddish language - a language of exile, without a land, without frontiers, not supported by any government, a language which possesses no words for weapons, ammunition, military exercises, war tactics; a language that was despised by both gentiles and emancipated Jews.

And can be found here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1978/singer-lect...

What Bashevis-Singer says here about "no words for weapons, ammunition, military exercises, war tactics" is also not true. The late Yiddish linguist, Mordkhe Schaechter published an article on Yiddish military terminology. 

Well, since I get mentioned in AJ's entry, maybe I can shed some light on this. AJ - I think you're missing an "about" somewhere up there. Watch that cut and paste.

Now, unfortunately, this entry isn't very well contextualized. If you aren't familiar with AJ's project, which Soccer doesn't seem to be, it isn't going to make much sense. Basically, AJ - a completely secular Jew with minimal religious education - tries to live by the rules that he finds in the Bible. This means that he's never seen many of them and that a number of them are going to seem quite odd.
With the exception of limiting himself to the Bible, the premise is not unlike what happens to a Bal-tshuva, a newly religious person who finds her/himself beset with a huge number of new rules to live by, many of which make no apparent sense. The difference is that AJ is not a Bal-tshuva, but a journalist working on a potentially transformative project. If you read the book, you'll find that he's incredibly open-minded about these things, especially for an agnostic who has suddenly plunged into religious life without undergoing a gradual transformation - the kind that most people who become religious experience (epiphanies notwithstanding).

That said, I don't think the birthday party analogy works very well. After all, birthday parties are not mandated by a deity, whereas something like shatnez is. Having his clothes checked for mixed fibers is weird for AJ, just as it would be weird for the vast majority of people for whom this rule is entirely new. For those who are familiar with shatnez, AJ's experience is that of a Biblical neophyte and should be regarded as such. Just because you already know about it shouldn't negate his experience or make yours superior.

Also, Soccer's comment, "If you took time to really study this stuff, I can tell you..." is ridiculous, as if he's not reading it correctly. If he could read it just like you, it would make sense to him, right? On the face of it, shatnez makes no sense. But, parsed by rabbis, it does (or can). The premise of AJ's project is that he's interpreting everything on his own, without the benefit of subsequent commentators. That's one of the things that makes the book so entertaining.

And, for the record, Craig really looks like that. Take him seriously.

This type of event, obviously, is nothing new and has occurred in a variety of cultural settings. Perhaps you are forgetting the infamous "Delicatessen Riots" of 1969 that greeted the publication of Philip Roth's "Portnoy's Complaint."

Actually, what's fascinating about this is the possibility of comparing it to the overwhelmingly positive reception that Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis" got in France. The differences between Muslim reactions to these types of things in England and France appear to be drastically different. This fact doesn't seem to be getting as much play as it should. Why is that? Monseiur Kouchner?

1) let x=2+2

2) [multiply by x-1] x(x-1)=(2+2)(x-1)

3) x^2 -x=2x+2x-2-2

4) [subtract 3x] x^2-4x=x-4

5) [multiply by x-5] (x-5)(x^2-4x)=(x-5)(x-4)

6) x^3-9x^2+20x=x^2-9x+20

7) x(x-4)(x-5)=(x-4)(x-5)

8) [divide by x-4] x^2-5x=x-5

9) [add 4x] x^2-x=5x-5

10) x(x-1)=5(x-1)

11) [divide by (x-1)] x=5

Since we started with x=2+2, therefore 2+2=5

Why not instead be honest, and say that whatever the reasoning in Jewish law, your background in secular, Western, and other extra-Jewish traditions happens to make you more comfortable with a certain style of service, and end it there?

What's implicit in this comment is the argument that the writer is "more Jewish" than Elisa (who spelled "chauvinistic" wrong), who longs to include "extra-Jewish traditions" (read: goyish) in her ideal synagogue service and "who is not in a position to evaluate." This is pretty typical example of the triumphalism of Orthodoxy, which perceives itself as the torch bearer of tradition. The problem with this argument, is that it's false. Orthodoxy is full of "extra-Jewish traditions," disguised as custom and codified into law as well. The difference between Orthodoxy and the other movements, in this respect, is that Conservative and Reform Jewries are open about the inclusion of "extra-Jewish" custom, whereas Orthodoxy tries to obscure this fact. This process in orthodoxy also occurs more slowly. The reality is that once Jews adopt a custom, it becomes a Jewish custom, period. Once a "secular, Western" tradition becomes part of a synagogue service, it's no longer secular. That seems kind of obvious.

Yiddish terms for black vary. Shvartse, in Yiddish, does not necessarily have the derogatory feel that it does in English. For example, there were occasional articles in the Yiddish press of the 1920s-30s about Di shvartse yidn fun harlem (The Black Jews of Harlem). The other term found in the press was neger, a Yiddish variant of negro, the commonly used term of the pre-1950s period. The female form of that would be negerke. I'm not sure what today's Yiddish press does. They probably use "Afrikanishe-amerikanerin," or, African-American. That doesn't do the job for non-American blacks, but other variants are easily created.

There is also a tangentially related phrase that relates only to Jews: shvarts-kheynevdik, which literally means, "charmingly black." This is a kind of Jewish "black is beautiful" expression and can be found throughout Yiddish literature describing Jews who are dark haired and dark skinned.

Non-whiteness is mostly a matter of perception. I think the vast majority of non-whites perceive Jews as white, or at least part of the dominant power structure. Whether most Jews feel confident as part of the dominant power structure is another matter. That said, I think the whole "white" category is a really dumb reductive construct. There is no such thing as "white" culture. But people can't help but to use this term. It should really be replaced with something more accurate. What that is, I don't know.

As it concerns Jews, it's hard to say. Like I said, most American Jews consider themselves Jewish by religion only. On the other hand, I think it can be proven, particularly in the field of literature, that there is a distinctly Jewish-American language and ethnicity being promoted. There's a tug-of-war going on though, between those who would like to see discrete ethnic Jewish Studies departments and those who want Jewish history and literature to simply be available as part of general lit or history departments. Another matter in the world of ethnic studies is funding: Jewish studies programs tend to be well-funded, whereas Latino, Black, Asian studies are not.