There is a diary on the recommended list right now that, I'm told, has been on the rec list for most of the day. I've been through the diary and I can see why -- it's a good diary. But it has one little problem that actually isn't so little: it uses the word "Shylocks" in its poll. I'll take the diarist at his word that he didn't mean any offense by it and that he meant the word only in the contemporary sense in which it is frequently used. But the word has a nastier meaning -- it is historically an antisemitic slur, intended to convey the sense that Jews are greedy, avaricious, conniving, and evil.
It does not take a genius to figure out why Jews would be offended by that.
So I'll take the diarist at his word that he did not mean any offense. I'd even believe him if he said he didn't know the etymology of the word. But he doubled down with this:
I intend to offend Shylocks but not Jews...I have no ill will towards the jewish people, and, i admire their best qualities.
Not every shylock is jewish, and, not every Jew is a shylock.
Sounds a bit too much like "some of my best friends are Jews" for my comfort. And now we have a problem.
Elders of Zion is a general Jewish interest group, open to anyone who wants to learn about Jews and Judaism. The group was created in order to facilitate such a space. Discussion of and questions about Jewish religion, ethnicity, history, culture, language, cuisine, music, literature, and identity are encouraged. Please keep this purpose in mind when commenting in our diaries. Antisemitism, diary hijacking, and I/P pie fights will not be tolerated and will be troll rated. For more information, see the inaugural diary.
Some of you have read previous diaries of mine in which I've addressed antisemitism. You may be aware that all four of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors; each had a large extended family prior to the Holocaust, but had just one surviving relative between them afterward. You might know that I grew up in a small town in rural Wisconsin where my family were probably the only Jews within a 50 mile radius, that I refer to that town occasionally as "Naziville" because of the extreme antisemitism I experienced there, and I bear the scars of literally dozens of assaults and a handful of knifings that were motivated by antisemitism. Suffice it to say that I know antisemitism, and "shylock" is an antisemitic slur whether it's intended to be so or not.
There are some obvious analogies here to other insulting language used on this site. What do you think when, as happens periodically on this site, someone refers to Ann Coulter as "Mann Coulter"? Do you think it's funny? I don't. I think it's lazy -- if the best way you can think of to critique a hateful person's rhetoric is with a comment like that, you're either not trying very hard or you're just not very smart. But more importantly, it's insulting to transfolks everywhere. I think this comment that some people think is witty enough to warrant posting here every few months uses some people's gender identity as an insult and, in doing so, suggests there is something less acceptable, less worthy, and less good about that identity.
What do you think when, as happens periodically on this site, someone is referred to as a "pussy," generally for the purposes of depicting that person as weak? Do you think that's a worthy critique? Or is it as lazy and dumb as the "Mann Coulter" comments while simultaneously accepting misogyny by reproducing the faulty cultural depiction of women as inherently weaker than men?
If someone is referred to as an "Indian giver," connoting that they give a gift and later demand it be returned, are Native Americans supposed to pretend it's not offensive? If someone claims s/he has been "gypped" on a deal, indicating that s/he has been cheated, are Romani (sometimes derogatively known as "Gypsies") supposed to ignore it? If you say you got a better deal from someone by "jewing them down," am I supposed to pretend that you didn't do anything wrong?
If someone used the term "wetback" on this site, would you tell Hispanics they shouldn't be offended because you were only talking about people who swim the backstroke? If someone used the term "nigger," would you tell black folks they shouldn't be offended? If someone used the term "raghead," would you tell Arabs or Muslims to take it easy?
What if someone on this site casually referred to something they didn't like by saying "that's gay"? What if they referred to something they thought was silly by saying "that's retarded"? Should no one have taken offense when then-Sen. George Allen referred to a staffer for now-Sen. Jim Webb as "macaca"? Should we pretend there's nothing wrong with the nearly ubiquitous Tea Party e-mails depicting President Obama as a monkey?
There are plenty of folks on this site and elsewhere who would say we shouldn't have to limit our speech. The First Amendment protects our freedom to say what we want; we shouldn't let silly notions of political correctness obstruct us; censorship is wrong; etc., etc., etc. I've heard all the arguments and they're all bullshit. We've all heard the expression "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." This is a lie we tell children to make them feel better when they're being bullied, but it's still a lie. If we're honest with ourselves, we know a truer version would be "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can scar you forever."
Words can hurt. Words that have been used historically to denigrate entire classes of people can be especially hurtful. And yet there are always some people who, when confronted with the offense their words cause, would rather lecture the people they've offended about how inappropriate their offense is. "I didn't mean it that way," they'll say. Or "I didn't know the word was used that way." Well, maybe you didn't. And maybe I even believe that you didn't. But now that you know that the word has historically been used that way and that plenty of people are offended by it, why would you start lecturing them about being offended by it?
Maybe that's a little abstract. Let's try the concrete example:
I intend to offend Shylocks but not Jews...I have no ill will towards the jewish people, and, i admire their best qualities.
Not every shylock is jewish, and, not every Jew is a shylock.
You know what that looks like to me? Here are a few examples: I intend to offend...
...Ann Coulter but not transfolks. ...pussies but not women. ...thieves but not Romani. ...wetbacks but not Hispanics. ...niggers but not African Americans. ...ragheads but not Arabs. ...people or things they dislike but not gays. ...people who are stupid but not people with disabilities.
So you may have intended to offend one group of people but not another, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and you just offended the people toward whom you say you bear no ill will. And when they tried to explain to you why what you did was wrong, rather than apologize -- and it's a pretty good bet they'd let you off the hook if it was clear you didn't understand why what you did was offensive until they explained it to you -- you lectured them about being oversensitive.
We're not oversensitive. We know all too well about the pernicious effects of antisemitic rhetoric. And we're damn sure not going to be lectured about when we're allowed to be offended by the use of traditionally antisemitic slurs. We will decide when we're going to be offended.
We don't care if Wikipedia says "shylock" is commonly used in exactly the same way the diarist used it. (For the record, Wikipedia also makes it pretty damn clear that it's historically been used as an antisemitic epithet.) Lots of words are commonly used in ignorance of their offensive meanings. But using a word in ignorance is one thing. Once you are no longer ignorant -- once it has been explained to you that your use of a word is offensive -- you can no longer use that as an excuse. Once you have been given the explanation, continuing to justify the use of offensive language simply means you don't give a damn about who you hurt.
Is that who we are? Or are we supposed to strive to be better than that? You tell me.
Reminder: Elders of Zion is an open space for discussing and learning about all things Jewish. This group is not the place for whatever I/P pie fight you want to start. It is not a group about Zionism or anti-Zionism. If you want to talk acrimoniously about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, regardless of the target of your anger, there are other diaries more suited to your preference. Antisemitism, diary hijacking, and pie fights are out of line with our group's mission and will be troll rated.