Conference taveng::bagels

    Re .0:
    
    Well, I'm not sure how to respond......
    
    Let me just say that I, as some of you may know, am in the process
    of converting to Judaism. I knew before undertook this step what
    some of the consequences might be - like former acquiantences now
    thinking (but not saying of course), "Oh, here comes that Jew Starin"
    etc.
    
    It would be nice if another term for people who accept the Jewish
    faith was available, one that couldn't be used in a derogatory form.
    But I suspect that with human nature being what it is a substitute term
    would eventually be corrupted as well. Like it or not, I don't see
    the word "Jew" going away in the near future.
    
    If someone decides to label me a "Jew Lover" for wanting to convert
    or "that Jew Starin" (or worse) after I convert, I figure my best response
    would be to tell them to F.O.A.D. (e-mail me if you're not familiar
    with what F.O.A.D. stands for)!
    
    FWIW,
    
    Mark

.1

Mark,

I strongly agree with your assessment of the right response to such people
8^{).  Baruch atah ... she'asani ger.

.0

It seems you've gotten a real self hate problem.  You don't like the way
the name of your group is used so you hate them.

The term Jew is the anglecization of Judean (which is is Latin for person from
Judah).  Yid is the Yiddish word, J�de is the German and so on.  They all come
from the same root.  Not only that but the word Jew in that sense came about
BEFORE the conotations which you described.  If you want to attack something,
attack the mind set that creates such bigotry and stereotyping.

If we try to change the word, we will fall into the same trap as the
Blacks.  We will be changing to a new word every few years as the new word
becomes "dirty."  (Which is the right term these days, I am pretty sure it
is NOT Black and it is definitely not Colored or...).

This matter does give us something to think about but you answers are way off
base.

Shabbat Shalom,
Gavriel

    re. "Jiddish": it's "a Jid", "Yid" has been formed to correspond to
    English "phonetics" / fyi. Same goes for this football player mentioned
    somewhere else: in Jiddisch, one would say "Jamulka", never "Yermulka".
    But, enough of phonetics and linguistics.
    
    In Austrian administrations, because of the "Wiederbet�tigungsgesetz",
    ("Law against (nazi) re-activation"), the word "JEW" is a NONO. Jews
    are called "persons of Mosaic confession" (what?).
    
    Mind you: I prefer "jew". It may sound as a derogative to some, but,
    TO ME, it sounds better than an assembly of little coloured stone
    debris.
    
    Biasedly (?) yours,
    
    Chris

Chris,

Since Yiddish is written using the Hebrew alphabet, using J (for those who
pronounce it as in German) or Y (for those who don't pronounce J as in German)
are both transliterations and it really doesn't matter.

Using German transliteration Yarmulka would be Jarmulka (not Jamulka, the R may
be very soft but it is there).

Some time ago there was a comedy recording done (sorry don't remember who by, I
heard it on the radio) where one person refers to the other as "a person of the
Judaic, Hebraic persuasion."  The other says, "You mean a Jew."  And they go on
with the same ridiculous nonsense as in .0.  It only goes to show how silly it
is to fight over the use of such words.  INSTEAD, FIGHT OVER THE MEANING
INTENDED BY THE WORDS!!!

Gavriel

    re . "meaning of the words":
    
    In a topic covering "abortion", in the DEUTSCH (German) notesfile, a
    person quite innocently noted that the current German society was less
    hostile to children than the Nazi regime. On my request to kindly
    modify this statement (what with Jews, Gipsies, other ethnics,
    handicapped, orphans, et.al., no deliberate order chosen), I got the
    friendly reply by the moderators that they support "freedom of speech".
    
    If anybody in this conference handles German well enough to read what
    has been put forward and my replies to it, I'd be really appreciating
    knowing about it. In case, you would like to add some comments, that
    is.
    
    Sensitively yours,
    
    Chris

Chris,

Was Topic in DCC::DEUTSCH?  I spreche nicht sehr gut Deutsch, aber ich lese
besser.  Ich habe 9660 ungelese Notes in DEUTSCH  8^{P.

Gavriel

Moshe, you failed to mention that the definition of "Jew" that you quoted from
the Random House dictionary was the last of four. I think that most people would
find the first three merely descriptive, rather than offensive, and closer to
their experience of the common usage of the word.

Nevertheless, people have a right to be called whatever they want to be called,
for whatever reason. I would suggest, however, that "Judean" is an unfortunate
choice, since it has the potential to further confuse and inflame the debate
over Israel's occupied territories (Judea and Sumaria). How about "Hebrew?"

In my brief lifetime I have seen people of African descent go from Niggers to
Negros to Blacks to African Americans.  And I suppose that is all to the good,
but I don't think I have seen much of a decrease in racism.

"Judean", huh?  Let's think about this one for a minute.

One problem is that those of us who live in the Judean Hills logically could
refer to ourselves as Judeans.  How should we distinguish ourselves from
those of you who don't?  Are we Judean Judeans, as opposed to you non-Judean
Judeans?  Will we have to amend Megillat Esther to describe Mordechai as
an "ish Yehudi lo Yehudi"?

On the other hand, there are many people of other religions who also live
around here.  Are we going to have to start talking about "Judeans of the
Mohammedan persuasion"?  That's awfully clumsy; maybe we should call them
non-Judean Judeans.  Oops, I already used that one.  How about Judean
non-Judeans?

When I was in high school, I belonged to a youth movement called Young Judea,
the members of which sometimes were referred to as Judeans.  Does that make
me a Judean ex-Judean Judean?  Are my old friends from the movement non-Judean
ex-Judean Judeans?  Are the local Arabs Judean non-Judean non-Judeans?
Is Karen Kolling a non-Judean non-Judean non-Judean?  (And do any of the
commentaries mention whether Mordechai ever joined a youth movement?)

-- Eric, a Jerusalem resident of the Mosaic persuasion and former member
   of Young Judea

Hey, guys, this is starting to sound like the "Are Canadians Americans"
debate (not to mention the "Can Arabs be Anti-Semites.").

For what it's worth -- not much -- the Jewish congregation in Stockholm
was called the "Mosiac Congregation".

Martin.

    Hey guys I happen to like mosaics.
    
    --David

    The name Moses is actually Egyptian, meaning "Child of the Lake."
    
    "Kike" was first used by German Jews of New York against East
    European Jewish immigrants.
    
    (From "The Jewish Connection: The Amazing Book of Jewish Achievements,"
    by M. Hirsch Goldberg.  Bantam Books, publisher.)

ADMITTING THAT "JEW" IS A DIRTY WORD
------------------------------------

     I realize that this is a very difficult thing for our people to
acknowledge. In effect, you have to admit to having been duped for most of your
life, and the longer you have been around, the harder this is to do. It is a
natural tendency to avert your eyes from the shame and the guilt, to deny it,
to rationalize it, and to belittle or denounce anyone who points it out to you.
But that does not change the fact of the matter one bit.

                                    *****

     "Jew" is not how to Anglicize "Yehudi" any more than "Jap" is how to
Anglicize "Japanese".

     The name "Yehudi" in Greek is "Ioudaios", in Latin it is "Judaeus", and in
English it is "Judean". I repeat once again that "Jew" is nothing but a vile
insult, a slur, a defamation, and a smear.

     Open your eyes and look at it. It is staring you right in the face! I say
it more openly and more loudly than others, but I am certainly not alone in
recognizing what has been going on.

     Refer to Note 81.4, for example.

     However, I do emphasize on the positive side that we have no need to feel
any sense of attachment or loyalty to this pejorative sneer, nor any sense of
responsibility to carry it, nor any sense of loss in casting it off: It is not
our proper name, merely a dirty word that English Christians made up to call
us.

     The evidence is clear. Look at how everybody uses the word in contrast
with the way they mention other names. Let's suppose that "Jew" really does
properly connote one of our people, just as "Catholic" or "Protestant" or
"Muslim" or "Hindu" connotes others. If it did, here's how we would talk about
a group of boys in school:

          Stephen is a Catholic.   Stephen is a CATHOLIC BOY.

          Richard is a Protestant. Richard is a PROTESTANT BOY.

          Omar is a Muslim.        Omar is a MUSLIM BOY.

          Vikram is a Hindu.       Vikram is a HINDU BOY.

          Chaim is a Jew.          Chaim is a JEW BOY.

     It doesn't sound right, does it? It doesn't look right, either. Something
is wrong. We have to soften the word. "Jew" has to be refined into that genteel
mannerism "Jewish" so it doesn't openly offend anyone. But none of those other
names have to become "Catholicish" or "Protestantish" or whatever. Why not?
Because THOSE names AREN'T INSULTS, that's why not!

     So "Jewish" is really just as bad as "Jew" -- it is really "Jew"-ish.

     The same with that term "Jewess", which is already acknowledged in many
dictionaries to be offensive. Do we speak of a Catholic woman as a
"Catholicess"? Or a Protestant woman as a "Protestantess"?

     What is going on here!!!? No matter how you look at it, no matter where
you turn, when our people are called "Jews", they are being singled out for
some disgusting kind of insinuation that NOBODY else gets. Do you believe it's
because the rest of the world looks up to us, admires us, and wishes to honor
us? If so, you and the rest of the world have a serious communication problem.

               "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which
               remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

                              -- Sherlock Holmes

     How could anybody REALLY believe that "Jew" and its foul derivatives
constitute any form of decent respect, or even ordinary human courtesy?
Everyone else sees it for what it is -- as an insult. Do you think you can fool
them by pretending that you like it? Why? What do you have to gain? It's not
your name. It is a label of shame stuck on you by European Christianity. Why do
you defend it and so stubbornly cling to it?


RIDUCULOUS NONSENSE?
--------------------
 
     Is it ridiculous nonsense to object to the defamation of our name and of
God's Name?

     On the other hand, how do you think someone appears to the world-at-large
when he vehemently disclaims the truth of something that is conspicuous,
unmistakable, and obvious to every normal human being?


SELF-HATRED?
------------

     Is it self-hatred to want others to show you respect, and to speak of
yourself with dignity?

     On the other hand, what would you call it when someone defends and
justifies going along with the insults cursed at him by his enemies?

     Take your choice.


THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE
-------------------------

     You say we should fight against the "meaning" of the word, but not the
word itself.

     The word IS the meaning! The word "Jew" and the filthy meaning it carries
are ONE AND THE SAME. "Jew" is the very expression of the contempt and derision
that European Christianity has for our people. How can you oppose the meaning
of the word while embracing the word itself?

     Sure, if someone is dead-set on villifying my name, there is nothing I can
do about it. But I would rather have him call me a "dirty Judean" than a "dirty
Jew". If he is going to besmirch my name, at least he should GET IT RIGHT!

     We cannot expect everybody to like us, but we can insist on some RESPECT.
I make it clear to everyone that I am "JUDEAN" and that I neither wish nor like
to be called a "JEW". This, of course, does not stop them from calling me a
"Jew" if that is their intent. But if they do so despite my openly stated
preference, then I know precisely where they stand, and have no illusions about
the disrespect they are showing me. When someone calls you a "Jew", how can you
tell whether it is out of innocence or out of malice?

     Getting respect for our name doesn't automatically get respect for us. But
it is absolutely essential. Without it, we don't have a chance of getting any
respect at all.


GET SOME RESPECT!
-----------------

     I do not expect in my lifetime ever to see our people accorded even a
fraction of the respect given to the other nations of the world. Regrettably,
"Jew" will be around a long time. However, it is no disgrace that others call
you dirty names. It is a shameful disgrace only that you do it to yourself.

     Yet if our people are ever to enjoy the full blessings of life free from
abuse, we shall have to start somewhere. We may never live to see that glorious
day, but if we do not start now to correct what is wrong, it surely will never
come.

     In all the world, there is no one who is so disrespected as the "Jew". For
hundreds and hundreds of years, the "Jew" has been the target for whatever foul
refuse Christianity has needed to eliminate.

     The crimes that European Christianity has committed against our people are
monstrous. But how much have the sins of our own people contributed to this?

     For how can we expect others to show us any respect if we fail so
miserably in showing respect to ourselves? If instead of insisting on our true
name, we display open disrespect for ourselves, our nation, and our God, does
it not incite others to do the same?

     Whether you intend it or not, and whether you realize it or not, when you
announce to the world that you are a "Jew", you are proclaiming that you
approve of the contempt that Christianity dumps upon you. It is like wearing a
sign on your back that says "KICK ME".


WHAT WILL IT TAKE?
------------------

               "For the present there is no helping the Jews. If
               someone showed them the Promised Land, they would
               scoff at him.... Still, I know where that country
               lies: in ourselves! ... But we shall have to sink
               still lower; we shall have to be more widely insulted,
               spat upon, mocked, beaten, robbed and slain before we
               are ripe for the idea."

                              -- Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl, in 1895 on the
                                 subject of the return to our
                                 national homeland

     May the memory of Binyamin Ze'ev Hirzl forever be honored. Without his
untiring and selfless devotion and sacrifices, our people would never have
returned to Jerusalem. It is worth looking at his experiences to appreciate
better what we see today.

     Herzl's dream was to set up an independent nation for our people in Eretz
Yisrael. He saw it as the only hope to escape their wretched plight in Europe.
His efforts were supported by many prominent Christian leaders, including the
Pope, the King of Italy, the Kaiser of Germany, and the British Government; and
he was received as an honored guest by the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, who
welcomed the opportunity to begin negotiations with him toward this goal.

     With all this support and endorsement, he should have succeeded. The time
was right. The rest of the world was ready and willing. Why did he fail? What
stood in his way?

     You guessed it... the "Jews"! His early frustration from opposition by the
establishment European "Jews" shows in the above prophetic observation he wrote
to one of them, a Baron Maurice de Hirsch.

     Herzl's terrifying prophecy came to pass within fifty years.

     There is so much attention and press given these days to the "Holocaust"
that it is easy to become indifferent to it through saturation. But let us not
ignore one of its most important lessons:

     THE "JEWS" OF EUROPE TURNED DOWN A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR SALVATION AT THE
TURN OF THE CENTURY. Had they united behind Herzl's vision our people could
have returned in glory to Eretz Yisrael before war and destruction had ravaged
Europe, and possibly averted -- or at least reduced -- the horror of what was
to come.

     Instead, it took nothing less than the nightmare of near annihilation --
the MURDER of SIX MILLION of our people -- to wake up the European "Jew" to
reality.

                                        *****

     So now there is "Israel", the "Jewish State". And now Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl
lies in his final resting place in Jerusalem.

     What else has changed? Not much.

     The "Jew" is still despised and loathed.

     Just look at the record: Our people returned to Eretz Yisrael and miracles
happened. Life thrives. The desert blossoms. Wonders from the past are
rediscovered. But does the world celebrate these triumphs with us? Are we
accorded any honor at all from these hard-won victories? Hardly.

     The world elates when a wall comes down in Berlin after separating German
people for only forty years. But when our people were re-united in Jerusalem
after TWO THOUSAND YEARS and after pain and torment and suffering no German has
ever known, what was the world's reaction? We were instead begrudged and
resented.

     Today, despite all the stunning accomplishments, Israel is vulnerable,
with few real friends. The world pays homage to our enemies. "Anti-Semitism" is
on the rise everywhere. We are mocked with "Jews for Jesus" and other
obscenities. Despite all the great accomplishments our people have made for the
good of the world, despite all the Nobel Prizes, the "Jew" is reviled just as
the "Jew" has always been reviled.

     It is impossible to educate the world to accept or tolerate the "Jew". The
"Holocaust" is becoming stale; people are getting tired of it. Already we hear
claims that it's nothing but a hoax -- that the "Jews" made it all up! Instead
of being a lesson of what NOT to do, the "Holocaust" is on its way to becoming
an INSPIRATION for our enemies.

     The "Jew" is still the most disrespected person on earth.

     And the worst complication of calling yourself a "Jew" is that you begin
to brainwash yourself into thinking that the disrespect that goes with it is
normal and inevitable: as if it were ordained as some unique misfortune upon
us. Aside from the profanity of this view -- to imply that God would ever do
such a thing to His people -- it is just plain wrong. The detested, suffering
"Jew" is but a creation of European Christianity. God intends blessings and
good things for us:

               "Judah, your brothers shall praise you.
               Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies."

                              -- Genesis 49:8

     The scorn heaped upon our people is not predestined. It is only because
they persist in their grievous sin of self-disrespect. If they would only
assert themselves to be what they are and what God made them, they would at
least have a chance at commanding the respect so conspicuously absent in their
history.

     Instead, they cling with a death-grip to that vile Christian insult of
"Jew". They make every excuse they can think of to avoid calling themselves
what they are -- YEHUDIM -- JUDEANS, in English. They tiptoe around with
euphemisms for "Jew" and with substitutes like "Hebrew" and "Israelite" and who
knows what next. Nobody respects any of this prissy waffling. It is seen by the
rest of the world as evidence of some unspeakable shame.

               "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
               To see oursels as others see us!
               It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
                    And foolish notion."

                              -- Robert Burns

     How much more suffering must our people endure? What hideous tragedy will
it take to make our people realize that they have no alternative but to
aknowledge their rightful name, and to cast off their disgraceful humiliation
in calling themselves "Jews" -- that "JEW" IS A DIRTY WORD?


OUR ANCESTRAL NATIONALITY
-------------------------

     What is so hard to accept about being Judean?

     The simple truth is that it is our ancestral nationality. What is so
difficult or confusing about that?

     Here are some Americans I have known, and how they readily identify
themselves:

          o    Mr. DiGrazia says he is "Italian"

          o    Ms. Mahoney says she is "Irish"

          o    Dr. Maruyama says he is "Japanese"

          o    Mr. Rundberg says he is "Swedish"

          o    Mr. Kebabian says he is "Armenian"

          o    Prof. FoxTree says he is "Native American, Arawok"

          o    Mr. & Mrs. Boulanger say they are "French Canadian"

     These people are all American citizens, living right here in America. And
none of them are the least bit hesitant about identifying with their ancestral
nationalities. They all cherish their heritage. They are proud of what they
are. They have not "assimilated" or lost their identity. They all celebrate
their festivals, gather among their people, enjoy their foods, music, history,
literature, and culture, and they pass their traditions on to their children.
It doesn't matter whether they are biologically descended from their ancestral
nation, or if their parents or grandparents or they themselves adopted it and
are spiritually descended. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM US. WHY SHOULD WE BE ANY
DIFFERENT FROM THEM?

     So why should we worry that someone else might be confused if we say we
are "Judean"? Nobody else is confused! WE ARE CONFUSED!

     And far worse than the pain of confusion, when we deny our nation we are
denying THE ONE THING that people universally understand and respect.

     The next time someone asks you "what" you are, say you are "Judean". Say
it sincerely, say it with dignity, and say it with SELF-RESPECT. Politely
correct them if they confuse it with "Jew" or "Jewish". If they are not
immediately familiar with "Judean", tell them it is your ancestral nationality.
Yes, the ancient nation of Judah, as written in the Bible!

     It should be the easiest thing to do. It is the plain and simple TRUTH!

     They just might be impressed.


"KNOW BEFORE WHOM YOU STAND"
---------------------------

     It is a mistake to think that God judges us once a year on the Day of
Atonement. God judges us continually, each and every instant of our lives. The
harm we do to another is a crime. The harm we do to ourselves is a sin. We
are judged on both counts.

     The oldest excuse is ignorance, and our people constantly plead ignorance.
Whenever there are acts of violence against them, physical or psychological,
they just shake their heads in bewilderment, as if they can't imagine WHY these
things happen. They look everywhere for the answer. They look to politics, to
religion, to education, but they can't seem find it because are looking in all
the wrong places. The answer is, as Herzl said, "in ourselves!"

     You may stubbornly cling to calling yourself by an insult, stubbornly deny
your nation, and stubbornly do other things unworthy of esteem and which invite
derision. No one can stop you.

     But I can take away that tired old excuse of ignorance. You may deny the
truth all you want, but to your dying day you will never forget that it has
been brought to your attention.

     Realize that when the people of the world insult you and despise you, when
you are shaken by "Anti-Semitism", when you are apprehensive over the
vulnerabilities of the "Jewish" State of Israel, it is God calling you to
account for yourself!

     God is asking, "Why are you so despised and so abused? Why do the people
of the world shun you, discriminate against you, and even resort to violence
against you?"

     All along, our people have fallen back on that old excuse, "God, I do not
know..."

     But now when God charges you with your sins, you must remain silent and
hang your head in shame. You may not answer, "God, I do not know..." because
NOW YOU KNOW!

                                   -- Moshe Ha-Yehudi

Moshe,

Judean is NOT the English for decendant of Yehudah ben Yaakov.  It is
the Latin.  Now, I don't speak Latin; I speak English.  If I want to refer
to myself in English, the term is Jew.  The reason that Jew boy doesn't
work right in your example is simply that Jew is (unlike the other examples
you chose) only a noun.  It is not both a noun and an adjective.

Now,  you can waste alot of effort trying to change what people call you in
hopes that it will change the level of respect accorded you, but it won't
make any difference.  People who choose to use the English term Jew as a
derogative will use the Latin term Judean (or the French Juif or whatever).

Somehow this sounds like the kind of nonsense spouted by people who claim
that Arabs can't be anti-semitic because they are Semites.  Only this time
it is in the opposite direction.  "I can't be a Jew because that's a dirty
word."  Well, if you want it to be a dirty word go ahead and treat it that
way.  Me, I'll take it at face value.

Gavriel
D*mn proud to be an English speaking Jew   8^{)

    Gavriel,
    
    I don't know where you got the idea that "Judean" is Latin. Please
    refer to any decent dictionary. I presently have in my lap the "Random
    House Dictionary of the English Language" (1967 version), which I have
    quoted on other occasions. It says (in column 3 on page 772):
    
    	Ju-de-an 1. of or pertaining to Judea... etc.
    
    This is an English dictionary, not a Latin dictionary. It lists words
    that are considered acceptable lexicon amongst English-speaking people
    -- not only the American variety, but also British.
    
    Sure, we can argue about the fine points of its meaning. But it most
    definitely is ENGLISH. The Latin form is JUDAEUS. If you had studied
    Latin in high school (as many of us did), you would recall that
    masculine endings are -US. Certainly not -AN. Do not be misled by the
    similarity and jump to the conclusion that because they look somewhat
    alike that "Judean" must be Latin. First of all, it is the translation
    of a name, so it SHOULD look similar in ALL languages. Second, over 50%
    of the words in English are derived from Latin in some manner, anyway.
    A lot of the rest are from Greek. English may be a "Germanic" language,
    but the Norman invasion in 1066 brought in an overwhelming Latin
    influence.
    
    If you don't want to call yourself "Judean", OK, but don't tell me it's
    because it's a Latin word. It most definitely is English.
    
    Where did the word "Judaism" come from? Is that Latin, too? How about
    "Judaic"? These are all used by English-speaking people. They all have
    common roots: Yehudi -> Ioudaios (Greek), thence to Latin AND ENGLISH.
    
    While I'm on the subject, I see here that the OLD ENGLISH form was
    IUDEAS. So I repeat: WHERE DID "JEW" COME FROM??? Yes, it too is
    English, sort of. It was made up by Englishmen as an English insult! If
    it were a legitimate Anglicization of our people's name, it would look
    and sound as much like "Yehudi" as possible in the natural sounds of
    English. Look at how the Greeks and Romans translated it. The English
    did the same with "Judean". THAT is what we should be called, NOT
    "JEW"!
    
    As a general note, I try to be as thorough as I can. My professional
    background is as an Insurance Investigator. The cases I have handled
    have normally involved large sums of money (industrial and commercial
    equipment claims), so there would be a lot at stake. Often the
    difference in the outcome would be the quality of research I would do.
    I have always taken the position that I would research a subject as
    thoroughly as I could, because I tend to be very outspoken. I call it
    as I see it and let the cards fall as they will. That is why the
    insurance companies would retain me on large losses; they knew I would
    be as objective as possible; my charter was to get to the truth. I am
    not infallable, certainly. If I am wrong, please show me where I am
    wrong and I will stand corrected. But regarding linguistic proof -- YOU
    show ME! As far as bald assertions (whatever that may mean), YOU
    research the subject now. YOU give me one GOOD reason for keeping that
    label of disgrace "Jew". Don't tell me it's our people's name in
    English -- it's our people's LABEL in English at best, not our name.
    You can give me lots of reasons, I am sure. I have heard them all -- or
    at least most of them. They are NO GOOD. They are not worth the price
    we have been paying and will have to pay in the future.
    
    Gavriel, I am doing everything I can to convince you of the truth as it
    is seen by the rest of the world. You are in a position of great
    influence in this conference. I have a sign on my wall that reads:
    
    	"IF THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD,
         THEN WHAT I HAVE ON MY DESK
    	 IS A NUCLEAR ARSENAL"
    
    You should also have such a sign.
    
    We owe it to our people and to God to look straight at the Truth no matter
    how it cuts. If I can convince just 2 of our people to see the truth
    and act on it, to abandon the "Jew" stigma of Christian Europe, and to
    breathe free in our Judean heritage as it was meant to be... then I
    will succeed. Because each of those 2 will lift up 2 others... If only
    you would see the light and lead others, it would come that much more
    quickly. We do not need the permission or sanction of any outsiders, no
    approvals, no money. Just our own will and resolve.
    
    Remember that our people made a deal with God a very long time ago. God 
    has kept His part of the bargain. Now we have to keep ours. We cannot
    do it if we blaspheme His name by carrying a derogatory label in place
    of the good name we were given. If you cannot bear to call our people
    "Judeans", then at least you should refer to us by our Hebrew name, 
    "Yehudim". There is nothing wrong with that.
    
    But we must cast off that label of oppression "Jew". It is far more
    than a linguistic issue. Our people's self-respect and future hang in
    the balance. May the Eternal One be with us. We must not fail.
    
    						-- Moshe Ha-Yehudi
    
    P.S.: I saved the insurance companies lots of money from the swindlers
    and the cheats who put through bogus or inflated claims. I became
    really good at spotting a scam. 
    
    My ideal was "Barton Keys", the claims investigator in "Double Indemnity" 
    (one of the great Billy Wilder films), as it was played by that great 
    Judean actor Edward G. Robinson. He said, "Every month, hundreds of 
    claims come across this desk. Some of them are phoneys, and I KNOW which 
    ones. How do I know? Because my 'little man' tells me... the 'little man' 
    in here (pointing to his heart). When one of those phoneys comes along, he 
    ties KNOTS in my stomach -- I can't eat!" 
    
    Well, after a while I came to realize that there was a lot bigger crime 
    being committed than taking some money from an insurance company. It
    was a crime against our people. God had given us a priceless gift, long
    ago, and it had been taken from us. But we have the power to get it
    back again! And just like in some of the insurance cases I worked on, I
    saw fraud and collusion. Trusted people who had betrayed their trust. I
    had been chartered by insurance companies to get to the truth and
    expose it for everyone to see. I can do no less in this case.
    
    I, too, have a 'little man' inside me. He tells me that "Jew" is a vile
    and evil thing to be called (he likes and prefers "Judean"). He will
    not let me rest holding this within me. I believe that you, too, have a
    'little man' inside you. Listen to him. For the sake of yourself and
    our people and our promise to God, listen to him. 

    RE: .14:
    
    >Gavriel, I am doing everything I can to convince you of the truth as it
    >is seen by the rest of the world.
    
    The only person who sees this as "truth" is you! And with a paranoia
    that exceeds any I have ever seen in this notesfile. YOU have the
    problem with the word "JEW", not the rest of the world, or those of the
    Jewish faith or even those is Israel, just YOU, and that's sad. Its sad
    because you have taken a non-issue and built a huge wall around it, and
    locked yourself within it, with feelings of hate pouring out of every
    opening in that wall. You then look for ways to rationalize those
    feelings so that they may even sound reasonable and logical, but you're
    still alone behind those walls you created, and probably will always be
    there alone.
    
    Eric
    

    I agree with Eric (863.15) completely.  It is sad to see such important
    issues as identity, pride, and relationships among groups and nations
    be compressed and distorted into a linguistic exercise (which, as far
    as I can tell, doesn't even make an attempt to create a thorough
    scientifically and historically based argument using accepted rules of
    etymology).  It is depressing and alarming to be reminded how many
    people in all sorts of groups spend their time focussing on these sorts
    of counter-productive crusades, instead of trying to build bridges
    between nations and a better world for future generations.

    Anybody mind if I still address him/her as "Jew(ess)" or "Jewish"?
    
    Disorientedly yours,
    
    Chris

    I have mixed emotions on the subject. And I have my doubts about the
    "purity" of the term "Jew".
    
    What was the evolution of the term? (this is not a rhetorical q.)
    
    On the other hand, why "Judean"? Why not "Israeli"? After all, it is 
    "Shma Israel!" (this is a rheotical q.).
    
    What is the situation in other languages?
    
    Alex
    
PS    re .16
    
 >   of counter-productive crusades, instead of trying to build bridges
 >   between nations and a better world for future generations.
    
    "build bridges": I used to believe that, and I still hope it is
    possible. Maybe it is more possible in certain cases. But I would
    not bet one red cent on that utopian goal.
    

    You know this notesfile can really go off into some wacky tangents
    sometimes.
    
    --David

    Because the Kingdom of Judea outlasted the Kingdom of Israel,
    of course.
    
    						Ann B.

A BRIEF AND VERY INFORMAL SURVEY OF ENGLISH USAGE REGARDING THE WORD "JEW"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Some entries from "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable", as originally
compiled by the Englishman E. Cobham Brewer (1810-1887):

     Jew:         A Hebrew. Used opprobriously to denote a mean or hard-fisted
                  person.

     Ebrew Jew:   i.e., Hebrew Jew meaning a Jew of the purest stock,
                  completely a Jew. "You Ebrew Jew" is an old expression of
                  abuse meaning "you utter Jew" and therefore one not to be
                  believed, trusted, or who is excessively mean.

                  "... or I am a Jew else, an Ebrew Jew."
                            -- Shakespeare, Henry IV Part I, II, iv.

     The above passages are excerpted from the 1970 edition of this work,
indicating that this is considered contemporary usage.

     And, of course, the old standby, the "Random House Dictionary of the
English Language", which I have quoted before, but I shall repeat again for the
benefit of gathering these together in one place:

     Jew:         -- adj. 4. Offensive. of Jews; Jewish. -- v.t. 5. (l.c.)
                  Offensive. to bargain sharply with; beat down in price (often
                  fol. by 'down')

     Jewess:      Often Offensive.

     H.W. Fowler, Joint Author of "The King's English" and "The Concise Oxford
Dictionary", discussed the word 'Jew' under the heading of "Hebrew, Israelite,
Jew, Semite" in his book "Modern English Usage", published by the Oxford
University Press. He writes:

     Hebrew,      Persons to whom all these words are applicable are thought of
     Israelite,   by the modern Englishman as 'Jews'; if he uses in speech one
     Jew, Semite: of the other words instead of 'Jew', it is for some reason,
                  known or possibly unknown to himself. He may be deliberately
                  avoiding 'Jew' ... either at the bidding of facetiousness, or
                  for the better reason that 'Jew' has certain traditional
                  implications (as usury, anti-Christianity)...

     He also cites certain passages in the Oxford English Dictionary:

     Hebrew:      Historically, the term is usually applied to the early
                  Israelites; in modern use it avoids the religious and other
                  associations often attaching to 'Jew'. [see below]

     Jew:         Applied comparatively rarely to the ancient nation before the
                  Exile, but the commonest name for contemporary or modern
                  representatives of the race; almost always connoting their
                  religion and other characteristics which distinguish them
                  from the people among whom they live, and thus often opposed
                  to 'Christian', and expressing a more or less opprobrious
                  sense.

     Incidentally, that $10 word "opprobrious" (which, as we see above, is more
than once associated with the word "Jew") is defined as "expressive of
opprobrium", which is "something that brings shame and disgrace".

     Lest it be misunderstood, the shame and disgrace is not upon the person
who INSULTS you with "Jew" -- it is upon YOU, for BEING a "Jew"!

     Many references are neutral and do not convey any of these feelings. But I
have yet to find ONE suitable reference which depicts the word "Jew" in any
favorable or admirable light. I am not saying that such things don't exist, but
I have looked around and have been unable to find any.

                                     *****

     Silly Me! I should have said that

                          "JEW" IS AN OPPROBRIOUS WORD

     It sounds so much more highfalutin than "DIRTY", and here I have all these
fancy Englishmen on hand to prove it...

                                     *****

     So how can you be PROUD to be an "English-speaking Jew"??? According to
the English, "Jew" means something you should be ASHAMED of!

     Don't argue with ME about it. Argue with the English! It's THEIR WORD!

     And this isn't just MY measly opinion. Here you have it straight from the
AUTHORITIES!


                                            -- Moshe Ha-Yehudi

    I search of the dictionary will usually turn up any implication you
    wish to find. Since one can find "black" defined as "5. Evil, wicked" 
    as well as "3.belonging to an ethnic group having dark skin" (The
    American Heritage Dictionary, a dictionary that defines Jew as 1. An
    adherent to Judaism, 2.A decendant of the Hebrew people BTW), shall
    those who consider themselves Black disgard the term because "one" of
    the meaniong of the word may degrade them?
    
    I still find that you're "pole vaulting over mouse droppings" in your
    quest to prove your point. It must be lonely in your one-person inter-
    petation of the world!
    
    Eric

    I don't think anybody will disagree with you concerning the negative
    connotations surrounding the word "Jew" - we all know what they
    are and the world would be a much better place if they, and any
    other terms that slander anybody's ethnic origins, went away. Not
    that it will happen but one can always hope....
    
    However, I have to agree with Eric in .22. Building walls around
    yourself isn't going to help tear down any walls that other people
    may have built. When that happens, nobody can talk to anybody else
    which means things needing fixing stay broken or just get worse.
    
    I'm not saying you should go through life with a blind trust in
    your fellow human beings either. I am saying that building your
    walls higher keeps the light out even more and what you need is
    more, not less, light.
    
    Just some thoughts,
    
    Mark

HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD
------------------------------

     From some of the more vehement responses to this topic, I can only
conclude that I have really hit the nail on the head. How else could I have
provoked such venom?

     So, this is with a paranoia that exceeds any in this notesfile? That's
quite a distinction: there's some REALLY paranoid stuff in here! ...

     o    "Anti-Semitism"

     o    Discrimination

     o    "Jews for Jesus"

     o    Defamation and Vandalism

     o    "JAP" Humor

     o    the "Holocaust"

     o    Christian attitudes, as in "Jews and the Vatican"

     o    Terrorism, Nazi war criminals

     o    The reunification of Germany

     o    Neurotic worries, as in "Lyndon LaRouche", "Owning a German Car" (71
          replies!), etc.

     Paranoia looms in this notesfile. And to think that I've outdone them all!

                                     *****

     Sure, those other paranoid topics -- they're REAL! Why all this fuss over
a word?

     In case you missed my point, it is that all these things are CONNECTED.
They insult you with "JEW", you wear it, and that gives them the GO-AHEAD to
dump all kinds of other trash on you. 
    
    Like "Anti-Semitism", discrimination, "Jews for Jesus", etc.
    
    If that is pole-vaulting over mouse droppings, we have here an ENORMOUS
    pile of mouse-droppings.

                                     *****

     Fortunately, we have the benefit of Herzl's experience with irrational
emotional reaction. He proposed a national homeland in Eretz Yisrael, and look
at all the abuse he took from his own people! They shouted him down. They said
he was crazy!

     Their problem was that deep down inside they knew he was right, but didn't
have the strength or courage to admit it. So they ridiculed him, figuring that
if they just shut him up, they could crawl back into their secure little shells
and continue undisturbed with their pleasant fantasies about how they are seen
by the rest of the world. It must have worked: Herzl died without seeing any
real success toward his goal. They sure showed him, didn't they?

                                     *****

     Eric is right about many things:

     I fully agree that the rest of the world has no problem with the word
"Jew". Absolutely no problem at all. The rest of the world is COMPLETELY HAPPY
with it! They LOVE it when you call yourself by their insult!

     I also agree that most of our people have no problem with the word "Jew".
They go right along, completely oblivious to what it means. Ignorance is bliss.
Oh, sure, there are a few of us who suspect that something is wrong with the
word, but if we keep quiet, maybe nobody will notice...

     And  O F  C O U R S E  I have a problem with the word "Jew". If I didn't
have a problem with the word "Jew" I wouldn't have gone to all this trouble. I
regret not having stated this explicitly right at the beginning. It would have
saved Eric the trouble of having to point it out, as if he had discovered
something extraordinarily profound that I, in my zeal, had completely
overlooked.

     I confess that my problem with the word "Jew" is first hand. It stems from
the way I have heard people use it. I have lived in many parts of the USA, and
every so often I hear somebody USE the word "Jew" in a nasty way, like:

     o            "He is a REAL Jew"

     o            "He tried to jew me down"

     o            "I bought it [a piece of shoddy merchandise] at a jew shop"

     ...and there is no way to reproduce in print the SOUND of the word "Jew"
the way it is spoken by certain Christian evangelists and kindred souls. But it
goes something like "Jeeewwwww".

     I can understand why Eric is so emotional. I got that way eventually after
hearing "Jew" thrown around, dragged through the dirt, and worse. I got very
angry. Not "hate", mind you, but anger.

     If Eric has never been exposed to such abuse, then he has been living a
very sheltered life, and I can understand why it would be a "non-issue" to him.
Now I admit that I've had it easy, relative to a lot of our people, even here
in America. But I have seen enough and heard enough to make me sensitive to the
use of the word "Jew", so I can't imagine how any of our people over the age of
10 wouldn't also be aware of it.

     On the other hand, maybe Eric IS aware of it, but has just suppressed his
anger. So now he spits out his bile at me for bringing the matter to his
attention again, after he had so successfully kept it out of sight and out of
mind.

     I plead innocence, because I didn't know that I was supposed to just
swallow hard and put up with this abuse. I was under the (apparently) ludicrous
impression that as a human being I deserved a decent amount of normal human
courtesy, and to me that meant (for one thing) that I shouldn't have to put up
with having others mock my heritage and use the supposed name of my people as a
gross insult.

     Sure, I could tough it out and tell them how proud I am to be a "Jew", but
I'm not THAT naive. After they've been using the word "Jew" with less respect
than a toilet brush, they'd only be laughing at me behind my back for taking
such a posture.

                                     *****

     So I end up being that innocent child who sees the Emperor trotting around
bare-assed and says the obvious, but the unspeakable -- that he is stark naked.
Up to that point, the Emperor didn't have a problem: he thought he was
well-dressed. The rest of the people didn't have a problem, either. They just
humored him and kept their mouths shut. I was the only one who had a problem,
and now I've opened up my big trap and suddenly EVERYBODY has a problem. No
wonder they're mad at me.

     But in the long run, the sweet lies catch up with us. It's better to face
up to a bitter truth instead.

     And besides, our children truly are innocent. How can we in good
conscience pin that label of "Jew" on them, when we know (or should know) that
sooner or later they will meet up with someone who uses the word as an insult
and give them cause to feel shame or disgrace? If we do, it really is a
disgrace.

                                     *****

     But to set the record straight, I am not as completely alone as Eric
thinks. Not all of our people are at ease about being called "Jews".

     Once again, I call your attention to note 81.4. Perhaps there are
 others, but I happened to notice that one.

     If I were Italian, say, and I went on a campaign because I didn't like the
word "Italian", I have no doubt that everybody would gape at me in speechless
disbelief. I would be greeted with absolute silence, or maybe laughter (it's a
joke, right?). But we are not talking about a normal name here; we are talking
about "JEW". Our people don't stand speechless, wondering where I lost my
marbles. Our people hesitate, or they flinch, or they rail at me.

     If this really were a non-issue, it wouldn't generate this much heat. But
the attention so far indicates that it really IS an issue. Not just with me,
but also with the staunch defenders of the word... otherwise, why would they
defend it? It's an issue we are too ashamed to talk about. But it's an issue
nevertheless.

                                     *****

     Now I wonder what would happen if Eric and Co. spent half as much time
scrutinizing the word "Jew" and WHAT'S BEHIND THE WORD ITSELF as they have
spent taking cheap shots at me.

     Maybe they would get mad at the English (and the other European
Christians) for making up these vile words. Maybe they would get mad at their
so-called leaders and teachers for indoctrinating them in the practice of 
referring to themselves by an insult. Maybe they'd shake off their complacency
and do something about it.

                                        -- Moshe Ha-Yehudi

    Coincidentally a similar subject is being discussed on
    soc.culture.jewish.  The author of the following article simply
    compares the word Jew in other languages.
    
    
Article        12545
Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!ryn.esg.dec.com!decvax!mcnc!mephisto!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!lectroid!jjmhome!martillo
From: [email protected] (Joachim Martillo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Hebrews vs. Jews - please respond...
Summary: Ecrasez l'Islam
	 Buddhatvam yoshidyonisamsritam
	 Sapere aude
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 14 Jan 90 23:14:40 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Lines: 31
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Beverly I. Schwartz) writes:
> I have a question for soc.culture.jewish - please respond with e-mail.
 
> Last week I had the opportunity to have coffee with a Christian from the
> south.  In conversation, it came up that I was Jewish.  She responded
> by saying, "I thought you were a Hebrew."  I found myself very uncomfortable
> with the term "Hebrew", and said that I am Jewish.  She said that it's
> all the same - in the Bible we were called "Hebrews" before we were called
> "Jews".  I don't know my Old Testament very well, or the origin of either
> of these terms.  Can someone explain this to me?  Thanks.
> 
> ==>  Beverly Schwartz                       BBN Corporation                 <==
> ==>  e-mail: [email protected]               Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138  <==
    
The distinction actually makes sense when you mention she comes from
the South.  In many European languages (and Islamic languages as well)
cognates with Jew are historically derogatory.  As a consequence
upwardly mobile Jews preferred to use either Mosaic, Israelite or
Hebrew to describe themselves.  In Spanish Israelita is preferred to
Judio.  In Italian Ebreo is preferable to Giudio.  In Russian Evrei
is preferable to Yudei (which I think nowadays is used to describe
religious Jews).  In German Mosaisch was preferable to ju"disch.  
In Arabic, Musawi is preferable to Yahudi with a similar distinction
in modern Turkish (I believe) as well.
 
In America the upper class Sefardic and German Jews especially of the South
liked to call themselves Hebrews.  Hence to this day organizations exist
with names like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.  The women was trying
to be considerate in the way a white person might try to be considerate
by using the term black rather than negro even though today the 
preferred term is African (or Afro) American.
 

    Semantics is a dirty business, anti-semantics being worse.
    
    The terms "Jew" and "race" both have multiple semantics (specific
    meanings).  Since many people do not like Jews, and this has persisted
    for our entire history, such people naturally assign a negative
    connotation to the term.  Likewise, we have the American phrase,
    "Indian giver", which reflects historic prejudices against aboriginal
    Americans.  "Jew" as a verb also may be a slurred (in two ways!)
    variant on "jaw", as in "jew's harp" which is simply a "jaw harp".  Had
    Jews been called Hujimawanadingas, then Hujimawanadinga would have been
    a negative term among anti-semites.  Avoiding the term "Jew" solves
    nothing.  (For that matter, "Indian" is more negative, since it is
    based upon a weird Spanish distortion of geography.)
    
    Somewhere around -.2 Aleclaire said that Jews were not a "race" but a
    "religion".  This is not entirely true; Jews are perhaps better
    described as a nation (in the anthropoligical sense), but in the
    English semantics of Herzl's day, the usual meaning of "race" was to
    refer to a more specific ethnic group, such as Spanish, Jews, Italian,
    etc.  The mid-20th century usage that we've grown accustomed to, of a
    small number of "races", stems from a later "scientific" theory I call
    "oidism" (caucasoids vs. negroids vs. mongolods), which tries to lump
    people into major group, with all of the whites together.  I personally
    find that newer usage more offensive.  There was a US Supreme Court a
    few years ago confirming that a reconstruction-era (1870s) law
    prohibiting discimination by race did not simply refer to oid-groups,
    but to ethnic groups in general, as that was the most common usage when
    the law was written.
    
    Were we simply a religion, we'd have a lot more reason to seek
    converts, a lot less reason to worry about intermarriage, and a lot
    fewer problems with Tay-Sachs and other ethnic/genetic traits.
         fred (Jew and proud)

    Re .32:
    
    Say again your last........
    
    Mark

    re:.32
    Tay-Sachs is evidence of a limited genetic pool, just as other ethnic
    traits are.  For example, Jews are prone to be lactose-intolerant,
    which makes "dairy" meals rather difficult for many of us!  That's not
    the case among most European races, but is the norm among East Asian
    and most African populations.  Similarly, sicle-cell is a trait among
    Africans and (to a lesser extent) Italians, but not among, say, the
    French.  If Jews were genetically close to whomever they lived among,
    the way, say, Jehovah's Witnesses are (for they are just a religion), 
    then my opinion in .31 would be different.  (The extreme case, of
    course, is the Shakers, with no genetic traits!)
    
    There are different "names of G-d" in Torah.  One is the
    tetragrammaton, which of course has no vowels since Hebrew has no
    vowels!  It's the one which was mistransliterated as "Jehovah".
          fred

    Okay! okay!  I from this day forward will not be called a Jew
    or Jewess...From now on I am an.....Isreali-American?
    
    RR

    re .37
    
> ...From now on I am an.....Isreali-American?
    
    Is you reali American? :-)

    Alex, there are people out there with some title �s, you know :-)
    
    More seriously: if some amongst you feel that the term "Jew" is a
    derogative term, then what is it you'd like to be called?
    
    For one, I actually _insist_ to refer to Jews as "Jews" as an exercise
    to overcome inherited prejudicial behaviour upfront, in a live
    discussion. It sometimes helps wonders, be assured.
    
    Let me _insist_ on the fact that if you try to avoid the term "Jew" in
    some discussions with antisemitic undertones, and rather use terms like
    "hebrew", "mosaic", or similar, you're actually giving in to the abuse
    that might be done to the term.
    
    Use it! Call yourself Jewish! Be proud of being a JEW! Show people what
    JEWS are like in real life! And, please, try to overcome some of the
    communication barriers that I sometimes am observing, don't give up at
    the first shot.
    
    Communicatingly yours,
    
    Chris