• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:32] Antisemitism, Zionism, and Semantic Shift

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
24,883
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm posting this thread here in the hope that it will avoid the partisan, over-the-top, not-related-to-the-topic posts these words most often engender. So, here's holding out hope:

Words are tools. They are the method we have to communicate with each other and to exchange meaning. At the same time, words change over time. The process is called by various terms: Semantic change, semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift.

Part of the reason there are so many descriptions is that there are a variety of reasons why words change meaning. It might be natural (drift) or deliberate (shift). Often it is the result of irony - awful is no longer awe - full (awesome having taken its place), but its opposite. Similarly: Terrific (no longer terror inspiring); Nice, which originally meant foolish or frivolous - okay, sometimes it still does; Demagogue - which did not originally connote a negative characteristic. Linguists trace etymology of terms, and hobbyists, like me, find the process fascinating. Sometimes homonyms marry, sometimes similar words take on separate meanings.

Four common types of change are broadening, narrowing, amelioration, and pejoration. How the Meanings of Words Change (ThoughtCo). Sometimes changing a word's "meaning" can result in it losing relevance. That's silly. No, I mean that literally.

"What's worth keeping in mind is that meanings don't change over night. Different meanings of the same word often overlap, and new meanings can co-exist with older meanings for centuries. In linguistic terms, polysemy [the association of one word with two or more distinct meanings] is the rule, not the exception.

"Words are by nature incurably fuzzy," says linguist Jean Aitchison in the book Language Change: Progress Or Decay. In recent years, the adverb literally has become exceptionally fuzzy. In fact, it has slipped into the rare category of Janus words, joining terms like sanction, bolt, and fix that contain opposite or contradictory meanings."

But, often in our current in our current environment, changes in "meaning" are deliberate and political - Diversity, Equity, Gender - and used to outmaneuver the opposition rhetorically. Change in the Meaning of Words Demands Care in the Use of Language (Poynter). "such change in meaning is all around us, influenced by social, political, religious, economic and technological forces. Many words we use every day meant something quite different 10, 100 or 1,000 years ago." Or - even ten. "Words are often weapons in culture wars wielded by ideologues to gain the high ground in argument, debate, policy and propaganda. In the post-Reagan era, conservative politicians worked to redefine the word “liberal” so that it moved from a neutral to a negative meaning. So the warring sides in the abortion debate see words like “choice” or “life” as positive or negative, depending upon their positions. Or, as has often been noted in describing the violent politics of the Middle East: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

I remember when being in the “mainstream” meant something good: “The prevailing current of thought, influence or activity.” Used as an adjective to describe the news media, “mainstream” has taken on a somewhat pejorative connotation, especially when employed by critics from the right or left."

And that brings me to the Topic words: Antisemitism and Zionism. These two words are bandied about (with abandon), but are fraught for a number of reasons, principally, context.

(More to follow)
 
"Semite" originally (and still in linguistics and cultural history) was a term that simply meant "people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians." In development, though - through semantic drift - other connotations fell away and its opposite, antisemitism, came to only mean prejudice against Jews (as opposed to "brown-skinned middle-easterners). But, the use of the term "Antisemite" or "Antisemitism" is, being pejorative, broadening to mean criticism of anything Jewish - including any criticism of the government or policies of Israel. Drawn out to such an extreme, it becomes less meaningful and even counterproductive.

"Zionism", similarly, had a well-known, specific meaning, particularly after its re-introduction in the late 19th Century. "While the fundamental philosophies of the Zionist movement have existed for hundreds of years, modern Zionism formally took root in the late 19th century. Around that time, Jews throughout the world faced growing anti-Semitism." Zionism (History). "Persecuted Jews who were struggling to salvage their identity began promoting the idea of returning to their homeland and restoring a Jewish culture there." Judaism has always been connected to both its people and to place - Zion. "After the Dreyfus Affair, [Theodor] Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), a pamphlet that called for political recognition of a Jewish homeland in the area then known as Palestine."

When Zionism gained currency around the turn of the 20th Century it was specifically about returning to the ancient land of Israel. But, as the Zionist movement took hold, its meaning changed. It became associated with the radical and violent efforts of ultra-nationalists: Irgun and Stern. In some quarters it is still associated with that violent and extreme aspect - like the settler movement, and extremists like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who are, nonetheless, members of the current government of Israel. "Since it started more than 120 years ago, Zionism has evolved, and different ideologies—political, religious and cultural—within the Zionist movement have emerged.

Many self-proclaimed Zionists disagree with each other about fundamental principles." Zionism itself is involved in polysemy. "Advocates of the Zionist movement see it as an important effort to offer refuge to persecuted minorities and reestablish settlements in Israel. Critics, however, say it’s an extreme ideology that discriminates against non-Jews."

The practical problem with polysemy in this context is that the words intended to communicate, instead tend to divide. The disagreement over the meaning of the words become their own flashpoints for violence.
 
All very true and interesting.

But this is WAY too much sophistication and complexity for the average MAGA today. Your target audience is not going to be interested in this discussion. They won't even have the interest or attention to read through all that stuff. They just want the freedom to be racists and not pay taxes, that's all. You are preaching to the choir.
 
All very true and interesting.

But this is WAY too much sophistication and complexity for the average MAGA today. Your target audience is not going to be interested in this discussion. They won't even have the interest or attention to read through all that stuff. They just want the freedom to be racists and not pay taxes, that's all. You are preaching to the choir.
Thanks. But, not my target audience, really. I doubt they even know of the Loft's existence, it's over their heads ;) And, I question whether they can maintain their cool for even one post.
 
I'd suggest, anyone using the term "zionist" now has the burden of proof that that aren't actually antiSemites once you scratch the surface.
 
I'd suggest, anyone using the term "zionist" now has the burden of proof that that aren't actually antiSemites once you scratch the surface.

Why?

Do you think that someone has to be Jewish to be a Zionist?

Most Zionists int he US aren't even Jewish.
 
I'd suggest, anyone using the term "zionist" now has the burden of proof that that aren't actually antiSemites once you scratch the surface.
Thanks for your noncontribution.
 
Why?

Do you think that someone has to be Jewish to be a Zionist?

Most Zionists int he US aren't even Jewish.
No. I mean anyone using the term about Israelis, Jews, or their supporters.
 
Again, but why?
Because they are anti-Semites. The moment one starts spouting "Zionist" this or "Zionist" that, is just below the surface, a rabid anti-Israeli.
The protesters are usually described as being opposed to the war in Gaza and in favor of Palestinian rights. In truth, the groups organizing these protests are opposed to the very existence of what they call the “Zionist project.” As a manifesto from Columbia University Apartheid Divest, endorsed by 94 student groups, states: “The brutal onslaught over the last month is but another chapter in over 75 years of violence, dispossession, and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.” No mention, naturally, of all the violence perpetrated against Israel, including the horrifying Hamas attack on Oct. 7 and the Iranian drone and missile strike on April 13.
 
Do you think that someone has to be Jewish to be a Zionist?
That's an interesting question. Zion is, originally, specifically about Jerusalem. But it has gained other connotations, mostly about yearning. Travel Utah and one finds it everywhere, with no Jews in sight. Literally.

Zion has long had a fundamentally religious meaning particularly in Judaism. It was, however, coopted by various Christian advocates, including Crusaders. And it has long been associated with various "promised lands", even beyond, specifically, Jerusalem. It is that yearning and "promise" that drives the most zealous advocates for the term.
 
That's an interesting question. Zion is, originally, specifically about Jerusalem. But it has gained other connotations, mostly about yearning. Travel Utah and one finds it everywhere, with no Jews in sight. Literally.

Zion has long had a fundamentally religious meaning particularly in Judaism. It was, however, coopted by various Christian advocates, including Crusaders. And it has long been associated with various "promised lands", even beyond, specifically, Jerusalem. It is that yearning and "promise" that drives the most zealous advocates for the term.

yea, the idea that god granted land specifically to you to is a dangerous idea, i don't care who it is that thinks it.
 
yea, the idea that god granted land specifically to you to is a dangerous idea, i don't care who it is that thinks it.
Are there Jews in Israel that use that nomenclature? I never see it in the US used by Israelis or Jews.
 
Are there Jews in Israel that use that nomenclature? I never see it in the US used by Israelis or Jews.

I don't know how you have managed to never see that nomenclature.
 
I don't know how you have managed to never see that nomenclature.
Admittedly I don't live in Israel or the NorthEast US. Outside of references by protesters and the occasional Iranian religious figure, I've only seen it reference to church names, the Bible and certain parks.
 
Zinc's take is entirely wrong, deliberately offensive (in every sense of the word - see, the topic), and intended to derail the discussion. As I noted in the OP, the semantic shift, in this instance, is quite deliberate.

"Zionism has evolved, and different ideologies—political, religious and cultural—within the Zionist movement have emerged.

Many self-proclaimed Zionists disagree with each other about fundamental principles."

Zinc is engaged in aggressive narrowing of the definition for partisan reasons. It is not accidental. Zionism gained a pejorative sense because of the activities of Irgun and Stern. The effort, mostly by the Israeli right, has been to soften those connotations. To make the word politically acceptable. The problem, also politically, in this effort is the continued participation of radical elements on the right, and religious leaders, to use it specifically  in the pejorative mode: the settler movement, and dispersion of non-Jews from the occupied territories

There are those that accept the watered-down implications, that Zionism is merely the establishment of Israel, full stop. But that shears the word of most of its meaning and does violence to reality. Advocates on both sides of the result use it explicitly in the more aggressive meaning - Palestinians against dispossession, and settlers expressly for it. They seek to expand Israel to incorporate all of the area. Moreover, that effort is codified in government pronouncements.

That brings us back to the first word that Zinc has attacked with: antisemitism. As noted in the OP, this word has undergone a similar shift, again deliberately, "the use of the term "Antisemite" or "Antisemitism" is, being pejorative, broadening to mean criticism of anything Jewish". It is deliberately cast as a "fighting word", and that is the purpose behind his use of the term.

It's obviously inaccurate, but that is of no moment. Truth is no defense against ardent deception.
 
I'm going to have dig into this, but there is a whole lot of this going on with the harshest anti-Israel critics:

Lee Atwater:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “[n-word], [n-word], [n-word].” By 1968 you can’t say “[n-word]”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “[n-word], [n-word].”


Replace [n-word] with "Israel" and it'd way too close to comfort in many cases.


And then there's the related gambit of insisting that there is no possible anti-semitism in any of this, and people even saying that if their anti-Israel position is criticized that's really just them being called an anti-semite. Reminds me vividly of righties rejecting every last instance of possible racism and calling it "playing the race card." And now I've been treated to seeing all sorts of people who rightfully mocked that saying things that could be fairly paraphrased as "you're just playing the anti-semitism card."
 
I don't know how you have managed to never see that nomenclature.
Indeed, having been directed to it, it would be hard to miss. See

We need an exodus from Zionism

A thread similarly polluted with extremist allegations. Indeed, ironically, the critique was "antisemitic", since the author is Jewish.
 
Last edited:
The point of this thread, is to discuss the language. Not to attack posters. Relevant to the topic is: how the words have changed, why they have changed, and how have they changed? Or even if they have changed.

I have included my theory, backed by examples, that some of those "changes" are deliberate, and intended to "shape" discussions and perceptions.
 
Back
Top Bottom