Encyclopedia > Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism

Article Content

Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism

For a word that has all of about 25 google hits, this sure is causing a lot of dispute. Could it be redirected to ethnocentric?

I actually agree that ethnocentrism is a valid subject for Wikipedia to cover. Within this topic, one could describe the social, political and psychological reasons that various forms of ethnocentrism exist. Such an article could describe how most forms of ethnocentrism have peaceful benign and even tolerant aspects, and how only specific variants of ethnocentrism lead to hatred against people of other groups. Such an entry could legitimately discuss German, French, Jewish, Arab, Italian, Japanese and other forms of ethnocentrism. The problem with this entry is that the word itself doesn't seem to real, it doesn't have any set useage, and seems to be a lightning rod for attacks on Jews. And the only way to make it NPOV seems to be by taking out-of-context quotes by individuals, falsely claiming that they are representative of Jews in general, and then asking Jews to be on the defensive by rebutting them, which sets up a Jew-vs-gentile spitting contest. This isn't good academic, and many of Clutch's version of this article were openly anti-Semitic. I would suggest that we delete this article on work on the Ethnocentrism article. If particular sub-sections of that article become long, those can later be spub-off into their own articles. RK

Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22judeo-centric%22+OR+%22judeocentric%22+OR+%22jewish+ethnocentric%22++OR+%22jewish+ethnocentrism%22+OR+%22judeocentrism%22+OR+%22judeo-centrism%22) - gives me 458 hits, searching for different variants of "judeo-centrism". That's not massive, but it is some - enough to justify an article?

Good search, gives us more source material to look over. I see a common usage of "Judeocentric" has to do with interpreting past events. As in "The Holocaust Museum presents a relentlessly Judeocentric view of history". This seems much simpler to define than the stuff that is currently in the article.

Stevert, please sign your entries. Also, you forgot to note that the one thing these entries have in common is that they are written by Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. Hmm, why did you leave this fact out? RK

Uhm, no RK, I'm not Stevert. You either mistakenly misattributed my comment, or you placed your comment in the wrong place.

At first glance, results five (http://www.phoenicia.org/), seven (http://www.wcer.org/newsletter/oaks2/Oaks2_03) and eight (http://www.books-on-line.com/bol/BookDisplay.cfm?BoonNum=1105) are clearly not anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi in any way, being phoenician advocacy, a treatise on paganism and a book review, respectively.

On the other hand, both the third (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/genocide/chap10) and fourth (http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/tr10wtc) results appear to be holocaust revisionism.

I'm sure we will have to disagree over the proportion of the articles that are based on prejudice, given our differing approaches to the issue. However, the term does seem to be used in a reasonably consistent manner, making this a topic we can sensibly discuss. Martin

Clutch marked two reverts with the summaries "making article more encyclopedic and informative" and "making article more encyclopedic" - I do wish people would mark their reverts by putting the word "revert" somewhere in the summary - it makes things much clearer.

The term is not exactly defined, nor its validity generally accepted.

I removed this sentence. The first part is no more true of jweish ethnocentrism than of any other word in English, the vast majority of which are not "exactly defined" either. The second part is reaonable, but is (imo) redundant. Martin

In response to RK's suggestion, I moved this page to jewish ethnocentrism. While google confirms that this is a less common term, it is also a much clearer term, in my opinion. Martin

Clutch, youre gonna have to merge that in, and clean it up... Some of it smells fishy - if not in facts, then in wording... ='Vert and Danny, stop erasing the whole page....

Steve, nothing I'd like more than to merge everything in. The constant reverts and page blankings are slowing me down; when there is a blank page, I can't use the "diff" tool anymore to see if I missed anything. --Clutch 03:47 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Just calm down... -'Vert

Say something clutch... what are you wanting to do? - Getting into specific details is practically useless in this article - the subject may warrant books, but its not useful to anyone to add fishy material that I'm keen to discern as suspect. - 'Vert

I want this page to match the articles Christianity and anti-Semitism and Islam and anti-Semitism in terms of detailed content and neutrality. As so many people here on the Wikipedia are fond of saying, "No whitewashing allowed!" --Clutch 04:00 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

In response to RK's suggestion, I moved this page to jewish ethnocentrism. While google confirms that this is a less common term, it is also a much clearer term, in my opinion. Martin

Clutch, youre gonna have to merge that in, and clean it up... Some of it smells fishy - if not in facts, then in wording... ='Vert

Just a note on this 3,000 years of denying intermarriage.

The Bible is not that old.
Assuming that the biblical figures are historical personalities (an assumption I am loathe to make), 3,000 years brings us to David. He was decended from a mixed marriage with a Moabite woman, Ruth.
Before that, Moses married a Midianite (Zipporah) and possibly another, African woman.
Before that, Joseph married an Egyptian woman.
After David, his son Solomon also married an Egyptian woman and a bunch of other women too, most of whom were probably political alliances.
The rejection of intermarriage does appear in Ezra, which tells the last of the stories of the New Testament.
I'm really not gonna get into a debate about larger issues of dating biblical books, their political motivations, etc., but what is the source for this 3,000 year BS.

Danny 03:54 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Well, know were talking at least - Danny, is there any truth to the idea that marriage outside the Jewish culture is frowned upon? and where does it come from? It seems axiomatic, and practically irrelevant... I cant think of a religious culture that historically hasnt frowned upon marriage outside of the the faith... -'Vert

Fight fire with fire, Clutch? Forget it!

- Fix what you can, and dont arbitrarily fuck with stuff.. have some degrees, here. Dont let people frustrate you, or youve lost... terrorism is only terrorism if your a'feared, in other words... -'Vert

In response, while you are certainly asking a valid question, I have a problem with it in that is presupposes that Judaism is monolithic. In other words, the question will have different answers in different historical periods and among different groups. Let's take the biblical example condemning intermarriage, for instance, as opposed to the other examples that seem to turn a blind eye (or even encourage it). After the return from the Babylonian exile, Ezra decreed that the returnees had to divorce their non-Jewish wives. At first glance, it would appear that the society was very much against intermarriage. On the other hand, the fact that it was so predominant that several chapters of the book are dedicated to it, indicates that it was prevalent. We don't know much about the debate that went on--history is generally written by the winners. On the other hand, there are suppositions that there was debate. One example is the book of Ruth, which seems to condone intermarriage. Personally, I think the book is earlier because of distinct linguistic differences. On the other hand, it seems to justify intermarriage. Finally, as you say above, at some point virtually every religious culture frowns on intermarriage, assuming that it tends to weaken religious loyalties. Look at the article on Christian wife for an example of that. Danny 04:09 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC) P.S. I have no problem with an article on Jewish ethnocentrism. I believe it exists, and as an educator, it is something I try to combat. I would just like it to be accurate.

*人の振り見て我が振りなおせ

(Hito no firimite wagafurinaose)

I have a problem with the fact that the accusation of anti-Semitism is "monolithic", while the typical Zionist rhetoric decries any attempt at its cultures characterization or classification, so were even on that one...

"We don't know much about the debate that went on--history is generally written by the winners. On the other hand, there are suppositions that there was debate."

In other words, "that was then, this is now," and "do you mean Jewish culture or the Judaic religion." Thanks, Danny. Clear, yet utterly baffling. Such is religioculture... Christian wife ? Ill see about that. -'Vert p.s I by and large agree with you and and happy to point it out when I see it. :)

I agree that the accusation of anti-Semitism should not be monolithic. It is a phenomenon that manifests itself in many forms and in many different ways. Race-based anti-Semitism is different from religious-based anti-Semitism. I see Jewish religion as a component of a larger Jewish culture (which is, I believe, syncretic, but then again, I think all cultures are). Still, neither the Jewish religion nor the Jewish culture are monolithic, certainly not across history or geography, and not even in the same periods and locations. The one thing I find common to all anti-Semitism is that it is a response by a dominant group to a xenoculture preserving a distinct identity to some degree or other. It becomes a Catch-22 situation. Jews maintained a distinct identity, so they suffered discrimination of some kind or another, but this, in turn, only served to strengthen the sense of alienation felt by Jews toward the dominant culture, leading to further discrimination, leading to further alienation, etc. ... Danny 04:35 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Were in complete agreement about the underlying sociology. Now, what to do about abuser:Clutch.. am I to understand hes got some kind of website? -'Vert

I'm not gonna freeze the page, but these revert wars are silly. I would much rather get back to adding more years in literature pages or writing about other topics. Danny 04:52 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Allright, go do... better things. :) Ill talk to Mav... --'Vert

I just wonder if my article on Porajmos is also too Judeocentric for Clutch. Danny 05:00 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Well it certainly doesnt fit his narrow definition! -'Vert

I reverted this one to the 14:24 Feb 21, 2003 state and froze it for the night, figuring you (the collective "you") could look at the diff and continue work on it later. Unfortunately there's a google link in the diff which widens the page, but anyway, I'm leaving it alone--not interested in editing this article, protected or not. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi 05:09 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

The Cunctator rewrote the article so that Jewish ethnocentrism is a term used only by anti-Semites. However, it had earlier been agreed (see above) that this need not be the case and the topic deserves a balanced debate. Obviously, this must not justify rants such as those by Clutch. However, the stub at present is a valid beginning. /Jennifer

Where is the term not used by critics of Judaism, Zionism, or Israel? Do tell. --The Cunctator

I'm not commenting on the article in any state of revision, but Jennifer said that your version equated claims of Jewish ethnocentrism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not the same thing as criticizing Zionism or Israel.Tuf-Kat

I agree - "Left to his devices, "the cuncator" would appear to want to "cuncate" Bibles[?] into Cliff notes[?]. -'Vert

Somewhere in the revert war, these couple of paragraphs I edited got lost or removed:

The term judeocentrism is sometimes used to criticise journalism and historical research which is perceived as focussing excessively on Jews, or portraying all other cultures from a narrowly Jewish perspective. For example, some people have used it to attack alleged neglect of non-Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Those accused of judeocentrism do not accept such criticism, often seeing it as a cover-up for prejudice against Jews or Israelis.

This I thought was a reasonable replacement for the current second para of the entry (the one mentioning the "pro-Palestinian camp"), so I'd like to know what was wrong with it?

Some consider Judaism, and particularly Orthodox Judaism, inherently judeo-centric. Jewish views of religious pluralism vary widely, but in general Jews believe that God chose the Jewish people to be in a unique covenant with him. However, this does not imply that God loves only the Jewish people.

It seems to me that there is a strong link between jewish ethnocentrism and Jewish views of religious plurality: the view that the Jews are the center of everything has got to have some relation with the view that the Jews are in a unique covenant with God. Again, why was this removed?

Why do you believe that Jews believe that they are the center of everything? That claim was an anti-Semitic diatribe that someone inserted into this article. It is not a fact about Jews. It is a jab at Jews that someone shoved in here. RK

I don't believe that Jews believe that they are the center of everything. I do believe that other people have that belief. I also believe that the belief in Judeocentrism is sometimes motivated by beliefs about Jewish views of religious pluralism. Martin

Also, this sentence, which I removed earlier and gave reasons for (above) has been reinstated:

The term is not exactly defined, nor its validity generally accepted.

When I removed this, I posted the following to the Talk page to justify its removal:

"I removed this sentence. The first part is no more true of jewish ethnocentrism than of any other word in English, the vast majority of which are not "exactly defined" either. The second part is reaonable, but is (imo) redundant."

I think these are valid reasons for removing that line, and nobody's said otherwise here. Could someone enlighten me as to where the holes are in my logic? I suspect that these changes are just side effects from the edit war, but if they were genuine edits, I'd love to hear why. Thanks! :) Martin

RK just removed this, amongst other things, claiming that, quote, "the introduction was an anti-Semitic lie".

"Ethnocentrism refers to the viewpoint that one's own group is the center of everything, against which all other groups are judged. Thus Jewish ethnocentrism and related terms (e.g. Judeocentrism) refer to the viewpoint that the Jews are the center of everything, against which all other groups are judged."

How is that an anti-Semitic lie, exactly? The first sentence is cut and pasted from ethnocentrism. The second sentence is a simple definition of jewish ethnocentrism. Well, what with Clutch accusing me of spreading anti-Palestinian smears and RK accusing me of spreading anti-Semitic lies I must be doing something right. I deny both charges, of course. Martin

Did I miss something? When did I accuse you of spreading anti-Semitic lies? I have been accusing Clutch and Stevertigo of doing so, and doing do in a rather childish manner, at that. You may have missed my point: There are people who are claiming that the Jew believe that they are the center of everything. I am denying this charge. I am not, however, accusing you of creating or promoting this charge. I am explaining why this charge should not be stated as a fact within this encyclopedia article on ethnocentrism. I am truly sorry for the confusion! RK

Thanks for the apology. All that you missed was that I wrote the disputed intro - not Clutch or Stevertigo. Understandable, given the confusion over this article's edit history, but I have to admit that it hurt my feelings a little. No worries, I'm sure you didn't mean it.

I put the intro back, but this time made clear that many people believe that the Jews are in no way ethnocentric. What do you think? Martin

How is

It is sometimes used by the pro-Palestinian camp to describe what they argue is biased reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Others have used it to attack alleged neglect of non-Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Both charges are controversial and those with opposing viewpoints have claimed the term is used as a cover-up for prejudice against Jews or Israelis.

something which should be deleted? Susan Mason 15:00 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, Susan? You missed something; The title of the article has been changed. This article is no longer titled "Judeocentrism", so the paragraph itself makes no sense at all. In any case, that term is a word used mostly by anti-Semites. (Would you like it if our articles on black people were titled "Niggers"? Or if our articles on Italians relied on sources who called Italians "Wops"?) RK

While Judeocentrism is certainly used by some anti-Semitic people, the term itself is not anti-Semitic, any more than the phrase "penis envy" is anti-female. It would not be unreasonable to have an article at penis envy in which we would discuss the origins of this concept, its links to sexism, and its decline as a serious psychiatric concept. I don't think we should be afraid of using the phrase Judeocentrism in this article, where appropriate. Martin

I think we are still mixing up two separate ideas; There is no debate that ethnocentrism exists in most, or all, cultures, even within Judaism. This idea is not controversial. Therefore I suppose this article should analyze and discuss this issue, as a subset of the greater discussion on ethnocentrism itself. The concept of Judeocentrism is more of a sub-set of this issue: This word is usually used by people who do not like Jews, and who insist that most (or all) Jews have an exagerrated version of ethnocentrism in which they work together against gentiles. So how about this: Within this article on Jewish ethnocentrism, one can refer to how some non-Jews view view Jewish ethnocentrism, and then this could lead to a discussion of Judeocentrism? Content for this discussion already exists within Wikipedia in the articles on the chosen people concept and in anti-Semitism. RK

Good point regarding the difference between normal ethnocentrism and exaggerated ethnocentrism. I'll try to add that to the article, though I want to avoid spending too much time talking about the views of extremists.

OTOH, I'm not convinced that the word "Judeocentrism" is used so differently from "Jewish ethnocentrism". As far as I can make out from my reading, they're used fairly interchangably, with some anti-Jewish sources using "Jewish ethnocentrism" and some pro-Jewish and neutral sources using "Judeocentrism". Martin

I changed "most branches of Judaism" to "some branches of Judaism." There are currently four branches of Judaism (as a religion--then there are all the scular variants for whom this is totally irrelevant): Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist. The latter two reject the concept of Chosenness outright. The Conservatives and Modern Orthodox still mention it, but have redefined it in all sorts of terms that dull the sting. In response to that old poem:

How odd of God

To choose the Jews

they respond:

Not so odd.

We chose God.

In other words, they argue that the act of chosing was done by the Jews, not God. Similarly, they argue that chosenness means more responsibilities, not necessarily better. I heard an Orthodox rabbi once say that it was easier for non-Jews to get to heaven than it was for Jews, because Jews have added responsibilities. Now, obviously there are, particularly among certain Orthodox segments, people that give a decidedly racist interpretation, however, I do not know what the basis is for saying that they are a majority. (BTW, I personally think the Conservative and Orthodox interpretations are rhetorical games, but even so, they indicate a certain discomfort with the idea of Chosenness.) Danny 18:10 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind that it's our job to document charges of Jewish ethnocentrism, not to debate their veracity. So, to get myself some WikiKarma: Ian Hancock on a Jewish response to the Porrajmos (Romani Holocaust) (http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Roma___Sinti__Gypsies_/Jewish_Responses_to_the_Porraj/jewish_responses_to_the_porraj).

Stervertigo[?] is currently vandalizing Wikipedia. He has a long history of anti-Semitic taunting. His newest vandalism is the creation of a Jew-bating article he calls "semitism". Be aware that no such thing as Semitism exists. He made this word up. However, as the links in the "Talk" section show, this kind of argument has recently been used by Jew-hating anti-Semites. Please do not allow people to fabricate words and fields of study that do not even exist, and then use these phone entries to butress one's attacks against Jews. Just ban the vandals, please.

This isn't vandalism, RK. It is a questionable contribution, and one I suspect won't be around in this form for very long. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:06 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with you Stephen, check out his user talk page called 'logical fallacy' where Stevevertigo[?] equates Zionism with racism. His odious POV is seems pretty clear to me. The page RK is referring to also fails the Google test.Lisiate 00:10 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

No, vandalism would be adding porn pictures, deleting text and replacing it with incoherent nonsense and the like. This may be entirely undefendable according to Wikipedia policies but it is not vandalism. Equating Zionism with racism means little -- plenty of people with leftist politics (myself included) believe that any form of nationalism, and perhaps even the very idea of a nation state, are inherently racist. It does not make him racist, it makes him opposed to the idea that Jews deserve a state for themselves, and his POV does not make his contributions inherently vandalism. This is why talk pages exist. Tokerboy

I wouldn't have complained so much if he only added porn pictures, especially if they were tasteful, and compressed so that we could view them with a narrow-band connections :) RK

Exactly. Biased contributions, while a problem, are rather different from vandalism. -- Stephen Gilbert

So is this more of an Edit War? Should someone move this there? Lisiate

My argument is that one can only have an edit war on actual topics. One can't make up a word, and then totally make up "facts" from scratch, and create an article based solely on Stevertigo's imagination. If that isn't vandalism per se, it surely must be something that is a no-no. The total content of the Semitism article was created solely out of thin air. RK

above from wikipedia:current disputes over articles. Note, for the record, that the word semitism was in fact not made up by user:stevertigo, as this article explains. WikiLove to all. Martin 13:19 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!