It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I hope this lesson has helped you to understand the intricacies and semantics of Semitics and Anti-Semitics.
For your wise and studious approach to this subject, you receive an "A" and a star.
As far back as 1704, the German philosopher and polymath Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz had identified a group of cognate languages which included Hebrew, old Punic, i.e., Carthaginian, Chaldaean, Syriac, and Ethiopic. To this group he gave the name "Arabic," after its most widely used and widely spoken member. To call a group by the name of one of its members could easily give to confusion, and Leibniz's nomenclature was not generally accepted.
It was not until 1781 that this group was given the name which it has retained ever since. In that year, August Ludwig Schlozer contributed an essay on this subject to a comprehensive German work on biblical and Oriental literature. According Schlozer, "from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates and from Mesopotamia down to Arabia, as is known, only one language reigned. The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews and Arabs were one people. Even the Phoenicians who were Hamites spoke this language, which I might call the Semitic." Schlozer goes on to discuss other languages of the area, and tries to fit them, not very successfully, into the framework provided by Genesis 10.
The idea that Semitic languages derived from one original language (by German philologists sometimes called Ursemitisch or proto‑Semitic, and that the peoples speaking these languages were descended from one people, exercised considerable influence and caused some confusion.
By 1855, the French scholar Ernest Renan, one of the pioneers of Semitic philology, wrote complaining: "We can now see what an unhappy idea Eichhorn [sic; should be Schlozer apud Eichhorn] had when he gave the name of Semitic to the family of Syro-Arab languages. This name, which usage obliges us to retain, has been and will long remain the cause of a multitude of confusions.
“I repeat again that the name Semite here [Renan is referring to his pioneer study on Semitic philology] has only a purely conventional meaning: it designates the peoples who have spoken Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic or some neighboring dialect, and in no sense the people who are listed in the tenth chapter of Genesis as the descendants of Shem, who are, or at least half of them, of Aryan origin."
Renan was of course right in pointing to the dangers of taking "the generations of the sons of Noah" as a basis for philological classification. He might have gone further. The descendants of Ham, conventionally the ancestor of the Africans, include, in addition to Egypt and Ethiopia, Canaanites and Phoenicians, who lived in the Syro-Palestinian area and spoke a language very similar to
It's illogical but true
Wanting is not as good as having. It's illogical but true!
Common wisdom today indicates that the term Semite originated in the 18th century, and actually was used to refer to the LANGUAGES related to Hebrew, and not the people.
I think what causes the confusion today is the victimization trend which started in the 20th century, whereby people of various religions, races, and religions were able to convince the MSM that they were VICTIMS of discrimination.
Using the new religion of victimization, Obama can get away with anything, because anyone that dares to challenge anything he does, is automatically bigoted against blacks. Likewise, anyone that dares challenge Israel is bigoted against Jews, and they have convinced the main stream media that the term they should use is Anti-Semitic.
For you see Professor my inalienable rights though regardless of my race, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation or social and economic status keep me from every being a victim! I wonder how these people chose to become victims.
An unpopular truth
[Reprinted from Issues & Views October 29, 2001]
After the sixties, when American politics became openly accountable to the legacy of racial victimization, the acceptance or rejection of victimization as a totalism came to imply either a liberal or conservative politics. In response to the sixties American liberalism realigned itself around victimization, not as a fact or as an ongoing problem, but as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty.
Conservatism during this period belatedly admitted to the fact of black victimization but never accepted it as a totalism. To a profound degree this relation to the totalism of victimization came to demarcate social liberalism and conservatism after the sixties. And to this day, the liberal looks at black difficulties--high crime rates, weak academic performance, illegitimacy rates, and so on--and presumes them to be the result of victimizing forces beyond the control of blacks. The conservative does not deny this as a possibility but refuses to presume it. This refusal has become a contemporary mark of social conservatism.
I believe that this acceptance of victimization as a totalism caused the downfall of post-sixties liberalism. This is where liberalism lost its balance and ultimately its integrity. Many observers who lived through the sixties realize that it was the old American problem of race that did liberalism in. To accept victimization not as one of many variables but as a totalism was to see it as structural--so built into the patterns of society that it could be manifested apart from human will.
And if the evil was structural, only structural remedies would work against it. You couldn't fight racial victimization on a case-by-case basis; you had to put into place structures that would prefer the victim in compensation for the victimization we could presume he or she had endured. Thus liberalism became preemptive rather then defensive. It no longer protected individuals and fought for equal opportunity, but it pursued group rights and equal results. It remedied the victimization before it was manifest. This transformation came from the embrace of victimization as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty. But it changed the basic terms of American liberalism from freedom, rights, and responsibilities to planning, engineering, and entitlements.
-- Shelby Steele, excerpt from A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America (Harper Collins).
Copyright © 2009 Issues & Views
It's obviously not illegal. And to echo some other posts, if it was, the "man" would be hunting down tons of ATSers 24/7.