Jewish history Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The main article is published under the category Category:Antisemitism. Is this an endorsement that "self-hating Jews" are anti-semites or "self-hating Jews" are really in the same category as David Duke or Hitler? Tagging the article as part of the broader scope on antisemitism might be pushing POV, when the consensus of what constitutes a "self-hating Jew" is no consensus at all. We may consider removing the categorization of this article from such labels. This entry is highly subjective.--Son of More 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered in the Category of Antisemitism. I agree it does not belong in that category. I agree that such categorization is not an endorsement that "self-hating Jews" are antisemites. Certainly not in the category of the two people you mentioned. I nevertheless don't think what is called for is the severing of that categorization. That is because, in my mind, the concepts are related (though different), and the words are related, so that a person exploring these subjects with a lack of focus, can perhaps find their way to this article, if this seems like something that may be of interest to them. But I can respect your point of view. There is an argument to be made that this article does not fall under the category heading of "Antisemitism." Bus stop 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category's name was poorly chosen, and unfortunately it appears to be making implications about this article (or about "self-hating Jews"), but the category encompasses a wide range of articles, from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee to the American Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan. I know it's contrary to naming conventions, but maybe it should have been named "Articles related to antisemitism". — Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is an anti-semetic term. Accusing someone of being a self hating jew unpacks to the commandment "You are Jewish therefore you may not hold this view", which is antisemetic and ignores the fact that , like any other ethnic community, there is a diversity of political and social opinion within the the Jewish community. Obviously if someone is completely broken in the head like a holocaust denier, or a 'push the jews into the sea' type then they are well I guess self-hating. But when the term gets used against people who criticise of sections of israels political establishment or policies , then the term is anti-semetic, and anti-democratic. Duckmonster (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the article here. Having a list of people is most likely a NPOV violation unless they are self-admitted, and even so, that list belongs here. To have a separate article just for the neologism is inappropriate--that is what redirects are for. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having never attempted to edit a "controversial" article before, I come here with some trepidation. I stumbled upon this during one of the ANI threads that Shevashalosh started, and more importantly, from some related comments by Bishonen in an unrelated thread; it's probably about to be archived, but a copy of the current thread is here. (topic changes drastically about 4 paragraphs down) If you haven't seen her comments, I suggest you follow the link, as they give an excellent insight into my motivation here.

Bishonen's comments made sense, but at the time, I nodded my head slowly and said "no way am I getting involved". However, I can't get them out of my head, so I thought I'd take a shot at discussing.

Sorry if I'm stepping on someone's toes here (I don't know if everyone here is relatively happy with the state of the article, and I don't know if there's any one editor mostly responsible for its current state), but I think this article is currently too skewed toward the POV that "Self-hating Jew" is a legitimate term, when it has been my experience (as an observer only; I haven't used the term, and (not being Jewish myself) never had it directed at me) that is is more like a content-free insult with little basis in reality. This article seems analogous to having the article Uncle Tom start out:

Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures.

It also seems analogous to having the article Cracker (pejorative) contain lots of information on poverty in the southern U.S.; information on poverty in the southern U.S. belongs somewhere, but putting in Cracker (pejorative) would give too much legitimacy to the POV that such a phrase is used by reasonable people having reasonable academic discussions.

I haven't look thru everything yet, but just so I don't bite off way more than I can chew, I've got two suggestions to start with.

1. Change the introduction to more closely match the phrasing in other articles about pejorative phrases.
2. Remove the first paragraph of the "Usage" section; not only have I never heard "self-hating Jew" used that way, but the reference for that paragraph does not support the claim. It describes people hiding or downplaying their Jewish identity, but nowhere in the reference does it refer to this as self-hatred.

I'm about to go ahead and change these first two issues to what I think they should look like, but am perfectly willing to have them reverted and discussed more; the changes are intended as illustrations of how I'd like it worded, not as trying to impose something ahead of time.

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like even better, as an introduction, the entire stub Bishonen quotes from 2005:

"'Self-hating Jew' is a derogatory polemical label typically used by politically conservative Jews in the United States to describe left-wing Jews who publicly criticize the government or policies of Israel"

Just so you know where I'm coming from. That's not the version I just changed the article intro to, but I'd be interested in hearing people's reaction to it. --barneca (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored an old, vastly superior but still not great, introduction. I've also commented out the "psychological basis" paragraph - it doesn't make sense to first state that this is an epithet or pejorative description, and then try to describe it as though it were a valid phenomena. One or the other, folks, and personal preference doesn't determine the answer. Avruch ^T 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-hating Jew" differs from those pejoratives in one significant way: once upon a time there was genuine psychological research into the phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred. Today the phrase is used — almost exclusively, I think — in an attempt to pathologize dissent. See #"intended to insult Jews" and "used mainly by other Jews," above for a summary of a recent paper on the phenomenon. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What would make sense, then, is to characterize it by its current usage (as an insult without much basis in fact or academic research) and then include a "historical usage" or some such, or perhaps "early research." Psychological basis seems to be giving some sort of scientific justification to the term as its currently used, which is patently not acceptable. Avruch ^T 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too; the current wording (as of this timestamp) is better, IMHO, but still emphasizes the pathology aspect, when it seems to me the current usage is what should be emphasized in the lead. It isn't POV to clarify that this is used as a perjorative term; indeed, it seems POV to me to omit that fact. --barneca (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the rating of "Start" as well, not that I think it will make much of a difference in drawing some much needed attention from the WikiProject that claims this article. As it turns out, the project does define a "C-Class" but for some reason doesn't list it as an option under its rating parameters. Avruch ^T 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The psychologists who defined the term didn't do it as a pejorative, but as a pathology. Daniel Burros would be a recent example. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly, the historical usage should be mentioned in the lead, on normal WP:LEAD considerations. The term also had, and probably has, a considerable usage, not yet mentioned, for secular Jews who were perceived as underplaying/denying their Jewish identity, by changing their name for example. The current lead and article does not give a worldwide view & is too recentist. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article deals with what is just one particular case of a larger issue: loyalty of individual members to groups. (There art few words more highly charged emotionally than "traitor".) In the case of this article, I have some concern that the focus is so specific that the general issues will get lost in the particulars. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Lerman Jews attacking Jews Haaretz 12/09/2008. he is dismissive of the notionNishidani (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Szasz's (apart from Timms' 2 vol.bio, which has extensive material as well) on Karl Kraus, who copped heavy stick as an ostensible 'self-hating Jew', one of the first, ironically, to be diagnosed with this 'condition'. Thomas Szasz. Karl Kraus and the Soul-Doctors:, Louisiana State University Press, 1976, p.12, has an incisive dismissal of this silly cant term, as a rhetorical gambit among leading figures in an inter-Jewish polemical milieu. So does

Hannah Arendt, introd. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations tr.Harry Zohn ('Nothing could be more misleading (than raising questions of 'self-hatred', Nishidani) when dealing with men of the human stature and intellectual rank of Kafka, Kraus, and Benjamin'. p.32)

The same goes for the nonsense about Israel Shahak and so many other trenchant minds within the Jewish intellectual tradition of modernity.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I've commented above, this sort of usage of the term, as opposed to that in C19 religious polemic & modern political polemic, is not adequately explained in the article, and should be, silly or not. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, and no contentiousness implied in remarking on the silliness of the modern usage. It is deeply offensive, apart from jejune, to call someone who happens to disagree with you, who happens to share a similar ethnic background, a self-hater, since this means that ethnic identity does not allow dissent within its ranks. The totalitarian implications are lost on those who throw the term around. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Antony Lerman "a major authority" on this subject? The fact that you agree with him? The major authority on this subject is Sander Gilman, who literally wrote the book on this topic. As for the Jewish community, it seems remarkably tolerant of internal criticism. In any event, what do you personal views have to do with article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late in replying. I had more serious things to do, like watching Vettel win at Monza.

Permit me, Jayjg , to note that your ostensible point is rather jejune, in that it stands on the strength of a singular inability, for a native speaker of English, to distinguish the distinct functions of the definite and indefinite article in English.

I said, Anthony Lerman was a major authority on issues relating to anti-Semitism (a class of which ‘Jewish self-hatred’ is a subset). You come back and say, effectively, if ineffectually, 'No. You're wrong. Sander Gilman is the major authority'. Well, I would never deny that. So what's your problem, understanding elementary English? Neither of us introduced the word ‘academic’ as a qualifier.

Would you want me to insert ‘non-academic’ after ‘major’ to feel more comfortable, to introduce Lerman, director of the Jewish Policy Institute in London, who, after three decades of professional study and monitoring of anti-Semitism, the class of actions and statements of which so-called ‘Jewish self-hatred’ is classified as a sub-set, concludes as follows?

’Anti-Semitism can be disguised as anti-Zionism, and a Jew can be an anti-Semite. In principle, therefore, exposing an alleged Jewish anti-Semite is legitimate. But if you read the growing literature that does this - in print, on Web sites and in blogs - you find that it exceeds all reason: The attacks are often vitriolic, ad hominem and indiscriminate. Aspersions are cast on the Jewishness of individuals whom the attacker cannot possibly know. The charge of Jewish "self-hatred" - another way of calling someone a Jewish anti-Semite - is used ever more frequently, despite mounting evidence that it's an entirely bogus concept.'

'Serious discussion of current anti-Semitism - rational, objective, academically grounded - is virtually nonexistent. It is being replaced by internecine Jewish political battles and endless controversies over the alleged anti-Semitic implications of comments on Israel by public figures. Practically the entire business of studying and analyzing current anti-Semitism has been hijacked and debased by people lacking any serious expertise in the subject, whose principal aim is to excoriate Jewish critics of Israel and to promote the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation.'

p.s. I’m more than familiar with Sander Gilman’s extraordinary output on the medicalization of stereotypes in this and other areas of 19th-century culture. I see no evidence on the page so far of a thorough understanding of Gilman's highly nuanced analyses of the phenomenon, not only in this monograph, but several other of his works that deal with the topic. I suggest you read closely, if you haven't yet, his monograph on Franz Kafka:the Jewish Patient, which shows just how inextricably assimilated these stereotypes were to the discourse of Jewish milieux, to the degree that ‘self-hatred’ interpretations can only be frivolously superficial, esp. with regard to critics or thinkers within that tradition, like Kafka, Karl Kraus, or Israel Shahak. Most of these were simply troubled by a ghetto mentality, which Kraus, like Shahak, insisted, must be fought durch Auflösung zur Erlösung. Lastly, though I have personal views, I do not, like many others, hide them. Unlike many others, if asked, I can footnote them, point by point, to quality academic sources, something you appear incapable of doing, vide your edits on the Shahak page, which look like an instrumental use of poor sources to back a personal take on the man, whom no source of quality would call a 'Jewish self-hater'. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but isn't it customary to discuss removing the majority of the text of an article? WP:BRD, for instance, outlines a process where a bold edit is made, its reverted, and then the editors proceed to discuss. At this point we've bad B, then R, and then inexplicably another R prior to D. Perhaps, Malcolm, you can explain in some detail why you think it should all be removed? Avruch ^T 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the change came as a shock. I applied WP:be bold. When I compared this article with Self-hatred, it seemed pretty clear that the definition and explanation had gotten buried under layers of a political fight. That does nothing to help the article, rather the contrary. I tried to be fair, by leave enough explanation of the politics, and added ad hominem too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should add that I think the material I removed, although sourced was not balanced to create a neutral article. The problem is that a lot of Jewish anti-Zionists (and their allies) are pissed off over the term being directed at them, and as a result want to make the ad hominem point over and over. I understand the frustration, and the defensiveness, but making the point once should be enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@malcolm - according to your own comparison, the wiki article on self-hatred, "The term "self-hatred" is used infrequently by psychologists and psychiatrists, who would usually describe people who hate themselves as "persons with low self-esteem."

this is in the lead paragraph.

this only enhances the point that "self-hating jew" isn't used as a psychological term, but an epithet. do we have self-hating hindus listed as well? do self-hating blacks, gays, or any other self hating group have a page on wiki? its perjorative nature needs to be clearly stated in the lead, in much the same way an earlier editor compared to the wording of the uncle tom entry. i was under the impression that this was resolved already in the previous discussion but i will go ahead and change it. i am new here so please excuse if i make a mistake with protocol. Untwirl (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]