Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Semantics and semitics | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 14:07:46 12/05/04 Sun In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, ""anti-semitic" would logically have to include "anti-Arab"" on 21:28:25 12/04/04 Sat I believe that you are technically correct, but the word has really lost all racial connotations and refers to the Jewish religion these days. Even those who have been proud haters of Jews have called themselves anti-semitists. I understand that the whole thing is derived from Genesis, anyway. Noah's three sons, Shem (or Sem), Ham, and Japheth, being the only surviving humans after the flood, are the source of all people subsequently. Those who descend from Ham are Hamites (Africans), those from Shem are Semites (Middle Easterners) and those from Japheth are Japethites (Europeans). Firstly, the whole thing is clearly nonsense; and, secondly, it does rather indicate that the blokes who wrote it had never heard of the Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Polynesians, etc etc. Perhaps if the writers of these Bible stories had known about races other than those three which came into contact with each other in the eastern Mediterranean, Noah would have been given more sons! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |