TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
Ahhh. Well, it may be that is a reaction to the country's actions, not the religion or ethnicity. Which is a good thing. But I have no other evidence than this incident
ReplyDeleteI probably have relatives in that cemetery. One of my (never met) cousins donated a family genealogy to a local St Louis area university or library (I forget which) that has an archive of Jewish history.
ReplyDeleteAs for BDS - she could be anti-"Zionist", but not anti- Semitic. It's cutting hairs sometimes, but just because you disagree with government actions doesn't mean you want to see people hurt or attacked.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I'm 100% anti-settlement and it drives me meshugah that Netanyahu is still in office. That doesn't mean I blame every Israeli for Netanyahu going full-settler crazy.