Again, try and use the African hypothetical as a thought experiment. Imagine if that was the “common” use or how it was “correctly” defined in dictionaries. Would there (not) be some form of prejudice against all other African nations other than Ghana or special status given to Ghana if the terms were defined as such?
I guess the irony I see is that we recognize a prejudice in the form of another prejudice.
Truthaddict, are you saying that our common usage of anti-semite is an act of prejudice in itself because by using it as only referring to Jews we are not recognizing other semite groups and perhaps the prejudice they experience?
If that’s the point you are trying to make, I think I would say that “anti-semite” has evolved within the context of western culture and history. There was a time when the western world was not as connected globally to such a diverse groups as it is now. Jews were the predominant semite group within western civilization for centuries and so the use of the term made sense. There was no need to have to distinguish between other semite groups. Now that the west is so initimately intertwined with other semite nations, you could argue that it’s exclusiveness to Jews is prejudicial. But the fact that it has an historical basis to it should, I think, dissuade people from thinking that way. It’s hard to change the usage of a word that’s been around for so long, but perhaps it eventually will change in it’s usage in response to the current times.
edited by mckenzievmd to open quotation and change color (blue is for official admin messages)