martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (06/04/84)
Since people have dumped on me enough for finding offense where there is
none, I wish to point out to Larry Welsh and Bob Brown that they are
simply wrong.
Goy is generic for non-Jew or for non-Jewish male.
It has no inherent negative meaning; however, if the local non-Jews are
treating the local Jews badly, the word will acquire a negative meaning.
Likewise, Tedesco (German) in Italian has no inherently negative meaning,
but if Germans were rampaging through Italy the word might acquire
negative connotations.
The feminine form is Goyah.
Originally, the word Goy simply meant tribe or nation just like Latin
gens.
Israel is described as goy qados:, a nation apart.
Then the word acquired a derivative meaning to describe people not from
`am yis:ra'el, the nation of Israel. Goy came to describe a member of a
tribe (which is not Israel). This is exactly equivalent to the Latin
derivative from gens (gentis) -- gentilis which becomes in English
gentile. A better equivalent would be tribesman. The word has nothing to
do with faith in God or lack of faith in God. When the temple existed in
Jerusalem, the priests used regularly to make sacrifices to God on behalf
of Goyim.
A few years ago, my cousin Nissim Falaji had a Japanese guest staying
with his family. She was a Hebrew speaker and knew more about Jewish
customs and learning than most American Jews. On the Sabbath she would
sometimes help the Falajis with tasks, which Jewish Law forbids a Jew from
doing on Shabbat. I remember her asking rhetorically once something like:
Zeh lo' re`ayon ra` lehaknis 'oraxat bas:abat 'af 'im 'o 'ulay
beglal shehi' goyah?
It's not a bad idea to welcome a guest on the Sabbath even if or
perhaps because she is a goyah, is it?
I suppose `arelah could have been used, but this word has extra
connotations and Setsuko was not a Christian. Yapaniyah (Japanese) would
not have made much sense.
As for the question of goyish education, if LW had read the article in
net.women, he would have realized the statement would have been hard to
make according to his suggestion.
In order to live in this world a child must acquire three types of
knowledge (I am using Maimonides category slightly modified);
Intellectual (scientific, between man and nature),
moral (between man and God), and
practical-social-political (between man and man).
Scientific knowledge is not ethnic-group specific and is not pertinent to
the discussion. But many different approaches to moral and to
practical-social-political problems are possible. Probably -- with no
aspersion toward other peoples moral or social political systems -- most
Jewish parents would prefer their children approach issues like abortion
or sexual morality or like welfare or crime from a Jewish standpoint.
The starting point for Jews to approach moral and social-political
knowledge is contained in the Jewish Bible and Talmud which is not studied
in our way in the type of school Shava Nerad probably attended. The Bible
and the Talmud provide the historical intellectual matrix for Jews to
approach reality morally and politically. The founding fathers of the USA
used Greek and Roman political and moral literature likewise.
Similarly the Chinese (before they went communist) had their own wisdom
literature. Only some of the ideas in such wisdom literature show real
universality.
In fact the ideas which a child will acquire from a Western liberal arts
education, which acquaints a child with the current Western wisdom
literature, can be quite antithetical to Jewish values (e.g. the idea of
romantic love as portrayed in Romeo and Juliet).
There is nothing wrong with learning about the value systems of other
peoples if a person has a need (face it how often do we use Shakespeare or
T.S. Eliot in daily life), but since there is no equal time for Jewish
ideas in western educational institutions (nor is there any obvious reason
why there should be) before a Jewish student studies in such a place he
should have a solid background in Jewish learning.
Only by serious Jewish learning can Jews maintain their own cultural
ethnic group. If anyone sees something wrong with Jews' maintaining their
own cultural traditions while they live in the USA, he has a problem of
intolerance. Maintaining such cultural traditions requires endogamy but
being endogamous is our own decision. Saying we are wrong to be
endogamous is like saying we are wrong to stay Jewish.
Personally, I am not bothered that Vietnamese in the USA wish to maintain
their own traditions and one method they use is endogamy. Nor does it
bother me that my friend Setsuko considers me a gaijin and would never
consider me as a husband. These considerations are her business, and I do
not see how Japanese wishing to maintain their Japanism or Vietnamese
wishing to maintain their Vietnamism or Jews wishing to maintain their
Jewishness is insulting or threatening to Westerners, unless Westerners
suffer from massive cultural insecurity.
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(An Equal Opportunity Offender)dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (06/04/84)
--> The song tells us what we all know - that
--> Israel is the only really peaseful country in the Mid East
--> but it gets blamed for everything).
-->
--> Eli Haber
-->
Eli ,
I'm assuming that you meant "peaceful" .
Peaceful ?????
I'd feel safer alone at 2:00 am in Central Park than in
Israel right now !
I'll admit that if you are adressing purely a Jewish audience but
surely you realise that you are not .
There are many countries in the Mid East that are orders of magnitude
more peaceful than Israel. But due to the nature of their governments
make them inaccessible to anyone admitting to being Jewish.Even if
you were able to get into some of these arabic countries I'm sure
some of the writings of Yaqim Martillo would make you feel less safe
than someone who was not jewish.
I'll agree with you that I'd rather be in Israel than these
1. Lebanon
2. Iran
3. Iraq
4. Afghanistan
5. Syria
6. Both Yemens
I'd have to put Cyprus & Egypt aboubt level with Israel as to my
own personal feelings of safety.
Countries I'd feel safer in.
1. Jordan
2. Turkey
3. Kuwait
4. Oman
5. Saudia Arabia
6. United Arab Emirates
7. Qatar
8. Bahrain
I seem to remember that Bahrain & Cyprus being the only countries
that do not specifically ask you if you are jewish when requesting
visa info or entry into the country.
I can see where you might feel safer in Israel than any other Mid
East country but PEACEFUL , forget that !!!!!!!!
--
Dave Peak (pyuxhh!dxp)
" I'd rather have two girls at 21 each than one girl at 42 ! "
- W.C. Fieldsminow@decvax.UUCP (06/10/84)
"Non-Jew" is a perfectly good English word for describing non-Jews. If the non-Jews in the audience think "goy" is offensive, that is a pretty good reason to avoid the word. (And, do note that the English word "goy" is not the same as the Hebrew word "goy".) While I'm on the topic, it seems to me that there is altogether too much random Hebrew being used -- where English words would be accurate and appropriate. Martin Minow decvax!minow
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (06/14/84)
I agree with Minnow. At the suggestion of Larry Welsh, I looked up Goy in
the dictionary. The etymology shows the word coming from Yiddish and not
from Hebrew. I could probably make a case that Yiddish is not truly a
Jewish language but that arguement would not change the connotations which
Yiddish has given the word in English. Therefore, using non-Jew is to be
preferred.
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(An Equal Opportunity Offender)