Racism in the Bible

[Steven Carr]

In his review of 'The God Delusion' , http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html Eagleton writes ' At its most philistine and provincial, it makes Dick Cheney sound like Thomas Mann. '

The Philistines were a group of people mentioned in the Bible.

Isn't the use of 'philistine' as a term of abuse, a racist term of abuse?


Wouldn't people be shocked if Eagleton had written '' At its most Jewish and provincial, it makes Dick Cheney sound like Thomas Mann. '

Yet what is the difference, apart from the fact that insulting people by calling them philistines comes from the Bible?

[Toto]

I don't think the Philistines were a separate race. The use of the term is metaphor derived from the Biblical text, but without any particular racial or religious taint.

Wikipedia on metaphorical uses of the term Philistine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Other_uses_of_the_term_.27Philistine.27):

In non-historical usage, the word philistine refers to a person deficient in the culture of the liberal arts or can also connote a smug and intolerant opponent of the bohemian who exhibits a restrictive moral code. See Philistinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistinism)

From that last link:

Philistinism is a derogatory term used to describe a particular attitude or set of values. When a person is called a Philistine (in the relevant sense), he is said to despise or undervalue art, beauty, intellectual content, and/or spiritual values. Philistines are also said to be materialistic, to favor conventional social values unthinkingly, and to favor forms of art that have a cheap and easy appeal (i.e. kitsch).

Philistinism affords a contrast to Bohemianism, as the character of a smugly conventional bourgeois social group perceived to lack all the desirably soulful 'bohemian' characteristics, especially an artistic temperament and a broad cultural horizon open to the avant-garde. To the chosen few, the 'Philistines' embodied a smug, anti-intellectual threatening majority, in the 'culture wars' of the 19th century.

A Philistine in Old Testament terms was a pagan inhabitant of the southwestern coastal cities of Canaan, such as Gaza. The Philistines were the neighbors and enemies of the Hebrews. The word came from Hebrew pelishtim, the people of 'Pelesheth' ('Philistia'). The word Philister (Luther's translation) was taken up in German student slang, supposedly first in Jena in the late 17th century, as a dismissive term for the townspeople (compare the British university slang, 'townies,') It is said that at a memorial service for a student killed in a town-gown clash, the minister took for his text the words of Delilah to Samson,'The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!'

There are further literary examples there.

The use of the term Philistine in regard to Dawkins implies that he is deficient in the culturally superior liberal arts, which would supposedly enable him to appreciate the higher artistic values of theology. Or something like that.

[Steven Carr]

I don't think the Philistines were a separate race. The use of the term is metaphor derived from the Biblical text, but without any particular racial or religious taint.


Are Jews a seperate race? Would saying that Dawkins was writing in a Jewish way, without understanding , be a shocking thing to say?

By racist, I mean classifying people by the group they belong to and making derogatory comments about that group.

Possibly Eagleton had forgotten the source of his insult 'Philistine'.

It shows just how much religious hatred has crept into ordinary language.

'Shibboleth' is a similar term. Originally used in the Bible to separate insiders from outsiders, it is now used in other contexts.

But religion is all about separating people into insiders and outsiders, sheep and goats. It is inherently divisive, and where there is division, there comes about conflict.

[Toto]

By racist, I mean classifying people by the group they belong to and making derogatory comments about that group.

I would only classify something as racist if the classification is based on a biological characteristic that they are born with and can't readily change - skin, hair, DNA, etc.

I don't think that Jews are a separate race, but Hitler did, and calling something "Jewish" as an insult is likely to bring up all sorts of subtexts and opportunities for fistfights.

"Philistine" might have a religious derivation, but as an insult, it is primarily used by secularist moderns against conservative culturalists. People also use the word "orthodox" in a non-religious context, but I don't see any racial overtones.

Do you find the term "sacred cow" a religious insult to Hindus?

[Steven Carr]

I would only classify something as racist if the classification is based on a biological characteristic that they are born with and can't readily change - skin, hair, DNA, etc.



Well ,I don't.



"Philistine" might have a religious derivation, but as an insult, it is primarily used by secularist moderns against conservative culturalists. People also use the word "orthodox" in a non-religious context, but I don't see any racial overtones.



Well, I do. And it is common usage in Britain to use it the way I do.

And the word does have a religious derivation, which only increases the irony of somebody using it in an article purporting to show how religion is wonderful.





Do you find the term "sacred cow" a religious insult to Hindus?

Yes.

And also the word 'juggernaut'.

Both terms are used in the West with bad connotations, apparently without considering that it implies that some Hindu customs have aspects which are bad.

But Hindus don't issue death threats when that happens, so people keep on calling things 'sacred cows', with the implication that eg calling the ban on images of the Prophet Muhammad a sacred cow is an insult to Hindus.

[andrewcriddle]

Is the word Vandal to be considered a racial insult ?
And what about Byzantine (as a term for say an over-intricate Bureaucracy) ?

Andrew Criddle

[Steven Carr]

Is the word Vandal to be considered a racial insult ?
And what about Byzantine (as a term for say an over-intricate Bureaucracy) ?



I'm sure Eagleton simply forgot that Philistine was originally a term of racial abuse, derived from the Bible.

He did not mean it as a term of racial abuse, as he does not believe Dawkins comes from Philistia. In fact, he says Dawkins comes from North Oxford (Dawkins actually comes from Kenya, but Eagleton could not say that Dawkins was writing with an African mentality)

[Steven Carr]

Is the word Vandal to be considered a racial insult ?


How would you feel if your daughter married a Vandal?

[andrewcriddle]

How would you feel if your daughter married a Vandal?

The eventuality is remote.

In general the names of dead cultures do become used metaphorically sometimes negatively sometimes in a more or less positive way (Spartan or Laconic) There is after all no one around to take personal offence.

Andrew Criddle

[Laura D.]

Isn't the use of 'philistine' as a term of abuse, a racist term of abuse?

To me, Richard Dawkins use of the term philistine in this context is legitimate. I understand the point. But in my view, the term originates from a specific tribe rather than a race per se. The analogy to vandal is the correct one and its use is equally appropriate.

Laura

[Steven Carr]

To me, Richard Dawkins use of the term philistine in this context is legitimate. I understand the point. But in my view, the term originates from a specific tribe rather than a race per se. The analogy to vandal is the correct one and its use is equally appropriate.



The Bible is a book which classifies whole tribes of people as good or bad, simply because they belong to a particular tribe, and such a Biblical ethos has worked itself popular culture, as shown by Eagleton's use of the 'Philistine' meme.

Genesis 9 is one of the more blatant passages

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

27 May God extend the territory of Japheth ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."

Declaring that it is divine will that one tribe be the slaves of other tribes is not good.

Of course, Eagleton says that the New Testament reformed all of that. 'This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge. '

Which means that Eagleton implicitly condemns religions which do not accept the New Testament.

But then it was a very badly thought out review...

[one allegiance]

Even if it was...the Bible doesn't claim to be politcally correct.

[Laura D.]

But then it was a very badly thought out review...

First, I blush and confess that I had not yet read Mr. Eagleton’s review. My defense of philistine and vandal was purely selfish. I am quite sure that if the time came to break out a litany of insults, I would prefer philistine to jackass, vandal to barbarian.

It appears, however, we have reached that exalted state of correct consciousness whereby such terms are now racist. So I consider whether to excise these ancient—albeit Biblically derived—terms from my vocabulary. In defense, I note that writers recognized for their wit, style and grace such as Steve Plinket still retain philistine in their vocabularies (albiet not in the blatantly ad hominem context of our dear Mr. Eagleton). See e.g., Less Faith, More Reason (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515314) by Steven Pinker, Harvard Crimson (October 27, 2006).

Second, I turn to Mr. Eagleton’s review. How do I put this? Imagine someone holding forth on Dawkins whose only knowledge of rhetoric and review is the Book of Bitter Blather, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Terry Eagleton on The God Delusion. It’s not a review, it’s a rant. I would call his effort to critique Mr. Dawkins’ ideas nominal, but that grossly overstates the case. I might suspect he lacks the qualifications to do so, but then I too would be guilty of ad hominem attack.

In reading this review, I could not ascertain whether The God Delusion is worth reading. It was only apparent to me that Mr. Eagleton does not care much for Mr. Dawkins himself. I contemplated calling Mr. Eagleton a philistine, but I prefer not to appear racist. So I refrain.

If you would read a legitimate critique, I recommend that of Jim Holt in the October 22, 2006, New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html). While you may disagree with Mr. Holt, his style, critical analysis, and overall discourse exceeds greatly Mr. Eagleton's efforts.

Laura

[Toto]

Even if it was...the Bible doesn't claim to be politcally correct.

It doesn't?? The Bible does claim to be (more or less) inerrant and a font of all wisdom. But this is disproven again and again. The Bible endorses slavery and the oppression of women and other subordinate groups. Are you going to dismiss all modern progress towards equality and human self-worth as just "politically correct" as if it were just a choice of fashion?

</rant>

In any case, barbarian is another of those words. It means non-Greek.

[Toto]

more on ethnic words used in a negative fashion (http://volokh.com/posts/1150257960.shtml) on the Volokh conspiracy. The only other Biblical slur that is mentioned is "Sodomite."

[Laura D.]

ethnic words used in a negative fashion (http://volokh.com/posts/1150257960.shtml) on the Volokh conspiracy.

Excellent cite (or site as you choose). So helpful in my quest to blue-line more potentially racist, political incorrectness. But the primary reason for this post is to correct my earlier missive by noting the non-Biblical origin of vandal (sloppy writing on my part).

To make up for it, I offer Scythian as yet another word we might eschew. Thankfully, however, slubberdegullion remains safe. If only on the ground that it's etymology is sufficiently obscure.

Laura

[Steven Carr]

(sloppy writing on my part).

To make up for it, I offer Scythian as yet another word we might eschew. Thankfully, however, slubberdegullion remains safe. If only on the ground that it's etymology is sufficiently obscure.



You should definitely avoid calling people scythian , if the aim of your essay is that scythes have only ever been used for peaceful , beneficial purposes.

Perhaps if Dawkins had written a piece attacking Hitler, we should respond that only an Untermensch would write such an entartete book.

[hinduwoman]

Anyway Philistines are all dead, so they cannot sue anyone.

[Jabu Khan]

Yes but the point of its irony is they still existed when those bible versus were written

[BH]

How would you feel if your daughter married a Vandal?

Well, if you daughter married someone from North Africa or Spain it is quite possible that he is part Vandal.

[Laura D.]

You should definitely avoid calling people scythian , if the aim of your essay is that scythes have only ever been used for peaceful , beneficial purposes.

I saw it more in the context of someone descended from the Iranian nomadic peoples. But your interpretation works equally well.

Perhaps if Dawkins had written a piece attacking Hitler, we should respond that only an Untermensch would write such an entartete book.

We can agree that anyone attacking Dawkins in that instance would have far exceeded the bounds of courtesy, decency, and legitimate criticism. I can think of no case where an individual (e.g. George Bush) has raised the specter of Nazi Germany to win an argument that I have not lost all respect for his or her rhetorical capability.

I will note that Mr. Eagleton appears to have intended his use of philistine in the context of a person deficient in the culture of the liberal arts (unkind to say the least). Frankly, I have yet to see philistine used in an explicit or even implicit racial sense despite the fact that The New York Times does infrequently resort to its use. I have not seen the term Entartete used outside of textbooks except when actually referring to the 1937 exhibition (the article concerned a Paul Klee painting I believe). And quite thankfully, I have never seen the term Untermensch used in your proposed context. Frankly, I am unsure whether it has any meaning other than subhuman with the all too real and horrible historical connotations that word carries.

Given your evocation of Untermensch and Entartete, I concede the field and assure you that I will excise philistine from my vocabulary.

Laura

[Doug Shaver]

It appears, however, we have reached that exalted state of correct consciousness whereby such terms are now racist.
It's a secular kind of Original Sin. If the first people to use an expression were expressing racism with it, then the expression to this day can never be anything but racist.