It’s a thick book full of prophecies. Some about elimination, some about living in harmony, some didn’t happen, others so vague that you can argue anyway, some written after the fact and attributed to a dead guy. That’s part of the usefulness of the Bible: what ever you want to find, it’s in there.
But I digress. If that’s the main usage of the word, sure. I’ve encountered it in a book about antisemitism as a neutral word to describe non-Jews who don’t encounter antisemitism, similar to white or straight or cis in other contexts. I wouldn’t say that the book was Zionist at its core but I won’t deny that the authors were Zionists and there were chapters that were problematic. So I can’t really point to non-Zionists who use the word.
I’ve heard it used by regular people as a simple reference to non-jews but yeah I’m not sure of any instances of people in power using it in a not bad way. In an ideal world nobody would use language like that without a reason as it does change how people think in a negative way…but we’re too far from that to criticize civilians who are not engaging in extreme oppression of other people.
I think what bothers me is how unnecessary it is. “Amalek” makes the point perfectly clear, no need to add another word that’s more ambiguous in connotation. No other line has two words. If anything, this post shifts the meaning away from what would be desirable, namely a neutral word for non-Jew.
Amalek I get but does Goyim have such negative connotation?
I think goyim was what Epstein called any non Jews in his emails. Seem to remember reading something about that.
That’s the literal definition. Wtf does it have to do with Epstein
maybe that’s where they first heard the term
Aren’t they promised the goys as slaves at the end.
It’s a thick book full of prophecies. Some about elimination, some about living in harmony, some didn’t happen, others so vague that you can argue anyway, some written after the fact and attributed to a dead guy. That’s part of the usefulness of the Bible: what ever you want to find, it’s in there.
But I digress. If that’s the main usage of the word, sure. I’ve encountered it in a book about antisemitism as a neutral word to describe non-Jews who don’t encounter antisemitism, similar to white or straight or cis in other contexts. I wouldn’t say that the book was Zionist at its core but I won’t deny that the authors were Zionists and there were chapters that were problematic. So I can’t really point to non-Zionists who use the word.
I’ve heard it used by regular people as a simple reference to non-jews but yeah I’m not sure of any instances of people in power using it in a not bad way. In an ideal world nobody would use language like that without a reason as it does change how people think in a negative way…but we’re too far from that to criticize civilians who are not engaging in extreme oppression of other people.
I think what bothers me is how unnecessary it is. “Amalek” makes the point perfectly clear, no need to add another word that’s more ambiguous in connotation. No other line has two words. If anything, this post shifts the meaning away from what would be desirable, namely a neutral word for non-Jew.