What an odd thing to say, that’s just really odd. I am old enough to remember when it was a word used to describe a greedy person or individual no matter what their background was. I remember my father teasing me calling me a shylock as a joke during a holiday one day. What is the ADL after here?
From Wikipedia: “Antisemites have used the play (Merchant of Venice) to support their views throughout its history. The 1619 edition has a subtitle of “With the Extreme Cruelty of Shylock the Jew …” The Nazis used Shylock for their propaganda.[20] Shortly after Kristallnacht in 1938, the German radio had broadcast a production of The Merchant of Venice to reinforce stereotypes. Productions of the play followed in Lübeck (1938), Berlin (1940), and elsewhere within Nazi-occupied territory.[21]” What would you infer from this etymological history?
1 Like
Or paranoid of being special about an invisibility which can not be traced, singularly , hiding in attics like Anne Frank, fighting for identifiable traces to connect to the silent majority, of alienating others like minded indifferent, …
Or being halve wit, now and then reappearing, for those at the last analysis, ( try it cover all bases)!
Or just let it be.?
Plausible deniability is an inextricable element of an effective racist dog whistle. Trump is a dog whistler par excellence. The MAGA crowd loves him for it.
It’s interesting, nobody bats an eye concerning the Christian Antonio, but only after Shylock. It would seem you can say anything bad about Christian individuals, just not Jewish ones.
Exactly the kind of hypocrisy I would come to expect.
Since when has bankers and anybody of finance inside the United States been anything other than greedy looking for their pound of flesh against the national domestic population whether they be Christian, Jewish, or otherwise? The way the ADL makes it sound, Jewish bankers or people of finance are somehow exceptional not to be criticized at all, but really they all act like Shylocks including the non-Jewish people within the occupation as well. I do not believe there is any people on earth who cannot be criticized, although it would seem some disagree entirely.
I don’t think Judas was made to be a caricature of all Christians, he was just one bad Christian individual, so why do they believe the individual Shylock is for all Jews? The story is merely a reflection of one singular fictional Jewish character.
Is there not a single individual archetype of Jews that is negative? We’re led to believe that not one single Jew can be criticized whether real or fictionally imaginary, I find that rather hard to believe.
If you take the trouble to go and see the play, as I did with Patrick Stewart playing the title role you might understand that Shakespeare demonstrates a sympathetic POV from BOTH sides.
Historically medieval Europe made lending impious since Jesus cast the money lenders from the temple.
This meant that only Jews were capalble if lending money. That meant they faced much prejudice. Christian Europe, unike Islam, was thouroughly intolerant of other religions throughout the period.
Whilst Christians were banned from lending, they were quite happy to use the proscription against lending against the Jews when it suited them. ANd they were very happy to use Jews for BORROWING.
The story goes that Shylock fed up with continual prejudice and being cheated by borrowers, asks for a pound of flesh nearest the heart for default on the debt.
The debt is not paid back but the penalty is not met.
Shylock pleads he case. Here is where Shakespeare shows that he is capable of showing both sides of the arguement:
Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
So far from being an example of the Eternal Jew - avaricious and greedy, WS shows him to be all too HUMAN.
But it all depends HOW you act the part.
And what is the prejudiuce of those observing
2 Likes
My intent in citing the etymology of the word was simply to point to the rabbit hole alluded to by Trump’s dog whistle not to enter it by jumping or falling.
1 Like
I do not think you said anything about etymology.
This is what an etymology might reveal: Many scholars believe the name Shylock is derived from a biblical Hebrew name, possibly:
- Shalah (שֵׁלָח) – A descendant of Shem listed in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12.
- Shelach – Another transliteration of the same name.
I vote the word Shylock into obsolescence. Sounds too much like Sherlock and also sounds negative towards shy people that freeze up during social interactions.
The name Shylock was not a traditional Jewish name and appears to have been invented or adapted by Shakespeare for his character in The Merchant of Venice . Most scholars agree that “Shylock” is not of Hebrew origin, and attempts to link it to biblical names such as Shalah or Shiloh are considered speculative or far-fetched.
1 Like
Green and Goldberg are not traditional Jewish names either. But there are plenty of jews with those monikers.
The fact that not even WS spelled his name constently might be reflective of the fact that, in his time literacy (as a widespread thing) was in its infancy.
WS in his time was probably the first generation of people who had access to books on a large scale.
Although about 120 years had passed from the invention of the printing press, it would take many years before history books and translations of the classics were available for common folk like WS to acquire second hand. Books were expensive even then and treasured.
In Will’s time literacy was probably just coming out of single figures and would only be amongst the middle class and above.
What does this say about Will S and his choice of name? Maybe he thought Shylock had a foreign feel more suitable for Venice?
1 Like
not sure, yet another, anachronism is gong to shed any light here.
But since you mention it.
Rare are a surname, and unique as a Christian name.
Orginally Doyle considered: * Sherringford Hope and Sherringford Holmes*
I had a friend that didn’t know that calling someone a “Mong” was racist. I said, what do you think mong means? He said, I dunno, monging out? I said it means mongoloid - as in, from Mongolia.
I accept that it’s possible that someone can use a term without being aware of its racist origins - one might feasibly use the term “Shylock” without any knowledge of its connection to Jewish stereotypes. However once you know that that information, what you do with it can be a reflection of your values. Do you still use the term even after knowing its origin?
1 Like
Shylock isn’t considered a Jewish or Hebrew name, Jews are offended by it nonetheless. Interesting…
My last name before I had it changed in marriage is very Sephardi and Hebrew.
Of course, I have never considered myself spiritually or religiously Jewish as I grew up Catholic on my mother’s side.
Well there is a reason for that, since it is used as a place-marker for an insult by people who are antisemitic.
That does not change the fact that WS made Shylock capable of a sympathetic interpretation.
But people who want to be bigots shall be, and those that think they can gain by being offended shall be offended.
These days there is basically nothing you can say against the Israeli government of its members without being accused of antisemitism.
For my money there is nothing more offensive than a sniper’s bullett in the body of a child, But, hey, that’s just little old me.
1 Like
Mong is only racist by assocaition. It refers to Down’s Syndrome, which for the shape of their eyes was orginally called mongolism,
This is a chromesomal mutation, and the appelation was not originally racist.
I would argue it is offensive to Down’s people, but not “racist”, since its use does not directly refer to people from the East.