curious usage note

[Jeff Prucher]

The latest edition of NOAD has no usage note for "jihadist". So someone(s) at
NOAD (or, more likely, NODE) decided they didn't need it anymore. Whether this
is because they found they couldn't support the statements, needed the space for
something else, changed their policies about usage notes, or something else, I
wouldn't guess.

The current definition is here: http://goo.gl/sWBfQ

Jeff Prucher
Editor, Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction.
http://www.jeffprucher.com



----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Sent: Wed, March 30, 2011 3:29:52 PM
> Subject: Re: curious usage note
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society  <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:        Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:       Re: curious usage  note
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >I  suspect, this might have been true only a few months ago--perhaps
> one needs  to go as far back as mid-2009.
> But what's the evidence that it ever was  true?  Furthermore, the note seems
> to me to be unusually  condemnatory.
>
> Yet the word is not labeled "offensive."  MW online  defines the word withou=
> t
> comment. Ditto OED (parent of NOAD) with  n./adj. cites back to 1967, none o=
> f
> which appears markedly disdainful or  dismissive to me, or used in a vehemen=
> t
> "anti-Arab" or "anti-Islam"  [sic: shouldn't it be "anti-Muslim"?] context.
>
> Surely anglicization  itself is not now seen as racist or bigoted. Is it?
>
> JL
>
> On Wed, Mar  30, 2011 at 4:29 PM, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrot=
> e:
>
> >  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >  -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect  Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >  Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> >  Subject:      Re: curious usage note
> >
> >  -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ------
> >
> >  I suspect, this might have been true only a few months ago--perhaps
> > one  needs to go as far back as mid-2009. But with the election season
> >  approaching in 2010, "jihadist" was also being used on the *Left*
> > (along  with "teahadist") to represent aggressive and often religious
> > right-wing  activists. This had led to such superficially paradoxical
> > phrases as  "anti-mosque jihadists", so, in at least some instances,
> > there must have  been a degree of irony added to the term. The term
> > remains to be popular  with anti-Islam and anti-Arab activists,
> > however, so IMO the description  is still largely--but no longer
> > exclusively--true. More importantly, FNC  and other right-wing talking
> > heads have also adopted the term for other  groups they don't like,
> > e.g., animal-rights activists, opponents of  particular platform goals
> > or people (e.g., "anti-Walker jihadists"). The  transfer appears to
> > have dual purpose--it lumps all sorts of opposition  groups under one
> > catch-all term /and/, at the same lime, tags them as  radical-Islam
> > fellow-travelers. I will look for specific instances in  print, but my
> > observations have largely been made from TV and  radio.
> >
> > Some samples (I decided to find a few before  sending):
> >
> > http://goo.gl/JFG6m
> > Fiscal Jihadist, Free Spending Republicans  Punked the Tea Party
> > [01.22.11]
> >
> > http://goo.gl/QdXOD
> > Texas  Senate Honors Stealth Jihadist
> > [02.15.11]
> >
> > http://goo.gl/Ly554
> >  American Taxpayer, Financial Jihadist
> > [08.14.10]
> >
> > http://goo.gl/IzHLK
> >  American Taliban =97 The Republican Party Looks More Jihadist by the Day
> >  [02.05.10]  [note adjectival usage]
> >
> > http://goo.gl/z6d4n
> >  Jerkoff Jihadist Christine O=92Donnell Beats Off Challenger Mike Castle
> >  to Win Delaware Senate GOP Nomination
> > [09.14.10]
> >
> >
> >  Note that the last two are clearly aimed /at/
> >  conservatives/Tea-partiers/Republicans, the first is somewhat
> > ambiguous  (at least from the headline) and the rest are all written
> > from the  right-wing perspective. While this is not entirely
> > representative of the  distribution, it does reflect the range fairly
> > accurately.
> >  VS-)
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jonathan Lighter
> >  <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>  wrote:
> > ...
> > > But what of this?:
> > >
> > >  "..._Jihadist_, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are
> >  > vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam."
> > >
> > > Is this  true? Do I even detect sarcasm? Doesn't the note imply that the
> >  use
> > > of "jihadist" is an identifying mark of the racist and/or  religious
> > bigot?
> > >
> > > On what basis  specifically?
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The  American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
> --=20
> "If the  truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the  truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The  American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org