5 ms·

Fwiw, in English using “Yiddish” to refer to a person or group rather than the language is not the preferred nomenclature, dude.

causi 4y ago
It's not uncommon to use "Yiddish" to refer to things that have a Jewish, especially Jewish-American, feel or aesthetic without necessarily saying they are ethnically or religiously Jewish.
- smogcutter 4y ago
  I disagree strongly, in particular I have almost never heard the word used outside the Jewish-American community, but perhaps our experiences here differ.
kristopolous 4y ago
That's the specifics of my intentions. The character traits are working class, Eastern European 1st or 2nd gen immigrant, Brooklyn and early 20th century mostly because that's where it came from during Vaudeville. What's notably absent there is "Jewish" because that actually has nothing to do with this character (although it's often included). The character is sarcastic, antagonizing, nosy, noisy, and arrogant. They want to be first but they're always last. Petty, self-important, unable to keep a secret and just a bit insufferable, they invite themselves over, make hasty and absurd judgments, and take center stage. A lot of classic characters are a stone's throw away from that. Take Millie Helper from the Dick Van Dyke show, the 1949-56 Goldbergs, Rhoda, even Maude from Harold where Maude is a brilliant hack of the character, Ethyl Mertz, Gladys Kravitz, Max Bialystock or Gilbert Gottfried who made his career playing this character. Rodney Dangerfield mostly assumed this character for his standup. They all rotate around some character gravity well with a couple things knocked around and provide a similar character dynamic for the story. You can see it in say Danny Devito's character in Twins, Edgar Bergen's dummies from Vaudeville, and borrowed selectively by the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges. Married with Children is another brilliant execution because the archetype is draped over multiple characters in various configurations. You can find earlier versions of the characters in Vaudeville acts like Smith and Dale or Gilbert Gottfried's predecessor Jimmy Durante which is arguably where the cultural mannerisms got linked in. You can see it in some of the characters of Out of the Inkwell cartoons by Fleischer and Fleischer (creator of Betty Boop) Call it whatever you want but it's not strictly Jewish and there's plenty of Jewish comedians that do not do that character such as Jon Stewart, Peter Sellers, Seth Rogan, Jack Black, Louis CK or Sascha Baron Cohen and any character can fit that archetype such as the parrot in Aladdin or Bugs Bunny. It's adjacent but distinct. Anyways I wasn't conflating the two
- smogcutter 4y ago
  This is missing the point. Your reply boils down to a very confident but absurd explanation that you’re using Yiddish to mean any character with enough “jewy” traits. You don’t even have to be a Jew to be a yid anymore! The problem isn’t that you’re “conflating the two”, in fact the offense comes from how you’re dividing them. You’re taking a word that literally means Jewish, and as a noun is almost always pejorative, and using it to mean “jew-y but not necessarily jew-ish”. I don’t know why you think that’s better, but it isn’t! I think there’s an underlying point where we’re passing each other by that there’s a real difference between something like “a character derived from the Yiddish theater” or even “an archetypal Yiddish character” and “The Yiddish Brooklynite”. The first two are drawing a connection between a character, a culture, and a theatrical condition. The second, your usage, is just labeling an archetype Yiddish in preference to labeling it Jewish. To try and be as clear as I can: I’m not sayin that these archetypes don’t exist (although I think you’re over-broad, as in your very confident mischaracterization of Rosie and subsequent goalpost-move), or are bad, or shouldn’t be used or talked about or whatever. What I’m saying, as a Jew (and perhaps speaking to another!) is please don’t use the word Yiddish to describe a person or group. You can just say Jewish! It’s fine! No one will think that you mean Jon Stewart and Larry David are playing the same character! Or even just Brooklynite, if you’re being honest with yourself about the character having nothing to do with Jewishness.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    You apparently know the origin is from Yiddish Theater. That's clearly what I was referring to. As far as Rosie goes, take it up with the scholarship. For example https://mpcaaca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Burrell-Race-Class-and-Rosey-the-Robot-Final-Draft.pdf https://mpcaaca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Burrell-Race-...
    - smogcutter 4y ago
      We're talking past each other. I understand your argument, and am saying that it's a poor one. You either do not understand why, which at this point must be my own fault, or do not care. I won't post further in this thread, as it's clearly not going anywhere. > You apparently know the origin is from Yiddish Theater. That's clearly what I was referring to. The problem, again, is that you weren't referring to it. You were labeling a character "Yiddish". This may seem to you like hair-splitting, but I assure you it's not. In English usage, the word Yiddish does not refer to a person. Full stop. The Yiddish Theater is so-called because it's the Yiddish-Language Theater, not because it's extra jew-ey. But look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't your coinage. Do you have a reference establishing "The Yiddish Brooklynite" as a common or accepted usage in the way you're deploying it? Maybe a book or article that uses the term to describe Bugs Bunny? Please post, I'm perfectly happy to be the schlimazel here. > As far as Rosie goes, take it up with the scholarship. For example Sure, fine. Considering she's a combo maid and maternal figure in a midcentury sitcom you can probably read aspects of Rosie that way. But again you're missing the point, which isn't that you were necessarily wrong. It's that your response to being challenged wasn't to engage with what the other poster was saying, or to argue your point, or even, as here, to type "jetsons mammy" into google scholar and link the first article that comes up. It was to dismiss the comment and continue bloviating in a different direction. This was also in substance the character of your response to me. It's an approach to discussion calibrated to earn points on HN, but not one, in my experience, that shows the interest or capacity to hear something from a different perspective.

causi 4y ago

It's not uncommon to use "Yiddish" to refer to things that have a Jewish, especially Jewish-American, feel or aesthetic without necessarily saying they are ethnically or religiously Jewish.

smogcutter 4y ago
I disagree strongly, in particular I have almost never heard the word used outside the Jewish-American community, but perhaps our experiences here differ.

kristopolous 4y ago

That's the specifics of my intentions. The character traits are working class, Eastern European 1st or 2nd gen immigrant, Brooklyn and early 20th century mostly because that's where it came from during Vaudeville. What's notably absent there is "Jewish" because that actually has nothing to do with this character (although it's often included). The character is sarcastic, antagonizing, nosy, noisy, and arrogant. They want to be first but they're always last. Petty, self-important, unable to keep a secret and just a bit insufferable, they invite themselves over, make hasty and absurd judgments, and take center stage. A lot of classic characters are a stone's throw away from that. Take Millie Helper from the Dick Van Dyke show, the 1949-56 Goldbergs, Rhoda, even Maude from Harold where Maude is a brilliant hack of the character, Ethyl Mertz, Gladys Kravitz, Max Bialystock or Gilbert Gottfried who made his career playing this character. Rodney Dangerfield mostly assumed this character for his standup. They all rotate around some character gravity well with a couple things knocked around and provide a similar character dynamic for the story. You can see it in say Danny Devito's character in Twins, Edgar Bergen's dummies from Vaudeville, and borrowed selectively by the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges. Married with Children is another brilliant execution because the archetype is draped over multiple characters in various configurations. You can find earlier versions of the characters in Vaudeville acts like Smith and Dale or Gilbert Gottfried's predecessor Jimmy Durante which is arguably where the cultural mannerisms got linked in. You can see it in some of the characters of Out of the Inkwell cartoons by Fleischer and Fleischer (creator of Betty Boop) Call it whatever you want but it's not strictly Jewish and there's plenty of Jewish comedians that do not do that character such as Jon Stewart, Peter Sellers, Seth Rogan, Jack Black, Louis CK or Sascha Baron Cohen and any character can fit that archetype such as the parrot in Aladdin or Bugs Bunny. It's adjacent but distinct. Anyways I wasn't conflating the two

smogcutter 4y ago
This is missing the point. Your reply boils down to a very confident but absurd explanation that you’re using Yiddish to mean any character with enough “jewy” traits. You don’t even have to be a Jew to be a yid anymore! The problem isn’t that you’re “conflating the two”, in fact the offense comes from how you’re dividing them. You’re taking a word that literally means Jewish, and as a noun is almost always pejorative, and using it to mean “jew-y but not necessarily jew-ish”. I don’t know why you think that’s better, but it isn’t! I think there’s an underlying point where we’re passing each other by that there’s a real difference between something like “a character derived from the Yiddish theater” or even “an archetypal Yiddish character” and “The Yiddish Brooklynite”. The first two are drawing a connection between a character, a culture, and a theatrical condition. The second, your usage, is just labeling an archetype Yiddish in preference to labeling it Jewish. To try and be as clear as I can: I’m not sayin that these archetypes don’t exist (although I think you’re over-broad, as in your very confident mischaracterization of Rosie and subsequent goalpost-move), or are bad, or shouldn’t be used or talked about or whatever. What I’m saying, as a Jew (and perhaps speaking to another!) is please don’t use the word Yiddish to describe a person or group. You can just say Jewish! It’s fine! No one will think that you mean Jon Stewart and Larry David are playing the same character! Or even just Brooklynite, if you’re being honest with yourself about the character having nothing to do with Jewishness.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kristopolous 4y ago
  You apparently know the origin is from Yiddish Theater. That's clearly what I was referring to. As far as Rosie goes, take it up with the scholarship. For example https://mpcaaca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Burrell-Race-Class-and-Rosey-the-Robot-Final-Draft.pdf https://mpcaaca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Burrell-Race-...
  - smogcutter 4y ago
    We're talking past each other. I understand your argument, and am saying that it's a poor one. You either do not understand why, which at this point must be my own fault, or do not care. I won't post further in this thread, as it's clearly not going anywhere. > You apparently know the origin is from Yiddish Theater. That's clearly what I was referring to. The problem, again, is that you weren't referring to it. You were labeling a character "Yiddish". This may seem to you like hair-splitting, but I assure you it's not. In English usage, the word Yiddish does not refer to a person. Full stop. The Yiddish Theater is so-called because it's the Yiddish-Language Theater, not because it's extra jew-ey. But look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't your coinage. Do you have a reference establishing "The Yiddish Brooklynite" as a common or accepted usage in the way you're deploying it? Maybe a book or article that uses the term to describe Bugs Bunny? Please post, I'm perfectly happy to be the schlimazel here. > As far as Rosie goes, take it up with the scholarship. For example Sure, fine. Considering she's a combo maid and maternal figure in a midcentury sitcom you can probably read aspects of Rosie that way. But again you're missing the point, which isn't that you were necessarily wrong. It's that your response to being challenged wasn't to engage with what the other poster was saying, or to argue your point, or even, as here, to type "jetsons mammy" into google scholar and link the first article that comes up. It was to dismiss the comment and continue bloviating in a different direction. This was also in substance the character of your response to me. It's an approach to discussion calibrated to earn points on HN, but not one, in my experience, that shows the interest or capacity to hear something from a different perspective.