New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Cohen
in reply to a message by SJayne
What the heck is with all the hate of Cohen around here? I think Cohen sounds awesome and I think the Jewish association can be irrelevant if it is not meaningful for you. It sounds soft and still strong somehow.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
But what if it's meaningful and hurtful to someone else??
1
So what if Sophia is meaningful and hurtful to me, or a friend of mine, or my cousin's mother's nephew? The thing is, no matter what name you choose, people will have negative associations with it. Even with popular names like Alexander and Sophia.
1
I think I agree with this. When I made this post, I knew nothing about the name, I just heard it in passing and thought I'd ask people's opinions. In my country there was actually a child named Number 69 Bus Stop and I find that more offensive (to the child) than Cohen. Now that I know what Cohen means I still don't think it would bother me enough to not use it because most people where I live are so far removed from most things Jewish. Though we do have people of Jewish descent, a lot of them no nothing about anything Jewish anyway (not all of them though). I think it just depends on your context. There's probably heaps of names that we use that would seem weird or offensive to a small group in some part of the world but that's just how it is. It's like how Korean people will eat dogs, yet we find that horrific and inhumane because they're friends to us. It depends on your context and the society you were raised in. I'm fairly sure if I named my son Cohen (and I'm not likely to anyway), I can't imagine anyone where I live would be offended.
1
Nonsensical argument
1
No, not really.
You can't compare Cohen to Hitler, and really, it's JUST a name. So what if Jews doesn't use it themselves? Shouldn't stop anyone else from using the name. And if Cohen is offensive, shouldn't other religious names be that as well? I wouldn't be offended if anyone named their son Priest, and I wouldn't be offended if someone named their kid God either (even though I'm an Atheist). I think it's a bit stupid, but not offensive.
And besides, Cohen is a pretty common name nowadays.
You can't compare Cohen to Hitler, and really, it's JUST a name. So what if Jews doesn't use it themselves? Shouldn't stop anyone else from using the name. And if Cohen is offensive, shouldn't other religious names be that as well? I wouldn't be offended if anyone named their son Priest, and I wouldn't be offended if someone named their kid God either (even though I'm an Atheist). I think it's a bit stupid, but not offensive.
And besides, Cohen is a pretty common name nowadays.
1
At the risk of sounding dumb, ignorant, or rude, I think I'll make a bad decision and chime in here. I agree with your point about the use of Cohen being more stupid than offensive. "Offensive" seems like too intense of a word for this sort of thing, in my very humble opinion. I personally don't understand how people can become truly offended by the use of a name, and this all sort of reminds me of that kid whose named got changed from Messiah to something else because the judge was deeply offended.
Regardless of whether I think Jewish people should be offended or not, I'll remember not to use this name because I'm not interested in offending people or making anyone upset. I do definitely understand and respect the argument against Cohen that has been presented in this thread.
Regardless of whether I think Jewish people should be offended or not, I'll remember not to use this name because I'm not interested in offending people or making anyone upset. I do definitely understand and respect the argument against Cohen that has been presented in this thread.
1
You compared Cohen to Hitler! Twice now. I never did that, nor did anyone else on here. You also compared to to Sophia. Both comparisons were totally fallacious.
It's not just a name! It's a sacred title in a major religion. Sophia, on the other hand, is just a name. Of course you wouldn't be offended if someone named their kid Priest - you're an atheist, so you really can't speak on behalf of the people who might be offended. I am personally bothered by names like Priest (which is never used...) and Deacon (which is), but even they aren't as charged as Cohen.
A gentile using the name Cohen is ultimately okay, just like everything else is ultimately okay. It stinks nastily of ignorance and entitlement, and it is literally cultural appropriation. It is just as okay as ignorance, entitlement, and cultural appropriation are.
...Oh, sorry, there was a Hitler comparison. Well, that's just dumb. LOL
It's not just a name! It's a sacred title in a major religion. Sophia, on the other hand, is just a name. Of course you wouldn't be offended if someone named their kid Priest - you're an atheist, so you really can't speak on behalf of the people who might be offended. I am personally bothered by names like Priest (which is never used...) and Deacon (which is), but even they aren't as charged as Cohen.
A gentile using the name Cohen is ultimately okay, just like everything else is ultimately okay. It stinks nastily of ignorance and entitlement, and it is literally cultural appropriation. It is just as okay as ignorance, entitlement, and cultural appropriation are.
...Oh, sorry, there was a Hitler comparison. Well, that's just dumb. LOL
This message was edited 11/1/2013, 12:17 PM
1
This is what I was trying to get at further down.
1
Cohen is a title, but nowadays it's also a name. And people get offended way too easily, especially when it comes to religion.
I give up. I'm not even gonna try to make my point again.
I give up. I'm not even gonna try to make my point again.
1
Your point is totally clear. It's not really your business to declare whether other people are right to be offended. It's your business to take that knowledge and decide whether you're going to respect those people, or whether you feel entitled to be a jerk about it anyway.
1
There are so many religions and races, each with their own meaningful term, names, and phrases. I just feel like people should be reasonable enough to recognize that what is critically meaningful to them, may not hold meaning for someone else.
1
What's funny is, it only has ONE meaning. Cohen may not hold meaning for you - to you it's just another surname in the phone book, just as available and meaningless and spunky and spiffy as Chase or Ryker or Cooper or Mason - but if you're even slightly informed and in touch with the world around you, you're aware that it holds meaning for the people who bear the surname Cohen (none of whom seem to bear it as a personal name).
So what the heck would you be doing naming your kid it? You can't do it without deliberately dismissing the significance of the name to the people you're taking it from. It's a perfect example of cultural appropriation - a rare instance of relatively benign appropriation. I don't agree with blaaarg that there's a sense of entitlement or domination about it, because we're talking about Jews, and in the US, Jews basically thrive and are not generally marginalized. But still, it's potentially offensive, just because of the claim that that minority group's meanings don't matter, and can be forgotten or even interfered with by taking Cohen to be just another meaningless, imagey surname name.
I want to accept your argument that it's just a name and all that, and I do see the point. But it still boggles me that anyone non-Jewish would feel comfy using Cohen as their kid's first name. It's not just another surname name.
Imagine if this were a majority culture name, instead.
Stretch for a minute and imagine that Christianity was connected with an ethnicity, so a person could be ethnic Christian. Suppose Christianity had always had an inherited, God-ordained priesthood, people who were needed, according to the Christian Bible, to perform specific Christian rituals. (I know, it doesn't quite make sense, but just for the sake of argument) Suppose these priests are called Kythans, and all of them bear the surname Kythan, and Kythan etymologically means this special type of cleric. Everyone whose surname is Kythan can be assumed to be ethnic Christian and related somehow to the Kythan priesthood. It's the surname used for a family on TV, the Kythans, when the producers want to give a quiet clue to the clueful that the family is supposed to be a mainstream Christian family.
So what the heck would you be doing naming your kid it? You can't do it without deliberately dismissing the significance of the name to the people you're taking it from. It's a perfect example of cultural appropriation - a rare instance of relatively benign appropriation. I don't agree with blaaarg that there's a sense of entitlement or domination about it, because we're talking about Jews, and in the US, Jews basically thrive and are not generally marginalized. But still, it's potentially offensive, just because of the claim that that minority group's meanings don't matter, and can be forgotten or even interfered with by taking Cohen to be just another meaningless, imagey surname name.
I want to accept your argument that it's just a name and all that, and I do see the point. But it still boggles me that anyone non-Jewish would feel comfy using Cohen as their kid's first name. It's not just another surname name.
Imagine if this were a majority culture name, instead.
Stretch for a minute and imagine that Christianity was connected with an ethnicity, so a person could be ethnic Christian. Suppose Christianity had always had an inherited, God-ordained priesthood, people who were needed, according to the Christian Bible, to perform specific Christian rituals. (I know, it doesn't quite make sense, but just for the sake of argument) Suppose these priests are called Kythans, and all of them bear the surname Kythan, and Kythan etymologically means this special type of cleric. Everyone whose surname is Kythan can be assumed to be ethnic Christian and related somehow to the Kythan priesthood. It's the surname used for a family on TV, the Kythans, when the producers want to give a quiet clue to the clueful that the family is supposed to be a mainstream Christian family.
This message was edited 11/1/2013, 4:00 PM
1
I guess I didn't realize the one meaning was that evident to seemingly everyone. I didn't know what it meant. I didn't realize that everyone else did. So I see your point. If I really loved the name, I'd argue hard that it is pretty benign cultural appropriation, but yeah I see what you're saying.
I guess I get offended so little, that I am at risk of offending others just by nature; If the reverse situation you described doesn't really seem like it would offend me, than what's the harm. I tend to err on the side of what-floats-you-boat-might-not-float-mine-and-I-find-yours-odd-or-interesting-but-rarely offensive.
I guess I get offended so little, that I am at risk of offending others just by nature; If the reverse situation you described doesn't really seem like it would offend me, than what's the harm. I tend to err on the side of what-floats-you-boat-might-not-float-mine-and-I-find-yours-odd-or-interesting-but-rarely offensive.
1
Well said.
1
This!
1