New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Cohen
in reply to a message by kudriashkajo
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.
Now, Kythan sure sounds fashionable. It's like Kai, Ethan, Nathan, Caden ... and it's a high-visibility surname, at least as high-visibility as Ryder or Kennedy. So, is it cool to use it as your kid's first name if you're Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist? Sure ... but, weird? You wish your kid was a Kythan? You don't understand what a Kythan is? You're subtly claiming that Christian Kythan-hood has no real meaning? Whatever impression it gives, I think it's certain that the bearers of the first name being members of a different group does not completely divorce the name Kythan from the Kythans of Christianity. The name is still taken from Christianity and would not even exist without that meaning, so it can't HELP interacting with that meaning. Even IF little Kythan Rosenblatt's parents just saw the surname on TV and liked it, and have no idea. No one's an island.
Personally I don't think using Cohen ought to seem really offensive to anyone, but it is plainly, inarguably appropriation. The problem is that a person must have to have either no pride, no cultural savvy, or no sensitivity, in order to use it.
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.
Now, Kythan sure sounds fashionable. It's like Kai, Ethan, Nathan, Caden ... and it's a high-visibility surname, at least as high-visibility as Ryder or Kennedy. So, is it cool to use it as your kid's first name if you're Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist? Sure ... but, weird? You wish your kid was a Kythan? You don't understand what a Kythan is? You're subtly claiming that Christian Kythan-hood has no real meaning? Whatever impression it gives, I think it's certain that the bearers of the first name being members of a different group does not completely divorce the name Kythan from the Kythans of Christianity. The name is still taken from Christianity and would not even exist without that meaning, so it can't HELP interacting with that meaning. Even IF little Kythan Rosenblatt's parents just saw the surname on TV and liked it, and have no idea. No one's an island.
Personally I don't think using Cohen ought to seem really offensive to anyone, but it is plainly, inarguably appropriation. The problem is that a person must have to have either no pride, no cultural savvy, or no sensitivity, in order to use it.
This message was edited 11/1/2013, 4:00 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
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