McGrath, you miss the whole point of my argument, and I try to write what I mean.
Anti-Semitic is a term to describe anti-Jewish action by outsiders since the mid-19th century, as you point out. It was not meant to describe the actions of people against other groups of Semites, it was meant to soften rhetoric and actions against Jews, only. That has been the accepted definition [he says again] for about 150 years + or -.
In the last 20 years, or so, some anti-Semites (and some well-meaning but wrong people) have sought to broaden the definition to include others, primarily Palestinians . They do this so that they can say--as has been said by some at Mudcat--that they're not anti-Semitic because they have nothing against Palestinians who are Semites. That is disingenuous to say the least, and an out-and -out perversion of the term at worst.
And you bring up this Professor Massad who now wants to include Arabs in his self-serving definition of anti-Semitism so that Jews can now be considered anti-Semites. Well he can call a duck a cow, but unless the duck chews its cud, has four teats, and gives milk, it is not a cow. He can call a Jew who hates Arabs an anti-Semite, but unless Arabs are also Jews (and I suppose there are some), then he is guilty of being only of being anti-Arab. If Massad wants a fancy term, I suggest 'anti-Esauite'.
Prejudice, McGrath, no matter against whatever group is a vile thing to be resisted...agreed.
Your last paragraph is nonsequitur. Anti-black racism is not a special term, it is a descriptor. But to answer, if the brown people were the ones doing the including to be able to term blacks as anti-black racists, I would so object.
McGrath, I don't much think others are interested in our discussion here. Can we continue, if needs be, through pms?