How Shiloh can they go?

If you think the Ivory Tower creeps are only trying to destroy Israel now, you'd be wrong. 

The bright lights of learning want to destroy Israel in the past as well. 

Out of curiosity regarding the famous 1982 Civil War battle of Shiloh, Tennessee, I looked up the name in Merriam-Webster, the #1 name in American dictionaries. I couldn't remember if it had two H's, believe it or not. But if you think I'm dumb, get a load of this:

I want to point out that Shiloh was NOT a village in ancient Palestine on the slope of Mount Ephraim. Shiloh was a village in ancient Israel. Shiloh was the site of a temple of the Israelites long before there was a temple in Jerusalem. That temple, says Chabad, stood for 369 years. It was in Samaria, but that was part of Israel in the iron age. And all this was long before the Romans stamped their name, Palestine, on this land in AD 135. In other words, Shiloh was founded 500 years before the area was called Palestine by its authorities, so calling this area "ancient Palestine" is ahistorical and should be an affront to Jewish people. 

(Webster's definition of the word Palestine doesn't make things any better.) 

The fun continues in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which owns Merriam-Webster: 

"Ancient city, Palestine" it says, and describes its founding thus. Interestingly, the "Shiloh" entry in the famous 1911 edition of the encyclopedia does not mention Israel -- but it doesn't mention Palestine either. Its description makes it clear that they are referring to a site belonging to the Israelites. 

"Ancient Palestine." Feh. When the editors of Britannica write about one of the native tribes in the Utah area, they don't say that they lived in "ancient Utah." They write that the Paiute, for example, "one time occupied what are now southern Utah, northwestern Arizona, southern Nevada, and southeastern California." But here they don't even say that Shiloh was in "what is now" Palestine; they infer that it was always Palestine. 

While it's true that the Greeks had used the term Palaistinê to refer to the area between Egypt and Phoenecia, that was not what the natives called it. And if you think native preferences don't matter to professorial types, then why is Canada putting aboriginal names to everything in sight? 

We see that it's not enough for the modern academic to want to wipe Israel off the map now; they want it expunged from history entirely. 

I suspect there will be some lame reasons given for their not calling the ancient homeland of the Jewish people Israel, but from what we hear out of academia these days, I would distrust it out of hand. Our universities and institutions of learning, including educational publishers, have not covered themselves in glory in the last forty years. In fact, they have proven themselves unworthy of our respect. 

They are incapable of acting as disinterested keepers of knowledge, and they don't even pretend to. Why would anyone trust them?