[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]



By "demographic," I meant to say in instances where it is in the interest of the group to identify itself with the group (i.e. Affirmative Action, claims to Zion, etc.).

As for the rest, I understand that the points that you make are valid--don't get me wrong.

It's just that when I see folks saying that some arbitrary distinction (i.e. conversion, etc.), I want to at least try to rebut it, because it's inane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this so hard? There are no affirmative action benefits to being a Jew, and there never have been. Quite the contrary. If you are talking about German reparations, those are claims for stolen property and wrongful death made by those whose property was stolen and the immediate heirs of the dead and despoiled, no different from the return of stolen property and wrongful death suits here in the United States. If you mean the foundation of the State of Israel and the right of return that all Jews have to Israeli citizenship, well, Israel is a sovereign nation formed, like many others, in the post-colonial period and as a sovereign nation has the right to grant citizenship according to its own rules. The US, for example, decides who can enter the country legally, reside and work here, and eventually gain citizenship. Conversion to Judaism is (a) no different than conversion to any other religion (the Catholics decide who gets to be Catholic by what process) and (b) analogous to naturalization, and again sovereign nations decide whom to naturalize and by what process. Nor is Israel unique in its foundation along religious lines during the post-WWII dismantling of empires. (See Pakistan and India, both of which are sovereign nations divided along religious lines which control their own borders and citizenship--and which are as much at each other's throats with the possibility of nuclear war as Israel and her Arab neighbors. Ditto the foundation of the Republic of Ireland and its relationship with Northern Ireland.)

Perhaps it is helpful to consider Jews as a tribe. As members of a tribe, Jews have shared DNA, culture (including language), history, and religion. I have a colleague who is one of the outstanding literary figures of Africa, perhaps the outstanding living African poet. He is Yoruba. He speaks Yoruba. He is related by blood to the other members of the Yoruba people. He participates in Yoruba culture and has been formed by Yoruba history. His very surname is derived from the name of one of the Yoruba gods, the water deity. His mother told him that his fate would be bound up with water--and recently he swam for his life through roof-high waters, losing the texts of 300 poems, representing a significant portion of his life's work. In addition to being Yoruba, he is a citizen of Nigeria, a native speaker of English, a legal resident of the US, and (I think) a practicing Christian. His situation is very similar to the situation of being a Jew. And it is up to the Yoruba to decide who is and isn't a member of the tribe.

There is never any benefit to be derived by identifying as a Jew. Being a Jew is a burden, and all too often a life-threatening burden. That is why Jews do not seek converts. There is no spiritual benefit to being a Jew: at the very least the Jew is burdened by adherence to the Law which others are not. This is why the rabbi is required to discourage a potential convert three times (Are you really sure you want to do this?) before proceeding through the conversion process. Despite the fact that being a Jew is all burden and no benefit, occasionally someone wishes to become Jewish, and that is provided for according to Jewish law and custom.

So, do you think that naturalization as an American citizen or conversion to Catholicism or being a Yoruba is inane? If not, why apply the term to Jews?

What I am seeing in this thread is the acceptance of an anti-Semitic stereotype that is so ingrained that people use it casually without even acknowledging or understanding that it is a stereotype. Reminds me of my mother-in-law who didn't much like African-Americans (true of many of her generation-she would have turned 100 this year). In her final year of employment--she was well into her 70s when she retired--she got herself into a brou-haha when she called a young African-American male co-worker a "boy." She had no clue that this was offensive, and she didn't understand why it was offensive even when it was explained to her. Her view of the "lesser" stature of African-Americans was so much second nature that she couldn't see it even though it was pointed out to her.