Racist or not?...you make the call.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Warik, see LOL's post.

JWNED.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not here to defend anyone's position or champion anyone's cause, but let's be honest--any objective person who reads LOL's post can plainly see that she is positing that the rules as determined by the group in question (i.e. Jews) are definitive in this dialogue, and they are not.

The notion of race is not to be determined by the Talmud, the Torah, the Koran, or Mad Magazine. It is defined by science, which is not to be found in the texts mentioned.

What an odd exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

Race in the sense we have been discussing is a cultural concept, not a biological ('scientific') one. (There are other senses of 'race' which are scientific and are not relevant here.) For example, in the state of Louisiana where I spent most of my adult life, race is determined by law. Anyone who has just 1 of his/her 32 closest ancestors with genetic material deriving from a population originating in sub-Saharan Africa is, by law, black. Period. End of story. People who did not want to be classified as black have challenged this in court and lost--and that in recent years. It is not a thing of the distant past. From a biological point of view this is ridiculous. What does it mean to be black when only one of your 32 forebears is of African descent? It means that in Louisiana there are blonde, blue-eyed 'blacks' and red-haired, green-eyed, freckled 'blacks.' This is clearly a cultural, not a biological, concept.

Now, I would not call Jews a race. You totally missed the point. I was speaking of genetics in response to Warik who was deriding the possibility of a genetic component to Judaism. In fact, because for many millennia Jews have defined themselves as Jews by birth (without regard to whatever religion is eventually espoused) and have been endogamous, Jews form a distinct gene pool (breeding population) as evidenced by the appearance of certain genetic diseases, blood type patterns, and other commonalities of DNA. This would be more analogous to ethnicity, such as being Irish or Italian (which groups have both cultural and genetic ties), than to race. I am quite sure that when it comes to ticking off 'race' boxes all Ashkenazic Jews tick 'white' or Caucasian. I personally have the fairest skin imaginable, almost as fair as an albino, and very light eyes. What else would I check? (pace David Duke)

Jews have genetic ties, cultural ties, and religious ties. Christians and Muslims have only religious ties. Adherents of Christianity and Islam can be of any genetic and cultural background. Religion is their only shared feature.

To go back to the OP, "to jew down" is offensive because it applies a negative stereotype to a (minority) group. The terms 'race' and 'racist' are really irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well stated.

I would, however, like to more directly state what I now realize was my point.

Words like "culture," "race," and "ethnicity," while all mercurial, are not so elusive as to have been reduced to symbols denoting merely what those with an agenda choose to make of them.

When issues of sovereignty, reparations, tax exemption, and demographic are raised, the minority in question cannot be the determining body, for obvious reasons.

[InchoateHand]

I agree, but if there is no consensus amongst the majority (of which there is none on this matter), what else besides self-identification can you turn to?

And in legal matters, in many states, self-identification is all that matters.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
When issues of sovereignty, reparations, tax exemption, and demographic are raised, the minority in question cannot be the determining body, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were we talking about issues of sovereignty, reparations, tax exemption, and demographic (whatever you mean by that)? If so, I missed it. I was talking about genetics in response to Warik. Ashkenazic Jews form a distinct gene pool for reasons which I mentioned, and Sephardic Jews form a separate but related gene pool. Yes, there are 'Jewish' genes (like the dreaded Tay-Sachs gene), but there are no Christian or Muslim genes. This is a scientific fact--it is not a matter of a minority self-defining or self-identifying. I looked up the prevalence of Tay-Sachs, and the numbers I found were 1 in 25/30 Ashkenazic Jews is a carrier as opposed to 1 in 280 for Sephardic Jews and non-Jews (the incidence is considerably higher in French Canadians and Cajuns). There are a number of other nasty genetic disorders that occur primarily in Ashkenaizc Jews, and one, familial dysautonomia, that occurs ONLY in Ashkenazic Jews. This is science, not self-definition, or reparations or tax exemptions or whatever. So, there are "Jewish genes"--or at least one might put it that way. There are, of course, no Christian or Muslim genes in any sense. The reason that there are 'Jewish genes' is that the vast majority of Jews are born of Jewish mothers, and with a long history of endogamy, Jews have come to form a separate breeding population with outside genetic material introduced only relatively rarely, at least only rarely until the last couple of generations.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When issues of sovereignty, reparations, tax exemption, and demographic are raised, the minority in question cannot be the determining body, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were we talking about issues of sovereignty, reparations, tax exemption, and demographic (whatever you mean by that)? If so, I missed it. I was talking about genetics in response to Warik. Ashkenazic Jews form a distinct gene pool for reasons which I mentioned, and Sephardic Jews form a separate but related gene pool. Yes, there are 'Jewish' genes (like the dreaded Tay-Sachs gene), but there are no Christian or Muslim genes. This is a scientific fact--it is not a matter of a minority self-defining or self-identifying. I looked up the prevalence of Tay-Sachs, and the numbers I found were 1 in 25/30 Ashkenazic Jews is a carrier as opposed to 1 in 280 for Sephardic Jews and non-Jews (the incidence is considerably higher in French Canadians and Cajuns). There are a number of other nasty genetic disorders that occur primarily in Ashkenaizc Jews, and one, familial dysautonomia, that occurs ONLY in Ashkenazic Jews. This is science, not self-definition, or reparations or tax exemptions or whatever. So, there are "Jewish genes"--or at least one might put it that way. There are, of course, no Christian or Muslim genes in any sense. The reason that there are 'Jewish genes' is that the vast majority of Jews are born of Jewish mothers, and with a long history of endogamy, Jews have come to form a separate breeding population with outside genetic material introduced only relatively rarely, at least only rarely until the last couple of generations.

[/ 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.

[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.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
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?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I see that you are not even remotely objective on this topic.

Conversion to a religion and specification of race are utterly and absolutely different things which require no further conversation.

You seem to have done an awful lot of research on this topic, and seem to feel very strongly about your knowledge on the subject.

I hope that your inference that my "inability to undersatand" your points is "anti-semitic" is merely a product of your truly sincere beliefs on this topic.

Otherwise, I can only assume that your clearly disingenuous incredulity at my point that converting to a religion and specifying oneself as belonging to a race are utterly different things is the product of some form of insanity.

And I do not wish insanity upon anyone, even those with whom I disagree.

[InchoateHand]

Rushmore, what part of social constructionism don't you get?

Races are materially "real," how can they be anything more (or less) than a reflection of socially sanctioned knowledges? Including, god-forbid, self-identification or conversion?

The fact that you think Warik is "on point," shows how utterly clueless you are on this subject. That doesn't make you unique, but it does make you a moron.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Rushmore, what part of social constructionism don't you get?

Races are materially "real," how can they be anything more (or less) than a reflection of socially sanctioned knowledges? Including, god-forbid, self-identification or conversion?

The fact that you think Warik is "on point," shows how utterly clueless you are on this subject. That doesn't make you unique, but it does make you a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a first.

Ok, I never said that Warik was "on point." I merely responded when the kneejerk response to his position was seemingly without any merit whatsoever.

I can see how passionate you are on the subject, though, and have learned through the years that an objective discussion with a very passionate person is generally not readily available.

I will close my end of the discussion, though, by pointing out that it IS disingenuous for those with an agenda to feign incredulity at what is clearly a valid point (i.e. that scientific designation cannot ever be left to clearly subjective criterion).

That is all.

Moron, signing off.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I see that you are not even remotely objective on this topic.

Conversion to a religion and specification of race are utterly and absolutely different things which require no further conversation.

You seem to have done an awful lot of research on this topic, and seem to feel very strongly about your knowledge on the subject.

I hope that your inference that my "inability to undersatand" your points is "anti-semitic" is merely a product of your truly sincere beliefs on this topic.

Otherwise, I can only assume that your clearly disingenuous incredulity at my point that converting to a religion and specifying oneself as belonging to a race are utterly different things is the product of some form of insanity.

And I do not wish insanity upon anyone, even those with whom I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about insanity or wishing it on any one? I was quoting your use of the word inane. And now you claim that I am insane for disingenuously arguing something I never argued.

I have never said that Jews represent a 'race'. In fact, I said entirely the opposite. I myself check 'white' when I have to indicate race. There is no box to tick for Jew, nor should there be. I did say that Jews constitute a gene pool, a breeding population (actually two gene pools), and that is a scientific fact. In fact, 'race' is a cultural concept, not a biological or genetic concept, and since I have been talking about genetics, the term 'race'is irrelevant.

If you are going to argue with me, kindly read what I wrote and do not put ridiculous things into my mouth.

Because Jews are endogamous and matrilineal, when a woman converts to Judaism, her children are Jews (no matter who their father is), and traditionally those Jewish children would marry other Jews and produce Jewish children. That is how conversion intersects with genetics, the children of converts introducing new genetic material into the Jewish gene pool.

If we do talk about race (and for the umpteenth time, no matter how you define it, Jews are NOT a race), new genetic material is introduced into "races" by intermarriage/interreproduction, producing individuals like Tiger Woods whose forebears include Asians, Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans. It is, as he has pointed out, ridiculous to pigeonhole him into the black 'race', ignoring all of the rest of his genetic heritage. This is one of many reasons why race as a cultural concept is not a very useful one.

In traditonal Judaism (that is before the most recent assimilating generations), intermarriage was generally preceded by conversion, especially when the non-Jewish partner was female, so that the children would be considered Jewish and would then marry endogamously as the overwhelming majority of Jews did until recently. In the case of pregnancies caused by the rape of a Jewish woman by a non-Jewish man, there would of course not be a conversion, but the children would be Jews and would in almost all cases marry another Jew. In the case of a Jewish woman marrying a non-Jewish man, there was little pressure from the wife's family for conversion, since the children would in any case be Jewish.

You are the one inferring that I have implied that you are anti-Semitic. I have implied no such thing. You have constructed a strawman when you argued that converting to a religion and specifying a race are utterly different things--when I at least never said that they were the same thing at all.

Once and for all, Jews are a "tribe" (to use the best-fitting term I can think of) linked together by genetics, history, culture (including language), and religion. It is, however, not necessary to believe in God or to practice the religious rituals to be a Jew, since membership in the "tribe" is conferred by the mere fact of birth to a Jewish woman. It is possible to be "adopted" by the "tribe," and that is done through conversion which is a religious process and does imply willingness to practice the Jewish religion, something that is not required of those who are Jews by birth. This can be compared to the naturalization process by which people become US citizens. Candidates for naturalization have to pass certain tests about American history and government before they are naturalized, while native-born US citizens can be complete ignoramuses--and often are. Jews as a group--like any other group--decide who is a member and who is not.

I am not insane, and I do know what I am talking about, and you might want to brush up on your reading and writing skills.