View Full Version : Jews: Why the animosity towards them?
(Note: I suppose this could be considered more Backroom-ish material by some, so mods feel free to move this as you see fit.)
The title of this thread says it all, really. Why have the Jewish people been so persistently oppressed & persecuted throughout the centuries -- seemingly regardless of region, nation, or time period? I don't know if it's because I'm American or what, but I've always been utterly baffled as to why this is.
Jews are perhaps bit too succesfull integrating in their society's, very much the same but still a bit different, rituals and such. Gives them an aura of secret society's I guess.
I would assume the Christian's persecuted to Jews because they blamed them for the death of Jesus. I guess they were just an easy target. I'm sure there are other people with more insight.
Incongruous
02-26-2008, 09:08
I believe that many nobles used the Jews to take out loans and woul not pay them back, so to give that a sense of legitimacy they would claim that there was no need to pay them back as they were murderers of Christ and such. They would then provoke severe actions against them.
Is that why Edward expelled them?
Geoffrey S
02-26-2008, 09:30
I think what Bopa said is central to the matter. Jews took up the foremost place in early financial systems and moneylending, a potentially lucrative business upon which even kings were dependant. When things went pear-shaped for said kings, which they frequently did, and they couldn't/wouldn't pay back their loans it was considered far easier to expel the Jews in general.
What we learned in school was that they became rich due to the money lending and banking business and the christians weren't allowed to do that as it was considered sinful. Of course that made them rich heathens and many people were also jealous and jealousy can make people quite cruel...
Nobunaga
02-26-2008, 11:02
this is a hard question ~;) ~;p
Usurperstuff was then but there is also such a thing as now. And back then there was also more to it, massacres of jews in the plague-days for example.
DukeofSerbia
02-26-2008, 11:55
Economy
Majority of Jews were bankers [loans with abnormal interests] and traders not producers. It was forbidden to both Christians and Muslims to loan money with interests.
Religion
Jews were blamed for death of Jesus Christ.
Because of Talmud.
And
They refuses to be part of community/society were they lived.
Jews were targeted for the same reason any other group is targeted: they were a minority. Minorities make easy victims for group angst in times of stress. The unique aspect of the Jews was that they were a minority in every place they lived. Most minorities, whether religions, racial, ethic, or otherwise, had a homeland where they were the majority and would thus not face discrimination. That was not true for the Jews until the 20th Century. They were minorities everywhere, so they were vulnerable to persecution everywhere.
rotorgun
02-27-2008, 00:40
Your question got me thinking, and so I looked it up on this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism
It's a pretty scholarly article with many additional links provided. I had no idea that Antisemitism went back so far.
Meneldil
02-27-2008, 11:46
And
They refuses to be part of community/society were they lived.
That's simply not true anymore after the French Revolution, at least in France and western Europe.
Many great french thinkers/politicians in the late 19th/early 20th were jews. Most of them were also strong nationalists. Yet France was back then one of the most antisemitic country.
Ramses II CP
02-27-2008, 14:29
Any small, self selected group that holds itself apart in some substantial way from the majority of society is discriminated against and subject to animosity. This is the nature of humanity. Judaism is an especially well known example of this behavior because the Jewish meme is particularly successful at holding onto it's constinuency, while the members have, often as a tool of oppression, been repeatedly scattered across the face of the world to form small enclaves.
If you think about some of the recent tragedies in Africa, this is such a strong pattern that in cases where differences are extremely minor the populace deliberately exaggerates them to allow the discrimination behavior to occur.
:egypt:
Jews were not liked because they;
1) were slaver traders for muslims (in the dark age).
2) had powerful banking system into whole Europe (actually they were not alone - Italians were good rivals) but their cooperation was best
3) were hiring villages from nobles and became supervisors for peasants - then forced peasants to pay horrible taxes
4) cooperated with communists into XX century - many Jews were happily joining and supporting communism system.
In Poland most important were reason 3 and 4. Because of reason 3 many jews were being killed by ukrainian peasants during Chmielnicki uprising.
Into XX century they were not liked, because many Jews joined communist parties and fought against Poland into war with Russia at 1920 year.
Some Jews support Poland into that war, but most of them became neutral or supported Russia.
I would assume the Christian's persecuted to Jews because they blamed them for the death of Jesus. I guess they were just an easy target. I'm sure there are other people with more insight.
Sorry, but I do got to say something here. ;)
First of all, let me just point out that untill Christ's death there were no Christians. All who became Christian were Jews at that time. Secondly, it was not the "Jews" anymore than anyone else who killed Christ. It was EVERYONE in the world's collective sin that neccesitated His killing. The people who acted it out (jewish, pagan roman, etc) were just tools.
Now let me make an important distinction: Jewish Religion --- Jewish Race.
There is a massive difference between the two. While many deny that there is a Jewish Race (I should know that there is, as I am one :P), there actually is. Many of the Jews who were persecuted in Nazi Germany and now claim reperations (including one of my grandparents and her children) were strong Christians, but "Jewish" by race. Also, during the Inquisition, it was race more than religion that was being looked at. If you want more proof that there is a Jewish race, take the insults torward our Kingly noses :P (Which are actually quite attractive. And you English have no room to be talking, as you have notoriously big noses too!! :P lol), they are insulted for a reason. We really do have wider mouths and bigger noses, like many people who originated form the Middle East (including most Arabs). Keeping all that in mind, I think that it is pretty clear that there is a definate Jewish race. (though I am unaware of our origins in the Middle Period)
Now that we make the distinction, let's look at each seperately, then we can look at them collectively.
Let's start with Ancient times, directly after the death of Christ. During that time NO ONE had a thing against the Jews. The Christians really did not blame them for killing Christ (and if you read your Bible you will see this, they attribute it to "us", meaning all people collectively).
What happened though is that Jews (meaning religion, not race. Many of the Jews I am talking about were Middle Eastern, European, African, etc in desent) felt themselves losing power as the Christian religion got more followers, and they thought that Christians were blasphemous. They then start commiting attrocities against the Christians and Romans. The Romans later on eventually started persecuting the Christians as well.
For that part (the ancient history), you need look no further than Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, one of the most trusted sources in the world. (also one of my personal favorites)
In response to the attrocities the Jews were commiting, the Romans made several huge and indiscriminant slaughters.
Jews became "outcasts" in many senses (and this is arguable), and had to form their own societies inside of societies, since there were no longer any solid Jewish societies.
I believe that is one of the reasons that they were viewed as "dark" by many people. Indeed they did "dark" and attrocious things (as peoples of all religions and without religions have), and when they did, it was used as more proof to cement people's view of them.
Another thing that could have attributed to their image (and this has already been touched on) is that many of them were merchants who turned to "usurery" (which is the old way of saying money-lending, in other words what modern banks do).
Why this is I do not know, maybe because of their outcast position in society, maybe just the way things turned out.
Money corrupts though, and some of these lenders became notorious for confinscating everything from, and even torturing the people who could not pay back their loans. Which isn't to say that all Jews did this (or Jewish lenders), or that non-Jewish money-lenders didn't, but the point is that the Jews got an image from it. (as unfair as it may be)
This is one of the reasons that during the Medieval times and up they were looked down on.
As far as the "race" of Jews, it simply is the decendants of the tribe of Judah (or -arguably- the decendants of one who came from Jerusalem).
The actual "race" of Jews were not the subject of persecutions untill the late Medieval period when (to escape persecution) Jews started claiming to be Christians when they were not. The Jewish "race" identified strongly with the Jewish religion and had the same name...lines were blurred and people of the Jewish "race" were from there on also subject to persecution.
That is where the seperation ends and you have to talk about them collectively. From then on if you were not of the Jewish "race", but of the Jewish religion, or if you were not of the Jewish religion, but of the Jewish "race", you were suspect. Given the seperate aspect of Jewish culture (the "dark", "mysterious" aspect), and the rep that Jews had gotten, it is easy to see how people like Hitler could have used them as scapegoats. ("Stab in the Back")
If you had asked why the Irish were the subject of centuries of persecution, the answer would have simply been "They were the small people, and the Giants wanted their land", but with my people (I actually have both Irish and Jewish blood in me:P, but I am referring to Jewish), the answer is more complicated.
Hope this makes sense. It is a very sensitive issue (even to me), so it is hard to really research it, but to understand the present, you gotta go REALLY far back sometimes.
Vuk
P.S. Hope history or my views didn't offend anyone. If you are Jewish, look at the source I suggested and read a bit more about it, if you are Irish...face it, it was a tiny country ~;).
Spartan198
02-28-2008, 02:44
Jews are really good with money? Wow,I always thought that was a racial stereotype...
Well,irregardless,I have nothing against anyone,no matter the religion,unless they try to push their faith on me.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-28-2008, 02:52
Jews are really good with money? Wow,I always thought that was a racial stereotype...
Not more so than anyone else who has the inclination to learn, but Christians were not allowed to bank in this sense, and it was one of the few good jobs available to Jews at the time. That's where the stereotype developed.
I've always disliked that the Jews are called a race instead of a religion. A German or American convert with no basis on their ethnicity. Besides, even Jews in the ultimate sense of the word are Israelites and Hebrews.
Anyways, just my little rant.
Politically Correct Disclaimer: I have nothing against any race, religion, creed, cult (except Scientology), etc., etc., etc. that has existed or may ever exist in the future, etc., etc., etc.
Not more so than anyone else who has the inclination to learn, but Christians were not allowed to bank in this sense, and it was one of the few good jobs available to Jews at the time. That's where the stereotype developed.
I've always disliked that the Jews are called a race instead of a religion. A German or American convert with no basis on their ethnicity. Besides, even Jews in the ultimate sense of the word are Israelites and Hebrews.
Anyways, just my little rant.
Politically Correct Disclaimer: I have nothing against any race, religion, creed, cult (except Scientology), etc., etc., etc. that has existed or may ever exist in the future, etc., etc., etc.
lol, as offensive as you may find it, there is and always has been a "race" of Jews in people's minds, whether it exsists in actuallity or not.
Jews are really good with money? Wow,I always thought that was a racial stereotype...
Well,irregardless,I have nothing against anyone,no matter the religion,unless they try to push their faith on me.
lol, the Jews have certainly had more "experience" throughout history than anyone else, lol. It is a steryotype if you are judging an individual by that. For instance, I would be a very poor example as I have always had a below average income even with several degrees. :P (and it is not through lack of work)
Vuk
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-28-2008, 03:03
lol, as offensive as you may find it, there is and always has been a "race" of Jews in people's minds, whether it exsists in actuallity or not.
Why would I be offended? :inquisitive:
Do I sense a racial stereotype? ~;)
Zajuts149
02-28-2008, 03:12
I think it's basicallly because they wouldn't lie down and they wouldn't assimilate. So many peoples have been annihilated through genocide, persecutions and the fact that they were just gobbled up by a superior culture. In ancient times, most peoples religion was Polytheistic, ie they believed that there were many gods and deities. There were bigger gods and smaller gods. It was usual to honour local gods, even if they were not your god, because you wouldn't like a gods wrath upon you. These superstitions were common. The Jews were monotheistic, and channeled their superstition away from all deities except one. Naturally, those whose god didn't get respect were a little miffed :yes:
The Jews kept their one god through all adversity, and that kept them from being assimilated into greater cultures, such as the Egyptian, Persian and Roman. After the Jews were cast out of Palestine and Judea, they became strangers everywhere they went. And nobody likes strangers, right?:laugh4:
The main difference between the Jews and other persecuted minorities through the ages, is that the Jews are still around. They have a sense of their "Jewishness". Weaker cultures have just succumbed to the pressure.
PS. I find the notion of a Jewish "race" utterly racist and despicable. As far as I'm concerned, The only race that matters is the human race.
Why would I be offended? :inquisitive:
Do I sense a racial stereotype? ~;)
PS. I find the notion of a Jewish "race" utterly racist and despicable. As far as I'm concerned, The only race that matters is the human race.
That answer your question? :P
As for you Zajuts, as much as you disagree with it, to many people ones heritage is extremely important they classify and judge everyone by that. For that reason it is important to realize that if we are to understand WHY people do things. See what I mean?
I think it's basicallly because they wouldn't lie down and they wouldn't assimilate. So many peoples have been annihilated through genocide, persecutions and the fact that they were just gobbled up by a superior culture. In ancient times, most peoples religion was Polytheistic, ie they believed that there were many gods and deities. There were bigger gods and smaller gods. It was usual to honour local gods, even if they were not your god, because you wouldn't like a gods wrath upon you. These superstitions were common. The Jews were monotheistic, and channeled their superstition away from all deities except one. Naturally, those whose god didn't get respect were a little miffed :yes:
The Jews kept their one god through all adversity, and that kept them from being assimilated into greater cultures, such as the Egyptian, Persian and Roman. After the Jews were cast out of Palestine and Judea, they became strangers everywhere they went. And nobody likes strangers, right?:laugh4:
The main difference between the Jews and other persecuted minorities through the ages, is that the Jews are still around. They have a sense of their "Jewishness". Weaker cultures have just succumbed to the pressure.
PS. I find the notion of a Jewish "race" utterly racist and despicable. As far as I'm concerned, The only race that matters is the human race.
What you said about polytheistic and monotheistic religions and their effects on the Jews is very incorrect. The people who believed in polytheistic religion fought with each other as much as anyone else. And don't forget the attrocities that Jews commited against Christians. In Greece they 220,000, and in Cyprus 240,000 Christians were tortured and killed by Jews because of their religion. Is that what their religion taught? No. Is that a genetic trait? No.
Point being, people are people, and people do horrible things to each other. Polythiestic or monothiestic, it doesn't matter, people still stink just as bad.
As I said, I think that the main reason for their persecution was because of memory (no matter how distorted) of bad things they had done in the past, and because rather than having a country, they lived in societies in other countries which caused mistrusted.
Is it rational to hate or distrust a person because they happen to be a Jew? Not at all. Does that mean that he/she is any different than anyone else? (except our sexy English noses ~;)) No.
You have to judge people as individuals, but people don't do that. The human mind categorizes people and there is not much that can be done about it, lol.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-28-2008, 04:37
to many people ones heritage is extremely important
And rightly so, but the heritage of my religion and the heritage of my ethnicity are two things I believe are very seperate.
I mean, really, 3/4 Prussian and a Catholic? I might be lynched! :laugh4:
That answer your question? :P
No
And rightly so, but the heritage of my religion and the heritage of my ethnicity are two things I believe are very seperate.
I mean, really, 3/4 Prussian and a Catholic? I might be lynched! :laugh4:
No
I know that they are seperate things, and in fact, that was one of my main points. If you re-read my first post you will see that.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-28-2008, 04:49
I know that they are seperate things, and in fact, that was one of my main points. If you re-read my first post you will see that.
And I do not believe a Jewish race exists. I believe races exist that have a mainly Jewish religion, which is true enough, but I don't think Jews are a race, simply enough. I hold them in the same esteem as I hold any other religion.
And I do not believe a Jewish race exists. I believe races exist that have a mainly Jewish religion, which is true enough, but I don't think Jews are a race, simply enough. I hold them in the same esteem as I hold any other religion.
Good for you, but there are many Jews who would disagree with you. Many Jews believe themselves as the sole decendants of Shem and the house of Judah. I myself am not sure I believe this as so many lines have gotten crossed along the way, but it is very sensitive and important to some. And to some, it is a source of hate. For that reason it is important to reconginize it.
Jewish race does not exist and never existed. Jews are same race like Arabs.
Of course some of them believe that they are better race - but its just a racism.
Oleander Ardens
02-28-2008, 13:20
Well from my personal experience jews have a great diversity in skin, eyes and hair colour ranging from black ethopians to blonde and blue northeuropean. So de facto their are a mishmash of certain groups of our human race which happen to have similar cultures and one religion. Actually I read some studies that genetic groups of a certain spectrum of the jewish humans are far more related to the islamic humans called palestinians.
Cheers
OA
Well from my personal experience jews have a great diversity in skin, eyes and hair colour ranging from black ethopians to blonde and blue northeuropean. So de facto their are a mishmash of certain groups of our human race which happen to have similar cultures and one religion. Actually I read some studies that genetic groups of a certain spectrum of the jewish humans are far more related to the islamic humans called palestinians.
Cheers
OA
lol, again, you are confusing the concet of race and religion.
Wether or not there is a seperate Jewish "race" or not is irrelevant, what is important is that the concept exists and Jews believe it. Both Jews and Arabs claim to be the decendants of Shem, and who cares if neither of the are or they both are? (Other than them obviously :P)
Point is that they both believe it and people classify that "race" of people as "Jews".
The question asked was "Jews: Why the animosity towards them?"
Therefore people's concepts "true or not" are the most imortant factor. Whether they are correct or not is an entirely different debate (one I am not sure about and will not be dragged into).
Point is, Hitler thought that there was a race of Jews; my Grandmother thinks there is a race of Jews. It is a concept that is prevelant among most of the population and has been for thousands of years. That is how it helps answer the question.
I've always disliked that the Jews are called a race instead of a religion. A German or American convert with no basis on their ethnicity. Besides, even Jews in the ultimate sense of the word are Israelites and Hebrews.
PS. I find the notion of a Jewish "race" utterly racist and despicable. As far as I'm concerned, The only race that matters is the human race.
Jewish race does not exist and never existed. Jews are same race like Arabs.
Of course some of them believe that they are better race - but its just a racism.
As a Jew myself, I find the above interesting. Certainly, there is no single race of Jews. However, I very much identify myself on an ethnic basis as a 'Jew.' In fact, I consider myself a Jew, even though I'm an atheist. I am a Jew, but I am not Jewish. Given that fact, if it is not my religion that identifies me as a Jew, then it is a cultural and ethnic background. In my particular case, I am an Ashkenazi Jew. This is one of the two major Jewish groups in the world today, with the other being Sephardic. The Ashkenazis have a historic origin from central and eastern Europe and are the traditional Yiddish speakers known so well from history and modern comedy. This is true for my Jewish family history as well, which originated from Austria and Poland.
My family largely originated in America in New York City and I have several relatives who are the living embodiment of the New York Jew stereotype. It is not a criticism, it is simply reality. Based on what I have experienced in my life as a Jew, there is as much to classify me as a member of the Jewish race as there is to classify anyone else as a member of the African race. My family demonstrates several consistent and prominent physical features that identify them (large noses, dark hair). This seems to me to be no different than having a different skin tone. They also have cultural traditions that differentiate them from other Caucasians.
If these things do not differentiate us as a different race, what makes a race? Also, it seems like many people equate the term "race" with a negative connotation. Why is that? Simply saying someone is from a different race does not make them inferior in any way. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging our physical and cultural differences.
MilesGregarius
02-28-2008, 15:55
If these things do not differentiate us as a different race, what makes a race?
Well, there is the argument that there is no such thing as "race", and that it is merely a social construct. Therefore, race can be defined in almost anyway one chooses. Few, if any, refer to "an English (or French or German) race" anymore, but it wasn't uncommon in the 19th Century to do so.
In this particular case race, religion, and culture all overlap. One can be a Jew by any one of the above or by any combination thereof.
As a Jew myself, I find the above interesting. Certainly, there is no single race of Jews. However, I very much identify myself on an ethnic basis as a 'Jew.' In fact, I consider myself a Jew, even though I'm an atheist. I am a Jew, but I am not Jewish. Given that fact, if it is not my religion that identifies me as a Jew, then it is a cultural and ethnic background. In my particular case, I am an Ashkenazi Jew. This is one of the two major Jewish groups in the world today, with the other being Sephardic. The Ashkenazis have a historic origin from central and eastern Europe and are the traditional Yiddish speakers known so well from history and modern comedy. This is true for my Jewish family history as well, which originated from Austria and Poland.
My family largely originated in America in New York City and I have several relatives who are the living embodiment of the New York Jew stereotype. It is not a criticism, it is simply reality. Based on what I have experienced in my life as a Jew, there is as much to classify me as a member of the Jewish race as there is to classify anyone else as a member of the African race. My family demonstrates several consistent and prominent physical features that identify them (large noses, dark hair). This seems to me to be no different than having a different skin tone. They also have cultural traditions that differentiate them from other Caucasians.
If these things do not differentiate us as a different race, what makes a race? Also, it seems like many people equate the term "race" with a negative connotation. Why is that? Simply saying someone is from a different race does not make them inferior in any way. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging our physical and cultural differences.
You are completely correct about that, and you are also the first person I have ever met (who was not Jewish) who actually knew about the distinction between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. I too am from an Ashkenazi heritage. (Which is where i get my kingly nose :P)
Most people aren't educated enough/don't care enough to ever study Jews enough to even realize that there are ethinic differences. They instead teach only the attrocities committed against the Jews and leave the rich (no pun intended) Jewish culture and history out entirely. And they wonder where the stereotype of Jews whining about their past comes from...(and yes, that is one I get all the time. :P)
Well, there is the argument that there is no such thing as "race", and that it is merely a social construct. Therefore, race can be defined in almost anyway one chooses. Few, if any, refer to "an English (or French or German) race" anymore, but it wasn't uncommon in the 19th Century to do so.
In this particular case race, religion, and culture all overlap. One can be a Jew by any one of the above or by any combination thereof.
Race does not mean that one person is inferior or superior to another, but it does exist. There are basic biological differences that now even allow for them to determine people's race by their DNA.
It is hard to argue that Native Africans have darker skin than the "Caucasian".
They are real biological differences, and for the most part effect nothing more than minor facial differences, stature (which is actually a sub-race variable and not directly controlled by race), and defense against diseases.
People find it easy to ignore people's differences and deny that there is such a thing as race, than to accept and celebrate it.
And here we have another reason.
Today Israeli wice minister of defense threaten Palestinians, that Israel will make them great holocaust. When we will connect it with official Israeli politics, which is explained by "because we suffered holocaust and we have to defend ourselves" - knife is opening itself into pocket.
Adrian II
02-29-2008, 10:10
Most Jews never were rich or powerful. Ninety percent of Jews have lived in poverty throughout modern history.
When Jews were a nation with a territory, they perpetrated their own massacres (read your Bible).
As soon as they lost it and were dispersed, they became everyone's favourite butt of contempt, for whatever reason best suited the moment.
And because Jews stuck doggedly to their religion, their rituals and their tradition of (intellectual) learning, they were the only minority about whose deviousness both the elites and underclasses could always concur.
Tribesman
02-29-2008, 10:26
As a Jew myself, I find the above interesting. Certainly, there is no single race of Jews. However, I very much identify myself on an ethnic basis as a 'Jew.' In fact, I consider myself a Jew, even though I'm an atheist. I am a Jew, but I am not Jewish.
That reminds me of Phil Green and Fred Lieberman .
Spartan198
03-01-2008, 10:40
The only race that matters is the human race.
Agreed. I mean,why do we have to divide the world into black,white,arab,etc.? We're all human. That's where I leave it.
To me,it doesn't matter what color you are,what Higher Power you believe in,etc.. If you treat me with respect,I'll treat you with respect. That's my mentality and it won't change.
Nice to have people that can discuss these things in an intelligent and unbiased manner. :yes:
Agreed. I mean,why do we have to divide the world into black,white,arab,etc.? We're all human. That's where I leave it.
To me,it doesn't matter what color you are,what Higher Power you believe in,etc.. If you treat me with respect,I'll treat you with respect. That's my mentality and it won't change.
Nice to have people that can discuss these things in an intelligent and unbiased manner. :yes:
I too am glad that people can discuss things in an intelligent and unbiased manner, but may I ask you, what is wrong with acknowledging peoples' differences?
All I gotta do is look in a mirror to see that I am different from many other people. This to me is a source of my pride and individuality, not shame. I respect people from other races just as much as I'd respect someone who looked just like me, but I am not ashamed of my differences so much that I have to deny them.
Really, think about what you are saying, why should a black guy be ashamed of his race and who he is so much that he has to deny that he has a different race. How does that make him feel?
Though you may not be thinking of it that way, it is simply an easy way to get out of acknowledging and therefore respecting other's differences. You surely cannot respect them if you do not acknowledge them.
Vuk
Noncommunist
03-01-2008, 16:33
Agreed. I mean,why do we have to divide the world into black,white,arab,etc.? We're all human. That's where I leave it.
Even though we do often discriminate based on skin color, it's not like we were definitely going to do so as we don't discriminate based on whether someone's earlobes are attached or unattached and rarely on eye color. We just have to make skin color as insignificant as eye color.
Even though we do often discriminate based on skin color, it's not like we were definitely going to do so as we don't discriminate based on whether someone's earlobes are attached or unattached and rarely on eye color. We just have to make skin color as insignificant as eye color.
Is it anymore so? Look at the different white people and all their differences. The ancient Germans hated the Romans, so they called them short and dark haired, and the ancient Romans made fun of the Germans for being tall and blonde/red haired.
When people hate people, they use everything they can to justify it, including any physical differences.
When I went to camp as a kid, I used to be made fun of cause I was tall...by the same people who made fun of my friend for being short.
It doesn't have to do with acknowledging differences, but with justifying your hate with them.
I acknowledge the difference between me and my GF (who I probably think more highly of than anyone I know). I am tall and have dark hair and skin, she is VERY short and has red hair and pale skin. (and I think she is the most beautiful girl in the world)
You know when bullies pretend that they do not see a kid they do not like, and won't talk to him, and ignore him? That is what you are doing to people of another race when you do not acknowledge their race - image how they feel.
Vuk
We just have to make skin color as insignificant as eye color.
And yet the color of your eyes was an important factor in determining whether you were part of the Nazi's superior 'Aryan' race. There is no physical feature on the human body which is exempt from discrimination. We discriminate against other people for reasons entirely separate from physical appearance. The appearance simply becomes a convenient method of differentiating the 'good' from the 'bad.' If there is no obvious physical feature to use, like skin color, less significant aspects then become the target of derision.
And yet the color of your eyes was an important factor in determining whether you were part of the Nazi's superior 'Aryan' race.
Reminds me of a movie I think to have seen years ago.
It was about a Jewish boy in Nazi Germany and he was trying to blend in to survive.
There was a scene with a teacher in the class and he was talking about the anatomical differences, skull measurements, what made a real Arier and that he would immediately see who wasn't one. Then he slowly walked down the class and stopped at our boy: "Now look at him'. ... "While he doesn't have blue eyes, he's a real Arier, he's brown eyes like our Fuhrer'.
Reminds me of a movie I think to have seen years ago.
It was about a Jewish boy in Nazi Germany and he was trying to blend in to survive.
There was a scene with a teacher in the class and he was talking about the anatomical differences, skull measurements, what made a real Arier and that he would immediately see who wasn't one. Then he slowly walked down the class and stopped at our boy: "Now look at him'. ... "While he doesn't have blue eyes, he's a real Arier, he's brown eyes like our Fuhrer'.
LOL! And the funny thing about it is, that the "Fuhrer" was so wrong about himself and his origins. The Germans and white people were not desendants of Aryans at all, and Hitler himself may very well have been Jewish. :P I wonder what he would have done if he woke up one morning and found that out. "ARRGHH! I am an evil Jew trying to ruin your country and people! A stab in the back! Lock me in a concentration camp and burn me!!" :laugh4:
lol, fun being poked here was at the short guy with the mustache, not supposed to cheapen or make fun of what the Jews went through in WWII. :P
EDIT: I learned where the word "Fuhrer" comes from in my german class today. The german verb "to lead" is "Fuhren". It was turned into a noun and became "Fuhrer". lol
All I gotta do is look in a mirror to see that I am different from many other people. This to me is a source of my pride and individuality, not shame. I respect people from other races just as much as I'd respect someone who looked just like me, but I am not ashamed of my differences so much that I have to deny them.
Really, think about what you are saying, why should a black guy be ashamed of his race and who he is so much that he has to deny that he has a different race. How does that make him feel?
Vuk
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but otherwise, no one should be proud not of his colour, or race, not even if he has a very handsome face. nor should one be ashamed of it. It should not be a factor in anything. If one has to be proud it should be for what he has done in his life, and his deeds.
Far as discrimination is concerned, even talking about a race of people specifically is discrimination........I mean it's like considering them different from others.
That is one reason reservations for minorities are incorrect......when you make reservations, you do it to aid that class, but you are also putting them apart from others......
Edit : What movie was it?
And here we have another reason.
Today Israeli wice minister of defense threaten Palestinians, that Israel will make them great holocaust.
A rather unfortunate translation-error, 'shoah' means 'disaster' in Hebrew. And he did say that, shoah, but the media doesn't seem very interested in correcting this error.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but otherwise, no one should be proud not of his colour, or race, not even if he has a very handsome face. nor should one be ashamed of it. It should not be a factor in anything. If one has to be proud it should be for what he has done in his life, and his deeds.
Why not? I am a white person and I am proud of being white because of the acomplishement of 'my' people and the world we created for ourselves, why shouldn't a jew be proud to be a jew, or an Indian to be an Indian?
Hello asj_india,
..Perhaps I misunderstand you, but otherwise, no one should be proud..
It's the degree I think? Proud as in happy with/content being a good/harmless thing, and thanks to the powers that be I'm not .., as that is so inferior, being a bad thing.
One can enjoy pasta without thinking milk is disgusting?
Edit : What movie was it?
Sorry, I don't know. I think I was zapping the television and saw part of the movie. I only recall another part where he was older and in some sort of Hitler Jugend camp. It became difficult to keep the blend in act up there.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-03-2008, 16:37
LOL! And the funny thing about it is, that the "Fuhrer" was so wrong about himself and his origins. The Germans and white people were not desendants of Aryans at all, and Hitler himself may very well have been Jewish. :P
It is a fact that he was probably a quarter Jewish, through his grandmother. He had to have known it too - I wonder what made men like Reinhard Heydrich (half Jewish, to my knowledge) do things that they did to people of their own religion?
It's an interesting discussion, to be sure.
The movie TosaInu is talking about is Europa Europa (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099776/), the true story of a Jewish boy who survived by pretending to be a true-blood German. He even joined the Hitler Youth. A fabulous and moving story.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but otherwise, no one should be proud not of his colour, or race, not even if he has a very handsome face. nor should one be ashamed of it. It should not be a factor in anything. If one has to be proud it should be for what he has done in his life, and his deeds.
Far as discrimination is concerned, even talking about a race of people specifically is discrimination........I mean it's like considering them different from others.
That is one reason reservations for minorities are incorrect......when you make reservations, you do it to aid that class, but you are also putting them apart from others......
Edit : What movie was it?
People should be proud of what and who they are, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is really quite hard (if not impossible) to view something in complete neutrality, humans just don't do that. They always like to put a degree tag on something (and there is not necessarily anything wrong with this). For at least most people they are either proud/"satisfied" with themselves, or in some way feel shame and reproach.
There is a different between "proud" and "hotty" you see. Being proud like all other things can be done in a bad way, but does not have to be.
And is there something wrong with discrimination? Most people don't think about it, but they discriminate all the time. If we didn't, we couldn't live. What gives things meaning is how we think of them in relation to other things, ie how different we percieve them. I like red or black hair on girls more than blonde or brunette, so what? That is discrimination, does it hurt the girls? No. I can like and respect blonde and brunette girls just as much as girls with black or red hair. (In fact, first real GF had blonde hair)
Discrimination is natural and not bad at all. What can be bad is the choices you make based on your discrimination.
To give one more cheesy example:
I see a blonde girl, I notice that she is different from the girl beside her with red hair.
No think, have I done anything wrong? Have I hurt her? No, but I did discriminate.
Now suppose that I go up to her start telling her blonde jokes and make her cry. What that I did was wrong? It was the choices that I made based on discrimination, NOT discrimination.
My discrimination did not hurt her or lower my opinion of her at all.
To kinda close a lengthy arguement, which do you prefer, Pepsi or Coke?
(Yes, that is a trick question)
A rather unfortunate translation-error, 'shoah' means 'disaster' in Hebrew. And he did say that, shoah, but the media doesn't seem very interested in correcting this error.
I do not agree with how the Israeli government is handling the situation OR with the what the Palestinians have been doing. Coming from an isolated stand point and at the risk of offending someone, it all seems pretty barbaric.
Just want to let you know that the State of Isreal is not representive of Jews. There are ten times the number of Jews in NYC than in Isreal, and many Jews do not agree with Zionism.
(I myself agree with some aspects, but not others)
Point being that "Jews" as an entity cannot be judged by the desicions that a select few in the National Israeli government make.
It is a fact that he was probably a quarter Jewish, through his grandmother. He had to have known it too - I wonder what made men like Reinhard Heydrich (half Jewish, to my knowledge) do things that they did to people of their own religion?
It's an interesting discussion, to be sure.
Many (as in about 3/4) of Hitler's top aids and government officials were Jewish. This could be because they wanted to get a high place in the government and conceal their identity, to try and counter some of the wrong that the Nazis were doing. Unfortunately this theory cannot apply to all as some were directly responsible for the horrors done to other Jews.
I have read countless theories about this in a class last year, and all I can say is that I have no idea in hell. :P
Let me just say this though, to attribute it to the entity "Jews" would be very inaccurate and ignorant. You have people of all races, nationalities, and religions who have done good and bad. To attribute the actions of a group of evil people to a race/religion/etc wide "conspiracy" is absurd. You can just as easily say that all whites are bad because a lot (most) of Nazis were white. We know that there were good whites inside Germany and certainly in allied countries who were shocked at what was done, and we also know the same about Jews.
Individuals make their own choices, and cause some whites and jews decided to murder jews means only that THOSE white and jews were wrong/evil/whatever you wish to call it. In fact, if the Jews (like Hitler) responsible you the attrocities really believed what they said about Jews (which isn't far fetched as much of the German public did), they may have "renounced" their identity as Jews and turned on their own people. That may be a little far fetched, but it is just a theory. :P
Theories can go on and on about it, whatever though, I think it is more the work of a phycologist than a Historian.
Tristuskhan
03-03-2008, 21:04
Many (as in about 3/4) of Hitler's top aids and government officials were Jewish.
Sources please...
Sources please...
I have read that in more than one book, though I cannot provide a source of the top of my head. I also remember reading that his top three were (whether they new it or not) Jewish.
Guess we will never know if any of them knew they were Jewish, but my guess would be "no".
Göring had among his patrilineal ancestors Eberle/Eberlin, a Swiss-German family of high bourgeoisie. They were originally Jewish financiers who converted to Christianity in the 15th century and had numerous progeny in German speaking countries.
Source = Wikipedia :P
I was not able to find much there about his other cabinet members and military officers, but I read it before in reputable, scholarly articles and books. I will see if I cannot find some better sources. (Of course you could always search yourself also :P)
I do not agree with how the Israeli government is handling the situation OR with the what the Palestinians have been doing. Coming from an isolated stand point and at the risk of offending someone, it all seems pretty barbaric.
Just want to let you know that the State of Isreal is not representive of Jews.
What is there to be ashamed of, Israeli's are a better person then me at least I wouldn't have been quite so patient. Israel pulls back, hamas claims victory, they start launching rockets again. Israel represents the jews perfectly really always in the maelstrom somewhere.
Ramses II CP
03-03-2008, 22:27
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but otherwise, no one should be proud not of his colour, or race, not even if he has a very handsome face. nor should one be ashamed of it. It should not be a factor in anything. If one has to be proud it should be for what he has done in his life, and his deeds.
...
I think this strikes to the heart of the issue here, the fact that identifying oneself as a particular race, even if it's in a positive light, is ultimately detrimental to the cause of ending racism. Why do 'White Power' and 'Black Power' have such radically different connotations; why might one cause a liberal to cringe while the other makes him raise his fist in sympathy? It isn't an essential, actual difference between the physical makeup of two groups of people, it's a cultural and economic difference, a power differential which allows simple minds to crudely extend the analogy of the powerless along the lines of supposed visible differences.
Race identity is, in every substantive quality, nonsense. The term 'race' is so generic, so broadly applicable that any attempt to examine it in details drives off all possible import or meaning. Every living human can be traced, through their mitochondria, to a single female ancestor (Estimates of how far back this requires us to go are usually in excess of 300,000 years, if you're curious). The differences between the most extreme of isolated populations is still nowhere near enough to prevent interbreeding, and such interbreeding will, within three or four generations in a single direction, produce offspring indistinguishable from the 'race' into which an individual might choose to marry. That's not a theory, it's a frequently demonstrated fact.
Race identity is the phrenology of the 20th (And perhaps 21st) century. Don't get caught up in it. :beam:
:egypt:
Only seems to strike it, because if I have to judge only on my own deeds then why exactly should I have any respect for my father, happens to be the guy that gave my mother vital input but it wasn't me that did it. Such is the same with the culture of the country where I live.
Ramses II CP
03-03-2008, 22:45
What does racial identity have to do with respect for your parents? :inquisitive:
:egypt:
What does racial identity have to do with respect for your parents? :inquisitive:
:egypt:
If only your deeds count why should you respect your parents? We aren't robots we are human beings, and we have parents and so did they and all that is why we are here and that happened a long time ago.
Kralizec
03-03-2008, 23:02
It is hard to argue that Native Africans have darker skin than the "Caucasian".
I'll take that challenge. Wait while I get my research sorted.
Ramses II CP
03-03-2008, 23:07
Err, since you seem to be having trouble reading what I've written, I'll answer my own question; racial indentity has nothing to do with respecting your parents. No statement in any of my posts to this thread has anything to do with respect for your parents. I haven't made the case that "only your deeds should count," or anything even in the same galaxy as that claim.
:strawman3:
Go back, read again, and reconsider your response.
:egypt:
Was merely and example and it didn't work. You don't care but I do and I guess that's all there is.
I do not agree with how the Israeli government is handling the situation OR with the what the Palestinians have been doing. Coming from an isolated stand point and at the risk of offending someone, it all seems pretty barbaric.
Just want to let you know that the State of Isreal is not representive of Jews.
What is there to be ashamed of, Israeli's are a better person then me at least I wouldn't have been quite so patient. Israel pulls back, hamas claims victory, they start launching rockets again. Israel represents the jews perfectly really always in the maelstrom somewhere.
Isreal is being messed over good by Palestine and the liberal media, and I applaud them in a lot of their moves. There are some core issues and individual decisions that have been far less than praiseworthy. As I said though, that concerns a nation, not Jews. I would rather not discuss it as the discussion could be endless, and I would probably just end up regurgitating thousands of books and articles I have read on the subject as it is very complicated and most people know VERY little of it.
I think this strikes to the heart of the issue here, the fact that identifying oneself as a particular race, even if it's in a positive light, is ultimately detrimental to the cause of ending racism. Why do 'White Power' and 'Black Power' have such radically different connotations; why might one cause a liberal to cringe while the other makes him raise his fist in sympathy? It isn't an essential, actual difference between the physical makeup of two groups of people, it's a cultural and economic difference, a power differential which allows simple minds to crudely extend the analogy of the powerless along the lines of supposed visible differences.
Race identity is, in every substantive quality, nonsense. The term 'race' is so generic, so broadly applicable that any attempt to examine it in details drives off all possible import or meaning. Every living human can be traced, through their mitochondria, to a single female ancestor (Estimates of how far back this requires us to go are usually in excess of 300,000 years, if you're curious). The differences between the most extreme of isolated populations is still nowhere near enough to prevent interbreeding, and such interbreeding will, within three or four generations in a single direction, produce offspring indistinguishable from the 'race' into which an individual might choose to marry. That's not a theory, it's a frequently demonstrated fact.
Race identity is the phrenology of the 20th (And perhaps 21st) century. Don't get caught up in it. :beam:
:egypt:
A person's "race" (in common usage) can usually be identified by skin colour, facial carticture, feature size, hieght, possibly hair colour, etc. Things like that are often genetically tied to certain "races" and that has been proven by genetics. It is an "invention" of the 20/21st century, but that does not mean it is not true.
Again, there is nothing wrong with observing differences. (Like when a blonde school girl notices that there are other girls with blonde hair and some with brunette)
What is wrong is when you use this difference to justify your hate. (Like if all the blonde school girls were to stick together and tell the brunette girl that she couldn't hang with them because of her hair colour)
People use differences (of any kind) to excuse their barbaric behavior (which they have to do to themselves before they even commit their barbaric act).
It is true that if there were no differences there would be no conflict, there would only be one person. :P
Just because people target differences to excuse their hate does not mean that differences are bad. That is like saying that to prevent people from shooting us in the head we should all be decapitated. :P (I really love these 2-bit analogies :P)
Your head is not bad, the person's act of shooting it is. Likewise differences are not bad (and it is the heart of racism to say that they are), but using them to excuse wrong doing is bad.
There is nothing wrong of people being proud of their differences. The blonde and brunette can both be proud of their hair and be just as beautiful. Being proud of who you are doesn't mean that you think people with diferences are inferior.
I'll take that challenge. Wait while I get my research sorted.
lol, native as in 5.5k BC. I realise that portions of the Fertile Cresent were inhabited by white people, but you know very well what I mean.
Kralizec
03-04-2008, 00:39
lol, native as in 5.5k BC. I realise that portions of the Fertile Cresent were inhabited by white people, but you know very well what I mean.
You meant sub-saharan Africa vs early Indo-Europeans, right?
For the record I don't believe that Indo-Europeans where white skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed. It's best not to think in black and white, but in various shades. People further up north generally have a paler skin due to climate. Therefore it's not hard to argue that native Africans have a darker skin color than caucasians.
To be honest I thought you made a typo.
Ramses II CP
03-04-2008, 03:24
...
A person's "race" (in common usage) can usually be identified by skin colour, facial carticture, feature size, hieght, possibly hair colour, etc. Things like that are often genetically tied to certain "races" and that has been proven by genetics. It is an "invention" of the 20/21st century, but that does not mean it is not true.
Again, there is nothing wrong with observing differences. (Like when a blonde school girl notices that there are other girls with blonde hair and some with brunette)
What is wrong is when you use this difference to justify your hate. (Like if all the blonde school girls were to stick together and tell the brunette girl that she couldn't hang with them because of her hair colour)
People use differences (of any kind) to excuse their barbaric behavior (which they have to do to themselves before they even commit their barbaric act).
It is true that if there were no differences there would be no conflict, there would only be one person. :P
Just because people target differences to excuse their hate does not mean that differences are bad. That is like saying that to prevent people from shooting us in the head we should all be decapitated. :P (I really love these 2-bit analogies :P)
Your head is not bad, the person's act of shooting it is. Likewise differences are not bad (and it is the heart of racism to say that they are), but using them to excuse wrong doing is bad.
There is nothing wrong of people being proud of their differences. The blonde and brunette can both be proud of their hair and be just as beautiful. Being proud of who you are doesn't mean that you think people with diferences are inferior.
...
The problem with what you're suggesting is right there at the top, 'in common useage.' If you check the dictionary definition of 'race' you'll find that it is such a mishmash of presumptions and contradictory statements as to make the word useless. Here is dictionary.com's version:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race
For convenience, here are some of the choices:
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.
any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons
So while you claim that genetic differentiation has been tied to different 'races' that is not a proven fact. It's more correct to say that genetic traits run according to heredity, so that tracing a group of people to a common ancestor can mean that they share traits. However tracing them a little further will broaden the pool of traits, while tracing them a little less far will narrow it. There is no meaningful way to say 'Trace this far, and no further, to determine X race.' As I pointed out, in an eyeblink of evolutionary time every living human can be traced to a single ancestor. There are no true racial differences, only familial differences.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with observing and noting the gross biological differences between groups of people, but when you start to class people according to those incredibly shallow and misleading differences you fall into the trap of racism.
Consider that in order to draw the lines around an imaginary 'race' of Jews you have to decide how much interbreeding is allowed and for how many generations, and all that after picking exactly how many generations deep into the past you're willing to reach. The task of merely defining such a 'race' grows exponentially every time someone marries into or out of a supposedly Jewish line. Setting aside Judaism for a time, consider the Maori, who lived in near genetic isolation for an indeterminate but quite significant period of time. Currently there are, as far as can be determined, no 'full blooded' Maori left in the world, and that's just two hundred years after their genetic isolation ended and large scale colonization began. Trying to isolate a 'race' of Jews when the self-identified Jewish people have thousands of years of intermarriage and frequent scatterings across the face of the earth is madness.
For my part, I think there are two useful distinctions of ancestry, your immediate family, the three to four previous generations whose genes have a direct impact on your health and development, and your species. All that guesswork about this hundred generations are the Jews, but not back to a hundred and twenty, because then we'd just be Arabs and Africans... is silly and divisive. We're the human race. We have so much more in common than apart that the differences are entirely mutable.
:egypt:
I agree that there's nothing wrong with observing and noting the gross biological differences between groups of people, but when you start to class people according to those incredibly shallow and misleading differences you fall into the trap of racism.
Consider that in order to draw the lines around an imaginary 'race' of Jews you have to decide how much interbreeding is allowed and for how many generations, and all that after picking exactly how many generations deep into the past you're willing to reach. The task of merely defining such a 'race' grows exponentially every time someone marries into or out of a supposedly Jewish line.
Very true. My mother was born Christian and converted to Judaism when she married my father. In Jewish law, a child is Jewish only if his mother was also Jewish. In my case, it doesn't matter, because my mother converted before I was born. However, if she had not, I would not be considered Jewish under the laws of the religion, which completely ignores the fact that I would have the exact same physiology.
I think race is increasingly being absorbed by culture, at least in heterogeneous nations such as the US. The perception of race as an independent identifier will likely last far longer in less diverse parts of the world.
Hound of Ulster
03-04-2008, 17:46
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging our physical and cultural differences.
quite true
Isreal is being messed over good by Palestine and the liberal media
you lost me after that one, Vuk.
Race identity is the phrenology of the 20th (And perhaps 21st) century. Don't get caught up in it
And its just as stupid as phrenology too.
I think more in terms of 'nation' than false terms like 'race', and I take a very wide view of membership in a 'nation'. If you speak the language and are familiar with at least some of the customs, you are a member of that 'nation' that live in, regardless of religion or the heritage of your ancestors. The problem for Jewish people is that they are sometimes forced into declaring themselves a 'nation' rathering than what they really are, a religious community. So you have the issue of Jewish religion vs. Jewish 'nation', which really is an intellectual false choice as the two are mutually exclusive.
Just want to let you know that the State of Isreal is not representive of Jews. There are ten times the number of Jews in NYC than in Isreal, and many Jews do not agree with Zionism.
you see more criticisms of Israel's actions and Zionism in the Israeli press than in Europe and the U.S.
The problem with what you're suggesting is right there at the top, 'in common useage.' If you check the dictionary definition of 'race' you'll find that it is such a mishmash of presumptions and contradictory statements as to make the word useless. Here is dictionary.com's version:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race
For convenience, here are some of the choices:
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.
any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons
So while you claim that genetic differentiation has been tied to different 'races' that is not a proven fact. It's more correct to say that genetic traits run according to heredity, so that tracing a group of people to a common ancestor can mean that they share traits. However tracing them a little further will broaden the pool of traits, while tracing them a little less far will narrow it. There is no meaningful way to say 'Trace this far, and no further, to determine X race.' As I pointed out, in an eyeblink of evolutionary time every living human can be traced to a single ancestor. There are no true racial differences, only familial differences.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with observing and noting the gross biological differences between groups of people, but when you start to class people according to those incredibly shallow and misleading differences you fall into the trap of racism.
Consider that in order to draw the lines around an imaginary 'race' of Jews you have to decide how much interbreeding is allowed and for how many generations, and all that after picking exactly how many generations deep into the past you're willing to reach. The task of merely defining such a 'race' grows exponentially every time someone marries into or out of a supposedly Jewish line. Setting aside Judaism for a time, consider the Maori, who lived in near genetic isolation for an indeterminate but quite significant period of time. Currently there are, as far as can be determined, no 'full blooded' Maori left in the world, and that's just two hundred years after their genetic isolation ended and large scale colonization began. Trying to isolate a 'race' of Jews when the self-identified Jewish people have thousands of years of intermarriage and frequent scatterings across the face of the earth is madness.
For my part, I think there are two useful distinctions of ancestry, your immediate family, the three to four previous generations whose genes have a direct impact on your health and development, and your species. All that guesswork about this hundred generations are the Jews, but not back to a hundred and twenty, because then we'd just be Arabs and Africans... is silly and divisive. We're the human race. We have so much more in common than apart that the differences are entirely mutable.
:egypt:
But there ARE genetic groups of people. That is how we are able to determine race by DNA. There is nothing wrong with observing or taking pride in this.
If people refused to consider the concept of race, image how the medical breakthroughs on sicklecell would have been hindered.
People DO fall into biological groups, and it is correct for people to "group" them in their mind (because they are genetically grouped!!).
I can "group" every blonde I see and put them into the "blonde schema" (It is a phsycology term for how we group things), it simply makes it easier for my brain to recognize their hair colour when I see one. No harm there.
If on the other hand I associate ludeness or some other negative stimulus (Which many people do believe it or not) with the "blonde schema", then I have done wrong and am not judging them individually.
Another example, there is not wrong with observing that someone is in the "female schema" (if we didn't group males and females we would have no medical knowledge to speak of), I have done her no wrong. If I associate bad driving with the female schema, then I am not judging that woman as an individual and there I have done the wrong. Understand? It is associating negative things with the schema that can be bad, not "grouping people".
As far as the Jews go, I have already said that I do not believe there to be one definate and singular line from which they desended, but they and others believe that there is, and so it is important to the discussion.
quite true
you lost me after that one, Vuk.
And its just as stupid as phrenology too.
I think more in terms of 'nation' than false terms like 'race', and I take a very wide view of membership in a 'nation'. If you speak the language and are familiar with at least some of the customs, you are a member of that 'nation' that live in, regardless of religion or the heritage of your ancestors. The problem for Jewish people is that they are sometimes forced into declaring themselves a 'nation' rathering than what they really are, a religious community. So you have the issue of Jewish religion vs. Jewish 'nation', which really is an intellectual false choice as the two are mutually exclusive.
you see more criticisms of Israel's actions and Zionism in the Israeli press than in Europe and the U.S.
lol, this just came in as I was posting my last message.
About Palestine and the liberal media messing with Isreal, I have already said that is a discussion that I will not get into (and indeed, you probably know far too little about to get into). I have spent years researching it and will save my arguements for academic Journals, not gaming forums.
As for the criticisms they recieve, I am tempted to answer that (indeed, I wrote a responce and deleted it), but will refrain.
As for what you said on 'race' and 'nation'. A nation can be compromised of many different races, and (in most cases) has nothing to do with the genetic comprisal of the inhabitants. I also already stated that the common conception of a "Jewish Nation" is Barney, so I guess I fail to see where you are coming from.
Ramses II CP
03-04-2008, 18:49
But there ARE genetic groups of people. That is how we are able to determine race by DNA. There is nothing wrong with observing or taking pride in this.
If people refused to consider the concept of race, image how the medical breakthroughs on sicklecell would have been hindered.
People DO fall into biological groups, and it is correct for people to "group" them in their mind (because they are genetically grouped!!).
I can "group" every blonde I see and put them into the "blonde schema" (It is a phsycology term for how we group things), it simply makes it easier for my brain to recognize their hair colour when I see one. No harm there.
If on the other hand I associate ludeness or some other negative stimulus (Which many people do believe it or not) with the "blonde schema", then I have done wrong and am not judging them individually.
Another example, there is not wrong with observing that someone is in the "female schema" (if we didn't group males and females we would have no medical knowledge to speak of), I have done her no wrong. If I associate bad driving with the female schema, then I am not judging that woman as an individual and there I have done the wrong. Understand? It is associating negative things with the schema that can be bad, not "grouping people".
As far as the Jews go, I have already said that I do not believe there to be one definate and singular line from which they desended, but they and others believe that there is, and so it is important to the discussion.
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere, there are genetic groups of people, but to call them races is, I believe, misleading and incorrect. You didn't address the problem of how to determine the depth to which you must track to disover the magical 'this is a race, but one more or less is not,' point. Sickle cell research actually supports my point, because it is not present in any one race.
That's right, what you may have commonly read about sickle cell is wildly inaccurate. The rate of occurence for the sickle cell gene is equally present in large populations in Greece, Arabia, Africa, and India in people of extremely different phenotypes, while in southern Africa the people living there, who are by every visible standard almost identical to those of central Africa, do not carry the sickle cell gene (Because they had minimal malaria exposure through their history). There is no way you could, by skin color, hair color, facial features, or any of the other common 'race' descriptors determine if someone was a sickle cell carrier.
The only way to describe them is as having a common ancestor, in the distant past, who developed a persistent trait. Calling such a group a 'race' would be misleading in the extreme, and wouldn't, IMHO, match any of the common definitions of that word.
:egypt:
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere, there are genetic groups of people, but to call them races is, I believe, misleading and incorrect. You didn't address the problem of how to determine the depth to which you must track to disover the magical 'this is a race, but one more or less is not,' point. Sickle cell research actually supports my point, because it is not present in any one race.
That's right, what you may have commonly read about sickle cell is wildly inaccurate. The rate of occurence for the sickle cell gene is equally present in large populations in Greece, Arabia, Africa, and India in people of extremely different phenotypes, while in southern Africa the people living there, who are by every visible standard almost identical to those of central Africa, do not carry the sickle cell gene (Because they had minimal malaria exposure through their history). There is no way you could, by skin color, hair color, facial features, or any of the other common 'race' descriptors determine if someone was a sickle cell carrier.
The only way to describe them is as having a common ancestor, in the distant past, who developed a persistent trait. Calling such a group a 'race' would be misleading in the extreme, and wouldn't, IMHO, match any of the common definitions of that word.
:egypt:
Those genetic groups DO exsist and are seperate though, even if they look similar. Race is, or at least should be, a genetic referral term.
Tristuskhan
03-05-2008, 02:30
As far as I know, if I remember well, Basques (Euzkadi) have many common genetic markers with sub-saharian africa. That make them genetically closer to congolese and Angolese Lingalas than to their spanish or french close neighbours.
Vuk, do you think we should consider counting the Basques as belonging to the black race? Or just part of a milder african race?
That's the problem with genetics: it's often too complex to be a reliable tool to determine who belongs to a clearly defined (by who?) "race".
As long as your lineage lived closer than 50 kilometers from the seashore (and shores have always been heavily populated) during the last 3000 years (exept maybe if you are Aboriginal...) your genetics are likely to be poluted by a long term mix of "races". Beeing Breton, my ancestors sometimes brought back exotic beauties from their sea trips. And many, many foreign sailors met little breton women in the ports those last 800 years. One of my great-great grandfather was carribean. Two of my great grandfathers are unknown! Breton housemaids in Paris, 1930! A city full of Armenians, Jews, Sicilians, Russians, Arabs!
Well, that said, am I White? Caucasian? If I am so, why? And if I'm not, why?
What we would like to know is the level of common genetic heritage we have to share to belong to the same "race". In my opinion, it's no more science, but philosophy (why not?) that can easily turn into ideology or religion.
Nb: I'm definitely white, but I don't care. I don't count myself belonging to a genetic "race", but belonging to a cultural group, or "nation"(anglo-saxon conception of the term "nation", the french I'm more familiar with is different).
Something built, not heritated threw genetics.
Forgive my poor grammar, overlords!
lol, of course there are mixes which are hard to trace. :P
Genetics have improved a lot since then and people are now able to trace race in individuals and even tell what "races" they are made up of if more than one. Just recently it was in the news when a geneticist made a lot of controversy by succesfully proving that he could trace race by DNA with 99-100% accurracy. I remember that the black prosecutor in a case it was use in and several Civil Rights groups were protesting that it was unfair to trace people's races and would lead to discrimination. I do not see how, but that is what made it stick in my mind.
Anyway, this has gone WAY off track and I have gotten too busy, so I am pulling out of the discussion as I have already (several times over) stated my case.
Vuk
Ramses II CP
03-05-2008, 15:05
Those genetic groups DO exsist and are seperate though, even if they look similar. Race is, or at least should be, a genetic referral term.
They do exist, but they are not seperate! Very important distinction. Intermarriage has always taken place between those groups, but dominant traits tend to carry through. That doesn't mean that you can identify someone with the sickle cell gene as 'African' or 'Black' or any other racial term. There is no one race that carries the sickle cell gene, there is just a large group of people whose heredity and environment have allowed that gene to flourish in their line. There are many, many individuals born of that line who do not carry the gene, and there is no visible, 'racial' method of distinguishing them from any other members of the line.
If race were a genetic referral term in common useage, which dictionary definitions make clear it is not, that would be a somewhat satisfactory use of the word. That is not the case, however, and your own frequent references to the visible differences between people make it obvious what 'race' is taken to mean; the white, black, blond, brown, yellow, etc. There is no connection between a genetic use of the word race and a visible differences use of the word race. None.
Just one more example, from Sudan. The conflict there is self characterized as between Arab descended Sudanese and African descended Sudanese. They regard one (This is a broad generalization of 'they') as seperate races, but the distinctions certainly aren't visible. Line up any hundred randomly selected individuals, strip them of their cultural difference, and the apparent visible differences would not distinguish them from one another. Similarly on genetic grounds they are one people, intermarriage has gone on for so long that there is no ability to seperate eastern Sudanese from western. You could break them along family lines, as I've noted, but so little variation would exist genetically that to try to isolate one group as a race would be absurd.
That's not a unique case either, the same was true in Rwanda where Hutus and Tutsi regarded one another (Generalization alert!) as seperate races, but they were visibly and genetically identical.
To sum up, go back and look at the definition of race I posted. It is not precise enough to be a useful genetic distinction. It cannot be accurately used on the basis of appearance. So what is left for race to mean? Cultural differences? Isn't that what religious and national identity already do?
:egypt:
They do exist, but they are not seperate! Very important distinction. Intermarriage has always taken place between those groups, but dominant traits tend to carry through. That doesn't mean that you can identify someone with the sickle cell gene as 'African' or 'Black' or any other racial term. There is no one race that carries the sickle cell gene, there is just a large group of people whose heredity and environment have allowed that gene to flourish in their line. There are many, many individuals born of that line who do not carry the gene, and there is no visible, 'racial' method of distinguishing them from any other members of the line.
If race were a genetic referral term in common useage, which dictionary definitions make clear it is not, that would be a somewhat satisfactory use of the word. That is not the case, however, and your own frequent references to the visible differences between people make it obvious what 'race' is taken to mean; the white, black, blond, brown, yellow, etc. There is no connection between a genetic use of the word race and a visible differences use of the word race. None.
Just one more example, from Sudan. The conflict there is self characterized as between Arab descended Sudanese and African descended Sudanese. They regard one (This is a broad generalization of 'they') as seperate races, but the distinctions certainly aren't visible. Line up any hundred randomly selected individuals, strip them of their cultural difference, and the apparent visible differences would not distinguish them from one another. Similarly on genetic grounds they are one people, intermarriage has gone on for so long that there is no ability to seperate eastern Sudanese from western. You could break them along family lines, as I've noted, but so little variation would exist genetically that to try to isolate one group as a race would be absurd.
That's not a unique case either, the same was true in Rwanda where Hutus and Tutsi regarded one another (Generalization alert!) as seperate races, but they were visibly and genetically identical.
To sum up, go back and look at the definition of race I posted. It is not precise enough to be a useful genetic distinction. It cannot be accurately used on the basis of appearance. So what is left for race to mean? Cultural differences? Isn't that what religious and national identity already do?
:egypt:
They ARE seperate, but can be mixed, even then you can trace which it is composed of. Just as you can have someone with the genes only for blonde hair and the genes for only black hair marry, and their kids could then have 2 identifiable genes. People DO have differences, and these differences are not bad things, but good things. It is because of these "races" that diseases cannot come that will wipe 90% of the world's population out. Some diseases only affect certain races, or certain races handle certain diseases better than others. Who knows, some day that may end up saving the human species. :P
Of course you cannot look at a person and determine their genetic make-up, but you can observe certain physical characteristics which can indicate genetic make-up. (this is the dictionary definition)
While not always correct, this is an easy way for people to recognize people of other races. There is nothing wrong with observing that some people have darker skin than others. It is not a scientific way to determine their genetics, but it is the best we can do at a glance, and can be very useful instead of harmful.
There, look what you did. I said I was done with this debate and you drew me in again. :P ~;)
Kralizec
03-06-2008, 12:48
Very true. My mother was born Christian and converted to Judaism when she married my father. In Jewish law, a child is Jewish only if his mother was also Jewish. In my case, it doesn't matter, because my mother converted before I was born. However, if she had not, I would not be considered Jewish under the laws of the religion, which completely ignores the fact that I would have the exact same physiology.
That doesn't make sense. Why would only men be obliged to have a jewish mother? If your mother could convert, why wouldn't you be able to?
Sorry, I guess I was unclear. Only converts and people who were born to Jewish mothers (both male and female children) are considered to be Jews under Jewish law. If my mother hadn't converted, I would have had to undergo the formal conversion process myself, even if I was raised Jewish. Just saying "I'm Jewish" wouldn't cut it. It gets particularly strange when you consider that the "Jewish mother" portion even applies to non-Jews. Under Jewish law, if you have a Jewish matriarch somewhere on your mother's side, even if it's several generations removed, you are technically still a Jew. If you observe a different religion, they simply consider you to be a Jew who has gone astray. I'm not sure what the original reason for this law is, since it's been a long time since I attended Temple.
Ramses II CP
03-07-2008, 00:00
They ARE seperate, but can be mixed, even then you can trace which it is composed of. Just as you can have someone with the genes only for blonde hair and the genes for only black hair marry, and their kids could then have 2 identifiable genes. People DO have differences, and these differences are not bad things, but good things. It is because of these "races" that diseases cannot come that will wipe 90% of the world's population out. Some diseases only affect certain races, or certain races handle certain diseases better than others. Who knows, some day that may end up saving the human species. :P
Of course you cannot look at a person and determine their genetic make-up, but you can observe certain physical characteristics which can indicate genetic make-up. (this is the dictionary definition)
While not always correct, this is an easy way for people to recognize people of other races. There is nothing wrong with observing that some people have darker skin than others. It is not a scientific way to determine their genetics, but it is the best we can do at a glance, and can be very useful instead of harmful.
There, look what you did. I said I was done with this debate and you drew me in again. :P ~;)
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I didn't notice you'd responded because when you said you were out I stopped checking in. :laugh4:
It actually isn't racial differences that provide the kind of immunity you're referring to (Otherwise we'd be losing races left and right!) it's variation within the types of populations that you're associating as single races. Consider Native Americans, who were genetically isolated and had a low immunity rate to the diseases the Europeans brought, but low does not mean zero. Viable populations of Native Americans survived the plagues without regard to interbreeding with Europeans.
My whole point really is that you cannot observe physical characteristics that accurately indicate heredity. Flatly cannot. At most four generations of interbreeding in a single direction are required to eradicate any visible remains of an individual's racial background. This has demonstrably occurred in countless millions of cases over the last few hundred years. Introduce one person of African descent into an exclusively 'Norse' population and odds are very strong that his children's children will be indistinquishable from the rest of the population. The following generation is virtually guaranteed of it, but those children undeniably will continue to carry many traits against the presumed racial type. Sickle cell is a good example, as once introduced to a population it will continue to occur at a steady, predictable rate in offspring for a very long period of time.
So if you visited that presumably isolated 'Norse' population ten generations later there would be absolutely no visible trace of the African individual, but there would be countless traces of his genetic legacy.
And this isn't an extreme example, this is the face of the modern world. Especially with regard to populations, like the 'race' of Jews, that have undergone frequent diasporas. For close to five hundred years the ease of travel has been spreading genes across our planet, ending the isolation of almost every line of heredity. You could still find highly isolated groups in, for example, Mongolia, or the New Guinea highlands, but over most of the world appearance has no valuable link to heredity. None whatsoever.
I also don't see how it's possible to say that race identity does more good than harm. What good could it do to balance out repeated incidents of genocide? You could argue that race isn't a true primary cause of genocide, but it's almost inevitably the surface argument in favor of genocide, and that alone indicts it beyond repair. Race is imagined to be an essential part of a person's nature, so when racial conflict erupts the possibility of compromise is far more limited than in, for example, class conflicts.
Rwanda is an instructive example again, as the 'races' of Tutsi and Hutu were actually just an imaginary constructs of the European colonizers of that nation. They categorized people on the thin pretext of made up physical differentials while actually placing people whose families were traditionally farmers in one group, and people who were herders in a different group, sorting them into 'races.' That's obviously an difference of class rather than race, but just a few generations later the idea had set so firmly in stone that when population and economic pressures neared a maximum the idea of the Tutsi and Hutu 'races' were used by the very members of those imaginary groups to justify slaughter.
If you were asked to arbitrate a fight between herders and famers that has a whole different context and approach than a fight between, for example, 'whites' and 'blacks.' The ever spiraling population pressure may have created a conflict anyway, but if there were no presumed essential difference between the combatants except the kind of work they did it would be a little easier to find common ground.
:egypt:
I could be completely off base, but I think it would make sense for a group of people who spent much of their history subjugated by other peoples and then eventually scattered to use a system of matrilineal descent. It's lot easier to be certain of a person's mother than father, especially if your people are often conquered and/or displaced.
Sorry, I guess I was unclear. Only converts and people who were born to Jewish mothers (both male and female children) are considered to be Jews under Jewish law. If my mother hadn't converted, I would have had to undergo the formal conversion process myself, even if I was raised Jewish. Just saying "I'm Jewish" wouldn't cut it. It gets particularly strange when you consider that the "Jewish mother" portion even applies to non-Jews. Under Jewish law, if you have a Jewish matriarch somewhere on your mother's side, even if it's several generations removed, you are technically still a Jew. If you observe a different religion, they simply consider you to be a Jew who has gone astray. I'm not sure what the original reason for this law is, since it's been a long time since I attended Temple.
Spartan198
03-07-2008, 04:16
I too am glad that people can discuss things in an intelligent and unbiased manner, but may I ask you, what is wrong with acknowledging peoples' differences?
All I gotta do is look in a mirror to see that I am different from many other people. This to me is a source of my pride and individuality, not shame. I respect people from other races just as much as I'd respect someone who looked just like me, but I am not ashamed of my differences so much that I have to deny them.
Really, think about what you are saying, why should a black guy be ashamed of his race and who he is so much that he has to deny that he has a different race. How does that make him feel?
Though you may not be thinking of it that way, it is simply an easy way to get out of acknowledging and therefore respecting other's differences. You surely cannot respect them if you do not acknowledge them.
Vuk
You know,I didn't think about it like that,but you're exactly right. Even though we're all of the same species,no two people are exactly alike in every way. Even twins,triplets,etc.,spawned from the same embryo (I hope I worded that correctly) can have vastly different personalities and principles. Same thing can be said about pets,for example. Two cats can be of the same breed and appearance,yet have their own individual personalities,just like humans.
And,of course,no one should have to feel ashamed of what race they are. I, like you,am an individual as well,and I applaude any and everyone for showing pride in who and what they are,so long as it's not done in a harmful manner toward others.
Words to ponder over,Vuk.
Spartan198
03-07-2008, 04:22
Even though we do often discriminate based on skin color, it's not like we were definitely going to do so as we don't discriminate based on whether someone's earlobes are attached or unattached and rarely on eye color. We just have to make skin color as insignificant as eye color.
In my view,skin color already is as insignificant as eye color,or hair color (though I do have a certain fondness for redheads in particular,but that's not exactly a discriminatory thing...),religion,and so forth.
Tribesman
03-07-2008, 06:37
I'm not sure what the original reason for this law is, since it's been a long time since I attended Temple.
There is a sound basis for the old law , even if the husband is Jewish it doesn't guarantee that he is the father of the child .
However the process of giving birth is a pretty good indication of who the mother of the child is :idea2:
As Ludwik Gumplowicz wrote into XIX century
there is no clear race nowadays. Races mixed themselves - Jews could be good example, same like Poles, Russians, French and Britons.
race is a political concept and battleground more than anything, but as a concept is of no less relevance because of that.
Which brings us back to why jews were persecuted, they have long viewed themselves as "the chosen" and aggressively defended their own, which pisses people off.
Rhyfelwyr
03-07-2008, 23:58
I suppose its basically the fact that their religion has been around for so long, and that for much of that time they have been living in societies into which they were never allowed to integrate, not having their own homeland since the Khazar Khanate IIRC.
I remember at a couple of lectures on anti-semitism in the midde-ages the fact that Christian rulers felt responsble to accept Jews as the 'chosen people', but at the same time physically sectioned them off with walls into small areas of the various towns and cities led to a lack of understanding between the two religions and allowed the 'demonising' of the Jews.
And since then they've been ideal scapegoats for whoever needs them.
EDIT: As for the race thing, I think we've got to accept that we have characteristics inherited from our ancestors, the debate is just over how far down the family tree you would draw a line and saw thats where your genetics can be said to have been reasonably impacted from.
'Race' and genetics should only ever be used for things such as medical purposes. Finding out why some groups of people are particularly resistant to certain dieases and things like that.
It should never have an impact on society and the way people are viewed. The effects 'race' would have on a persons characteristics and abilities is as far as I can see in the modern world is just about non-existent.
And it is ridiculous when racists talk about themselves as being the master race. Take Scotland for example. People may initially think they are 'Celtic', but in reality they are a combination of Britons, Goidils, Picts, Norse, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and probably many more ancient peoples. And of course you can in turn trace them back. Goidils for example have thier links to the Basques, and according to other posters here they are linked to sub-Saharan Africa.
EDIT 2: Not that I've ever heard talk of a Celtic master race, just an example.:sweatdrop:
Fear your ginger-haired overlords!:whip:
Tribesman
03-08-2008, 04:42
EDIT 2: Not that I've ever heard talk of a Celtic master race, just an example.
Explore the web , Celtic supremecists are around just like all the other supremecist nuts .:shrug:
Rhyfelwyr
03-08-2008, 23:25
Explore the web , Celtic supremecists are around just like all the other supremecist nuts .:shrug:
lol, I'll have to have a look at that.:laugh4:
It was about a Jewish boy in Nazi Germany and he was trying to blend in to survive.
There was a scene with a teacher in the class and he was talking about the anatomical differences, skull measurements, what made a real Arier and that he would immediately see who wasn't one. Then he slowly walked down the class and stopped at our boy: "Now look at him'. ... "While he doesn't have blue eyes, he's a real Arier, he's brown eyes like our Fuhrer'
Europe Europe is the movie, right?
I think that person was still alive, at the end.
Mangudai
09-08-2008, 04:31
I can partially explain how the money-grubbing stereotype arose. My main source is James Mitchner books.
In most of Europe Jews were not permitted to own land, so they were not employed at farming like 90% of the population. Usually most lucrative commodities markets (salt, beer, etc) were monopolized by a king or local noble, so they were excluded from those. Anti-semetic nobles and bishops often forbade them from practicing other trades as well. Most Jews in Europe were poor ghetto dwellers. Somehow they maintained their cohesion and tradition, and those few who prospered economically had to find innovative ways to do it.
For most of the middle ages the Catholic church was opposed to usury. On occasion they banned usury altogether, but the need for a credit system was strong enough that they adopted a work around. Bishops decided that it was sinful (read illegal) for a Christian to charge interest on another christian. But, Jewish people were exempted from these statutes.
Why the persecution?
Because they were a determinedly visible minority.
Because banking was one of the few methods of advancement for jews.
Because the christian majority was forced to go cap-in-hand to those rich jews to borrow money.
Because bankrupt christian rulers found it easier to expel jews than make good on their loans.
Eating babies, killing The Big C, and the 'pound-of-flesh' are merely excuses to justify persecution.
They do exist, but they are not seperate! Very important distinction.
:egypt:
for interest:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/306-the-genetic-map-of-europe/
I still think that religious (but not too intelligent) and quite agressive (at least one war per 5 years) people blamed Jews for killing Jezus.
Ramses II CP
09-08-2008, 21:57
for interest:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/306-the-genetic-map-of-europe/
I have to point out that these maps are based on national identity, not racial identity. The two are not interchangeable. How would you fit the Jewish 'race' into such a map? And so forth for dozens more populations within these groups that are commonly presumed to be races.
Very interesting statistical analysis, however, particularly the surprising (IMHO) isolation of the Polish and the dramatic reversal of obvious locality in the case of UK vs Irish intermarriage. I would like to see more nations included, but I can well imagine why reliable data is not available for some of the next countries to logically include in the map.
:egypt:
(Note: I suppose this could be considered more Backroom-ish material by some, so mods feel free to move this as you see fit.)
The title of this thread says it all, really. Why have the Jewish people been so persistently oppressed & persecuted throughout the centuries -- seemingly regardless of region, nation, or time period? I don't know if it's because I'm American or what, but I've always been utterly baffled as to why this is.
I think it's mainly because, other than the Biblical Kingdom, the Jews have not had a very large representation in political and cultural areas. Particular Christain hate could be contributed to the fact that the Jews wanted Jesus killed, and continue not to accept him as Messiah. It can be compared to the Gypsies, a people not very well represented in politics, and have had a history of oppression.
Rhyfelwyr
09-08-2008, 23:43
Of couse racial differences still exist. It doesn't mean that white people are a different species from black people, it just means there are a few, very minor, biological differences between different races. It is not coincidence that Jewish people have large noses nowadays, it is clearly a genetic trait. It is pointless to deny that such traits exist.
Of course, it is even more ridiculous to claim that these genetic traits have any significant affects on a person's character or intelligence. Racism as we have known it in past centuries should not be tolerated at all, but we should allow scientists to accept that by observing the genetic differences of racial groups they can disover why some are so vulnerable to certain diseases (eg Black/Hamitic/whatever sub-division being more susceptible to the AIDS virus), and save lives trough comparing their DNA to that of other ethnic groups.
Also I think the talk of all Jewish states being intolerant is a little harsh. The Khazar Khanate was a Jewish state in which there were many Orthodox Christians and Muslims. And that was around 700 AD.
From a Christian perspective, the extent of anti-Semitism (as in anti-Jews/Judaism, not all Semitic peoples eg Arabs that the term suggests) is hard to logically explain without looking into Biblical prophecy. Especially considering how rapidly attitudes towards Jews within Europe could fluctuate (look back to Japtheh in Shem's tent). On the one hand the Popes of the early middle-ages issued Jews with badges stating they were Jewish (so Hitler or the Baghdad Caliph's weren't the first to do this), although unlike in the two cases in the brackets this was for their own protection, with the Pope respecting their position as God's chosen people. But then attitudes changed so quickly with Jews being persectued as the murderer's of Christ and being kicked out of Spain in 1492 and in other European states shortly after. It was not until the growth of the reformed churches that scripture was again respected on the matter of the Jews - one example being Cromwell allowing Jews to return to England for the first time since the 13th Century, but they were promptly expelled by the Anglican (openly Anglican, Catholic really) monarchs that succeeded him.
Just my :2cents:
Ramses II CP
09-09-2008, 16:30
Just by way of an FYI CR, Jewish people do not have large noses in a statistically significant prevalence. That's a simple minded bit of bigotry that you may have heard in an innocent context, but it is no less absurd for it.
People with black skin color are no more 'vulnerable' to AIDS than they are genetically 'vulnerable' to being arrested. Sociological factors account for both equally well.
The point of this thread has been to demonstrate that genetics and racial identity do not correlate in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if you posted those two, frankly offensive, mischaracterizations in a trolling way or just because you didn't know better, but I'd recommend you look into the topic a little more deeply before making such assertions again.
:egypt:
A lot of the main 'features' of a the claimed Jewish racial profile simply correspond to general slavic features. Askenazi Jews and Slavs are mostly impossible to tell apart if they are otherwise dressed the same. The nose is also not unique to Jews in any way. Large noses are also associated with Italians (Roman Nose) and French (Gallic Nose), yet neither of those cultures have any significant genetic ties to Askenazi Jews. When it comes down to it, these are all just varied human phenotypes that do not really correspond to a race in any scientific sense. Jews may be considered to be a different race by some people, including some Jews, but there's no real biological basis for it. All differences are almost entirely based in culture and religion, and the phenotypes are associated with them via stereotyping.
Jews may even identify themselves as a separate race sometimes (see my earlier comments in this thread) but that is once again almost entirely based on cultural traits rather than physical ones. If you're looking for a Jewish race, examining DNA is not the path to take. The Jews are a separate people in the same sense that the Scots or Irish are a separate people. The thing that is confusing about Jews is that unlike Scots and Irish, Jews do not historically come from any one particular place. We are all over the world and yet have managed to maintain a cultural identity. This confuses many people and makes them look to a biological affinity to explain the cultural connections and the reasons why the Jews never assimiliated completely into their local communities, as so many other peoples did over history.
Rhyfelwyr
09-09-2008, 17:59
People with black skin color are no more 'vulnerable' to AIDS than they are genetically 'vulnerable' to being arrested. Sociological factors account for both equally well.
I don't have a source to back it up since it's only something I heard on the news, but IIRC there is some sort of biological defence that many people have developed in tropical areas of Africa that protects them against forms of malaria, but in turn makes them more vulnerable to AIDS.
On the issue of Jews stereotypically having large noses, why are people so easily offended by this? In Scotland, why do so many people have ginger hair (including myself, just about)? It is through genetics and on a larger scale the ancestry of many of the Scottish people. That is all the term "race" really means. It doesn't mean we're all different species. It doesn't make me better or worse than anyone with black hair. So why pretend that my hair is the same colour as most people's? There's no point sticking your head in the sand, in the end that just makes it out to be a bigger issue than it really is.
Ramses II CP
09-09-2008, 23:43
I don't have a source to back it up since it's only something I heard on the news, but IIRC there is some sort of biological defence that many people have developed in tropical areas of Africa that protects them against forms of malaria, but in turn makes them more vulnerable to AIDS.
On the issue of Jews stereotypically having large noses, why are people so easily offended by this? In Scotland, why do so many people have ginger hair (including myself, just about)? It is through genetics and on a larger scale the ancestry of many of the Scottish people. That is all the term "race" really means. It doesn't mean we're all different species. It doesn't make me better or worse than anyone with black hair. So why pretend that my hair is the same colour as most people's? There's no point sticking your head in the sand, in the end that just makes it out to be a bigger issue than it really is.
You really shouldn't listen to the news at all, or listen more closely. The color of the people's skin has no correlation to the prevalance of sickle cell in their heredity (That's what helps protect against malaria). This has already been discussed extensively in this thread. Large numbers of people with every color of skin, eyes, hair, and most any other standard race descriptor you can imagine carry the sickle cell gene. The entire 'black' population of southern Africa does not carry the sickle cell gene. Personally I'm not aware of sickle cell making carriers more vulnerable to AIDS but I don't know enough about the topic to say it's not the case.
The reason for the sensitivity to the 'big nose' stereotype is historically obvious, and would likely require violating Godwin's law to even attempt to discuss. Believe me, there are no few people who find it offensive to be referred to as 'ginger' as well.
For the record I'm not, as far as I know, substantially of Jewish heredity so I'm not offended except in a general sort of 'why perpertuate that nonsense' kind of way.
:egypt:
Normally "Big Jew nose" is accompanied with a slur.
Mouzafphaerre
09-10-2008, 03:48
.
Big Jew nose is no more a scientific fact than Armenian girls growing moustache after 11 years or blacks having 3 aortae.
:hide:
.
Rhyfelwyr
09-12-2008, 20:39
Oh well obviously I have just accepted some stereotypes without thinking about them much.
Jews tend to fit in, they just aren't different enough, easy to assume they are plotting.
Askthepizzaguy
09-14-2008, 01:18
I was going to make a joke here, involving a long diatribe about the "Great Satan" and the Jews "controlling the world" through the arm of the United States government, the media, and Hollywood, and passing references to some other vile things that should not be repeated.
The punchline was supposed to be that I was told all this by a bearded man driving a "ticking car" who seemed to be in a "real hurry" to get somewhere.
For some reason, I thought it might offend someone. I think I'm getting soft in my old age. :shame:
Alexanderofmacedon
09-14-2008, 01:35
With such small populations, they are often the scapegoat for governments that need to unite the majority populace. For example: The plague stirred up trouble and blame directed on the minority in Germany. Spanish were having problems with the two empires on the Iberian penninsula so they expelled/murdered the Jews and recently converted Christian-Jews.
I think the size of the group and how spread out they are has had the most impact.
How about another reply
- Jews started massive murdering first Christians.
Askthepizzaguy
09-18-2008, 18:55
How about another reply
- Jews started massive murdering first Christians.
I believe the Romans did as well. Why no animosity towards the Romans?
In all seriousness, if people are concerned about crimes which happened 2 thousand years ago, then I think it's high time we offer the Jews reparations for slavery... in EGYPT.
How about another reply
- Jews started massive murdering first Christians.
Evidence?
I believe the Romans did as well. Why no animosity towards the Romans?
Why no animosity to Romans?
Because it's the Jews!!
Askthepizzaguy
09-19-2008, 00:56
It's gotten to the point where whenever I hear someone say the word "Jew", I assume they have something defamatory, slanderous, and racist to say about them.
I've never been personally maligned by a person of Jewish descent or of Jewish faith. That does not mean I automatically agree with everything they believe or do, but I do not see the harm. As for the Israeli situation, since Israel is made up of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, you can't simply blame the Jews for the Israeli/Palestinian standoff. I've also noticed that when Israel acts, it is in self-defense, and then retreats back to their own soil, while the stated goals of the Arab groups who border Israel is to destroy Israel itself and drive them into the sea. They violate numerous cease-fires and fire into crowds of innocent civilians with rocket launchers and use bombs to devastate markets. I don't recall Israel ever attempting to exterminate Arab civilians.
It's kind of hard not to take a side here. But it's also a separate discussion from the Jewish animosity question, so I will shaddap. I understand there are militant Jews who are radical extremists who would do anything to defend Israel, but compared to the sheer number of anti-Jewish extremists, it's hard to blame them. For as long as these militant extremists exist, there can be no peace settlement between the two sides.
And until mankind learns to leave the horrors of the past in the past, and simply learn from past mistakes, the old hatreds and ignorance will never die. Like a virus, it is passed on from one generation to another, instead of dying naturally along with its host .
How about another reply
- Jews started massive murdering first Christians.
that is quite literally a worthless comment.
now here is where i interject with a generalising comment:
in all my travel around the world, and given my polish girlfriend leading me to spend a lot of time in poland, never have i come across a nation with such an all-encompassing acceptance that jews are the cause of all their nations troubles, not to be trusted, and outright devious as a race. It is pervasive among the over forties, less so for the younger generations.
the phrase; "he is a jew" is used with a casual loathing that really is something to behold, and this from people i otherwise like and respect.
fortunately it appears to be a dieing trend as the grip of the catholic church lessens and millions of young poles live abroad.
Askthepizzaguy
09-20-2008, 13:30
This is something that has been bothering me.
Jews, gays, blacks, arabs, etc...
These groups are often scapegoats and are blamed for society's problems. I am especially offended whenever some reverend or pastor stands up and begins condemning homosexuality as being immoral. I often scratch my head and think to myself... why them? The rational explanation, if any, that they give is because sexual activity and promiscuity outside the realm of traditional marriage leads to the spread of disease. But at the same time, I think to myself how guilty of that straight people are... so it makes no sense to focus exclusively on the gays. Then they quote passages from the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran (all stemming from Leviticus 18) which states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
But they conveniently ignore passages from the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran which condemn other activities. I'm not even quoting the most ridiculous of them:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#9
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
If you should ever swear and or insult your parents, you're supposed to be killed on the spot.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/21.html#9
21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
If the daughter of a priest (oooh, just the priests' daughter? What about a cardinal, rabbi, or imam? What about the rest of us) profanes herself by "playing the whore" (interpret as you will), we need to burn her to death.
Then there are certain passages dealing with what kinds of meat you are allowed to eat, and when you are allowed to eat them. I know everyone here knows exactly what I'm talking about, and follows these laws as strictly as they interpret the passage about men lying with men.
:yes:
And it's such a small portion of the book. Why they spend all day, every day, rallying against the gays, instead of giving them "equal time" with all the other so-called sins... isn't that twisting and warping the word of "God" to give so much weight to one part of his "written word" and almost no attention to the other parts?
We can find plenty of people who can quote the anti-gay part of Leviticus. How many of us here can quote the parts where people "begat" other people for generations? Hmmm? Isn't that important stuff? It's the word of the Lord, so I wonder why people aren't paying as much attention to that. Frankly, if I were convinced something was the WORD OF GOD I would memorize that sh:daisy:.
So, other than organized religion, there's very little reason to condemn gayness. So let's move on.
____________________________________
Jews.
My, oh my, have they been given a bum rap. Everything in the world is apparently their fault.
:wall:
If you've seen a list of things people blame the Jews for, then you've noticed that it just gets longer and longer, and more ridiculous as we go along. Apparently, the Jews control the world economy, and are the puppet masters of world politics, and control Hollywood and the mass media, and are in control of the Christians who follow them, and they control the entire West.
Yes, given how much influence Jews have, it's amazing how history has treated them. These people, if they indeed have so much control over the world, must all be masochistic. I am beginning to wonder if there was a century where the Jews were not mass murdered or otherwise persecuted. Lets' check the history books.
20th century, ummm genocide.
19th century, Dreyfus Trial, pogroms in Russia.
18th century, stuggles for emancipation and equal treatment (almost a breath of fresh air)
17th century, hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the Cossacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmielnicki_uprising
16th century, end of the Inquisition, expulsion from European nations by force
15th century, Spanish Inquisition
14th century, 100,000 Jews expelled from France, subjected to the Shepherd's crusades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds%27_Crusade
13th century, Banning from England, first Shepherd's crusade.
12th century, Second Crusade, Jews in France frequently massacred.
11th century, German Crusade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Crusade,_1096
10th century, (still checking... all I found so far was that the newly appointed Fatmid Caliph of Islam persecuted Jews)
Dark ages get pretty sketchy. But we do know Jews were persecuted and forced to convert to Islam, whenever they were found in conquered territory. Then prior to that, the Romans treated the jews pretty poorly... early christianity (prior to Islam) treated the jews very poorly. Christians hated the jews very much so. Around 0AD and into BC times, Jews were persecuted by the Romans, and prior to that there was something that happened in Egypt involving a lot of slavery.
And that covers most of Jewish history that I, a non-Jew, can easily find. I am quite certain someone who is a Jewish scholar could fill in the blanks of what I am missing. But this is very telling:
According to James Carroll, "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine%27s_Sword
I think we can safely conclude that the Jews are not in possession of the world, and that they are therefore NOT the source of all the world's problems. Duh.
__________________________________
Black people;
Enslaved for centuries by European traders and settlers, conquered and persecuted and butchered by European Imperialism, conquered and forced to convert to Islam by Arab invaders, and otherwise maligned since the time of the Roman empire.
I would do them justice by adding more, but it's almost time for me to go to work. And never once did I find that a large nubian empire went around conquering everyone. The only people that black people seem to have persecuted were other black people, and recently, white minorities (I wonder why?)
________________________
Arabs; conquered by Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, armies of Islam, Crusaders, European Imperialists, and now they fight amongst themselves for having slightly different interpretations of Islam. Plus that whole Iraq thing.
Since 9/11 they have been hated by the entire West, because most Arabs are Muslim, and apparently all Muslims are guilty of the crimes of their minority extremists.
_________________________
I could do this for every single minority group. If you don't vastly outnumber people, you've been hated and persecuted, for no reason whatsoever.
Why the animosity towards the Jews? For the same reasons that there is animosity towards any group. A combination of ignorance, blind hatred, greed, envy, desire for power, lies, propaganda, religion and superstition, and a wonderful thing called tradition.
I conclude that the human race needs to be lined up, and slapped in the face repeatedly, one at a time, until everyone knows what it feels like to be persecuted.
:clown:
Actually the only solution is education, tolerance laws and legal justice, and the hope that hate and ignorance dies naturally with the current generations.
This thread seems to have run it's course and I think it's best to let Askthepizzaguy's post be the last.
This is the Monastery and not the Backroom on a bad day.
CBR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.