Jews: Why the animosity towards them?

[Ramses II CP]

...
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.

[TinCow]

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]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

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.

[Vuk]

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]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

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]

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!

[Vuk]

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]

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?

[Vuk]

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?

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]

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?

[TinCow]

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]

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.

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.

[Zim]

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]

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]

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]

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

[KrooK]

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.

[carbz]

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]

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.

Fear your ginger-haired overlords!

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Explore the web , Celtic supremecists are around just like all the other supremecist nuts .

lol, I'll have to have a look at that.

[Caius]

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]

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.

[JR-]

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.

[JR-]

They do exist, but they are not seperate! Very important distinction.

for interest:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...map-of-europe/

[KrooK]

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]

for interest:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...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.

[KarlXII]

(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.