Uh- are you denying the Khazar kingdom existed? Because I saw not one reference of it being the "jewish homeland"- I didn't check the links though- I will again- was this, um "theory", somewhere in the Wikipedia reference?

Dude- the article CLEARLY says what you just said about "the thirteenth tribe":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_kingdom

The novelist Arthur Koestler alleged in a book (in The Thirteenth Tribe), that modern Ashkenazi Jews are of Khazarian ancestry rather than Jewish. According to Bernard Lewis:

This theory... is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.[6]

DNA studies demonstrate that Ashkenazi Y-Chromosome Jews originated in Middle Eastern populations, [7] as has the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population.[8] So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim. [9]

Another criticism that has been leveled against Koestler's work is that he largely appropriated his history from such sources as D.M. Dunlop, sometimes without proper attribution. Moreover, it has been pointed out that his more speculative second half (discussing his theories about Ashkenazi descent) is largely unsupported; to the extent that Koestler referred to place-names and documentary evidence his analysis has been described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources.

Other critics of the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory have stated that the prime motive for even the small degree of acceptance of these ideas is because they have become political and anti-Zionist in nature. The Khazar theory has been adopted by many anti-Zionists, especially in the Arab world;[6] such proponents of the theory argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar in origin, then they would be outside the scope of God's promise of Canaan to Israelites as recorded in the Bible. This ignores, of course, the fact that the Biblical promise explicitly includes converts, and the fact that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi. (see Demographics of Israel, Jewish exodus from Arab lands) Some have countered that such charges of a political motive are not relevant to the core of the argument; in any event, Koestler himself was emphatically pro-Zionist based upon secular considerations.

The Khazar claim has also served as a catalyst for state anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and a justification for conquest by Russian nationalists. [4]

Others have claimed Khazar origins for such groups as the Karaim, Krymchaks, Mountain Jews, and Georgian Jews. There is little evidence to support any of these theories, although it is possible that some Khazar descendants found their way into these communities. Non-Jewish groups who claim at least partial descent from the Khazars include the Kumyks and Crimean Tatars; as with the above-mentioned Jewish groups, these claims are subject to a great deal of controversy and debate.


Um- Loreng- they said pretty much what you said- so why is wikipedia "so useless" - in fact, I have read the disputes as far as the neutrality of the sources- I think they are very on top of disputes of neutrality. Why would you dispute that?

Should Jews be classified as a race of people?
No, obviously.

Can one be against Israel, whether that be creation or existence, without having any problems with Jews as a group of people?
Yes, obviously.

I don't think I have ever been asked a set of questions on this forum where the answers were so obvious. The fact that some folks here don't get it is instructive and gives me an additional clue of how addressing anything even suggestive of being controversial having to do with Israel opens up a pandoras box of hyper emotional irrational responses, generally in the direction of fantasies of Israeli or Jewish victimization.

Kind of reminds me of an old Lenny Bruce joke about group hypersensitivity.
"Excuse me sir, can you tell me what time it is?"

"Yeah, I'm Jewish!"

Is what I wrote. I did not state that they are totally wrong, I wrote that they are not a real authority.

This is what the welcoming page of the English portion states This means that it is obvious that there is no fact checking or authority conferring any sort of standards.

When the variance in population is more than 36% I have to wonder what else is wrong. To use them as a source is fine so long as there is more authoritative sources to support the entries. Otherwise yes I have a problem with an open source encyclopedia as any sort of authority on any matter.

I will agree on wikipedia not being as concrete as I would like. Take physics for example, one of its disciplines being biophysics. Now if you go and read about physics in it, the opening salvo has a bit about how physics has nothing to do with biology Not to say I disagree or agree, but it seems the field of physics itself would disagree.

I also have noticed that people may actually play with it a bit, at one point a topic had an entry of "this is gay" attached to it

I also know that the human genome project along with countless other studies about natural history, this would include us, pretty much destroys the notion of different human races on an evolutionary level, not only this, but along with other studies in biology the current consensus and thus label puts humans collectively together as one specie.

Now I know what science knows can change, but I would think this facet of such would have already undergone such a change, plus I think people have already attempted to do such, to fit “evil” plans.

So if you want to go on about tracing things, at what point or snapshot in history does a group become a race? I would have say if you want to qualify such, to me the only thing you could go from is culture overall. Taking say the aborigine into account on the nicely segregated ecosystem that was Australia, even with those constraints on that gene pool for whatever amount of time that held its impact, those people genetically and other are as human as anyone else, they do though have a very distinct culture, and of course other aspects that would easily qualify as difference, but still just the same as you and I when you get down to it. Speciation has been recorded in modern times, and of course mutation actually is somewhat constant, even if the percentage falls to the right of the radix point just a little bit, and of course all kinds of other things you have to take into account that would make this post just a bit long in the tooth. Bottom line to me is this, race as its used is a misnomer in regards to a factual understanding of things. If we really wanted to get conservative on things people would be holding wars over the caves in France, the problem being is really it’s the culture and its relation to that people that make it up that’s important in my eyes, and many of our past cultures are exactly that, dead and no longer existing and overall of no consequence to anyone involved anymore save what they may have became in themselves. Just as American culture came from something else, so did the culture of the Phenicians, which I am sure held an impact on the formation of other cultures and so forth and so on.

Should Jews be classified as a race of people?

After further research and discussion, I'm going to have to change my answer to this question. I believe that Jews are an ethnic group, but not a race. As a race, I'd say that, historically, Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Again, this is if you take a look at ethnicity and not just religion.

I agree with you, but I didn't realize there was a difference. Is there a difference between race and ethnicity?

Strawman #1 - Israel moved people out. Not responding.


Strawman #2 - Israel occupied this territory (I presume unjustly) - not responding.
As for the meaningless, childish destruction of property, yes that's what I'm saying. The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


What was the point of your exercise here? Were you saying that Israel is farther from Europe than Tibet is from China? Because, based on who's settling where, that's not exactly true.


Well, kudos for finding another country which you dispute, out of 200 choices. What "African society" would you have suggested that the freed slaves integrate into? Do you mean one of the hundreds of tribes? Several, based on where those people originated? Why do you suppose that they ruled Liberia for 150+ years as a collective set of people, keeping English, American naming conventions and power? Might their society have been superior to what was in Liberia before?


Strawman #3 - I did not say that the whole Jewish claim to being a race had anything to do with what word is used to describe anti-Jewish bigots. I was directly addressing your simplistic de-construction of the word "anti-Semite."

1 - It's not a myth. It's the accepted usage of the word, irrelevant of how it became the usage.
2 - If the "only people propagating this myth are Jews," does that mean that Jews write all the dictionaries? Does that make me a Jew, even though I'm a Christian?

Why you continue to assert that the entire world is wrong and you are right is beyond me.

Strawman #4 - Black Jews don't claim to be descendants of the 12 Tribes. While there have been Jews in Abbysinia / Ethiopia since the queen of sheba, they aren't one of the 12 Tribes.


I've said that they are. Basically everyone here says at the least that they are an "ethnic group" so what's the difference. You seem to have trouble with the fact that a Jew can be a member of an ethnic group OR a member of a race. Or both. Doesn't seem so hard for other folks to understand.

This is the second or third time you've said this, and it's still not true. There have been Jews in and around Israel for 5000 years or so, and there has been a Jewish diaspora for 2 or 3 thousand years, including some in Europe. But to incinuate that *all* the Jews have lived in Europe for 2000 years is false. The ones that lived in Europe were there for nowhere near 2000 years. For example, the ones that went to Spain arrived in the 15th Century, so that would only be 500 years.

Lastly, could you be just a tiny bit respectful in your posts. I know we are all a little sharp-edged on this topic, but you are definitely offending a portion of our readers, and we could do without people calling Yiddish "quacks" and putting smiley faces and such on this serious subject. I'm sure you'd feel the same if I started a thread that "light-skinned blacks aren't really black" or something.

Well, my own research has been very enlightening to myself- but I think one line in Wikipedia was VERY telling- that defining "who is a Jew" is a very troubling and hard exercise for western thinking poeples, because it is a blend of ethnicity, religion and sociology.

Since the Jews have CERTAINLY been one of the most persecuted poeples on earth, due to the three above, I think teh Jews have EARNED the right to consider themselves a seperate ethnicity, or some sort of entity, hard to define for modern thought. BUt, the fact that OUTSIDERS made some of this definition in order to kill them- the reality is, they are a poeple apart.

Out of curiousity alone, I am thinking of testing my kids for the Cohen type gene, to see if they are in fact, ethnically Jewish, or if the russian side was fibbing a bit to get out of Russia- though I doubt this since about 80% of the ex-es family was killed by Stalin.

But I do think you can be anti-Israali and not be anti-semetic (in the modern usage ) - that being said- Droop is slightly right- since many middle eastern arabs test for the "jewish" gene (is that politically correct? ) - it is quite possible for a palestenian suicide bomber to pass himself off as Jewish, but ethnically and socially and religiously.

Also- upon talking to my own family historian- about 25% of his arm of the family is ethnically Jewish, or "half Jew"-my own side has a long history of arranged marriages, so we are pretty set in our ethnicity, practising our own brand of "endo-whatever they call it"

But CW- c'mon dude- you got to admit that Israel's situation is unique, both as the idea of founding the nation the way they did, displacing the local population, of which the Jews were a definate minority, and the fact that the modern Zionists (from what, 1880) got togethe and cooked up a plan to take Israel for jews- which, is a form of racism and nationalism of itself- Isreal for Jews or whatever.

There seems to be sooo little middle ground here- so that someone like myself, that has absolutely no animosity towards Jews, and celebrate my own childrens ethnicty, and will do anything my kids wish, when they come of age, to celebrate the rich tradition of thier ancestors, yet, also understand that the formation of a state that claims to be a certain ethnicitie's homeland, may be a bit destabilizing, and perhaps, one mistake in a long list of mistakes the UK and US and UN made mistakes on all the ME and re-apportioning the entire ME, from Iraq, to Saud to Israel, are now some kind of anti-semite for calling Israel on it's ethnic-cleansing-lite program that they have been quite succesful at.

And, Menachim Begin, head of the most radical and terroristic of the militiant Zionists, laid down the basic plan the PLO took off with themselves. Israel was BORN of terrorism towards the British, and now, the PLO is bringing home that method of warfare to roost against Israel. ONly much, much worse, using children and women and all that.

But the PLO's terrorism is the logical evolution of what Menachim Begin started in the terrorist activities against the British. But if you say that, boy, do you get a denial, big time.

So Loreng- when I read your posts about the non-Jewish poeple living in that region as the majority prior to 1948- you seem to really absolve the Jews and Israelis of all guilt for this version of ethnic shift, and make it seem like Israel is totally blameless and was some sort of benevolent being towards them, while, Droop makes Israli's sound like Serbian ethnic cleansers.

Where is the justice and truth here though? If we expect Israel, someday, to be left alone to run thier country, without threat from the whole world, how can we do that considering the country was founded on terrorism against the British, and the (however it happened ) expuslion of the majority population already living there? How can you ever hope to have a nation that doesn't confront this head on, something that the US has to deal with concerning blacks and native americans, we at least realize we had some past wrongs, and don't consider ourselves blameless, though we argue continually about how to remedy those past wrongs so we can all live together in some sort of harmony.

I believe there is. The two are related, but race does not equal ethnicity. I believe that race is more rooted in biological classification, while ethnicity involves more than that... language, religious and other cultural origins, nationality or tribal affiliation in addition to - but not limited to - shared racial characteristics.

For example, is Kurdish a race or an ethnicity? Is there an ethnic difference between a Puerto Rican and a Mexican? Between an individual from Japan and an individual from Thailand – are they of Asian race, but different ethnicities?

I agree with your assesment Entspeak, but I still disagree that Jews are an ethnicity. Rather I think there are multiple ethnicities of Jews and that all of them are not the same. Would you agree to this. Do you feel the Ashkenazim Jews are a different ethnicity than Sephardim Jews, who differ from Mizrahi Jews, who differ from many other ethnic jews?? Would you agree that we are dealing with more than one set ethnicity??

This whole business of what do we mean by ethnicity is interesting. Here wikipedia tries to tackle the issue:

Wikipedia discusses ethnicity

The term appears to cast a wide net. Once you follow the trail of revealed possibilities just about any group that one can develop a loose identification with can be an ethnicity as long as there is some vague biological component.

I guess at the outer fringes Asians could be considered an ethnicity under some circumstances but it is unlikely that the class of red haired people would be. Red haired people seldom see themselves or are seen in group terms. However if the biological roots of bad temper became a very popular topic no doubt red haired people would gravitate to ethnic status.

One could get into some interesting discussions about why Jews are an ethnic group but Catholics aren't except when ........... Whatever.

I don't see why there can't be smaller groups within an ethnicity or sub-ethnic groups within a general ethnic group. My point is that being Jewish, for many, is not solely religion but it is their ethnicity - whether they are ethnically Ashkenazim Jews, Sephardim Jews, Mizrahi Jews or Jewish Kurds (which appear to be related to the Ashkenazim). They are ethnically Jewish.

Actually Mrs. P I think it is saying what I am saying. I recognize that common usage of the word "anti-semetic" is used predominately to describe "anti-jewish" So let me point out a key part of what your wikipedia link tells us.



And this is basically what i am saying.

Has the meaning of "anti" changed?? Has it's meaning changed when used as a prefix?? Has the meaning of what a semite changed?? No, no, and no.

Simply put the word anti-semite hasn't been changed, it just leaves out all other semetic people, except jews. Why?? Did other semetic people give up their claim to their heritage. No. What happened is that in practice western culture simply referred to being opposed to jews as anti-semitism, and thus cared less who else belonged to the group. But if an Arab is a semite, then to be racially oppossed to arabs is anti-semitism. That's called simple logic.

Loreng


People who write dictionaries are not english experts, they are merely defining words, likely using other dicitionaries or previous dictionaries or common usage.

You call it nonsense, but, again, I call it logic. If someone tells me 2x=12 I can tell you that 6x=36. If someone tell me that anti means to be "oppossed to" and then they define "semite", I have the ability to decipher that if anti-semite only pulls one group out of the semite family as a definition, then it is a incomplete and inaccurate definition.





And yet, would you have us believe there are arab Jews?? Are there Black Jews?? What about persian Jews??Asian Jews?? Are these people their respectful races or do they stand outside their race as we presume "white" Jews do?? And, just for the record, I am not saying Jews are white. I'm saying Ashkenazim Jews are white.... And some Sephardim.

So tell me Droop. At what point in the interbreeding process does a Jew stop being a Jew and become a 'mongrel'?

Because thats what you seem to be saying. Jews who have interbred are no longer Jews but something else and there fore it can't be considered racist to be anti Israel... Okay, so you can't be considered a racist by the words purest definition if you refuse to accept the Jews as a race.

Its still hatred, enmity, anger, hypocrisy, what ever you wish to call it to hold one set of people, what ever their racial/ethnic/religious/national identity to a different account than others. Its also suspicious when that anger seems to hinge on the 'whiteness' of those people's skin, especially given the 'whiteness' of other people's skin in the region... people who aren't Jewish, but Turks and Arabs.

Correction: the first Jews were the children of Judah, from whom the term Jew derives. Judah was one of the Isaac's 12 sons.

A jew stop being a Jew the minute he/she relinquinshes their Jewish faith. Same time a Chriistian stops being a Christian and a Muslim stops being a muslim.




No, that's what you want to believe i am saying, because you don't want to start thinking of a religious philosophy as the basis of being a Jew. Which it is.

The only reason why it has become so confusing is because people want it to be confusing. Is it intentional, I think so, but I admit I lack the proof.

Look at the roots.

If a Jew is the follower of Judaism, which is a historical and religious fact. Thaen it can not turn into a race or an ethnicity. It is a spiritual belief.

However if we wish to think of Jews as an ethnic or subethnic groups, we have to label..."Which jews" However since the religious belief of Judaism spread across many nations as did the people with the destruction of Israel, than it is inappropriate to confuse the ethnicity of one group of Jews and another group of Jews.

The term Jew in this sense is more of a religious connection, not an ethnic connection, and definately not a racial connection.


Let me give you a prime example of why this is important.


C-Whey



What did CW do here?? I'm saying that Jews weren't in the area for close to 2000 years, he saying Jews were in the area. Who lying?? Neither of us, but I think we know Which of us is trying to be more truthful. Me.

You see Arab Jews, or Black Jews, Persian Jews, had no influence in European nations then, they have none now. No the influence came from Ashkenazim Jews, the one you continue to hear me call "white/european" They are the reason why Israel was recreated. And they were the ones not in the area for close to two millenium.

But we all know we can deceive, while not actually lying. So let's say one makes no distinguishment between the different ethnic Jews One can justify what European Jews did, while making statements of fact for what arab or middle eastern Jews were doing, were they were at, though there is little connection other than a religious belief.

Also Moif, while you may find palestinians or arabs with pale skin, you do not find that Arabs are a white skinned people. Same with Ashkenazim Jews. They have Yiddish, which is slavic based language. They term Ashkenazim refers to them as "Jews of Germanic rite" They share far greater physical features with other europeans than they do with any native middle-eastern people. But they do carry a different religion, and Yiddish is a different language, and their culture is different as well. Which to me is enough to accept the Ashkenazim Jew as an ethnic group. And while one can not completely divorce all Ashkenazim Jews of any middle eastern ties. One can see that they physically have greater ties to European nations. So even if we are to accept them as a subethnicity or ethnicity of a group of people. That group of people would lie in Europe.

As to your mongrel question. I would say an 1/8 or more at most to be considered that ethnicity. That gives you to one great grandparent. After that your not really that ethnicity, just have it in your blood stream in an minute amount. If your great great grandmama was native American and since then eveyone else has been white, you're no cherokee

I'm sorry, I've tried to follow this discussion once (and even posted once only to be ignored) and I can't stand it anymore. Droop, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, but what you are doing here is kind of weird. You are taking two avenues to this debate. First, you are engaging in a laughably misguided semiotic argument. Second, you are taking a hatchet to the terms "race" and "ethnicity." Both efforts seem to be designed to draw out and distance people's support of the Jewish people from the state of Israel. You can try all you like to argue that the Zionists don't speak for Jews, which is true, but if you wish to engage in an honest critique of Israel, you're going to have to engage people directly instead of implying some sort of global etymological conspiracy. For the easy comprehension of what I've just accused you of, I've broken my post into two parts according to your two distinct arguments:

Part 1

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this sort of etymological drift is the worst kind of academic discourse. Words do change; but the change is only relevant in the broader consideration of their use. You are attempting to apply "logic" to the etymology of the word "anti-semitism" when in fact logic and semiotics (the study of the meaning of symbols) are completely unrelated. You can define "anti-semitism" all you want, but your definition is worthless, because it only has that meaning for you... and your efforts have done little to convince others of that meaning.



You are factually incorrect in every single element of this statement. Dictionary editors are english experts, and they are not defining words. They are recording and clarifying the definition of words. When the Oxford ED added "D'oh," they did not assign the word a value, they just editted the meaning of the word into a concise definition based on it's use. The Simpsons defined the word, the dictionary just wrote the definition down.

The word anti-semitism itself has no value; no words do. They are just symbols. These symbols are assigned values through socialization and use. There is no logical deduction to be made. The meaning of the "word" anti-semitism cannot be deduced from the words "anti" and "semitism." We can gain some insight into the origins of that word, but the meaning remains the meaning that the "common use" ascribes. Let me provide an example. The word "faggot" originally denoted a bundle of sticks or stems of wood. (It has of course taken on a whole new meaning, but lets assume that we're all english scholars here.) Taking this knowledge, it is easy to understand how the word "fag" came to be attached to cigarettes or cigarillos; they were small, individual burning stems.

Now, using your logic, the term "fag" doesn't have any sort of sexuality-oriented value, but is instead simply a word for cigarettes; and we're all fools for using it incorrectly. But the fact is that the word "fag" has taken on that other meaning, to the point that it has almost no significance as symbol for cigarettes. The same is true of anti-semitism. Rightly or wrongly, the term denotes resentment towards the Jews. This meaning has no significance for the word semite whatsoever, despite your efforts to suggest otherwise.

Part 2

Your whackamole approach to defining "ethnicity" is equally perplexing. Instead of providing a rational definition of the term, all you have done is assign disparate and seemingly distinct "ethnic" values to different examples of jewish people.

Ashkinazim are ethnic jews when...

Jews are an ethnic group because...

Arab jews are a distinct ethnic group because...

Without actually defining the term "ethnicity" your arguments make little- to no-sense; which is why you find it so easy to refute counterarguments. Everyone else is playing soccer and you're carrying the ball in your hands and yelling "can't catch me!"

Until you define absolute values for race and ethnicity, we will be left to scratch our heads. Now let me address your specific arguments, as some of them concern me directly.



This is absurd. Ethnicity is not incompatible with religion; in fact the two are often intertwined. Let me ask you this; are the Dene indians a race, ethnic group or religion? They share a genetic history with other First Nation groups, so using your previous arguments they would be a "subethnic group" of the larger Indian community. They have a religion, which using your arguments means that they're not an ethnicity, but a religious group.

More to the point, following Judaism is not entirely a spiritual exercise; it is a recognition and attachment to a shared cultural history (which sounds an awful lot like "ethnicity" to me.)

While I agree with your assessment Joe, your follow through needs work.

The same etymological drift you speak of is precisely why I do not recognize anti-semitism as resentment towards the jews as a factually accurate sentence.

This arguement has been presented by Alan Dershowitz many times and the arguement always broadens to resentment between M.E. people. To myself Joe, that is drift.

What becomes obvious when engaging in anti semetic arguements is that one group insists the term only applies to them. In the process the term becomes something of a Hitler-card, something which impedes further discussion and backs one group into a corner in a rather absolutist fashion. This is why I haven't commented on this thread even though I have much to say.

This exercise is precisely why Israeli issues linger, that recognition is demanded but not given, and demands are placed above communication. The reciprocity needed for peaceful relations is never given or taken. In its place steps in a super power which is constantly vetoing troublesome issues which we are all supposed to not talk about. Yes Joe, I have broadened the definitiion of anti-semetism that much to mean the art of recognition without discourse.

Well, I'll make sure not to ignore you this time.

Part 1



O.K. I thought I explained this so here we go. I understand that the meaning of words change. I would argue that you are 100 percent correct if my logic did what you actually are saying, but it doesn't.

Fact #1.... again

Are Jews included in the definition of Semite?? The answer is yes Are Arabic people also included in the definition of Semite?? The answer is yes.

So if I am against semitic people does that make me anti-semitic?? Yes. If I am oppossed to Christianity, would it be correct to label me anti-christianity.

If it was a matter of the words being redefined I would agree with you. If Jews were defined as the only semtic people I would agree with you.

A prefix is



It changes the the usage of the root word, it can not change the meaning of the root word it self.

So my only two questions to you are. Is "anti" being used as a prefix in the word anti-semite. Does the word semite include Arabic speaking people?

If the answer is yes to both question... which they are... then I am correct.

Add to that... this is such a small part of the issue, it doesn't deserve this much attention. By the way I also agree with you about symbols and language. But until you exclude arabic people out of the word semetic, you can not exlude it from the word anti-semitic. Give me another example where this is done.



Part 2


Why do I "assign disparate and seemingly distinct "ethnic" values to different examples of jewish people"?? Have you figured it out yet?? Why do I point out that Jews are spread out among diffeent races and nationalities?? Have you figured it out yet??

The answer is no, cause you are too busy trying to argue what I am not saying, rather than actually reading what i am saying.

So take a breath... count to 10 and then read what i am saying below.

Ashkenazim Jews do fit, in my opinion the definition of an ethnicity. I have NO problem treating them as an ethnicity.

However... They are NOT the same ethnicity as every other group of Jews. How can you be the same ethnicity if you have "disparate and seemingly distinct "ethnic" values"?? They different ethnic values, they are in different geographical locations, they have/had different languages.

I admit defining ethnicity is perplexing, but in what way are all jews connected besided religious philosophy?? Base philosophy at that because they too have sects and denomination like every other religion.

I'll tell you what I'll do Ultimate Joe. I'll throw down the ball, now you pick it up. Now give me your best "reasonable" definition of ethnicity, and explain to me how all Jews are the same ethnicity.

Now we go to race.

Again very hard to give such a Human construct as race a hard packed-no room to manuever-definition. Would you agree. But my point again is. If Jews are spread throughout multiple races (as we've come to understand the word), then jews can't be A race.

But again you take the ball... define race as you see fit and see if you still don't end up with Jews in multiple racial groups, as you define it.

And I will clarify my defining to this degree. I can be the same race is someone, but not the same ethnicity. However, you can not be the same ethnicity of someone if you're not the same race.

Example.

I'm Black, but that doesn't make me the same ethnicity of every group in Africa. We may be the same race, as we've come to view race. On the flip side I may have the exact same upbringing of a fellow white or hispanic American, same language, culture, and religion, but I've never heard of people calling Americans one ethnicity.



As are all religions Joe, or do you think Judaism is so special. All religions "believe" they have some shared background. Are you willing to call Christians and muslims ethnicities too??

There are 35 definitions for Black at dictionary.com. Using your etymological, um, logic, you are "without hue and color," you operate "at a profit," you are illegal and you are also half the spaces on the chessboard. Can't you see that words are just words, and that the meaning comes from people and society? Somewhere in history some races were called "white" and "black" and "oriental" and "eskimo" and the like. "Oriental means eastern, yet it was a race, and we now generally use "asian" in its place, which encompasses Chinese and many other races and ethnicities.

Somewhere over the years, anti-Jewish bigots became "anti-semites." When I was in high school, I was in the "Afro Club." If someone started such a club today, they would be called a racist. Words evolve.

As Ultimate Joe explained you are incorrect and a racist. You do not like the definition of a word so you created your own. Does that mean you are correct, no! I stated that you are free to bring in any other recognized dictionary definition you care to, instead you invented one that does not exist, has never existed and yet you persist in presenting nonsense as fact.

You claim that English must be logical, alas it is not. For every rule in the English language I can produce 100 exceptions to the same rule. English is not a logical language nor does anybody with an ounce of common sense attempt to claim so.

The term Semite and anti-Semite do not have anything to do with each other. We have proven that multiple times. Every English language dictionary in the world states as much, but you do not agree. To bad. You are not an authority on the English language, but they are.

As for examples the dictionaries of the world have tens of thousands of exceptions. If you want us to lool them up for you, forget it. That's your problem, I suggest that you attempt to disprove the definition. All of us have provided ample proof and you have not provide a single iota to disprove any one of our statements.

As for your statement that you are How kind of you. We do not need your approval. The Jews are a race as defined by the scientists. Don't like it, again too bad, not your call to make. As for different languages, no we have a common language, it is called Hebrew and all adults are required to know it. As for different ethnic values, yes there are minor differences, but on the major values, no there is no difference.

As for whether you are an anti-Semite, there is absolutely no doubt in the world. You more than qualify in every category.

EDIT: Removed duplicate post

Jews are a race? Which scientists say that? Sammy Davis Junior shared the same race with Begin? Give me a break.


All adult Jews are required to know Hebrew? I've got a lot of adult Jewish friends who apparently haven't gotten the message. I'll be sure to let them know.

In response to Loreng59


So if Semite legally in a current sense can be applied to more then just something that denotes Jewish, say an Arab, if I was to be harsh on him, he could not reply saying i am being an anti-Semite?

I mean if we are accepting dictionary for ultimate rule on the subject, many dictionaries don’t just leave Semite as something with a purely Jewish meaning is all, and as you put it the English language has many errors logically speaking, and for most things they are temporary, but this point such is closed and has concrete meaning?

I know of two basic models for human evolution going from data that has been collected, in end game speaking they all put us homo sapiens still, but most backing goes to the out of Africa theory at this point, from genetics to archeology of it all. Point being again, that at some point the Jewish culture had to be created or fabricated just as American culture was, or German culture or whatever. Another point is changes to human biology, from hair color, to skin color, to what a face looks like varies greatly all over the world, and even in places where pretty heavy constraints may exist on such, going from the term race, I think looking at the world you can see that its not used correctly really, or that we have a great many races then that do not get such a label and some that maybe should not get the label, such as blacks collectively being called a race even though you can find distinct variation of course within such, to white people of course, a race of races if you get down to it

I accept the idea that culture or religion in its own can probably have more of an effect then is currently understood. I also accept the notion that certain traits, biologically speaking may come to surface in certain cultures, the point I am trying to make is to accept the idea of race as its put forward is to accept really different species of humans overall, like lion to a bear type scenario, all I can say is from how science currently looks at things, we are all one specie or race coming from a common ancestry, its in our code even. I mean new races of people have come about in modern history going on from that view, but the other end of it is that they came from people, not dirt.

But of course something that is truly factual is not relative is it? I would put forth that its not, primitive man may have not been able to grasp gravity but none the less I doubt that it did not exist. Other perceptual facets of our life I don’t think have that much staying power naturally, such as it was ok in point in history to own slaves in America, just like meanings to words though perception is mutable, but I don’t think that applies to everything, such as perception of atoms does not change what an atom is, its independent of us.

So again to race, I accept to a certain level for people to say this or say the belong to that, its fine, whatever, but the idea of different human races basically is to say we are not all homo sapiens, some of us are other, and again as far as I know science cant support that stance with cold hard empirical fact, it can however support all of us collectively being one specie or race, the human race.

I mean legally going from the modern day understanding of it, I am sure you can say that blacks are a race, whites are a race, and so forth and so on, but personally I find it all to terribly ignorant, and moreover I actually have come to hate such for I think it truly breeds racism.

Ultimate Joe never called me a racist Loreng, but you just did. Of course you may try to start flaming knowing this debate got one warning and wanting it ended, and let me tell youthere are moderators that want to please you in this regard, but then there are those that don't.

At any rate, I can accept being called a racist in this debate, if you can simply point out what "race" of people I think I am superior to... or that I think inferior to my race. Go ahead.... I'll wait.

So what definition did I invent?? Semite or Anti??

The term Semite and anti-Semite do not have anything to do with each other

Wow? That is all I can say. I am doing quite well in this debate, if I caused you to make a statement like that. I mean honestly, where do you think the word anti-semite derived from, if not from the word "Semite"??



Good, then you shouldn't have trouble finding me ten... how about 7?? three??? ...



You have a common language??? Since when? Do you mean Israelites have a common language?? AS Dingo asked... which scientists say that all Jews are part of one race?? Cause i want to that scietist to explain how white Jews and Black Jews became two totally different colors.

By the way... did you address any of the statements I made. How is one ethnicity different ethnicities?? How is one race different races??? I'm still perplexed??



Every category?? Name one. And if I am an anti-semite , which semitic group am I against?? All of them??


C-Whey



This has nothing to do with my logic, and i can't break it down any better than I already did. or maybe I can. The word black has 35 definitions, that means there are 35 definition of anti-black. The term "anti-black would depend on what definition of Black you are using.

I do see that words are words that are defined by society. I agree with you CW... can't you see that??? However, if semite includes Jews and arabic, aramaic, hebrew, etc.. speaking people... Then you can't exclude every other group of peoplebesides jews when adding the prefix "anti" infront of it.

So what about all the Jews who do not define themselves as Jewish on account of their religion? Are you trying to tell me that 2,000 years of Jewish history is a self inflicted deception? ...or that all Jews are only Jews if they believe in their god?

And in all honesty Droop. What difference does your distinction make to people whose families were slaughtered regardless of their religious sensibilities?


I have Ulcerative colitus and numerous other aflictions as a direct consequence of my genetic heritage Droop. Please do not tell me what I 'want to believe', thank you. You have no idea what I want to believe. You can question my right to call myself Jewish since I am not religious, but I'm afraid your opinion regarding words makes no difference to my genetic heritage or how I define my own existence on the basis of my family.

And no I am not a semite, not by my understanding of that word, I am Scandinavian, but I am still Jewish and I have the genes to prove it. What ever race is, its not as simple as belonging to one group of people. Its not so easy to point to the colour of one's skin or shape of ones nose and say, thus am I black.

I'm finding this debate tedious. I don't see why I should have to prove to you or any one else who I am. Race is totally irrellevent anyway and you've already agreed as much in that racism is found in the mind of the racist and not the ethnicity of the victim.

Anti Jewish hatred is refered to as 'anti semitic', whether or not that phrase is really accurate is completely besides the point since the accuracy of the phrase doesn't change the racism that prompts the accusation.

The only possible objection you could have to being called anti semitic is if the accusation itself were unfounded. Arguing about who or what is a semite in the context of such an accusation is pretty lame.


I must correct you. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a Jew is a person of Hebrew descent OR whose religion is Judaism.

In other words being Jewish is not only defined by ones religion...

This is the third time I have seen posted a reference to Jewish genes. What in the heck are Jewish genes? Can nonJews have Jewish genes? Would a Scandanavian with Jewish genes have more Jewish genes than say a nonJewish Arab?

First off Ultimate Joe I apologize, too tired from moving snow and got my syntax badly mangled.

I agreed with what UJ wrote, and I am the one that considers you to be a racist.

I did provide with 'progress' and 'congress', what is the plural of 'fish'? Grammar exceptions .

I suggest that you might consider a English course at your local community college, they will be able to explain the tens of thousands of exceptions. Also I am still waiting for YOU to provide one dictionary that supports your definition. Your turn.

And yes you are attempting to re-define a term that is refuted by every English language expert, and then you deny it. Provide us with anything beyond your own definition. Yes the 'anti-Semite' has only one definition and it has nothing to do with 'Semite'. I did not create the term, nor did I attempt to define it.

I will not repeat what has already been posted about the Jewish Race. Geneticists disagree with your claims and you have not provide a single source that refutes them. As for the different colors of skin, guess what it takes more than just skin color to define race. You look to the surface to determine a person's race? There has never been a light skin-colored African? Ridiculous!

As for our common language, we have had Hebrew as a common language for the past 4,000 years or so. And all Jewish services are still conducted in Hebrew and to pass one's Bar/Bat Mitzah they are required to learn Hebrew, now if they retain that learning is another matter, if you don't use a language you do lose it. But yes that is part of the cycle of learning for Jews from Hong Kong to Jerusalem and all points between.

As for your confusion, imagine mine trying to understand how you can continue to spout rhetoric that is common among skin-heads, neo-nazis and radical Islamics. Maybe if you did a little research at sites other than those types you might gain so real knowledge.

Here is a good link with all kinds of information I think pertains to the debate in reference to the use of the word anti semite. Overall current conseces does place it as a word to describe hatred towards jews only even if the word semite is not purely deffintion for only jew. The arab world seems to be at odds with it though, basically over the same, dont know where that will go though.

Hope you like to read!

Here is another link I also at this point think pertains to the debate.

Its just a neat read.

Alos this as follow up on that link.

"Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

From dictionary.com. Neat site.

another link on the idea of race

From that link, again dictionary.com.

"Humans often categorize themselves in terms of race or ethnicity, although the validity of human races as true biological categories is doubtful."

From one more link I would like to use.

"race, one of the group of populations regarded as constituting humanity. The differences that have historically determined the classification into races are predominantly physical aspects of appearance that are generally hereditary. Genetically a race may be defined as a group with gene frequencies differing from those of the other groups in the human species (see heredity; genetics; gene), but the genes responsible for the hereditary differences between the traditional races are extremely few when compared with the vast number of genes common to all human beings regardless of the race to which they belong. Many physical anthropologists now believe that, because there is as much genetic variation among the members of any given race as there is between the groups identified as different races, the concept of race is unscientific and unsound and racial categories are arbitrary designations."

last link

"A biologically distinctive major division of a species, in which the differences between recognized races exceed the variation within them. While useful in describing variation in many plants and animals, where race is often equated with subspecies, the concept has little or no value for describing human biological diversity. This is because the pattern of human variation is predominantly one of within-group variation, so that it is impossible to delineate clear boundaries between groups. Although the concept of human races is long-established and persistent, it is not consistent with actual classificatory categories. Biological differences between groups result from the isolation of breeding populations, but evidence indicates contact between human groups since at least the Middle Pleistocene (0·6 million years ago)."

Just a pull from that link.

Thank you Gordo. This is the point I have been trying to convey all through this topic. Essentially race is not about genetics, or skin colour or language type or religion. It is all of these but also none. Race is about identity and self perception. An African American is often defined by the colour of his skin. Unfairly I would say since many black skinned people are neither American nor African.

Another way to say it is, if there were no racism then there would be no reason to debate race.

Loreng- you keep saying "scientists know the definition" kinda thing- but I pointed out, some arabs and Italians both can 'test" for the genetic issues that some, but NOT all poeple who call themselves "jew" have-

to keep saying "scientists know this fact" - is a bit misleading.

Loreng and Droop, to me, epitomize this issue. Don't agree with the Israeli agenda? Racist!

on the other hand- the denial of the racial issue of being Jew

Like I posted before- almost every genetic and identity issue regarding Judiasm starts out with "The way to determine Jewish-ness is controversial even among the Jews and bedevils western civilization to this day".

You are very wrong in your statement. Don't agree with the Israeli agenda, what part? If you say because it should never have been a country then yes that is racist.


If you wish to state that they have done something that you don't agree with, that is not racist. But if the rest of the world is not held to that same standard then I have to ask why? Why is Israel singled out, and no others? If that is not racism then the term does not exist. And you have done both repeatedly.

I do not agree with most of the Israeli government's actions, but maybe not for the same reasons as you. I think they don't look beyond a 48 hour window before deciding to do something really stupid like PM Olmert did when he agreed to a cease-fire and the Arabs have yet to stop firing rockets. Since that agreement was made 18 rockets have been fired into Israel. Letting the Arabs continue to shoot rockets at Israel is part of the government's agenda, and I think it myopic and moronic.

So while you continue to claim that I will call anybody a racist that does not agree with Israel's agenda (whatever that means exactly I don't know) is wrong. I disagree with most of gordo's postings yet I have never referred to him as a racist, ever wonder why - see above.

Sometimes I think how entropy in itself can be used to describe weather patterns or other systems that whatever cultural/perception issues in the ME around Israel and Arab populations is pretty much stuck in a cycle or sorts until something changes. Its a constantly worked on issue but at the end of the day its an issue that still leaves pretty much nothing changed and people generally still unhappy or worse.

I think as issue with self determination is people self determining over others and the idea a great majority of cultural perception again is not objective, emotion it seems is not always a blessing in my opinion. No I am not talking directly about the formation of Israel, though I do accept the idea that all in all it was a generally ignorant decision by such people that has pretty much evolved into the modern day scene which could involve heavy warfare and mass death and over time pretty much adds to the same, I mean people in general don’t seem to civil or objective all over the world.

I mean you still have people calling people or entire groups evil, though as noted with antisemitism such is usually grounded in little more then ignorance, it gains power and almost breeds if you will.

Personally I think a great prospect for peace exists within Israel and the rest of the ME, problem is conservatives on each side so easily will brutalize one another when that situation for such arises, which in my opinion has only helped solidify the current stalemate of death in that region of the world.

Many times over though, you cant debate with such groups, ideas have become closed off and in many instances its at personal risk to debate such with such people, on both sides of the aisle.

Actions that could lead to peace seldom to come around as loud as actions that can lead to more destruction, and for the life of me I don’t see why people in that area of the world cannot see this.

I mean what is Israel going to do? occupy the mideast, for how long, will that bring peace. maybe Arabs in general should be destroyed until so many exist that its not enough to fight? I mean that would be a grand end to it, and I am sure some would support that option. Point being is the warfare of that area has provided for little more then a cycle, a brutal cycle in which no peace exists for anyone. I don’t think in the end that warfare is going to end any of the problems, or moreover military I don’t think is the proper tool to engage such an issue with actual hopes of succeeding in a better more peaceful day.

ON such though, it seems everyone is generally ok overall with the violence, which has just been getting more harsh, larger in concentration and sucking more people in as time goes on, someone needs to find a way to break that circuit before everyone gets a lethal shock. Right now it seems the big thing to do is lay all the blame on one group? I don’t think that works and I don’t think such is truly objective of the situation overall.

Because, like anti-semitism itself ( i agree with your definition of the word, BTW- because that is simply the common usage, more than any other reason) - the creation of a "Jewish homeland" in an area they were NOT a majority at the time, is well, racist as well. -

Loreng- it is pretty obvious you have, um, a great deal of disdain for the arabic poeple living around Israel- wouldn't that make YOU a racist? Isn't it a bit racist to say teh palestenians deserve the land that Israel currently occupies have any less claim to that land than those that chased them off?

Israel is a done deal now- nothing can be done about it- and, as you say, Israel is a goverment like any other- all stomach, no brain - that being said- the fact that it is truly unique in it's founding- and trying to compare it to the founding of Egypt or Syria is kinda silly and downright misleading-

I can think of no other nation, off hand, that was created by a minority not even living there at the time.

That alone makes it pretty open to debate- the unique creation of this country, and the subsequent allowable displacement of lots of folks already living there, with claims to the land for centuries as well.

Some questions you have avoided- yes or no, wasn't the Jewish poeple a minority when they were given all this land?

Yes, I realize the whole planet was in shift at the time of ending of WW2- but, do you deny that the modern Zionist movement started in the late 1800s, pretty much conspired to make modern day Israel a country, and the plan succeeded? How about terrorist bheavior towards the British? Was Menachim Begins version okay, but Yassar Arafat's not?

What you get, whenever you discuss this issue- is one side making like the Israeli's marched into Israel, the rightfull owners of the land for centuries, and the Jews did nothing to displace them, and, in fact, offered them tea and roses to stay. That seems to be your version Loreng.

It is the only country we are allowing this partitioning of thier country- this aparthied lite, that you have goig on in Israel today.

And, it is either all race based or religiously based-something we usually don't allow other countries to do.

Everything we do with Israel, is inconsistant with our treatment of other countries- why?

Well, a good argument would be the real pain the Jewish has had to endure for being jewish- the other could be the visions of the rapture the Christians have with Israel being a jewish homeland again- let's face it- that is the real power behind the lobby in the US, I think even more than the Jewish lobby.

Let's not forget- Delay was considered right of Sharon!

I think it set a horrible precedent in MODERN history to allow a country to be carved in an area that the minority is allowed to displace the majority, whatever the mechanism, like that happened with Israel, and, though I have no animosity towards Israel or it's poeple, but I think it has been a global destabilizer since it's inception, which is pretty obvious. Bunch of wars fought over it and all

Hey- I am anti-Syrian, but I have nothing against the Syrian poeple either. I think the goverment needs to be toppled, though, like with Iraq, I think it would be a horrible mistake for a western country to do it. I think Saudi Arabia DESERVES to be invaded by the US, for it's roll in global terrorism- but I have no "thing" against Saudi's themselves. Those are both homelands, established by Brits, basically, and WW2 as well, for an ethnic group, and in case of the Saud's- for thier family as much as anything- Kuwait certianly never deserved to be a stand alone nation, especially considering it is basically for the extended royal family.

the ME is a mess because the brits and US and, thier proxy, the UN didn't handle or think out the area well.

Israel is part of that equation, and, like Iraq, is a done deal, but, we have a whole different dealings with them, mostly because of the religious part of the equation.