Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:45 am**

Cambo wrote:
There are actual physical traits associated with Jewishness, though. Are these pure stereotype, or founded in some truth? If somewhat true, that's gotta be an ethnic thing, right?

Half the Jewish side of my family is Ashkenazi and have very Eastern European features, light skinned, rounder features, 'solid' builds, the other half of the Jewish side is Sephardic with dark skin, dark hair, fine features and slighter shorter builds, almost Arabic in appearance but actually Spanish in their roots. Of course then there is my cousin's husband, who is an Ethiopian Jew. And another one of my cousins is married to a Japanese Jew.

Passover is hilarious. (that reminds me......it's THAT time of year again. Let me go dig up that post.)

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:47 am**

Menolly wrote: And yet, it is the ashkenazim who have the more stereotypical physical traits. Most sephardim I have met may have darker coloring like middle-eastern peoples. But other traits associated with "Jewishness" seem to be absent.

I suspect [mostly from Lit. back through to Shakespeare and beyond through europe] that's because those peeps who originated/put the stereotype [because we are talking about the "type"...which is also cultural, from the other culture] in play were mostly exposed to the ashkenazim "branch" [if that's a legitimate way to say it]...but it would require real research to show it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:19 am**

All Semitic peoples share the potential of those physiological characteristics.

Jewish isn't an ethnicity, (even if it's seen that way), it's a religion. There are Jews of all races and ethnicities.

--A

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:19 pm**

Vraith wrote:
Menolly wrote: And yet, it is the ashkenazim who have the more stereotypical physical traits. Most sephardim I have met may have darker coloring like middle-eastern peoples. But other traits associated with "Jewishness" seem to be absent.
I suspect [mostly from Lit. back through to Shakespeare and beyond through europe] that's because those peeps who originated/put the stereotype [because we are talking about the "type"...which is also cultural, from the other culture] in play were mostly exposed to the ashkenazim "branch" [if that's a legitimate way to say it]...but it would require real research to show it.

Yes, I think a lot of the stereotypes of the typical Jewish "look" stemmed from European antisemitism - hence the Jewish "look" being the Ashkenazi Jewish look.

Most wouldn't look at this pic, for example, and say that these kids fit the typical Jewish stereotype. But these are Jewish children of Yemenite background.

Avatar wrote:All Semitic peoples share the potential of those physiological characteristics.

Jewish isn't an ethnicity, (even if it's seen that way), it's a religion. There are Jews of all races and ethnicities.

--A

Well, yes, there are now Jews of all races and ethnicities. But Jews started as an ethnic group from a particular part of the world (probably Mesopotamia or thereabouts), so there is an ethnic strain that runs through many Jews. Cohenim, in particular - the descendants of the priestly class in Biblical times - have been shown to share genetic sequences and characteristics.

This wikipedia article has some pretty good info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:01 pm**

MsMary wrote:
Well, yes, there are now Jews of all races and ethnicities. But Jews started as an ethnic group from a particular part of the world (probably Mesopotamia or thereabouts), so there is an ethnic strain that runs through many Jews. Cohenim, in particular - the descendants of the priestly class in Biblical times - have been shown to share genetic sequences and characteristics.

This wikipedia article has some pretty good info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

I don't know if we're agreeing or disagreeing, but I'd say it a different way: there were peeps in the fertile crescent, and some of them later founded Judaism, some went other ways. Those groups remained relatively, but not completely, sequestered from each other.

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:34 pm**

Vraith wrote:
MsMary wrote:
Well, yes, there are now Jews of all races and ethnicities. But Jews started as an ethnic group from a particular part of the world (probably Mesopotamia or thereabouts), so there is an ethnic strain that runs through many Jews. Cohenim, in particular - the descendants of the priestly class in Biblical times - have been shown to share genetic sequences and characteristics.

This wikipedia article has some pretty good info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
I don't know if we're agreeing or disagreeing, but I'd say it a different way: there were peeps in the fertile crescent, and some of them later founded Judaism, some went other ways. Those groups remained relatively, but not completely, sequestered from each other.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I was responding more to Av's comment than to yours. That's why I quoted you and Av separately and put comments under each quote.

Respectively.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:17 am**

MsMary wrote:Well, yes, there are now Jews of all races and ethnicities. But Jews started as an ethnic group from a particular part of the world (probably Mesopotamia or thereabouts), so there is an ethnic strain that runs through many Jews. Cohenim, in particular - the descendants of the priestly class in Biblical times - have been shown to share genetic sequences and characteristics.

Yes, but my point is that there were other people in that ethnic group that didn't become Jews. (And as we've established, people from other ethnic groups who did.)

So it isn't a reliable indicator.

--A

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:53 pm**

Avatar wrote:
MsMary wrote:Well, yes, there are now Jews of all races and ethnicities. But Jews started as an ethnic group from a particular part of the world (probably Mesopotamia or thereabouts), so there is an ethnic strain that runs through many Jews. Cohenim, in particular - the descendants of the priestly class in Biblical times - have been shown to share genetic sequences and characteristics.
Yes, but my point is that there were other people in that ethnic group that didn't become Jews. (And as we've established, people from other ethnic groups who did.)

So it isn't a reliable indicator.

--A

Ok, it is true that others from that part of the world do share certain characteristics.

But I do think the shared genetic traits of the priestly class, at least, is interesting and indicative of some continuity among Jews. In other words, it's more than just a religion.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:09 pm**

The Jewish identity seems to be an ethnicity, or at least a collection of ethnicities, ethnicity understood as the union of cultural, historical, and ancestral heritage.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:32 pm**

Ron Burgunihilo wrote:The Jewish identity seems to be an ethnicity, or at least a collection of ethnicities, ethnicity understood as the union of cultural, historical, and ancestral heritage.

which is why I dislike the whole concept...in that definition, ethnicity is a definition that defines nothing...or worse, can legitimately be defined by anyone to mean the thing they prefer. People exist with history and ancestry that are nearly 100% traceable [and 0% traceable] by that mixed method that can/are defined by others as either Jewish or not...and the people themselves can/do disagree with that judgement. There's no objective way to decide, by definition, which is "really" so.
A parallel [though less wide-spread] problem that's popped up in the U.S. and Canada...purely white european peeps that due to circumstances are Indian [or not] and purely Indian [racially] that are not [or are] depending on whose deciding [tribes, gov'ts] and what rules they've decided to make...the same exact person can be either or both or neither depending on where they are, why they're asking, and who they're asking...sometimes you can be yes for one question and no for the other questions without moving one damn inch from where you are standing.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:35 pm**

I think one can posit ethnicity without supposing that it is impermeable or intrinsic. These categories exist and have meaning via contrast, and so require other categories to provide that contrast. Dial the resolution up or down appreciably and it's all bullshit: at the end of the day we are all human beings with less genetic diversity than a single troop of chimpanzees. Yet it is possible to make meaningful statements about the contrasting qualities of certain ethnicities, considered in terms of their cultural habits and even, to the extent that it matters, physical traits.

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:21 am**

MsMary wrote: But I do think the shared genetic traits of the priestly class, at least, is interesting and indicative of some continuity among Jews. In other words, it's more than just a religion.

Oh it's interesting. I think what it's probably indicative of is prohibitions on inter-marriage though.

If it's more than just a religion, are you suggesting that only people with those ethnic characteristics can be real Jews?

--A

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:12 pm**

Avatar wrote:
MsMary wrote: But I do think the shared genetic traits of the priestly class, at least, is interesting and indicative of some continuity among Jews. In other words, it's more than just a religion.
Oh it's interesting. I think what it's probably indicative of is prohibitions on inter-marriage though.

If it's more than just a religion, are you suggesting that only people with those ethnic characteristics can be real Jews?

--A

It is interesting, but actually shows [as your question implies/relates too] the religion is the thing not the genes, cuz the genes that show up in the priestly class do indicate a common ancestor roughly coinciding with the historical/textual evidence to the time of Abraham...but there are a lot more non-Jews than Jews that are just as directly descended from that same ancestor. If the genes are the same, then the religion is the only difference.
[for example according to a cousin of mine who did DNA through the national geographic project [IIRC], we along with 500,000 other peeps are all descended from a Scot who is famous for throwing out the vikings...but he in turn is descended from a single viking, whose name is known though I don't recall it off the top of my head...but I'm not a druid, or a scot, or an eddas-ic kind of pagan despite my gene-line.]

And let's not forget how infinitesimal these differences really are, that it's only the extreme detail/analysis/technology that makes this discussion even possible on a factual basis. IIRC, the total difference between the most UN-related people on the planet is a small fraction of 1%.

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:36 pm**

Vraith wrote:
And let's not forget how infinitesimal these differences really are, that it's only the extreme detail/analysis/technology that makes this discussion even possible on a factual basis. IIRC, the total difference between the most UN-related people on the planet is a small fraction of 1%.

This is why I can't figure out why people even bother continuing to try and classify, quantify, and pigeonhole themselves into an arbitary ethnic group or "race". In that sense, we are just like dogs--a Doberman might not look anything like a Schnauser but they can have a litter together because they are both merely dog underneath.

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:47 pm**

Though the truth is always more complex, when people speak of "race" they are generally using external cues as indicators of cultural and historical traits rather than anything science understands as biologically intrinsic.

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:24 pm**

Ron Burgunihilo wrote:Though the truth is always more complex, when people speak of "race" they are generally using external cues as indicators of cultural and historical traits rather than anything science understands as biologically intrinsic.

Yes, they do. And they are simply incorrect to do so in most cases...doing so is the cause of many of our problems. [which was the major brilliant point of the white power blind black racist in the thread I think you started on stereotypes].
There are so many things that demonstrate all this is purely psycho-culturally constructed and counterfactual, and shown so.
Another illustration, music this time [have I posted on this before? maybe.].
There was [still is, but less common nowadays] the widely accepted notion, even among experts, for a long time, that only African-Americans could play true, authentic blues and some jazz styles. But in blind tests, the experts could tell a lot of things about a player...where likely grew up, who influences were, etc....with reasonable accuracy [considering the expansion of media/exposure/sources, even that would probably be less reliable today]. But they couldn't tell the race of the player beyond pure random chance. They were very very slightly better than random for singers [despite the general impression of major inherent differences between black and white voices.]

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:39 pm**

I wasn't suggesting that the practice was wise Vraith, and I largely agree with you. The point is that meaningful statements about cultural practices in certain populations can be made, not that they are inevitably true. Taking the current case, as an itinerant merchant class (much like certain Chinese and Indian ethnicities in Asia), Jews have acquired a stereotypical reputation of being skilled investors. No this isn't universally true, but culturally speaking there is a certain amount of cause and effect occurring. Every blues guitarist may not be black, but no one disputes that the blues arose out of black culture.

Posted: **Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:04 am**

Ron Burgunihilo wrote:Though the truth is always more complex, when people speak of "race" they are generally using external cues as indicators of cultural and historical traits rather than anything science understands as biologically intrinsic.

Agreed. Race is a social/historical construct, not a biological one.

--A

Posted: **Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:03 am**

Wow Lorin. I deliberately have not read any prior posts because I want my response to be fresh to your original post and the link therein. This is maybe a bit of a difficult aproach - but I wonder if the mans "Wow - you don't look Jewish......etc" should have been cut some more slack. The Hebrew Mamita was fantastic and of course correct in everything she said.......but I'm afraid there might be a 'but'. She radiated so much hurt and anger (and heavens why should she not both for herself and for those millions of people who we will now never see their children) that I can't help but wonder if this in it's turn is not, how shall I say, continuing the crimes started all those years ago by the damage it inflicts on her. The man, for all his stupidity and complete lack of sensitivity, was possibly just trying to say what he thought was good. He was a fool - yes. He was as sensitive as a lump hammer - undoubtedly. But was he malign. Was he anti-semitic. I can't know the answer to this - but I don't think he could be condemned as such on those words alone. Do his words display an 'It's not cool to be jewish' sub-current; yes I think perhaps they do - but then at the 'next level down' if you like they also say 'but it doesn't matter - it's ok because you aren't like that. It's awful - but I don't think it's anti-semitic. For me the obvious pain and anger it caused (as opposed to the realisation that the guy was a low intelect numb-skull and making an excuse to leave) is the most upseting aspect of the thing. Perhaps it's because I'm not young anymore but to be considered 'cool' or 'not cool' (and let's face it - you can never be less cool than to be old

) is so shallow a thing that it flys at a way higher level than what I would consider anti-semitism.

Pertaining to your own situation Lorin - these 'jewish' related comments etc. Again my first reaction wa to say 'the bastards - how could they be so stupid' etc. But then again I realised that there might be more to it than meets the eye (and of course only you Lorin, can sort this out). I have friends who can joke with me about being fat without causing me any offence because I know they do it out of love. Their comments have no sting because they are made as a result of our closeness, as a result of how comfortable those people are with me, not out of malighn desire to hurt. I know the people well enough to know this and I'm ok with it. There are other people from whom the very same words would be insulting to the n'th degree. It is important that you sort the one from the other and (gosh - I'm afraid to say this) don't let your own sensitivity on the subject unduly color the meaning you read into what people say.

nb The generosity thing is a nonsense; completly understandable but still a nonsense - stop that now.

Posted: **Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:16 pm**

Avatar wrote:
MsMary wrote: But I do think the shared genetic traits of the priestly class, at least, is interesting and indicative of some continuity among Jews. In other words, it's more than just a religion.
Oh it's interesting. I think what it's probably indicative of is prohibitions on inter-marriage though.

If it's more than just a religion, are you suggesting that only people with those ethnic characteristics can be real Jews?

--A

Not at all. According to traditional rabbinical discussion, a Jew is anyone who had a Jewish mother. Even if that person later converts to a different religion, he or she is still considered Jewish.

Conversion is very rare and not encouraged by traditional rabbis, although it obviously does happen.

Judaism is not a proselytizing religion.

Kevin's Watch

but you don't LOOK Jewish...........