There is no Jewish race
 

As an atheist, I get slightly annoyed (not offended) when people say that I'm Jewish just because my mom is. Everyone who learns that my mom is Jewish has told me that I am Jewish because of this. My mom's not even real Jewish, you know? After raising me around Hanukkah and Yum Kippur and Passover, even she's an atheist now. My family is that Los Angeles brand of Jewish; you need SOME social circle to belong to, right? I'm not even circumcised.

The idea that you're Jewish because your parents are (specifically, your mother) is actually just a vile lie concocted by a French anti-semite over 100 years ago. I forgot his name, but its in my old college notes kept at my parents house. Can you believe I studied this? The idea was if you could define a Jew by their features and heritage, it would be easier to identify them and thus remove them from society. He drew up the rules of Jewish identification, starting with heritage and moving on to the shape and size of facial features.

Obviously, this was done in a period where hating Jews was all the rage, so people actually listened and this big fiasco was assimilated into popular knowledge. Now, today, when it is now not so cool to hate Jews, this lie persists. People think it is elementary to just suggest that someone is a Jew because their mother is one, or because their nose is big with a crook it in. Well, I'm writing this to re-educate you. You're wrong.

My grandparents might be Jewish, and when I was born, my mother might have identified with the Jewish faith, but I am not Jewish. Judaism is a religion; a personal choice. Please respect someone when they say they are not Jewish, because that probably means they AREN'T.

Shalom my brother.

But seriously though you are actually very incorrect in your time line of this belief, considering that it is in Jewish Seforim and rabbinical commentary I can not say for sure the earliest, first one I can note (offhand) is from around 70 CE when the Mishnah originated which was the time of the first temple. But basic Jewish belief is if your mother is Jewish you are. If your father is Jewish your mother is not you are not considered Jewish (of course you can always convert).

See my response in the "Are you Christian?" thread...

I'm not prepared to argue against someone who contradicts my educational studies by citing common belief. Part of my goal when studying religious history, sociology and psychology is identifying when certain concepts throughout history entered into the public mind.

Educational studies? You cited some frenchman by no name from 100 years ago as the source of this belief. I am saying this religious belief comes from Jewish books from 70CE. There are passages in the Torah itself that elude that the child from a man may lead a stray but no comments from the mother. There is fact from the book of ruth about her heritage. But the place I can point out that says it straight forward is in the Mishnah that was done about 70ce (can not pin point exact date).

I believe you have an issue separating whether being Jewish is a religion or a nationality. I believe in it being both.

The problem is Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Meaning the group is defined by both ethnicity and religion. You have the ethnicity but not the religion so it is partially correct to call you jewish.

I agree with your post, but not your thread title.

There *is* a Jewish Race. There was enough in-group breeding to solidify a set of ethnic characteristics unique from other human ethnic groups. You can be Jewish (religious) without being of the Jewish race.

DNA and the Origins of the Jewish Ethnic Groups

It wasn't just some "old french anti-semite." In the age of DNA, we can tell that there are very distinct racial characteristics of Jews-by-heritage, just like there are distinct racial characteristics of African Americans (black skin, perhaps?)

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. I'm an atheist too, and so is my mother. However, I am Jewish because my mother is who is Jewish because her mother is, etc. I don't know anything about this French anti-semite but the maternal descent comes from the Halacha laws.

Matrilineal Descent in Judaism

Forgive me for not having my notes ready. I want to shed some light on why people are so tuned into what makes a Jew, without even considering the religious side of it. Over the last century, this idea has grown into popular culture.

How can you have someone as 'Jewish' without there being a religion involved?

That's my point exactly.

As you have said it is a religious belief. Halx does not subscribe to this religious belief, so the point of what it says in the Torah (I assume) is moot to him. I mean this in the most respectful way to you Xazy, I do not mean this to insult your personal beliefs.



I have never understood how a religion can be a race personally. From the medical standpoint we would never do so, it would fall under religion. As interesting a subject can be I have never studied it personally. Like many social groups they preferred to stick to their "own kind" I suppose. Keeping a tighter knit community of one religion I can see how over time there would be similarities.

Not to sound ignorant or go to far off topic, but I wonder if similar points could be found with other religious groups. For example, Catholics with the way they tend to view mixed religion and marriage being frowned upon. Not to attack Catholics either but I know many Catholic churches will not perform a wedding ceremony unless the non-catholic partner converts. I think the same could be said of Muslims, though I do not know much about it personally. At least where I live, there is no question that Muslims have an extremely tight community and tend not to mix much from those outside of it. Thoughts to ponder...

Oy, what a mess.

Go look up "ethnoreligious" and you'll have your answer.

I don't fallow the religion but because of my family I still call myself a Catholic.


And Catholicism defiantly isn't a race.

what about the term race versus ethnicity? Jinn states that there is a Jewish race. I'm not up on my racial definitions (and I'd hate to do a diservice by using Wikipedia) but I was under the impression that there were historically 3 different races, of which Jewish people - at least the Semitic ones - belong to the Caucasian group.

Now, I've heard that the historical division of races into the three groupings was facile, and categorization has now switched to blood groupings rather than surface physical features. So in this light it may indeed be possible to narrow the 'racial' definition of a like group of people to an ethnicity.

I must do some reading on the current state of this.

I do not care if he considers himself Jewish or not that is his choice. Other Jews and I will consider him Jewish. I never go around saying you are Jewish or force my belief on anyone at all, but that does not change from a Jewish stand point that if your mother is Jewish you are consider a Jew. I do not care what you believe and do that is between you and G-d not my place to judge. But the point I made as well is this belief is not something new for Jews, this is the Jewish belief and is documented for over 2000 years and comments in the Torah itself lead to it (which makes the origination of the belief way back when).

Ever notice that sometimes the word jew is proceeded by either ethnic or religious?

ie ethnic jews or religious jews. The problem is an ambiguity in the word. The word jew has 2 distinct meanings. However, since lots of ethnic jews are also religious jews people tend to believe there is only 1 meaning for the word jew and that is where Halx's annoyance is stemming from.

To Jinn and everyone else in a hubbub about race: biologically, a race is a subspecies. There are no known subspecies of humans, because geographic and sexual isolation is a requirement for defining a true genetic race. The amount of variation within a race must be smaller than the amount of variation within the parent species, something that is impossible to achieve within the constraints of cultural definitions of race.

So, there is no Jewish race, as Hal said. There IS a religion, and there IS an ethnic association with such religion.

FTFY! :thumbsup:

And we are talking biology here aren't we? Thanks for the clarrification.

Jinn started in on race and was talking about it genetically, which is biology. The cultural and biological definitions of race are at arms with one another, actually.

The cultural definition is better served by the term ethnicity, which has already been discussed in the thread (along with ethnoreligious).

The problem is that when someone says someone is African, or Jewish, or Chinese they are referring to their ethnicity. So if one of Halx's parents were ethnically jewish then calling him jewish would be an accurate description though it could be easily miss interpreted by people to assume that he believed in Judaism.

Hal: Do you get just as annoyed when people ask if you are Portuguese, based on your last name? It's also an ethnicity, though granted not one tied up with religiousity (though you might count Catholicism in there).

I get annoyed when people ask if I'm Spanish or Mexican or South American based on my last name just because they don't know what they're saying. I'm actually pleasantly surprised when people recognize it as Portuguese. This IS an ethnicity question though, not a race question. As far as I'm concerned though, I have no culture. I'm a suburban atheist mutt. I don't celebrate your holidays. I don't worship your god. I don't respect my family for anything more than the love they give me.

To suggest that I am Jewish is an insult to Jews.

I only have limited personal experience with this issue, but based on that I think it's not uncommon for some people of Jewish heritage to support the idea that one is/can be Jewish even if you have no belief or participation in Judism. My belief (casual, unsubstantiated by any research) is that this idea might be propogated by the "communal persecution" felt by Jewish people since most of us know the magnitude of suffering that has been directed toward Jews. I suppose this must be a powerful wound that binds people together in spite of other major differences...stick together to survive.

My wife and her extended family are of Jewish heritage but have always been religiously/philosophically atheistic; my brother-in-law was not even bar mitzvah'd. I was raised and educated Roman Catholic though since early college days I don't participate or believe in many of Catholic religious tenents...so I don't consider myself Catholic at all. But when my kids, who have not been raised with any association whatsoever to Judism (or Catholicism), ask their mom "what are we?" she says "...you're Jewish because I am". To bring my confusion even closer to home, I was circumcised when I was 9 years old since my Catholic parents became convinced that it was a good medical decision. No wonder I'm so screwed up .... ;) j/k I'm as normal as the next wacko.

Hold up, why is being Jewish about race, not ethnicity and/or religion? What informs that opinion? Race is a social category, made up by humans as a form of categorizing people based on the most easily observable physical traits. Technically, you have just as much Jewish "blood" as you do Portuguese "blood," right?... so why do you have a problem with the Jewish ethnicity, and not the Portuguese one?

And btw, I beg to differ that you have no culture. Live overseas for an extended period of time and see if you still think you have no culture. No human can completely escape the trappings of the environment in which they were raised.

Both are incorrect. I've had to deal with people ALWAYS spelling my name incorrectly, so its actually a relief when people spell it right the first time and I can appreciate that they know where it originated from. The Jewish thing is downright annoying the same way people can't spell my name right.

I can spot a "racial" Jew. I can't spot a religious Jew.

http://xompage.com/misc/jew-jitsu.jpg

So what is he?
http://www.gmmy.com/crooners/sammy/SAM1.JPG

He is visibly an ethnic African American, despite his partial Puerto Rican heritage and Jewish religion.

Ethnicity is nothing more than phenotype.

I don't really want to get into the "race" vs "ethnicity" debate, because it's a sociological circle jerk about two words which have the same colloquial meaning.

Thanks Jinn... It was a joke. :D

Sure ya can...the men wear yarmulkes and the women wear long skirts and wigs or scarves.
If they're Hasidic, they commonly have beards and peyes(the long curls on their faces) in addition to their distinctive way of dressing.

You may not want to, but the term race gets bandied about very loosely. Often mistaken for ethnicity leading to much tangental discussion.

The terms need to be defined to be argued. And they do not have the same colloquial meaning.

Technically, Hal, you're right: Judaism is not a race. Biologically, a race is as merleniau defined it. and there are no subspecies of human. Semantically, we in the U.S. use the word "race" to refer to characteristics defined by someone's physical appearance, primarily skin color. Neither applies to Jews.

However, Judaism is more than a religion. It is an ethnoreligious culture, meaning that it is a religion, an ethnicity, and a culture, all inextricably fused and intertwined. There have been a number of attempts during modern Jewish history to separate one element of Judaism from another, and all have more or less failed notably.

We call Jews an ethnic group in part because they often share characteristic genetic markers, such as in the case of kohanim (the priestly tribe), nearly 90% of whom share similar markers in Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1 (markers only shared by about 80% of non-kohen Jews, and very few non-Jews at all), or in the case of Ashkenazi Jews, of whom well over 60% are genetically more prone to develop Tay-Sachs disease than other people. In part, we call Jews an ethnic group because they are traditionally endogamous, and all Jews have always agreed that membership in the Jewish people is transmissible by birth. Although it might blur the line with culture, some have also said that the sharing of a common language and a common religion can also be defining characteristics of an ethnic group.

Perhaps the most important cultural aspect of Judaism is that, generally speaking, we say that cultures establish their own membership rules. And although in the case of Judaism, this blurs the boundaries between culture and religion, it is quite clear that from the First Century CE to the Twentieth Century, more or less all Jews agreed that having a Jewish mother meant that the child of that mother was Jewish. Today, the Reform movement of Judaism says that having either parent be Jewish is enough to call the child of those parents Jewish, although this is not accepted by the other movements of Judaism, as there is no traditional basis for such a statement. But even in the case of Reform Judaism, they do not dispute the idea that Judaism is an identity transmissible by birth. Moreover, Jews have always agreed-- at least from the First Century onward-- that once a Jew, always a Jew: whether by birth or by conversion, a Jew is considered Jewish forever by Jewish law and Jewish tradition, regardless of the person's behavior or claims of identity. Even if they reject Jewish beliefs, and go through the rituals of converting to another religion, Judaism still calls such people Jewish-- just non-practicing or non-identifying or (from the religious perspective) sinning Jews. In the past, it is true, such individuals were commonly put in herem, a status not unlike excommunication, or shunning, but such a status is inherently temporary, requiring only the individual's public recantation of his or her former ways (and some also say a trip to the mikveh, or ritual bath) to rejoin normative Jewish society.

I believe when you cite the phenomenon of Judaism being incorrectly called a "race," and originate it with some Frenchman a hundred years ago, you might be confusing two issues: the nature of Judaism as an ethnoreligious culture-- a phenomenon noted frequently long before a hundred years ago-- and the development of anti-Semitic racialist theories by racist scientists of the late Nineteenth Century-- these are the same people who brought us the concepts of craniometry, phrenology, and eugenics for controlled racial hygiene. These latter, it is true, mislabeled the Jews a "race," for the purposes of further anti-Semitism, but their canards ought not to be mistaken for the genesis of the legitimate phenomenon of Judaism as an ethnoreligious culture.

Discussions of Jews and Jewish cultural and religious phenomena are extant in literature as far back as Roman times, including mentions in Suetonius, Socrates of Constantinople, and Procopius, as well as later in commentaries on the Theodosian Code. A number of ancient and medieval writers, especially among the Church Fathers, made comments concerning the Jews, their society and culture, and the difficulty of getting Jews to convert to Christianity, since in doing so they gave up not only their religion but their entire sociocultural experience (my phrasing, not theirs).

Needless to say, Jewish literature is itself very clear on the subject. There are, as Xazy already pointed out, oblique references to ethnic and cultural integrity in the Torah. Certainly, Rabbinic literature (the materials composed during and around the authoring of the Talmud, in the first five centuries of the Common Era) makes frequent mention of Judaism as a "people," and discusses at length the factors and qualities of Jewish identity. Indeed, the term "the Jewish People" has become common parlance over the past 2,000 years-- a terminology not applied to adherents of other Western religions, and for clear reasons.

The idea of Judaism as an ethnoreligious culture is not entirely unique. Many Native American nations would qualify for such a definition, and some of the Hindu religions are inextricably interlinked with membership in certain tribes or clans, from certain areas. A number of sub-Saharan African religions are also peculiar to specific tribal groups from a specific locale. Among the Western religions, it is true that Judaism is the strictest definition of an ethnoreligious culture, but many scholars have proposed that Islam may also be an ethnoreligious culture, since it is also passed on by birth, and shares several other key characteristics with Judaism; although if it is an ethnoreligious culture, its social boundaries are much more permeable than those of Judaism.

As a fellow Jew, I'm sorry to hear that your Jewish identity displeases you, Hal. But by the definitions of the Jewish people, which are commonly held and respected by non-Jews also, you're a Jew, whether you're atheist or not. And hell, being an atheist certainly hasn't stopped lots of Jews from embracing certain aspects of their Jewish identity: most of the founding Zionists who began the State of Israel were atheists, who were none the less proud of their Jewish identities. Regardless, the point is, according to all the traditional definitions of the Jewish people, you are a Jew. What you do with your life is, of course, your own business: nobody will come around and try to force you to interact with Jewish society, or try to make you practice Jewish religion, or to take any pride in your Jewish identity at all.

But it's important that you make a distinction between the issue of Jewish identity as a whole and how that is constructed by the Jewish people and understood by the rest of the world in history, and your own feelings about your identity and your choice to reject it. The latter is entirely your business, and no one should ever say otherwise. The former is something that affects all of the rest of us; and there is enough controversy in the Jewish community right now with identity, given the shenanigans of the Reform movement, and the crisis of assimilation in modern society, that more vituperation-- to say nothing of misinformation-- is deeply counterproductive for the rest of us.

I really hope you don't take offense at this: I like your posts very much, and you seem like an awesome person. And I don't want to be the guy who gets in your face over religion and cultural identity, I really don't. But, as someone who is a professional student of Judaism, I feel like it's really important for me to say these things.

When asked, I say that both my parents were Jewish and I have a great deal of pride in my heritage.

Period.

It used to irk me when someone would ask me if I was "Spanish" or "Jewish". I don't view it as a race, but it's obvious that depending where you sit, it's going to look different. If someone wants to know if I'm a practicing Jew, I'll tell them what they want to know. If they want to choose a label for me, there are plenty of others that fit me quite well.

What the hell are you two talking about? There are absolutely discrete subspecies of humans, and thereby races.

i couldnt agree more. i havent felt more australian than i do since i moved to another country

There is no such thing as race.

There are ethnicities and cultures.

Jews are semitic I suppose but quite diverse. Very much so in fact. My time in Israel tells me it is near impossible to pick out "jews" by their phenotypical features. From pasty white Ashkenazis (the ones I'm familiar with having grown up in the northeast), to Ethiopians, to Asians, and the lovely bronze Mediterranean beauties, Israelis or "jews" run the gamut in terms of phenotype and "race".

When it comes to religion, Jews are also varied in their belief. Whether Hasidic, Orthodox, liberal, reform or secular, even Jews themselves have a difficult time coming together. Besides the Arab/Muslim threat, this is one of the biggest issues facing Israel today.

Hal, what's wrong with people asking you if you're Spanish or Mexican based on your last name? It's a fair and innocent question yes? And why are you offended by Jewish stereotypes but not other stereotypes?

This is the third or fourth time I've seen this in the thread. I'm surprised that it's such a commonly held belief. I understand wanting to believe that races or subspecies do not exist, but they absolutely do, both as a biological and sociological concept (commonly 'ethnicity', in sociological circles). I get the feeling far too many of you have been told by instructors or peers that the world is color blind or that races do not exist, but they absolutely do. I've posted enough citations for this thread, but if you're interested in rectifying your beliefs I can provide additional ones via PM. You could even try re-reading http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2510400

Yes, but Jinn there currently are no subspecies of humans besides us, Homo sapiens sapiens. I'm Homo sapiens sapiens, asians are Homo sapiens sapiens, black people are Homo sapiens sapiens, and even Jewish people are Homo sapiens sapiens. There are no other subspecies of Homo sapiens currently alive. The last subspecies of Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens idaltu, evolved into us, Homo sapiens sapiens.

lucky them. eh?

The problem is that I get it all the time. Its quite old. By the way, I think I stated that I'm annoyed, not offended.

I know you value peer-reviewed research nearly as much as I do, so here we go; I won't paste the whole thing:

Genome Biology | Full text | Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

I understand that there are different ethnicities which are characterized not only by ancestry, but also phenotype (even occasionally genotype, as some races are more or less prone to get certain diseases), but there are no subspecies of Homo sapiens other than Homo sapiens sapiens, which includes humans of all ethnicities.

Look at the listing of subspecies in my previous post:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2510400

Those are CURRENT subspecies of humans (homo sapiens sapiens). What you seem to be (pedantically) arguing is that without a Linnean classification like homo sapiens sapiens, the subspecies must not exist. This is categorically false, and there hundreds of species which still defy Linnean classification, particularly in entomology.

If it doesn't have an official place on the taxonomic rank as subspecies, it's not a subspecies.

Criteria for subspecies:
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's nothing pedantic about that. It's quite clear.

As I understand it, Jinn-- and clearly you are the scientist among us, so I am happy to take your correction-- the subspecies that you are referencing are, as will has pointed out, phenotypes, and not genotypes. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if the subspecies in question were variations in genotype, would there not be more radical divergence between the subspecies than the minor alterations in skin tone, body fat distribution, hairiness, and so forth which characterize the various types you cite?

In any case, whatever the nomenclature, I believe the point remains essentially the same. Which is to say, "race" is not the proper term for the Jewish people, but rather, ethnoreligious culture.

What of anything you quoted actually supports your assertion that it needs a Linnean rank to be considered a subspecies? Because your quote sure as hell doesn't. "Subspecies" is not even in the Linnean classification system. It ends at species. Why would you expect a subspecies to have a Linnean name? They have a taxonomic rank (again, in my post on the previous page), but it doesn't follow your (pedantic) assertion that it must follow the same Linnean syntax - Homo sapiens sapiens.

Subspecies classification in (in humans and otherwise) is not always phenotypic. Very few species have been entirely sequenced; in cases where the entire genotypic relationship cannot be established, the phenotypic differences can be used for subspecies classification by "sampling accuracy", described above (Post #46). As it notes, although some phenotypic overlap is "expected" due to the non-discrete nature of subspecies, it can still be classified as "different" with 100% (or 75%) certainty. It'd be lax to forgo classification entirely until an entire species' genome can be mapped, especially considering that it could take decades upon decades to do so. In lieu of (precise) genome taxonomy, phenotypic taxonomy offers great value - particularly in cases where infectious diseases show 'preference' for one subspecies over another, or pharmaceuticals which are effective in one subspecies but not another.

This whole subspecies conversation is irrelevant if you look at the definition of race in common language. Race does not have to be a sub-species. In a scientific definition it may but not in common language. When the average person on the street refers to race they are not referring to a subspecies and instead are referring to a category that describes ones ancestry.
-----Added 20/8/2008 at 06 : 35 : 24-----
From merriam-webster

Main Entry:
race
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date:
1580

1: a breeding stock of animals
2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b: breed c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
4obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

2a is the common definition that people refer to when talking about race.

I'm using zoological taxonomy, which includes things like subfamily, tribe, and subspecies. Since Linnean rank doesn't use subspecies, but you continued to insist on using the term, I gave it the appropriate classification context.

You'll have to either stop using the term "subspecies" or you'll have to accept zoological taxonomy, the system which I was using in the discussion. No matter what, though, there are no subspecies of humans, so you were incorrect when you used that term. The funny part was when you tried to change over to "subrace" and hope no one noticed.

Yes, I think this is likely the more relevant line of inquiry when it comes to terminology, since I find it unlikely that the average person in the street will be as versed in the finer points of bioscience terminology as is Jinn (or maybe will...what do I know?).

That said, I believe that what is in question here is the misapplication of what Webster's appears to define in #3, which usage I believe likely stems from the tendency of 19th-Century racialist scientists to use the term for meaning #3, when previously it had been applied in meaning #2-- an archaic usage that was falling out of parlance at that time.

Technically, according to definition #2, "race" could be applied to the Jewish people; but it ought not to be so applied, since this usage is archaic and outdated, and by today's standards of common usage is incorrect.

My mum is Jewish, your mum is Jewish - we are both Jewish.

In both the most liberal and the most conservative strands of judaism this is true - and what your religion is doesnt matter at all.

There is no such thing as "race" full stop - but rules are rules. If you dont like being Jewish why dont you just not tell anyone? You can choose your own self image, but you cannot choose the labels that apply to you.

So, whats the difference between a Jew, an Israeli, a Hebrew, a Zionist, a Levite and an Israelite?

bah...it's too confusing. I think that no one but oneself should have the right, implicitly or explicitly, to define a person's "identity".

Hal says he's not a Jew. Therefore, he is NOT a Jew. End of discussion.

Me? I'm an American. I was born in America, of American citizens born in America. I have an Italian last name, though no actual Italian "blood". Ancestrally, I come from English and Irish peoples, and I have an Irish first name and an English middle name. I guess that'd make me ethnically an Irengtalian. Or it would if I gave half a ratshit about such things.

I dont think anyone wholly decides their own identity... we just all try and shape what the world gives us.

the last person that said there was no jewish race...tried to eliminate the entire race from the face of the earth

I'm sure he wasn't the last, just the only one with the power to do so. :p

i dont have an ax to grind in this thread and had decided before to stay out of it because i think race is a dubious at best category--nation too for that matter---both are products of the 18th century zeal for putting things in boxes and arranging those boxes into trees and then comparing them--this tree is better because its my tree, but that one...

but this:

is entirely wrong if it refers to hitler. nothing about hitler's politics even start to make sense without the most idiotic possible conception of race. and the tree thing and the comparative tree thing. it was because there *was* to his mind a jewish race that he felt justified in initially marginalizing and brutalizing and later trying to exterminate the jewish people. in fact, you'd think that after a nimrod of that magnitude was able to do that much damage based on the category "race" that folk would maybe wonder more, and more deeply, if there isn't something basically fucked up with the idea of race.

at this point, curiously enough, it'd be easy to wax nietzschean about these boxes/classifications more generally, what they organize, what they say, what folk imagine them to say: that we can arrange the world by type means that we know where in our own grid to put things, where they "go"--but that doesn't mean, outside the confines of a pretty superficial loop, that we know what these things *are*---i can't think of a different parallel (this one's a little stupid) but it's like imagining that you know what a coffeemaker is and does because you know that it goes in a cupboard.

now obviously these orderings are points of departure for accumulating and organizing other more information and so it doesn't seem reasonable to oppose taxonomy---but even so, it seems stupid to forget how superificial they are, how much a point of departure they are and nothing else--not a whole lot explanatory follows from them, all the more as you deal with increasing levels of complexity in living systems.

so you could say that judiasm as a social system has developed a matrilineal way of marking itself as distinct from other groups and thereby maintaining a sense of continuity or coherence over time. what does shifting to the category of "race" do in this case, beyond taking a convention and jamming it into some bizarre-o notion of essence? so many of the most basic categories the west had cooked up to order the social world are about fantasies of self-enclosure and self-referentiality--race, culture---and they aren't even useful descriptively. they do considerable damage ideologically, they have deeply problematic histories---but like sf says, they're floating about in the bigger world and there's not much in the way of end-arounds to be taken.

but that doesn't make the categories like race any less stupid.

The only way I have been able to get over my own identity crisis is by understanding this view of yours, roachboy. And that of nation, for that matter.

My crisis both hit a pinnacle and was somewhat resolved in my university years. Much of this is because I attended a large and highly multicultural campus while studying cultural theory and contemporary literature.

I still have a lot of work to do. I should stop living under my rock, hiding away from the reality of my existence: It has very little to do with the fact that I'm a lower-middle-class Caucasian in what used to be referred to as the New World. I am not a ghost.

The Jewish identity is so far steeped in this idea of race and nation that I fear how I look in contrast.

What am I?

Nations and race are two very different things. Race I agree is a ridiculous outdated concept that is dying out. Nations are another matter completely.

The Jews chose matrilineal classification as a means of self-preservation. In the days before DNA testing, it was the only real way to guarantee lineage. You can't prove the father but you can prove the mother.

What are you? Does it matter? You are what you are. You can choose to self-identify according to phenotype, religion, nationality, culture, or whatever. I think people who have identity crises are "victims" of societal constructs and prisoner's of what society wants them to be, not what you want to be.

I had the same problem for a long time until I broke free. People are stupid. It's up to you to educate them.

It is obvious that Halx is a crypto-jew.:)

Crypto-Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jew = a very confusing concept, incorporating religion, ethnicity, and culture, as others have written above far better than I ever could

Hebrew and Levite = generally considered synonyms for "Jew"

Israelite = formerly used most commonly like "Hebrew" or "Levite" as another word for "Jew". Now that the country of Israel exists, with a mostly Jewish population, it's most commonly used to refer its citizens (although, obviously, the term "Israeli" is more common). This one has more or less fallen out of everyday usage

Zionist = someone who supports the (formerly establishment) existence of a Jewish state, usually as a matter of Jewish pride/self-governance/religious belief. It's more a political position than anything else. Many Jews are not Zionists, and many non-Jews are.

I think you're making a big deal out of a simple thing. Many people, including myself, are just curious and interested in our various heritages. You have Jewish blood, and Portuguese blood. I have Irish, Russian, Lithuanian, French, and Native American blood... I like knowing these parts of my heritage. I like having that history. Your mother being Jewish is another piece of your history. "Jewish" describes both a religion and a heritage. Your mom being Jewish means that you are of Jewish descent, like I'm of Irish descent.

There are trends in phenotypes for many nationalities, and many ethnicities. Irish tend to have a lot of fair skin, and red hair, and freckles, and blue and green eyes. Not all Irish people, but it's so common that people tell me I "look" Irish. It doesn't offend me. Even though my particular phenotype happens to be from the French side of my family. Why do I care? It's just an interesting topic of discussion. So identifying your heritage informs their perception of your phenotype, and your familial history. We're all mutts here, so it's neat to see how we came to be.

And another thing: from a medical perspective (and Katyanna, your post is sort of wrong in this aspect)... there are damn sure certain medical trends in different ethnic groups. Jews have the gene for Tay-Sachs disease, so much so it's a common genetic test they get before having children. Black people tend to be the patients with sickle cell anemia. Hyperbilirubinemia is very common in male Asian infants. And you're trying to tell me being Jewish is not a ethnic group???

Well, frankly... you're just wrong. I understand that you don't identify with the religion (I don't identify with the Catholic, Jewish, or Mormon pieces of my family either). But to deny your genetic history seems silly to someone like me... I just love to have the information. It's not about boxing people in, but understanding how we all came to exist. It's pretty amazing, all the random connections that resulted in you and I. It's just appreciating our past and how it informs our present. That's all.

A very fine response. I might wish to expand and clarify it just a bit.

Jew: A member of the ethnoreligious culture sometimes called the People or Children of Israel. Someone whose mother was a Jew, or who has themselves undergone conversion to Judaism.

Hebrew: The very first name of the ancestors of the Jews, and currently the name of the universal Jewish language. Hebrew is the accepted translation for the name "Ivri," a word which means "The One Who Crosses Over," and is mythopoeically associated with the patriarch Abraham, who crossed the Euphrates on his way from Mesopotamia to Canaan. However, many scholars now think that the name may also have been given because the Hebrews were originally a wandering, bedouin people, who partially conquered and partially colonized ancient Canaan. It may also, some speculate that it may be self-given, in reference to the more metaphorical "crossing over" from polytheism to monolatry (as distinct from monotheism, a later Israelite innovation), which the Hebrews seem to have originated in that part of the world.

Levite: A Jew who counts his or her descent from the tribe of Levi. The tribe of Levi was the priestly tribe, divided into two groups: Kohanim (priests), who were in charge of the sacrificial cult, its higher rituals, and the sanctioned divination, during the times of the ancient Temples in Jerusalem and the Tabernacle before; and regular Levites, who were assistants to the Kohanim, and were also in charge of the poetic and musical liturgy of public worship rites at the Temples and Tabernacle. Levitical and Kohanic descent is reckoned patrilinealy, in contrast to holisitic Jewish identity, which is matrilineal. Today, Levites and Kohanim are generally the only Jews who retain knowledge of their tribal descent.

Israelite: A member of the ancient Twelve Tribes of Israel, who all mythopoeically counted descent from the patriarch Jacob, called Israel (Yisra'el, meaning "He Who Wrestles with God"). This term is generally employed to describe the ancestors of the Jews, during the time of their residency in the lands of Israel and Judea, from about 1300 BCE to the beginning of the Rabbinic period, around the turn of the Common Era. Academically, "Israelite" is used to describe these people to differentiate them from "Jews," a term used to describe those who followed the teachings of the Rabbis of the Talmud-- the tradition that has become modern Judaism. "Israelite" is used because it indicates differences in their practical worship and theology from what is accepted in Rabbinic Judaism. In a non-academic sense, Israelite was sometimes used as a synonym for "Jew" from the end of the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth centuries, when "Jews" were considered low-class by Western society, but "Israelite" was somehow thought a classier term for wealthier, Enlightened Jews. The term Israelite is not the same as the word Israeli, which simply means a citizen of the State of Israel.

Zionist: Originally, one who supported the creation of a Jewish national entity. Currently, one who supports the continued safe existence of the State of Israel. There are and have been many different kinds of Zionists, who have had sometimes vastly different agendas in supporting the creation and existence of a Jewish State. These ranged from atheist socialists who sought a purely cultural equality in the Western World, to religious fundamentalists who believed a Jewish national entity was the first step toward the coming of the Messiah; and there were many other agendas filling out the spectrum between those two. Historically, the only idea generally shared by most Zionists was that a Jewish national entity was necessary for the continued safety of the Jewish people in an otherwise unsafe world. Zionism is a purely political concept, and is not linked inextricably to Judaism.