Where do you think Ashkenazi Jews are indigenous to, if not Israel?
I wonder if the context and usage of the term “colonialism” changed over the last 100 plus years? OK, I don’t wonder, obviously it did.
I don’t know, were you raised German in a German community where every year you celebrated German holidays based around the seasons and history of Germany, eating feasts where you cheer “Next Year in Berlin”? Or did your family assimilate into American culture pretty much completely?
So Jews who assimilated into various communities are not indigenous to Israel? What about the children of non-assimilated Jews who reject their parents’ traditions? I’ve never heard of a definition of indigenousness that depends on day-to-day customs.
Europe. That’s why they’re Ashkenazim and not one of the other Jewish ethnicities.
What Jabotinsky wrote about in The Iron Wall is no different from what I’d call colonialism today.
How do you consider it to differ, since it’s so “obvious”?
Europeans have made it exceedingly clear that we are not European. And Arabs have made it exceedingly clear that Mizrachi Jews aren’t Arab.
It’s not a colony of anyone.
That’s got zip to do with where the ethnicity originates, though.
The immigrants just poofed in from Neverland? That’s like saying the Boer Republics weren’t colonial either.
Is that what “They weren’t a colony of anyone” means to you? You’re either a colonist or you magically poof in from Neverland, those are the only options?
The Boer Republics weren’t really colonies, any more than the United States is a colony. But they both originated from colonies (the American Thirteen Colonies and the Dutch Cape Colony).
They were breakaway states from the British Cape Colony, which was a British colony that the British took from the Dutch, who were indeed Colonists, on behalf of the United Provinces.
Once the Boer Republics, or the United States, became independent, they were no longer colonies of anyone else, that’s correct.
Meanwhile, Israel was never a colony of anyone. Syria (which at the time encompassed Syria, Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Jordan) was an Ottoman colony; the British Mandate was a British colony; but Israel was never a colony of anyone.
It has everything to do with where a culture’s homeland is.
By the way, if Ashkenazi Jews are indigenous to Europe (despite not considering themselves European or being considered European by others) because Ashkenazi Culture originated in Europe, I guess that makes Boers indigenous to Africa, eh?
So, you’ve done a background check on all the Jewish “settlers” and determined that they are all indigenous?
It means they came from somewhere else. So yes, they were a colony of someone (someones).
Yes, they were.
Yes, it is.
Semantics.
It was a colony of an organized group of mostly Europeans. That they were not a state doesn’t signify, any more than East India Company colonies or the Congo Free State weren’t colonies just because they weren’t state-run.
Homeland is not the same as origin.
Boers spoke a Germanic language (the same language family as a certain Jewish ethnicity speaks), wore clothes that originated in Europe, still retained cultural ties to European countries. They were as European as the Ashkenazim.
Following that line of thought (for the sake of it ignoring the “the intent absolutely is and was genocide all along” replies), any miscalculation, in tactical terms, was of how resilient was Hamas both as an insurgent opponent AND as the dictatorial gang acting as Gaza’s government. The classic “hit them brutally enough and they’ll just disintegrate” mistake. Which considering the Israeli military leaders are generally educated and NOT stupid, would be an odd mistake to make…
“Colony” and " Came from somewhere else" are not synonymous. And Ashkenazi Jews came to Europe from the Middle East; the only people who deny this are Khazar Hypothesis antisemites.
Of who?
Of who?
The definition of a term is indeed semantics, as in, pertaining to the philosophical study of meaning in language.
The East India Company had a government charter and monopoly on all trade east of the Cape of Good Hope; the Congo Free State was owned by the King of Belgium. They were both clearly and obviously appadenges of their colonial government.
What do any of these things have to do with indigenousness? Do you think indigenousness is about vibes? Aesthetic?
Didn’t say they were. Immigrants aren’t colonists, for instance.
No. Jews came to Europe from the Middle East. Ashkenazi Jews developed in Europe.
Naah. I deny it, and I know the KH is bunk.
Europeeans.
ibid.
So is playing definitional games.
But were not the British or Dutch state (there being more than one EIC).
In his private capacity.
Naah. In fact, the relationship was often the other way (or adversarial)
Sorry, what does the origin of your ethnicity have to do with your indigeneity? Is that a serious question?
No, I think it’s about your origin, and the pointers to that origin. Boers had clear pointers to their European origin. So did Ashkenazim. That the latter originated out of a mixture of Levantine and European precursors doesn’t mean they didn’t originate where they did.
You said:
None of those are about your origin.
Not really.
Of course they are.
Only their language and their genetics. Nothing to see here…
Got it, so if an African person wears a GAP shirt and speaks English, they are no longer indigenous. Understood.
Genetics? I never thought I’d see Blood and Soil logic from a self described Anarchist, but I guess the horseshoe IS more of a circle nowadays.
But if that is what you’re into, you should know that genetic testing does show that Ashkenazi Jews come from the Middle East too.
Clearly not at all.
Nothing “Blood and Soil” about noting what the data shows about a group’s geographical origins. It’s not advocating any necessary enduring ties thereafter. Certainly not any ownership of, or mystical connection to, that origin place.
Of course, you do know who were really into actual Blut und Boden thinking, right? Say it with me: Nazis Zionists. Oh, OK, Nazis too. As the Zionists well knew.
Sure. There too. In addition to Europe.
Man, the horseshoe really is a circle. Now you’re doing One Drop Rule?
What are you even on about? How you got One Drop Rule from anything I’ve posted is beyond me.
There’s a lot more European in the Ashenazim pool than a single drop. Very roughly 50/50 when you look at all the studies.
And the Errfut study doesn’t counter that. At all.
In other words, they’re just as Middle Eastern as they are European, but to you they’re European colonizers? Sounds like the same one drop logic that leads to Americans concluding that Obama is Black.
But again, this obsession with Blood and Soil is quite strange. I’d say what matters is cultures, not this race realist weirdness.
Because Europe was where they mingled. If they’d been mingled at, and were coming from, Timbuktu, they’d be African colonizers instead.
Obama is Black - because he identifies as Black himself.
The irony, it burns.
You mean like the Germanic-speaking European culture of Ashkenazi Jews?