An artefact of history and a big mistake. Oh, and a high level of melanin content in the skin.
No, they don’t, and you’re severely mangling the meaning of the word. They share a religion, and some common ancestry, but they don’t share a common culture, for instance, nor do they share a (first) language. Same with the Lemba, same with Indian Jews, same with Chinese Jews.
Or, you know, as the data came in…but don’t let’s stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory :dubious:
“The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology. Mayr’s criterion is that two or more groups become subspecies when 75 percent or more of all the individuals constituting the groups can be unequivocally classified as belonging to a particular group.”
That is not a definition of “subspecies” that any biologist would use today. Not for humans, not for monkeys, not for lizards.
Really, Chen019, we’ve learned a thing or two in the last 50 years. There’s this little thing called DNA, for one thing.
That makes no sense. “The races” are not breeds, nor are they a breeding population, nor do they share a distinct/common ancestry. They are defined (well…implied; racialists can’t even define them) by on highly subjective (and often vague) physical grounds such as hair texture, skin colour, eye shape. It is an inaccurate representation/model of human genetic variation and decent.
Grouping unrelated subjects who “look close enough” is normally called folk taxonomy and it holds no sway in the world of science.
Your error is thinking that “we” is divided racially.
If race = “plumage change” then race ≠ sickle cell trait; you are in error when you project beyond “plumage change.”
Race ≠ family history.
That is not correct, where did you get that idea?
Not true. If Jews do not form an ethnicity, what exactly do they form? They do not share a religion - because many are not religious at all: it is pefectly possible to be a so-called “ethnic Jew” (that word again!) and an atheist, so that can’t be it - they are not a “nation” in the sense of common citizenship in a nation-state like “Americans”, because not all Jews are Israelis - they do not share a language, nor a culture, nor a race.
So, what are they? What are Jews? What do they all have in common?
They have self-identity as a nation or people born of real, fictive or adopted common descent - in short, they form an ethnicity.
Jews regard themselves as one “people”, one “nation” (in the ethnic sense), even though they may be Chinese or Indian in location and appearance - though divided into different sun-cultures, like Ashkenazic, Shephardic or Mizrai (which may also, confusingly, be called “ethnic groups” - as explained below, ethnicity is situational).
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that “ethnicity” has a hard-and-fast definition, and moreover, one that is under your control. There are in fact numerous anthropological theories of ethnicity, often mutually contradictory: Ethnicity - Wikipedia
Amusingly, the very term “ethnic” was originally used as a translation meaning “not Jewish”:
In reality, ethnicity tends to be [situational. What is meant by that, as in the original translation of “ethnic” to mean “not Jewish”, people often define ethnicity by what they are not in comparision to other folks.
Jews form a “nation” and have since long before modern nationalism - at least, in their own minds, which is what counts; they claim a (perhaps fictive) common ancestry; and self-identify as “Jews” in opposition to “non-Jews”. This is not to deny that there are divisions among them, but these divisions are less significant than the commonalities. From the very beginning of the use of the term “ethnicity”, Jews and non-Jews alike have been using the term to describe the definitional opposition between themselves and others.
Therefore, you are incorrect in stating that it is a “mangling of the word”. Far from it. It is those for whom “ethnicity” is just another word for “race” (that is, of purely biological descent) who are of the opinion that Jews are not an “ethnicity” - and indeed, no-one denies that they are not a race.
We could do a whole thread on “Are Jews and ethnic group”. They are a special case, though, and it doesn’t really address the topic at hand. I would say that although many (or even most) Jews might feel they are an ethnic group, to an objective outsider they do not appear to be one. Not in the sense that we usually use that term and for the reason Mr. Dibble listed.
The point, though, is that there is no “objective outsider” definition of an ethnic group - at least, if one is interested in actual anthropological theory. The term is one of self-idenification in opposition to others, as in the classic “who is a Lue?” problem:
Cite: http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Ethnicity.html
The “who is a Jew?” problem is not, as you have asserted, a “special case”; it is exactly analogous to the “who is a Lue?” problem. They even rhyme! 
Mr. Dibble is, quite simply, wrong. At least, if he’s claiming some sort of scientific analysis based on consensus of anthropological opinion.
I tend towards the left side of the political persuasion, but this is a true example of the dreaded “political correctness” Like people who wanted to pretend that there were no differences aside from genitalia between men and women, Liberals have take up the cause that there is no such thing as race. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that there are variations in physical characteristics among populations that trace their genetic heritage to geographical areas. These include obvious ones hair color and texture, skin color, relative length of limbs, and eye lid shape, as well as things such as susceptibility to certain diseases.
Now it is all well and good to say that the traditional, 19th century view of races such as black, oriental, white are too broad and too European centric to be of any use. As another poster not so originally pointed out, there are big differences among North African, East African, and sub-Saharan people.
The real question is not whether there are physical differences between men and women or among “races”, but so fucking what if there are? Men tend to be taller and stronger than women, but many women are taller and stronger than many men. So let’s not classify jobs by gender, but by ability. As for races, it is possible that we may find that Han Chinese are more intelligent on average than Northern Europeans, but that does not mean that some jobs should be reserved for Han Chinese, or that white kids should go to different schools.
No one in this thread is denying that humans don’t vary in physical differences and those variations are often well defined geographically. The issue we are talking about is whether there are biological races of humans, the answer is no. The variations we see are clinal, and there are not genetically isolated populations.
Anyone can easily distinguish between a Beijing native and a Berlin native. But to get from Beijing to Berlin, you see a continuous variation of one type leading to the other.
It may seem like a trivial matter, but in terms of biology, it is very important.
So your definition of race is: a set of “observable physical differences.” Do you not see that this is a highly subjective and social definition?
You seem to be unable to define, number, and name the very race categories that you are pleading are bio-genetically deliminated. Why is that?
BTW Semite is a word with many meanings, but the only scientific use of the word Semitic is for the language group, of which includes many Sub-Saharan Africans.
Hell if I know. There’s a “Jewish ethnicity”, sure, but not all Jews fall under it.
An Ethiopian Jew who was no longer Jewish would become simply Ethiopian in people’s eyes, not a Jew. Ditto with an Indian Jew. No-one would consider him an “ethnic Jew”, they’d consider him “Indian”. IME, “ethnic Jewish” seems to map quite nicely onto “White Jew”.
The Jewish religion. Yes, they may themselves be atheist, but I’m willing to bet their great-grandparents weren’t. And like I said, who would consider a non-religious Ethiopian Jew an ethnic Jew? Do you think such a one would have Right of Return, for instance?
You’re the one putting adopted in there. It doesn’t stem from any definition of ethnicity I’ve encountered.
No. But I do know when it is being used in a way that twists the meaning beyond common usage.
Which is a complete non sequitur. What does ancient translation have to do with modern usage? And do you even read your own quotes? Look at what I bolded:
It is, indeed, a mangling of the word to apply it to disparate groups with no common culture or language. All they have in common is religion and some genetic markers. But they don’t form a biological population or anything like it. Maybe after a few millennia of blending in Israel, you could call the amalgamation of Ethiopian and Sephardic Jews an ethnicity, but now? No way.
I do. There’s no such thing as a Jewish “race”.
[QUOTE=MrDibble;12926225Hell if I know. There’s a “Jewish ethnicity”, sure, but not all Jews fall under it.[/quote]
I recommend that you read my subsequent email, on the anthropological definition of “ethnicity”.
No. You are simply wrong. An Ethiopian Jew who was an athiest would be an “ethnic Jew”, and there are some in Israel right now. Being an “ethnic Jew” has nothing whatsoever to do with being “White”.
Ancestry can be fictive, assumed, adopted. Just because you have never heard of it being done, doesn’t mean it isn’t done - I’ve given not one but two real-life examples.
We aren’t discussing “common usage”. In this very thread, you are insisting on using the term “race” in its consensus scientific meaning. I approve of that - but you are now asserting that “ethnicity” must mean what *you * think it means in “common usage”, and not what the consensus of scientific opinion believes it to mean? Where’s the logic in that? By the same token, I could announce “I think Blacks are a race and I’m right because it’s the common usage”. I won’t, because common usage (whatever that means) isn’t determinative of what either “race” or “ethnicity” really means.
Jews believe they are a “nation”. Anthropologists believe they are an “ethnicity”. You don’t. You are simply incorrect.
Indeed. to repeat what you have bolded:
This supports my thesis. Jews believe in a common, though partly fictive, descent from the Hebrews of the Bible. Whether they appear Black or White, they claim a common ancestry - ask any Eheopian Jew.
What has being a “biological population” have to do with ethnicity?
Being a Jew, like being Lue, is a matter of self-reference and belief, not biology. Like the Lue, Jews may in fact appear to share more in culture with those non-Jews with whom they live, than with each other - and yet be an ethnic group.
Read what I wrote again. I am not claiming that there is a “Jewish race”. I’m saying there isn’t a “Jewish race”.
You are conflating “ethnicity” with “race”. Although they share some characteristics in common, they are not the same thing. Whatever definition one is using, everyone agrees 'race" has something to do with biology. Ethnicity does not - necessarily.
The topic of this thread is biology, so I think we should go with the way biologists use “ethnic group”, not how sociologists do. But as long as we’re clear which one we’re using, then it’s fine with me.
I can’t see that “Jewish” would be a useful biological term, taken in the context of the entirety of the Jewish people in the world.
What I hear is /fingers in ears “lalalalala, I CAN"T HEAR YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH THING AS RACES” I don’t know what biologically determined means but it seems pretty clear and unassailable to me that race is heritable. Youa re saying no its not because there is no suchy thing as race, there is a social construct that racist people have create that they THINK passes from one generation to the next but it really doesn’t. An Asian couple is just as likely to have what these racists would call a black kid as a black couple would.
That is what you sound like you are saying.
If two Asians have a kid, how likely is that child to be what racists would call black?
No one is denying that humans vary in appearance and that those variations are heritable. What we are saying is that those variations are clinal in nature (ie, they change gradually over distant), that populations blend into each other, and there are not genetically isolated populations.
What you are describing is not “race”, which requires abrupt changes and isolated populations.
We have any number of differing populations, depending on how you choose to slice and dice it, but there is no biological way to separate humans into races. It jsut doesn’t work because we are one, big breeding population.
Do biologists ever use the term “ethnic group” - unless they are discussing anthropology?
Or to put it differently - does any species other than humans have “ethnicity”?
Edit: no-one is claiming that Jews form a distinct biological group, or that Jewish would be a useful biological term.
We might be getting there. It is noted that different groups of chimps and different groups of orangs have different “cultural” practices. But I don’t know that we, as humans, can detect the different physical traits that chimps might consider important. It might even be different smells.
OK. I just wanted to clear things up from the standpoint of where I think Mr. Dibble is coming from. Things can be much squishier in Sociology than in Biology.
No, it’s not because it’s imaginary, and you can’t inherit imaginary things. Two genetically and visually identical people can be labeled “black” or “white”, depending on how they are raised to look at themselves and the racial mythology of society at the time.
That is indeed interesting, but I am also interested if the term “ethnicity” has some sort of meaning to a biologist that would differ from that known to an anthropologist.
I think the problem here is that many people confuse biological traits with biological “race”, and that with “ethnicity”. Biologically, there is only one human “race” (though I understand at one time in the distant past there may have been several living simultaneously).
However, there is a subset of group identification in which persons base either self-identification, or identification by others, on real or perceived inherited differences. This is an inherently “squishy” concept, because the choice of which differences matter, and how much difference is necessary, is a cultural and not a biological one: for example, in America, any amount of visible African ancestry makes you of the “Black race”, even though this may be nonsense biologically (hence, President Obama, with one White and one Black parent, is “Black” rather than “White”).
In short, the question really has two answers - biologically there is no such thing as “race” (or rather, there is, and we all belong to the same one); OTOH, culturally there is a form of group identity known as “race”, by which persons in our culture have made a set of choices as to which sets of inherited features “qualify”, at to what extent.
There is also another form of group identity known as “ethnicity”, which is based on somewhat different factors - real, fictive or adopted notions of shared ancestry and destiny and self-chosen identification, often but not always based on such factors as shared language, culture, religion or rituals.
Naturally, in many cases (but not always!) notions of "ethnicity’ will overlap with notions of “race” or even, in some cases, “nationality” (as in ethno-nationalism). Hence, the person-on-the-street will often be justifiably confused and use the terms interchangably.