You mean like this one?
And I’m sorry to tell you but
Jews ARE white. At least here in the states. In Israel, or other parts of the Middle East, you might find ones who are swarthy, but they still probably be considered “white”.
Oh, piffle.
Every time Farrakhan makes one of his idiotic claims about race (or sends one of hius bully boys out to a college campus to do the same) his racism gets reported in the news. Al Sharpton has been keeping his head down on the issue since he decided to play in politics, but he was routinely pointed out as a black racist when he was at trhe height of his demagoguery. There are a number of posters on this board who habitually attack Jesse Jackson for perceived racism.
The reason that racism is a big deal in the U.S. is because the U.S. is currently dealing with the effects of racist policies that were written into law using race as their criteria. People do enjoy fragmenting along various social/class/ethnic/religious/etc. lines. Few places have enshrined race in law the way that the U.S. has.
That makes the topic of race more pertinent to the study of history in the U.S.
Speaking as a white guy, I do not “feel bad” about past racism and I certainly do not feel any shame for actions in which I have not engaged. On the other hand, since I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a better world than the one in which I live, I believe that addressing current racial issues (which often requires understanding past racial actions) is important.
Was there something lacking in the thread, “Define what racism really is” that made it necessary to open another one on exactly the same subject?
Once again, show tunes show us the path to wisdom:
“Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist” from Avenue Q
Moderator’s Note: Science Girl, please see this post.
Statistically speaking, Jews are the most successful ethnic group.
I didn’t say I myself am not an ethnocentrist; I just said Whites are the only ones criticized for it when in fact all races are ethnocentric.
American Jews are mostly Ashkenazi, a Semetic group, not White. Jews and Arabs are from the same original Semitic group.
What? American Jews are, to a large degree, eastern European.
Incorrect. Some members of all races are ethnocentric. You’re making it sound like everyone believes that their own race is superior, which is simply not true.
They allowed a very small percentage of Eastern Whites into their gene pool, but they have maintained their genetic uniqueness. Judaism, the religion of ethnic Jews, never sought converts, like Christianity and Islam. It has been thought of as a religion for Semites and only Semites. But on the rare occasion when a Gentile really wants to convert, if he completes all the requirements, he may be allowed in, but rarely given full status as an official Jew. Professor Kevin MacDonald discusses this in detail, see http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm
I did not use the word “superior” but rather people have an affinity for their own ethnic group and culture. Just look at who is marrying who: interracial marriages are rare compared to intra-racial marriages. Sure there are exceptions, but I am looking at averages, not absolutes.
I’m sure my Jewish friends would be interested in hearing that, including the large populations of Jews in Europe and central Asia. But then, your scope seems to be limited to whatever book you’re reading at the time, so…
People also have an “affinity” for their own political group, fiscal class, statehood, etc. Sure, there are exceptions, but I am looking at averages, not absolutes. I don’t know personally of one person (other than you, I guess) who would think twice about dating someone outside of their ethnicity. In fact, many people consider different ethnicities sexy, such as the “asian fetish.”
One of the definitions of “ethnocentric” is “Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group”, so using that word in a thread about racism is bound to give people the wrong impression.
Perhaps another, made up word (like “ethnophilic”) would be more appropriate.
Not true. Jewish law requires that a person fully converted be treated exactly as any other Jew. (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, 268:12 .) So does Israeli secular law (Cite).
You offer “Professor Kevin MacDonald” as a cite for your claim, but the page you link to has no such information.
- Rick
Semitic is a linguistic category, so being Semitic does not preclude being white. The peoples of the Levant and the lands extending Eastward have always been categorized as Caucasian in the outmoded “racial” groupings–meaning that they are white by any normal categorization.
This is simply false. There are no rights or responsibilities bestowed or imposed on Jews by Jewish law that do not apply equally to all. (The single exception would be that a non-Jew could never become a priest, since that is a charter handed from father to son. However, the same is true of all other Jews who are not born Levites.) When considering “Professor” MacDonald’s anti-Jewish polemics, one should take note of such obvious lies and consign his silliness to the trash bin where they belong.
It is entirely possible that some small number of people who have converted to Judaism have not been welcomed by all (any more than Jews who have converted to Christianity have always been welcomed). However, within a generation, the conversion of one’s ancestors are forgotten and the children of people who have converted are not segregated in any way. The Jewish people do not have any secret lists of “real” Jews vs converts.
Well, since you are not interested in taking the time to go through MacDonald’s works, here is a compilation of relevant exerpts from his book: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/ethnic.htm Judaism has been a very ethnocentric religion.
They arte, indeed, relevant. They demonstrate that there is nop scholarship in his series of cherry-picked phrases from Scripture and no historical evidence for any of his sweeping claims. For example:
This is simply false. There is no evidence at all for his claims regarding the period in Egypt, so he is simply making up lies. (There are a number of scholars–some Jewish–who even doubt that the Jewish people were actually captive in Egypt, and there is certainly no evidence that “inserted themselves between the ruling class and the masses, acting as a tight, cohesive, and literate tribe that became wealthy.”)
Similarly, while the period in Babylon saw efforts by Ezekiel to remind the Jews that they were a people whom God could restore to their place near Jerusalem, it also saw very clear calls by Isaiah to the Jews to recognize that they needed to extend their message justice to all the other nations–hardly a call to clannishness. In fact, following the return from the Babylonian exile, Jews began to take up roles as traders across the entire Euro-Asian-North African world and eventually, partially by accepting (not seeking) converts, grew to a position where they were the largest distinct minority scattered across all the the Ptolomaic and, later, Roman world. So much for exclusivity and ethnocentricity.
If his “scholarship” is based on lies and cherry-picked statements, and since nothing on that page actually demonstrates factual support for his broad claims, I see no reason to accept any of his other errors.
I trust Professor MacDonald’s work. But I believe you are entitled to your opinion.
Regards.