Another spinoff from the stupid costume thread:

I wrote:

Being Jewish is primarily a religious issue, with a cultural subcontext, that is made more complex because Jews have been, throughout much of their history, very insular in whatever country the live. Jews can fall into several racial groups depending how expansive your definition is. If you look at the races that I learned in anthro 101, there are three: caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. Under those three wide criteria, most Jews fit into the caucasoid category, as that includes middle easterners, europeans, etc. You'd have your converts and children of converts who could fit into one of the other two categories, as well as the Ethiopian Jews, but the majority would be caucasoid.

If you define race on some other criteria (which mostly appears to be dividing the caucasoid category into many subcategories), then the Jews spread out farther, but so do most other groups.

For example, I'm Jewish (meaning that my parents are Jewish, their parents are Jewish, etc. as far back as I know). I don't practice the religion but would still identify myself that way on a cultural basis. I'm also "white" and would not fall into any subcategory until you got to the level of something as silly as "white with ancestry primarily from Eastern Poland/Western Russia," which is just plain ridiculous.

The bit with the genetics just covers the fact that the Jews have been a very insular group for most of their history and tended not to merge much with the general population around them, which goes back significantly farther than the diaspora from Spain in the 15th century. When a group is that insular, the genetics can get very hairy, which is why there are a number of "Jewish" diseases based on genetics, like Tay Sachs and the like.

The basic problem, of course, is that "race" is a tricky word. And, because I am having such fun with the new boards and this post is wildly off topic, I'm opening a new thread to discuss exactly what "race" is, whether Jews or any other cultural/religious group qualify as a race, and such other concepts.


And this is that thread: Have at it.

Very interesting post, dmc. I've always viewed Jewish people to be of a particular religious sect, such as Catholics, Protestants, etc., not of a different race. The races, as I was taught traditionally, are indeed the caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid.

Jews are not a race. Speaking genetically they are Semitic. You can be a Jew by birth or you can be Jewish by religious choice. The two are not necessarily the same.

Now as to what is race.

I found this site. Please take a look at it. I found it very interesting.

http://www.understandingrace.org/

The traditional racial groupings are to a great extent based on skin color. Which in not only my opinion but in the opinion of at least some geneticists is not a very good way to classify people.

Quoted from the above link: Skin color, one of our most visible physical features, has long been used to divide people into racial categories. Anthropologist Nina Jablonski, Ph.D. theorizes that variations in human skin are adaptive traits that correlate closely to geography and the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, not race.

It may come as a shock to some but genetically Europeans and Asian are a sub-set of African genetics.

The term race is a cultural word and not a scientific word. We are one species: Homo Sapien although sometimes I'm not too sure about the Sapien part.

For those who like quizes here is one:

http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/quiz.html

There are 10 questions and if you wish to know your score you will need to keep track of what you get right or wrong yourself.

Race is a cultural construct. Therefore the idea of a Jewish race is as viable as any other.

There's one race of Humans and it's called Humans.

Even if we used "race" to differentiate between humans, there are still only 3 races iirc. Jews are no more a separate race than are Canadians.

Still, I thought being Jewish was mostly an ethnic thing, regardless of what religion you adhere to. If practicing Judaism is all it takes to be a Jew, would that mean that the Khazars were Jewish? They acknowledged Judaism as a state religion, for a time.

If you look at the races that I learned in anthro 101, there are three: caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. Under those three wide criteria, most Jews fit into the caucasoid category, as that includes middle easterners, europeans, etc. You'd have your converts and children of converts who could fit into one of the other two categories, as well as the Ethiopian Jews, but the majority would be caucasoid.

Yup. And that pretty much closes it. However....

I'm also "white" and would not fall into any subcategory until you got to the level of something as silly as "white with ancestry primarily from Eastern Poland/Western Russia," which is just plain ridiculous.

Yeah. Either it's supposed to help people by storing some information which may be of some importance to understanding them, or it's supposed to make WASPs true whites and the rest somewhat less white. ;)

And here I'd close it because I don't feel comfortable dissecting people and putting them under the microscope like they're items.

Race is a cultural construct. Therefore the idea of a Jewish race is as viable as any other.

Practically any general expression is a cultural construct in some understanding. Numbers included. However, cultural constructs are not empty - they have some more or less fixed content. Whichever understanding of race you propose, the difference between an Anglo-Saxon or Celt and a Jew is not the same as between either of them and a black or Asian person. If you keep the differences right and preserve the proportions, you can use whatever names and propose whatever conclusions you want. ;)

And, obviously, there's always been some understanding of "race" which has denoted a nation or even a family. "The Poles are a difficult race to rule. They always rebel." "The Smiths are a noble race. Not a single one of them has broken his word as far as anyone remembers." That way, you can easily classify Jews as a race because of their particular exclusivity as it comes to matters of ethnicity (including anthropological traits), religion, culture. Certainly, if you take a priestly family going back to Aaron (matter of course) with descent recorded at least to early middle ages, they aren't going to be the same as every other John or Jacques or Giovanni and so on and so forth. If you take converts to Judaism or a family that has a history of intermarriage with non-Jews, then you'll need much more information to figure out their heritage with some credibility. However, not even in the case of the first family - with clearly defined ancestry, can you put it forth as a race in the same understanding as blacks or whites.

Finally, as for race being a cultural concept, sure. Conclusions derived from visible differences are pretty much cultural and so are conclusions further derived from those. However, the initial premises are pretty much physical. Phenotypes and other physical differences are a fact, not a cultural concept. I'll grant you that perhaps those differences in mentality which are associated with particular phenotypes might perhaps be more cultural than physical, but whatever is intrinsically associated with a particular phenotype, marks a group different from other groups, and ignoring it in the name of equality could be as misguided as it is elevated. Now, I don't maintain any of those groups is "better" or "worse" than others or that they should each stick to itself and live in ghettos, but I'm seriously disappointed with the omnipresent pretence that we're all the same. On the one hand, there's the cult of diversity, which is probably one of the factors leading to "20 races", on the other hand, we're still not entirely over pretending the traditional three races aren't different from each other.

By Chevalier: On the one hand, there's the cult of diversity, which is probably one of the factors leading to "20 races", on the other hand, we're still not entirely over pretending the traditional three races aren't different from each other.

But in what way are they different from each other? Other than medical reasons why does it matter? And that brings to my mind that many people, including myself, are a mixture of 'races'. What 'race' are the Australian Aborigines or the Pygmies of Africa?

Genetically we are all descended from Africans. Homo Sapien originated on the continent of Africa and spread out over the rest of the world. Caucasians and Mongoloids are a sub-set of this original group. Further more not all members of these three 'races' are identical. There are many sub-sets. We can and do inter-breed and produce fertile offspring.

I do think it is important for us to realize that we are one species. No longer should we think of someone who is different as "The Other". We have reached the point where it is impossible for us to get away from problems by moving somewhere else. For this reason alone I think it is important to think about the ways we are alike and what we have in common.

Speaking of which, aren't we supposed to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Homo Sapiens was the neanderthal iirc.

Quite an interesting topic.

Like Spell said, you are either Jewish by choice or by birth. Even if you are Jewish by birth, you can chose not to be, which follows the basics of any religion. So, no I don't consider Jews a seperate race.

By Chevalier:

But in what way are they different from each other? Other than medical reasons why does it matter? And that brings to my mind that many people, including myself, are a mixture of 'races'. What 'race' are the Australian Aborigines or the Pygmies of Africa?

It's no point classing and classing people ad infinitum, creating needless divisions to no end. On the other hand, pretending we all look the same is equally pointless and unfounded. For example, I don't think it's bad when policemen looking for a criminal fill out the race bracket instead of carefully skipping skin colour and just giving eye and hair colour.

Genetically we are all descended from Africans. Homo Sapien originated on the continent of Africa and spread out over the rest of the world. Caucasians and Mongoloids are a sub-set of this original group. Further more not all members of these three 'races' are identical. There are many sub-sets. We can and do inter-breed and produce fertile offspring.

Sure, never said otherwise. :) However, as much as we're all within one species - and different races are hardly even subspecies, we don't look the same and the differences are not random. Heritable appearance and other traits mark some different groups.

I do think it is important for us to realize that we are one species. No longer should we think of someone who is different as "The Other". We have reached the point where it is impossible for us to get away from problems by moving somewhere else. For this reason alone I think it is important to think about the ways we are alike and what we have in common.

Yup, but when ideology clouds reality, problems happen. We need to address facts rather than pretend something which isn't factually true but is ideologically correct. Otherwise it'll be like: "That black gentleman over there..." "Excuse me, there's no such thing as white or black." "..."

Well, I’ve always though of race along the traditional lines, but as has been pointed out, we all came from Africa originally. I’m no expert, but it seems to me that “race” is more a way to categorize people’s visual appearance. Of course, if that were true and accurate, then you could make a case for many other races – Arabs, Mexicans, etc. – even perhaps Jews.

Specifically to the topic title – I’ve always thought of Jews as an ethnic group, but not a race. As to “what is a race”, I have no idea.

Thus ends my utterly useless :2c:

Ethnicity and religion do go together to some extent I think. I remember growing up in the old neighborhoods back East, where immigrants coming into the US would set up communities according to their descent. It was magnificent from my perspective, as you could travel 20 miles or so and pass through Italian, Irish, Jewish, Portuguese, French, Greek and Polish neighborhoods, to name a few. Many people still spoke the languages of the old country -- as a kid, I thought it was most worldly. We, as a family, would visit these neighborhoods routinely and dine in the different restaurants -- after all we only had to go a couple of blocks to walk into another world. I felt very lucky to be part of that miasma of ethnicity and still do.

But, as was previously noted, one can be of one religion, but many ethnic groups, as is evidenced by Irish Catholic, Portuguese-Catholic, etc.

I know exactly what you're talking about, Spelly. Here in Winnipeg we have something called Folklorama, a celebration of multi-culturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklorama)

But that is all about ethnicity, not race. Even though, as I said previously, I have no idea what "race" actually means.

That's looks wonderful Splunge. I'd be camped out there for the full 2 weeks! Modernism is great and all that, but I so hope we don't lose all the old ways. Many of the neighborhoods I spoke of in my last post are all torn down now, making way for malls and the like. Kind of sad -- it was a great way of life, rich with history.

Sure, never said otherwise. :) However, as much as we're all within one species - and different races are hardly even subspecies, we don't look the same and the differences are not random. Heritable appearance and other traits mark some different groups.

Technically the races aren't even subspecies in sense of the term from the standpoint of biology for all the races can "inbreed" with any of the other races without the aid of an other race as a go between. A subspecies would be as such: If say Africans and East Asians couldn't produce offspring capable of reproduction, but both groups could breed with Europeans and those unions created young fully capable of reproduction. If the races can be compared to anything, it more like dog breeds who are all Canis Familiaris and are merely distinguished for aesthetic purposes. Biologically we cannot draw a categorical distinction between any of the humans on this planet.

Many anthropologists will even claim that those three categories for races are worthless because they don't relate to any type of cultural formation. Germanic peoples, Bantu Speaking peoples or even Indo-Europeans draw a reference to an actual cultural formation. I have yet to met an anthropologist who has told me that there is a Negroid or Caucasoid culture. Such terms don't hold as much weight as they use to in the social sciences.

Technically the races aren't even subspecies

I said:

different races are hardly even subspecies

So there's no disagreement. Perhaps my post was a bit chaotic, resulting in an urge to skim through it. ;)

Biologically we cannot draw a categorical distinction between any of the humans on this planet.

We can. We have phenotypes. Our phenotypes give us more distinction than almost any lowest level unit of animals (subspecies that doesn't divide further). Two malamutes or two maine coons don't differ from each other as much as a European does from an Asian or African. This difference pertains to bodies and is physical and heritable, therefore it is biological.

It less to do with an urge to skim through it, but put a definitive stamp on it. I just figured that the line about hardly being considered a subspecies left room for confusion on some level in which there was a possibility for the human races being construed as subspecies. I was merely trying to say that under NO circumstance could that distinction be drawn

As for phenotypes, that really isn't a categorical distinction that can be made for a biologist. Saying that blonds could constitute one group of humanity and brunettes another really doesn't say anything that is of importance for a biologist making a classification, it merely variation within a particular species. Evidence of micro evolution at best, but using phenotype as a means of categorization does not allow for a definitive empirical stop. A phenotype can always be sub divided down to an individual (not to mention it lacks the empirical substance to truly prove what a different phenotype is... what shade of blond constitutes what category of blond?), while the ability to inbreed can not. Phenotypes can be left to the artists, it's nearly impossible for a biologist to rely on such a thing, hence why all biological distinctions based on categorization come do to the presence or absence of something, rather then the degree of something.

Also there is becoming increasing scientific evidence to support that the reason we perceive so many differences between different humans is a social adaptation to be able to distinguish individuals which leads to the ability to recognize friend and foe.

I'm all in favor of diversity and it saddens me when I see it lost.

I need to point out that I am different from many of you who post here. I lived through the fifties and sixties and this strongly influences my point of view. I do not wish to see us return to what I consider the hypocrisy and racism of that time.

Concentrating on what makes us different has in the past lead to injustice and wars. This why I stress the things we have in common starting with our common humanity. If we can accept this we can move on to enjoying and respecting our differences. this is the reason I stress the oneness of humanity. Our differences make us a glorious species but we are one specie.

That's looks wonderful Splunge. I'd be camped out there for the full 2 weeks!
Well, you wouldn't be alone! :)

I need to point out that I am different from many of you who post here.

Oh yeah, like that's a big surprise. Freak! :p

Race. Jewish "race". Why does it matter? Beats me.

Ilmater, you're still forgetting the fact that the differences between traditionally understood races are there and they aren't the same as a mere difference in hair or eye colour between members of the same race. Why argue that it's so utterly unreliable when everyone knows it works? Isn't it politics and a notion of equality trying to overwrite what we see with our eyes?

The bit with the genetics just covers the fact that the Jews have been a very insular group for most of their history and tended not to merge much with the general population around them, which goes back significantly farther than the diaspora from Spain in the 15th century.


Being Jewish is not a race but a nationality. I don't believe it is a race at all. Throughout a large part of their history, the Jewish people did not have a homeland, (which everyone knows). It is an extraordinary accomplishment that they did not loose their national identity during the many years that they were without a homeland. I think the religion of Judaism helped in that respect. This is the main reason why I am very supportive of Israel; I'm glad that they finally have a place, after many years of wandering and hardship, while trying to maintain that identity, especially when it would have been much easier, at some points in their history, to give up and "blend in" by renouncing their religion and national heritage.

Ilmater, you're still forgetting the fact that the differences between traditionally understood races are there and they aren't the same as a mere difference in hair or eye colour between members of the same race. Why argue that it's so utterly unreliable when everyone knows it works? Isn't it politics and a notion of equality trying to overwrite what we see with our eyes?

I'm arguing because I'm trying to speak from a scientific standpoint and while scientific categorization is arbitrary on a structural level, i.e. choosing what makes a phylum a phylum or an order an order, but operating within that construct, the empirical data isn't arbitrary. I can't find a degree of an exoskeleton, or a degree of a central nervous system or a degree of the ability to nurse one's young. A creature either has this or not. Humans on the other hand all have melanin unless they suffer from ablinism, we all have the presence of the same bones in our face and we all make use of the same glands and chemicals. There is no ground to argue humans are different categorically from other humans. Obviously all humans have a unique genetic makeup, but they generally don't have something or lack something the majority of other humans have (I don't feel things like things like third nipples reconstitute anything of significance). Those that typically do don't last long (like the absence of portions of the cranium).

I feel the only significant division we can make within humanity is through credible study is the various cultures which we have had our formative years in and this has less to do with phenotypes and more to do with "ideas, values, beliefs and ideals". Race is a cultural idea rather then a scientific idea. I guess in a strange way it makes the concept of race more "real" then science could make it as science is only excepted because our culture believes in science. Science can fall out of favor while culture never can.

Anyway Chev we're separated by philosophy. I'm ever the logical atomist (I refuse the label logical positivist) and therefore basically a slave to empirical sciences; practical social concepts aren't particularly important to the logical atomist, only verifiable atomic facts. This far surpasses the practical application of the concept of "fact" (really messes up things like ethics and aesthetics). I understand where you're coming from, it just isn't compatible with the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and accepting it as a logical fact would destroy what little metaphysics a logical positive adheres to.

Anyway, you're right in the terms of western culture, but I still feel I'm right within the terms of biology. We're talking different language games ;).

I always thought the only races were human, elf, gnome, dwarf, and halfling (kender for non-purists). However, in the limited scope of reality I guess we must accept there are divisions within human... what a pain in the ass.

When in doubt, I usually first look to Webster:

race (second definition) n. 1 any of the different varieties of human beings distinguished by physical traits, blood types, etc. 2 any geographical population sharing the same habits, ideas, etc. 3 any distinct group of people.

I believe the Hebrews qualify as a distinct race using the second part of that definition.

T2BRUNO! you know a purist only believes in the 3 races!!!;)

dwarf, elf & human(way old school):D

Being Jewish is not a race but a nationality. I don't believe it is a race at all.

I'd say certainly not like white or black or Asian. But apart from cultural identity, there's a measure of ... don't want to say endogamy, but at least marrying within one's group. There are physical traits which are heritable and those are passed down in many Jewish families if not most. Sometimes you need to pay a lot of attention and know what you're looking for, and sometimes you don't notice. Depends on how it went where they lived. At any rate, just suggesting there are some anthropological traits, but not enough to warrant a separate race on par with the traditional three.

As I mentioned in the 'Black and White' thread, you are using the biological definition of race (and an old one at that). Race is socio-political to most people, not strictly biological. As such, Hebrews could easily be a race unto themselves. However, once you classify a group as a race they will typically be caste into a social hierarchy. Perhaps it is better to not have as many races and racial divides.

There's one race of Humans and it's called Humans.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. A different race would be 'elven' or 'dwarven', not black or white. We are all the same race (so technically nothing is 'racism', we need a new word for it), we just have different cultures and appearances. Perhaps the things that make one group of people common to each other should be called ethnicity instead of race? Or does ethnicity imply from a specific country (i.e. American would be an ethnicity, which wouldn't cover the different subgroups inside of it)?

What other word could we use to describe what we now define as 'race'?

Perhaps the things that make one group of people common to each other should be called ethnicity instead of race?

I suppose, although in the U.S., when you talk about ethnicity, you are usually referring to where your ancestry is from. For example, I'm an American, but I'm ethnically Italian and Slovak. The only people living in America who are ethnically American are the Native Americans.

What other word could we use to describe what we now define as 'race'?

I don't know there is one that really makes sense, without starting to refer to different groups of humans as animals or even livestock. I mean, all different types of domesticated dogs can interbreed and produce viable offspring. There's also all sorts of different kind of cows that all interbreed successfully (heck even buffalo are the same species as cows - they produce perfectly healthy offspring when they are bred together).

I agree with you about using 'ethnicity,' but I still think we shouldn't use 'race.' Saying we are different races implies we are not all the same thing - human beings (as we are the 'human race', not the 'collection of various races that make up human life.')

well, the word that fits best would offend to many people.
breeds
just as there are different dog breeds yet all can interbreed.

I have always thought Judaism was a religion and not a "race". And besides shouldn't we call them Israelis ? If Jews are an ethnic nation, to my knowledge the country's name is Isreal not "Judaistan" or "Hebrewland" or whatever.

I think we confuse ethnic and cultural background and race.

The only people living in America who are ethnically American are the Native American Indeed this true for the whole continent (America is a continent not a single country /rant) It is especialy hard to define "race" here. I consider myself to be french-canadian. I know as a fact, since my sister has done a great work of tracing our ancestor back to Europe. We know for a fact that first of our father's line (it was easier to trace it, since men kept their family name not women) Ultimately came from a moderately wealthy parisian in the 16th century. We also know for a fact that this perticular line which we are have only and exclusively married other french-canadian, for better or worse. So geneticaly I'm 100% French, but not culturaly. This is true for all none native americans, which includes Myself, Nakia, Splugne, DoTW, Saber, Aldeth, Death Rabbit and so many more. I think that everyone living in the American continent would think of themselves as culturaly different than European but not "race-wise" Just my :2c:

Ok, enough of this :yot:

What I'm trying to say is that, we're all human and yes we've all different physical difference. However we have many different cultural and "ethnic" background. For me the "jewish race" fall in this category I.E a common cultural background mostly defined by judaism as a religion. My English teacher is jewish but she doesn't look different than any other. She is white and looks like any other white canadian. If it wasn't the fact I knew she was jewish I wouldn't have known. I don't consider her to be a different "race", but from a different religion. (Which in itself is not a bad thing)

Ok I don't know if this post made sense :p

I watched this series on PBS and found it fascinating:
http://racerelations.about.com/od/ahistoricalviewofrace/a/dnaandrace.htm

In North America race can be very misleading. Many of us have a multiracial background. Far in the future will we all look more or less alike? I hope not. Diversity is what makes the world interesting. Already too many groups/nations are becoming westernized and losing their uniqueness. I notice it in dress. Groups that have had a beautiful, colorful, unique clothing are giving it up to dress in Western clothing (and I do not mean cowboy.)

I also saw a program on PBS that stated that there is a Black Tribe that has Jewish DNA. The lost tribes of Israel? If I find a link I will post it.

To me the term race means the differences that are obvious to the eye, skin/hair color, hair type, certain physical features such as lips, cheek bones and noses.

300 hundred years from now when scientists dig up Nakia's bones I wonder what they will make of her. After all she is a hobbit. :p

I have always thought Judaism was a religion and not a "race". And besides shouldn't we call them Israelis ? If Jews are an ethnic nation, to my knowledge the country's name is Isreal not "Judaistan" or "Hebrewland" or whatever.

Judaism is most certainly a religion. A lot of Jews live in Israel, but not everyone who lives in Israel is a Jew, and not everyone who practices Judaism are Israelis.

Anyone who identifies the country where they as Israel is technically an Israeli. It's a whole other story though when you consider the cultural ramifications. For example, there are many Palestinians living in Israel, and I'm sure they don't consider themselves Israelis.