← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 11288 | Posts: 45 | Started: 2003-11-28
2003-11-28 00:48 | User Profile
Sent to VNN Letters:
I have a question for all WNs and their helpmates:
I own several books on anthropology. And I have talked to an anthropologist about race. The basic theory now in anthropology is either a) that "Jewish" is only a religion; or b) that Jews are an ethnic group but NOT a race [subspecies].
I say, based on articles about human inbreeding that I have read, that Jews are indeed a race, not just an ethnic group, because, probably, any 2 Jews share more genetic material than any 2 Blacks, making them more of a race than Blacks despite some differing outward physical appearances, e.g. hair -- as long as the Jews in question are from the same branch [Ash. or Seph.]. And maybe even that need not be factored in.
Is this a sound theory? In other words, are the anthropologists completely wrong in not calling Jews a true race? Are all anthro. books full of shit, in other words? This would seem an important topic re: debunking the PC anthro. world about race/Jews.
Please let any WN who has a good knowledge of this topic answer in VNN Letters or elsewhere.
2003-11-28 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]
... that Jews are indeed a race, not just an ethnic group, because, probably, any 2 Jews share more genetic material than any 2 Blacks, making them more of a race than Blacks ...
This doesn't prove anything other than Jews are more inbred than Blacks. Families share more genetic material but no one calls them races. Jews are a tribe. No more no less.
In other words, are the anthropologists completely wrong in not calling Jews a true race? Are all anthro. books full of shit, in other words? This would seem an important topic re: debunking the PC anthro. world about race/Jews.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the anthropology departments are pc strongholds. When truth and political correctness face off the departments of anthropology make sure that political correctness triumphs. Pathetic. Has more to do with tenure than anything else.
2003-11-28 02:04 | User Profile
But if a family had 14 million members, would it then be a race?
2003-11-28 02:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Please let any WN who has a good knowledge of this topic answer in VNN Letters or elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
The above letter writter should be steered to the Culture of Critique, Chapter 2, The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences.
2003-11-28 02:15 | User Profile
There are only three races: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Or to use less pedantic sounding terms: Caucasian, Negro, and Oriental. The Jews originally were a sub-species of the Caucasian called the Semites but they mixed with a sub-species of the Mongoloid called the Khazars and up until present times had managed to keep their genetics extraordinarily inclusive, to the point of inbreeding, within the several family blocks of the tribe (Ashkenazi, Oriental, and Sephardic.) I do not see how one can call them a race. It is too grand a term for such a small group.
2003-11-28 02:28 | User Profile
If you consider the Jews a race then so are the Chinese, the Japs, the Gypsies, the Eskimos, and the Pygmies, in which case one starts wondering what is an ethnicity?
But I am willing to be convinced. How do you define race?
2003-11-28 02:34 | User Profile
Since there are "Black diseases" [sickle cell trait] and Blacks are a race, so it figures that Jews are a race, since Jews get "Jewish diseases." In fact, there are many more Jewish diseases than Black diseases. Jews are much more related than, say, Japanese.
Jews meet the criteria for being a race. The Khazar theory, which I once believed, is b.s. Indeed, Baker mentions no Khazars in his great book "Race" [1974].
2003-11-28 02:36 | User Profile
It used to be taught that there was a fourth race called the Australoid but they are lumped in with the Negro now, along with, I am fairly sure, the Dravidians, whereas the Indian is categorized as Caucasian they are actually more or less mulattos, with Northern highland Aryan Indians being Caucasian. I wonder how the Dravidians lost the kinky hair? I am no expert on this stuff so any correction is welcome.
2003-11-28 02:50 | User Profile
I have never heard race defined as a population with shared diseases. It is at bottom a question of semantics. If you do not accept the Khazar theory, and I know it is not what some claim: Ashkenazi = Khazar (Arthur Koestler), then you possibly believe Jews to be semites? This creates a little paradox in that the semites themselves are not a race but a sub-group within them are? It is also paradoxical when you say that the Jews share more genetics than the Japs. The Japanese are practically clones compared to Jews who run the gamut from dark skinned Arab-looking to blond blue eyed Aryan types. (we won't count the chinese and black Jews).
2003-11-28 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco] Indeed, Baker mentions no Khazars in his great book "Race" [1974].[/QUOTE]
Any book on race written in 1974 might not speak of Khazars for reasons of fear of the commissars. So you recommmend this book?
2003-11-28 03:55 | User Profile
The book "Race" is the best book yet written on racial groups, complete with photos and charts...
2003-11-28 04:04 | User Profile
Thanks. I just picked up a [I]good[/I] used copy for under $20.
2003-11-28 16:55 | User Profile
I often get into discussions with lemmings who claim there is no such thing as race. They give all sorts of examples of ethnic groups to support their claim. It's about like trying to argue that the color blue does or does not exist, there is no absolute standard on which to measure race. If we had access to accurate history going back 5000 years we might come closer to some sort of standard, but history is generally recorded by those in the information business. Hmmm......
There is no ethnic group that has as long a nose as the Jew in aggregate. I wonder if this is a Khazar or Semitic characteristic. Since Palestinians noses aren't quite that long, it would seem to be a Khazar feature and support the theory that Jews are a race.
2003-11-28 21:43 | User Profile
I say this: Khazar or no Khazar, if your ethnic group is so inbred as to approach first-cousins, and your group gets 40 different diseases while Blacks only get 5 or 6, you are indeed a race. I challenge the anthro. books.
2003-11-29 21:11 | User Profile
If the Amish get diseases that are unique to the Amish [or occur very rarely in Whites, at least], then yes, the Amish would be a race, in my opinion.
2003-11-29 21:24 | User Profile
I have met Amish people who were converts (and was rather impressed, by the way).
Arguing whether Jews are a race is like arguing whether a certain shade of blue has a specific definition.
What is more important is the question:
Do Jews have racial identity which transcends religion?
My answer is yes. To support my position you can visit Jewish singles dating sites and you will see that racially Jewish atheists are part of the tribe.
2003-11-29 23:07 | User Profile
A writer at VNN said that Jews "function as a race." That's good enough for me. They are indeed a race, then, and not just an ethnic group.
2003-11-29 23:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]... namely, Australian aborigines. They are thought to be descended from Mongoloid peoples, but have been separated for so long (nearly 100K years) that they have taken on physical characteristics completely unlike their Pacific Island ancestors and relatives.[/QUOTE]
The notion that Australian aborigines are more closely related to Asians than Negroes is counter-intuitive. Looking on the internet to refute it I find that Anti-Yuppie is in fact right as the following graph demonstates:
HUMAN RACES CALCULATOR DISTANCE FROM Australian Aborigines Population Distance 1 North Asian - Manchurian Evenks 10 2 Central Asian - Mongolians 13 3 East Asian - Indonesians 28 4 Melanesians 37 5 East Asian - Koreans 42 6 North Asian - Buryats 46 7 North Asian - Siberian Evenks 47 8 North Asian - Evens 49 9 Central Asian - Kazakhs 49 10 North Asian - Yukagirs 51 11 North Asian - Korvaks 53 12 North Asian - Oroqens 55 13 Native American - Tanana 61 14 Papua New Guineans 63 15 East Asian - South Chinese 64 16 North Asian - Chukchis 64 17 East Asian - Taiwanese 65 18 North Asian - Tundra Netsi 66 19 East Asian - Japanese 67 20 North Asian - Forest Nentsi 68 21 Central Asian - Altais 71 22 East Asian - Southeast Asians 72 23 Central Asian - Tibetans 73 24 African - Egyptians 78 25 South Asian - Indians 78 26 Native American - Cheyenne 80 27 Native American - Wayus 80 28 European - Russians 81 29 North Asian - Komi 81 30 African - Khoisan 81 31 European - Germans 85 32 Native American - Inuit Eskimos 87 33 European - Greeks 88 34 European - Italians 88 35 African - East Bantus 89 36 North Asian - Siberian Eskimos 89 37 African - Gambians 90 38 Native American - Navajos 91 39 Native American - Zapotecs 92 40 Native American - Pueblos 94 41 Native American - Havasupai 94 42 North Asian - Selkups 94 43 North Asian - Kets 94 44 European - British 94 45 North Asian - Yakuts 94 46 African - Pygmies 95 47 Native American - Pima 95 48 Native American - Embera 96 49 Native American - Chileans 98 50 Native American - Wounan 100 51 African - West Bantus 102 52 Native American - Alaskan Eskimos 102 53 Native American - Ngobe 106 54 African - East Africans 108 55 Native American - Mixtecs 112 56 Native American - Kuna 114 57 Native American - Suruis 120 58 Native American - Karitianas 120 59 Native American - Mixe 120
2003-11-30 00:09 | User Profile
Franco and Travis,
What difference does it make whether Jews are thought of as an ethnic group or a race? I suppose it has something to do with debate positions. I will agree with you on this, and I can support the argument with reasons, Jews are not [I]Whites[/I].
2003-11-30 07:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]So do you consider the Amish to be a race? They are far more inbred than even the Hassidic Jews, and have a number of genetic diseases that are rare to other whites (or any other people).[/QUOTE]First, how do you figure they're more inbred than Hasidim? The Amish have only been around for maybe a dozen generations (whereas the Jewish group has existed for a couple hundred generations), and I have never heard anything to suggest that the founding population was nearly as homogeneous as the founders of Judaism. And aside from the clothing and hairstyles, one cannot tell an Amishman by phenotype. In contrast, Jews are usually readily identifiable as such.
Yes, there is a Jewish race. Any claim to the contrary is based on a counteroproductively restrcitive definition of the term.
2003-11-30 17:03 | User Profile
mwdallas,
How many races are there? Then the Chinese and Japanese are races? As well as the Pygmies?
2003-12-01 03:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]How many races are there? Then the Chinese and Japanese are races? As well as the Pygmies? [/QUOTE] I have no idea, and I really don't care. Like the Jews, they are not part of my race. Unlike the Jews, they do not pretend to be part of my race, so I have little interest in classifying them and drawing demarcations.
2003-12-01 04:24 | User Profile
That is a fair answer.
Okay, Jews are a race.
2003-12-01 05:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What difference does it make whether Jews are thought of as an ethnic group or a race? I suppose it has something to do with debate positions.[/QUOTE] In some circumstances it does, because our struggle has been framed as a matter if "racism".. We can cite Rabbi Steven Wise talking about how Hitler was right that the jews constituted a race, and we can find other references from Jewish sources referring to the Jewish community in terms of race, but the label is not important if we understand the concept independently of the label. I'm perfectly happy to use the term ethnic group to refer to anything lower than the three or four broad "races" that anthropologists seem to agree on. But from a debating standpoint, it may be advantageous to be able to redirect the charge of racism at members of the Jewish "race". In explaining the present situation, and especially why "racism" is the ultimate taboo, it may help to be able to say that the concept of "racism" is simply a means by which one race attempts to disarm the others, particularly the European race.
2003-12-20 00:30 | User Profile
I keep posting this damn link all over cyberspace and nobody seems to know about it!
Mark Weber at the IHR wrote an essay that, in my mind, settles the question as to whether the Jews are an ethnic or a religious group:
[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n2p63_Weber.html[/url]
2003-12-20 00:45 | User Profile
Well, the issue was not religion. Jews are related at the DNA level. The issue was instead, are they a "race" or an "ethnic group?"
2003-12-25 00:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]The book "Race" is the best book yet written on racial groups, complete with photos and charts...[/QUOTE]
Race by Baker is the best book available today. I believe he even devotes a a chapter to the joo. For what it's worth, I do consider the Jew to be a race. They certainly aren't white. Glade Whitney has some good articles on Amren.com about race and how much diversity there is amongst just the Negroid race.
2003-12-27 04:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Franco and Travis,
What difference does it make whether Jews are thought of as an ethnic group or a race? I suppose it has something to do with debate positions. I will agree with you on this, and I can support the argument with reasons, Jews are not [I]Whites[/I].[/QUOTE]
As you know there are two kinds of Jew, the real Jews (Sematic) and the not real Jews (Khazards Zionists). The real Jews are a race the same as the Palestinians, the Zionist are a "mix" of diferent races and to me they are only a bunch of wakos.
2003-12-27 04:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]I often get into discussions with lemmings who claim there is no such thing as race. They give all sorts of examples of ethnic groups to support their claim. It's about like trying to argue that the color blue does or does not exist, there is no absolute standard on which to measure race. If we had access to accurate history going back 5000 years we might come closer to some sort of standard, but history is generally recorded by those in the information business. Hmmm......
There is no ethnic group that has as long a nose as the Jew in aggregate. I wonder if this is a Khazar or Semitic characteristic. Since Palestinians noses aren't quite that long, it would seem to be a Khazar feature and support the theory that Jews are a race.[/QUOTE]
Like I stated in another post, the real Jews and the Palestinian people share the same DNA and are one and the same (Arabs) . The Khazar Jews are a mix of many races and not the same as the other two.
2005-08-04 05:34 | User Profile
Why should it matter to anyone whether or not people who define themselves as "Jews" are a "race", or just an ethnic or religious group? I am not seeing the significance of this matter.
2005-08-04 05:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quendi]Why should it matter to anyone whether or not people who define themselves as "Jews" are a "race", or just an ethnic or religious group? I am not seeing the significance of this matter.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I will answer you again [I already answered one of your posts about Jews].
It makes a big difference whether a person acts as he acts due to genetic reasons or not. Because he may, or may not, be able to change his behavior.
2005-08-04 05:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quendi]Why should it matter to anyone whether or not people who define themselves as "Jews" are a "race", or just an ethnic or religious group? I am not seeing the significance of this matter.[/QUOTE] Ones self identity is very important, transparently. Maybe you just don't see why jews are important?
2005-08-04 14:17 | User Profile
The jews are an ancient pagan cult with a marriage taboo...:caiphas:
2005-08-04 15:51 | User Profile
I'd say they are an ethnic group because there are people within the religion who don't belong to the core race. The Jewish "race" only makes up part of the people who practice the religion.
2005-08-04 18:36 | User Profile
The true or "real" Jews to me are a religion and and race, you cannot separate one from the other.
Then you have the wannabe Khazard Zionists who call themselves "Jews" and those people are traying to make the Jews into a "nation".
Call a rose by any other name and it still will remain a rose, a real Jew will always be the only real Jew.
2005-08-04 23:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]As you know there are two kinds of Jew, the real Jews (Sematic) and the not real Jews (Khazards Zionists). The real Jews are a race the same as the Palestinians, the Zionist are a "mix" of diferent races and to me they are only a bunch of wakos.[/QUOTE]
Eastern European Jews, descendents of the ghetto Jews, are so inbreed they all share common ancestors just two or three generations back, or at least that is my understanding.
2005-08-05 00:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Eastern European Jews, descendents of the ghetto Jews, are so inbreed they all share common ancestors just two or three generations back, or at least that is my understanding.[/QUOTE]
Yeap, those are the Kharzarian Jews from central Asia.
2005-08-05 00:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Yeap, those are the Kharzarian Jews from central Asia.[/QUOTE]
Except this contradicts your description of them as "mixed of different races". I don't see how they can be inbred and "mixed" at the same time?
2005-08-05 01:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Except this contradicts your description of them as "mixed of different races". I don't see how they can be inbred and "mixed" at the same time?[/QUOTE]I think the mixing took place long before the inbreeding. The Khazars have features that are a general mix of the surrounding populations along with some distinct ones of their own, so mixing might have occurred 20 centuries ago. They have practiced eugenics for many centuries and this is how they have attained superior intellect. Jewish culture does not embrace intermarriage with non-Jews. They are not prosletyzers, either. They do not want to convert gentiles, they want to triumph over them.
There are non-Khazar Jews, but this only serves to confuse the issue. The latter have no power or organization sepatate from the Khazars. They are only useful baggage.
2005-08-05 02:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]I think the mixing took place long before the inbreeding. The Khazars have features that are a general mix of the surrounding populations along with some distinct ones of their own, so mixing might have occurred 20 centuries ago. They have practiced eugenics for many centuries and this is how they have attained superior intellect. Jewish culture does not embrace intermarriage with non-Jews. They are not prosletyzers, either. They do not want to convert gentiles, they want to triumph over them.
There are non-Khazar Jews, but this only serves to confuse the issue. The latter have no power or organization sepatate from the Khazars. They are only useful baggage.[/QUOTE]
If as singular group has bred continuously ingroup for 2,000 years then they are no longer "mixed", by the way I look at it. I guess I have never fully bought in to the Khazar explanation.
2005-08-05 02:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]I think the mixing took place long before the inbreeding. The Khazars have features that are a general mix of the surrounding populations along with some distinct ones of their own, so mixing might have occurred 20 centuries ago. They have practiced eugenics for many centuries and this is how they have attained superior intellect. Jewish culture does not embrace intermarriage with non-Jews. They are not prosletyzers, either. They do not want to convert gentiles, they want to triumph over them.
There are non-Khazar Jews, but this only serves to confuse the issue. The latter have no power or organization sepatate from the Khazars. They are only useful baggage.[/QUOTE]
The Khazar theory, in my opinion, is questionable. Why do I say that? Modern DNA test results that I have seen.
But it doesn't really matter anyway. Jews are troublesome whether they are from Khazar genetic stock or not.
2005-08-05 02:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]If you have bred continuously ingroup for 2,000 years then you are no longer "mixed", by the way I look at it. [/QUOTE]Having inbred for 2000 years does not change the fact that they have characteristics of Caucasians, Asians, Semites and Negroes. But all this discussion is moot..what really matters is that they identify as a distinct, separate and superior race.
The Khazar theory, just like any and everything about Jews could be disinformation as Franco suggests. There is no way of knowing who they are for sure.
"A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and Atheist always remains a Jew." (Jewish World, London December 14, 1922)
"Let us recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member." - Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Ct. Justice
"We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them." (Goldwin Smith, Jewish Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October, 1981)
2005-08-05 02:55 | User Profile
[url]www.khazaria.com[/url]
2005-08-05 14:35 | User Profile
Another excellent book on Race, and one I highly recommend is:
Race and Reason: A Yankee View, by Carleton Putnam, 1961, Howard Allen Publisher
2005-08-07 20:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quendi]Why should it matter to anyone whether or not people who define themselves as "Jews" are a "race", or just an ethnic or religious group? I am not seeing the significance of this matter.[/QUOTE] Identity, when personalized, drives world view, which includes the perception of who "we" and "they" are. Of such perspectives come the beginnings of conflicts that lead to war.
It matters like crazy, and has for about 5000 years of recorded history.
What is unusual is the progressive idea that race does not matter. A sober look at places like Bosnia and Rwanda, Mozambique, Iran/Iraq 1980-1987, not to mention Cambocdia 1975-1979 demonstrate how powerful identity can be during time of conflict.
Tell a Hutu that he and a Tusti are alike, and you make get a punch to the face, may get a smile, a nod in agreement, or a machete to the neck.
Depends on which faction he identifies with. See also Cripps and Bloods shooting at each other. It shouldn't matter, so you say, but it appears to matter to a heck of a lot of people.