Turks and Iranians are nationalities. Jews are a religion. Religions do not confer genetic markers and neither do nationalities.Yes, many religious groups intermarry and that can create some religious markers but the intermixing is biologically a disaster and generally they die out. Genes don't like the same old, same old.
Pick up a religion or a nationality and your DNA does not change. Drop a religion or nationality and your DNA does not change. How could it?
Every human alive today is descended from the same distant group of ancestors and religions have nothing to do with DNA.
Go back a thousand years and we each have millions of ancestors. Of course DNA does not record nationalities or religions.
You know what I mean, don't you? Judaism is the religion, Jewish is the ethnicity, always was. Iranian is the ethnicity, so are the Turks. Look at the article - it's all about ethnicities. What is your problem with that?
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Jews, Christians, any religion are not common nationally or culturally - the commonality is the religion.
Even nationalities have variations on the theme of tradition and culture.
Religions do not qualify as ethnic groups. The concept of Jewish ethnicity was invented by the Zionists in the late 19th century. As atheists, wishing to make use of some religious teachings, they had to invent a way that Jews would be seen as a people to support their plans to colonise Palestine.
Because while religions do not get land rights, homelands or self-determination, peoples do or they can. Pity about the Gypsies and Kurds, but hey. That is the origin of Jewish ethnicity. If you study it however it is very clear that the only commonality is the religion and even that may not be much commonality.
I can assure you an Ethiopian Jew has nothing in common with a Belgian Jew and even a London Jew has little in common with a Manhattan Jew. And most find Israeli Jews a tad alien. I say that having worked with and for Belgian, American, British, Israeli, Australian Jews. And for that matter Christians and Muslims. Same with Christians and Muslims. I lived in India and four African countries and Indian Muslims are not African Muslims or for that matter, British Muslims. The religion is the glue, as it always was. It is not however an ethnicity.
The general definition of ethnicity is weird and wrong on most fronts. If someone has one Chinese parent and one German parent; who had Korean, Russian, Polish, French, Swedish, Romanian, Spanish, Italian great-grandparents, is that individual Chinese, German, Korean, Russian, Polish, French, Swedish, Romanian, Spanish or Italian? They are none of those. If they were born in Canada they are a Canadian of mixed ancestry. Ditto for any other country in which they are born.
You misquote. I did not say races did not exist in my opinion, I said in the field of genetics, and I simply quote experts, there is too little difference in what we once called races to accept the theory of races. Blame the geneticists.
All people are most definitely not the same and I never said they were. People are diverse. However, when people choose to identify by some part of their ancestry there is a problem. That is racist and that is divisive.
As to your source, Wikipedia is very unreliable and not accepted as a source by any reputable university in the world. Although there are not many of those left.
It says: An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area.
Which means what? Pretty much nothing. That applies to people who belong to Chess groups, choral groups, sporting teams or clubs, book clubs etc. Would they be deemed ethnic? Of course not.
The use of the term ethnic is always used as some sort of wedge or weapon to gain certain people advantages. It is simply a modern form of tribalism.
I am as much of an anti-Zionist as I am an anti-Communist, anti-Fascist or anti anything really. I can understand why such groups and political movements arise but it is very clear they are hardly to be encouraged as systems given their often naieve, if not discriminatory and obsessive natures.
Zionism is a particularly unpleasant political movement if only because it exploits the most backward Judaic teachings and gives Judaism and its followers a bad name. It also presides over the most barbaric and murderous colonial regime in modern history.
Although it must be remembered that not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews and many of the most fanatical Zionists are Christians. Fundamentalist Americans in the main but then being American and being fundamentalist in a religious sense seems to be a dangerous combination.
I see Zionism as a form of fanaticism and like Communism, Nazism, Fascism, I believe fanaticism is best avoided. It never ends well no matter how noble people might believe the motives and policies might be.
You tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see you mean no harm, but your ideological structures do not withstand to the reality check. But to each his own, I guess. Life doesn't fail to surprise me every single day now, my dear Wend friend, and I say it with utmost respect.
Jewish is a religious term, ergo, all religions have ethnicity as religious metaphor. Why just mention Judaism? How about Christianity and then divide it up into the branches. Each has a variation on the theme of ethnicity, i.e. Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon etc. etc.
You can compare a Jewish religious ethnicity, although ethnicity is not truly correct, to any other religious ethnicity but you cannot compare it to a nationality. And none of it translates to DNA.
Having worked with and for, had and have friends and family in many religions, including Jews - European, Indian, American, British, Scottish, African, Australian.... I could go on, I can assure you they have NOTHING in common but the religion and that is not ethnicity. That is the flavour and influence of religious beliefs, no more, no less.
My point was and is, neither religions or nationalities have DNA markers and even racial markers are pretty irrelevant.
What do you call a Jewish ethnicity then? Or do you deny there is such ethnicity? You seem to deny any and all ethnicities? What is your agenda with ethnicities? Yes, it's all admixed, but not to the point that everyone is exactly same. To say that is ignorant, at the very least. Don't believe the evidence of your eyes and ears? And the diagrams. Woke is what woke does.
Jewish ethnicity is simply religious culture called ethnicity. No religion is an ethnicity.
I find ethnicity an overused term in these days. It was invented to try to make Jews a people not a religion by the atheist Zionists but it does not hold up.
All religions as metaphor represent cultures. However they are not nationalities or ethnicities but simply religions which connect people of many nationalities and many ethnicities.
What is an American or Canadian or Australia? All nations founded in relatively recent times historically and created from mass immigration. They are nations with a developing culture or flavour drawn from many nationalities, ethnicities if you like and religions.
But there is no quintessential American or Canadian. Human nature is diverse. Which is why we look to a nationality to describe us and some use it to define themselves.
And that is exactly my point - everyone is not exactly the same and cannot be. Religions comprise diversity of people as do nationalities even more so and the strength of nationhood is that the State draws all religions together and takes precedence over church, mosque, temple etc.
Those broad genetic differences were what excited great ire over Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance". We observe that genetic differences arrive in his nominal five great peoples who have similar physical characteristics as they evolved to fit their environments during periods of semi-isolation. They have somewhat different genetics as well now that we can compare. And those then arrive at differences in cultures, broadly viewed. Admixing took place across the geographical boundaries. His trouble arises as he defines those groups in terms of race and today's culture refuses that such a thing exists. He goes on to observe we are still evolving and have become considerably more genetically mixed as travel arrives.
But there remain cultural adaptations associated with regions. Perhaps why western European peoples have been so innovative picking up things the Chinese set aside. Or that features in Islam as a cultural item eventually ended the great science of the middle east for so long.
So Russia with it's huge geography and sparseness have a population much more diverse than in western Europe. Amazing that they could agree among each other. As amazing at the different cultural norms in the US of different regions. The culture of Hawaii is not at all like Texas nor New England.
Our modern world is slowly coming to terms with these cultural issues as we abandon tribalism. Of course, division into tribes for political purposes continues. Pitting one against the other can be useful in politics but harmful to the greater society.
I am not sure the racist approach really works since modern genetics says there is so little difference between what we once called races that there are no races.
And since every human alive today is descended from the same group of distant ancestors we really are all one.
Given the centuries of rape and pillage rampaging around Europe it is truly ridiculous to claim the Ukrainians are somehow purer than the Russians. They are the same people. They all started out as Vikings.
You never been to Russia AND Ukraine, I gather? You are saying the diagrams are totally wrong and racist and that this branch of human knowledge should be censored because you feel offended, for unknown to us reasons? Why don't you write for CNN and The Atlantic instead - they may actually pay you for your agitations.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, months at a time. No, I did not get to Ukraine but have friends in Australia whose families emigrated from Ukraine. Quite a few of them. And they have family there still.
Good heavens, where on earth did I say that anything should be censored? I did not. You misquote. I believe totally in freedom of speech.
I am not in the least offended. Why would I be? By whom or what? I don't get offended often by people I know and love let alone by strangers.
Yes, of course, with strong links to an ancestral home. My grandfather emigrated from London at the age of 19 but he was an Australian through and through. His kids would have laughed if you said they were English. One great-grandfather did continue to call himself Danish however, but the others quickly became Australian. I think the Danish thing was because by then Schleswig Holstein had been lost again to the Germans.
I did not find Canadians doing hyphens as the Americans have long done. I hope it is not becoming common.
Vasko implorted to me to listen to the "experts", which I did and commented on. I would love to hear your feedback on both fronts:
--------------
Here are the 1st useful idiot's sound bites:
We are encouraging Ukrainians to think they will ultimately become part of the West. Ukrainians are playing along and “unwilling to compromise with the Russians”. Result: Ukrainians “will play tough with Russia and instead want to pursue a hardline policy” and will get wrecked by Russia. What is so “hardline” about Ukraine not wanting to be co-opted by Russia and merely exist? It is Russia’s ultimate goal to co-opt Ukraine and leave no trace of anything Ukrainian in its borders, make no mistake about it. How do I know? Because Putin says it every blinking day! Why is Putin so adamant about it? Because, as Brzezinski said, without Ukraine Russia is not an empire. You think Putin is dumb enough to not know it? What is that envisioned “compromise with Russia”? Crazy talk. If Russians want you dead, where is the middle ground? Cut off our legs and leave us alive?
His solution: “neutralize” Ukraine and build it up economically. Time is on our side and we’ll ultimately defeat Russia in this way. Result: Ukraine will be let be by Russia. This is an insane conclusion – why would Russia sit idly and watch this happen? This is exactly what the West was pursuing since 1991 (Ukraine was denied entry to NATO for 30+ years, ditto EU) and this is exactly what perspired now – wrecking of Ukraine as the result. Thanks for nothing!
This "expert" is anything but. Can your honestly reply to my points? About "neutralizing" Ukraine, appeasing Russia in this way, Russia letting it happen and wait for no way back into the empire status, Russian strategic goals and everything else? In face of the reality?
The other "useful idiot" is saying Ukraine is the dagger pointing to the heart of Mother Russia and NATO is encircling Russia (with the help of the Baltics and Poland too). He'll eventually say "good riddance" to those states as well as they "endanger" Russia's perceived sense of "security". Is there anything more blatantly pro-Russian than that? What kind of arguments are these? Unless you are mentally firmly in the 19th century's age of empires?
Sure Ukraine, by its geographic location, is to the south of Moscow. So, this is the argument to deny Ukraine existence? On the other hand, Russia is encircling Kyiv (look at the map) - shouldn't Russia be denied existence because of that?
-------------
Found my longer comment on the other "expert" (went to the wrong forum):
The other crook is saying it's a tragedy what is happening in Ukraine, and Putin is not to blame. Somehow going back to 2014 is all that needs to be done to understand the 400 year history. "Ukraine is a dagger pointing toward Moscow? " "Unacceptable to Russia?!" Therefore, Russia is in its right denying Ukraine existence.
Who's going to hit Russia or Moscow? Romania? Turkey? Ukraine itself?
Russia wanted Ukraine to be neutral? He's insane, this other "expert". Why? Listen to what Putin espouses every day (even this green screen speech: https://youtu.be/sih429WN0gg). Oh, don't listen to Putin, listen to him? Because Putin means nothing he says? He's white and fluffy, deep down? Give me a break. Another useful idiot, or worse.
Razim Khan should have included Iranians, Turks, and Jews into this genetic analysis, the results could have been even more interesting.
Turks and Iranians are nationalities. Jews are a religion. Religions do not confer genetic markers and neither do nationalities.Yes, many religious groups intermarry and that can create some religious markers but the intermixing is biologically a disaster and generally they die out. Genes don't like the same old, same old.
Pick up a religion or a nationality and your DNA does not change. Drop a religion or nationality and your DNA does not change. How could it?
Every human alive today is descended from the same distant group of ancestors and religions have nothing to do with DNA.
Go back a thousand years and we each have millions of ancestors. Of course DNA does not record nationalities or religions.
You know what I mean, don't you? Judaism is the religion, Jewish is the ethnicity, always was. Iranian is the ethnicity, so are the Turks. Look at the article - it's all about ethnicities. What is your problem with that?
Want to be woke - be it, but don't proselytize.
ethnicity
/ɛθˈnɪsɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Jews, Christians, any religion are not common nationally or culturally - the commonality is the religion.
Even nationalities have variations on the theme of tradition and culture.
Religions do not qualify as ethnic groups. The concept of Jewish ethnicity was invented by the Zionists in the late 19th century. As atheists, wishing to make use of some religious teachings, they had to invent a way that Jews would be seen as a people to support their plans to colonise Palestine.
Because while religions do not get land rights, homelands or self-determination, peoples do or they can. Pity about the Gypsies and Kurds, but hey. That is the origin of Jewish ethnicity. If you study it however it is very clear that the only commonality is the religion and even that may not be much commonality.
I can assure you an Ethiopian Jew has nothing in common with a Belgian Jew and even a London Jew has little in common with a Manhattan Jew. And most find Israeli Jews a tad alien. I say that having worked with and for Belgian, American, British, Israeli, Australian Jews. And for that matter Christians and Muslims. Same with Christians and Muslims. I lived in India and four African countries and Indian Muslims are not African Muslims or for that matter, British Muslims. The religion is the glue, as it always was. It is not however an ethnicity.
Your definition of ethnicity is weird and wrong on many fronts. Where did you find it?
Here's another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
Chew on that. Races don't exist either, BTW, in your opinion? As all people are same and saying anything else is racist?
The general definition of ethnicity is weird and wrong on most fronts. If someone has one Chinese parent and one German parent; who had Korean, Russian, Polish, French, Swedish, Romanian, Spanish, Italian great-grandparents, is that individual Chinese, German, Korean, Russian, Polish, French, Swedish, Romanian, Spanish or Italian? They are none of those. If they were born in Canada they are a Canadian of mixed ancestry. Ditto for any other country in which they are born.
You misquote. I did not say races did not exist in my opinion, I said in the field of genetics, and I simply quote experts, there is too little difference in what we once called races to accept the theory of races. Blame the geneticists.
All people are most definitely not the same and I never said they were. People are diverse. However, when people choose to identify by some part of their ancestry there is a problem. That is racist and that is divisive.
"there is too little difference in what we once called races to accept the theory of races". Ha-ha, a good one!
As to your source, Wikipedia is very unreliable and not accepted as a source by any reputable university in the world. Although there are not many of those left.
It says: An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area.
Which means what? Pretty much nothing. That applies to people who belong to Chess groups, choral groups, sporting teams or clubs, book clubs etc. Would they be deemed ethnic? Of course not.
The use of the term ethnic is always used as some sort of wedge or weapon to gain certain people advantages. It is simply a modern form of tribalism.
So you are anti-Zionist? What about the Bible and the chosen people? Were they ever a people? I find myself being a Zionist, all of a sudden.
I am as much of an anti-Zionist as I am an anti-Communist, anti-Fascist or anti anything really. I can understand why such groups and political movements arise but it is very clear they are hardly to be encouraged as systems given their often naieve, if not discriminatory and obsessive natures.
Zionism is a particularly unpleasant political movement if only because it exploits the most backward Judaic teachings and gives Judaism and its followers a bad name. It also presides over the most barbaric and murderous colonial regime in modern history.
Although it must be remembered that not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews and many of the most fanatical Zionists are Christians. Fundamentalist Americans in the main but then being American and being fundamentalist in a religious sense seems to be a dangerous combination.
I see Zionism as a form of fanaticism and like Communism, Nazism, Fascism, I believe fanaticism is best avoided. It never ends well no matter how noble people might believe the motives and policies might be.
You tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see you mean no harm, but your ideological structures do not withstand to the reality check. But to each his own, I guess. Life doesn't fail to surprise me every single day now, my dear Wend friend, and I say it with utmost respect.
Jewish is a religious term, ergo, all religions have ethnicity as religious metaphor. Why just mention Judaism? How about Christianity and then divide it up into the branches. Each has a variation on the theme of ethnicity, i.e. Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon etc. etc.
You can compare a Jewish religious ethnicity, although ethnicity is not truly correct, to any other religious ethnicity but you cannot compare it to a nationality. And none of it translates to DNA.
Having worked with and for, had and have friends and family in many religions, including Jews - European, Indian, American, British, Scottish, African, Australian.... I could go on, I can assure you they have NOTHING in common but the religion and that is not ethnicity. That is the flavour and influence of religious beliefs, no more, no less.
My point was and is, neither religions or nationalities have DNA markers and even racial markers are pretty irrelevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS7KsabTyUU
I am definitely not Woke. I stick with facts and biological realities.
What do you call a Jewish ethnicity then? Or do you deny there is such ethnicity? You seem to deny any and all ethnicities? What is your agenda with ethnicities? Yes, it's all admixed, but not to the point that everyone is exactly same. To say that is ignorant, at the very least. Don't believe the evidence of your eyes and ears? And the diagrams. Woke is what woke does.
Jewish ethnicity is simply religious culture called ethnicity. No religion is an ethnicity.
I find ethnicity an overused term in these days. It was invented to try to make Jews a people not a religion by the atheist Zionists but it does not hold up.
All religions as metaphor represent cultures. However they are not nationalities or ethnicities but simply religions which connect people of many nationalities and many ethnicities.
What is an American or Canadian or Australia? All nations founded in relatively recent times historically and created from mass immigration. They are nations with a developing culture or flavour drawn from many nationalities, ethnicities if you like and religions.
But there is no quintessential American or Canadian. Human nature is diverse. Which is why we look to a nationality to describe us and some use it to define themselves.
And that is exactly my point - everyone is not exactly the same and cannot be. Religions comprise diversity of people as do nationalities even more so and the strength of nationhood is that the State draws all religions together and takes precedence over church, mosque, temple etc.
Is this an element of the critical race theory, whatever that may be? Have to look it up on wikipedia.
To be honest, I have not really explored critical race theory but from the little I know it appears to be ridiculous and racist.
Those broad genetic differences were what excited great ire over Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance". We observe that genetic differences arrive in his nominal five great peoples who have similar physical characteristics as they evolved to fit their environments during periods of semi-isolation. They have somewhat different genetics as well now that we can compare. And those then arrive at differences in cultures, broadly viewed. Admixing took place across the geographical boundaries. His trouble arises as he defines those groups in terms of race and today's culture refuses that such a thing exists. He goes on to observe we are still evolving and have become considerably more genetically mixed as travel arrives.
But there remain cultural adaptations associated with regions. Perhaps why western European peoples have been so innovative picking up things the Chinese set aside. Or that features in Islam as a cultural item eventually ended the great science of the middle east for so long.
So Russia with it's huge geography and sparseness have a population much more diverse than in western Europe. Amazing that they could agree among each other. As amazing at the different cultural norms in the US of different regions. The culture of Hawaii is not at all like Texas nor New England.
Our modern world is slowly coming to terms with these cultural issues as we abandon tribalism. Of course, division into tribes for political purposes continues. Pitting one against the other can be useful in politics but harmful to the greater society.
I am not sure the racist approach really works since modern genetics says there is so little difference between what we once called races that there are no races.
And since every human alive today is descended from the same group of distant ancestors we really are all one.
Given the centuries of rape and pillage rampaging around Europe it is truly ridiculous to claim the Ukrainians are somehow purer than the Russians. They are the same people. They all started out as Vikings.
You never been to Russia AND Ukraine, I gather? You are saying the diagrams are totally wrong and racist and that this branch of human knowledge should be censored because you feel offended, for unknown to us reasons? Why don't you write for CNN and The Atlantic instead - they may actually pay you for your agitations.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia, months at a time. No, I did not get to Ukraine but have friends in Australia whose families emigrated from Ukraine. Quite a few of them. And they have family there still.
Good heavens, where on earth did I say that anything should be censored? I did not. You misquote. I believe totally in freedom of speech.
I am not in the least offended. Why would I be? By whom or what? I don't get offended often by people I know and love let alone by strangers.
And do those Ukrainians in Australia identify as "just Australians"?
Yes, of course, with strong links to an ancestral home. My grandfather emigrated from London at the age of 19 but he was an Australian through and through. His kids would have laughed if you said they were English. One great-grandfather did continue to call himself Danish however, but the others quickly became Australian. I think the Danish thing was because by then Schleswig Holstein had been lost again to the Germans.
I did not find Canadians doing hyphens as the Americans have long done. I hope it is not becoming common.
Can you comment on https://vasko.substack.com/p/beyond-propaganda-and-brainwash-the and
Vasko implorted to me to listen to the "experts", which I did and commented on. I would love to hear your feedback on both fronts:
--------------
Here are the 1st useful idiot's sound bites:
We are encouraging Ukrainians to think they will ultimately become part of the West. Ukrainians are playing along and “unwilling to compromise with the Russians”. Result: Ukrainians “will play tough with Russia and instead want to pursue a hardline policy” and will get wrecked by Russia. What is so “hardline” about Ukraine not wanting to be co-opted by Russia and merely exist? It is Russia’s ultimate goal to co-opt Ukraine and leave no trace of anything Ukrainian in its borders, make no mistake about it. How do I know? Because Putin says it every blinking day! Why is Putin so adamant about it? Because, as Brzezinski said, without Ukraine Russia is not an empire. You think Putin is dumb enough to not know it? What is that envisioned “compromise with Russia”? Crazy talk. If Russians want you dead, where is the middle ground? Cut off our legs and leave us alive?
His solution: “neutralize” Ukraine and build it up economically. Time is on our side and we’ll ultimately defeat Russia in this way. Result: Ukraine will be let be by Russia. This is an insane conclusion – why would Russia sit idly and watch this happen? This is exactly what the West was pursuing since 1991 (Ukraine was denied entry to NATO for 30+ years, ditto EU) and this is exactly what perspired now – wrecking of Ukraine as the result. Thanks for nothing!
This "expert" is anything but. Can your honestly reply to my points? About "neutralizing" Ukraine, appeasing Russia in this way, Russia letting it happen and wait for no way back into the empire status, Russian strategic goals and everything else? In face of the reality?
The other "useful idiot" is saying Ukraine is the dagger pointing to the heart of Mother Russia and NATO is encircling Russia (with the help of the Baltics and Poland too). He'll eventually say "good riddance" to those states as well as they "endanger" Russia's perceived sense of "security". Is there anything more blatantly pro-Russian than that? What kind of arguments are these? Unless you are mentally firmly in the 19th century's age of empires?
Sure Ukraine, by its geographic location, is to the south of Moscow. So, this is the argument to deny Ukraine existence? On the other hand, Russia is encircling Kyiv (look at the map) - shouldn't Russia be denied existence because of that?
-------------
Found my longer comment on the other "expert" (went to the wrong forum):
The other crook is saying it's a tragedy what is happening in Ukraine, and Putin is not to blame. Somehow going back to 2014 is all that needs to be done to understand the 400 year history. "Ukraine is a dagger pointing toward Moscow? " "Unacceptable to Russia?!" Therefore, Russia is in its right denying Ukraine existence.
Who's going to hit Russia or Moscow? Romania? Turkey? Ukraine itself?
Russia wanted Ukraine to be neutral? He's insane, this other "expert". Why? Listen to what Putin espouses every day (even this green screen speech: https://youtu.be/sih429WN0gg). Oh, don't listen to Putin, listen to him? Because Putin means nothing he says? He's white and fluffy, deep down? Give me a break. Another useful idiot, or worse.