|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 89 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 25 of 89:
| 
Oct 14 18:01 UTC 2003 |
Is it not true that many jewish americans and many jewish people in Israel
are Ashkenazic jews, meaning they descend from slavic peoples in germany,
france and elsewhere in europe who centuries ago converted to judaism. Thus
could it not be argued that those who are Ashkenazic jews are not semitic
at all, being that the defiinition or a definition of semitic is to be of
lineal hebrew descent going back to Abraham. If so, then Arabs, who claim
to descent from Ishmael, Abraham's oldest son, are true semitics and many
jewish people are not
|
happyboy
|
|
response 26 of 89:
|
Oct 14 18:01 UTC 2003 |
re18: no, an astronaut.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 27 of 89:
|
Oct 14 19:12 UTC 2003 |
Well, that's the explanation I got. Owned by Jews. Maybe founded by
Jews? Don't know
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 89:
|
Oct 14 20:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 29 of 89:
|
Oct 14 20:37 UTC 2003 |
Prolly, I was I think 12 or 13. I asked why they were banned, that's
the explanation I got. Didn't care either way.
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 89:
|
Oct 15 00:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 31 of 89:
|
Oct 15 02:44 UTC 2003 |
Actually, Mr. richard, Ashkenazim are from Eastern Europe. That would
generally not include France, would it?
klg
|
lk
|
|
response 32 of 89:
|
Oct 15 03:28 UTC 2003 |
> you can't argue with the facts that he presents.
Aaron gave up on that long ago, but must think he's accomplishing something
with his personal attacks since he continues to toss them out and irregular
intervals.
MYNXCAT is right. The Arab embargo wasn't just with companies that were Jewish
owned, but with companies that conducted business with Israel. Did you have
Coke or just Pepsi in Kuwait...? (Part of the embargo was lifted around the
first Gulf War and the start of the Oslo Accords.)
Poor RICHARD. Did he even read or understand the item text?
The argument that [some] Jews aren't really Jews is anti-semitic to the core,
and Richard loses no time mixing that myth with the one exposed in the item
text.
> Is it not true that many jewish americans and many jewish people in Israel
> are Ashkenazic jews, meaning they descend from slavic peoples in germany,
> france and elsewhere in europe who centuries ago converted to judaism.
NO. IT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
As modern genetic research indicates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/social/14GENE.html
The finding suggested that Jewish men... traced their lineage back to the
ancestral Mideastern population of 4,000 years.... It pointed to the GENETIC
UNITY OF WIDESPREAD JEWISH POPULATIONS and took issue with ideas that most
Jewish communities were relatively recent converts like the Khazars, a
medieval Turkish tribe that embraced Judaism.
http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html
The Human Genome project brought about some very interesting genetic
discoveries for Jews. One such discovery was that of the Cohen gene.
...Genetic markers are specific DNA fragments that distinguish chromosomes
from each other. Two studies were undertaken in 1997 to see if Cohens have
common genetic markers at a higher frequency than the general Jewish
population.
In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal
Nature (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek
cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel,
England, and North America were asked to specify whether they were a Cohen,
Levi, or Israel, and to identity their ethnic background. A particular genetic
marker on the Y-chromosome, identified as YAP-, was detected in 98.5 percent
of the Cohens, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohens Jews.
In a second study, more DNA samples were gathered and the selection of Y
chromosome markers was expanded. It was discovered that a particular array
of six chromosomal markers were in 92 percent Cohens tested. This collection
of markers came to be known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) and is the
standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these
findings happening at random is said to be greater than one in 10,000. This
second study solidified the theory of the common ancestry of Cohens.
The finding of a common set of genetic markers in both Ashkenazic and
Sephardic Cohens worldwide clearly indicates an origin of the two separate
communities pre-dating 1000 CE.
See also:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familycohanim.html
> Arabs, who claim to descent from Ishmael, Abraham's oldest son,
> are true semitics and many jewish people are not
To see why this is nonsense at every level, see #0.
Education is the light that banishes the darkness of ignorance, but sadly
some refuse to partake of it, instead relying upon old chestnuts and
their primitive notions.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 89:
|
Oct 15 04:05 UTC 2003 |
leeron, you throw out "anti-semitic" accusations every time you hear an
argument you don't agree with. Then you throw out one source that happens
to be agreeable to you and claim it as definitive. I know that there are
studies that say different things. But plenty of people, people who are
NOT anti semitic, make the Ashkenazic argument.
Here is one, http://slavica.com/linguist/wexler1993.html. It quotes Paul
Wexler, a jewish linguistics professor at Yale who also teaches in Tel
Aviv. Wexler wrote a book " The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in
Search of a Jewish Identity"
This article says in part
"In Wexler's view, the Ashkenazic Jews most likely descend from a minority
ethnic Palestinian Jewish emigre population that intermarried with a much
larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from Asia Minor,
the Balkans and the Germano-Sorb lands (the Sorbs are a West Slavic
population that still numbers about 70,000 in the former German Democratic
Republic). Widespread conversions to Judaism that began in Asia Minor in
the Christian era and ended with the institutionalization of Christianity
among the Western Slavs in the beginning of the second millennium saved
the tiny ethnic Palestinian Jewish population in the diaspora from total
extinction. The major non-Jewish contributors to the ethnogenesis of the
Ashkenazic Jews were Slavs, though there was probably also a minor Turkic
strain -- both in the Caspian-Black Sea area (the descendants of the
Khazars, a mainly Turkic group that converted to Judaism in the eighth
century) and in the Balkans and Hungary. In all of these areas, the Turkic
population early became submerged with the coterritorial Slavs.
In addition to Yiddish terms of Slavic, Greek, Romance and German origin
which express aspects of the Jewish religion and folk culture, the book
shows that many elements of Ashkenazic folklore and religion themselves
were of Slavic origin -- either West (Sorbian and Polabian) or Balkan
Slavic. There is a lengthy discussion of the evidence for widespread
conversion to Judaism in Asia Minor, southern Europe and the
Germano-Sorbian lands up to the twelfth century and the reasons why pagan
and Christian Slavs converted to Judaism. While historians have been
disputing the extent of conversion to Judaism, Wexler thinks the
linguistic and ethnographic evidence make the conversion evidence highly
plausible. "
This is from a jewish professor. Do you call him anti semitic too? The
fact is leeron, that you use the words "anti semitic" to define people
with whom you disagree on issues related to Israel, the more you define
yourself in the same way. you know who are the people who most often call
other people racists? yep, racists.
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 89:
|
Oct 15 04:16 UTC 2003 |
"In Wexler's view, the Ashkenazic Jews most likely descend from a minority
ethnic Palestinian Jewish emigre population that intermarried with a much
larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from Asia Minor,
the Balkans and the Germano-Sorb lands"
Wexler, who now teaches at Tel Aviv University, even says the heterogenous
population of slavic converts to judaism was much larger than the ethnic
jews. Thus if what he and other experts say is true, only that portion of
the much larger slavic group that intermarried with ethnic jews would
technically have semitic lineal descent.
I don't doubt the surveys lk quoted, but surely the results of those are
questionable due to the fact that so many of the european jews, many of
whom could have been ashkenazic, were killed in world war II.
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 89:
|
Oct 15 04:24 UTC 2003 |
from same article--
"Hence, Ashkenazic Judaism is essentially a Judaized form of Slavic pagan
and Christian culture and religion (rather than an uninterrupted evolution
of Palestinian Judaism) -- and the best repository of pagan Slavic folk
culture that survives to our days. Wexler also proposes that the other
Jewish diasporas -- e.g. the Sephardic, the Arab, Iranian, Chinese,
Indian, Ethiopian and Yemenite -- are also largely of non-Jewish origin."
|
lk
|
|
response 36 of 89:
|
Oct 15 05:29 UTC 2003 |
> This is from a jewish professor. Do you call him anti semitic too?
Richard, you're hardly helping your case. Just because he's Jewish and said
something which disagrees with what I say he must be right or credible? (Is
this any different than the religious right quoting a "cured" homosexual?!)
Spare us.
First, note the publication date of Wexler's work. It predates the genetic
evidence discovered in the studies I mentioned.
Now let's look more closely at what Wexler actually posits:
While historians have been disputing the extent of conversion to
Judaism, Wexler thinks the linguistic and ethnographic evidence
make the conversion evidence highly plausible.
In other words, there is no historic evidence to support the "conversion"
theory. Wexler's work is ENTIRELY THEORETICAL. So why would anyone argue that
this earlier theoretical work trumps more recent impirical scientific genetic
evidence...?
Because they want the facts to fit the model instead of vice versa!
And what is that model? Hmmmm.....
Hence, Ashkenazic Judaism is essentially a Judaized form of
Slavic pagan and Christian culture and religion....
One wonders how Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews came to share so much of this
Slavic culture given that religious differences between these communities are
slim. (Not to mention that it's odd that these alleged Slavs would migrate
throughout Europe following their hypothesized conversion rather than staying
within their lands.)
> I don't doubt the surveys lk quoted, but surely the results of those are
> questionable due to the fact that so many of the european jews, many of
> whom could have been ashkenazic, were killed in world war II.
Does anyone credibly believe that hitler managed to kill most all of the
alleged "Jew converts" but relatively few of the (much smaller, according to
Wexler) "real" Jews?
Not only that, but the vast majority of American Jews immigrated from eastern
Europe. Yet in the aforementioned genetic tests, these subjects uniformly
show genetic markers shared by Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews.
So no, there is no logical reason that the results are "questionable".
Yet another attempt to make the facts fit the model discredited.
Richard, what's your point?!
|
sj2
|
|
response 37 of 89:
|
Oct 15 08:24 UTC 2003 |
I agree with Richard. Anyone who doesn't seem to agree with lk 100% is
quickly labelled anti-semite.
|
polygon
|
|
response 38 of 89:
|
Oct 15 15:06 UTC 2003 |
Re 37. No. I don't always agree with Leeron, but I think you're wrong
about this.
|
lk
|
|
response 39 of 89:
|
Oct 15 15:37 UTC 2003 |
sj2: why not comment about #36?
Can you explain why Richard would present a THEORETICAL work from 1993
to counter scientific genetic evidence discovered in 1997 and thereafter?
Can you explain why, in total disregard to the item text, Richard twists
that myth to say that the Arabs (not the Jews) are the real "Semitics" [sic]?
Can you explain why anyone would try to deprive Jews even of their very
Jewishness?!
I asked Richard what his point was.
He didn't answer.
What do you think it was?
|
klg
|
|
response 40 of 89:
|
Oct 15 16:15 UTC 2003 |
Never having studied linguistics, it seems curious that linguistic
training qualifies one to make judgements on a subject such as this.
Is that reasonable?
|
cross
|
|
response 41 of 89:
|
Oct 15 16:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 89:
|
Oct 15 16:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 89:
|
Oct 15 18:33 UTC 2003 |
lk, you cannot just take one study that gives findings to your liking,
and claim it as being the truth. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In
fact, Dr. Goldstein in that study you quoted, said that in his
personal opinion- this is stated in the Times article and elsewhere--
that most jewish conmmunities were formed by unions between jewish men
and local women. This fits with descriptions of Khazar conversion in
the bible and other historical sources, which seem to say that Khazar
men were killed and their women taken as prizes and made to convert.
If this is true, and who knows if it is there really haven't been
enough studies yet done, then those who are Ashkenazic jews are only
PARTIALLY semitic (on the paternal side), whereas Arabs and others are
totally semitic. So maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle,
And if this study is true, then palestinians and israelis are genetic
brethren, brothers descended from Abraham. Goldstein specifically says
that his studies show Arabs and Jews share common genetics. As a
jewish man lk, yassir arafat may be your distant relative!
|
klg
|
|
response 44 of 89:
|
Oct 15 19:39 UTC 2003 |
(So what?)
|
lk
|
|
response 45 of 89:
|
Oct 15 20:00 UTC 2003 |
(Arafat was born in Cairo and is Egyptian.)
Richard, you're just digging deeper:
> you cannot just take one study
I didn't. Multiple scientific genetic studies conducted in the past 6 years
come to the same conclusion. The results are and have been repeated.
Note that you took ONE older THEORETICAL study, despite a state lack of
corroborating historical evidence, and prefer to twist the facts based on it.
Why? To what end?
> This fits with descriptions of Khazar conversion in the bible and other
> historical sources
The Khazars post-date the bible by about 1000 years.
And aside from the late conversion of the Khazars, there is no historical
source for any other conversion.
Nor do you understand what Dr. Goldstein said:
> jewish conmmunities were formed by unions between jewish men and local
> women.
These Jewish men were NOT converts as per your one-study theory.
This contradicts what you were saying.
What Goldstein is discussing is early (pre- 72 AD) communities, formed by Jews
who ventured into the Roman empire (for business or other reasons) and took
local wives.
> Ashkenazic jews are only PARTIALLY semitic (on the paternal side), whereas
> Arabs and others are totally semitic.
Richard, isn't it time you read #0? There is no such thing as a "Semitic
race". The word describes a LANGUAGE group. Hebrew is a Semitic language.
Arabic is a southern Semitic language. (Half of Ethiopians speak a Semitic
language. Are Ethiopians members of the "Semitic race"? Are American Arabs
who don't know Arabic "Semitic"?)
Having given up on arguing that Jews aren't really Jews, are you now
claiming that Jews aren't racially pure?
Again, what's your point? What is the relevance of anything you've stated?!
|
cross
|
|
response 46 of 89:
|
Oct 15 22:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 47 of 89:
|
Oct 16 02:41 UTC 2003 |
lk you are making arguments based on your own conclusions, such as that
semitic only refers to a language group. that may be what some people
say but it is clearly not a universal opinion. and you mention multiple
jewish genetic studies. I only have read of two, the one you mentioned
and the one done by Dr. Michael Hammer in 2000. That isn't great numbers
of studies, that is two.
And the khazars didn't just show up magically in 740 a.d. Did you read
the studies by Arthur Koestler? Khazars date back much further. Koestler
was himself an Ashkinazi jew and took great pride in that, and did a lot
of research in this area.
And you keep asking what point is? my point is that NOBODY is ethnically
pure, nobody is special or different. We are all genetic bretheren.
Every single human being on this earth is related, is family, and I feel
as though your adamant defenses of every single israeli position indicates
you feel otherwise. That you may honestly feel that one group of people
are the chosen people, the special people, smarter and better than
everyone else with the best religion. I think you communicate a definite
level of pompousity and arrogance. I do not think you are racist or
hateful leeron, but I do think you are elitist, and in your mind you think
you are one of the special people. Wake up, there ARE no special people.
We are all the same, we are all related, we are all family. You and me
and the Palestinians and the Koreans and the Chinese and the Russians and
everyone else. If you and Sharon and Arafat would just realize this, the
world would be a better place.
Hate only breeds more hate. Hate doesn't solve anything.
|
cross
|
|
response 48 of 89:
|
Oct 16 02:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 49 of 89:
|
Oct 16 15:14 UTC 2003 |
Richard, the sources I've provided reference many more than two studies.
Again, you based your opinion on ONE study (theoretical) and attempted to
use it to dismiss later studies based on scientific genetic evidence.
It's also funny to see that the person who first tried to argue that Jews
aren't Jewish and then that Jews aren't "pure" members of a mythical
"semitic race" is claiming that I pretend to be "special".
Can anyone else explain what Richard is trying to say?
|