Is the refernece "he/she looks very Jewish" benign or an insult?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For any marginalized/targeted group--Jews, Latinos, black people--saying one "looks ____" can be seen as an insult. It's an awkward thing to say unless you're talking to other members of that group.

I think because Jews have had so much economic power they don’t feel marginalized.

Wow.

I’m going to assume you’re just ignorant and not a raging anti-Semite.

Not the pp, but economic power in terms of Aipac, US aid to Israel, Jews tend to not be the ones receiving hoc vouchers, farms or snap benefits.

So yes, I get it
Vocal in local affairs. Schools are not allowed to mention Christmas, has to be Winter break

Oh, seriously shut the fk up about Christmas. Are you really trying to argue Jews have made Christmas marginalized?! IT'S A FKING FEDERAL HOLIDAY. Everything shuts down at Christmas. If we Jews had such pull in the holiday recognition side of things, why isn't Hanukkah a federal holiday? What about Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for us?

Yes, we don't tend to have a lot of poverty in our community, but to say we aren't marginalized is BS. My local JCC got bomb threats. My local synagogue had a swastika spray painted on it. When I was in 2nd grade in NY, a kid wrote "the Jews killed Jesus" on my notebook.

So don't talk to me about Christians being marginalized in this country. We say "God bless America." We've never had a Jewish--or even non-Christian--President. The White House puts up a Christmas tree for pete's sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
See the post above yours. That person absolutely disputes it.

I am the PP above.

I did not dispute it - I problematized it.

Because it is, you know, problematic. The very term "Ethnic" as used today, tends to conflate culture with origin with "Race".

Is there an Ashkenazic culture? Sure there is.

Is there a group of people whose immediate ancestors come from Jewish communities that followed Ashkenazi religious rites, regardless of whether those immediate ancestors were religious or not? Sure there are.

Is there evidence of some genetic distinctiveness such that you could take 100 people with such descent and tell them apart from 100 gentiles, or 100 Mizrahi Jews - sure (but its not clear to me you could tell them apart from 100 jews descended from Ladino speaking Sephardic rite communities in Italy or the Balkans)

Ashkenazi as "ethnic" group is problematic BECAUSE it conflates this last with the two earlier (and also with ashkenazi religious practice) . And also because, like racial thinking in general, it identifies a genetic correlation across a population with membership in a "group". But that gets into the whole issue of how narratives about such statistical correlations hide the genetic diversity within said "groups" and create not particularly useful narratives about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, we don't tend to have a lot of poverty in our community,

There is certainly poverty in our community. Thankfully Federation and related efforts helps address a good part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For any marginalized/targeted group--Jews, Latinos, black people--saying one "looks ____" can be seen as an insult. It's an awkward thing to say unless you're talking to other members of that group.

I think because Jews have had so much economic power they don’t feel marginalized.

I bet you said the same about African Americans after Obama was elected. “They have a black president so how marginalized can they be?”

Ack! No! This went on the wrong track. My comment was misinterpreted. Or poorly written. I’m Jewish! The PP prior to me had said Jews were targeted like AA and Latino’s and I felt this wasn’t quite true today. American Jews have a lot economic power, and when you have power it is much easier to withstand racism. I don’t mean to say anti Semitics don’t exist. Believe me, I know they do. Only that today, in 2019, even with the frightening resurgence, Jews do not face the same obstacles of racism, institutional and social, that Jews do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See the post above yours. That person absolutely disputes it.

I am the PP above.

I did not dispute it - I problematized it.

Because it is, you know, problematic. The very term "Ethnic" as used today, tends to conflate culture with origin with "Race".

Is there an Ashkenazic culture? Sure there is.

Is there a group of people whose immediate ancestors come from Jewish communities that followed Ashkenazi religious rites, regardless of whether those immediate ancestors were religious or not? Sure there are.

Is there evidence of some genetic distinctiveness such that you could take 100 people with such descent and tell them apart from 100 gentiles, or 100 Mizrahi Jews - sure (but its not clear to me you could tell them apart from 100 jews descended from Ladino speaking Sephardic rite communities in Italy or the Balkans)

Ashkenazi as "ethnic" group is problematic BECAUSE it conflates this last with the two earlier (and also with ashkenazi religious practice) . And also because, like racial thinking in general, it identifies a genetic correlation across a population with membership in a "group". But that gets into the whole issue of how narratives about such statistical correlations hide the genetic diversity within said "groups" and create not particularly useful narratives about them.

You realize I'm far from the only one recognizing that Ashkenazi Jews are an ethnic group, right? It's a generally accepted fact within the anthropology, geneticist, and sociology communities.

This study further speaks to the genetic distinctiveness of our community: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336798/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See the post above yours. That person absolutely disputes it.

I am the PP above.

I did not dispute it - I problematized it.

Because it is, you know, problematic. The very term "Ethnic" as used today, tends to conflate culture with origin with "Race".

Is there an Ashkenazic culture? Sure there is.

Is there a group of people whose immediate ancestors come from Jewish communities that followed Ashkenazi religious rites, regardless of whether those immediate ancestors were religious or not? Sure there are.

Is there evidence of some genetic distinctiveness such that you could take 100 people with such descent and tell them apart from 100 gentiles, or 100 Mizrahi Jews - sure (but its not clear to me you could tell them apart from 100 jews descended from Ladino speaking Sephardic rite communities in Italy or the Balkans)

Ashkenazi as "ethnic" group is problematic BECAUSE it conflates this last with the two earlier (and also with ashkenazi religious practice) . And also because, like racial thinking in general, it identifies a genetic correlation across a population with membership in a "group". But that gets into the whole issue of how narratives about such statistical correlations hide the genetic diversity within said "groups" and create not particularly useful narratives about them.

You realize I'm far from the only one recognizing that Ashkenazi Jews are an ethnic group, right? It's a generally accepted fact within the anthropology, geneticist, and sociology communities.

This study further speaks to the genetic distinctiveness of our community: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336798/

I searched that for "ethnic" and found zero uses of the word.

again, you fail to note that "Genetic distinctiveness" is not what is problematic, but the notion of "ethnic group" and how that is used to conflate unlike things.

[Anonymous]

You omit this

The remaining 60% were found to have much more heterogeneous genetic origins.

So, are those 60% (the majority of the "Ashkenazi" Jews in the sample) NOT part of the Ashkenazi "ethnic" group? Only the 40% were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See the post above yours. That person absolutely disputes it.

I am the PP above.

I did not dispute it - I problematized it.

Because it is, you know, problematic. The very term "Ethnic" as used today, tends to conflate culture with origin with "Race".

Is there an Ashkenazic culture? Sure there is.

Is there a group of people whose immediate ancestors come from Jewish communities that followed Ashkenazi religious rites, regardless of whether those immediate ancestors were religious or not? Sure there are.

Is there evidence of some genetic distinctiveness such that you could take 100 people with such descent and tell them apart from 100 gentiles, or 100 Mizrahi Jews - sure (but its not clear to me you could tell them apart from 100 jews descended from Ladino speaking Sephardic rite communities in Italy or the Balkans)

Ashkenazi as "ethnic" group is problematic BECAUSE it conflates this last with the two earlier (and also with ashkenazi religious practice) . And also because, like racial thinking in general, it identifies a genetic correlation across a population with membership in a "group". But that gets into the whole issue of how narratives about such statistical correlations hide the genetic diversity within said "groups" and create not particularly useful narratives about them.

You realize I'm far from the only one recognizing that Ashkenazi Jews are an ethnic group, right? It's a generally accepted fact within the anthropology, geneticist, and sociology communities.

This study further speaks to the genetic distinctiveness of our community: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336798/

I searched that for "ethnic" and found zero uses of the word.

again, you fail to note that "Genetic distinctiveness" is not what is problematic, but the notion of "ethnic group" and how that is used to conflate unlike things.

Did you not see the excerpt from Wikipedia that I posted (which cites expert studies and assessments)? If not, here it is again. I'll boldface the parts that speak to this group being a distinct ethnic group:

In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is one whose ancestry can be traced to the Jews who settled in Central Europe. For roughly a thousand years, the Ashkenazim were a reproductively isolated population in Europe, despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Human geneticists have argued that genetic variations have been identified that show high frequencies among Ashkenazi Jews, but not in the general European population, be they for patrilineal markers (Y-chromosome haplotypes) and for matrilineal markers (mitotypes).[115] Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths.[116]

A 2006 study found Ashkenazi Jews to be a clear, homogeneous genetic subgroup. Strikingly, regardless of the place of origin, Ashkenazi Jews can be grouped in the same genetic cohort – that is, regardless of whether an Ashkenazi Jew's ancestors came from Poland, Russia, Hungary, Lithuania, or any other place with a historical Jewish population, they belong to the same ethnic group. The research demonstrates the endogamy of the Jewish population in Europe and lends further credence to the idea of Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group. Moreover, though intermarriage among Jews of Ashkenazi descent has become increasingly common, many Haredi Jews, particularly members of Hasidic or Hareidi sects, continue to marry exclusively fellow Ashkenazi Jews. This trend keeps Ashkenazi genes prevalent and also helps researchers further study the genes of Ashkenazi Jews with relative ease. It is noteworthy that these Haredi Jews often have extremely large families.[14]

Of course, culture and religiosity also binds Ashkenazi Jews, but ethnicity is one component that is not really in dispute. In the literature, ethnicity and genetic distinctiveness are intimately connected. I don't know why you continue to refuse to acknowledge this.

[Anonymous]

^^ it’s ok, you can’t persuade everyone!

[Anonymous]

Did you not see the excerpt from Wikipedia that I posted (which cites expert studies and assessments)? If not, here it is again. I'll boldface the parts that speak to this group being a distinct ethnic group:

I went there (you should have included a link, not just copied and pasted an excerpt, but oh well) and clicked on footnote 14, the only citation behind that second paragraph. And guess what. Its focus is on showing a south european origin for Ashkenazi Jews (the same origin as Sephardi Jews, and south european gentiles). It does use the term "ethnic group" (though only twice and off handedly) and seems to use "self defined" ethnic group. IOW when they tried to compare genetic similarity of Ashkenazic Jews with North Europeans and South Europeans, they identifed Ashkenazic Jews by asking "are you Ashkenazic?" And they call THAT membership in an ethnic group.

Nowhere do they explicitly define the term "ethnic group" or defend it. So yes, population geneticists do offhandedly sometimes use the term, which is a problem. As for the Wiki article, it places much more focus on the term than the cited article does. While Wikipedia can be a good source, sometimes editors do go beyond what their citations would justify.

By the way, 15% of the "ashkenazi group did NOT show south european origin. So if South European origin is what you consider the Ashkenazi genetic marker (as opposed to other eastern europeans) then 15% of self identified ashkenazi Jews (IE ethnic ashkenazis per the study) were NOT ashkenazi. Hmmm.

Again, the confusion is taking a population (more or less arbitrarily defined) that has a charecteristic that by frequency, can distinguish it from another population and calling it "an ethnic group".

All the lawyers in my synagogue, as a population, likely have a higher chance of being tay sachs carriers than the general population of greater Washington. That does not mean that "the lawyers at my synagogue" (who include Jews by choice, mizrahim, etc) are "an ethnic group".

You are missing what is problematic. Its not the empirical fact of this or that gene frequency among any particular population. Its the conceptual problem of stating that some particular population gene frequency makes it "an ethnic group".

Since you like Wiki maybe this will help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#Ethnicity_and_race

also this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Utility

It has been argued that knowledge of a person's race is limited in value, since people of the same race vary from one another.[7] David J. Witherspoon and colleagues have argued that when individuals are assigned to population groups, two randomly chosen individuals from different populations can resemble each other more than a randomly chosen member of their own group. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used for the answer to "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" to be "never". This assumed three population groups, separated by large geographic distances (European, African and East Asian). The global human population is more complex, and studying a large number of groups would require an increased number of markers for the same answer. They conclude that "caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[68] and "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population".[69]



and

Usage in scientific journals
Some scientific journals have addressed previous methodological errors by requiring more rigorous scrutiny of population variables. Since 2000, Nature Genetics requires its authors to “explain why they make use of particular ethnic groups or populations, and how classification was achieved.” Editors of Nature Genetics say that “[they] hope that this will raise awareness and inspire more rigorous designs of genetic and epidemiological studies.”[81]

[Anonymous]

for jews in particular see this


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301023/

It becomes overwhelmingly clear that although Jews maintained detectable vertical genetic continuity along generations of socio-religious-cultural relationship, also intensive horizontal genetic relations were maintained both between Jewish communities and with the gentile surrounding. Thus, in spite of considerable consanguinity, there is no Jewish genotype to identify.

[Anonymous]

My husband (who is Jewish) and I both took 23andme genetic tests. We both have extended family (Great Grandparents) that came from the exact same area of Russia. Guess what our dna results showed? Mine came back as Russian and his came back as 99% Ashkenazi Jew. I think that answers the question of whether being a Jew is an ethnicity.

Anyone denying that Ashkenazi Jews have a distinct look is ignorant to how genes work. Of course there is a look. My kids don’t look Jewish because they are only 50%. I’m also Scandinavian and those genes are much more prevalent in my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband (who is Jewish) and I both took 23andme genetic tests. We both have extended family (Great Grandparents) that came from the exact same area of Russia. Guess what our dna results showed? Mine came back as Russian and his came back as 99% Ashkenazi Jew. I think that answers the question of whether being a Jew is an ethnicity.

Anyone denying that Ashkenazi Jews have a distinct look is ignorant to how genes work. Of course there is a look. My kids don’t look Jewish because they are only 50%. I’m also Scandinavian and those genes are much more prevalent in my children.

Good for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For any marginalized/targeted group--Jews, Latinos, black people--saying one "looks ____" can be seen as an insult. It's an awkward thing to say unless you're talking to other members of that group.

I think because Jews have had so much economic power they don’t feel marginalized.

PP here, I don't think it's about economic power in this case. We live in a society where western European appearance and features are seen as the ideal. In this context, pointing out the specific "looks" of other groups is sort of not kosher (heh).

Imagine the comment got more specific, as in "Yes, Larla looks very (Jewish, black, etc.), you can tell by her nose." Awkward, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband (who is Jewish) and I both took 23andme genetic tests. We both have extended family (Great Grandparents) that came from the exact same area of Russia. Guess what our dna results showed? Mine came back as Russian and his came back as 99% Ashkenazi Jew. I think that answers the question of whether being a Jew is an ethnicity.

Anyone denying that Ashkenazi Jews have a distinct look is ignorant to how genes work. Of course there is a look. My kids don’t look Jewish because they are only 50%. I’m also Scandinavian and those genes are much more prevalent in my children.

Good for you!

Same thing for me. 50% Ashkenazi. DH came back as 75%.