Remove ads

Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2477
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95176

Postby Lootman » November 12th, 2017, 7:10 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:Arabs aren't a race.

Yes I should probably have said Ethnic Grouping. The same of course also applies to the Jews who aren't a race.

Arabs and Jews are in the same ethnic grouping - Semites. The term "antisemetic" is somewhat misleading in that context. Semites are a subgroup of Caucasians.

The differences between Jews and Arabs are more religious than ethnic, and that in turn led Jews to become more aligned with the West whilst Arabs have become more alien to the West. It often seems that the groups who historically have hated each other the most are actually quite similar to each other e.g. Indians versus Pakistanis, Irish Catholics versus Irish protestants, South Koreans versus North Koreans, Sunni versus Shiite and so on.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1119
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95196

Postby ursaminortaur » November 12th, 2017, 8:46 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:Arabs aren't a race.

Yes I should probably have said Ethnic Grouping. The same of course also applies to the Jews who aren't a race.

Arabs and Jews are in the same ethnic grouping - Semites. The term "antisemetic" is somewhat misleading in that context. Semites are a subgroup of Caucasians.

The differences between Jews and Arabs are more religious than ethnic, and that in turn led Jews to become more aligned with the West whilst Arabs have become more alien to the West. It often seems that the groups who historically have hated each other the most are actually quite similar to each other e.g. Indians versus Pakistanis, Irish Catholics versus Irish protestants, South Koreans versus North Koreans, Sunni versus Shiite and so on.


There are different ways of defining ethnic groups.

The link I provided
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... nic_groups
lists Arabs and Jews as separate ethnic groups.

This is probably based upon the differences in culture of the two groups which comes in large part from the differences in the religions adopted by the majority of the members of those groups.

The term "Semites" was used in the 18th and 19th century but is largely obsolete today outside of linguistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Semites, Semitic people or Semitic cultures (from the biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם‎‎) was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group who speak or spoke the Semitic languages.[2][3][4][5] The terminology was first used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, who derived the name from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis.[6] The term "Semites", together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites, is now largely obsolete outside linguistics.[7][8][9] However, in archaeology, the term is sometimes used informally as "a kind of shorthand" for ancient Semitic-speaking peoples.[9]

GoSeigen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 318
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95256

Postby GoSeigen » November 13th, 2017, 9:53 am

ursaminortaur wrote:
(Indeed the concept of human races based upon supposed genetic differences doesn't really exist in any scientific sense
[...]
)


OMG ursa, don't dare to suggest that races might not exist in fact: you may blow a few fuses round here!


GS

avconway
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:18 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95305

Postby avconway » November 13th, 2017, 11:55 am

Lootman wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:Why do so many people in England, apparently, have such a problem about Israel? I don't get it.

Yes, I must admit it's rather shocking to see (possibly) a majority here - folks who I otherwise consider to be intelligent, educated and informed - have such a bee in their bonnet over a small country trying to survive, and maybe even flourish, in a part of the world where almost everyone else hates us.


Everyone else hates us?

"Question more," Larry King instructs us.

“The first question to ask,” said Humpty Dumpty, “is: which Lemons are in step – the intelligent, the educated and the informed? Or me? What are the others hearing that I'm not hearing? What do they know that I don't know?”

And the second question is, “If 'everyone else hates us' how has this come about” why might this be?

At the end of WW1 the British, the Americans, and the Jews did not have a single enemy in the Near East. Nobody hated us. So why now?

Because we don't keep our word. Britain's time in Palestine was marked by “deviousness, deceit and double-standards.” (ref Prof Avi Shlaim in Cardiff - see opening post on this thread),

The British, with an army under Field Marshal Allenby, had fought the Turks out of Sinai and Palestine by December 1917, and out of the Arab world completely by October 1918. Within a week of the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, a joint Anglo-French Proclamation was published “with full formality” throughout the liberated territories. The proclamation runs only to four paragraphs and 271 words, and is worth reading in full. This copy sourced from a French translation:-

“The French Government, in agreement with the British Government, has decided to issue the following joint declaration in order to give to the non-Turkish populations between the Taurus and the Persian Gulf the assurance that the two countries, each in its own sphere, intend to secure for them the amplest autonomy, with the aim of guaranteeing their liberation and the development of their civilization:

“The end that France and Britain have in pursuing in the East the war unloosed by German ambition is the complete and definite freeing of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of National Governments and Administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and the free choice of the native populations.

“In order to give effect to these intentions, France and Great Britain have agreed to encourage and to assist the establishment of native Governments and Administrations in Syria and in Mesopotamia, now liberated by the Allies, and in the territories whose liberation they seek, and to recognize them as soon as they are effectively established.

“Far from wishing to impose any particular institutions on the populations of these regions, their only care is to assure by their support and efficacious assistance the normal workings of the Governments which these populations freely shall have given themselves. To ensure impartial and equal justice to all, to facilitate the economic development of the country by promoting and encouraging local initiative, to foster the spread of education, to put an end to the divisions too long exploited by Turkish policy—such is the role which the two Allied Governments claim in the liberated territories.” [End of proclamation.*]

What would an Arab or a Kurd have made of that promise, reading it nailed to a wall, or heard it read to him? Already, four months earlier, Woodrow Wilson had excited the little people of the world and angered imperial Britain and France by laying down as one of the “four great ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting" the principle of self-determination:-

"The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery."

Would an Arab have taken Britain's proclamation as a promise, would he have taken Britain at her word? In time would he wonder what had happened to that promise of “the establishment of (governments) deriving their authority from the initiative and the free choice of the native population”?

Sir Martin Gilbert gives the answer, speaking in Israel in 2006:- “The cornerstone of British mandatory policy was the withholding of representative institutions for as long as there was, in Palestine, an Arab majority.”

In other words, in place of autonomous governments what Palestinians got was “the Western imposition of a settler-colonial enterprise in the centre of the Arab world.” (Prof Avi Shlaim)

A good way to make enemies in the Arab world is to cheat. Even the simplest Bedouin in the desert is a man of his word, for all he has are his goats, his sheep and his dignity. Britain and America and the Jews* have cheated in spades in the Arab world, and we complain "everyone hates us".

It's easy on our consciences to tell ourselves, “They hate us because they're Muslims, there's something wrong with the Koran.” Not so, the Koran was there a hundred years ago, yet we didn't have enemies there a hundred years ago. The appearance of them since then is called “blow-back” - a consequence of Western “deviousness, deceit and double-standards”.

avconway

* The proclamation was published fairly widely in French newspapers on 9th November 1918, and in The Times: later it appeared in the Daily Mail in 1923, but has been much obscured since. This obscurity is a great shame, because I think it proclaims British imperial values at their finest. A document Britain should be proud of.

**More specifically of course “Zionists” to whom British and American political leaderships have been in thrall since the time of Brandeis and Weizmann in 1915 /16, foolishly accepting the claim that Zionists spoke for all Jews, and not merely their own political enterprise in Palestine.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2477
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95343

Postby Lootman » November 13th, 2017, 2:16 pm

avconway wrote:
“The first question to ask,” said Humpty Dumpty, “is: which Lemons are in step – the intelligent, the educated and the informed? Or me? What are the others hearing that I'm not hearing? What do they know that I don't know?”

And the second question is, “If 'everyone else hates us' how has this come about” why might this be?

So, the majority are always right? And hatred is always justified even if it derives from non-democratic states with a history of terrorism, intolerance and religious fundamentalism? Interesting theory. Although I'm not sure it's a majority at all. Most people, even in England, are comfortable with Israel. Overseas that is even more the case. Aside from Arabs, communists and western left-wingers, who hates Israel? And isn't it often really just a proxy for hating America, capitalism or the Judeo-Christian tradition?

The more interesting question for me is why this is such an important topic to you?

If you read the recent thread on Saudi Arabia you will have noted that on two well-known global rankings of nations based on the quality of their human rights, freedoms and development, Israel easily came top of all nations in the Middle East and Africa. Next were some oil-rich principalities that generally are the least hostile to Israel. and near the bottom were the Arab and African nations that most hate Israel. Coincidence?

I do not question your obvious scholarship in this area, even if your history rather conveniently starts in 1917 whilst the real history goes back millenia. You discount that this was an ancestral homeland for the Jews. And that all the French, British and Americans have really done is restore it to them. It only looks like the imposition of colonialism if you think that the Jews magically materialised from Mars and we arbitrarily carved out some land for them. The re-establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land was not done in a vacuum, nor without historical context and relevance.

But again, why are you so fixated on Israel when the entire Middle East is riddled with so many more serious problems? You cannot blame Israel for the Iraq-Iran war, the civil war in Syria, the invasion of Kuwait, the endless carnage in Lebanon, Saddam Hussein's use of chemical and biological weapons against his own people, the Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS, the destruction of ancient cultural wonders, the stoning of women, public floggings, throwing gay men off the top of buildings and so on.

You're complaining about the paint job on the nicest house on the block. And I'm fascinated to understand why. A personal connection, perhaps?

avconway
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:18 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95409

Postby avconway » November 13th, 2017, 5:39 pm

beeswax wrote:Every thinking person of reason should despise what is happening in Palestine and that includes Jews too...


Jews do.

Jews, being proud of the many “thinking persons of reason” that their culture has produced, do “get” what is happening in Palestine with great clarity and strength of feeling – after all, it is their culture and ethnicity which is being besmirched by the actions and attitudes of those who claim to be acting in their name.

It is important to distinguish between Jews and Zionists. As I wrote yesterday (November 11th, 2017, 12:37 pm ): “It is interesting to compare the situation that Jews find them selves in vis-a-vis Zionism with that in which Muslims find themselves vis-a-vis Islamism.”


Below this post is a reading list for Lemons with time on their hands (all by Jewish authors, except Karl Sabbagh, who is a UK-born Palestinian). For those short of time even a perusal of the titles will give a pointer to anti-Zionist Jewish thinking.

For those short of time, here are extracts from a Rabbi writing in June 2003:-

“Because We Are Jews"
By Rabbi Mordechi Weberman

There are those who ask us why we march with the Palestinians. Why do we raise the Palestinian flag? Why do we support the Palestinian cause?

“You are Jews!” they tell us. "What are you doing?"

And our response is very simple: It is precisely because we are Jews that we march with the Palestinians and raise their flag!

It is precisely because we are Jews that we demand that the Palestinian peoples be returned to their homes and properties!

Yes, in our Torah we are commanded to be fair. We are called upon to pursue justice. And, what could be more unjust then the century old attempt of the Zionist movement to invade another people's land, to drive them out and steal their property?

The early Zionists proclaimed that they were a people without a land going to a land without a people.

But utterly and totally untrue.

Palestine was a land with a people. A people that were developing a national consciousness.

We have no doubt that would Jewish refugees have come to Palestine, not with the intention of dominating, not with the intention of making a Jewish state, not with the intention of dispossessing, not with the intention of depriving the Palestinians of their basic rights, that they would have been welcomed by the Palestinians, with the same hospitality that Islamic peoples have shown Jews throughout history.

And we would have lived together as Jews and Muslims lived before in Palestine in peace and harmony.

We have attended hundreds of pro Palestinian rallies over the years and everywhere we go the leaders and audience greet us with the warmth of Middle Eastern hospitality. What a lie it is to say that Palestinians in particular or Muslims in general hate Jews. You hate injustice. Not Jews.

(We demand there) should be an apology to the Palestinian people which is clear and precise. Zionism did you wrong. Zionism stole your homes. Zionism stole your land.

By so proclaiming we proclaim before the world that we are the people of the Torah, that our faith demands that we be honest and fair and good and kind.

[End of extracts. The whole page may be found on several web sites, here's one: http://www.rense.com/general38/because.htm ]


avconway
Reading list

79 Beyond Tribal Loyalties Personal Stories of Jewish Peace Activists
Avigail Abarbanel (editor) Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle 2012

6 Overcoming Zionism - Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine
Joel Kovel (2007)

15 Anti-Zionism - Analytical Reflections
Roselle Tekiner (1989)

16 The Question of Zion
Jacqueline Rose (2005)

20 Zionism and the Palestinians
Simha Flapan (London & New York, 1979)

34 The Challenge of Post-Zionism
Ephraim Nimni (London, 2003)

42 Britain in Palestine The Story of British Rule in Palestine 1917-48
Karl Sabbagh (London, 2012)

43 Dark Hope Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine
David Shulman (Chicago, 2007)

49 Beyond Chutzpah
Norman Finkelstein

50 Israel – An Apartheid State
Uri Davis, Zed Books, London, 1987

58 The Zionist Idea A historical analysis and reader
Arthur Hertzberg The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1997

59 Scars of War Wounds of Peace The Israeli-Arab tragedy
Shlomo Ben Ami, London 2005

60 The Making and Unmaking of a Zionist
Antony Lerman, Pluto Press, London 2012

67 The Origins of Israel 1882 – 1948 A Documentary History
Editors – Eran Kaplan and Derek J. Penslar (Uni of Wisconsin, 2011)

gbjbaanb
Lemon Slice
Posts: 255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95480

Postby gbjbaanb » November 13th, 2017, 10:44 pm

DiamondEcho wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote: If on the otherhand it veers onto more general attacks against Islam as a religion or Arabs as a race then there would likely be disagreement and if it strayed too far in such a direction calls for actions by the moderators just as I'd expect if posters on this thread made antisemitic comments.


Arabs aren't a race.


Not quite true, though it depends what you mean by "race". There was a classification that said there were 3 (or 4) main races: caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid (with ethiopoian added later for some reason!). Then another classification system arose that was basically 'white' people, 'black' people 'yellow' people and 'red' people - or European, African, Asian and American respectively.

However, a better, clinical, classification based on genetic makeup was developed, and Iranian is one of the sub groups. (google for Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza for details). I have a graph (scroll to the bottom) of relationships between the races, what I found interesting is that "Iranian" is very closely related to Greek and SW Asian! In fact "Arabs" and more genetically related to us than they are to North African Berbers.

GoSeigen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 318
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95569

Postby GoSeigen » November 14th, 2017, 11:39 am

gbjbaanb wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote: If on the otherhand it veers onto more general attacks against Islam as a religion or Arabs as a race then there would likely be disagreement and if it strayed too far in such a direction calls for actions by the moderators just as I'd expect if posters on this thread made antisemitic comments.


Arabs aren't a race.


Not quite true, though it depends what you mean by "race".


The article you linked to, if you care to read it says:

Since the number of "races" can be so easily changed by the way they are defined, it is clear that they do not really exist as distinct biological groupings of people

Arabs aren't a race. They are simply classified as such by people who think it's handy to divide people into "races".

GS

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1940
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 1239 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95571

Postby DiamondEcho » November 14th, 2017, 12:10 pm

gbjbaanb wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:Arabs aren't a race.

Not quite true, though it depends what you mean by "race". [1]There was a classification that said there were 3 (or 4) main races: caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid (with ethiopoian added later for some reason!). [2]Then another classification system arose that was basically 'white' people, 'black' people 'yellow' people and 'red' people - [3]or European, African, Asian and American respectively.


[1] Is what I have in mind, and is what I consider anthropologically authoritative.
[2] I can't say I've heard of this, I can see it is a classification of skin colour, but that does not correlate at all well with race. Plus, you might have noticed that the suggested 'white, black, yellow and red' people, aren't actually those colours :) I've never seen a yellow Chinese person, despite having travelled in China. And just as one other example, take India, would Indians be classed under [2] as 'black'? But anthropologically most of them are caucasian* - hmmm.
[3] Is even more illogical to me IMHO.

gbjbaanb wrote:However, a better, clinical, classification based on genetic makeup was developed, and Iranian is one of the sub groups. (google for Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza for details). I have a graph (scroll to the bottom) of relationships between the races, what I found interesting is that "Iranian" is very closely related to Greek and SW Asian! In fact "Arabs" and more genetically related to us than they are to North African Berbers.


I'm not that surprised to see an Iranian/Greek/SW-Asian genetic make up, considering the journeys of Alexander the Great, the Vikings, the Silk Route, the former two both made it as far as India. That's why in NW-India you'll still find some locals with red and even blond hair [natural!]. Worth noting though that Iranians aren't Arabs either, and if you suggested that to one you might expect a frosty reception.

------------------------------
* 'What is the race of an Indian?
Caucasian: ... Therefore, Indians are part of the caucasoid race. But this doesn't necessarily apply to all Indians. Indians in the north east have mongoloid features while some in the south have australoid features.
https://www.quora.com/What-race-do-Asia ... -belong-to

gbjbaanb
Lemon Slice
Posts: 255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95587

Postby gbjbaanb » November 14th, 2017, 1:27 pm

DiamondEcho wrote:[2] I can't say I've heard of this, I can see it is a classification of skin colour, but that does not correlate at all well with race. Plus, you might have noticed that the suggested 'white, black, yellow and red' people, aren't actually those colours :) I've never seen a yellow Chinese person, despite having travelled in China. And just as one other example, take India, would Indians be classed under [2] as 'black'? But anthropologically most of them are caucasian* - hmmm.


Yep, I think the "colours" classification is a thing of its time, but we still (or at least people of a certain age) know American natives as "red Indians".

Which I find interesting, just how things in the past popup in terms used today.

The genetic differences thing is certainly interesting, even if we don't consider the classifications to be races, as I don't think there is such a thing as a race within humanity, but there are certain genetic differences that have appeared over time and that graph shows the closeness or not of various groups.

So are Arabs a race? No, just like white Aryan blondes are not a race either. Are they different genetically? Yes, but only slightly and by not as much as between either of them and a Polynesian.

GoSeigen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 318
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95594

Postby GoSeigen » November 14th, 2017, 2:09 pm

gbjbaanb wrote:So are Arabs a race? No, just like white Aryan blondes are not a race either. Are they different genetically? Yes, but only slightly and by not as much as between either of them and a Polynesian.


Everyone is different to everyone else genetically.

My children are dramatically different to their mother genetically. I have something to do with that, but even if their father were closely related to their mother, they'd still be radically different to their mother.

They are also so amazingly different from each other that I (and most other people) can distinguish them individually! They have different voices. They are different sizes and shapes, have different colour hair and different physical abilities. One is even a different sex to the others and has radically different body parts.

Yet I should consider them all the same "race" because they are "white" and a different race to an "arab" because they are not black, asian, middle eastern, arab, or whatever other classification you want to apply to a random group of people you determine need to be classed as "the same race"?

Very odd.


GS

gbjbaanb
Lemon Slice
Posts: 255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95615

Postby gbjbaanb » November 14th, 2017, 3:08 pm

GoSeigen wrote:
gbjbaanb wrote:So are Arabs a race? No, just like white Aryan blondes are not a race either. Are they different genetically? Yes, but only slightly and by not as much as between either of them and a Polynesian.


Everyone is different to everyone else genetically.

My children are dramatically different to their mother genetically. I have something to do with that, but even if their father were closely related to their mother, they'd still be radically different to their mother.

They are also so amazingly different from each other that I (and most other people) can distinguish them individually! They have different voices. They are different sizes and shapes, have different colour hair and different physical abilities. One is even a different sex to the others and has radically different body parts.

Yet I should consider them all the same "race" because they are "white" and a different race to an "arab" because they are not black, asian, middle eastern, arab, or whatever other classification you want to apply to a random group of people you determine need to be classed as "the same race"?

Very odd.


GS


Are you taking this a bit personally? I was referencing what is a well-respected piece of properly scientific work, and its not at all any sort of judgement on people but the classification that these anthropologists came up with. I find it interesting how we classify people, and that it is indisputable that there are pronounced genetic differences between groups of people. Also that the groups are not quite as closely related (or as different) as many suppose.

the graph showed that there isn't much randomness in the groups after all, which is to be expected given population changes, conquests and migrations in ancient history.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1940
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 1239 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95616

Postby DiamondEcho » November 14th, 2017, 3:09 pm

gbjbaanb wrote:The genetic differences thing is certainly interesting, even if we don't consider the classifications to be races, as I don't think there is such a thing as a race within humanity, but there are certain genetic differences that have appeared over time and that graph shows the closeness or not of various groups.
So are Arabs a race? No, just like white Aryan blondes are not a race either. Are they different genetically? Yes, but only slightly and by not as much as between either of them and a Polynesian.


The genetic issue can inform us re: how people look, but in a mobile world surely has less value these days. And yes 'race' and 'racist' are much misused words, sometimes when I see the latter accusation it usually makes no literal sense to me at all, the target being perhaps more akin to a form of nationalism.
Are Arabs a race? Maybe in so much as someone wishes to make such a label for them? ;) It might be interesting to try and divide the world into groups culturally re: beliefs/values, the Japanese would likely align far more closely with the Europeans than say the Chinese.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2477
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95619

Postby Lootman » November 14th, 2017, 3:26 pm

DiamondEcho wrote:Are Arabs a race? Maybe in so much as someone wishes to make such a label for them? ;) It might be interesting to try and divide the world into groups culturally re: beliefs/values, the Japanese would likely align far more closely with the Europeans than say the Chinese.

I think the mistake is that some people are looking for a scientific basis for race and it doesn't exist. Race is a social construct and used as a form of classification. It's hard to define but, like pornography, I know it when I see it. Put a white person, an Asian and a black person in a room and, 99 times out of 100, I can guess which is which, and so can you. There are of course fuzzy areas between them where such identification is harder, and you can find some fun "guess the race" quizzes on the internet where you will get most of them wrong.

Not many people would consider Arabs and Jews as a separate race, let alone two races. There are three primary races - white, Asian and black. Some people include Pacific Islander and/or Native American as a 4th primary race, although there is evidence both derive from Asia and arrived via a land bridge or by sea.

The interesting one to me is not Semites at all, but rather Hispanic/Latino. Broadly considered to be a race, particularly in North America where their influence and presence is considerable. And yet Hispanic is not a true race but rather a hybrid derivative, being a blend of European, black and native American, reflecting the history of that landmass and a lot of subsequent interbreeding.

Perhaps that is the future for all races? In that context the US census actually has several categories for "race" that are Hispanic, such as "Hispanic identifying as white", Hispanic identifying as Caribbean" and so on.

Race is a cognitive classification system, not an exercise in science, and so remains imprecise. The conflicts in the Middle East are between members of the same race, as most conflicts are.

gbjbaanb
Lemon Slice
Posts: 255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95624

Postby gbjbaanb » November 14th, 2017, 3:34 pm

DiamondEcho wrote:
gbjbaanb wrote:The genetic differences thing is certainly interesting, even if we don't consider the classifications to be races, as I don't think there is such a thing as a race within humanity, but there are certain genetic differences that have appeared over time and that graph shows the closeness or not of various groups.
So are Arabs a race? No, just like white Aryan blondes are not a race either. Are they different genetically? Yes, but only slightly and by not as much as between either of them and a Polynesian.


The genetic issue can inform us re: how people look, but in a mobile world surely has less value these days. And yes 'race' and 'racist' are much misused words, sometimes when I see the latter accusation it usually makes no literal sense to me at all, the target being perhaps more akin to a form of nationalism.
Are Arabs a race? Maybe in so much as someone wishes to make such a label for them? ;) It might be interesting to try and divide the world into groups culturally re: beliefs/values, the Japanese would likely align far more closely with the Europeans than say the Chinese.


Which makes that graph even more interesting - see how South Chinese and Japanese are really not very related at all! Even though Prince Philip might think they are all alike (ahem) turns out they are not, and actually do have more in common, genetically, with Eastern European slavs than with their immediate neighbours.

It does raise issues that both the 'racists' and the 'liberals' don't like - that many supposedly black races are quite a lot like us, eg those from the middle east which doesn't please a white supremacist much. but it also says that north africans cannot be described as the same as sub-saharan africans which doesn't "fit the narrative" the progressives like so much either. There was a big argument on the Guardian once when someone said that north Africans were white (the Berbers are white) and this was apparently racist.

avconway
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:18 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95645

Postby avconway » November 14th, 2017, 4:22 pm

Lootman wrote:So, the majority are always right? And hatred is always justified even if it derives from non-democratic states with a history of terrorism, intolerance and religious fundamentalism? Interesting theory. Although I'm not sure it's a majority at all. Most people, even in England, are comfortable with Israel. Overseas that is even more the case. Aside from Arabs, communists and western left-wingers, who hates Israel? And isn't it often really just a proxy for hating America, capitalism or the Judeo-Christian tradition?


Well that paragraph is another good serving of red-herring, and a bad-mouthing of Zionism's opponents (as a debating strategy this known is “deflect and denounce”) but it doesn't address a core issue underlying the birth of the century-long conflict in the Holy Land:- the planting in the Holy Land of European settlers intent, not on integrating with the indigenous community, but on displacing it and imposing Jewish sovereignty on the land “redeemed”.
They faced* (and still face, a hundred years on) two questions fundamental to their Zionist ideology:-
a) How to get rid of the unwanted indigenous community?
b) How to get Jews - 99.4% of whom were rooted elsewhere - to go to the Holy Land?

By whom or why questions are asked may be interesting, but questions have an internal validity regardless of their source, and in debating terms, answering the questions is known as “addressing the issue.”

Answers to the "how" questions a) and b) above are key to the question: How did we get into this mess? which is the beginning of the path out of the mess.

avconway

*Zionists are not unique as ideologists having to devise methodologies to deal with such demographic challenges. Zionist writings from the late 19th century up to 2017 are peppered with proposals, schemes and solutions for dealing with the “Arab problem” e.g. this from the 1940 diary of Joseph Weitz, a director of the Jewish Land Fund, cited in the magazine Davar in 1967:- “Between Ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country.... And there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left” - but nowhere can I find anything democratic: “Let's ask the Palestinians themselves, shall we?”

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2477
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95661

Postby Lootman » November 14th, 2017, 5:06 pm

avconway wrote: it doesn't address a core issue underlying the birth of the century-long conflict in the Holy Land:- the planting in the Holy Land of European settlers intent, not on integrating with the indigenous community, but on displacing it and imposing Jewish sovereignty on the land “redeemed”.

And in that sentence is revealed the fundamental flaw in your logic. It is not a "century-long conflict". You are merely electing to define it that way to eradicate the ancestral Jewish residence of and rights to the Holy Land (which of course is why we still call it the Holy Land!). You choose to start the clock at a time when the Arabs happened to be there, but I could just as easily start the timeline during the centuries when it was the Jewish homeland, and blame the Arabs for displacement.

avconway wrote:By whom or why questions are asked may be interesting, but questions have an internal validity regardless of their source, and in debating terms, answering the questions is known as “addressing the issue.”

The question is important to ask because it informs the motive of the person expressing alleged concern. So if you claim that your concern is for the welfare of Arabs, then your relentless and absolute focus only on Israel is very odd given that, as I noted and you ignored, Israel scores higher on human rights, freedoms and development than any Arab nation.

The other conclusion, of course, is that your real agenda is opposition to Israel and indifference to greater Arab suffering elsewhere. If that's your bag then carry it, but it looks increasingly like an ideologial vendetta against a sovereign nation rather than a genuine exercise in compassion and empathy. For the sake of credibility you should reveal your agenda. This is not mere scholarship and dispassionate inquiry. You are on a mission. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you honestly admit it and disclose your personal agenda.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1940
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 1239 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95721

Postby DiamondEcho » November 14th, 2017, 7:20 pm

gbjbaanb wrote:Which makes that graph even more interesting - see how South Chinese and Japanese are really not very related at all! Even though Prince Philip might think they are all alike (ahem) turns out they are not, and actually do have more in common, genetically, with Eastern European slavs than with their immediate neighbours.


I'm not surprised. The funny thing is they might 'all look alike' [Per the DoE, with what is a stereotype from an earlier time] until you live out there, when you begin to see that most regional nationalities have certain distinguishing features. Not only physiognomy, skin colour, stature, but behaviour, how they dress, and even their hair-styles.
Curious that the Japanese would be genetically related to slavs, as an island nation they've long been isolated. It's their status as a small island nation that [IME] aligns their culture/outlook far more closely to that of the UK, than their immediate neighbours. It's not just me, you'll hear Japanese liken theirs to the perspective of the 'British island nation'.

gbjbaanb wrote:It does raise issues that both the 'racists' and the 'liberals' don't like - that many supposedly black races are quite a lot like us, eg those from the middle east which doesn't please a white supremacist much. but it also says that north africans cannot be described as the same as sub-saharan africans which doesn't "fit the narrative" the progressives like so much either. There was a big argument on the Guardian once when someone said that north Africans were white (the Berbers are white) and this was apparently racist.


...well there's no accounting for the Guardian, but then what do they know.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1119
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95725

Postby ursaminortaur » November 14th, 2017, 7:45 pm

Lootman wrote:
avconway wrote: it doesn't address a core issue underlying the birth of the century-long conflict in the Holy Land:- the planting in the Holy Land of European settlers intent, not on integrating with the indigenous community, but on displacing it and imposing Jewish sovereignty on the land “redeemed”.

And in that sentence is revealed the fundamental flaw in your logic. It is not a "century-long conflict". You are merely electing to define it that way to eradicate the ancestral Jewish residence of and rights to the Holy Land (which of course is why we still call it the Holy Land!). You choose to start the clock at a time when the Arabs happened to be there, but I could just as easily start the timeline during the centuries when it was the Jewish homeland, and blame the Arabs for displacement.


The diaspora had started long before the Roman conquest of Judea and although after the revolts against Roman rule there were deportations and some Jews taken into slavery this doesn't explain the diaspora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_di ... man_Empire

A widespread popular belief holds that sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina led to the Diaspora,[39] but historians disagree with that view.[40] Instead, they argue that the growth of diaspora Jewish communities was a gradual process that occurred over the centuries, starting with the Assyrian destruction of Israel, the Babylonian destruction of Judah, the Roman destruction of Judea, and the subsequent rule of Christians and Muslims. After the revolt, the Jewish religious and cultural center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars. For the generations that followed, the destruction of the Second Temple event came to represent a fundamental insight about the Jews who had become a dispossessed and persecuted people for much of their history.[41]
Erich S. Gruen explains that focusing on the destruction of the Temple misses the point that already before this, the diaspora was well established. Compulsory dislocation of people cannot explain more than a fraction of the eventual diaspora.[42] Avrum Ehrlich also states that already well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, more Jews lived in the Diaspora than in Israel.[43]
According to Israel Yuval, the Babylonian captivity created a promise of return in the Jewish consciousness which had the effect of enhancing the Jewish self-perception of Exile after the destruction of the Second Temple, albeit their dispersion was due to an array of non-exilic factors.[44]
David Aberbach argues that much of the Jewish diaspora, by which he means exile or voluntary migration, originated with the Jewish wars which occurred between 66 and 135 CE.[45]: 224


The Romans never banned Jews from Judea or the the province of Syria Palaestina (which they created by combining Judea with some surrounding teritories) though Jews were banned from Jerusalem. Under the Byzantine (eastern Roman) empire the city of Jerusalem became a Christian city with the ban on Jews entering maintained until its fall to Muslim forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem ... caliphates

Following the Bar Kokhba revolt, Emperor Hadrian combined Iudaea Province with neighboring provinces under the new name of Syria Palaestina, replacing the name of Judea.[121] The city was renamed Aelia Capitolina,[122] and rebuilt it in the style of a typical Roman town. Jews were prohibited from entering the city on pain of death, except for one day each year, during the holiday of Tisha B'Av. Taken together, these measures[123][124][125] (which also affected Jewish Christians)[126] essentially "secularized" the city.[127] The ban was maintained until the 7th century,[128] though Christians would soon be granted an exemption: during the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine I ordered the construction of Christian holy sites in the city, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Burial remains from the Byzantine period are exclusively Christian, suggesting that the population of Jerusalem in Byzantine times probably consisted only of Christians.[129]
In the 5th century, the eastern continuation of the Roman Empire, ruled from the recently renamed Constantinople, maintained control of the city. Within the span of a few decades, Jerusalem shifted from Byzantine to Persian rule, then back to Roman-Byzantine dominion. Following Sassanid Khosrau II's early 7th century push through Syria, his generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin attacked Jerusalem (Persian: Dej Houdkh‎‎) aided by the Jews of Palaestina Prima, who had risen up against the Byzantines.[130]
In the Siege of Jerusalem of 614, after 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem was captured. Byzantine chronicles relate that the Sassanids and Jews slaughtered tens of thousands of Christians in the city, many at the Mamilla Pool,[131][132] and destroyed their monuments and churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
.
.
.
In 638 CE the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem.[142] With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city.[143] The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule.


After the Muslim conquest Jewish communities flourished in Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... .931099.29

After the conquest, Jewish communities began to grow and flourish. Umar allowed and encouraged Jews to settle in Jerusalem. It was first time, after almost 500 years of oppressive Christian rule, that Jews were allowed to enter and worship freely in their holy city.[78] Seventy Jewish families from Tiberias moved to Jerusalem in order to help strengthen the Jewish community there.[79] But with the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691 and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 705, the Muslims established the Temple Mount as an Islamic holy site. The dome enshrined the Foundation Stone, the holiest site for Jews. Before Omar Abd al-Aziz died in 720, he banned the Jews from worshipping on the Temple Mount,[80] a policy which remained in place for over the next 1,000 years of Islamic rule.[81] In around 875, Karaite leader Daniel al-Kumisi arrived in Jerusalem and established an ascetic community of Mourners of Zion.[82] Michael the Syrian notes thirty synagogues which were destroyed in Tiberias by the earthquake of 749.[83]
In the mid-8th-century, taking advantage of the warring Islamic factions in Palestine, a false messiah named Abu Isa Obadiah of Isfahan inspired and organised a group of 10,000 armed Jews who hoped to restore the Holy Land to the Jewish nation. Soon after, when Al-Mansur came to power, Abu Isa joined forces with a Persian chieftain who was also conducting a rebellion against the caliph. The rebellion was subdued by the caliph and Abu Isa fell in battle in 755.[84]
In 1039, part of the synagogue in Ramla was still in ruins, probably resulting from the earthquake of 1033.[85] Jews also returned to Rafah and documents from 1015 and 1080 attest to a significant community there.[86]
A large Jewish community existed in Ramle and smaller communities inhabited Hebron and the coastal cities of Acre, Caesarea, Jaffa, Ashkelon and Gaza.[citation needed] Al-Muqaddasi (985) wrote that "for the most part the assayers of corn, dyers, bankers, and tanners are Jews."[87] Under the Islamic rule, the rights of Jews and Christians were curtailed and residence was permitted upon payment of the special tax.
Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Masoretes (Jewish scribes) in the Galilee and Jerusalem were active in compiling a system of pronunciation and grammatical guides of the Hebrew language. They authorised the division of the Jewish Tanakh, known as the Masoretic Text, which is regarded as authoritative till today.


The next period of Crusader rule was less kind to the Jews in Palestine

According to Gilbert, from 1099 to 1291 the Christian Crusaders "mercilessly persecuted and slaughtered the Jews of Palestine."[89]
In 1099, the Jews were among the rest of the population who tried in vain to defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders. When the city fell, a massacre of 6,000 Jews occurred when the synagogue they were seeking refuge in was set alight. Almost all perished.[90] In Haifa, the Jews and Muslims held out for a whole month, (June–July 1099).[91]
Under Crusader rule, Jews were not allowed to hold land and involved themselves in commerce in the coastal towns during times of quiescence.


After the fall of the crusader states to Saladin things once again improved for the Jews in Palestine

In time, Saladin issued a proclamation inviting all Jews to return and settle in Jerusalem,[95] and according to Judah al-Harizi, they did: "From the day the Arabs took Jerusalem, the Israelites inhabited it."[96] al-Harizi compared Saladins decree allowing Jews to re-establish themselves in Jerusalem to the one issued by the Persian Cyrus the Great over 1,600 years earlier.[97]

In 1211, the Jewish community in the country was strengthened by the arrival of a group headed by over 300 rabbis from France and England,[98] among them Rabbi Samson ben Abraham of Sens.


The subsequent periods of Arab rule though having there ups and downs were fairly good for the Jews in Palestine. However their numbers never rose to more than about 10% of the population in the region

By 1844, some sources report that Jews had become the largest population group in Jerusalem and by 1890 an absolute majority in the city, but as a whole the Jewish population made up far less than 10% of the region.

Hence the real story is not one of being forced out of Palestine but of largely voluntary migration of Jews out of Palestine with small groups moving back pretty much unopposed up until the much larger movements in the twentieth century.
True the Jews in Palestine lived under Christian or Muslim rule but then if you look at the history of Judea/Israel it was almost always a vassal state or directly ruled by some other regional power whether that was under the Romans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians etc

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2477
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Two sides to every question? Do we really think so?

#95727

Postby Lootman » November 14th, 2017, 7:56 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Lootman wrote:
avconway wrote: it doesn't address a core issue underlying the birth of the century-long conflict in the Holy Land:- the planting in the Holy Land of European settlers intent, not on integrating with the indigenous community, but on displacing it and imposing Jewish sovereignty on the land “redeemed”.

And in that sentence is revealed the fundamental flaw in your logic. It is not a "century-long conflict". You are merely electing to define it that way to eradicate the ancestral Jewish residence of and rights to the Holy Land (which of course is why we still call it the Holy Land!). You choose to start the clock at a time when the Arabs happened to be there, but I could just as easily start the timeline during the centuries when it was the Jewish homeland, and blame the Arabs for displacement.

The diaspora had started long before the Roman conquest of Judea and although after the revolts against Roman rule there were deportations and some Jews taken into slavery this doesn't explain the diaspora.

Hence the real story is not one of being forced out of Palestine but of largely voluntary migration of Jews out of Palestine with small groups moving back pretty much unopposed up until the much larger movements in the twentieth century.
True the Jews in Palestine lived under Christian or Muslim rule but then if you look at the history of Judea/Israel it was almost always a vassal state or directly ruled by some other regional power whether that was under the Romans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians etc

Yes, the history is complicated. But there is still an underlying theme of the Jews either being driven out or else just treated so badly that they voluntarily left.

Perhaps if they had effortlessly assimilated in other countries then there would be no clamour for a homeland or safe space. But that never really happened even before Nazi Germany came along and made the prejudice against Jews a lot more explicit.

In any event, it is one thing to argue that the state of Israel should not exist and should never have been created. But given that it is now here, 70 years on and counting, is there seriously anyone who thinks we should somehow force them out yet again? I thought that even anti-Zionists like Avconway these days were content with merely the handback of the occupied territories and not the wholesale dismantling of Israel. The clock cannot be turned back without a lot of bloodshed.

I doubt that many Jews would support Israel being dismantled, even if they have no special affinity with Zionism.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anticrank, Google [Bot], ursaminortaur and 1 guest