When the bulk of European Jewry gradually lost its distinctive Mid-Eastern look , culture - especially language, religion and dress - became the only things that set these Jews apart from their gentile neighbors. While Europe was effective in erasing the "Jewish look" over a thousand years, America was effective in erasing Jewish culture within a century (with obvious exceptions of course). Nonetheless many American Jews still wish to remain "Jewish" even as they retain only faint vestiges of their ancestral culture. While an Irish-American might be content to dust off his Irishness once a year to celebrate St. Patrick's day, and an Italian-American might reminisce about his grandmother's cooking, a Jew often feels the need for his Jewishness to take a more active role in his life. He might feel empty otherwise.
An occasional anti-Jewish slur, by a passing drunk, is enough to fill this role. As a matter of fact, so desperate have some Jews become, to find anti-semitism, that they will even cling to outbursts by drunk celebrities directed at nobody in particular.
Pathetic as such bottom-feeding may sound, from an objective point of view, occasional displays of anti-semitism do serve to remind Jews that they are Jews and therefore strengthen our ethnic cohesion. In this sense they are productive. Many "lost Jewish souls" found their way back to Judaism because of anti-semitism.
It is not a pleasant experience to be the target of ethnic slurs or intimidation. I can say this having experienced it myself. Yet we can look at it as a bitter pill to swallow for those Jews who are lost to their people and on the verge of total assimilation.
When I argue for the continuity of my own people, I am not advocating for a complete return to traditional Judaism - and in this I walk a fine line. One that is full of questions and contradictions. Can the Jewish People exist long term without its religion? Should it? What right do Jews have to the Promised Land if they do not believe in either He who promised it or the book that documents it? Alas, I do not have all the answers - but future posts may explore them further.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When the bulk of European Jewry gradually lost its distinctive Mid-Eastern look
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think European Jewry ever had a "distinctive Mid-Eastern look"?
First of all, the Jews came from the Middle East; why would they NOT look Mideastern? Secondly, the old "stereotype" of Jews (black curly hair, prominent noses etc.) matches the Mideastern phenotype. Clearly it had to come from somewhere and have some basis in truth. Thirdly, we still find a few European Jews who retain their Mideastern appearance and this seems to have been more so the further back we go.
ReplyDeleteLevantines cluster closer to Europe than other middle eastern populations. Although there are Levantines who look "middle eastern" there are also many who look European. The Druze in particular look European. They are also the Levantine population clustering most closely to Jews. Since the Druze 1) never left the Levant and 2) have been strictly endogamous for over a thousand years it is reasonable to assume they most closely resemble the original Levantines. This is particularly true since Arabs (including Palestinians) have a significant amount of African DNA which Druze and Ashkenazi don't have at all. The reasonable conclusion is that it is the "middle eastern" look which has been altered through admixture more than the Druze or Jews. Lastly, the comment about dark hair and noses is silly. Greeks, Italians and Armenians also have dark hair and noses and they also cluster with Europeans. I see no reason to believe the Levant wasn't originally settled by one of these groups rather than Arabs. That is, after all, pretty much where jews fall on genetic maps.
ReplyDeleteI would really question the notion that Arabs have African (Black) DNA. It seems silly to me that perhaps outside of Morocco and Egypt, that there should be any reason to think that Middle Easterners are mixed with even a small bit of Black at all. The reason for this is easily pointed out when you look at India from south to north it goes from darker to light, then go west and the people gradually get whiter all the way into the mediterranian. Yet the people even in north west Spain are tanned somewhat.
ReplyDeleteSo is it possible to have both Black and Brown mixing with White in the Middle East? Maybe, but i'd sooner put my money on Brown than I would with Black, yet I never hear anyone else say this. Also don't forget about Eastern Europeans, I have read that some researchers believe that they have their slightly unique look due to the far eastern stepp people who were mixed White/Yellow.
I also believe true Whites which most likely do not exist, are a near white blonde with blue eyes. I call myself White, but I have slightly tanned skin with green eyes, and medium ash blonde hair which looks more light brown than it does blonde. I am not pure myself, somewhere in my ancestral line there was a mixture with another race. Regardless I am a normal white color, most likely average for North America or say England. Yet there are whites I come across who are so pale and blonde that they seem abnormal to me. In the end, I don't think there are any pure of any race anymore, we are all mixed with something.
Fred, did you read my post about the ethnicity of ancient Jews? How do you explain the evidence cited there?
ReplyDeletejay-
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to your article titled, "Jewish pedigree and racial origins" then I didn't see where you presented any real evidence. You have to admit, a reference to jews being the color of cedar is pretty weak. From what I read you were basically questioning the purity of light complected jews on the basis that they didn't fit your expectation of what ancient jews should look like.
Granted, I didn't present any peer reviewed articles to support my arguments, either. But they exist and if you agree that my logic is sound then I'd be happy to go find links to support it. If, however, you disagree that the logic is sound then that is where we should focus before hunting for evidence to support an argument that you're just going to blow off. I'm lazy that way. So re-read my last comment and let me know.
====================================
Ryan says...
I would really question the notion that Arabs have African (Black) DNA. It seems silly to me that perhaps outside of Morocco and Egypt, that there should be any reason to think that Middle Easterners are mixed with even a small bit of Black at all.
Have you never heard of the arab slave trade?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#Scope_of_the_trade
And DNA confirms it.
Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab Populations
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180338/
The Levant was also dominated by the Arabs, Mongols & Turks at various times. So there was plenty of opportunity for admixture.
Now, I'll repeat the argument from my second comment. Both Druze and Ashkenazi lack significant elements of this admixture. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that it is the “middle eastern” look which has been altered through admixture more than the Druze or Jews.
Bear in mind that I'm not saying Druze and Jews don't have any admixture. Only that they have less so it is more likely they bear a closer resemblance to the original population. JAY suggests (in his previous article) that if a jew is blue eyed blond (or redhead) that they HAVE to be mixed. And it seems likely. But I wouldn't just assume that to be the case without evidence.
Jewamongyou how can there be a definite jewish ethnicity if people can convert to judaism. Some people mention that the khazar nation converted to judaism. Nowadays in America there are converts to various denominations of judaism(reform, orthodox, conservative)and these converts are of all races. The only way there can be a jewish ethnicity is if these converts are not jewish.
ReplyDeleteJudaism seems to be more of a collection of philosophies that bring people together rather than a definite ethnicity... and I am not suggesting that jewish people all share the same ideologies.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteHere's why I believe ancient Jews were different, in appearance, from average Europeans:
The comment by the ancient rabbi, that Jews have a different skin color than Germans, is significant even though you downplay it. It was said within the context of halakha and pertained to the status of a certain type of leprosy. We do not find any other ancient rabbis disagreeing with him on this point and their silence is a clear indication of agreement.
Years ago, while visiting Massada, I saw, on display, a clump of ancient Jewish hair. It was very thick and very black - the kind of hair that is common in India and darker Arabs but very unusual among Europeans.
While light skin and European-like features are not unusual among Syrians and many in Lebanon (who are, by the way, largely Christians descended from Europeans), it is not so common further South. When the 10 tribes of Israel were taken into captivity, only the Southern Judeans remained. What did those Judeans look like? We have their likenesses engraved in stone and, though some variety is evident, the overall impression we get is that they looked a lot like we would expect "Semites" to look like.
I don't claim that light hair and eyes were unknown to ancient Jews but these were exceptions rather than the rule. You cite the appearance of the Druze as evidence of how ancient Jews appeared - but the Druze are from the far North of Israel and the fact that they have been endogenous for a thousand years - but this does not help your case much because nobody knows what transpired prior to that.
The trace amount of Semitic appearance we find among European Jews seems just about right considering the time our ancestors have lived in Europe. If the ancient Jews looked just like Europeans, then there would be practically no incidents of modern European Jews retaining Mideastern traits.
This is one reason why Judaism has traditionally been so against accepting converts. The short answer, to your question, is that "Jew" can refer to either/both a religion or/and an ethnic group. Most ethnic Jews are not religious Jews but most religious Jews are ethnic Jews (mixed to varying degrees). As for the Khazar conversion to Judaism, it was probably only a few who converted and it is not even known if they remained "Jews" long term or later reverted to their ancestral ways. When I say Jews are an "ethnic group", of course I do not mean "race".
ReplyDeleteYour comment is awaiting moderation.
ReplyDeleteHyperlink settings?
"Have you never heard of the arab slave trade?"
ReplyDeleteYes and i'll do you one better, Wikipedia is a leftist PC controlled site, and I am surprised they had as much as they did on the subject. This video shows it could possibly be more than ten times worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT_RSDeAYjI
"And DNA confirms it."
This is surprising news to me, in fact I wonder how far it went, did it go into the European Mediterranian side as well? I have a small amount of Spanish in me, do I have black DNA if however small in then? Interesting.
On the other hand you do see it says Arab only, so then Persia and other mixed countries around them as well as Turkey are excluded. Looking up Turkey I see a lot of light skinned people. But they are mixed with something nonetheless. If not Black then the only other dark race to breed with would be the Brown of the Indian subcontinent.
"The Levant was also dominated by the Arabs, Mongols & Turks at various times. So there was plenty of opportunity for admixture."
Babylon was a place of diversity, and when the persians took them over 2500 years ago they found people from all over nearby Asia. Including a mixed Yellow people of whom I forget at the moment. The Persians as I recall did nothing to assimilate, and instead allowed the various peoples they conquered to live as they had before.
Now I will quote from Wikipedia:
"The Mongol invasion of the Middle East consists of the conquest, by force or voluntary submission, of the areas today known as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and parts of Turkey, with further Mongol raids reaching southwards as far as Gaza into the Palestine region in 1260 and 1300. The major battles were the Battle of Baghdad (1258), when the Mongols sacked the city which for 500 years had been the center of Islamic power; and the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, when the Muslim Egyptian Mamluks, were for the first time able to stop the Mongol advance at Ain Jalut, in the northern part of what is today known as the West Bank.
Due to a combination of political and geographic factors, such as lack of sufficient grazing room for their horses, the Mongol invasion of the Middle East turned out to be the farthest that the Mongols would ever reach, towards the Mediterranean and Africa"
They did not conquer the Levant area, they were defeated and turned back. However they did manage to make vassals of the two crusader states. There is little reason to believe that they altered the people's genes in that area. If anyone had it would be due to the Babylonians of 1800 years before, and more recent Turkish intrusions who were originally a mixed Yellow/White/Brown people.
The comment by the ancient rabbi, that Jews have a different skin color than Germans
ReplyDeleteI mentioned Druze, Italians, Greeks and Armenians - not Germans.
It was very thick and very black – the kind of hair that is common in India and darker Arabs but very unusual among Europeans.
A clump of hair from masada has all the credibility of the turin shroud.
While light skin and European-like features are not unusual among Syrians and many in Lebanon
Once again, I mentioned Druze - not Syrian and Lebanese Christians. The Druze have been endogamous since before the Crusades. And DNA supports this.
though some variety is evident
translation: although some admixture is evident
these were exceptions rather than the rule.
It's also the exception among Druze, Italians, Greeks and Armenians. But how do you know they're exceptions? I would imagine so. But how do you know?
but the Druze are from the far North of Israel and the fact that they have been endogenous for a thousand years
And the Arabs (including Palestinians) are known to have recent admixture from Africa. So one can't use them as an example of an indigenous "middle eastern" look.
this does not help your case much because nobody knows what transpired prior to that.
Exactly! We can't know what happened before. But we DO know what happened afterward. And we know Arabs have recent African admixture.
The trace amount of Semitic appearance we find among European Jews seems just about right considering the time our ancestors have lived in Europe.
"Seems" to who? How do you know what "trace amounts" are "just about right"? Once again, you're drawing conclusions based on opinion and not evidence. Your opinion may be correct. But so far you're evidence has been circumstantial and speculative.
If the ancient Jews looked just like Europeans, then there would be practically no incidents of modern European Jews retaining Mideastern traits.
Maybe the "mideastern traits" are original. And maybe they're admixture. Like you said, we don't know what transpired prior to that.