"As a Jew, no place but Israel is home "

Are you suggesting that Jewish people are any more ethnocentric than is the norm for other peoples?

Last I checked they defined the Jews as a nation. That's not the same thing as a race, necessarily.

And since essentially every nation on Earth categorizes people according to where they where born, that leaves them in pretty broad company.

Didn't you just get finished arguing from the category of "Asianness?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, its called geography. Note that I have no objection to such self categorisation. I am quite tolerant of people calling themselves Brahmins and Dalits. Or Nazis or Jews. Its when they want to eject people from their vicinity for not falling into the same category that I object to their tunnel vision. If Jews want to call themselves an anomaly, a race, a blood group, a chromosome, good for them. When they start forming 100% Jewish neighborhoods and behave like racists, I have objections. They can call themselves angel hair pasta for all I care as long as no one else has to get into hot water.

Hence I am fascinated by their phenomenon for rejecting entire nations they are born and brought up in, where they have histories of thousand year durations for the sake of forming their artificial ethnocentric communities whether it is in NY, Chicago, Miami or Jerusalem.

Apparently, it is not possible to find three Arab families in West Jerusalem today and I call that ethnic cleansing resulting from attitudes such as that of Eli Klein. I think such racism bears investigation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, no, not necessarily. Ethnicity is not the same thing as nationality, or religion, or caste, or any of the various bases for group formation that we exhibit. It's simply one possibility among many - and not a very appealing candidate for explaining why Indian Jews would want to go live with Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. There are many different ethnic groups in the Jewish nation, so calling it "ethnocentricism" does not seem apt, to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your examples here - the author of the Haaretz article and the Cochin Jews - wanted to extract themselves from the vicinity of others (Americans and Indians, respectively), not the other way around. So you didn't pick very good examples, if that's the point you're trying to make. And you shouldn't be criticizing them, if you don't care about self-identification as such.

 

The others are the ones they were born and brought up around, quad. Thats not how one usually defines the other. Unless you believe in untouchability.

It does if the aim is to form ethnocentric communities. As Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi, professor at the Hebrew University says to Weisel:

I defy Mr. Wiesel to find three Muslim families in all of West Jerusalem.

Thats the ethnocentric part. Its not merely about American Jews rejecting non-Jewish Americans or Indian Jews rejecting non-Jewish Indians, its about these people from opposite parts of the globe considering themselves a race and forming a community based on such racism which requires ethnic cleansing of non-Jews to satisfy their comfort level.

 

Can anyone say non-seqiutur for the first sentence?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure Sam. Cambodia. Most cambodians haven't even heard of a jew, same for vietnam, laos and a host of other areas around the world. They don't care or even talk about Israel. Not sure if most of them are even aware of it. Are their jews in the expat community? Yes. Does anyone really care? No.

Actually I think its only some woo woo's who believe that the human race wires people towards antisemitism specifically. What about dark skin? Has the world been hard wired to dislike brown skin like yours? Most asians are peculiarly concerned with the whiteness of their skin and its considered preferable to other hues.:shrug:

 

LOL!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well at least I got a laugh out of this finally.

 

Last I checked, the definition of "other" was "people aside from oneself." Have you switched to continentalist philosophy mid-thread or something? If so, you should be capitalizing "Other."

The kicker about self-identification is that it leaves every individual the agency to decide who they identify with, without constraint of geography or whatever else. That you think people ought to inherently identify with the people they are born amongst is either irrelevant or a contradiction of your claim to accept self-identification as such.

Yet you don't display any notable fascination at the manifold other groups that do similar things - much larger numbers of Indians reject the nation they were born and raised in, where they have histories of thousand year durations for the sake of forming artificial "ethnocentric" communities in far-flung places, every year. Come visit Los Angeles some time - it's basically one big museum of peoples who foresook their ancestral homelands to construct ethnic communities far away.

And the reasons aren't particularly mysterious - the promise of a better life, or a more hospitable community, or a better shot at advancement for one's children, etc.

This phenomenon isn't particularly rare, or recent, and so isn't remarkable. The only interesting thing about the Jewish case is that they were so widely distributed to begin with and so the process results in a concentration of their numbers. In most other cases it works the other way around.

And as to artificial: all communities - ethnocentric or otherwise - are artifices.

 

Yeah, like wearing a kippa or a hijab to distinguish oneself as a member of a group.

Do you think a topless woman will get more attention if there are men in the vicinity? Would it make her feel self conscious? What should she do if they follow her around with cameras?

 

That religious segregation, not ethnocentricism. Neither "Jewish" nor "Muslim" are ethnicities.

Again, wrong categories - you can tell you aren't talking about a race because you're having to specify multiple different racial components.

The Jews define themselves as a nation, and form a community based on (religious) nationalism which requires consolodating a national homeland exclusive to members of the nation.

And that's absolutely par for the course with nationalism, regardless of whether there's any ethnic basis for it. Essentially every nation on Earth starts with the premise that it's entitled to a national homeland, and pursues that end with violence. It's not any kind of mystery, nor is it limited to Israel. Pakistani nationalism works in pretty much the same way, although the recruitment pool is somewhat more limited geographically.

 

They are not synonymous. There are Buddhist Jews, no Buddhist Muslims. Having a Jewish mother makes you Jewish by blood, there is no such genetic Islam.

 

Right: Islam is not a nation.

Meanwhile: having American parents makes you American "by blood." That doesn't mean that "American" is an ethnicity - it means that "American" is a nationality.

Likewise for "Indian" and any number of other nationalities.

 

Does it? So what happens to American Jews born to American parents who feel uncomfortable in NY but at home in Palestine? What does their blood say?

 

Probably she'd consider relocating to an exclusive community of like-minded people so that she can go about her daily life in her chosen garb in peace and serenity. They're called "nudist colonies."

If she's doing it for purposes of activism, then she'll probably be delighted to have attracted so much attention, and attempt to parlay it into media attention.

 

Their "blood" qualifies them for citizenship in either country, so it supports whatever identification they wish to pursue.

 

They are in a nudist colony.

 

Then I dispute the premise that she'd attract unwanted attention by appearing topless.

 

Exactly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!