Any good links? I assumed it was pretext but now what you said has me super curious of the actual merits even without the whole Zionism angle.
Also, since I’m commenting anyway, anyone else read the caption as her “resigning from Harvard’s Jewish community”?
We may be splitting hairs here but I think that still fundamentally misunderstands how Jews have defined Judaism for at least the last 500 years. Karl Marx is considered Jewish because his mother was Jewish and the Jewish religion says that if your mother is Jewish you are Jewish whether you follow the religion or not. However, had Karl Marx’s father been Jewish and his mother been something else, he would be considered 0% Jewish. Traditional religious Jewish communities still believe this. Had Karl Marx’s parents been Protestant and converted to Judaism before he was born, he’d be 100% Jewish. And that would have been true for thousands of years. The Jewish religion defines who is Jewish and it only coincidentally coincides with genetics much of the time.
Different ethnic groups of Jews did not, and generally still do not, consider themselves the same ethnicity except in the Zionist construct. But even Zionists in practice cannot remain consistent on this issue because of their extreme chauvinism. Hence the utter revulsion with “Ostjuden” by the western Zionists themselves and the current discrimination in Israel faced by non-white Jews. Hell, just look at how Israelis describe Haredi Jews in Israel.
If you read my above comments to suggest that I think the Zionist definition of Judaism is valid, I did a really bad job of writing them. My point is that Zionism has been trying to construct an ethnicity out of what was considered to be only a religious grouping for thousands of years.
When you say they separated themselves from the gentiles making them their own ethnicity, I think you are right to a point but it is not a global ethnicity. So German Jews who lived in ghettos did not see themselves as the same as the gentiles around them, but they did not consider themselves to be the same ethnicity as Jews living thousands of miles away. They didn’t share common language, clothing, food, living styles, marriage customs, etc with, say, Moroccan Jews, just a common religion. So there may have been micro ethnicities everywhere that were predominantly Jewish but they didn’t form a world spanning single ethnicity.
Maybe a great example of what I’m talking about, and one particularly well suited for hexbear, is the example of the Lithuanian Jewish community and the Bund in the late 19th and early 20th century. This massive population of Ashkenazim rejected Zionism, they were formed into a Jewish workers party but because historically the Russian empire forced Jews into their own little box. Following the creation of the USSR, the Bund voted to merge itself into the communist party and stated as its reason for doing so that there was no distinction between the proletariat of the categories that the Russian empire put everyone in. Importantly, they kept their religion but rejected political separation of the working class on artificial ethnic grounds.
Our hair splitting though gets to the point that I agree that there are ethnicities that are largely associated with Judaism. Just like the French ethnicity is largely associated with Catholicism. But the lump all Jews into a single ethnicity makes the concept of ethnicity lose any coherence the same way lumping all Catholics into a single ethnicity would. While I agree that you can identify ethnics groups of Jews like, say, the Lithuanian Ashkenazim (who spoke a different dialect of Yiddish that what was called Polish Ashkenazim), blending all Jewish ethnicities into a single one stretches the concept beyond any meaningful use. It is the project of Zionism to do so, but it is based on a false premise and an evil motive.
But for real, I know listening to links stranger post on the internet is a huge waste of time generally, but that pod episode I posted elsewhere on here goes right into it. It’s a Haredi Rabbi in Brooklyn who has spent decades meticulously debunking the Zionist proposition of a uniform Jewish ethnicity.
But doesn’t that just lead us back to the whole point of this post? That within the construct of ethnogenesis, the Jewish ethnicity is a modern and artificial construct of Zionist ideology? That prior to Zionism, ie the movement to create a Jewish nation amongst the nations and a Jewish ethnicity amongst the ethnicities, Jews from Russia were no more the same ethnicity as Jews from Morocco than Catholics from Croatia were the same ethnicity as Catholics from Ireland? Or Muslims from Saudi Arabia are the same ethnicity as Muslims from Chechnya?
Alternatively, isn’t it just mostly tautological? “Jewish” is an ethnicity because ethnicities are anything that someone can posit is an ethnicity regardless of historical context? So Jews 250 years ago almost uniformly did not think of Jewish as an ethnicity but Zionists decided they were so they are? Or the concept of ethnicity as such didn’t exist prior to the nationalist movements but now we must accept the sociological constructs of nationalism to decide whether Jewish fits in to what is already a flawed framework?
I don’t know if I agree with this. Most Roman subjects during the Roman Empire did not consider themselves ethnically Roman in the sense we use ethnicity. While some people from some remote cultures may have fully assimilated into a more uniform Romaness over the generations, Rome was always a multi-cultural empire that retained distinctions between what we would now call ethnic groups as subjects. Just like Asian Americans, African Americans, European Americans, etc are all “Americans” we don’t consider them the same ethnicity even if they have been in the US for centuries. David Duke and Angela Davis are both Americans (and both named after the same, Jewish, biblical figure) but I’d be surprised if anyone said that they shared an ethnicity.
The second paragraph is not consistent with the rabbinic tradition of Judaism, which, before Zionism, was more simply called “Judaism.” King David’s grandmother was a convert. Converts have always been a part of the religion and the Jewish religion makes very little distinction between a person who was born Jewish and a person converted. And the child of two converts is just as Jewish as King David. Even the Convert is just as Jewish as any other Jew despite having no Jewish bloodline. I linked a podcast episode in another comment chain here that goes into much more detail and cites historical sources for these claims (that particular podcaster is much more qualified to speak on this issue than me).
That first quote is such a weak argument too. People get kicked out of places all the time for doing illegal and terrible things. Who is this "we" that goes "after the bad guys and holds them accountable"? What does that even mean?
And while we're at it, why wouldn't there be some sort of interdiction with the post office? Are "we" not telling the government about these bad guys doing illegal and/or terrible things? Are "we" Batman or something?
I see what you did they’re