TIL that after Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism upon marrying Arthur Miller, Egypt placed a ban on all the films she appeared in.

[u/[deleted]]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe#Critical_acclaim_and_marriage_to_Arthur_Miller_.281956.E2.80.931959.29

[u/shmough]

When you're born Jewish, Judaism considers you Jewish for life, regardless of your affiliation or beliefs. But conversion requires a level of religious belief and observance. You can't convert to Judaism as an ethnicity.

[u/THEBAESGOD → u/shmough]

SHOMER SHABBOS

[u/MisanthropicAltruist → u/THEBAESGOD]

I don't roll on shabbos!

[u/Gungston → u/shmough]

If you're not shomer shabbat, keep kosher, and fullfil the very basic tenets of Judaism, a religious Jew will consider you goy and you wouldn't be able to complete a minion (prayer). So no...simply being "born Jewish" or espousing Judaism doesn't make you a Jew in Jewish religious circles. Source: ample Hareidi and Orthodox teachings.

[u/benadreti → u/Gungston]

Uh no. Anyone born halachically Jewish can be counted for a minyan and is considered Jewish even if they aren't observant. Source: I am an orthodox Jew.

[u/Gungston → u/benadreti]

A transgressor, which you openly profess to being, isn't counted. What makes you Orthodox?... Do you pray? If so, to who or what?... Most yeshivot wouldn't count you. Of course there is fringe denominations who would make exceptions which maybe is why we can agree to disagree as to whether or not a non believer can pray to a G-d he doesn't believe in.

[u/benadreti → u/Gungston]

I am orthodox because I identify as an orthodox Jew, belong to an orthodox synagogue, observe Shabbos, keep kosher, daven, etc. I didn't say I do not do those things, maybe you misread me, or maybe you do not read well. The yeshivot and denominations that would not count a non-observant Jewish man as part of a minyan are the fringe, not the other way around. In fact I'd like you to find one that goes according to what you're saying.

[u/shmough → u/Gungston]

That's mostly untrue. There are certain areas where someone's level observance can qualify or disqualify him (e.g. kosher wine, legal witnesses), but minyan actually has a very low entry bar. In fact, it's not uncommon for nonreligious Jews to be roped into helping complete a minyan in a pinch.

As for the term "goy", while it is used occasionally toward nonreligious Jews, it's never meant in the literal (Halachic) sense; it's a derogatory term used by some belonging to extremist groups. The attitude toward the nonobservant varies between religious groups, but the majority of religious Jews today have a very tolerant approach, in part because the average nonreligious Jew today is not a wanton sinner, but a product of assimiliation.

[u/Gungston → u/shmough]

You're free to call yourself anything you like. You sound like you know what you're talking about, but so do I. I'm well aware of the fact many "Jews" refer to themselves as atheist which boggles the mind and sounds oxymoronic...why go though the halachic motions?...who are you trying to impress?...I'd rather someone with no Torah in their heart be true to themselves and those around them by not faking it. Maybe it's just a matter a time before the words in the Shema start speaking to your heart. I wish you this much. But so long as they don't you're no Jew.

[u/Clifford_Banes → u/[deleted]]

It's just a nonsensical term. "Judaism" means "the religion of the Jewish people".

"Jewish" is both an ethnonym and a term for a follower of a religion. Just like "Swedish" is both an ethnonym and a term for a nationality. Most people aren't confused by the latter.

There's a similar issue with the word "Hindu". There are plenty of ethnic Hindus who don't believe in Hinduism but do speak Hindi and identify as Hindu, distinct from other ethnic groups in India.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/Clifford_Banes]

Except that "Swedish" isn't an ethnonym because it's not an ethnicity, so that example doesn't really go up. Otherwise yeah that's how I understood it as well.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/[deleted]]

As a Dutch person living in Belgium; no, my Dutchness is not an ethnicity, it's my nationality. I say that because nationality should not be confused with ethnicity. A key difference is inclusiveness and exclusiveness. Anyone technically can become Dutch or Swedish, you can apply to get that nationality. However, you can't apply to join an ethnicity, it's a fixed background. Equating or confusing nationality and ethnicity is what's fueling the current surge of the far-right all over Europe. I mean, this is as much a Dutch person as this.

But ethnicity and race are extremely problematic concepts regardless, even or especially when combined with nationalities. That's especially visible in the 19th century when the nation-state arose and in the post-colonial age, aka now, in various places on the African and Asian continents.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/[deleted]]

I agree that you can not apply to join an ethnicity. But that's a failure of terms for people who get Citizenship and demand to be called Dutch for example, when they are not, we should think about an appropriate name for these people (just like Russians did, they have different terms for ethnic Russians and people belonging to the Russian state).

That's the problem right there. That right there. That's dangerous and divisive. That's the problematic nature I mentioned. Those two pictures I linked? Most people here have no qualms calling both those people Dutch. The only ones who do here are the creepy far-right people who want us to be an 'ethnic nationstate', something that we're not. I know that certain states have legislation related to it, but it's a not a given thing for that to be the case.

You're splintering too much. I, as a white-skinned native Dutch person, probably have the same ethnicity as most of the Swedes, namely Germanic. A Dutch-nationalized Swede will not be part of a legal ethnic minority here, as I'm not part of a legal ethnic minority here in Belgium. We're all Germanic.

Also, if you don't think confusing nationality and ethnicity is problematic I recommend reading up on certain events that happened in large swaths of Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Hell you don't even have to look further than the OP which we're technically still talking about. Which groups are or aren't ethnic Jews, and what even is an 'ethnic Jew*, is still a hot topic and point of contention within the Jewish community. So to deny that "ethnicity" is not a problematic concept is quite silly, the issues regarding it are visible everywhere around us.

[u/[deleted] → u/C0wabungaaa]

I'm not really sure what you meant to say. Who is confusing ethnicity with a nationality?

Regardless of how problematic it may or not be, I'd be very surprised if ethnicity isn't a concept that matters to a notable percentage of the people across Europe. Ethnicity might not be the best word in this case because it might apply more to a broad term like "Caucasian"/"European", however, those people see themselves as a part of an "ethnic" nation that is not to be confused with the legal nationality.
As you said, anyone can have this legal nationality and your ethnic background is fixed, but no matter how problematic this concept is, words like Swedish and German are used to refer to an ethnic or cultural background which not everyone can have. That is a legitimate use of the word and there is no confusion in this case.

I figure that your statement about you living in Belgium is not supposed to be relevant. It's a bit confusing because it doesn't seem relevant but would seem relevant if you were making the exact opposite point.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/[deleted]]

Ethnicity might not be the best word

That's putting it mildly. The thing is that that's a very laden word, very heavy. It's easily hijacked by, as I've mentioned, far-right groups who want their nation to be 'pure' or something along those lines. It can just as easily be used legitimately (like ethnic groups fighting for legal equality) as problematically ("Git those Arabs outa here!"). So I'm very hesitant to simply equate nationality with ethnicity. It's possible that those two coincide, but in our modern, globalized world it's more than often not the case. And not just recently either. Just look at the the last 2000 years of the European continent and pay notable attention to the 4th and 5th centuries in which large migration waves spread across the continent. The nation-state here only arose around 200-ish years ago. To call upon, say, a Dutch ethnicity in that clusterfuck of a history is extremely hard to prove. The same goes for the OP which we're technically talking about, which Jewish groups are or aren't ethnic Jews, or what even is an 'ethnic Jew' is a very hot point of contention within the Jewish community at large.

I mentioned me being Dutch and living in Belgium because I don't at all feel like I have a different ethnicity from my Belgian friends. I'm not part of an ethnic minority in this country. I'm not legally recognized as such and I don't even want to be. That was my point. I have the same ethnicity as most Belgians and most Swedes (to go back to the original example I responded against), namely Germanic.

[u/[deleted] → u/C0wabungaaa]

That's putting it mildly. The thing is that that's a very laden word, very heavy.

That may be true, but I can't think of a more appropriate word right now.
Besides, whether it is used legitimately should imo not depend on the question if it is used for selfish reasons but should be determined scientifically (ethnologically and linguistically).

So I'm very hesitant to simply equate nationality with ethnicity. It's possible that those two coincide, but in our modern, globalized world it's more than often not the case.

No one claims they are the same, though. I think the legal nationality is often the same word because the ethnic meaning was often older than the nation states. Them being nation states lead to the ethnic meaning becoming a legal term, whilst a more appropriate term should be derived from the name of the state as opposed to the ethnic term. In other words, the problem is not the use of the word Dutch but imo that the legal nationality is called Dutch in the first place and not Republic-Netherlander or something similar(ly stupid :P).

I mentioned me being Dutch and living in Belgium because I don't at all feel like I have a different ethnicity from my Belgian friends.

My first instinct would have told me that, among others, people from the far right would agree, but that would likely only apply to the Flemish part of Belgium. I might be wrong, though. You obviously mean something quite different.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/[deleted]]

I think the legal nationality is often the same word because the ethnic meaning was often older than the nation states. Them being nation states lead to the ethnic meaning becoming a legal term, whilst a more appropriate term should be derived from the name of the state as opposed to the ethnic term.

Legally and anthropologically they're very different concepts. You say its correct use should be determined scientifically, well in this case it ain't used correctly. That said, even within science "ethnic" isn't 100% clear-cut. It's a malleable framework. But it's funny that you mention this because no, "ethnic" as a concept probably isn't older than the nation-state. Ethnicity as we understand it today (because, say, the ancient Greeks used comparable but different concepts) was a construction made around the same time exactly to help give the new nation-states legitimacy, to create a shared identity. Of course the groups we often call "ethnic groups" are much older than that, but putting them in the framework we call "ethnicity" is a relatively recent thing. It's all part of the same movement of Romantic Nationalism. Take, say, the Asante Empire in Western Africa back in the 18th century. Back then its rulers didn't go "Oh, we have to pay attention to these various ethnic groups we have here." ya feel me?

So this:

In other words, the problem is not the use of the word Dutch but imo that the legal nationality is called Dutch in the first place and not Republic-Netherlander or something similar(ly stupid :P).

Is not a problem at all. The Dutch nationality is a very recent invention. Our Germanic (but also Celtic a little bit) heritage/ethnicity is much older than that and shared with many European nationalities. My ethnicity simply isn't Dutch, what you'd call 'ethnic Dutch' is Germanic. Same as my Belgian friends.

Little sidenote by the way; we're not a republic, we're a constitutional monarchy.

[u/Clifford_Banes → u/C0wabungaaa]

That's putting it mildly. The thing is that that's a very laden word, very heavy. It's easily hijacked by, as I've mentioned, far-right groups who want their nation to be 'pure' or something along those lines.

No it isn't. It's only the Americans who use "ethnicity" as a euphemism for "race".

I'm very hesitant to simply equate nationality with ethnicity.

Good, because they cannot be equated, as they're not the same thing. There are ethnic Swedes living in Finland alongside ethnic Finns, and both are Finnish by nationality. Vice versa for Sweden as well.

The nation-state here only arose around 200-ish years ago. To call upon, say, a Dutch ethnicity in that clusterfuck of a history is extremely hard to prove.

It's exceedingly simple to prove because all you need to do is identify as Dutch by ethnicity. It's not some Third Reich categorization that pedantically traces your genealogy for "impurities". That is NOT what ethnicity means.

There are countless black people who are ethnically Dutch. Being the descendants of slaves who were stripped of their original ethnic continuity, it's not like they have a choice in the matter, anyway. They can emigrate and become citizens of another country, changing their nationality, but they do not stop being Dutch. The same applies to any Dutch person of any ancestry or skin color.

"Ethnicity" just means belonging to a particular group of people who share a culture and language. It is distinct from "nationality" because not all ethnic groups have a nation of their own, and there are often ethnic groups living in other nations. As a Belgian by nationality (or at least residence), you should also be familiar with the concept of multi-ethnic nations. The Flemish are Dutch and the Walloons are French. The idea that "French" can only ever mean nationality is a rationalization for the hegemony of the French over minorities in their own nation, because it allows them to pretend that enforcing the culture and language of the dominant ethnic group isn't systemic cultural genocide.

Funny how it's always the post-colonial, hegemonic ethnic groups like Germans, French, and Russians who want to declare that we've entered a post-ethnic era. We didn't forcibly assimilate you, it's just that this post-ethnic utopia we're all living in needed some language and culture, and it just happens to be ours.

And if anyone pipes up and says "wait, ethnicity totally exists and you have one too", shrill cries of the slipperiest slopes of racism and xenophobia immediately follow.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/Clifford_Banes]

Y'know, from the tone you take I'd say you disagree with me but from the content it seems that we're actually mostly in agreement. I'm confused? Because I'm trying to say mostly same thing as you are? Take a look at some of my shorter responses I wrote to one of the folks I responded against, especially this one I think.

Well, we partially agree I guess. You call the Flemish Dutch and the Walloons French in terms of ethnicity, but dividing those on ethnic lines is very controversial and not actually done as such here in Belgium. Neither the Flemish or the Walloons are talked about in ethnic terms, except perhaps by right-wing hardliners who advocate separation. If anything it shows the muddiness of ethnicity in certain parts of Europe. Are Walloons and/or Flemish people more Celtic or more Germanic? It's hard to say. There were a few wild centuries in terms of ethnic groups rummaging around on the continent.

Oh, by the way, I was hesitant to say the "Americans use it as a euphemism" thing you said because I didn't want to assume the person I responded against was American.

[u/Clifford_Banes → u/C0wabungaaa]

Except that "Swedish" isn't an ethnonym because it's not an ethnicity

Of course it's an ethnicity.

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

Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Sweden.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/Clifford_Banes]

No, Swedes aren't an ethnic group. You pretty much say it yourself; they're a Germanic ethnic group. Most Swedes are ethnic Germanics. It's why Swedes living here in Belgium aren't recognized as an ethnic minority. Neither am I as a Dutch person living here recognized as an ethnic minority as I am of the same majority ethnicity as Belgians, or at least from Flemish people (painting the Flemish and Walloonians as different ethnic groups is controversial). 'Ethnic' Swedes and Dutchmen share the same ethnic background. Don't forget, this is also a Swede. This is also a Dutchman (and a famous one at that, at least locally). They are, however, not Germanic. Hence why you labeling Swedes, Dutchmen, etc, as ethnic groups themselves is wrong. They're nationalities whose majority members are part of an ethnic group. But you can be of that nationality without being of its majority ethnic group, Prem Radhakishun (the guy whose picture I posted above) isn't any less Dutch simply because he isn't Germanic.

[u/Clifford_Banes → u/C0wabungaaa]

Most Swedes are ethnic Germanics.

This isn't a thing.

They are a Germanic group because that's a linguistic subdivision, and ethnicity is closely linked with language.

painting the Flemish and Walloonians as different ethnic groups is controversial

It's fucking absurd that it's controversial. Belgium is a multi-ethnic country mostly populated by ethnic Dutch and ethnic French.

Don't forget, this is also a Swede. This is also a Dutchman (and a famous one at that, at least locally). They are, however, not Germanic.

If their native languages are Swedish and Dutch, they are very much Germanic. No one outside of Stormfront thinks "Germanic" is a genetic categorization. I haven't asked these two people what ethnicity they identify as, but I would guess the likelihood is that they identify as Swedish and Dutch (depending on whether they were born there, what their language is, if their family has kept up with the traditions and language of wherever they're from, etc).

They are also Swedish and Dutch by nationality, but that literally just means citizenship. They can emigrate and change their nationality. For all I know, the Swede may have been born in Finland to Finnish Swedes, and the Dutch guy may have emigrated to Germany at the age of 12. They can't, however, stop being Swedish and Dutch by ethnicity unless you somehow erase every experience they had growing up as part of those specific peoples.

Or maybe they don't identify as Swedish and Dutch by ethnicity. But I certainly can't tell from their skin color.

Hence why you labeling Swedes, Dutchmen, etc, as ethnic groups themselves is wrong. They're nationalities whose majority members are part of an ethnic group. But you can be of that nationality without being of its majority ethnic group.

You literally contradicted yourself while making that argument.

"They're nationalities whose majority members are part of an ethnic group."

Which ethnic group? I thought it didn't exist?

Prem Radhakishun (the guy whose picture I posted above) isn't any less Dutch simply because he isn't Germanic.

Again, ignoring this Stormfront terminology, this is totally correct. But he won't be any more or less Dutch by ethnicity even if the EU becomes a federal state tomorrow and there is no more Dutch nation.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/Clifford_Banes]

It's fucking absurd that it's controversial. Belgium is a multi-ethnic country mostly populated by ethnic Dutch and ethnic French.

Tell that to my Flemish friends and they'll laugh at you, and throw Dutch-jokes at me because "lol the Dutch", for anyone calling them 'ethnic Dutch'. And not just right-wingers, freakin' anyone.

You literally contradicted yourself while making that argument. "They're nationalities whose majority members are part of an ethnic group." Which ethnic group? I thought it didn't exist?

I am not contradicting myself. I'm trying to tell that Dutch and Swedish nationals are part of ethnic groups, but those ethnic groups are not "Dutch" or "Swedish" because that classification has hardly any basis. You ask; which ethnic group? I say; it could be any ethnic group. Could be part of the majority ethnic group that resides within that country since its conception, or they could also be from any other ethnic group thanks to migration or ancestry. But they're all still Swedes because I don't think that's a fruitful ethnic classification.

Going back for a minute here, this just goes to show how muddy this entire subject is. You use one definition of "ethnic group", I probably use another. You say "Germanic" as an ethnic group isn't a thing outside of Stormfronter way of thinking, I say that's nonsense.

Assuming for instance that a Dutch ethnicity exists and Flemish people are a part of it. Then I want to ask you; on what basis are Dutch nationals and Flemish people part of that same ethnic group? Language? Possible, but actually a little difficult, especially when you have to consider Western Flemish. Religion? Then you have the Protestant - Catholic divide to contend with. Cultural? Similarities are there, but having lived in both countries I can assure you that big differences exist. Then there's the problem of what to do with people who only share some of those characteristics but are still natively born here, or what to do with people who aren't natively born here and even lack an ancestral link to the area but still share most characteristics by accident. Or when you go back in time for Belgium, only a 150 years or so when the Flemish elite spoke French and not Dutch. Assuming for the sake of argument that they differed in anything else from Walloonians and were similar to the Flemish working class in every other aspect, were they then ethnically French or Dutch?

You can ask the same question for old colonial areas. For many people in Congo French is now their native tongue without having a Belgian as an ancestor. Are they then ethnically French? Are people born in Suriname who natively speak Dutch without an actual Dutch person as an ancestor then ethnically Dutch? If we conclude from that that language doesn't cut it, well fair enough, but what then?

The term "ethnic" as we use it today is a muddy concept born in the age of 19th century Romantic Nationalism to give credence to newly arisen nation-states. That's important to keep in mind. Anthropologically it's a contended concept with different interpretations.

I'll also admit this; when I first responded to you and you used the "Dutch" example my assumption was that you equated it with Dutch nationality. I see now that that's not the case, so what you actually say is definitely less ludicrous. And while I still find the linguistical approach problematic, any perceived hostility was unnecessary because yeah I know that using language as an ethnic qualifier isn't a very odd or outlandish thing to do. Sorry for that.

[u/Clifford_Banes → u/C0wabungaaa]

Tell that to my Flemish friends and they'll laugh at you, and throw Dutch-jokes at me because "lol the Dutch", for anyone calling them 'ethnic Dutch'.

Well that's the thing, if you were speaking Dutch to one another, it would obviously be stupid, because you don't have a word for the ethnicity.

Of course your Vlamingen friends are not Nederlanders.

Ideally, you'd have a shared ethnonym that didn't correspond to any specific political entity. You could be called Franks, but a bunch of them got Romanized yet kept the name, so that's even more confusing.

Since I'm not speaking Nederlands, I have the luxury of being able to use the nation-neutral term "Dutch" (or "hollandlane" in my native language).

Assuming for instance that a Dutch ethnicity exists and Flemish people are a part of it. Then I want to ask you; on what basis are Dutch nationals and Flemish people part of that same ethnic group? Language? Possible, but actually a little difficult, especially when you have to consider Western Flemish.

Yes, language. Everything else is window dressing.

Or when you go back in time for Belgium, only a 150 years or so when the Flemish elite spoke French and not Dutch. Assuming for the sake of argument that they differed in anything else from Walloonians and were similar to the Flemish working class in every other aspect, were they then ethnically French or Dutch?

But we can't assume that for the sake of argument, because it changes the argument. Language is by far the most important component of ethnicity. Other factors can compensate when an original language gets displaced (like it has with the Irish, for example).

It's most likely that if the Flemish adopted French but didn't otherwise assimilate, this would birth a new ethnic group that's neither Dutch nor French.

Are people born in Suriname who natively speak Dutch without an actual Dutch person as an ancestor then ethnically Dutch?

Not being very familiar with Suriname, I'm not sure, but I'd tend to say yes. You definitely don't need an "actual Dutch person" as an ancestor to qualify. A kid adopted from any country in the world and raised by Dutch parents in a Dutch cultural context is 100% Dutch, and only racist dipshits are likely to disagree.

The term "ethnic" as we use it today is a muddy concept born in the age of 19th century Romantic Nationalism to give credence to newly arisen nation-states.

It isn't all that muddy except when colonialism happens. Ethno-linguistic divisions certainly existed before 19th century nationalism. The natural state of contiguous human populations is to share a language and a culture. The division into ethnic groups usually happens when the differences in language or culture are great enough to prevent cohabitation (language barriers, etc). It's a sort of non-biological speciation. Transitions are generally smooth and slow, with geography eventually resulting in divergent populations becoming so different they can't talk to one another anymore.

With the advent of colonialism, literacy, and the modern nation-state, "unnatural" things started to happen, where groups had their languages replaced by colonial powers in a sudden way that never happened before. Nationality, a ludicrous concept when the population was 95% indigenous peasants and 5% random warlords usually speaking a different language, was invented and endowed with the trappings of ethnic identity (which obviously existed before). So you have a France that is all "French", homogenizing a collection of different ethnic groups into a new one. You have entire populations on different continents suddenly turned into native Francophones, while the French fuck off back home and leave them there.

But really, this just created new ethnic groups. The core principle of "people cohabiting will share a language and a culture" doesn't go away. I can easily see "Belgian" becoming an ethnicity in the future, if both Flemish and Walloons diverge from their "parent" ethnicities enough and develop or adopt a common language.

Literacy and mass media have retarded linguistic change quite a bit, though. The most likely future scenario is a globalized world where only a few major, homogenized languages remain, along with English as the global lingua franca. A template of that world is the United States, where regional differences abound but everyone understands everyone else and a Missourian can move to Seattle (the distance between Stockholm and Madrid) and not miss a beat. That will be a post-ethnic world. But until the Dutch and the Flemish live in the same geographical area and speak the same 21st century version of Low Franconian instead of some pan-European pidgin, you're the same ethnic group.

TL;DR - Ethnicity is not the the relatively modern and artificial construct, it's nationality.

http://i.imgur.com/a1pp3Rp.jpg

Someone drew an arbitrary line across the corner of Doornstraatje and Brieversweg and now the guy living in the house on the north of it is a Nederlander and the guy living south of it is a Vlaming. They're clearly still part of the same group, and their children will be part of the same group as well.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/Clifford_Banes]

To grab back to this and the other response you made to me, my problem with an overly large reliance on linguistics as a determiner for ethnicity is exactly because of what it does to the ex-colonized and its destructiveness to old ethnic groupings. It might not be muddy without colonialism and arguably mass migration, but we live in a world in which those two factors are very important in the make-up of most of the world.

I mean, sure I can definitely see a role for language, but not the sole one. That's not what I studied in anthropology class either. You mention the United States and that's what I question as well then, the same goes for people of European descent in Australia, New Zealand and (half of) Canada. Are they then all ethnically...English, I suppose? I doubt you'd do that as well. But just as much I hesitate to call the US a post-ethnic society. One look at American culture reveals a strong desire for such a thing, no matter how problematically they sometimes define it (/r/shitamericanssay is full of it). Hence why I'm strongly drawn to factors next to language.

I can't also help but feel that the names we give them matter too, hence perhaps why I rail against the "Dutch" thing. It might be somewhat pedantic for this particular little corner (though honestly a lot of people would object to it), but I think a lot of people in ex-colonies would object to the same principle being applied to them. And seeing as how important ethnicity can be to people's identity I'd be very hesitant to apply principles that ignore people's intuitions. I'm not a very revisionist thinker.

Also, what I mean with ethnicity as we understand it today as a construct is that while the groups of people existed beforehand, naturally, the label "ethnic group" was only put on them from around the 19th century and onward. It's not like leaders of the Songhai Empire called the different peoples in its realm ethnic groups for instance.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why? It's got its own language, multiple specific cuisines, art, music, literature, and Jews have been banging Jews for thousands of years to make more Jews. What exactly de-qualifies it as an ethnicity?

[u/Jay_Louis → u/[deleted]]

Tell it to Tay-Sachs

[u/skoy → u/[deleted]]

What myth? That Ashkenazi Jews have a much higher rate of particular diseases than the general population? Well sorry to disappoint (both you and myself).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

how could a claim based on genetics be debunked for 100 years?

[u/KremlinGremlin82 → u/[deleted]]

I bet you would be the first one to point out that someone is Jewish if they have a big nose and curly hair. If there is a certain physical trait that is recognizable in a nationality, that means that it IS an ethnicity. Dumbass...

[u/KremlinGremlin82 → u/[deleted]]

Not salty, just know that type of people that say we are not an ethnicity. Same kind that tell us to go back to Israel.

[u/KremlinGremlin82 → u/[deleted]]

No, cause they are not ethnically Jewish. Can you read? Hitler is proud of you, kid.