A Question for Jose

ForeverYoung436

Gold Member
Aug 10, 2009
6,050
1,226
245
So who looks more like a Middle Easterner--the Jewish Gal Gidot (who's the new Wonder Woman) or the Arab Queen Noor of Jordan? You were always into racial stereotyping.
 
Sorry for the delay, I was on a business trip (not that I'm a wealthy businessman, far from it... just a poor devil who sells stuff in other cities to avoid starvation) and came back this morning.

Racial stereotyping is an excellent way to distinguish the colonists from the native people in most of the ethnocratic conflicts that occurred in human history.

These were the settlers in all the conflicts that occurred in the New World, from Canada to Argentina:

03143_Montage_of_Englishmen.jpg

and these were the natives:

nativeee.jpg

Settlers in Australia:

Banished-cast-L.jpg

Native of Australia:

Carmencitta-The-Australian-Aborigines-%E2%80%94-A-Unique-People7.jpg

Settlers in South Africa:

_74612901_3.jpg

Natives of South Africa:

Clothing-of-South-African-Zulu-Tribe-Women.jpg

In all those conflicts and many others throughout the world racial characteristics gives us an INFALLIBLE way to separate the natives from the invaders, a level of accuracy of 100%.

The same cannot be said about the I-P conflict.

Racial characteristics provides us with a good indicator of natives and settlers in Palestine, but they are not by any means an INFALLIBLE or even an excellent way to distinguish the two groups as you correctly pointed out.

This is due to the fact that you do have a considerable OVERLAP between the european Jews and the levantine arabs from Palestine. An overlap between the "darker end" of the askhenazi racial spectrum and the "lighter end" of the levantine arab racial spectrum.

In simple terms:

If someone who can't even find Israel/Palestine on a map were given a photograph of Gal Gadot and Saeb Erakat he/she wouldn't be able to tell who's the european Jew and who's the levantine arab simply by looking at the photographs.

If this is the "confession" you wanted me to make, here am I... openly conceding this fact:

Race is not a definitive, infallible (not even excellent) marker to distinguish settlers from natives in Palestine.
 
Last edited:
If this were the only argument made by you, FY, we would end our discussion in perfect agreement... nolo contendere, no contest, no argument here.

The whole problem begins when Zionists try to imply that Gal Gadot's brown eyes and dark hair constitute proof of jewish or even semitic ancestry.

Gadot's phenotype falls completely within the dark end of the european racial spectrum.

She has dark eyes and hair due to the simple fact that millions of her fellow europeans from Lisbon to Vladivostok also have those features.

If you pick a ramdom selection of 100 european Jews and 100 arabs from Palestine you'll be able to correctly tell their ethnic origin in 70, 80% (or even more) of the cases, far above the 50% you'd get if you made a random choice.

Now if you pick a random selection of 100 european christians and 100 european Jews you'll never get anything far above 50% because they are racially identical.

Ironically, the Nazis, of all people, were the first ones to grudgingly recognize this undeniable reality when they ordered european Jews to wear badges wherever they went.

Despite all their theories about Jews constituting a separate race, they were forced to deal with the REAL WORLD, where it's impossible to tell who's an european Jew and who's an european Gentile.
 
Huh. See? Now, I would have thought the only correct answer to the OP would be something like, "The entire idea of racial stereotyping is abhorrent."
 
So present credible evidence that 100% of the colonists in the Americas, South Africa and Australia WERE NOT caucasians, members of a different racial group from the natives of those regions.

Now, if you cannot present any evidence, SHUT UP and accept the fact that race is an infallible marker ("stereotype") to separate settlers from natives in MOST (but not all) colonialist, ethnocratic conflicts.
 
There is no such thing as "race" and the very idea of using the term in modern times is abhorrent in all cases.
 
Your failure to present any evidence that the totality of settlers in the Americas, SA and Oz did not belong to a different race than that of the natives was duly noted.

So there's absolutely nothing wrong with stereotyping colonists and natives in many ethnocratic conflicts as being of different races no matter how socially constructed and polemic the concept of race may be (this is a valid but completely irrelevant issue to the present discussion).
 
Your failure to present any evidence that the totality of settlers in the Americas, SA and Oz did not belong to a different race than that of the natives was duly noted.

So there's absolutely nothing wrong with stereotyping colonists and natives in many ethnocratic conflicts as being of different races no matter how socially constructed and polemic the concept of race may be (this is a valid but completely irrelevant issue to the present discussion).

You are insistent that the Jewish people be equalled to the Caucasian Europeans, when they are truly Caucasians from Asia Minor.

If one were to equate the Jewish people with any other people, I, for one, would equate their history with those of the Polynesian people who also came from one region of the world and spread to various Pacific areas like New Zealand and Hawaii. And needless to say, they do not necessarily look like each other, and one can tell which is which because they spent a long time in one place without being approached by other peoples.

Both Jews and Polynesians, and many other people had their looks changed depending where they ended. The same with the First Nations, or the Australian
Aboriginals. Do they Aboriginals look like any other African tribe from Africa (where they most probably came from long ago? )

Very simply, is it not possible that a people will change its appearance when living for a long time in another part of the world?

Haven't the Jews been traveling and living outside of their homeland for about 3000
years or so?

Why insist that if some people look a certain look, than they are not of a certain place when DNA, and every future decider of where people come from - as it is bound to happen - points that the European Jews you insist are Europeans, actually originate from the Land of Israel, ancient Canaan?

You may be the one who needs to provide evidence that if a people come from one point in the world and live for thousands of years in another, that they now belong only to the second, or third, etc point where they ended up.

Judaism was always a melting pot of people. With people of all looks.

You and others keep trying to put Jews in a box where the only look allowed is the look you have all decided is the allowed one.

It was never so, it is not so, and will not be so.
 
Originally posted by Sixties Fan
Why insist that if some people look a certain look, than they are not of a certain place when DNA, and every future decider of where people come from - as it is bound to happen - points that the European Jews you insist are Europeans, actually originate from the Land of Israel, ancient Canaan?

DNA "research" paid for by the Israeli government or israeli colleges and sympathizers are not worth a roll of used toilet paper.

The genetic origins of askhenazi Jews (the founders of Israel) is the most politically charged issue of the 20th and 21th centuries.

Anyone who believes their "results" about the "semitic" origin of Askhenazis is either a Zionist or a total idiot. Probably both.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Sixities Fan
Very simply, is it not possible that a people will change its appearance when living for a long time in another part of the world?

Haven't the Jews been traveling and living outside of their homeland for about 3000 years or so?

Of course it is possible.... that's the whole point.

Askhenazis are undistinguishable from the gentile population of Europe because genetically they are one and the same people.

Falashas are undistinguishable from other Ethiopians because they are Ethiopians of jewish faith.

Indian Jews.... same as above.

Chinese Jews.... same as above.

You're complicating things too much...

"Jews went to Europe and magically developed European appearance."

Askhenazis look like Europeans because this is what they are, europeans of jewish faith.
 
Originally posted by Sixties Fan
Judaism was always a melting pot of people. With people of all looks.

Now you're starting to get it:

Europeans of jewish faith.

Ethiopians of jewish faith.

Indians of jewish faith.

Han chinese of jewish faith.

etc, etc, etc...
 
Originally posted by Sixties Fan
Judaism was always a melting pot of people. With people of all looks
.

Now you're starting to get it:

Europeans of jewish faith.

Ethiopians of jewish faith.

Indians of jewish faith.

Han chinese of jewish faith.

etc, etc, etc...
No, that is not what I meant, and you skipped the rest of the post because you do not want to acknowledge what I wrote about.

You are not going to be able to change the DNA of the Jews who came back to their homeland from European countries to make them BE Europeans.

Do you acknowledge that those Jews are like any of the other Jews, like the Sepharadi and Mizrahi who spent a long time out of their homeland, but they came from that land, instead of Europe, or Mesopotamia, Arabia etc?

The original 12 tribes were neither Ethiopian, European, Indians, Chinese, Arabs or from any other land outside of the Land of Israel, ancient Canaan.
 
Discussion of DNA in this context is also morally abhorrent, imo.
 
Your failure to present any evidence that the totality of settlers in the Americas, SA and Oz did not belong to a different race than that of the natives was duly noted.

So there's absolutely nothing wrong with stereotyping colonists and natives in many ethnocratic conflicts as being of different races no matter how socially constructed and polemic the concept of race may be (this is a valid but completely irrelevant issue to the present discussion).


Why are you focussed ONLY on those particular colonizations? Colonizations, invasions, conquests, migrations, intermarriages and ethnic conflicts have happened in ALL places in the world and at ALL times and by all peoples. There is no reason to focus on so few as though there is some significance.
 
Discussion of DNA in this context is also morally abhorrent, imo.
Not to me.
Not when the intent on the other side is to deny that a people did come from a certain place and not where they insist they came from and therefore have no rights to that place.

With the Jewish people, they maintained a presence in their homeland, at all times.
Always considered it their homeland, and all invaders knew it to be theirs.

The Zionist European excuse is just that. An excuse to deny all Jews their ancient homeland, and that is exactly what Jose's intention is.

They do not look like such and such, therefore they cannot be from such and such.

Such a excuse for denying a people their homeland has never been used before until the Jewish People regained sovereignty over a small part of their homeland.

What is morally abhorrent to me is Christian and Muslim denial of what they know to be true.

The Jewish people are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, and not the Arabs.
 
Sorry for the delay, I was on a business trip (not that I'm a wealthy businessman, far from it... just a poor devil who sells stuff in other cities to avoid starvation) and came back this morning.

Racial stereotyping is an excellent way to distinguish the colonists from the native people in most of the ethnocratic conflicts that occurred in human history.

These were the settlers in all the conflicts that occurred in the New World, from Canada to Argentina:

03143_Montage_of_Englishmen.jpg

and these were the natives:

nativeee.jpg

Settlers in Australia:

Banished-cast-L.jpg

Native of Australia:

Carmencitta-The-Australian-Aborigines-%E2%80%94-A-Unique-People7.jpg

Settlers in South Africa:

_74612901_3.jpg

Natives of South Africa:

Clothing-of-South-African-Zulu-Tribe-Women.jpg

In all those conflicts and many others throughout the world racial characteristics gives us an INFALLIBLE way to separate the natives from the invaders, a level of accuracy of 100%.

The same cannot be said about the I-P conflict.

Racial characteristics provides us with a good indicator of natives and settlers in Palestine, but they are not by any means an INFALLIBLE or even an excellent way to distinguish the two groups as you correctly pointed out.

This is due to the fact that you do have a considerable OVERLAP between the european Jews and the levantine arabs from Palestine. An overlap between the "darker end" of the askhenazi racial spectrum and the "lighter end" of the levantine arab racial spectrum.

In simple terms:

If someone who can't even find Israel/Palestine on a map were given a photograph of Gal Gadot and Saeb Erakat he/she wouldn't be able to tell who's the european Jew and who's the levantine arab simply by looking at the photographs.

If this is the "confession" you wanted me to make, here am I... openly conceding this fact:

Race is not a definitive, infallible (not even excellent) marker to distinguish settlers from natives in Palestine.
Well done.

Discussion of DNA in this context is also morally abhorrent, imo.
I believe you are simply saying this because of how clearly it shows the hypocrisy and outright falsehood that your narrative is based upon.
 
Discussion of DNA in this context is also morally abhorrent, imo.
Not to me.
Not when the intent on the other side is to deny that a people did come from a certain place and not where they insist they came from and therefore have no rights to that place.

With the Jewish people, they maintained a presence in their homeland, at all times.
Always considered it their homeland, and all invaders knew it to be theirs.

The Zionist European excuse is just that. An excuse to deny all Jews their ancient homeland, and that is exactly what Jose's intention is.

They do not look like such and such, therefore they cannot be from such and such.

Such a excuse for denying a people their homeland has never been used before until the Jewish People regained sovereignty over a small part of their homeland.

What is morally abhorrent to me is Christian and Muslim denial of what they know to be true.

The Jewish people are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, and not the Arabs.

Preaching to the choir, my friend.

But this is not the place to try to meet them where they are. It is a place where we must reject their premise entirely.
 
I believe you are simply saying this because of how clearly it shows the hypocrisy and outright falsehood that your narrative is based upon.

Not in the slightest. There is no hypocrisy in my point of view. I apply the same standards universally, to all peoples in all places.

If the standard were to measure people using DNA, would you be prepared to submit the Arabs to the same standards? Are you prepared to use DNA to assign people to their supposed homeland? If an Arab Palestinian has "too much" Egyptian blood, would you begin to call them Egyptian rather than Palestinian? Would that Egyptian lose rights to their home in "Palestine"?

The use of racial traits or DNA is abhorrent. It negates human experience and identity and belonging.
 
With all due respect, Judaism is a religion, Egypt is a place and you don't even understand the obvious point here. Caucasians (a race) were never in Palestine until quite recently. There is no way Caucasians (regardless of their chosen religion) can claim any part of that area as their ancestral homeland. This is extremely obvious to everyone, but you and your ilk.
 
With all due respect, Judaism is a religion, Egypt is a place and you don't even understand the obvious point here. Caucasians (a race) were never in Palestine until quite recently. There is no way Caucasians (regardless of their chosen religion) can claim any part of that area as their ancestral homeland. This is extremely obvious to everyone, but you and your ilk.

Really? That is your solution to conflict?

White people should be in Europe. Black people should be in Africa. Yellow people in Asia. Brown people in the ME. And Red people in the Americas?

Do you have any idea how blatantly disgusting your racism is?

Your premise is also wildly incorrect. No one is arguing that Jewish rights to their ancestral and historical homeland stems from their WHITENESS. (Because --- ewwwww -- racism). At the same time their WHITENESS is not a reason to reject their claims to their historical territory. (Because -- ewwwww -- racism).
 

Forum List

Back
Top