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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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).
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?
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?
Originally posted by Sixties Fan
Judaism was always a melting pot of people. With people of all looks.
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.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...
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).
Not to me.Discussion of DNA in this context is also morally abhorrent, imo.
Well done.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:
and these were the natives:
Settlers in Australia:
Native of Australia:
Settlers in South Africa:
Natives of South Africa:
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.
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.Discussion of DNA in this context is also morally abhorrent, imo.
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.
I believe you are simply saying this because of how clearly it shows the hypocrisy and outright falsehood that your narrative is based upon.
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.