Know Your History: Jews Transforming The Land(NY Times, 1890-1912)

[Dogmaphobe]

What has all this to do with the NYTimes piece on revitalising the land?

Making the desert bloom?

Some people would prefer malaria to having Jewish neighbors.
It's like every other thread here..

I find myself hoping all the antisemites here would contract malaria.




The sooner, the better.

 

[P F Tinmore]

WHOA,WHOA,WHOA, wait a second, you idiots are on here every day screaming about how there was no Palestine.

Thanks for the post 60s.

We're talking about the land. You know: the LAND. Transforming it. Making things grow.

The Zionists MOOCHED money from all over the world to create their colonial state inside Palestine.

The Palestinians were building their state on their own dime.

Same old boring tripe.

Everything from Rothschild to little blue boxes, Israel was created on the mooch. Even Golda Meier took a trip to the US to mooch money for the war. Israel is always in congress with its hand out. There are "charities" all over the place with their hand out for Israel.

The biggest bunch of freeloaders on the planet.

Indeed the Jewish state was built with the help of wealthy Jewish barons like Hirsh and Rothchild. But those BARONS DIDN'T DRY THE SWAMPS, they didn't plant forests, they didn't FIGHT and bleed for the land.
Those were the working Jews who left everything behind to sweat and build with their own hands.
They did it because they ACTUALLY wanted an independent country, self- determination...while the Palestinians wanted to be ruled by Syria or to be a part of some other bigger Arab state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the Palestinians?
I've heard the amount of money spent on Palestine is bigger than the budget spent on rebuilding Europe after WWII.

All they have is a couple of poor Qatari Emir's,Iran, the UNRWA and beyond that US and the majority of Europe...no mooch at all

I've heard the amount of money spent on Palestine is bigger than the budget spent on rebuilding Europe after WWII.

Very little goes to development. Most is channeled back to Israel.

 

[rylah]

We're talking about the land. You know: the LAND. Transforming it. Making things grow.

The Zionists MOOCHED money from all over the world to create their colonial state inside Palestine.

The Palestinians were building their state on their own dime.

Same old boring tripe.

Everything from Rothschild to little blue boxes, Israel was created on the mooch. Even Golda Meier took a trip to the US to mooch money for the war. Israel is always in congress with its hand out. There are "charities" all over the place with their hand out for Israel.

The biggest bunch of freeloaders on the planet.

Indeed the Jewish state was built with the help of wealthy Jewish barons like Hirsh and Rothchild. But those BARONS DIDN'T DRY THE SWAMPS, they didn't plant forests, they didn't FIGHT and bleed for the land.
Those were the working Jews who left everything behind to sweat and build with their own hands.
They did it because they ACTUALLY wanted an independent country, self- determination...while the Palestinians wanted to be ruled by Syria or to be a part of some other bigger Arab state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the Palestinians?
I've heard the amount of money spent on Palestine is bigger than the budget spent on rebuilding Europe after WWII.

All they have is a couple of poor Qatari Emir's,Iran, the UNRWA and beyond that US and the majority of Europe...no mooch at all

I've heard the amount of money spent on Palestine is bigger than the budget spent on rebuilding Europe after WWII.

Very little goes to development. Most is channeled back to Israel.

Really...I think much of the money goes through the pockets of Arafat and Abbas alikes. As much as convicted murderers and their families. Mooore than enough

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do the indigenous people of the USA have the right to self determination? Hell no they don't. The right to self governance? No. The right to preserve their own culture? No.

I'm not sure if you are trying to say that the First Nations peoples of the US do not have these rights, or that they have not yet the ability to exercise those rights. But according to the UN they most certainly DO have those rights. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Article 3 Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Article 8 1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

Article 11 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.

I asked the question about indigenous because I wanted to see the argument of people on here. People are making an argument, and often on here the arguments aren't very good. So, I try and look at the main parts and see if there's any logic at all.

How am I doing, then?

Jewish people aren't an ethnicity.

That sounds very much you've like something you've made your mind up about. But I'd challenge you to consider where you got this idea. Here's the definition of "ethnicity" again:

the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition

The Jewish people have both a common national and cultural tradition, of which religion is a part, but only a part. So it seems to me that you have to throw out the definition in order to reach your conclusion. And that is faulty logic.

But the point is we're dealing with who is indigenous of a particular piece of land. And the first factor here is that forefathers have to have lived there, and for many Jewish people this just isn't so. Or at least it isn't so for a long period of time. It depends on whether they think they can trace their ancestry back through Russia/Germany/wherever and then back to Palestine, which is probably almost impossible to do. So....

The Jewish people absolutely do believe they can trace their ancestry back to Israel, Judea and Samaria. Proof? Same language. Same religion. Same culture. Same traditions. Same life event practices (birth, marriage, death). Same holidays. Same celebrations. Same rituals. Same clothing peculiarities. Same legal system. Same foods. Same agricultural practices. Same myths. Same literature. Same history.

And again, a reminder that the definition of indigeneity is based on culture.

So it seems to me that while you are claiming to be trying to be fair and balanced, you have actually taken on a position which is untenable given the working definitions which apply to all other groups. You are the one who is working backwards from a belief and trying to justify it. Rather than checking to see if a particular group meets the criteria. As a test, try it out on any other ethnic group. Tell me how you would know they are part of that ethnic group.

Well, the UN can say whatever it likes, they don't have jurisdiction over many places. The Chinese go around the world getting support in the UN for their policies and practices, and then when the UN rules that the South China Seas are not Chinese, the Chinese say "**** off, we're ignoring you". That's the UN.

How are you doing? I don't know yet. I mean, you haven't insulted me, or attacked me, so I'd have to say it's not going badly, but we'll see.

Ethnicity

Definition of ETHNICITY

1. 1: ethnic quality or affiliation aspects of ethnicity
   
   
2. 2: a particular ethnic affiliation or group students of diverse ethnicities
   

Definition of ETHNIC

1a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background ethnic minorities ethnicenclavesb : being a member of a specified ethnic group an ethnic Germanc : of, relating to, or characteristic of a minority ethnic group ethnic neighborhoodsethnic foods

ethnicity - definition of ethnicity in English | Oxford Dictionaries

The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

ethnic - definition of ethnic in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

‘leaders of ethnic communities’

So here were have two dictionaries. One says that religion is an an ethnic group and the other that says it isn't. You could potentially argue that Judaism is a "cultural group" but then you could also go wild with this one.

Men have the tradition of peeing standing up. Does this make men an ethnic group?

Is Christianity an ethnic group? I mean, the differences between Orthodox Christians and wacko jobs from some random far right Christian church in the US might be different, but then so too are many Jewish people different from other Jewish people.

What isn't an ethnic group then if you have a definition as vague as the first one? With such a vague definition then the word is almost impossible to use properly.

But then I understand why it is so vague, because people really aren't that sure what an ethnic group is.

But again, the point is, if you're not from an area, or your grandparents weren't from that area, or your great great great grandparents weren't from the area, you cannot claim to be from that area in terms of ethnicity.

Yes, I have no doubt the Jewish people "believe" a lot of things. We're not talking about "belief" here. We're talking about FACT.

If I believe that I am God, does this mean I don't have to pay taxes? No.
If the Native American people believe they are the rightful owners of the land in the US, does this mean they can do what they like? No.

So what? Again, back to power issues.

Indigenous isn't necessarily based on culture. Culture here is a vague word. If you look at the usage of the word, you'd see there is Germanic ethnicity. Now, these people speak the same language and practice some of the same traditions because they are linked by blood. This is how humanity tends to see things. Bloodlines.

Look at the kings and queens of any country and you often see bloodlines. Kings were intent on making sure their children rose to power, even today we have inheritance laws so our children can have what we have left over when we go. It's the powerful force in society, and ethnicity is more or less about bloodlines. Culture gets passed down from generation to generation, it can be changed, because bloodlines do strange things (like the current British Royal Family doesn't have direct bloodlines with some of their direct bloodline ancestors due to issues with queens having sex with other people and the king being able to do a DNA test believed the son or daughter was his own.)

It's complicated, hence the vagueness, but bloodlines are the important thing for humans.

Now, with religion, people can change. And no doubt many Jews have outside blood, I know half half Jews, one parent is, one isn't. Many of the Muslims in the area potentially have Jewish blood in them too. Does this make them ethnically Jewish? Potentially.

 

[rylah]

Accept for Your fixation on religion, which description didn't match Jews?

 

[louie888]

Accept for Your fixation on religion, which description didn't match Jews?

I see you gave up on your Cyrus' edict gambit.

Well played, effin moron.

 

[rylah]

Accept for Your fixation on religion, which description didn't match Jews?

I see you gave up on your Cyrus' edict gambit.

Well played, effin moron.

What does this have to do with this thread?
You have yet to address my posts in another one where I talk specifically about that.

Try to keep up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I asked the question about indigenous because I wanted to see the argument of people on here. People are making an argument, and often on here the arguments aren't very good. So, I try and look at the main parts and see if there's any logic at all.

Interestingly, there are people, like Ryan Bellerose, who believe that the Arab Palestinian people are ALSO indigenous to that particular piece of land. His reasoning is that the identity of the Arab Palestinians developed on that territory. I'm not sure I agree with him, as Arab Palestinians don't meet the criteria for a distinct culture. But for him, that is enough.

What do you mean by "Arab Palestinians don't meet the criteria for a distinct culture"?

 

[Mindful]

Anti Semites need not reply, or even bother to read.

Making the desert bloom. Agricultural methods, farming etc.

This is particularly interesting for new, as I've visited the Argan trees in Morocco.

Other alternative crops that Israel is growing in the desert include argan trees for cultivating its prized oil. Formerly the trees could only grow in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco. Israel also has a national program for irrigating olive groves with brackish water. “It is working well and definitely the only place where this is being done,” says Berliner.

10 top ways Israel fights desertification

 

[fncceo]

And no doubt many Jews have outside blood, I know half half Jews, one parent is, one isn't. Many of the Muslims in the area potentially have Jewish blood in them

The concept of 'Jewish Blood' was very dear and important to a group that no longer exists in any serious way. As for Jews, Jewish ethnicity is determined in most cases by Jewish identity of the mother. Not for reasons of blood but for the very practical reason that children are thought to receive the bulk of their early religious education from their mother in the home.

There is no such thing in Judaism as a 'half-jew', 'quarter-jew', or any non-integer-based version of a Jew. In most cases, if your mother is Jewish, you're a Jew. If your mother isn't Jewish, you're not*. Those fractional Jewish identification were popularised by that group I mentioned earlier who are no longer with us in any serious way and have permeated themselves into the culture debate. But, they do not exist in Jewish halacha.


If you plan on contributing towards a conversation on Jewish culture you should, at least, have some basic knowledge of the subject. If for no other reason than courtesy's sake.

* Reform Judaism has adopted the concept that if either Father or Mother is Jewish, the offspring is Jewish and, of course, persons who convert to Judaism.

 

[Shusha]

What isn't an ethnic group then if you have a definition as vague as the first one? ... But then I understand why it is so vague, because people really aren't that sure what an ethnic group is.

Well, no. Because I tied the terms ethnicity and culture to a very, very specific list of qualities which demonstrate what I mean when using the terms. Its not vague at all. Its rather specific.

Not only is it rather specific, it is a very simple concept to understand. Indeed, people instinctively understand it so well that it hardly needs to be defined. Because when we say that "Chinese" is an ethnic group, we understand that being Chinese means speaking the Chinese language, wearing certain modes of dress, celebrating certain holidays, holding certain traditions for life events and celebrations, acknowledge a particular history and myths and literature, etc, etc, etc.

But for some bizarre, fathomless** reason when we apply these same standards to the Jewish people, suddenly we need to clarify (read: change) the definition. The definition is, and should be, the same.

But again, the point is, if you're not from an area, or your grandparents weren't from that area, or your great great great grandparents weren't from the area, you cannot claim to be from that area in terms of ethnicity.

Sure you can. Ethnicity, by definition, is a shared culture. Anyone who shares that culture, by definition, is that ethnicity.

You are trying to change the definition of "ethnicity" from belonging to a group with a shared culture to being from that area. You've shifted the definition from a shared culture to possession over land. Its a particular thing that people do when trying to disqualify the Jewish people from having a culture. But it doesn't work. If a bunch of people who speak Gaelic, and wear kilts, and eat haggis, and celebrate Robbie Burns day move to China are they ethnically Scots or do they become Chinese? The answer is obvious.

Further, you are trying to argue that "not being from the area" not only severs each individual's ethnicity but removes the collective ethnicity as well. So you claim there is no such thing as Jewish ethnicity EVEN THOUGH the Jewish people have maintained (miraculously) a Jewish presence on that territory for ~3000 years. The Jewish people ARE most certainly from that area. Let's forget about all the Jewish people that are not currently living in the area, and only talk about those who are "from the area" -- why would that not be a legitimate, authentic, ethnicity?

We're talking about FACT.

We are talking about FACT. The Jewish people meet the criteria for "indigeneity" and "ethnicity" as well as (and mostly better than) any other people.

... these people speak the same language and practice some of the same traditions because they are linked by blood. This is how humanity tends to see things. Bloodlines.

Ah, see how you keep searching for new definitions because the actual definitions of the words you choose don't fit in with your pre-conceived belief system? First you have me define indigenous. Then ethnicity. Now you are moving on to bloodlines. (Do you mean to imply genetic testing?)

 

[P F Tinmore]

What isn't an ethnic group then if you have a definition as vague as the first one? ... But then I understand why it is so vague, because people really aren't that sure what an ethnic group is.

Well, no. Because I tied the terms ethnicity and culture to a very, very specific list of qualities which demonstrate what I mean when using the terms. Its not vague at all. Its rather specific.

Not only is it rather specific, it is a very simple concept to understand. Indeed, people instinctively understand it so well that it hardly needs to be defined. Because when we say that "Chinese" is an ethnic group, we understand that being Chinese means speaking the Chinese language, wearing certain modes of dress, celebrating certain holidays, holding certain traditions for life events and celebrations, acknowledge a particular history and myths and literature, etc, etc, etc.

But for some bizarre, fathomless** reason when we apply these same standards to the Jewish people, suddenly we need to clarify (read: change) the definition. The definition is, and should be, the same.

But again, the point is, if you're not from an area, or your grandparents weren't from that area, or your great great great grandparents weren't from the area, you cannot claim to be from that area in terms of ethnicity.

Sure you can. Ethnicity, by definition, is a shared culture. Anyone who shares that culture, by definition, is that ethnicity.

You are trying to change the definition of "ethnicity" from belonging to a group with a shared culture to being from that area. You've shifted the definition from a shared culture to possession over land. Its a particular thing that people do when trying to disqualify the Jewish people from having a culture. But it doesn't work. If a bunch of people who speak Gaelic, and wear kilts, and eat haggis, and celebrate Robbie Burns day move to China are they ethnically Scots or do they become Chinese? The answer is obvious.

Further, you are trying to argue that "not being from the area" not only severs each individual's ethnicity but removes the collective ethnicity as well. So you claim there is no such thing as Jewish ethnicity EVEN THOUGH the Jewish people have maintained (miraculously) a Jewish presence on that territory for ~3000 years. The Jewish people ARE most certainly from that area. Let's forget about all the Jewish people that are not currently living in the area, and only talk about those who are "from the area" -- why would that not be a legitimate, authentic, ethnicity?

We're talking about FACT.

We are talking about FACT. The Jewish people meet the criteria for "indigeneity" and "ethnicity" as well as (and mostly better than) any other people.

... these people speak the same language and practice some of the same traditions because they are linked by blood. This is how humanity tends to see things. Bloodlines.

Ah, see how you keep searching for new definitions because the actual definitions of the words you choose don't fit in with your pre-conceived belief system? First you have me define indigenous. Then ethnicity. Now you are moving on to bloodlines. (Do you mean to imply genetic testing?)

What is the ethnicity of the United States?

 

[fncceo]

What is the ethnicity of the United States?

"We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dickinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We're a new nationality. We require a new nation."

-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Shusha]

What do you mean by "Arab Palestinians don't meet the criteria for a distinct culture"?

Well, I'll clarify by saying I don't think the Arab Palestinians NEED a distinct culture in order to have rights to sovereignty and self-determination on part of that territory. Self-identification is ENOUGH. (You appear to be arguing the opposite -- that self-identification is not enough.)

But what I mean by distinct culture is exactly what you think I mean. A culture that is distinct from all other cultures. A culture which distinguishes itself from other cultures by having qualities which are unique to them. The Palestinians do not have such a thing. (There are some minor differences in Arabic dialect and some regional differences in the particular embroidery patterns on women's clothing. That's it.) They do not have a unique language. They do not have a unique religion. No unique life celebrations. No unique holidays. No unique laws. No unique history, myths. There is nothing to identify them AS Palestinian. (Other than their own self-identification).

Now, from here you can really only argue two things. 1. That the Arab Palestinians do, indeed, have a unique culture. In which case, please demonstrate. Or 2. That it doesn't matter whether or not the Arab Palestinians have a unique culture. Which door do you want?

 

[Shusha]

What is the ethnicity of the United States?

FASCINATING question. As a Canadian, I would argue that there is most certainly a different culture in the US than in other places in the world. Even including one as familiar as Canada (guns, Timmies, ketchup chips, marriage equality, free speech/hate speech, medical care, debit cards, milk in bags, maternity/paternity leave, zed and Kinder Surprise eggs). Not sure I would go so far as to call either a distinct "ethnicity" though.

What is your point?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What do you mean by "Arab Palestinians don't meet the criteria for a distinct culture"?

Well, I'll clarify by saying I don't think the Arab Palestinians NEED a distinct culture in order to have rights to sovereignty and self-determination on part of that territory. Self-identification is ENOUGH. (You appear to be arguing the opposite -- that self-identification is not enough.)

But what I mean by distinct culture is exactly what you think I mean. A culture that is distinct from all other cultures. A culture which distinguishes itself from other cultures by having qualities which are unique to them. The Palestinians do not have such a thing. (There are some minor differences in Arabic dialect and some regional differences in the particular embroidery patterns on women's clothing. That's it.) They do not have a unique language. They do not have a unique religion. No unique life celebrations. No unique holidays. No unique laws. No unique history, myths. There is nothing to identify them AS Palestinian. (Other than their own self-identification).

Now, from here you can really only argue two things. 1. That the Arab Palestinians do, indeed, have a unique culture. In which case, please demonstrate. Or 2. That it doesn't matter whether or not the Arab Palestinians have a unique culture. Which door do you want?

Or 2. That it doesn't matter whether or not the Arab Palestinians have a unique culture.

I doesn't matter. They share a homeland and citizenship. The Muslims call themselves Palestinians. The Christians call themselves Palestinians. Even the Samaritans call themselves Palestinians. That is who they are.

 

[Mindful]

What has all this to do with the NYTimes piece on revitalising the land?

Making the desert bloom?

Some people would prefer malaria to having Jewish neighbors.
It's like every other thread here..

I find myself hoping all the antisemites here would contract malaria.




The sooner, the better.

The hatred is deeply embedded.

Not much one can do about it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

What do you mean by "Arab Palestinians don't meet the criteria for a distinct culture"?

Well, I'll clarify by saying I don't think the Arab Palestinians NEED a distinct culture in order to have rights to sovereignty and self-determination on part of that territory. Self-identification is ENOUGH. (You appear to be arguing the opposite -- that self-identification is not enough.)

But what I mean by distinct culture is exactly what you think I mean. A culture that is distinct from all other cultures. A culture which distinguishes itself from other cultures by having qualities which are unique to them. The Palestinians do not have such a thing. (There are some minor differences in Arabic dialect and some regional differences in the particular embroidery patterns on women's clothing. That's it.) They do not have a unique language. They do not have a unique religion. No unique life celebrations. No unique holidays. No unique laws. No unique history, myths. There is nothing to identify them AS Palestinian. (Other than their own self-identification).

Now, from here you can really only argue two things. 1. That the Arab Palestinians do, indeed, have a unique culture. In which case, please demonstrate. Or 2. That it doesn't matter whether or not the Arab Palestinians have a unique culture. Which door do you want?

Or 2. That it doesn't matter whether or not the Arab Palestinians have a unique culture.

I doesn't matter. They share a homeland and citizenship. The Muslims call themselves Palestinians. The Christians call themselves Palestinians. Even the Samaritans call themselves Palestinians. That is who they are.

They share which homeland and citizenship?

Those in Gaza do not share Israeli citizenship and vice-versa.

Those in Areas A and B of the PA do not share Israeli citizenship and vice-versa.

And some Muslims and Christians and those of other religions call themselves Israelis.

You have no point to make.

Do Palestinians want a State next to Israel? No, they never have.
They wanted to be part of Greater Syria, where they would have been known as Syrian and not "Palestinians". Many still do, and if Israel did happen to be destroyed, that is exactly what would happen.

There would never, ever, be a State of Palestine in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, or in the 23 % of Mandate Palestine not taken by the Hashemites to make Jordan.

And the wars to take more land would never end either between the many groups in the area, be it against Jordan or any other part.

Live in a delusional world and you will get delusional ideas.

Now.....What is this thread about ?

It is Not about the "Palestinians".

 

[frigidweirdo]

What isn't an ethnic group then if you have a definition as vague as the first one? ... But then I understand why it is so vague, because people really aren't that sure what an ethnic group is.

Well, no. Because I tied the terms ethnicity and culture to a very, very specific list of qualities which demonstrate what I mean when using the terms. Its not vague at all. Its rather specific.


Not only is it rather specific, it is a very simple concept to understand. Indeed, people instinctively understand it so well that it hardly needs to be defined. Because when we say that "Chinese" is an ethnic group, we understand that being Chinese means speaking the Chinese language, wearing certain modes of dress, celebrating certain holidays, holding certain traditions for life events and celebrations, acknowledge a particular history and myths and literature, etc, etc, etc.


But for some bizarre, fathomless** reason when we apply these same standards to the Jewish people, suddenly we need to clarify (read: change) the definition. The definition is, and should be, the same.

But again, the point is, if you're not from an area, or your grandparents weren't from that area, or your great great great grandparents weren't from the area, you cannot claim to be from that area in terms of ethnicity.

Sure you can. Ethnicity, by definition, is a shared culture. Anyone who shares that culture, by definition, is that ethnicity.


You are trying to change the definition of "ethnicity" from belonging to a group with a shared culture to being from that area. You've shifted the definition from a shared culture to possession over land. Its a particular thing that people do when trying to disqualify the Jewish people from having a culture. But it doesn't work. If a bunch of people who speak Gaelic, and wear kilts, and eat haggis, and celebrate Robbie Burns day move to China are they ethnically Scots or do they become Chinese? The answer is obvious.


Further, you are trying to argue that "not being from the area" not only severs each individual's ethnicity but removes the collective ethnicity as well. So you claim there is no such thing as Jewish ethnicity EVEN THOUGH the Jewish people have maintained (miraculously) a Jewish presence on that territory for ~3000 years. The Jewish people ARE most certainly from that area. Let's forget about all the Jewish people that are not currently living in the area, and only talk about those who are "from the area" -- why would that not be a legitimate, authentic, ethnicity?

We're talking about FACT.

We are talking about FACT. The Jewish people meet the criteria for "indigeneity" and "ethnicity" as well as (and mostly better than) any other people.

... these people speak the same language and practice some of the same traditions because they are linked by blood. This is how humanity tends to see things. Bloodlines.

Ah, see how you keep searching for new definitions because the actual definitions of the words you choose don't fit in with your pre-conceived belief system? First you have me define indigenous. Then ethnicity. Now you are moving on to bloodlines. (Do you mean to imply genetic testing?)

The problem is with your view, is that it doesn't stand up.


You say the Chinese are a group. You specify that Chinese people speak Chinese. Wear a certain style of dress, celebrate certain holidays, hold certain traditions for death and so on.


Okay, here's the problem. China is the 8th largest Muslim country in the world. In Xinjiang you have Uighurs, elsewhere you have Hui Muslims among others. You also have Tibetans. Now, everyone who grows up in China is expected to learn some kind of Chinese. Be it Putonghua, which is what we call Mandarin. There's Guangdonghua which is Cantonese. Now, not everyone speaks Mandarin. Within Mandarin there are many dialects which cannot be understood well by others. The Muslims will speak their own languages, sometimes, especially in Xinjiang, the Tibetans speak Tibetan too.

Wearing a certain style of dress, I think you'll find most Chinese dress like westerners, there are some differences, but not much.

Celebrate certain holidays. In China Spring Festival is the biggest, however in the modern era you'll find Chinese going all over, especially Thailand and Cambodia, but to all countries, whereas others stay at home. The govt has banned fireworks at midnight and the hours preceding and following in many large cities. However the Vietnamese celebrate Tet, which is the same thing.

As for death the old people do very different things to the younger people. Rarely will you see young people burning fake money and clothes. That is based more around Buddhism which is dying out, and Christianity is rising but being stomped out by the govt.


So, what is Chinese? Someone from China? Someone who celebrates Spring Festival? Someone who dresses like an American? Someone who speaks Mandarin?

The problem is there are Chinese people who don't fit the bill for what you'd say is ethnically Chinese, but they're ethnically Chinese. Culture doesn't quite cut it, especially in an era where many cultural aspects are dying out due, mostly, to technology.


I haven't really ever spoken about Jewish people as an ethnic group before. There are lots of situations where I ask people for definitions of words, simply because I know that these people don't really understand their own definitions, and clarity is needed in order to debate.


I disagree with you that ethnicity is a shared culture. For example when I lived in Germany there were these Russians. They were given German passports, even though they didn't speak German, didn't follow a single tradition of the Germans, mostly they drank vodka and committed crime. But the Germans saw them as "ethnic Germans", culture wasn't the reason, bloodline was. The Turks in Germany weren't given passports, even if they were third generation. Why? bloodline. They could go out in lederhosen, drink beer, speak German, celebrate Christmas, and they still wouldn't have been given a passport.


So, the Germans seem to disagree with you on what ethnicity means.


No, I'm not trying to change the definition from what you think it is. Because there is no one definition of what ethnicity is. There is no authority of the English language, there is no govt which makes definitions legal terms unless it comes to law words used in the courts of law. And even these words can mean different things between the various English speaking countries, and we're dealing with Israel and Palestine where other languages are spoken too.


Legal Dictionary - Law.com


Ethnicity doesn’t appear in this legal dictionary.


You’re coming to me with the definition that seems to suit your needs. I’m not going to bow down and accept something which I don’t agree with.


Again, we have different definitions


Ethnic definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


Ethnic means connected with or relating to different racial or cultural groups of people.


So, Collins will say it’s either racial or cultural groups of people.


ethnic Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


relating to a particular race of people:



Here we have just a race of people



Definition of ETHNIC


of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background


Here we have lots of different classifications for what ethnic is, including religious.


Which one of these is “right”? Well, the answer is they’re all right, because people define words as they see them, there is no one body that claims authority, so they’re all right. Which means that someone can see ethnicity in one way, others can see it in another way. Hence the need for someone to state their definition of something so complex, before they start.


You think of Jews as an ethic group. You think of a Jew who was born in Argentina, speaking Spanish their whole life, with great grandparents who lived in Argentina, and as soon as he steps food in Israel, you’re saying he’s ethnically from this area of the world. I say he isn’t. Who is right? Both are right.


The issue is that if you say this is what ethnic or ethnicity means, then I can also prove you wrong by pointing to something which doesn’t match your definition, and you can do the same to me, so we’re both wrong too.


I’m not trying to change the definition of the word. Because there isn’t anything for me to change. There is no definition which is definitive.


Yes, some Jewish people are from that area. Jesus Christ was also from that area, does that mean ALL CHRISTIANS are native to that area? If Jews and Christians are ALL native to that area, then so too are Muslims. Damn, you’ve just made 3-4 billion people native to a small spot of land. Wonderful.


The fact is, if you pick and choose your definitions, you can basically put almost anyone almost anywhere on the map as ethnic. The problem is that ethic and ethnicity are often used by people to force their view on people, to try and claim bits of land.


But like I said, power is what defines this, not ethnicity, people with people don’t care about ethnicity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you mean by "Arab Palestinians don't meet the criteria for a distinct culture"?

Well, I'll clarify by saying I don't think the Arab Palestinians NEED a distinct culture in order to have rights to sovereignty and self-determination on part of that territory. Self-identification is ENOUGH. (You appear to be arguing the opposite -- that self-identification is not enough.)

But what I mean by distinct culture is exactly what you think I mean. A culture that is distinct from all other cultures. A culture which distinguishes itself from other cultures by having qualities which are unique to them. The Palestinians do not have such a thing. (There are some minor differences in Arabic dialect and some regional differences in the particular embroidery patterns on women's clothing. That's it.) They do not have a unique language. They do not have a unique religion. No unique life celebrations. No unique holidays. No unique laws. No unique history, myths. There is nothing to identify them AS Palestinian. (Other than their own self-identification).

Now, from here you can really only argue two things. 1. That the Arab Palestinians do, indeed, have a unique culture. In which case, please demonstrate. Or 2. That it doesn't matter whether or not the Arab Palestinians have a unique culture. Which door do you want?

Yes, I would agree.

Maybe my windy replies want to say that identity is made by people themselves. To impose identity upon someone else is ridiculous. To call another person gay is ridiculous unless that person has specifically identified themselves with being gay. The same for everything else.

In the UK you have your region, your county, you have the English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, many different identities within the country, and different people will identify.

In the US people find it cool to identify themselves as Irish America, African American, German American and so on. Some do, others don't. I know a woman (who happens to be nuts) who when asked if there are any Irish people in the room will stick her hand up, when she's never, ever been to Ireland. Clearly she's not Irish, but this is part of her identification of herself.

I also believe that people should have the power to form groups which govern themselves. Take the Kosovan "Albanians". I happened to turn up in Pristina a year before they gained independence from Serbia. The Serbs tried to get rid of these people, and as such they should get the power to decide who runs their bit of land. Problem was some Serbs ended up in Kosovo which they didn't identify with. Problems after problems after problems.

But you say the Palestinians don't have a unique culture.

Nor do the English. Americans speak English. Australians speak English. Americans celebrate Christmas as do the English and the Australians. The English watch TV, they play football, but so too do other countries. Of the things which you might think are English, most English people won't bother doing. Like cheese rolling.

I, as an individual, do not really identify much with the cultural aspects of my own "people". However I am still ethnically part of this group. Why? What puts me in the same cultural sphere as my own father, a man whose interests are almost totally polar opposite to my own?

I don't need to argue that the Palestinians have their own culture. It's for them to identify as something. If they choose to identify as Palestinians, then they're Palestinians. It's not for me to tell them they have no unique culture.

So, I don't choose your doors.