Racial Discrimination? More blatant examples? More subtle?

[DancingBear]

Making blanket statements like those without providing any insight or explanations is meritless, and they fail to stand on their own

Shoshana's link includes this statement:

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).

How is that not an "insight or explanation"? It's certainly as valid of an explanation of the "not a race" point of view as the Rabbi's statement you linked to is a statement of the "is a race" point of view. The Rabbi's statement doesn't take into account converts to Judaism, for one thing.

 

[DancingBear]

Making blanket statements like those without providing any insight or explanations is meritless, and they fail to stand on their own

Seems to me you've made a bunch of blanket statements without insight or explanation.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think racial profiling would be a good avenue to explore for the purpose of your DS's paper, Dawn. While it has some merit in a starting point for finding a perpetrator (ex. white men are more likely to be serial killers), it has been a virtual tenderbox, for many reasons.

** DISCLAIMER** I don't want to argue the psychology of profiling in regards to crime. There are divisions devoted to this within the scope of criminology. It exists. I didn't create it. ETA- I do think it has been abused.

 

[PaddingtonBear]

Read it again CrashBb. I think it is quite clear. My point is that white people who have had the least exposure to non-white people are the most certain that they know what is good for other races. I am not offended at being called a racist so go ahead and do it if you need to. It is okay with me if calling me a racist makes you feel better about yourself. I am a racist. Does this mean that I lie awake at night plotting against other races and wish them harm? No. It means that I am not going to patronize them and act as if white people are magical people who could protect other races from all unhappiness if we really wanted to.

My grievance with white people who have to tell me about any non-white friends that they have and make sure that I know that these people aren't white is that it really is all about themselves. They are the same kind who suck up to me when they find out that I am a lesbian. They suddenly want to be my friend because having a gay friend makes them so cool. "See how tolerant I am. See how more people should be like me." I have more respect for the right-wingers who tell me "You are going to Hell. There is nothing you can do about it." That doesn't mean that I won't have heterosexuals at my wedding next week. I will have those who want to be there to wish Teresa and I well. I just won't have those who wanted to come because it is a same-sex wedding and being photographed with us would make a statement about themselves. They wouldn't have been interested if Teresa were a man.

Non-whites who wear their bigotry like a badge of honor know how to play white people who want to prove they aren't racist like a fiddle. It is very lucrative too.

A poor player who struts and frets her hour upon the disboards... a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I live in Detroit, btw. I'm downtown Detroit right now. You're still FOS. Said by a white person in this so called racial wasteland. Most people these days live in mixed race neighborhoods and work in mixed race workplaces, happily and harmoniously. People of sense and education find commonalities with people forge genuine relationships.

If you don't want to be anyone's pocket gay, thats nice for you dear, you live in your hellbroth bubblebath of hatred. You're only hurting yourself.

 

[shrubber]

Seems to me you've made a bunch of blanket statements without insight or explanation.

If I have , I would be happy to expand on them rather than say I choose to let them stand ambigous

 

[shrubber]

I didn't misread anything. My point, as I clearly stated, was that

The discussion in that case clearly supports that statement. The Court's decision on the more narrow question of the application of Section 1982 is immaterial to my point.

My point, again clearly stated (but apparently misread by you), is that whether Jews are a race is an open question, not a settled fact as you seem to believe. Your view of the matter is no more valid that Shoshana's.

It is far from an open question.It is a fact. Being Jewish is/can be both a religous doctrine and/ or belonging to a race of people. If you are born to a Jewish mother, you are Jewish.
Simply looking at one side and not the other is silly.
I simply stated that the assertation that Jewish is not a race is wrong and provided citation to clarify.

 

[DancingBear]

It is far from an open question.It is a fact. Being Jewish is/can be both a religous doctrine and/ or belonging to a race of people. If you are born to a Jewish mother, you are Jewish.
Simply looking at one side and not the other is silly.
I simply stated that the assertation that Jewish is not a race is wrong and provided citation to clarify.

A little revisionism on your part. You didn't say there were two sides (that's what I said). Shoshana said:

Jews are not a race.

and you responded

Um, sure they are.

I never just looked at one side and not the other at all. Your concept of what race is, or even the Rabbi's concept of what race is, does not define what constitutes race under the law or in any number of other contexts. Again, look at the Supreme Court's conclusion that Jews are currently (at least as of 1987) viewed as caucasians rather than as a separate race.

 

[DancingBear]

If I have , I would be happy to expand on them rather than say I choose to let them stand ambigous

You certain have:

(Shoshana)I say institutionalized racism as well as personal racism can explain the recent finding that college-educated African-American men are suffering disproportionally to their white male peers in this economic down turn (e.g., higher rates of job loss); as well as the wage gap between white and black workers. (and yes, sexism can explain the wage gap between men and women).
(shrubber)Wow, you are really wrong here.
(Shoshana)I say institutionalized racism and discrimination can explain the achievement gap between white teens and teens of color.
(shrubber)This is a false a statement of massive preoportions

Whether you chose to expand on these or not is up to you, I was just pointing out that it was rather disingenuous of you to accuse others of making blanket statements without support.

 

[shrubber]

A little revisionism on your part. You didn't say there were two sides (that's what I said). Shoshana said:

and you responded

I never just looked at one side and not the other at all. Your concept of what race is, or even the Rabbi's concept of what race is, does not define what constitutes race under the law or in any number of other contexts. Again, look at the Supreme Court's conclusion that Jews are currently (at least as of 1987) viewed as caucasians rather than as a separate race.

Perhaps I missed it, just where did you say there are two side? Was the post deleted? All I can find is this statement from you...
Much of what you take to be fact in your responses is, in the least, subject to dispute. For example, the question of whether Jews are a race (and what in general constitutes differences in races) is very much a subject of debate, and has evolved over time and in different circumstances.

The Supreme Court looked at this issue in 1987, specifically in the context of interpreting whether Jews could allege that they were protected under laws prohibiting racial discrimination (the bolding is mine):

A far cry from two sides. Revisionism indeed.

 

[DancingBear]

Perhaps I missed it, just where did you say there are two side? Was the post deleted? All I can find is this statement from you...
Much of what you take to be fact in your responses is, in the least, subject to dispute. For example, the question of whether Jews are a race (and what in general constitutes differences in races) is very much a subject of debate, and has evolved over time and in different circumstances.

The Supreme Court looked at this issue in 1987, specifically in the context of interpreting whether Jews could allege that they were protected under laws prohibiting racial discrimination (the bolding is mine):

A far cry from two sides. Revisionism indeed.

Are you serious? Look at what you just quoted!! How does "subject to dispute" and "very much a subject of debate" NOT mean there are two sides? And YOU accused ME of misreading?

 

[crashbb]

Perhaps I missed it, just where did you say there are two side? Was the post deleted? All I can find is this statement from you...
Much of what you take to be fact in your responses is, in the least, subject to dispute. For example, the question of whether Jews are a race (and what in general constitutes differences in races) is very much a subject of debate, and has evolved over time and in different circumstances.

The Supreme Court looked at this issue in 1987, specifically in the context of interpreting whether Jews could allege that they were protected under laws prohibiting racial discrimination (the bolding is mine):

A far cry from two sides. Revisionism indeed.

I have to agree with Dancing Bear.

To me, the fact that she/he said "subject to dispute" would imply that he/she acknowledged that there are two sides to the question.

I know that the question of Judaism as a race/ethnicity/religion/culture comes up fairly often for us at work. I work in epidemiology, and the question of a patients race/ethnicity is often important when analysing data. I would definitely not consider it a simple question with one "right" answer.

 

[shrubber]

Are you serious? Look at what you just quoted!! How does "subject to dispute" and "very much a subject of debate" NOT mean there are two sides? And YOU accused ME of misreading?

Yes I am serious.
Why do you go to such lengths to avoid saying that 'Yes, Jews are a race and a religion'?
That's all we have been arguing about in these posts.
Instead, you have said it's distbutable or unsettled.

 

[Shoshana]

Facts:
Some Caucasions are Jews
Some non-Caucasion whites are Jews.
Some African-Americans are Jews.
Some Africans are Jews.
Some Asians are Jews.
Some Pacific Islanders are Jews
Some Native Americans are Jews.

How it can be asserted that all of these Jews belong to one race is beyond me -- It is analogous to stating that Latinos/Hispanics or Irish Catholics comprise a race.

 

[shrubber]

Facts:
Some Caucasions are Jews
Some non-Caucasion whites are Jews.
Some African-Americans are Jews.
Some Africans are Jews.
Some Asians are Jews.
Some Pacific Islanders are Jews
Some Native Americans are Jews.

How it can be asserted that all of these Jews belong to one race is beyond me -- It is analogous to stating that Latinos/Hispanics or Irish Catholics comprise a race.

Yes, that is all true.
But why not admit the FACT that many Jews belong to the race of Jewish people?
Why are the two of you so reluctant to say this? I don't get it.

 

[crashbb]

Yes, that is all true.
But why not admit the FACT that many Jews belong to the race of Jewish people?
Why are the two of you so reluctant to say this? I don't get it.

Probably because they do not agree with you. They don't think it is a FACT.

If "Jewish" was a race, then, by definition, all Jews would belong to it. As you say yourself, only "many" Jews belong to your race of Jewish people.

 

[Shoshana]

And I don't get why you want me to say something that I believe is untrue. Jews are an ethnic group, many of whom share the religious practices of Judaism. Hitler and other eugenicists believed Jews were a race -- not one Jew that I know shares this belief.

Here's an academic link that discusses the problematic nature of racial categorization. http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

 

[DancingBear]

Yes I am serious.
Why do you go to such lengths to avoid saying that 'Yes, Jews are a race and a religion'?
That's all we have been arguing about in these posts.
Instead, you have said it's distbutable or unsettled.

I'm really confused. If you think I've been saying it's "disputable" or "unsettled" how can you say, as you just did above, that I didn't acknowledge that there are two sides?

Let me try to be as clear as possible. Whether being "Jewish" makes you a member of a different race is the subject of much discussion and debate.

Shoshana for her purposes says Jewish is not a race because (I believe) she is speaking in the context of people being racially identifiable (and, as a result, subject to racial epithets and such) primarily by their skin color.

The Rabbi you cited says being Jewish is a race because (1) within the Jewish religion you "inherit" your Jewishness from your mother, and (2) there are genetic links among large proportion of Jews as indicated by the prevalance of certain hereditary diseases among that group.

The website which Shoshana linked to says being Jewish is not a race because Jews do not share a single genetic heritage, particularly when you consider converts.

The Supreme Court opinion I cited shows that the popular view of what constitutes a race may change, and also that what constitutes race for legal purposes may differ from that popular view (or, in that particular case, may embody a view that was popular in a prior period).

Crashbb points out that who is within or without a certain race is a subject of much discussion within the epidemiology community for their particular purposes. I assume other groups, like paleoanthropologists and sociologists, may have similar discussions.

In that context, I simply don't accept as fact a simple statement that Jews are or are not a distinct race. It is open to discussion. Shoshana quickly acknowledged that, but you seem determined to dig your heels in on that point.

 

[shrubber]

Probably because they do not agree with you. They don't think it is a FACT.

If "Jewish" was a race, then, by definition, all Jews would belong to it. As you say yourself, only "many" Jews belong to your race of Jewish people.

So the SCOTUS says its a race,
The UK defines them as a race,
Many Jews self identify as a race,
Rabbi's say it's a race.....
yet you all don't

Is sense some underlying antisemetic sentiment here

 

[crashbb]

So the SCOTUS says its a race,
The UK defines them as a race,
Many Jews self identify as a race,
Rabbi's say it's a race.....
yet you all don't

Is sense some underlying antisemetic sentiment here

Yup, me and all my Jewish relatives are antisemitic because, if asked our race, we don't answer Jewish.

I can provide just as long a list of people who do don't consider Jewish to be a race. Like, for example, my Rabbi and my family. And the National Institutes of Health.

 

[DancingBear]

So the SCOTUS says its a race,
The UK defines them as a race,
Many Jews self identify as a race,
Rabbi's say it's a race.....
yet you all don't

Is sense some underlying antisemetic sentiment here

Gee, don't get hurt making that big leap. You're really missing the point.

First, the SCOTUS only said Jews were a race within the meaning of Section 1982 for historical reasons, while saying at the same time that the popular viewpoint at the time the decision was made, in 1987, was that Jews were part of the Caucasian race.

Second, I'm not saying being Jewish is or is not a race. I've been saying (and I think explaining quite clearly) that it's open for discussion, rather than being a settled fact.