In speculating last night on the racial origin of Ashkenazi Jews, a friend passed along to me this site maintained by Kevin Alan Brook, Khazaria.com, dealing with the controversy over the origins of European Jewry.
Over a thousand years ago, the far east of Europe was ruled by Jewish
kings who presided over numerous tribes, including their own tribe: the
Turkic Khazars. After their conversion, the Khazar people used Jewish
personal names, spoke and wrote in Hebrew, were circumcised, had
synagogues and rabbis, studied the Torah and Talmud, and observed
Hanukkah, Pesach, and the Sabbath. The Khazars were an advanced
civilization with one of the most tolerant societies of the medieval
period. It hosted merchants from all over Asia and Europe. On these
pages it is hoped that you may learn more about this fascinating culture.
Among the historical paradigms for Jewish life in the U.S., why do we always batten on to the Holocaust, and the rise of the Jews in central Europe in the 1800s, resulting in anti-semitism? A story of disempowerment and dispossession and genocide. History doesn't repeat itself so neatly, as Tony Judt said 2 years back at NYU when he scolded Jews for convincing themselves that it was 1938 all over again. As Avraham Burg is saying now. Conversion may be the actual answer that American elites discover to the ascendancy of the Jews in the U.S., to the Jewish century, to the predominance of Jews in so many sectors of leadership. Journalist Campbell Brown, Mid East expert Anthony Lake, and power-wife Amy Emanuel are all converts to Judaism–and I imagine that respect for the powers-that-be played a part in their decisions. (Though yes, I admit that I lust after Dan Senor). Oh and Dara Torres. Conversion may also salve the Jewish fears re "continuity" and assimilation–the dropping Jewish numbers. You never know. I've said before that the Israel lobby has become an Establishment norm, imbibed and regurgitated even by the three-barrelled scions of the old order, Walter Russell Mead, son of a preacher man, now at the Council on Foreign Relations. I don't think this is a good thing, I see it as a form of corruption and brainwashing. C.f., Iraq. So do many others. But if Israel began treating its minority population half so well as we treat ours in the U.S., it could usher in a true golden age and light unto the world. Just a thought.
Am I reading this right? Are you suggesting that people convert to Judaism because some Jews have networked their way into powerful positions? If that's what you mean, you are inviting disaster. The management revolution looks to be ending, and the Jewish century was really about 50 years long. You might want to drop this idea.
The khazars represented a minority of Jewish racial roots, some but minority.
Jews have never in modern times actively sought conversion of non-Jews.
The demographics of Jewish community are changing. Specifically, as orthodox and ultra-orthodox experience both larger families and smaller % of assimilation, the demographics of modern Jewry are shifting towards the orthodox.
The assimilated Jews are gradually moving in numbers from married to similarly assimilated Jews, to more and more of their children inter-marrying.
Judaism is getting more religious as a population, than it is getting more assimilated.
Numbers are growing though.
The issues that Avram Burg raised, are discussed among orthodox and ultra-orthodox, but they do hear of persecution and ideological harrassment against Zionism at all (of the type experienced here).
Israel deliberately forgets its history
An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East
“>link to atlanticfreepress.com
Zionists burst into Prof. Shlomo Sand's lecture
I don't think Sara Torres is a good example. While the mother makes the Jew or "Jewess"–always makes me think of Joyce's portrayal of women and the priest in Portrait of an Artist, I can't help–you obviously have a closer relation to Judaism than non-Jews, if only your father is Jewish.
Sometimes I wonder if all the people I met, who told me they were "half-Jews", really had Jewish fathers only. According to Jewish law they shouldn't consider themselves Jewish at all. But obviously they do in a way that excepts Jewish law but also transcends it. What other reason could there be to call oneself half-Jew?
Witty, please translate your comment to address the reality that in the USA while Orthodox Judaism (Agriprocessors in Iowa?) is growing, so is assimilation, leaving less Jewish ID uber alles, but a smaller core with more Jewish ID.
And, what, Witty, do you make of the usual analogy of Palestinians
to native Americans in this day and age?
Something on this to ponder:
Strictly, Phil, this would be a natural phenomenon. Just as people convert or intermarry, some marry Jews and convert. No?
Jews have never in modern times actively sought conversion of non-Jews.
I remember that in the first Jewish history I read, the author mentioned that proselytizing was practiced much more selective by Jews early compared to e.g. the Catholic Church. No mass conversion. I remember, since I asked myself, if it was the first trace of antisemitism, if this minor detail drew my attention.
Hard to know what you are talking about anon.
I have heard references from haredi to the Noahide laws (stated as the ethical standard that is rational and binding to all humans).
In the US, there are more assimilated Jews than haredi. Thats true. They/we tend to regard intermarriage as not such a big deal.
And, there are others that find something relevant and valuable in Jewish law and life, and become more adherent than their parents.
Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe is another source about the Khazar Jews.
LeaNder, please help us to understand your comment. Nothing more involved to track than "the first trace of antisemitism?"
Witty: Are you saying the Jewish movement against "the silent holocaust" does not exist?
Cut or uncut?
Anyone have any data on the ratio of Jews who convert to Christianity on marriage to Christians who convert to Judaism upon marriage?
"… proselytizing was practiced much more selective by Jews early compared to e.g. the Catholic Church. No mass conversion. I remember, since I asked myself, if it was the first trace of antisemitism"
LeaNder, I admire your single-minded focus, but I'm not sure I understand your point. How would this be an example of "antisemitism"?
And could the phrase "proselytizing more selectively" also be read as "discouraging conversion from the goyim"?
i agree w Mondo. no reason to fight it. Jews are untouchable. see Lieberman. Joe.
Anon,
If you are going to "quote" me, please make it an actual quote, not some self-talk.
Witty, re: "Judaism is getting more religious as a population, than it is getting more assimilated."
Since Judaism is an abstraction, what are you saying about the "silent holocaust?" That is, what self-identified American jews are actually doing?
"Judaism is an abstraction". What does that mean?
And what do you mean by "silent holocaust"?
Are you talking about the diaspora tendency to inter-marry?
Its been a worry in Jewish communities over millenia. There still is a Jewish community, containing both politically conservative and politically liberal.
Maybe it will dissolve, and only leave the religious. I don't think so.
The issue of inter marriage is an issue that has faced the Jewish community for thousands of years. We are still here.
Witty, you've taken umbrage in the past at my characterization of Judaism as a 'cult of ethnicity'. Nothing I read here dissuades me. 'Group evolutionary strategy' seems more cumbersome and less to the point.
The 'silent holocaust' thread relates to the very ethnic nature of Judaism.
Avi,
What other name are you posting under?
I'm not sure what you mean by "cult of ethnicity".
"the issue of inter marriage" The first step in dealing with any problem is naming it honestly. The issue is racism.
CHA,
Are you saying that the issue is racism against Jews for desiring to remain a coherent community?
or
That somehow for desiring to remain a coherent community, Jews are racist?
Neither Richard. I am saying that to define "coherent community" in terms of bloodlines is racist.
Did I not read/hear somewhere that Jon King of CNN converted to Judaism?
He's so polite that on election night he said "excuse me" every time he had to walk in front of the super-duper election E-map. He really knew how to 'work' that map, and made great use of it! Look out Wolf!
PS. Senator Russ Feingold for Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (replacing Biden)
CHA said: "I am saying that to define "coherent community" in terms of bloodlines is racist."
A family is a coherent community which is defined by blood. I guess you all families as racist. You probably didn't get along with your parents.
are u referring to the "family" of man?
Jews are defined by community, one basis of participation is bloodline. Its not the only one.
Its culture, identity, person, family, family of families.
The Right of Return as defined by Palestinian nationalists, is similarly by bloodline.
If you are going to take a principled stand against nationalism, that is one stand.
If you're going to single out Jews for criticism, that is another.
"One basis of participation is bloodline. Its not the only one. Its culture, identity, person, family, family of families."
We're talking about the basis of participation that objects to intermarriage with the goyim. Which one is that?
Whats your point?
That Jews don't have a right to maintain their culture?
Parent to child is a/the natural way that values, norms, culture is taught.
That is usually by blood, but not always. And, people can learn and adopt the ways of Judaism (deep and trivial) by choice as well.
Your description is innaccurate, as appealing as it is to certain confusions and/or agendas that you have.
The Consept of jewish ethnicity is a modern invention. From "time immemorial (:-)) till mid-nineteenth century Jews was defined as belonging to the Jewish faith-nothing else. Along with Jewish emansipation and European nationalism came the Jewish Question .
What would-or should happen to "secular Jews"? This existentialistic question had 2 alternatives. A gradual integration / assimilation or jewish nationalism..a.k.a. Zionism.
The term "secular Jew" is a contradiction. What can possibly Peruvian Indians,Jews from Ethiopia, Shanghai and India have in common with Ashkenazi,sephardic- and mizrahi Jews? Only the delusion that they are the Chosen" ones.
Delusion of grandeur.
Delusions of persecution may be intrinsically related to – and the flip-side of – delusions of grandeur in that the very idea that one is being persecuted by a complex of conspirators involves a sense of greatly elevated self-importance.
"Secular Jews" are of course not chosen. They are just human beings. Nothing more,nothing less.
I think that a more thorough reading of the history of the late ancient Mediterranean might show that — just like today — Jews were omnipresent, wealthy, and influential, and as a result required many household and commercial slaves who would swear some form of personal loyalty without actually converting to the Jewish religion and becoming Jews.
Thus, in my view, a series of sub-Jewish communities emerged throughout the Mediterranean region, sometimes referred to as 'god-fearers' in Jewish histories. Out of these grew christianity, being a sort of radical protest among the slaves of the Jews. There are already factions in the so-called 'noahide movement', because its members tend to still think of themselves as having been 'freed by Christ', even while they try to satisfy the over-ambitious Lubavitchers who currently run the official noahide circus.
Richard,
I only post under my name and only post occasionally because I frankly have other priorities.
I live in Europe, so the timezone difference makes it tricky to dialogue. Unfortunately no time to expound on the question at hand at the moment.
thanks
"The Consept of jewish ethnicity is a modern invention."
A falsehood.
Rowan,
Its possible that "some" non-Jews experienced what you are referring to, and represented a class war, but to generalize it is silly.
I get that there are long resentful roots to anti-semitism.
Your use of the term "slaves" is odd.
Jews are instructed to treat their employees well. If some didn't, they were violating Jewish principles, rather than applying them.
That dynamic IS how mobs function.
That a truth applies to a small group of a small group, which injustice is widely promoted, and then a mob harms ALL of the scapegoated group.
The remedy is to ask "is this true? in what SPECIFIC cases?" and to REFUSE to generalize.
Of course all depend what "is" is and "what" was not.
How MOB functions? What do YOU mean by that?
When scapegoated group applies the truth to the small group to the INJUSTICE then it harms TRUE injustice widely promoted that REFUSE asking the remedy of the generalisation.
Old resentful specific anti-semitic Jewish principles apply . Certain confusions, remedy specific so must ask itself where did the white rabbit go? Forgot to UNDERLINE the CLASS WAR.
So thats clear then.
hehe :)
(But I resent the fact that you made me go back and actually read Richard's posts looking for the same words. I keep promising myself to ignore him.)
well, you remember Nietzsche's description of Christianity as the result of "the slave revolt in morals," don't you Richard?
Nietzsche was a terrific philo-Semite, by the way, according to a certain Eric Bentley, who on p. 132 of his book The Cult of the Superman paraphrases Nietzsche's view thus:
As to the master-classes in particular, the future of German culture is found to lie with the sons of Prussian officers. Who shall be found to be worthy mates for them? The Jews are the oldest and purest race in Europe. Their continued existence as a race after dispersion proves their health and strength. 'Therefore the highest beauty is found in Jewesses.' [Nietzsche's words in an originally unpublished Preface to The Birth of Tragedy, addressed to Richard Wagner]"