British Court To Define Jewishness

[dps]

I get the concept.  I just don't think you've done a very good job of explaining it, plus you are insisting on using words in ways that aren't consistant with their common meanings.  I mean, think about it:  grumbler pretty much insists that terms have strictly defined meanings, while I've basically argued in the past that usage and content determine meaning, and that we should take a common-sense approach toward that.  But in this thread, both of us are insisting that the way you're using the term "ethnicity" is whacked.  That maybe should give you pause.

In this case, you are both wrong. I've already written why a couple of times.

This may be the very first instance where I've ever seen someone argue that they are right because they agree with Grumbler, whom they usually disagree with. 

I'll give your argumentum ad grumbulum exactly the weight it deserves - namely, none. 

Anyway, I'm not as combative in tone as Valmy. 

I didn't argue that agreeing with grumbler makes me right.  I'm arguing that when 2 people with such differing approaches to how we should interpret the meanings of words both think that you're wrong, you should seriously consider that you're, if not wrong per se, at least using terms in ways that aren't helping your argument.

[Malthus]

I get the concept.  I just don't think you've done a very good job of explaining it, plus you are insisting on using words in ways that aren't consistant with their common meanings.  I mean, think about it:  grumbler pretty much insists that terms have strictly defined meanings, while I've basically argued in the past that usage and content determine meaning, and that we should take a common-sense approach toward that.  But in this thread, both of us are insisting that the way you're using the term "ethnicity" is whacked.  That maybe should give you pause.

In this case, you are both wrong. I've already written why a couple of times.

This may be the very first instance where I've ever seen someone argue that they are right because they agree with Grumbler, whom they usually disagree with. 

I'll give your argumentum ad grumbulum exactly the weight it deserves - namely, none. 

Anyway, I'm not as combative in tone as Valmy. 

I didn't argue that agreeing with grumbler makes me right.  I'm arguing that when 2 people with such differing approaches to how we should interpret the meanings of words both think that you're wrong, you should seriously consider that you're, if not wrong per se, at least using terms in ways that aren't helping your argument.

I disagree. I don't think the fact that two people disagree with me means anything, frankly.

Isn't an argument based on logic and analysis a better foundation than one based on this sort of thing? After all, I see your argumentum ad grumbulum and raise you an argumentum ad valmium ...

[grumbler]

These terms have actual meanings, even if you do not happen to believe they describe anything worth describing.

Their meanings are not mysterious - "ethinicity" is a simple description of the process whereby people group themselves into subdivisions based on a variety of factors creating kinship, real or fictitious.

"Race" can be one of those factors. It is not of course the only factor. Thus, "race" is the narrower definition. 

These terms have 'actual meanings" to people besuides you, even if you do not believe that these other meanings are equally valid.

I am not going to debate anything as silly as whether the articifical concept of "race" is narrower or broader than the equally artificial concept of ethnicity.  I also won't debate whether the Starship Enterprise could beat a Star Destroyer.  It is all perception.

People have attributes that are different from each other. Some have black skin and some have white. The artificiality lies in assuming that these differences are meaningful in any sense beyond the (purely subjective) matter of defining ethnicity.

"Albino" is neither an "ethnic group" nor a "race."  Sometimes a set of differences is used to define a "race" and sometimes it isn't.  *shrug* That doesn't make for a very interesting concept.

But I haven't.

But you did.

I deny that your dilemma has any reality. Garbon saying "I'm Black" does not mean that Garbon is either a racist or stupidly repeating the meaningless. It is purely descriptive - it describes a category, nothing more.

Garbon saying "I am Black" is racist if he believes that his being "black" creates any actual differences in his character that would not be present if the term he used was "San Franciscan."  If he doesn't believe that,, then his saying "I am Black" isn't terribly meaningful; he could be saying "I am a 49ers fan" as far as any actual concept of "race" is concerned.

There is nothing about such a description that of necessity implies that the person making it thinks that being Black is better, or worse, than being White or Oriental.

Well, it isn't actually a "description" at all, of course, because it isn't describing anything.  He skin color is brown.  A different shade of brown than mine, but just a shade of the same color as pretty much everyone else's skin.  Ditto, "white" describes nothing, except albinos.

IMO, if Garbo were using the term to "describe" himself, it would probably be more along the lines of "I am a person who has always been made conscious of being different because people looked at me as a 'black' person."

And it is that opinion I disagree with.

So long as you do not assume that your opinion carries any more weight than mine, that's okay with me. 

Again, Garbon describing himself as "Black" isn't what I think of when I think of "the very definition of racism".

Garbon wouldn't be describing himself, would he?  He could wear a black shirt, though.

To my mind, "racism" requires some sort of assumption of superiority, inferiority, or essentialism based on race.

What do you call the belief that "race" determines something significant about a person, except "racism?"  Racism has gotten a bad rap, I agree, but that doesn't change the nature of "belief in race."  Saying "I am not racist because racism is bad and I am not bad" is a pretty feeble argument.

To argue otherwise is, I contend, to be absurdly sensitive. If every mention of race becomes "racist" then "racist" loses any meaning as a perjorative statement. If everyone os "racist" then no-one is.

The unwarranted assumptions here are (1) that all mention of race constitutes a belief in "race" and (2) that there is some inherent value in using "racist" as a pejorative.  Everyone is not a racist.  I am not, for example.  The vast majority of people in the US probably are racists, though.  That is something that can only be overcome through education.

Fair enough. Why all the pissing and moaning about being "misquoted"? You clearly meant exactly what I thought you meant.

But I meant the opposite of what you said that I meant when you "misquoted" me.  All i ask is that you don't crop your quotes taken from my posts in a manner that implies I am stating something different than what i am actually saying.

No, it doesn't. i take it that you have not read the judgments of the House of Lords?

The judgement said that there had never been a dispute and there was no case?  Didn't know that.

None of this was disputed by any of the litigants. What created this dispute was that the mom of the boy denied admission was converted by a non-Orthodox conversion - which was not recognized as valid.

So there was a dispute?  Jews are not monolithic in their beliefs?  I rest my case.

The fact that a category exists only in people's minds doesn't make it meaningless or non-existant. It is based on very real differences - differences in language, in culture, and in belief.

Since I didn't say that the category was meaningless or non-existent, I take it you are conceding the point I actually made, which was that these beliefs did not (as you used to contend) "create an objective reality."

Racism exists, as an attitude.  So does ethnic pride.  The difference between them is that "race" is a concept that attempts to impute values to labels that are clearly not actually descriptive ("the black race," "the white race," "the yellow race") but which claim to be exhaustive, whereas ethnicity simply tries to describe some set of values, customs, or whatnot, and is not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive.

Whether Jews are members of a religion, an ethnicity, a nationality, or a race depends on who you talk to/read and when they spoke or wrote.  I believe that the current fad is to call it an ethnicity except when referring to Israel, in which case (only) it is a nationality.  But my understanding of the current fad may well be out of date.  I don't try to keep up with that stuff, frankly.

[grumbler]

Wow this is not that hard man.

Judaism holds that the Jewish people are the Jewish people and are a NATION chosen by God to glorify him on earth by doing a lot of shit.  These people are defined in two ways:

1. You with have a Jewish Mother

2. You undergo a formal conversion

It has always been that way and that is as fundamental to Judaism as there being no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet is not Islam.  To say this isn't true is essentially to say there are no Jews and their religion does not exist.
The saddest part is THIS IS NOT EVEN UNDER DISCUSSION IN THIS CASE.  The only issue here is the legitimacy of the conversion process as different sects of Jews have different conversion processes and they bicker about whose are legitimate all the time.  But no organization of Jews ever questions the basic idea of what a Jew is.  There is even a classification for non-Jews who believe as the Jews believe, they are still not Jews though.

So why you are being so obtuse about this very simple and fundamental concept is beyond me.

You are right.  This is not that hard, and I don't understand how you could be so obtuse about it.

There are  people in the world who have Jewish mothers but do not consider themselves "Jews."  Some other person/group considers them Jews.  Ditto there are people who consider themselves Jews, but whom others don't consider Jews (like in this case).  To argue that it is all cut and dried and settled because you believe that your definition of Judaism is the only "true" definition is obtuse.

There is debate.  There is controversy.  Live with it.  "What is a Jew?" is an open-ended question.

[garbon]

IMO, if Garbo were using the term to "describe" himself, it would probably be more along the lines of "I am a person who has always been made conscious of being different because people looked at me as a 'black' person."

Yes, which is what makes the difference, not something that is innate in me.