Anonymous #1 10w

Exactly, and lots of Ashkenazim like myself get tan

6

Anonymous #2 10w

According to ignorant antisemites, yes

5

Anonymous OP 10w

You also said ashkenazim getting tan means something

-5

Anonymous #2 10w

The point of my post was to show how ignorant this guy is by pretending all Ashkenazim are the same and that being indigenous to the Middle East depends on skin tone

2

Anonymous #5 10w

You really think because you have darker skin you’re more protected from the sun? THE SUN?! The giant ball of gas that is constantly shooting ultraviolet light at our direction that has no preference because it’s the fucking sun? The same sun that will burn you if you’re on the top of a snow tipped mountain or in the middle of the desert?

2

Anonymous #5 10w

Oh and why do you think people from around those parts dress that way because let me tell you it’s not for fashion reasons or because they felt like it thousands of years ago it’s because THERE IS A GIANT ORB OF FIRE BEAMING DOWN ON YOU FOR HALF THE DAY AND THEY DONT ALL WANT TO GET SUNBURN OR SKINCANCER!

2

Anonymous #5 10w

GOD this is just like that rant I went on a few months ago about how people all over the world no matter their skin tone used sunscreen throughout history because newsflash the sun will affect you no matter where you live!

2

Anonymous OP 10w

indigeneity is a relationship to colonialism, to which you cannot be indigenous if you have settled on ‘new’ land

2

Anonymous OP 10w

What does it depend on?

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Depends on maintaining cultural, linguistic, and genetic ties to the land, all of which Jews have. Even diaspora Jews maintained those connections even if some of their culture had external influences

-1

Anonymous #3 10w

I agree with 95% of your comment, and these people are ignorant fools, but they are not kapo. If the Nazis shared the view that many of these people have that Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars, that would’ve resulted in a likely racial classification under their system with other Turkic peoples, who they were certain still racist against but less so than they were to Slavs, let alone Jews I think a lot of us have been using that term too readily, which has weakened its impact

1

Anonymous #9 10w

True, they likely aren’t deliberate N*zi sympathizers, but they peddle the same false talking points as antisemites that both use to try to delegitimize Jewish people’s indigeneity to and sovereignty in Israel. They slap Judaism/fellow Jews right in the face in the process. Obviously this isn’t to say Jews who criticize the Israeli government are kapos, you can criticize the Israeli government while thinking Israel as a nation should exist

0

Anonymous #3 10w

Thinking Israel as a nation-state shouldn’t exist doesn’t make one an antisemite either, otherwise there would be entire denominations of Judaism that far predated the state of Israel that would be inherently antisemitic for seeing it as sacrilege. There are many Jews who believe a large scale return to the holy land and formation of a new nation state is into to be done after the return of the Messiah, and that to do so otherwise or by violence is apostasy.

2

Anonymous #3 10w

And to speak about the non-Jews who peddle the nonsense talking point about sunburns, to attribute the dynamic to antisemitism is to fundamentally misunderstand the dynamic. Just as Europeans ostracized Ashkenazim for being too Middle Eastern, these are people doing the same for being too European (the people like this I’ve heard seem to think all/most Israelis are Ashkenazim)

1

Anonymous #9 9w

Perhaps the non-Jews aren’t necessarily hateful or discriminatory but it makes them ignorant at the expense of Jews

1

Anonymous #9 9w

It’s one thing if you’re a Jew who perhaps believes in a binational union or doesn’t necessarily think nations should exist at all. But the only major group/denomination of Jews that specifically don’t believe Israel should exist is Neturei Karta. Not only is their ideology self-sabotaging from the standpoint of Judaism, but they do believe Israel should exist, just not before the coming elections of the Messiah, so they’re essentially just delayed Zionists lol

0

Anonymous #3 9w

It is not “delayed Zionism” it is a fundamentally different ideology, and it is very much not just Neturei Karta, prior to the Holocaust that view was far more common amongst more strictly religious Jews than the Zionist one. And it is anti-Zionist, actively, it considers Zionism a violation of the three oaths and apostasy to Judaism And the “Israel” these people would support the existence of is just a fundamentally different entity than what there is now that bares little relation to it

1

Anonymous OP 9w

Indigeneity is not genetic, there are no genetic ties to land. Indigeneity exists in relationship to colonialism, indigenous rights is not a blood and soil ideology

3

Anonymous #9 9w

^^^

3

Anonymous #9 9w

And Jews fit that definition by having an unbroken cultural connection and always maintaining a presence in the land

0

Anonymous OP 9w

That would be the case if the Zionist settlers assimilated into the indigenous Jewish population and their culture like some of the earliest Zionist settlers did, but that movement was quickly supplanted by an Ashkenazi colonial movement. The best comparison I can make is the colonization of Liberia by African Americans, most of whom also had ancestry from West Africa

3

Anonymous #7 9w

False, the definition of indigenous/what makes someone indigenous is whether or not they or their ancestors were the first people there

-1

Anonymous #9 9w

By definition being indigenous is about genetics

-1

Anonymous #9 9w

All Jews are of Hebraic ancestry, including Ashkenazi Jews, who are a minority, the plurality of Israel is Mizrahi Jewish

-1

Anonymous #9 9w

Wanting to eventually establish Israel makes them Zionist at least partially. And Israel (whether an ancient monarchy or a modern republic) is still the nation state of the Hebraic people. Also, anti-Zionist Jews are self-defeating because they are advocating against the indigenous sovereignty of the Jewish people, which is something God commanded the Israelites to fight for many times against foreign invaders according to the Tanakh.

0

Anonymous #9 9w

By your logic, someone who is Native American living in the US but who no longer practices Native American cultural customs is apparently no longer Native American at all. They are Native American because of their genetics

0

Anonymous #9 9w

African-Americans who ancestors were kidnapped from Africa and sent to the Americas against their will very much have a right to return to Africa if they wish to do so.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

God commanded us to spread around the world And no, Zionism is very much not the same thing as the religious belief involving a return to the ancestral homeland that is the root of our religion. Zionism is an explicitly nationalist belief, that sees Jews as a nation, it is inherently secular nationalist movement, the religious belief is neither of those things, nation-states are a modern invention and very distinct from the older view based on religious practice

1

Anonymous #3 9w

Ashkenazi Jews of of Hebraic ancestry and not the majority, yes, but they were culturally dominant in the formation of Israel and that culture was a colonial one. Whether something is colonialism isn’t determined by ancestry

2

Anonymous #9 9w

Zionism isn’t necessarily religious, correct, because it based on the philosophical ideas of sovereignty and being indigenous relating to the Hebrew/Jewish people. But the Tanakh still commanded the Israelites to rebel for their independence and to fight back invaders, it did not command the Israelites to create a global empire

1

Anonymous #3 9w

Native Americans would disagree with you, they welcome people reconnecting with their heritage but decry people claiming Native American identity due to genetics alone. I’d encourage you to talk to some Native American activists, from all I’ve known and seen they are pretty explicitly clear that it’s not based on genetics

2

Anonymous #9 9w

Yes colonialism is by definition ancestral. By your logic, Native Americans can be colonizers against white people in the Americas. And Ashkenazi culture was fundamentally Jewish, like that of other Jews.

-1

Anonymous #9 9w

That’s explicitly false, Native American tribes/nations have genetic requirements to join their nation, including actually being of their Native American ancestry. That doesn’t mean they’re hostile to outsiders, but those outsiders can’t be members of the tribes/nations. If the tribe/nation were to pass a law or resolution granting honorary citizenship to a specific person individual that is certainly possible, but it’s very rare

-1

Anonymous #3 9w

Native Americans can’t be colonizers of white peoples in the Americas but they can and have been colonizers of other Native Americans. California was originally colonized primarily by people with Native American ancestry from Modern day Mexico, but they had assimilated into the Spanish colonial culture.

2

Anonymous #3 9w

Having genetic requirements to join when under a colonial occupation is not the same thing as membership being determined by genetics. Having genetics might make it much easier for you to get membership in the group if you seek it out, but if you don’t seek it out it doesn’t make you a member

2

Anonymous #9 9w

Having genetics is a requirement for membership though and it always has been. Christopher Columbus couldn’t just show up and claim one day to be Taino, even during his non-violent first voyage. An Aztec couldn’t claim to be Cherokee for example

0

Anonymous #9 9w

Yes, Native American nations/tribes can commit colonization against other Native American nations/tribes by attacking, invading, annexing, settling territory they aren’t indigenous/their ancestors aren’t from by taking it from the people whose ancestors are from there.

1

Anonymous #3 9w

No one could just show up and claim to be Taino, regardless of their genetics, and genetics weren’t even discovered for centuries after Columbus showed up. You get tribal membership by asking and the tribe saying yes, the tribe sets its own rules. That doesn’t mean someone can just decide they’re Taino based on what they got on a genealogy test

2

Anonymous #9 9w

Actually yes, if someone is of Taino ancestry they can claim they are Taino (at least partially) because they are objectively/genetically Taino, perhaps if there is an official Taino nation/organization in a modern sense and they aren’t a member of it then they can’t claim they are a member of said organization. But that’s where nationality and ethnicity diverge. Also, even though genetics weren’t discovered yet, ancestry was still very much a concept, and Columbus was an outsider because…

0

Anonymous #9 9w

His ancestry wasn’t Taino. And ancestry and genetics frequently go hand in hand

0

Anonymous #9 9w

Also no tribal nation allows membership if you aren’t of that nation’s ancestry or if you aren’t married to someone in the nation and/or of said ancestry. There’s honorary memberships that exist but we’re talking about actual membership

1

Anonymous #9 9w

And Columbus’ ancestry wasn’t Taino because he and his ancestors a part of said people/his ancestors weren’t from the Americas. So ancestry, territory and genetics are crucial parts of what makes someone indigenous. An ethnic Native American who speaks English, dresses European and lives in Europe will always be indigenous to the Americas. A white person who speaks Cherokee, dresses Native American and lives in the US will never be indigenous to the Americas.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

*weren’t a part of

1

Anonymous #9 9w

Arab/Islamic culture is not native to the Levant. And Jews did exactly that by reviving the Hebrew language as a spoken language which was preserved by Jewish populations for centuries, reestablishing the presence of an indigenous language after centuries of speaking foreign languages. Also many Jews by incorporating both local cuisines as well as other Jewish diaspora cuisines (it’s ironic because most people complain about Jews eating the local food but you argue the opposite)

2

Anonymous #9 9w

Like tell me how many bagel joints are in Israel or how popular matzah ball soup and pastrami is there. Most Israeli Jews have revived many aspects original Jewish culture of the land beyond just cuisine (Hebrew being the most important one), and claiming that Jews would only become indigenous by integrating aspects of foreign Arab culture is extremely ironic with your argument.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Ethnicity is not determined by genetics alone. Ancestry is part of the determiner of indigeneity, obviously our genetics are shaped in large part by our ancestry but it is the ancestry that is relevant, not the genetics And no, if I took a DNA test and it told me I was 25% Taino that wouldn’t make me Taino, it’d just mean I likely have some amount of Taino heritage or some similar heritage that the dataset is getting confused for that

2

Anonymous OP 9w

Of course Arab and Islamic culture aren’t indigenous to the Levant, but the pre-existing communities are. It is not about an aesthetic adoption, it is about integration with the pre-existing indigenous community, rather than colonizing and giving the option for indigenous Jews to integrate into the colonial community. Indigeneity is a continuous relationship, not on the individual level but on the community level. It is not about any specific custom, it is about the continual relationship

2

Anonymous OP 9w

Integrating all the aspects of of the indigenous Jewish culture that predated Zionist migration into the current power structure wouldn’t make Israel become indigenous, changing the power structure and society to be one rooted in that community rather than the colonial one. It is not about cultural traits, it is about continuity

3

Yeah, adopting people into the tribe was very much a practice that was done by a lot of tribes not just in the early days of American colonialism but far far before that, the current dynamic is one to protect from colonial exploitation, it is not the traditional model

4

Anonymous #9 9w

So wouldn’t Palestinians not be indigenous using that logic since their identity became heavily influenced by Arab colonialism (not to mention “Palestine” itself is a colonial term)? Also there are Jews who migrated to the land far before modern Zionism, with some having hundreds of years of roots despite having Ashkenazi ancestry, so how are they any different than Jews who returned to Israel more recently

1

Anonymous OP 9w

Because the Jews who migrated before integrated into the indigenous Jewish community, rather than starting a new one and giving the indigenous Jews the option to integrate into that

2