I guess you should try and respond to the point people are making then. And if a couple of those very many would in fact support Wilders, would you agree with the statement that Wilders is a few-of-very-many-zionist-groups-backed? Just refer to the country you're talking about. It's not as complicated as it seems really Are you kidding me? Of course there was a shared history, religion, skincolour, etc in those days. Hardly a surprise that they would distinguish themselves from whatever people they would consider savages or god knows what. Indians didn't call us Europeans first. You better not be trying to tell us that the Indians really didn't make any distinguishment between themselves and the whites Anyway, the point is that Europe isn't all that homogenic. Just because in the eyes of the average brainwashed American we're all socialists, doesn't mean we're actually all pretty much the same. Hardly. Unless of course, you believe the EU is a blessing, in which case you'll probably feel inclined to go along with all this pan-european bullshit True, but the differences tend to be bigger on a continental scale. There really is no arguing that. BTW. For being so hell-bent on calling "Europeans" anti-semite, some people around here seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Judaism.
Dutch political parties are not allowed to accept third party financial support for their political campaign full stop. This is actually in the Dutch law. What your opinion on that is, or indeed what Dutch voters think of it, does not make it any less illegal. As a one man movement, without a democratic party structure, Wilders can claim that he is not using the money he receives from third parties for his campaign. We all know that he's just being clever here, covering up what is essential illegal. Also, Wilders never even talks about Israel. All he ever talks about is how evil islam is, and how people with a criminal record should live in separate communities. He is also not open to about his ties to foreign political organisations. Those organisations in turn typically have a legal and owernship structure that forces them to make their donations public. That is why we know. Wilders voters I'm sorry to say generally don't think beyond their own backyard. Wilders to them is a hero. His 'party' has a shedload of feckups to its name already. Four members of parliament had to resign because they hid their criminal record. Others have proven close ties to the Volksunie, a nazi movement, or dual nationality, which is something Wilders himself ironically frequently fulminates agains. His voters don't care about any of that. And they're not going to care about where he gets his money from either. I and many other Dutch people have a problem with Wilders. That you don't care is clear. But if you really have zero interest in Dutch politics, I'd appreicate if you could get off your high horse and stop telling us, the Dutch electorate, what to make of Geert Wilders. It really is none of your business.
This is what it comes down to. I don't think uniting Europe in a way is a bad thing. Some of the current processes in the EU need some working with, and it's far from perfect, but sure as hell better than the pre 1945 world. I guess it also has to do with me personally benefiting greatly from the EU, when I am fair, and not really caring about this nation state of mine, which is as artificial as the EU is, in many ways.
Of course most people of Jewish descent are going to have a similar generic marking that does not mean they should be classified as the same ethnicity, we share generic similarities to Cro-Magnon man, and it does not mean they are the same ethnicity. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept of ethnic groups. I mean Native Americans could be considered the same ethnic group, even an Eskimo in Canada with a Inca in Chile probably have some similar generic code between them, I guess the issue is how long between the separation of two groups before they diverge into separate ethnic groups. After all we all came from Africa (multiple waves perhaps) so if we look that far back we all started as the same (or a few) ethnic group correct? I am also not a fan of the one blood theory, Hally Barry made a comment that she feels her daughter is Black, just because she is half black, I mean perhaps there should be a different ethnic group for people of multiple ethnic backgrounds, I am sure lots of former Jewish people have multiple ethnic backgrounds due to intermarriage. I just do not feel conftable grouping one religious group as an eathnic group. Maybe that is why I am having a hard time with Jewish religion and Jewish eathnic group. I mean Hindus could also be considered an eathnic group, then again there are multiple eathnig groups in the Indian subcontinent that follow the Hindu Religion. Maybe Sheiks?
I haven't told you what to think of Geert Wilders. All I've done is point out that your notion that Geert Wilders is some sort of Zionist-backed actor is false. I'm sure a few Zionist groups support him. Then again, some Jewish groups actively state Israel should not exist. Does that mean the "destroy Israel" groups are Jew-supported? Words have meanings, and until you use them correctly you'll keep getting shit for it. As for the whole campaign contribution nonsense, it's a simple matter of Dutch law. If he's breaking the law, sue him, or have the government take action.
You seem to be misunderstanding quite a lot of things -- not only what ethnicity is all about, but also the ancestral significance of the shared genetic markers nicephoras mentioned in a previous post.
Well, that demonstrates how much of a difficult issue this all is, doesn't it, because I suspect you could pretty much say that about ANY European country. Jews have 'left the faith' and some, (maybe not many), have converted to Judaism. IOW, if we examine the DNA of people in Europe we'll almost certainly find some Jewish DNA, (such as it is), in all of them, together with Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts and a whole HOST of other DNA. Of course, none of that would matter if it wasn't for the fact that some people are trying to pretend they're entitled to a particular bit of land promised to 'them', (whoever 'them' is), thousands of years ago. I've traced my DNA and am part of various internet projects detailing this stuff and I can tell you that the spread of genetic material, even over the past 4-500 years, has been IMMENSE. The idea that, regardless of people being part of an apparent culture and heritage, there hasn't been a mixing of genetic material over the time period involved, (what is it... 2,000+ years?), is ridiculous.
Sikhism. my bad! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#.22Ethnies.22_or_ethnic_categories Ethnicity can be cultural, language based and even nationalistic, also biological, so I guess I was wrong, as long as a group show common ancestry and intermarry among them selves, they become an ethnic group. My question still is, when would a group separate to become 2 different eathnic groups. Maybe I have to read more into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#Approaches_to_understanding_ethnicity Reading the wiki article gets me more confused, which is good I guess, I do not like sub groupings after all, and to me ethnic groups are our own creation like religion. Shared genetic markers.- (spelling bad) Matriacandrial DNA and such thing right, that way people can trace the origin of people to locations and eventually to a single group oh homo-sapiens correct? I guess this is my intrerpretation of eathnic groups/ "Constructivism" sees both primordialist and perennialist views as basically flawed,[42] and rejects the notion of ethnicity as a basic human condition. It holds that ethnic groups are only products of human social interaction, maintained only in so far as they are maintained as valid social constructs in societies. "Modernist constructivism" correlates the emergence of ethnicity with the movement towards nationstates beginning in the early modern period.[43] Proponents of this theory, such as Eric Hobsbawm, argue that ethnicity and notions of ethnic pride, such as nationalism, are purely modern inventions, appearing only in the modern period of world history. They hold that prior to this, ethnic homogeneity was not considered an ideal or necessary factor in the forging of large-scale societies. From article mentioned above.
Now you're adjusting your position on this. In your previous post you said the Dutch electorate knows what organisations back Wilders and that they are aware of what agenda they vote for, furthermore you implied that it was legal for Wilders to accept said support. I'm telling you that the people who vote for Wilders don't know, because they won't take anyone's word but Wilders', and he's clever enough to keep quiet about it, in the full knowledge that his voters are nationalists, first and foremost, and they don't care about any other country or agenda except their own. As I've told you before, it's not the nature of the foreign organisations that back Wilders that concerns me. If this was the Icelandic association of united geranium growers I'd be just as disgusted with it. The only difference being that if I had mentioned the assocation of united geranium growers, then this thread wouldn't have got off track and none of you would've cared. Yet I'm the one accused of letting this go off track. Sigh. I've learnt a lesson though. People generally on the political board are self-obsessed. They care about bringing their own point across on the limited number of issues they care about, and no matter if the subject matter doesn't touch on that limited number of issues whatsoever, they will try their damndest to make the thread subject end up about them. And as a result very few threads on this board actually end up a real debate. Which is a great shame if you ask me.
I'm not really sure why this should even be discussed considering the volume of research done into this. Genetically there is no such thing as race, full stop.
And yet, you don't participate in threads about foreign involvement in local politics. This is total bull and you know it.
I participate in discussions that I feel I have something to add to because I have some knowledge on the subject. I'm no expert on foreign involvement in local politics in general but I do know Wilders. Do you?
This is a strawman. If you're looking for a definite answer, then you're going to be sorely disappointed. My advice: if you want to understand this, then accept the ambiguity. (Honestly, this isn't different than virtually any categorization scheme. Have a problem with that? Take it up with Aristotle who pretty much invented the whole practice of categorization.) Ethnicities can be construed in broader or narrower senses, or if you prefer as ethnicities and sub-ethnicities. That isn't to say all this stuff is made up or subject to human whim. It's based on the definition of certain objective realities: history, culture, genetics, geography and so on. (This is not unlike American or Chinese or Italian culture: broad common cultures, all of which also contain narrower sub-variants.) There are lots of different markers, some matrilineal, some patrilineal, some nuclear, some mitochondrial. All sorts of different stuff, but they all shed light on the same thing: how closely are peoples (plural) related. This isn't about any given individual. When they look at genetic markers, they are looking at populations. How prevalent is a marker in a given population. Certain markers are associated with certain populations. Certain markers are distinctive to certain populations, even unique to certain populations. So let's say you have identified a genetic marker distinctively associated with Ashkenazi Jews. It's not associated with other Eastern European populations. In fact, it's not associated with any other population in the world, save one: Sephardic Jews. So what would that mean? Now there's plenty of genetic material that all humans share. In fact, there's plenty of genetic material that all humans share with fish and all manner of lower lifeforms. That's because we all share a common evolutionary ancestry back to the earliest forms of primitive life. But there are techniques for dating the common genetic ancestry of populations, and these techniques show that the splits between, for instance, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews did not happen millions of years ago (like the split between humans and fish, or even between early humans and modern humans) but actually in recorded history, which is to say within just a few thousand years. That is why common genetic markers are evidence that Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, as populations, have common ancestry back to a population in the relatively recent past where their common genetic markers developed or became distinctly prominent.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying there's no such distinct thing as a jew and therefore, there's no right to a homeland?
I would think as much right as Aborigines have to Sydney, Illinoians (Natives are they still around?) have to my house, or Mexicans (as in the Aztec people) have to Mexico City. So yes! But this "rights" are enforced by the weapons a people have, so the Israelis have better weapons, so they should have Israel (I would say also Gaza). Just my opinion. Now should the Jewish (religion) people have the "right" because some old book says so, then hells no!
Well then if rights to a territory are created by the power of the gun, why should the jews have the right to israel? Why don't we just go in there and get it over with? It's our right to do so, no?
He's saying that there's no such thing as a common set of genetic characteristics for any so-called race. A white protestant in the US might have more in common genetically with an aboriginee than with his white protestant neighbour. Your genetic make-up isn't expressed in the colour of your skin, what you look like in general, where you're from geographically, where your ancestors came from. I'm sure many jews feel that their religion is part of their identity and that they feel they have a lot in common with fellow jews, shared history etc. But there is no genetic reason for this. Which is a great thing in my book as it pretty much shuts up the racist argument.
Really if we Americans really cared about our Jewish friends, we should give them Manhattan and let the Palestinians have the other land. Or Florida
The issue isn't whether there has been any, but the degree. Given the genetic studies linked to IN THIS THREAD, you should be able to get your answer pretty easily.
Well, hang on a minute, you're jumping ahead a few stages there. The issue of whether individuals have a right to land in the ME area is a tricky one and it's best to follow it through logically. What I'm saying is that part of the Jewish identity is connected with DNA but that, even in that most definitive and scientific area of study, there are STILL ambiguities. Part of my DNA data tells me how likely I am to be related paternally, (by haplogroup), to another individual. It provides a percentage chance of my being related within, say, 20 generations to that person. The interesting thing is that if you go back a long way, (say 100+ generations), there's a chance of me being related to a VAST number of people. I mean absolutely HUGE numbers. So we have to then examine other genetic markers. The problem there is, who do we test them against and how reliable are those markers. The obvious people are the jews still living there but, as I say, because of the way genetics works and the way people have interbred, (mainly among Europeans I mean), you're getting further and further away from a definitive position. Under those circumstances you really have to bear in mind the other factors as knave says, including history, culture, geography and so on. The problem with the first one is that we have no real historical data regarding all the individuals, other than relatively recently. If someone joined the faith, (through marriage or whatever), they would, apparently, absorb a culture that isn't theirs and the geographic aspect is even MORE problematic because many of the people we're talking about have moved AWAY from the ME. I mean, that's kind of why we're talking about it, isn't it. If we were only talking about the jews that stayed in the ME we wouldn't have a problem. I suppose the real issue I have with all this is that if we examine the most easily understood and the most scientific aspect, the DNA data, then some jews would 'match up' but, tbh, so would the Palestinian arabs and they WERE still there after WWII so, to answer your question with a question, are the Palestinian arabs entitled to a homeland in what was Palestine? IOW their claim is greater by almost ANY criteria but that jews from outside the ME might be entitled to a bit of it too I suppose.
They (the subjects), were included only if all four grandpar- ents came from the same Jewish community. Subjects were excluded if they were known first- or second-degree relatives of other participants or were found to have IBD coefficients R.30 by analysis of microarray data. I'm sorry... are you saying that only people with 'approved' Jewish DNA are allowed to come to Israel? How did that work before DNA was discovered, i.e. just after WWII? Also... In this study, Jewish popula-tions from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi- formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. As I said, that raises as many question as it answers.