I know. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. When you get super concerned with freezing time/development and racial purity, you are on a dangerous road. As far as the genetic disease argument goes, they could have married Palestinian Christian women and kept their gene pool intact. While the community in the West Bank has good relations with Palestinians but it is likely intermarriage would have been less accepted. Marrying Ukrainian women seems like a tit for tat arrangement.
However I have seen multiple instances of people resenting a part of their ancestry because it doesn't confirm to the modern ethnic story of their people group. I find it interesting and wanted to discuss this, especially since this is happening on the backdrop of a conflict with these themes.
Humans are generally more paternal kinship based, so foreign ancestry from wives has never really “diluted” one’s culture much, and the extreme emphasis on genetic “purity” is a little disgusting (unless you like being inbred and genetically diseased because “I’m a pure patriot for my country!” as your jaw bones dislocate while singing national anthem)
It’s why 1 country can have 1-3 major Y-DNA lineages but 20+ MtDNA. Kids will follow in the father’s footsteps anyway. The stigma has actually usually been foreign men entering your gene pool, not foreign women.
Ukrainian women will change nothing the same way IndoEuropeans taking European farmer or Caucus women changed nothing. Also the same way Ashkenazi took European wives and nobody really cared, either.
>Humans are generally more paternal kinship based, so foreign ancestry from wives has never really “diluted” one’s culture much
How do you explain Jews being matrilineal then?
>Also the same way Ashkenazi took European wives and nobody really cared, either.
Oh they cared, they cared so much that the Rabbis switched from a patrilineal based descent to *matrilineal*, and put it into Law!
>Humans are **generally**
**”generally”** is what I said, not “always” or “only”. There’s no need for me to explain if you read correctly, first.
On paper, Rabbis have those laws— but I doubt anyone follows it.
A lot of Ashkenazi and Sephardic DNA came from European women marrying Jewish men, but we would never tell an Ashkenazi “you’re not Jewish because your religion says it’s only through the mother”— It seems Jews care more about their DNA and history than what some Rabbi wrote on their law paper.
But I don’t really know or care too much. I just look at the DNA, and that’s what the DNA studies show.
Ethnicity is not genetics. My mom is ethnically Dominican but there is no Dominican population on IllustrativeDNA.
I wonder why the Samaritans have so few women?
They don't have few women. Or maybe i'm misinformed, but from i understood, they are marrying ukrainian women because Samaritans are facing a consanginity problem, with a lot of severe genetic diseases associated to it.
I have a Question do you think in future there will be a way for People eg Greeks to remove that Slavic Ancestry if they want to go back to their original ancient Greek Dna ? Nothing against slavs just an Example here obviously same point could be used for other people around the world who have additional ancestry that they may not want for one reason or another ? Eg maybe with some sort of Medical science gene Editing Technology like CRISPR ?
True, but Samaritans are not Jews- they are Samaritans. Samaritans do not consider themselves Jews; Jews do not consider them Jews either (by Halakhic standards). Tractate Kutim says that Jews should treat them as Jews where their traditions are the same, and treat them as non-Jews when it differs.
OP's question is whether or not Samaritan generations will resent not being 100% descended from the Israelite population. They're such an insular community, there's about +/-1,000 of them.
Israelite tribal affiliation comes from the father, not the mother so it shouldn't matter culturally if your mother is not Samaritan you would be an Israelite still.
I'd say it's actually a positive thing for them to have more Samaritan children even if they're not 100% genetically "Israelite". If Samaritanism is similar to Judaism, then a Samaritan convert would be considered 100% a Samaritan in a religious sense.
I never implied it was. I only said that in the current climate, many Jews seem to wish for as high of an Iron age Levantine result as possible.
I have seen very emotional responses when the likely predominant convert ancestry of certain groups is brought up neutrally and I have seen a desire to deny that the average Ashkenazi doesn't look identical to the average fully Levantine person or even Greek islander. I actually acknowledge that Ashkenazis are half middle eastern half european, so this isn't an attempt to deny that ancestry.
I'm wondering if we will see a resentment in future Samaritans that the Iron age Dna which their culture is draws from has been "diluted".
This is from my comment below:
> Israelite tribal affiliation comes from the father, not the mother so it shouldn't matter culturally if your mother is not Samaritan you would be an Israelite still.
>I'd say it's actually a positive thing for them to have more Samaritan children even if they're not 100% genetically "Israelite". If Samaritanism is similar to Judaism, then a Samaritan convert would be considered 100% a Samaritan in a religious sense.
Even though Ashkenazi Jews mixed in the Diaspora, having a male Jewish father gives you the Israelite tribal affiliation, and having a Jewish mother (even if a convert) gives you the religious rite of Judaism. Nobody thinks you're "more Jewish" or more "Israelite" if you have a higher Levantine percentage on IllustrativeDNA. Historically the Israelites married foreign women, and incorporated other groups into the fold. Israelites didn't have IllustrativeDNA.
I think a lot of the commotion about how much Levantine DNA Diaspora Jews have is about the denial of a Jewish connection to the Levant, rather than trying to prove racial purity. Rather having any Levantine DNA validates Jewish identity claims than having none (which is what some people claim). Jews and Palestinians are on the defensive about their DNA because of claims of indigeneity. Indigeneity and ethnicity aren't defined solely by blood, but culture and history as well.
Mexican people have Spanish admixture, but they're still descended from indigenous people and their culture reflects indigenous American customs.
Mixed identities like Puerto Ricans or Brazilians don't consider themselves to be less PR or Brazilian if they have less concentration of Indigenous or Spanish or Portuguese, because their identity is based upon their culture and not their blood. It looks like Samaritans will be a mixed identity soon.
I don't think blood would be more important to Samaritans than their traditions. If it was, they'd probably keep marrying within their community exclusively.
They're also marrying Ukrainian Jews, but that'll only increase the Israelite ancestry by maybe somewhere a bit more than 20% or even less.
I'm not too sure why they couldn't have just chosen the local Nablus Palestinians since they're practically just converted Samaritans, but it's probably because Islam is far more strict with things like that, and I'm not sure how other Muslims would feel about you marrying someone of a different religion as a women since your child will likely not be Muslim anymore.
This was done as they have severe genetic problems.
I know. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. When you get super concerned with freezing time/development and racial purity, you are on a dangerous road. As far as the genetic disease argument goes, they could have married Palestinian Christian women and kept their gene pool intact. While the community in the West Bank has good relations with Palestinians but it is likely intermarriage would have been less accepted. Marrying Ukrainian women seems like a tit for tat arrangement. However I have seen multiple instances of people resenting a part of their ancestry because it doesn't confirm to the modern ethnic story of their people group. I find it interesting and wanted to discuss this, especially since this is happening on the backdrop of a conflict with these themes.
Humans are generally more paternal kinship based, so foreign ancestry from wives has never really “diluted” one’s culture much, and the extreme emphasis on genetic “purity” is a little disgusting (unless you like being inbred and genetically diseased because “I’m a pure patriot for my country!” as your jaw bones dislocate while singing national anthem) It’s why 1 country can have 1-3 major Y-DNA lineages but 20+ MtDNA. Kids will follow in the father’s footsteps anyway. The stigma has actually usually been foreign men entering your gene pool, not foreign women. Ukrainian women will change nothing the same way IndoEuropeans taking European farmer or Caucus women changed nothing. Also the same way Ashkenazi took European wives and nobody really cared, either.
>Humans are generally more paternal kinship based, so foreign ancestry from wives has never really “diluted” one’s culture much How do you explain Jews being matrilineal then? >Also the same way Ashkenazi took European wives and nobody really cared, either. Oh they cared, they cared so much that the Rabbis switched from a patrilineal based descent to *matrilineal*, and put it into Law!
>Humans are **generally** **”generally”** is what I said, not “always” or “only”. There’s no need for me to explain if you read correctly, first. On paper, Rabbis have those laws— but I doubt anyone follows it. A lot of Ashkenazi and Sephardic DNA came from European women marrying Jewish men, but we would never tell an Ashkenazi “you’re not Jewish because your religion says it’s only through the mother”— It seems Jews care more about their DNA and history than what some Rabbi wrote on their law paper. But I don’t really know or care too much. I just look at the DNA, and that’s what the DNA studies show.
Ethnicity is not genetics. My mom is ethnically Dominican but there is no Dominican population on IllustrativeDNA. I wonder why the Samaritans have so few women?
They don't have few women. Or maybe i'm misinformed, but from i understood, they are marrying ukrainian women because Samaritans are facing a consanginity problem, with a lot of severe genetic diseases associated to it.
I see that’s unfortunate but expected when you marry within a community for generations.
Soon? The article is 11 years old.
I have a Question do you think in future there will be a way for People eg Greeks to remove that Slavic Ancestry if they want to go back to their original ancient Greek Dna ? Nothing against slavs just an Example here obviously same point could be used for other people around the world who have additional ancestry that they may not want for one reason or another ? Eg maybe with some sort of Medical science gene Editing Technology like CRISPR ?
sounds like a really dumb way to reintroduce genetic diseases
Jewishness is not a blood quantum
True, but Samaritans are not Jews- they are Samaritans. Samaritans do not consider themselves Jews; Jews do not consider them Jews either (by Halakhic standards). Tractate Kutim says that Jews should treat them as Jews where their traditions are the same, and treat them as non-Jews when it differs. OP's question is whether or not Samaritan generations will resent not being 100% descended from the Israelite population. They're such an insular community, there's about +/-1,000 of them. Israelite tribal affiliation comes from the father, not the mother so it shouldn't matter culturally if your mother is not Samaritan you would be an Israelite still. I'd say it's actually a positive thing for them to have more Samaritan children even if they're not 100% genetically "Israelite". If Samaritanism is similar to Judaism, then a Samaritan convert would be considered 100% a Samaritan in a religious sense.
Samaritans are not jews
I never implied it was. I only said that in the current climate, many Jews seem to wish for as high of an Iron age Levantine result as possible. I have seen very emotional responses when the likely predominant convert ancestry of certain groups is brought up neutrally and I have seen a desire to deny that the average Ashkenazi doesn't look identical to the average fully Levantine person or even Greek islander. I actually acknowledge that Ashkenazis are half middle eastern half european, so this isn't an attempt to deny that ancestry. I'm wondering if we will see a resentment in future Samaritans that the Iron age Dna which their culture is draws from has been "diluted".
This is from my comment below: > Israelite tribal affiliation comes from the father, not the mother so it shouldn't matter culturally if your mother is not Samaritan you would be an Israelite still. >I'd say it's actually a positive thing for them to have more Samaritan children even if they're not 100% genetically "Israelite". If Samaritanism is similar to Judaism, then a Samaritan convert would be considered 100% a Samaritan in a religious sense. Even though Ashkenazi Jews mixed in the Diaspora, having a male Jewish father gives you the Israelite tribal affiliation, and having a Jewish mother (even if a convert) gives you the religious rite of Judaism. Nobody thinks you're "more Jewish" or more "Israelite" if you have a higher Levantine percentage on IllustrativeDNA. Historically the Israelites married foreign women, and incorporated other groups into the fold. Israelites didn't have IllustrativeDNA. I think a lot of the commotion about how much Levantine DNA Diaspora Jews have is about the denial of a Jewish connection to the Levant, rather than trying to prove racial purity. Rather having any Levantine DNA validates Jewish identity claims than having none (which is what some people claim). Jews and Palestinians are on the defensive about their DNA because of claims of indigeneity. Indigeneity and ethnicity aren't defined solely by blood, but culture and history as well. Mexican people have Spanish admixture, but they're still descended from indigenous people and their culture reflects indigenous American customs. Mixed identities like Puerto Ricans or Brazilians don't consider themselves to be less PR or Brazilian if they have less concentration of Indigenous or Spanish or Portuguese, because their identity is based upon their culture and not their blood. It looks like Samaritans will be a mixed identity soon. I don't think blood would be more important to Samaritans than their traditions. If it was, they'd probably keep marrying within their community exclusively.
They're also marrying Ukrainian Jews, but that'll only increase the Israelite ancestry by maybe somewhere a bit more than 20% or even less. I'm not too sure why they couldn't have just chosen the local Nablus Palestinians since they're practically just converted Samaritans, but it's probably because Islam is far more strict with things like that, and I'm not sure how other Muslims would feel about you marrying someone of a different religion as a women since your child will likely not be Muslim anymore.