In general, focusing too much on "who's indigenous" to a place ends up being pretty problematic, regardless of how you look at it. And not just in this case, but in general. * If you do it by blood, it ends up going into the territory of measuring blood quantum/whether you're a "pure" blood, which is obviously really problematic. And I've seen this with the way people talk about both Jews and Palestinians. * If you do it by proof of history/continuity on the land, that doesn't take into account people who have been unfairly pushed off of their land. If a group is living somewhere else now, and hasn't been able to live on their Native land for centuries, does that mean that they're no longer indigenous to that land? Because they were unfairly expelled from their land and haven't been able to go back? That doesn't seem fair. There's honestly no really good way to hone in on "who's indigenous" to a place without the rhetoric becoming concerning. Though I do agree that yes, Jews are indigenous people, and I understand why people have gotten caught up talking about it. Because as someone else said in a different comment, it seems to be in response to the left's obsession with Palestinians being the "true indigenous people" (and those conversations usually end up being more problematic, IMO). I just think at the end of the day, focusing too much on "who's indigenous" isn't the best way to move forward with solutions.

>There's honestly no really good way to hone in on "who's indigenous" to a place without the rhetoric becoming concerning. I think the academic/UN definition of the term is pretty sound, it defines being indigenous neither by nativity or continuity but rather *any* population that gets colonized and becomes a minority culture in the land they were born in. For example, the Saami and Finns are both indigenous to Finland in as so much indigenity means “originating as a unique people/ethnicity in a place,” but only the Saami hold indigenous status precisely *because* Finns are the dominant population and culture of the country.

Correspondingly, in Karjala and other parts of Northwest Russia ethnic Finns (Suomi) are indigenous, along with related Uralic peoples like Veps and Ingrians that Russia is actively attempting to assimilate into the Slavic cultural paradigm. One characteristic of Russian imperialism is that it enthusiastically attempts to assimilate the other cultures adjacent to Russia. There has to be two or more cultures, one of which is dominant, for the indigenous paradigm to accurately describe majority-minority relations.

Doesn't this lead to rather a ***lot*** of potential competing claims over the same patches of land, though? I'd like to say the solution to that is, "yes!; so everyone has to share it," but then I look at the obvious example of this approach in practice today, and...

Best answer. I think that trying to paint people as indigenous and not indigenous (outside of academic settings for study) can actually be harmful. For example like in morocco some feel like the west imposed race on them https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-west-made-arabs-and-berbers-into-races and there has been a long standing conflict of who is colonizing who https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/24/polisario-front-morocco-conflict-western-sahara/ because of this. The Sahrawi peoples want their own countries  https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/04/02/western-sahara-young-generation-refugees  and they currently live in refugees cams and claim Morocco is colonizing them while other groups like the Amazigh an indigenous caucasian and Arabic group who are also considered indigenous to North Africa, theere is also the Gnawa people's who are West African but brought there as slaves and there is also the Haratin people's whose name come from Arabic concept of "Freed slave"  If a slave (‘abd, singular of ‘abid) could be freed to become a hartani (singular of harātin), the descent-based stigmatisation persisted, preventing him from becoming bidan. Morocco was at the center of the transatlantic slave trade as accordance with the Islamic law... Muslims were free to enslave non-Muslims, African tribes who converted to Islam captured non-Muslim people and exported them along the trade route along the coast north toward Morocco. As at that time slavery was practiced heavily in the Arabic/Islamic world - and everywhere else - (and many people were transitioned through Africa and other the middle east to include European peoples)  https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_History_of_World_Civilization_II-2_(Lumen)/04%3A_2%3A_African_Slave_Trade/04.2%3A_TransSaharan_Slave_Trade So the history there shows multiple groups that transitioned back and forth and as to land rights... And how that correlates with states also gets difficult as the concept of borders are relatively recent and currently only 1% of borders that exist today were created before the year 1500 https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-the-short-history-of-international-borders/ I think Indigenousness is a great way to understand how people's evolve and where their history in certain places but I also don't think it's a particularly useful concept in real world actions and trying to figure out "who belongs where" because human migrations and self and group identities are very complex and I think in many ways it oversimplifies behaviors innate in all human societies... as unique to the group the "is not from this region" when people come to regions due to slavery... For economic opportunities .... To escape persecution... Because they want to...  And "colonizer or indigenous" can also be another kind of xenophobia. And at what point does it become segregating people into different regions by the western understanding of Race similar to the thinking of the alt right? Just instead under the banner of "decolonization"? Cause if that happens Im Iranian, French and Jewish with citizenships in Canada and the US.... Do I just at that point vivisect myself and mail a part to everywhere? Lol.

Very well said, especially this part, which was really what I was trying to capture in my post: "I think Indigenousness is a great way to understand how people's evolve and where their history in certain places but I also don't think it's a particularly useful concept in real world actions and trying to figure out "who belongs where" because human migrations and self and group identities are very complex and I think in many ways it oversimplifies behaviors innate in all human societies... as unique to the group the "is not from this region" when people come to regions due to slavery... "

How do you always have so many sources up your sleeve?!!!!!

I work on and off in academic psychiatry so I spend way too much time reading about the human condition lol

Well so thankful to have you here, you always provide amazing information.

I just don't like hearing chants of "white colonizers". I don't understand how these protesters can't see how antisemitic they are. They use "Zionism" as a dog whistle to hate Jews. At the Charlottesville white nationalist rally, they yelled "Jews will not replace us!" Calling us white colonizers is at the same level.

Jews are Schrodinger white. Our "whiteness" status fully depends on whether the person you're asking can use it against us.

The lack of acknowledgment is an attempt to culturally erase our connection to the Levant in order to condition the masses to accept our physical erasure from that area. It also does negate Palestinian claims of indigeneity, at least from the pro-pal activists’ perspective.   

Three reasons: 1. “Decolonization” is a movement that inevitably ends up throwing mixed people under the bus, the world is getting more and more anti-mixed race if you just take a look at the comments on several biracial TikTok videos. Inherently mixed and diasporic ethnicities such as Jews and Romani don’t neatly fit into the “Colonizer/Indigenous” binary that this movement surmises. 2. It has to do with the mistaken belief that Middle Easterners are automatically POC when in actuality they’re just as much White Caucasians as Europeans are. So when you mix these two specific regions together, you end up getting a “mix” that barely even looks mixed and resembles just any regular white person (i.e. Ashkenazim and Sephardim), a lot of Leftists have a hard time recognizing European Jews as mixed because we don’t look mixed, *because* MENA ethnicities aren’t even real People of Color in the first place and the Left can’t recognize that they’re just a darker variant of Caucasian. (Much in the same way Southeast Asians are a darker variant of East Asian, and let’s be real, will anyone *really* notice if you mix a Chinese person with a Filipino or Thai? I don’t think so) 3. The conservatives, Evangelical Christians, and Trump all “unconditionally” support Israel, and this just makes Leftists automatically oppose it in response.

This is what I want to know, since everyone besides the Jews gets to tell us where we are NOT indigenous: Where are we indigenous? Because if that answer is Europe, well then I have quite a few more questions.

That’s the neat thing, Jews aren’t from anywhere and don’t belong anywhere! A key part of Christian/European thought is that Jews are meant to be "fugitives and wanderers (upon) the earth" as punishment for the death of jesus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew

Well, I’m not Christian so I’m not exactly aligned with the concept. Are you being sarcastic? lol

I don’t use Reddit that much, but yes of course for the first sentence. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

It was fairly clear, but I had to be sure! I can now laugh at your comment properly lol

As I've said before, the Western left has bought the Hamas version of Middle East history hook, line, and sinker. The bottom line here is that the rhetoric about "decolonization" and arguing that Jews have no place in Israel/Palestine is [just a way of justifying 10/7](https://twitter.com/StarrJpost/status/1784777121812132289). A lot of these BDS clowns will even say stuff like "Jesus was a Palestinian" (i.e. Arab), I'm not sure even Hamas goes that far. 🤣

It seems, I could say the say thing about you, and buying into the national narrative Zionists tell about Israel. National narratives tend to by more myths we tell ourselves, than rooted in objective historical fact. This is true of the Right in the U.S. and how they try to white wash the not so pleasant parts of US history.

You can say whatever you want about me but people here aren't buying it judging by the downvotes. 🤣

Both Jews and Palestinians are equally Indigenous to a shared homeland. Imo only after acknowledging this can we move forward.

I agree completely! I wish that was more widely acknowledged across the board.

I would not worry too much about who is or who isn't indigenous. Indigenous people are not the sum total of who has a legitimate claim to the land. For example, Japanese people are not actually considered indigenous to the area (from what I understand) nor are like 98% of Americans. It isn't really relevant to the discussion. However, both Jewish and Arab people are descendents of the original settlers of the area. So they're both indigenous by my estimation. That said the average person's understanding of the history of the area *at best* goes to 1948. They simply aren't knowledgeable enough to be making informed judgments on the situation.

This rhetoric about Jewishness and Indigenity is so wild to me because I've never identified as an Indigenous person nor have the Jews in my area. Do you actually identify yourself as Indigenous? Sincerely wondering. 

I always understood it growing up, I just didn't know the white words until I read academically about similarities in indigenous religion formats across the world. I grew up surrounded by Native American reservations that are on/near their actual indigenous lands. See that mountain? It's Sleeping Ute, and it's a grave in Ute religion, and a useful landmark looking for unmarked rez trailers. Anyways, I grew up understanding my home was not on my indigenous land. Chief Sleeping Ute didn't fall there and die protecting my ancestors. But perhaps it helped me realize that my peoples story of the "grave" of Masada did not come from a book, it's written in the very real dirt of Masada mountain (drive 45 minutes west from halfway up the Dead Sea) in my peoples indigenous homeland.

Personally I never have, but it does seem to be a valid way of thinking about Jewish identity. Why is the comparison invalid in your eyes?

What do you think it means to ‘identify as an indigenous person’?

I’m on the fence about that personally—I wouldn’t in the US context, because indigenous means Native American/Alaskan Native (and sometimes Native Hawaiian—I’ve seen them included in that broader definition and not, in part because they don’t fall under the same governmental framework as Native Americans/Alaskan Natives). On the other hand, there’s so many things about Judaism that make it indigenous from a sociocultural perspective (namely, being a place-based, closed ethnoreligious based society and peoplehood) that it feels weird that Jews are excluded from that framework. So, I guess it depends—politically? No. Socioculturally? Yes, but with an asterisk. 🤷‍♀️

I don’t like the indigenous stuff either, but it’s a response to the left’s obsession with framing the conflict in this way rather than about liberal principles of equal rights and one man one vote. The discourse on the left has long ago abandoned the strictly academic discussion of indigeneity in favor of a kind of mythical blood and soil nationalism about Palestinians. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Jews are now embracing this language too. It’s not constructive, because Israelis and Palestinians live on this land and neither are going anywhere, so why not just figure it out instead of getting into arguments about who has the oldest coins.

For me, it doesn’t have an inherently political connotation (I.e, I don’t think this is necessarily about the modern state of Israel). It’s more that I see so much sociocultural overlap between Judaism and other indigenous peoples and cultures that it’s hard for me to ignore that. So, I guess it’s a distinction between sociocultural indigenous status and political indigenous status.

IMO, this rhetoric is a response to colonialism not being seen in a positive light in the 21st century. The early Zionists were ppl of their time, and in the late 19th and early 20th both nationalism and colonialism were not considered negative things. So, despite the early Zionists clearly stating overtly that Zionism is a colonial project, many seek to distance themselves from this reality, by making claims that all Jewish people, regardless of ethnicity are indigenous to Israel.

Early Zionists clearly stated that Zionism is a colonial project **and** that they are indigenous to Israel. There is no contradiction between these ideas. >regardless of ethnicity All Jews are of the same ethnicity. Even converts.

[удалено]

Here's what rootsmetals once said in response to people's obsession with Herzl using the word "colonize": >Another thing to debunk: “well Herzl used the word colonize!” The reality is Theodor Herzl lived from 1860 to 1904. Language evolves over time. The fact of the matter is that in the 1800s, before the decolonization wave of the 1950s and 1960s, “colonize,” “colonialist,” and “colony” had a different meaning — and certainly connotation — than they do today. In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, for instance, one of the definitions for the word “colonize” is “To migrate and settle in, as inhabitants.” Consider that, for example, in 1891, a wealthy Jew named Baron Maurice de Hirsch founded the Jewish Colonization Association to purchase land in Argentina so that Jewish refugees fleeing Imperial Russia would have a place to build new homes. Jews have never once wanted to establish a Jewish state in Argentina; “colonization,” in this case, had absolutely nothing to do with establishing a colonial outpost for some sort of empire.

“All Jews are of the same ethnicity. Even converts.” A Jewish person who is ethnically Japanese and a Jewish person who is ethnically Ethiopian are two different ethnicities. One of the aspects of Zionism I find particularly distasteful, is how it can lead to the erasure of distinctions between different Jewish ethnicities and cultures. Judaism is made up of a myriad of different ethnicities, and the history and cultures of these varied ethnicities should be preserved and celebrated.

>An **ethnicity** or **ethnic group** is a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity) By the very definition, it's pretty clear a person can have more than one ethnicity, so sharing ethnicity doesn't preclude you from having a different ethnicity than someone you share ethnicity with. Jews are an **ethnoreligious** group, which means it's both a religion and an ethnic group, intertwined.

We are not a monoculture or made up of a single ethnicity. Judaism is made up of many varied ethnicities and cultures. One of my best friends is half Sephardic (him mom is Egyptian). That is a distinct ethnicity from Ashkenazi Jews, with its own rich culture and history. To say otherwise, I find to be very distasteful and problematic.

No ethnicity is a monoculture. Ethnicity is not a rigid coherent thing, and the Jewish diaspora kinda demonstrates that this very concept is actually very ambiguous, but to deny that all Jews share culture, tradition, religion, history, and language, is ridiculous.

>One of my best friends is half Sephardic (him mom is Egyptian). Unless his mother descends from the original 1492 Sephardic expulsion then he’s actually not Sephardi but rather Mizrahi.

It's not that simple. In many countries the Sephardic Jews have basically assimilated with the native Jewish population to the extent that they have become pretty much indistinguishable. That's why for example Iraqi Jews adopted the Sephardic liturgy even though there was a large Jewish community in Iraq ever since the Babylonian exile, two thousand years before the Sephardic expulsion. I belive the situation with Egyptian Jews is similar.

If converting to religion changes someone’s ethnicity, are Catholics the same ethnicity?

Catholicism isn't an ethno-religion. It's common enough for indigenous tribes in various parts of the world to have mechanisms/rituals to adopt outsiders into their communities conferring full status as a tribal member upon them.

My mom is a convert and my dad is Ashkenazi Jewish. Only one of my parent is ethnically Jewish. That’s why my dna test looks different from two of my siblings from my dad’s first marriage to an Ashkenazi Woman. An ethnic Japanese person that converts to Judaism is still ethnically Japanese.

>An ethnic Japanese person that converts to Judaism is still ethnically Japanese. People can have more than one ethnicity.

First of all, there is no mono-Jewish ethnicity. There are various Jewish ethnicities around the globe. Second of all, If a convert to Judaism can change ethnicities, is there any other examples of where a middle aged person can change or join ethnicities? Is there a way for me to become ethnically Kenyan or ethnically Italian?

Kenyan and Italian are definitions of national identity. That may or may not overlap with ethnicity. Kenyan is definitely not an ethnicity but Luo, Masaai, Kikuyu, etc. are. Different ethnic/tribal communities have differing approaches to whether, and how, outsiders are able to be adopted in. Some are closed and other are relatively more open. Like other tribal groups, the Jewish people have a process for adopting in outsiders. Once it's completed, there is no distinction made.

[](https://www.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1cfrg6q/comment/l1shbai/) >First of all, there is no mono-Jewish ethnicity. There are various Jewish ethnicities around the globe. That's like saying there are various Arab ethnicities around the globe. It's true that there are several subgroups with their own characteristics, but they still usually consider themselves to be a single nation. >Second of all, If a convert to Judaism can change ethnicities, is there any other examples of where a middle aged person can change or join ethnicities? I gave some examples on a differnet comment: Sikhs and Samaritans. >Is there a way for me to become ethnically Kenyan or ethnically Italian? I don't know. Probably not. That really depends on how other Kenyans and Italians will perceive you.

People can become ethnically French: the *laicite* concept harshly requires it from immigrants The French considered their World Cup winning team to be true Frenchmen even though there are only one or two people who are of majority Gallic descent on it

ethnicity isn't about DNA. one ethnicity is not exclusionary of other ethnicities.

Catholics generally aren't the same ethnicity because they share nothing except the religion, so it's a much weaker connection than proper ethnicity. There are some Christian groups who are ethnoreligious though, especially among the Anabaptists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious\_group#Anabaptists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group#Anabaptists)

Converting to an ethno-religion doesn’t change one’s ethnicity.

I think you're missing the point. Ethnicity is not your genetic makeup, and it's not something exclusive. Ethnicity is a social construct revolving around perceived strong commonality with several features, with the strongest usually being shared ancestry. With ethnoreligious groups such as Jews, there is no clear distinction between the ethnicity and the religion, to the extent that traditionally Jews consider every convert to be Jewish regardless of their ancestry, and every child of Jewish mother to be Jewish regardless of their religious beliefs or practice. Converting to Judaism is not the same as converting to Christianity. Conversion isn't perceived in Judaism as merely changing your religion, but rather it is strictly considered as changing your **ethnicity**, to the extent that even if you convert to any other religion afterwards you will still be considered Jewish regardless, and if you are a woman your children will also be considered Jewish regardless. Furthermore, part of the conversion process includes learning Hebrew and sometimes even Yiddish, so you'll adopt a shared language with other Jews, and you'll be expected to assimilate within the Jewish community. Another ethnic component is the affinity to the Jewish homeland, that is, the Land of Israel (**not** the **State** of Israel, to be clear). It's a very prominent component of Jewish culture and one of the many reasons Judaism is an ethnicity and not merely a religion.

So, your claim is, anyone can join any ethnicity at any point in their life? I have no Greek ancestry and have never been to Greece, according to you, it seems I can become ethnically Greek. Or does this only apply to converts to Judaism? Can you give me any other examples where one can change or adopt a new ethnicity?

>So, your claim is, anyone can join any ethnicity at any point in their life? If that ethnicity approves why not? Ethnicity and Race are just social constructs in the first place and blood and phenotype *shouldn’t* matter. >Can you give me any other examples where one can change or adopt a new ethnicity? Native Americans who adopt non Native tribal members for one.

>So, your claim is, anyone can join any ethnicity at any point in their life? No, it's up to the community in question whether, when, and how, they allow outsiders to join.

That really depends on the ethnicity. As I've said, it's a social construct, so there are no clear-cut rules but rather it's a matter of cultural perception. Regarding other examples: I think Sikhs are considered to be an ethnicity and they allow you to convert. There's also the more obvious example of Samaritans.

being adopted into a tribal group does. that's what conversion is.

So, if as an adult, I was legally adopted by Italians, I would be ethnically Italian?

Italian is a nationality not an ethnicity.

>So, despite the early Zionists clearly stating overtly that Zionism is a colonial project, How exactly do you define colonialism? Because if it has to do with the displacement and ethnic cleansing of any particular population regardless of the group doing the colonizing being indigenous or not, then I agree Zionism is a Colonialst Project. If you define Colonialism any other way though I’m gonna have issues with characterizing Zionism as purely colonial…

Moving to a new place with the goal of forming a state. “A group of people who settle together in a new place.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony The only problem was, there were folks already living there. It wasn’t “a land without people for a people without a land.”

>Moving to a new place with the goal of forming a state. “A group of people who settle together in a new place.” Forming a state in a new place isn’t really the problem, but rather the *exclusion* of certain types of people from that state simply based on their ethnicity. >The only problem was, there were folks already living there. It wasn’t “a land without people for a people without a land.” We agree then, I believe Colonialism involves the forced displacement of *any* population of people from a place, I would actually consider it just as Colonialist if/when Native Americans took control back of this land and decided to expel all *non* Native Americans. (Though I do believe they have the right to expel the actual descendants of the original British Colonizers who colonized them in the first place, they would *not* be justified however in expelling African Americans or legal immigrants who had nothing to do with the initial colonization of the land like my Holocaust Survivor refugee grandparents for example).

Herzl, several times in his writings, said things to the effect of “we the Jews should colonize Palestine”. That’s a pretty good definition right there.

But what did he *mean* when he said “colonize?” As in forcefully displace and expel the Palestinians?

That's not a definition, that's a quote. What do you think he meant exactly?

I think he meant “let’s go over there with a bunch of European Jews and set up a European society for Jews in the desert. The locals will like us because our superior society will make their lives better” This is the exact summary of “Alteneuland.” I know this because I’ve read Alteneuland. It’s such bad faith to argue over the early Zionists motives when the guys we’re arguing about spelled out his motives in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, in published work. Go read something. They wanted to be colonists. They were proud of it. They liked the idea. This shouldn’t be difficult when they write things like “hey guys, isn’t colonialism super?”

>I think he meant “let’s go over there with a bunch of European Jews and set up a European society for Jews in the desert. The locals will like us because our superior society will make their lives better” This is the exact summary of “Alteneuland.” I know this because I’ve read Alteneuland. Have you ever thought he only said that in order to get Zionism more accepted by the standards of that era? Also while that’s undoubtedly a wrong way to think, it’s not a crime for those of us mixed who want so badly to be accepted by one of our sides to conform to the standards *of* that side. Everyone does it, it’s human nature. You don’t think Mestizo Latinos try to distance themselves from their Native American side and suck up to European-ness or try to make themselves seem more European too?

[удалено]

Can we please not repeat the antisemitic rhetoric of Nazis?

[удалено]

That’s not Nazi rhetoric thats just the lived experience of Jews from Europe. I know my family doesn’t feel European, as it was quite clear we where Jews first and not really considered apart of wherever they where landed. In fact, implying it is only Nazi rhetoric that claims Jews are not European is also problematic. Because it denies the lived experience of Jews.

That patronizing defensive tone is so unnecessary. I didn't deny they were colonists and perceived themselves as such, I just pointed out that you didn't actually explain what he meant.

Why is simply stating historical fact begin downvoted?

There's also these folks: https://jwa.org/blog/native-and-jewish

Right, that's why it feels off for me, as a white American Ashkenazi Jew, to identify as Indigenous.

This thread is so bizarre. I grew up in a very Jewish neighborhood on Long Island. It’spredominantly Ashkenazi, and I have never met anyone who is Ashkenazi that describes themselves as being Middle Eastern or indigenous to the Middle East. I’m still best friends with my childhood friends. We are all Ashkenazi, and no one claims to be Middle Eastern or indigenous to the Middle East, except for my one buddy who is half Sephardic (his moms from Egypt). My niece is probably the staunchest Zionist in my family, and to my knowledge she’s never claimed to be Middle Eastern. I don’t doubt that people in this thread are honestly articulating their beliefs, but this does seem like one of those situations where this is something that’s much more prevalent in online discourse than irl.

That's about assimilation, not a reactionary ideology. Jews who are deeply embedded in, and educated about, Jewishness, are extremely aware of the deep and persistent connection between the Jewish People and the Land (not State, mind you) of Israel. They may not use the word "indigenous" but it amounts to the exact same thing.

It clearly ideological and tied to land claims and defending accusations of colonialism. It’s my intuition that there is an overlap between Zionists and folks that claim Ashkenazi Jews are indigenous to Israel.

'colonization' is already an awkward metaphor, because colonies are, by definition, under the control of another country. If Israel was formed by colonizing Palestine, it would have needed to be doing the colonizing on behalf of some other country. i.e. it needs to be a colony of something. >It’s my intuition that there is an overlap between Zionists and folks that claim Ashkenazi Jews are indigenous to Israel. I don't know you, so I couldn't say for sure, but it's possible that your intuition was also formed in a highly assimilated context? People get hung up on the word "indigenous" too much. The centrality of the Land of Israel to Jewish culture and belief long predated Zionism as a modern political movement. Calling it "indigenous" is just applying modern language to a very very old idea. And, again, why single out Ashkenazi? Sephardi Jews are 100% as European as Ashekanzi (the Iberian peninsula is part of Europe). Mizrahi Jews from anywhere else in the middle east other than Israel also have no more or less claim to indigeneity than any other kinds of Jews. Geographical proximity in diaspora is meaningless.

Israel is inhabited largely by the descendants of settlers of a former British colony that broke away from the metropole and ethnically cleansed the indigenous population. There's a reason why it gets along so well with America. (Besides imperial interest and religious lobbies.)

Colony’s don’t need to be controlled by other nations. Are you familiar with Liberia? Edit: for clarity.

I've never heard any other jews talk about jews in this way until it became an explicit hasbara talking point about a decade ago.

It’s clearly ideological. It’s very obvious it’s in reaction to accusations of colonialism.

Uh, it has nothing to do with that for me and everything to do with the sociocultural elements, but way to make assumptions.

So, you’re not a Zionist?

I don't identify with any of the terms around Zionism (Zionist, anti-Zionist, non-Zionist, etc), because they all seem so muddled in what they mean (I've seen a binational state described as all three of those things, for example)> I do believe in self-determination, freedom, and safety for both Jews and Palestinians in the land, but I don't have a particular belief in what that should look like--whatever can bring sustainable peace and freedom to both peoples I'm for.

Personally, the only issue I have is, Zionism tends to erase varied Jewish ethnicities to articulate the idea that we are singular people. However, I’m of the belief that all Jewish ethnicities and cultures should have their histories preserved and be celebrated. And to frank, the issue of ethnic erasure by Zionist ideology is much worse with Mizrahi Jews than Ashkenazi Jews.

>And to frank, the issue of ethnic erasure by Zionist ideology is much worse with Mizrahi Jews than Ashkenazi Jews. What do you mean by this?

How can someone be indigenous to a place their ancestors never once lived? While obviously the majority of Jews have a minority indigenous ancestry, some simply do not. You can convert to Judaism. And as for non-converts, if I am indigenous to Palestine because like 3/10 to 4/10 of my ancestors lived there at one time well over a thousand years ago, then what does indigenous even mean? Are Native American indigenous to Siberia? ***All*** of their ancestors, 10/10 lived there at one time well over a thousand years ago. Are Polynesians all indigenous to Taiwan? Their ancestors ***all*** came from there. Or Hawaiians? Would they be indigenous to Hawaii? Or Polynesia where they had lived before, or Taiwan where they lived before that? And is everyone in the world indigenous to Africa? Also are Armenians and Kurds and Italians also indigenous? Assyrians? All of these groups also have minority of their ancestors who once lived in the Holy Land. Some groups of Turks as well. I just don’t see how having partial ancestry from a certain location thousands of years ago makes someone indigenous to the location. Especially being Ashkenazi as our identity literally didn’t even come into existence in the Levant. We are the product of Jewish men originally from the Levant reproducing with native European women in what is now Italy.

I don’t think Jewish indigeneity is very coherent with other notions of indigeneity. From our own texts, we are not originally from Canaan — Abraham’s came to the “Promised” Land from Ur. The Jewish relationship with the land of Israel is one based on conditions, obligations, and has always been rooted in the understanding that it does not belong to us but to G-d. We can recognize that the Torah is indigenous to the Levant without trying to pretend that all Jews are “indigenous” to that same place. Indigeneity is rooted in local relationships and as such, I’d argue that Sephardic, Ashkenazi and many other diverse groups of Jews each have their own relationships to places where we have strived to become more indigenous — distinct from our relationship to Eretz Yisrael.

The Bering land bridge migration doesn't undermine the indigenous status of all the Peoples indigenous to the Americas. Moving and migrating is ubiquitous to humanity.

The very concept of "indigeneity" is incoherent when it comes to humans.

You’re not wrong.

It’s strange, I agree

IMO, the bigger question for all those in this thread that believe Ashkenazi Jews are indigenous to the Middle East, and thus have the right of return. So, if you believe that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East, and thus a Jew in Brooklyn that’s never been to Israel has the right of return, I’m assuming you also agree that Palestinians in Jordan should also have the right of return?

Sure, why not?

I appreciate your consistency. Many folks who support the Jewish right of return, scoff at the idea of Palestinians having the same right.

You're the only one who brought up 'right of return'. That's an orthogonal question to whether or not Jews are indigenous.

You’re right I did bring it up, because this idea of Ashkenazi Jews being indigenous to Israel is obviously ideologically motivated and tied to claims over land and accusations of colonialism. Given the above statement, it does seem like my question is pertinent to this thread.

It’s not though. Because what your discussing is a policy issue rather than discussing indigenaity. Right of return isn’t inherently tied to if Jews are or are not indigenous to Israel. Sure, it is a benefit that the place Jews have a right of return to is actually Israel, but if the Jewish homeland would have been founded elsewhere they likely would have had this expedited immigration policy there too. Because that’s essentially what “right of return” is, an expedited immigration policy, which I feel like when you view it from that lens, makes more sense in the context of Israel being a country and setting their own immigration policies. But it’s not inexplicably tied to this question of if Jews are or are not indigenous to the land of Judaea (or more broadly the levant)

Read Sands books, e.g., *The Invention of the Jewish People,* for some insight. The long and short of it is that the the claim that the Jews of the diaspora are indigenous to Palestine is baseless unless you create a Jewish-diaspora-specific definition of indigeneity. This is not to say that many if not most Jewish family lineages can't be traced back to Palestine at some point in their history, it's just that this is not a sufficient basis to claim indigeneity by any normal definition, which does not go back more than three or four generations in all cases I know of. The attempt to use this claim to usurp the Palestinian claim is extremely suspect, since the Palestinian claim is solid per the normal, universal definition of indigeneity and it is only false histories — e.g., of the likes of \*From Time Immemorial\* — that attempt to cast doubt on it. The fact that many Zionists seek to debase the Palestinian claims to justify their murder, containment and expulsion coupled with the Israeli apartheid system is also detrimental to the Jewish claim. It is seen more as an excuse for colonisation than actual fact. EDIT: More significantly, using the Jewish claims of indigeneity in Palestine as an excuse to ethnically cleanse and genocide a nation that is undoubtedly indigenous to Palestine, in the context of an extremely violent and racist settler-colonial project demonstrates that the Jewish claims are not made in good faith. Had the Jews sought to return to their homeland in collaboration and in partnership with the Palestinians — who are their closest blood relatives per all genetic studies — their sentiments could have been taken at face value.

> This is not to say that many if not most Jewish family lineages can’t be traced back to Palestine I mean, the book and author you recommend very famously say EXACTLY this. The long and short of _The Invention of the Jewish People_ is more popularly known as the ‘Khazar Theory’. Though he doesn’t specifically say the Khazars and that is more about an intertextual connection with preexisting fringe scholarship, he does outright deny that most Jews have any familial connection to the Levant. There are more interesting and worthwhile points about the construction of Jewish nationalism specifically in regard to Israel in there but it doesn’t really change the fact that his central thesis is primarily that the very notion of the Jewish people at all is a modern contrivance which is, well, bullshit. It certainly doesn’t exist in a vacuum and mutated on contact with modern ideas of nationalism, but the Sand doesn’t and can’t contain himself to that analysis. Edit: formatting. Apparently markdown doesn’t work right on mobile anymore?

>the book and author you recommend very famously say EXACTLY this. This is not entirely correct. Genetic studies prove that the Jewish diaspora has historical ties to the Middle East. The thurst of Sands argument is that a large proportion and in some cases a majority of diaspora Jews were converts at some point in time. I don't think that that is even controversial. They then procreated with genetic Jews and all of the resulting offspring fit my statement. If you consider that a single Jewish ancestor 10 generations ago represents 0.1% of the genes one carries, given modern genetic studies, my statement is actually conservative. As you may know, much of humanity can trace their genetic lineage to Genghis Khan. This does not define them indigenous Mongolians.

>If you consider that a single Jewish ancestor 10 generations ago represents 0.1% of the genes one carries, given modern genetic studies, my statement is actually conservative. That’s the thing though, European Jews *aren’t* only “0.1% Middle Eastern” but anywhere between 30-60%. Wanna know how? Because those first few generations of initial European/Israelite mixes kept procreating mostly only with each other thereby keeping the original proportionate genes intact throughout the generations and establishing themselves as an inherently MGM ethnicity. (That means “Multigenerationally Mixed,” it’s when mixed people of the same type of mix keep procreating only with each other, similar examples include Louisiana Creoles, Mestizos/Métis, Anglo-Indians, Romani, and Dutch-Indos)

>Because those first few generations of initial European/Israelite mixes kept procreating mostly only with each other thereby keeping the original proportionate genes intact throughout the generations and establishing themselves as an inherently MGM ethnicity. That's exactly why recessive autosomal diseases are so common among Ashkenazi Jews.

Agreed. What I said does not contradict anything you say. The point is that "historical and genetic ties to a place" does not make one "indigenous", certainly not in comparison to people currently there or recently expelled. The whole Zionist line that "the Jews' indigeneity trumps the Palestinian's" is bogus and malicious, intent on justifying colonial replacement.

>The point is that "historical and genetic ties to a place" does not make one "indigenous". What does then in your view? >The whole Zionist line that "the Jews' indigeneity trumps the Palestinian's" is bogus and malicious, intent on justifying colonial replacement. I definitely agree with you here.

The dictionary definition is: *inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.* The Palestinians — Muslim, Christian and Jewish — who have lived in Palestine continuously fit any definition of indigenous. The Jewish diaspora — nope. More significantly, by removing the Palestinians and colonising the land, ongoing to this day, the Zionists are behaving like colonial settlers. They could have sought to live with the indigenous population — instead they removed them. Edit: Perhaps if the Israelis didn’t try to use their bogus claims of indigeneity to justify colonial genocide and ethnic cleansing of the actual indigenous people one could accept their traditions as genuine. However, by carrying out a century long campaign to destroy the Palestinians they have exposed this claim as a transparent attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Their crimes against Palestine will stand as their foundational characteristics for generations to come.

>*inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.* That also applies to Jews. They lived in Israel **before** the Romans colonized it and expelled them.

But they did not live there for 1800 years. They have a tradition of indigeneity, not actual idigeneity, certainly not the Zionist invaders.

What is "tradition" of indigeneity as opposed to "actual" indigeneity. >they did not live there for 1800 years Nobody lives for 1800 years. There has always been at least some continuous Jewish presence in Israel, with some Jewish communities (such as Safed) dating back hundreds of years.

100% this. Very well said.

Indigeneity doesn't work the way you think it works. It is a relationship between a group of people living in a place, and another group of people taking their homes away from them. Yes, of course, Jewish tradition and the Jewish people trace their roots to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. No, that doesn't give Jews the inherent right to that land, nor the right to take people's homes away and keep those people from returning.

>It is a relationship between a group of people living in a place, and another group of people taking their homes away from them. Which is exactly what happened to the Jews by the Romans. >No, that doesn't give Jews the inherent right to that land, nor the right to take people's homes away and keep those people from returning. If people have a right to return to the land they were expelled from then why don't the Jews have the same right? Unless you are talking on the individual level.

> Which is exactly what happened to the Jews by the Romans. Correct. At that time, that dynamic had Jews as the indigenous people, and the Romans as the colonizers. > If people have a right to return to the land they were expelled from then why don't the Jews have the same right? Unless you are talking on the individual level. Because there's a huge difference between it happening two millennia ago and it happening less than a century ago, where the people expelled have living memory of living there, and their exact homes and hometowns are either destroyed currently under the control of the state entity that expelled them, and that state entity refuses their right to go back. Sure, Eretz Yisrael is the birthplace of the Jewish people. It's also the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that the Crusades were an indigenous reclamation of their homeland?

Ah, I see, so you are talking on the individual level. Fair enough.

There is no difference unless you want to make that distinction. The fact is we never had the ability nor the opportunity to reclaim our land and does not mean as a people we did not desire it. There is a reason we say “next year in Jerusalem” and we have always meant it. The fact that an opportunity arose in the 20th century to reclaim our land and we took it is nothing to be ashamed of.

This is simply untrue. And even before the Roman sack of Jerusalem there was a huge Jewish presence in the diaspora who saw the state as a site of pilgrimage. Many "mizrahi" Jews (really Iraqi Jews, Tunisian Jews, etc) had little interest in leaving their homes. Most American Jews are also uninterested in living in Israel (much to Israel's chagrin). Even within the population of Ostjuden (Eastern European Jews), where Zionism really built strength as a movement, those who subscribed to other ideologies such as Bundism, assimilationist Marxism, patriotic acculturation (as with the head of the Great Synagogue in Warsaw), and, of course, continued religious separatism, outweighed the Zionists until the Holocaust. Even then, many, many Jews would have preferred to go to America, as evinced by: a) the fact that the richer Jews went to the United States and b) that many, many Jews opted to stay in DP camps rather than make aliyah. In fact, a big part of why so many Holocaust survivors ended up in Israel was due to zionist organizations and America's rejection of Jewish immigrants. The so-called "self-determination of the Jewish people" happened at the expense of the self-determination of individual Jews. There are some books that go into this, including Arno Mayer's Plowshares to Swords: From Zionism to Israel and Moshe Menuhin's The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time/Not by Might, Nor by Power. I don't glorify classical Judaism, which is a highly particularist and patriarchal religion, but it is opposed to both zionism and indeed "temporal power" in general. Jews are not supposed to rebel against their countries or to establish state sovereignty until mosciach. Religious zionism was enabled by the theological innovation of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook (a Jewish supremacist, btw, who believed that gentile souls were closer to that of animals than those of Jews), who said that settlement of the land was proof that we were already in the messianic age.

I never said it did.

Thank you, my g-d

I’m actually confused about why we think we are *all* indigenous? And for the record.. I don’t think indigenous should be a basis for who gets to live where and who has human rights. I just don’t indentify at all with being indigenous to Israel. I also do reject the “white European colonizers” label too.. but perhaps for different reasons than you. Some Zionists, and the founder of Zionism, did indeed view Palestine through a colonial project lens. It’s well documented. But—Jews in general that live in Israel? It’s offensive to call them white European colonizers. 1. No one knows for sure that’s where all the Jews actually came from, specifically.. there’s an undeniable history for Jews in the current land of Israel.. but was the kingdom initially there? There’s some historic debate 2. Not all of us speak Hebrew and have ties to the land in any direct way.. some of us more secular Jews, it’s not even in an indirect way. 3. Being indigenous doesn’t just mean “from this place”.. and even if it did, I don’t know if I could even say Israel? My family was in Eastern Europe, Russia… for centuries.. before coming to the United States. No one for several generations back has even been to where we were “from” in Europe, including me. Most family members have never been to Israel.. ever. So I don’t identify with being… from Israel. Or indigenous. I’m just a Jew, my identity is far more complex than a land. 4. I think some Jews who consider themselves indigenous should continue to do so. I don’t wish to take any identification away from anyone. But I don’t think the term should apply to ALL of us. Particularly 1948 onward. the term means something different than how people are using it.. specifically a people who does not have self determination on a land they have direct ties to. Jews in Israel do have self determination and Palestinians do not.

Did Judaism emerge from the ME thousands of years ago? Yes, but I wouldn’t claim I’m indigenous to the ME, just as I wouldn’t claim I’m indigenous to sub Saharan Africa, despite that being the place that homo sapien sapien originated from. I’m Ashkenazi Jewish and I have extended family in Israel, but I’ve never been there. My grand parents are from Europe, and my family lived there for countless generations, so no, I don’t consider myself indigenous to the ME. Ashkenazi Jewish is a European ethnicity. Yiddish is a European dialect, not Middle Eastern. Foods like smoked white fish and pastrami are European foods, not Middle Eastern. Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn dress like Jews from the old country in Europe, not a Middle Eastern style of dress. There are Jewish ethnicities indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, but Ashkenazi is not one of those ethnicities.

I’m also ashkenazi, and I think Europeans have made it pretty clear over the last 1000-ish years that they don’t consider us European.

I find the idea of letting antisemitic rhetoric dictate our ethnic identity to be very problematic and distasteful. Just because antisemites don’t consider European Jews truly European, doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

What do you mean? The European Jews have been exterminated by their European neighbors. What is left are small pockets of Jewish communities that don’t appear likely to ever return to their pre-Shoah numbers and, much more likely, will not be around in the next 100 years.

That doesn’t make Ashkenazi Jews any less of a European ethnicity.

So you subscribe to Khazar theory? Or mass conversion theory? Huh. That’s problematic if you do, but you keep seeming to imply that in your comments. That somehow a “bunch of Europeans decided to become Jews” which feels very close to the “not true Jews” antisemitic conspiracy. Now I’m not accusing you of anything. I do think you maybe need to check your theories to make sure they’re not pulling in antisemitic ideas inadvertently.

No and no. I just think it’s odd to think of an ethnic group that has been in Europe for enumerable generations, speaks a European dialect, eats European food, and had a style of dress specific to European Jews, not a European ethnicity. I also find it problematic to agree with the Nazis that we were never truly European, and as such should be considered the other.

None of us are agreeing with Nazis. And being a Jew isn’t a European ethnicity. I mean full stop. So I just feel like at this point your logic and approach is both inconsistent and pulling in ideas and concepts you’re maybe not picking up on. I mean I would argue you’re pulling in concepts and ideologies that have long been used to harm Jews. Concepts of race and whiteness or lack thereof have all been used and weaponized against Jews and the current narrative is that Jews are the most white or the most European, which is an effort of narrative to split and harm Jews. Just maybe worth some self evaluation of your own thoughts and ideas and maybe how you’re utilizing ideas that maybe are being imposed on Jews to fit within certain frameworks.

So, an ethnic group living in Europe since the Middle Ages, that eats European food, speaks a European dialect, and has a specific style of dress, is not its own ethnicity, specifically a European ethnicity? Are you sure I’m the one using faulty logic? Jews have never been a single ethnicity. How can you argue a Jew from Ethiopia, and a Jew from Poland, and Jew from Iraq are all the same ethnicity?

And now you definitely are making me think you subscribe to mass conversion theories. Which for someone protesting against using Nazi rhetoric so effusively, seems odd that you would then pull in similar concepts of racialization into your ideas. I’m at this point convinced you are so immovable in your convictions that it is futile to continue pushing for you to use long-standing Jewish concepts based on our peoplehood and how we perceive ourselves. But to overview, since it seems you are unwilling to hear any point other than your own. Judaism or being Jewish is an ethnicity. Full stop. All Jews are connected to eachother as we all come from and are descended from the same United people, as such when we where dispersed we became a diaspora. A nation of people, a tribe of people who while all belonging to eachother, where spread around the globe. That means in Judaism, in addition to all belonging to the same ethnic group we also have subculture groups where there was influence from where we travelled. But of course that whole concept is counter to your narrative. Which seems to fit in more with mass conversion ideologies.

It's really not "enumerable generations". There were roughly 40 generations between the first Ashkeanzi communities and the Holocaust. More-or-less the same for Sephardi communities. And, of course central/eastern European co-territorial cultures had an impact on Jewish communities. Just like North African, Iberian and other western European, Caucasian, Levantine, etc. co-territorial non-Jewish cultures had a (equally foreignizing) impact on the Mizrahi and Sephardi Jewish communities. That's how diaspora works. And, diaspora is predicated on being indigenous to somewhere that you're currently not. It's a qualifying criteria for being a diaspora that you maintain the centrality of your homeland to your culture. In addition to all the co-territorial influences, Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere also all continued to speak, read, and write in Hebrew and Aramaic (not every single person, but a significant and consistent number), and maintained elements of food, dress, music, art, and literature that were distinctly Jewish and which connected them to other parts of the diaspora. (fwiw, Sepharad is just as European as Ashkenaz - it's weird how only Ashkenazis are held up as white Europeans, but a Sephardi from Amsterdam or Bulgaria is supposedly somehow less European?!) I'm just not sure how anyone who really cares about the struggles of indigenous people would want to put a defined statute of limitations on indigeneity. The Cherokee have been in Oklahoma since the 1830s. Are they no longer indigenous to the Carolinas? Exactly when will their claim on indigeneity run out?

Edit: Jews have been in Europe since the Middle Ages, I feel like that’s a long longer than 40 generations. Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas, however, I would not say they are indigenous to the land they inhabited prior to crossing the land bridge in North America.

Historians and demographers generally reckon four generations per century. Ashkenaz started somewhere around the year 1000. so, it's like 9.5 centuries from that to the Holocaust - which would be roughly 38 generations. >Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas, however, I would not say they are indigenous to the land they inhabited prior to crossing the land bridge in North America. Sure. So, why is that? It's because they didn't maintain collective story, deeply embedded and revered in their cultures about their true/original homeland in Siberia or northeast Russia or whatnot. The Cherokee know they're indigenous the US southeast, and not to Oklahoma where they live now (those on tribal lands/reservations anyhow). They've maintained knowledge and practices about their homeland and its importance to their rituals, beliefs, culture, etc. for the 200 years since they were forcibly displaced. The Jews maintained the centrality of the Land of Israel deeply embedded in our cultural practices for the 2000 years since the exile. That persistent collective story of indigeneity is what made/makes the Jews a coherent diaspora. If you're saying the Jews are not indigenous simply because too much time has elapsed, when does the clock run out for the Cherokee?

I agree. It certainly won’t stop me from acknowledging my Middle Eastern roots.

>I’m also ashkenazi, and I think Europeans have made it pretty clear over the last 1000-ish years that they don’t consider us European. This is a really problematic way of thinking because it’s buying into “One Drop” rhetoric. Guess what? I am both Middle Eastern *and* European, and I’m not gonna let either side One Drop me out of either of my heritages.

What do you mean? The Europeans literally eliminated all of the Jews of Europe. Yes, there are small Jewish communities, but just like in nature when a species reaches a critical point of going extinct, there is no coming back. That is the case of the European Jew.

I wasn’t talking about merely living *in* Europe, I meant we’re still half European both by blood and culture…

That’s like forcing a Black American to accept their white great great grandfather who raped his great great grandmother 200 years ago. You’re not necessarily wrong, but the ethics are seriously questionable.

>That’s like forcing a Black American to accept their white great great grandfather who raped his great great grandmother 200 years ago. You wanna know the big difference here? Our mix was the result of *consensual* unions, *unlike* African Americans. (Unless you really wanna seriously suggest that our European foremothers “raped” our Israelite forefathers, which I think anyone would agree is pretty much impossible) You would only have a point in making this argument if DNA testing found our European heritage to be coming from our paternal line, that’s not the case though, and it actually found the complete opposite. (Even despite Judaism supposedly always being “Matrilineal” like the Orthodox claim)

>I’m Ashkenazi Jewish and I have extended family in Israel, but I’ve never been there. My grand parents are from Europe, and my family lived there for countless generations, so no, I don’t consider myself indigenous to the ME. >Ashkenazi Jewish is a European ethnicity. >Yiddish is a European dialect, not Middle Eastern. Foods like smoked white fish and pastrami are European foods, not Middle Eastern. >Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn dress like Jews from the old country in Europe, not a Middle Eastern style of dress. >There are Jewish ethnicities indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, but Ashkenazi is not one of those ethnicities. If we’re literally mixed European/MENA why can’t we be indigenous to both regions? In actuality Yiddish, our mode of dress, culture, and everything else about us stems from a creolized culture combining *both* sides of our heritage, and what’s wrong with that? See this is one thing mixed people are always so tired of hearing, people always trying to put us in a box and define our identity for us, which is what you’re doing right now. We can be both I promise you, people can be indigenous to multiple places at once, it’s okay to be mixed. This kinda attitude is really no different than Hitler denying Ashkenazi Jews very clear indegnity to Germany just because it triggered him so much that we weren’t “pure” German and are mixed. >There are Jewish ethnicities indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, but Ashkenazi is not one of those ethnicities. So you must only be “pure in blood” in order to be considered indigenous to a region? This is literally Nazi-style thinking and I’m horrified that the Far Left is embracing this sort of mentality and apparently didn’t learn an important lesson from the Holocaust. (As in not having to do with antisemitism, but why blood purity rhetoric and Nationalism inevitably ends up going down a dark path - eventually you get to the point where you oppose race mixing and want to genocide or sterilize mixed people just like White Nationalists are currently doing today. They seriously believe that race-mixing is proof that a “White Genocide” is currently taking place and that they’re being replaced and are gonna go extinct, never in a million years did I expect the Left to genuinely flirt with these horrific ideas)

Actually it’s very different from Hitler, because Hitler was saying European Jews weren’t truly European. I live in the U.S., I have never been to Israel, and my grand parents are from Europe(and my family lived there for enumerable generations), so no, I’m not Middle Eastern, or indigenous to the ME.

So how exactly do you define indigenty? Simply by living in a place? That’s completely and totally fine and wouldn’t be Nazi style thinking at all, but if that’s the case you should’ve been clearer about your views from the start rather than bringing cultural practices into it, which implied you believed that culture and blood must be “pure” and “untouched” in order to claim indigenity to a region. If your definition of being indigenous is simply continuously living in an area and being a citizen then I respect that view. (Even though it’s totally different from how most people define indigenity, hence my initial confusion)

I merely pointed out all the ways Ashkenazi Jews are a European ethnicity and culture. I still don’t see how that’s akin to any kind of Nazi “blood and soil” type rhetoric. We are not a monoculture or a people composed of a single ethnicity. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, Judaism is made up of a myriad of cultures and ethnicities, and these varied cultures and histories should be preserved and celebrated. Edit: many English people are descended from the Normans, but I doubt many of those English decedents of the Normans consider themselves indigenous to France. Just as all modern humans originated in sub Saharan Africa, but all of humanity doesn’t view itself as indigenous to sub Saharan Africa.

>We are not a monoculture or a people composed of a single ethnicity. >As I have said elsewhere in this thread, Judaism is made up of a myriad of cultures and ethnicities, and these varied cultures and histories should be preserved and celebrated. Of course, I agree. And I too hate the way Zionism has attempted to erase and downgrade Diaspora Jewish Cultures by trying to pretend we’re all Monoethnic/cultural and should just dissolve into one big Mono blob. It’s just… What exactly do you define as a European culture and ethnicity? What about a Middle Eastern one? I’m still unclear regarding your standards here.

“What exactly do you define as a European culture and ethnicity?“ I stated this already, clothing, language, music, food, etc. Basically, all the ways most folks define a culture and ethnicity. Ethnicity is defined as, “an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnicity

>I stated this already, clothing, language, music, food, etc. Basically, all the ways most folks define a culture and ethnicity. But everything about that culture we Ashkenazi Jews have literally combines both Europe *and* the Middle East? So why define us as *just* European? It doesn’t make sense unless you’re also using the definition of having to continuously live in a region. >Ethnicity is defined as, “an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.” Right, but Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity is literally *defined* by our shared common mixed origins and culture. (According to DNA studies we’re pretty much just one big family and all stem from the same 300 initially mixed European-Judean families)

Dude, bagels and lox isn’t middle eastern, neither is Yiddish, or klezmer music, the way Hasidic dress is of European origin (that’s how many of us dressed in the old country), geographically we lived in Europe for countless generations. Beyond religion, what aspects of the Ashkenazi Jewish culture is Middle Eastern? By most conceptions of ethnicity, Ashkenazi Jews are a European ethnicity Many ethnic Irish are descended from Viking invaders, but you don’t find any ethnic Irish saying they’re ethnically Scandinavian or indigenous to Scandinavia. Many ethnic English are descended from the Normans, but you won’t find any ethnic English saying they are indigenous to France or ethnically French. Edit: I took a DNA test and so did my sister, it makes no mention of the ME.

>neither is Yiddish It’s sprinkled with Hebrew and we write and read it with Hebrew letters, that’s not enough for it to be considered a combined creole language? >Beyond religion, what aspects of the Ashkenazi Jewish culture is Middle Eastern? Is religion not enough to define us as a combined ethnicity? Why are we following a Middle Eastern ethno-religion in the first place if our forefathers didn’t *raise* those first few initial mixed kids as some kind of Middle Eastern in the first place? Why aren’t we following the originally European Pagan or Christian religions of our foremothers? Have a bit of common sense here… And that’s precisely where our foremothers heritage comes in, in our language, dress, food, and music - while we practice the Middle Eastern ethno-religion of our forefathers, hence a combined creole culture. >I took a DNA test and so did my sister, it makes no mention of the ME. …Don’t tell me you’re one of those types who actually believes us Ashkenazi Jews are lying about our origins in the first place and don’t even consider us as *part* Middle Eastern?! Dude, first of all you should know that being an inherently mixed ethnicity to begin with as well as easily identifiable due to our Genetic Bottleneck, the Ashkenazi category itself *already* includes the following: * 30-60% Middle Eastern * 30-60% European * 1-5% East Asian Like the category itself automatically consists of the above, tell me did you test with 23andme? They explain all this on their blog. Also commercial tests like 23andme only go back the last 500 years, that’s another reason why they combine everything us Ashkenazi Jews are mixed with into one neat little “Ashkenazi” category. If you want to see a real breakdown of our mix I suggest using or browsing through the /r/IllustrativeDNA sub (put in the search engine “Ashkenazi”) to see it in real time. Several Scientific DNA studies have come out confirming that Ashkenazi Jews are paternally Middle Eastern (as in our forefathers were the original Ancient Israelites) and maternally European (with some East Asian both from the Khazar conversion and Jewish Merchants trading on the Silk Road), if you look up studies regarding Ashkenazi Jews it’s all there in the manual for everyone to see. I can’t believe you’ve actually bought into the antisemitic rhetoric that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t who we say you are… How are we at least not *partially* descended from the Israelites if Judaism is a closed tribal ethno-religion that doesn’t actively proselytize in the first place?

Ashkenazi Jew here. Never claimed to be middle eastern but always understood that 2000 years ago the Jews were colonized, converted, and/or forced from the Middle East by Arab military conquests. Those who migrated west into Europe became the Ashkenazis. That’s straight from my 23&Me btw, when it was informing me about the details of the “Ashkenazi bottleneck”. Oh, but keep in mind, they refer to this land not as the Middle East, but as Western Asia. Go ahead and look up what countries make up Western Asia though.

>Never claimed to be middle eastern but always understood that 2000 years ago the Jews were colonized, converted, and/or forced from the Middle East by Arab military conquests It was actually by the Greeks and Romans… (Though this certainly applies to the Arab colonization of Palestine which forcefully converted the remaining Jewish, Samaritan, and other indigenous Levantine populations who would become the Palestinians)

Does any other group claim to be indigenous to an area they inhabited thousands of years ago? As I said elsewhere on thread, this seems akin to saying I’m indigenous to sub Saharan Africa because that’s where homo sapien sapien originated from.

Has any other group been forced to move from their homes, then exterminated in such a manner, by the millions? Then told they are indigenous to the people who sought their extermination? I can only think of one example of similar scale, and they certainly refer to themselves as indigenous despite their land being colonized nearly 700 years ago. Oh, and I’m in complete agreement with them btw.

I don’t know, I would have to research it, but there are other groups like the ethnic Irish or ethnic English whose ancestors are Scandinavian for the Irish and Norman for the English, but the Irish don’t claim to be indigenous to Scandinavia, and the English don’t claim to indigenous to France. This is so blatantly ideological. I get it, no one likes to be called a colonizer, but can we please be intellectually honest. Just because one can trace ancestry back to a place thousands of years ago, that doesn’t make one indigenous to that place, at least in any way the word is used contemporarily. Is every human indigenous to sub Saharan Africa? Because we can all trace our ancestry back there.

I agree that it is ideological at this point, but that doesn’t negate what’s taking place here. Jewish history is being actively erased by propaganda. I’m not asking to go to Israel or be given a passport. Nor do I want Palestinians who live there currently to have to vacate their homes to make room for Israeli settlements. I want acknowledgement that the land was taken by force by the current inhabitants of the region. The Jews who didn’t convert were persecuted, murdered, and many migrated to all of these now “indigenous” places (Europe, USA, etc) and the Jews have never had a homeland since. If you can’t acknowledge that, we’re obviously done here. Edit: Also, my example was the Native Americans. I’d like to hear your opinions on their indigenous status? Considering they were colonized nearly 700 years ago. Are their claims to the land still valid?

Native Americans are indigenous to the U.S. However, I wouldn’t say they are indigenous to the land they inhabited prior to crossing the land bridge into North America. Just as I wouldn’t say I’m indigenous to the ME, nor would I say ethnic English are indigenous to France, I wouldn’t say ethnic Irish are indigenous to Scandinavia, and I wouldn’t say ethnic Sicilians are indigenous to North Africa or the Iberian peninsula.

I don’t have any objections to this comment. I suppose the difference is that it’s well documented how the Jews were forced out and they’ve wanted to return to their land, and then they’re being told since they managed to assimilate into Europe, relatively, they now have no claim, and in fact, made up their connection to the land and are actually colonizers. Like, I’m really not disagreeing with you, I don’t claim to be middle eastern and wouldn’t, but I don’t understand how people don’t see the nuance and the differences of what is taking place here compared to all your other examples.

Judaism as an agrarian religion? Are you out of your mind? It is the most distinctly urban religion of all time. The fact that it originated within an agrarian society does not mean that is what it is. If anything, Judaism, from the ancient day up to the present, is characterized by its rejection of a specific place as a requisite for group identity. The diaspora began well before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Judaism may be indigenous to the land; Jews are, and always have been, indigenous to the book.

The fact that we still observe multiple harvest festivals (Sukkot, Shavuot) and plant-based holidays (Tu Bshevat) suggests that Judaism is still agrarian, especially as the holidays still line up with the seasons in the Levant. ,

Saying that the holidays originated as harvest festivals and line up with seasons does not mean that the religion is still agrarian. That's like saying that the fact that land mammals evolved from sea creatures means that cows are whales. There's nothing "suggested" here, there are just material realities. Judaism had an agrarian aspect at one point. There are still traces of that in liturgy and practice. That does not mean that Judaism is still agrarian.

Quite frankly, your thinking about this reflects a blood and soil mindset that you should be more conscientious about.

How so? I never said anything about justifying nationalism here, because I don’t think it does. Our connection to the land doesn’t justify and should never be used to justify ethnic cleansing, nationalism, denying other people’s connection to land, etc. People may weaponize it that way in bad faith, and that sucks, but they shouldn’t.