Europeans with jewish ancestry: still europeans?

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

It is what I usually heard; that it was the mother's side which decided of one's "jewness"

Yes I know, it was humour. It is both a matrilinear and racist system.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

It is what I usually heard; that it was the mother's side which decided of one's "jewness"

It is true. However, if a woman, whose mother is Jewess and father non-Jew, marries a non-Jew, then her children won't be considered Jews despite of the fact that she is considered Jewess.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Plethon

It is true. However, if a woman, whose mother is Jewess and father non-Jew, marries a non-Jew, then her children won't be considered Jews despite of the fact that she is considered Jewess.

Yes, racism.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Plethon

It is true. However, if a woman, whose mother is Jewess and father non-Jew, marries a non-Jew, then her children won't be considered Jews despite of the fact that she is considered Jewess.

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Yes, racism.

In other words it is clear that jew is neither a race, neither a religion but a MATHEMATICAL EQUATION:

Let's say that ♂= father and ♀= mother; then ♀' daughter and ♂ ' son ( a suplementary ' wil be added for each new generation after that of the parents); let's put also that when a parent or a dscendant is accompained by the symbol Y means that she/he is jew and that she/he is not when accompained by the symbol û
When result expressed in this manner: {x/y} it means either x; either y ; either both, ok?
now let's suppose that we have:

♂Y+♀Y ={♀’Y ; ♂’Y}

Let’s suppose that ♂û + ♀Y= ♀’Y and ♀’Y + #♂Y then ♀’Y + #♂Y={♀’’Y/♂’’Y } and that ♀’’Y + ## ♂Y then ♀’’Y + ## ♂û = ={♀’’’Y/♂’’’Y }
But now let’s suppose that on the contrary we got that ♀’Y + #♂û and keeping in memory that ♂û, then we’ll got ♀’Y + #♂û = ♀’’ û and then ♀’’ û + ##♂û then ♀’’ û + ##♂û = {♀’’’ û /♂’’’ û}

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

In other words it is clear that jew is neither a race, neither a religion but a MATHEMATICAL EQUATION

I was more thinking that Jews are a physical singularity (excellent maths stuff BTW). While multiculturalism is destroying European nations, this plague still don't affect them, strange hey? "Laws" of multicuturalism simply don't work on the Jew people. In terms of physics, that's a singularity. Physicians don't like singularities. Neither German chemists like it.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

In other words it is clear that jew is neither a race, neither a religion but a MATHEMATICAL EQUATION:

Let's say that ♂= father and ♀= mother; then ♀' daughter and ♂ ' son ( a suplementary ' wil be added for each new generation after that of the parents); let's put also that when a parent or a dscendant is accompained by the symbol Y means that she/he is jew and that she/he is not when accompained by the symbol û
When result expressed in this manner: {x/y} it means either x; either y ; either both, ok?
now let's suppose that we have:

♂Y+♀Y ={♀’Y ; ♂’Y}

Let’s suppose that ♂û + ♀Y= ♀’Y and ♀’Y + #♂Y then ♀’Y + #♂Y={♀’’Y/♂’’Y } and that ♀’’Y + ## ♂Y then ♀’’Y + ## ♂û = ={♀’’’Y/♂’’’Y }
But now let’s suppose that on the contrary we got that ♀’Y + #♂û and keeping in memory that ♂û, then we’ll got ♀’Y + #♂û = ♀’’ û and then ♀’’ û + ##♂û then ♀’’ û + ##♂û = {♀’’’ û /♂’’’ û}

What's the sharp sign for?

[Weltschmerz]

Really I think that one should consider a historical context where the definition of a jew as 'born from jewish mother' can be found, in order to understand it. One such context - and perhaps the most illuminating one - can be found in the Torah and other scriptures, collected in translation in what is known as the Old Testament. I'm not going to spend a month looking for specific references, but I'll elaborate on it briefly, in terms of imaginable and relevant scenarios, that may or may not be explicitly stated in the O.T. I do believe that I have some general understanding of it anyway. I read about half of it or so. Within the context of the O.T. then:

If a jewish man slept with a non-jewish woman, the off-spring would most likely be seen as a half-breed and hence not jewish. A woman needs to be jewish herself in order to be able to have jewish babies, naturally. Now what do we make of a jewish woman who sleeps with a non-jew? She would usually be labelled a whore, and be stoned to death before a child was born, I reckon.

I'm not defending that morality or saying that this is the way jews are. I'm saying that this seems reasonable within the context of the O.T., and I'm just trying to make sense of the traditional definition of jew that way, because I've never heard any fully reasonable explanation from an authority on the subject. The usual explanation is that the mother is the one who teaches tradition in the home. Does that make sense in a scriptural context? Hardly. It makes sense in modern society, and specifically as the man is out making money while the woman takes care of the babies. But I do believe that the definition is a little bit older than that.

To apply the old definition in modern society would be to take the definition out of its context. The child of a jewish father and non-jewish mother is as 'half jewish' as the child of a jewish mother and a non-jewish father, for as long as we're talking strictly about jews as a race. (That is questionable in itself I guess, but I'll leave it to someone who knows.)

[Whiteruthenian]

Good question. Probably there should exist extremely clear criteria which would definite a European (and also an Irishman, a Spaniard, a Ukrainian etc.) so that these words became as concrete as words like “table” or “chair”.

Unfortunately now the concept of ethnicity isn’t present as well in systems of laws of European countries as it should be. Of course this situation must be changed. I think Hitler & Co gave a good example how it should be done introducing Nuremberg Laws.

This should be true also in relations among European nations. Such phenomena as a person of two ethnicities, or a person who “choose” ethicity must not exist. You are a Latvian (Belarusian, Estonian etc.) or you are not, any “may be”, "half-" are unacceptable.



If a person’s way of thinking, beliefs, outlook are European, I think some Jewish blood (say, 1/8) is forgivable.

[Exeter]

You are comparing humans to things. I think it is wrong.

Could you define Ukrainian?

Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian

Good question. Probably there should exist extremely clear criteria which would definite a European (and also an Irishman, a Spaniard, a Ukrainian etc.) so that these words became as concrete as words like “table” or “chair”.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian

Good question. Probably there should exist extremely clear criteria which would definite a European (and also an Irishman, a Spaniard, a Ukrainian etc.) so that these words became as concrete as words like “table” or “chair”.

I don't think that kind of clarity would be possible. People are far more complex than objects and so categorizing people will always be difficult and imprecise.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by Exeter

You are comparing humans to things. I think it is wrong.

Could you define Ukrainian?

Nothing extraordinary – a person of Ukrainian ancestry. A Ukrainian would do it better.
I think also that, say, if a person living in the Ukraine has one Ukrainian parent and one (for instance) Russian (taking into account that more than 15% of population in the Ukraine are Russians) the person should be regarded as a Ukrainian (have the same rights and duties as a 100% Ukrainian). Even if (s)he don’t want to identify (her)himself with the Ukrainian nation, (s)he must be forced to.

Originally Posted by Errigal

I don't think that kind of clarity would be possible. People are far more complex than objects and so categorizing people will always be difficult and imprecise.

As for the law such uncertainty must not exist. In the USSR there was a record about ethnicity in the passport. Why should it not exist now? (The USSR as an example. Hee hee. )

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

What's the sharp sign for?

I mistakingly deleted an indication # (I assume that is the sharp sign ) means husband/wife taken by the children of the former couple; a supplementary # is added for each subsquent generation.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian

I think also that, say, if a person living in the Ukraine has one Ukrainian parent and one (for instance) Russian (taking into account that more than 15% of population in the Ukraine are Russians) the person should be regarded as a Ukrainian (have the same rights and duties as a 100% Ukrainian). Even if (s)he don’t want to identify (her)himself with the Ukrainian nation, (s)he must be forced to.

Why that? Ukrainians blood is contaminated? Don't you think the Ukrainians should be able to decide who is and who is not Ukrainian?

Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian

This should be true also in relations among European nations. Such phenomena as a person of two ethnicities, or a person who “choose” ethicity must not exist. You are a Latvian (Belarusian, Estonian etc.) or you are not, any “may be”, "half-" are unacceptable

How come you can be Ukrainian if you are only half Ukrainian then?