Sunday, October 25, 2009

Feelings towards members of various demographic groups, by race

Lately Inductivist has been investigating how whites feel towards blacks and other whites, the feelings Jews have for various racial groups, and to what extent these groups return the favor. Having seen group perceptions looked at in these ways from fairly contemporary (2002) data, bringing it all together in a single graphical representation is irresistible.

The following shows how members of various groups feel about members of other groups*. In a previous post depicting group differences in perceptions of intelligence, the method of visual representation employed was unnecessarily confusing. By following Al Fin's advice, there should be less obfuscation this time.

Groups for which perceptions are measured are listed along the x-axis. The feelings each of these groups has for whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews are respectively illustrated by the five consecutive colored bars springing up along the y-axis above them. The white bar shows each group's feelings towards whites, the black bar towards blacks, the brown bar towards Hispanics, the yellow bar towards Asians, and the baby blue bar towards Jews. So farthest to the left, we see that whites feel about as equally warmly towards whites and Jews, while they are cooler towards Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. The iciest vibes are emitted by Native Americans towards Asians, while the steamiest stuff comes from Jewish feelings towards other Jews.


The first thing that jumps out is how members of each group reserve the warmest feelings for other members of their group. Jews are the most clannish**, followed by blacks, then Hispanics, whites, and finally Asians (who, represented by people of Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and Indian descent, among others, probably don't have a lot of enthusiasm for being identified by as amorphous and unmeaningful a term as "Asian").

Jews are notable for the generally positive feelings they have for all groups, while Native Americans are similarly remarkable for the relatively negative feelings they hold across the board (at n = 10, the Native American sample on Jews is prohibitively small--please see below for more on the technical aspects of the data).

Though leftist Jews (is that a redundancy?) act as though the inherently racist white majority must be monitored lest its truculent bigotry lead to the rapid formation of pitchfork-wielding angry mobs out for minority--especially Jewish!--blood, whites tend to hold Jews in higher regard than non-whites do.

Despite waging a perpetual battle with Jews over who is the world's most oppressed and including a large segment of Muslims living in the US, blacks indicate slightly warmer feelings towards Jews than other non-white minority groups do.

Asian's coolness towards Jews surprises me a little. As the previously referenced post shows, they also perceive Jews to be less intelligent than other groups do. Anyone have an explanation for this?

Hispanic hostility for Jews is hardly novel. As ADL director Abe Foxman pointed out in a report on putative anti-Semitism in the US:

It is not surprising yet very distressing that one of the fastest growing segments in America holds strongly anti-Semitic views," said Mr. Foxman. "There is no doubt that this is a reflection of what is being learned about Jews in the schools, churches and communities of Hispanic nations, which is anti-Semitism at its most basic. We need to re-focus our efforts on reaching out to these groups in addition to the larger American public."

Excluding Jews for a moment, the three largest non-white minorities all hold whites in higher regard than they do members of other minority groups they are not part of. That is, blacks have warmer feelings for whites than they do for Hispanics or Asians, Hispanics have warmer feelings for whites than they do for blacks or Asians, and Asians have warmer feelings for whites than they do for blacks or Hispanics. As much as they might like receiving special treatment at whitey's expense, and as much as their extortionist, self-appointed racial representatives may encourage disdain for him, by and large non-white minorities don't hate their pale neighbors. This is encouraging.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(2-99), JEW, FEELWHTS, FEELBLKS, FEELHSPS, FEELASNS, JEWTEMP

* Sample sizes for perceptions of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are as follows: Whites = 2,177; blacks = 358; Hispanics = 222; Asians = 74; Native Americans = 35; and Jews = 38. The questions are posed thus: "In general, how warm or cool do you feel towards [group]?". To make the graphical representation more intuitive, I've inverted responses from the GSS so that higher scores reveal warmer feelings and lower scores depict cooler feelings.

The question regarding Jews is pulled from a different module, one that concerns perceptions of members of various religions rather than of various races. The questions on feelings towards whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are on a 1-9 scale, while the item on Jews is on a 0-100 scale. For ease of viewing, I converted perceptions of Jews by group from the 0-100 scale to a 1-9 scale using the standard deviation and mean perception of whites as an anchor, thus presuming that in aggregate, feelings towards whites are identical to feelings towards Jews. This is almost certainly not precisely the case, but I had to come up with an arbitrary scale somehow. Further, because of the disparate range of the sacles, it's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison. Consequently, intragroup differences in feelings towards Jews are what is important.

Sample sizes for perceptions of Jews are smaller (except among Jews, as this question has been asked in four different years, all of which contain Jewish responses but only one of which--2004--contains responses for the other racial groups) and are as follows: Whites = 642; blacks = 81; Hispanics = 83; Asians = 47; Native Americans = 10; and Jews = 51. How the question is posed: "I'll read the name of a group [Jews in this case] and I'd like you to rate that group using the feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the group. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 degrees mean that you don't feel favorable toward the group and that you don't care too much for that group."

** Because the mean levels of warm feelings are nearer the maximum for whites than for Jews, converting Jewish sentiments for other Jews to the racial scale yields a value of 9.12 that is slightly above the ceiling of 9. I've shown it at exactly 9.0 to make the graph in its entirety more comprehendible. Again, keep in mind that the baby blue bars are only reliable in comparison to one another, not to the other bars of different colors.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

The first thing that jumps out is how members of each group reserve the warmest feelings for other members of their group. Jews are the most clannish

Gotta love how idiotic humanities hacks with English degrees such as Ian Jobling constantly argue that Jews aren't ethnocentric, clannish, etc. And dissimulators like "The Undiscovered Jew", "Half-Sigma", et al of course run with this to propagate false claims and arguments.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

English degrees such as Ian Jobling constantly argue that Jews aren't ethnocentric, clannish, etc. And dissimulators like "The Undiscovered Jew", "Half-Sigma", et al of course run with this to propagate false claims and arguments.

According to the chart, the non-Jewish ethnic group Jews feel warmest to are other whites.

Anonymous said...

According to the chart, the non-Jewish ethnic group Jews feel warmest to are other whites.

Of course they do. Of course parasites feel warmest to their traditional, most nutritious hosts whom they've been feeding off of for centuries. Regarding the other groups, there isn't much to feed off of in the first place.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

I'm going to add one other thing,

Jewish political leanings aren't explained by "clannishness."

Jewish politics correlates with how religious or secular we are.

This is because the persecution of Jews was not based on race until the 1930's. Historically the persecution of Jews was based on our failure to convert to Christianity in Europe or Islam in the Middle East.

In fact, before Jewish proselytism was outlawed by Muslim and Christian authorities who viewed Judaism as religious competition, Jews actively sought converts to Judaism, especially during the Hellenic age. If Jews sought out converts when it was legal to do so, it's clear that Judaism cannot possibly be a "group evolutionary strategy." Our European DNA doesn't come from intermarriage, it comes from European converts to Judaism.

But none of this is going to make any sense to the WNs who think every human activity is explainable by one race trying to genocide another:

Half Sigma vs Kevin MacDonald

Posted by teageegeepea

UPDATE: Half Sigma has a response here, though not much new content.
More GSS fun! In response to something Whiskey said, I have updated my post on women & immigration. I got home today planning on doing a different GSS post. There had been two recent posts at the Hoover Hog on anti-semites, and a theme that stuck with me is the theory that Jews are pursuing a group evolutionary strategy against the white race. This is used by the racial right (although some deny being rightists) to explain Jewish liberalism. Half Sigma, in contrast, explains Jewish liberalism as being motivated to keep school prayer away from their kids, as Christianity with all its fun holidays and lack of dietary restrictions is just too much of a temptation for a Jewish mother to hazard. I’m going to look at questions that are racially vs religiously charged and compare the responses of Jews vs whites generally to see where the gap is larger.

snip

I’m going to post this and then calculate the results. Are Jews laicites or multicultists? See if you can beat me to it! Yeah, I know I have a head start since you didn’t instantly start reading this as soon as I posted it. You just have to be both lucky and fast.

UPDATE: Finished. Half Sigma wins hands down. Granted, there was subjectivity in what questions I chose to analyze. Think you can do a better job? Get to it! So why did the racialists get it wrong? My guess is that race is simply more salient to them and because they consider it a major motivating factor they assume it must also be for Jews. Because they do not lump Jews in with whites and are themselves concerned with promoting the interests of whites, they think Jews must also contrast themselves with whites (though as Half Sigma has noted, Jews think of themselves as whites) and the status of whites must be their target.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, Harpending and Cochran also believe the European-Jewish admixture occured during Roman times when Judaism sought converts and that there has been little admixture since:

How Ashkenazi Jewish are you?

Joshua Zelinsky points out that the paper contradicts the idea that a bottleneck or several bottlenecks contributed to Ashkenazi genetics. There never was a shred of evidence for any bottleneck at all--the idea gained currency as an explanation for the funny disease picture. This paper, along with several others like the Olshen et al. paper, ought finally to rid us that idea.

My take on the uniqueness of the pure Ashkenazi sample is that admixture with Europeans happened early on, in Roman times or shortly after, and that since then there has been hardly any.

Interesting that they essentially replicated and found the same thing that Greg and I did in our Ashkenazi paper, only with a thousand times as many loci.

Posted by: henry harpending | January 22, 2009 9:48 PM

Ashkenazi Jews are more European in ancestry

STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry, but varied significantly in the extent of European admixture. There is almost no European ancestry in Iranian and Iraqi Jews, whereas Syrian, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi Jews have European admixture ranging from 30%~60%. Analysis of identity-by-descent provides further insight on recent and distinct history of such populations. These results demonstrate the shared and distinctive genetic heritage of Jewish Diaspora groups.

snip

I'd guess that the European admixture among the Ashkenazi Jews is more Italian than anything else: but we'll see soon.

For Syrian Jews, Greek?

Posted by: gcochran | September 5, 2009 3:39 AM

I would be curious to see if there is a high Jewish genetic profile among Greeks. Historical evidence seems to indicate that when Christianity spread out of the Levant it was mostly to Hellenized Jews and then to Greeks who joined them. Since these Jews were effectively cut off from their ethnic brothers, I would suspect that they passed into the Greek whole.

Posted by: ElamBend | September 7, 2009 8:01 PM

silly girl said...

Since Jews are both an ethnic and religious designation it makes sense that they would come out as having the most affinity for one another. If you combine two designations it seems you get stronger affinity than among the other groups who only have one designation. For example evangelical whites might come out as more clannish because they would be identifying both religiously and racially. Since there is nothing like that on the graph, it seems a little like an apple/orange comparison.

A similar study would be to see the affinity of religious groups for those in their group. I suspect if you limit the entire pool to whites and then ask them how much affinity christians have for other christians, atheists for other atheists etc, you could get affinity levels close to the Jewish levels.

Do you really think white atheists like christians more than other atheists? I doubt it.

Seems possible for other religious group. Can't be sure of course. Would have to check it.

Anonymous said...

Jewish political leanings aren't explained by "clannishness."

I'm not talking simply about "political leanings."


This is because the persecution of Jews was not based on race until the 1930's.

Yes, formally it wasn't based on race. But it always existed as an undercurrent.


Our European DNA doesn't come from intermarriage, it comes from European converts to Judaism.

Huh? These aren't mutually exclusive. It does come from intermarriage, which was usually preceded by conversion.


But none of this is going to make any sense to the WNs who think every human activity is explainable by one race trying to genocide another:

And nothing is going to ever make any sense to the Jews & Judeophiles who stubbornly believe that Jews are the completely innocent bystanders of history, supremely moral, completely passive and lacking any agency whatsoever, without power and influence, never negatively affecting their hosts, and always merely reacting to the goyim who endlessly persecute them.


Half Sigma vs Kevin MacDonald

Posted by teageegeepea


Why the hell are you posting old material from the Stevesphere that we're all familiar with already? HS and TGGP are not convincing at all. Furthermore, Jews/Judeophiles are constantly railing on MacDonald, claiming that he's a foaming, bigoted anti-Semite and thus biased and should be completely ignored. Yet they'll point to Jews like HS in support of their claims, despite the fact that HS is hardly an unbiased, impartial figure. HS has even gone so far as to attack and slander Ron Paul, accusing him of being an anti-Semite on numerous occasions.


Btw, Harpending and Cochran also believe the European-Jewish admixture occured during Roman times when Judaism sought converts and that there has been little admixture since:

BTW, this is irrelevant. I never even brought this up, nor do I deny it.

ironrailsironweights said...

I am surprised that whites have cooler feelings toward Asians than they do toward blacks or Hispanics.

Peter

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Huh? These aren't mutually exclusive. It does come from intermarriage, which was usually preceded by conversion.

If the only way European DNA entered the Jewish gene pool was through Jewish women having bastard children with European men, then that means the Jews always closed themselves off from the surrounding European population ethnically.

But if Jews actively sought European (and Middle Eastern) converts for many, many centuries during the Greco-Roman era before Muslim and Christian nations banned Jews from seeking converts (which is what actually happened) then it is completely impossible for Judaism to be an ethnic strategy:

Refinement of ancestry informative markers in Europeans (Tian et al. 2009)

Also of interest is the proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to Greeks and Italians which are about twice closer to them than Bedouins, Palestinians, or Druze from the Near East. As I have argued before, a major component in the ancestry of Jews was picked up in Hellenistic-Roman times; most published models of Ashkenazi Jewish origins have only considered admixture between a Near Eastern component with a northern European (German-Slavic) component. Indeed, Ashkenazi Jews are closer to several European populations than they are to Middle Eastern ones


However, as the PCA analysis shows, Ashkenazi Jews are distinct from both Europeans and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations and cannot be viewed as a simple mix of the two; their distinctiveness must be -in part- due to the specific features of the small founder population of that community after it became effectively reproductively semi-isolated from gentiles after Roman times. It would be interesting to see different Jewish communities studied in the context of a broad variety of European and Middle Eastern populations, to determine whether Ashkenazi distinctiveness is specifically Ashkenazi or more generally Jewish distinctiveness; I would bet on a combination of the two.

Audacious Epigone said...

"Clannish" probably wasn't the best word choice. And the question regarding Jews comes from a separate quetsion module and is thus posed differently than the questions about race are. Still, with the understanding that Jewishness is thought of in both religious and racial terms, Jews are far more positively inclined towards other Jews than any gentile group is.

Peter,

Me too. I'm surprised that feelings towards Asians are relatively cool across the board.

Anonymous said...

PC explains the "coolness" toward Asians. They're the "forgotten" minority. After all, nobody ever did anything else to them on a grand scale. Therefore, we (by which I mean all Americans) aren't obligated to like them.

Anonymous said...

"But if Jews actively sought European (and Middle Eastern) converts for many, many centuries during the Greco-Roman era before Muslim and Christian nations banned Jews from seeking converts (which is what actually happened) then it is completely impossible for Judaism to be an ethnic strategy:"

Your fellow Jew, the commenter "Dov" over at Half Sigma's blog, made some perfectly adequate objections to your bold and incorrect statement above in this comment thread.

So I'll just paste some of his comments here:

"Just because Jews actively sought converts hundreds of years ago doesn't mean that it couldn't have become a kind of "ethnic strategy" once we stopped seeking converts and became fairly endogamous to varying degrees. "Completely impossible" is way too strong, and misguided."

"There are other universalistic religions that have sought converts in the past and still do, yet also have sub-groups that are like and operate as ethnic groups. In Christianity for example, you have groups like the Amish."

"The fact that "the original Jews sought out different ethnicities as converts" doesn't prove or disprove anything. Just like the fact that our ancestors warred against and wiped out other tribes and peoples thousands of years ago (read the Old Testament) doesn't mean that we're genocidal murderers."

Anonymous said...

The iciest vibes are emitted by Native Americans towards Jews, while the steamiest stuff comes from Jewish feelings towards other Jews.

Looks more like the iciest vibes are emitted by Native Americans towards Asians (why?).

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Oops, that was a typo on my part, looking downfield at the warmest relations before making the catch on the coldest ones. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Your fellow Jew, the commenter "Dov" over at Half Sigma's blog, made some perfectly adequate objections to your bold and incorrect statement above in this comment thread.

I wasn't really arguing against Dov's points.

I was directing my arguments against the antisemites who have argued that Judaism was always a racially exclusive group strategy.

So answer this question to me, if the evolutionary antisemites are correct that Judaism is now and has always been a "outgroup" strategy, how is it possible that the original Jews sought out different ethnic groups as converts?

Anonymous said...

I was directing my arguments against the antisemites who have argued that Judaism was always a racially exclusive group strategy.

So answer this question to me, if the evolutionary antisemites are correct that Judaism is now and has always been a "outgroup" strategy, how is it possible that the original Jews sought out different ethnic groups as converts?


The "evolutionary antisemites" don't necessarily argue that Judaism was always a racially exclusive group strategy.

Kevin MacDonald, for example, begins his historical analysis in his book "Separation and Its Discontents" with the Jews of the late Roman Empire, which was long after the Jews stopped proselytizing and seeking converts. The Jews basically stopped proselytizing and seeking converts when it went to war against the Romans.

Don't make wrong assumptions and misrepresent their views.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Kevin MacDonald, for example, begins his historical analysis in his book "Separation and Its Discontents" with the Jews of the late Roman Empire, which was long after the Jews stopped proselytizing and seeking converts.

I have never read MacDonald claim Ahskenazi Jews are descended from European converts.

Clarify two things,

1) Where does he explicitly say in "Separation" that Jews sought converts in the Greco-Roman age or just go over the general history of Jews in the Roman Empire?

2) Does MacDonald ever explain how/why Judaism started as a religion open to non-Jews and white Europeans and later how/why it became an "ingroup" strategy to harm Europeans.

I have never seen him explain the problem Jews converting Europeans and other Middle Easterners presumably because Jewish proselytism destroys his argument.

I'm fairly sure he has argued that Judaism was always racially exclusive otherwise he would have tried to come up with some explanantion for why Judaism later became an ingroup strategy.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

that Jews sought converts in the Greco-Roman age or just go over the general history of Jews in the Roman Empire?

I meant to say

that Jews sought converts in the Greco-Roman age or does he ONLY go over the general history of Jews in the Roman Empire without discussing the specific issue of Jewish proselytism?

Anonymous said...

(US Nov '42) Are there any on the list [Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Negroes] that you would not consider marrying? Asked of a national cross-section of high school students. (for)

Protestants Catholics
Negroes 91.6% Negroes 92.8%
Chinese 71.9 Chinese 75.5
Jews 51.6 Jews 58.8
Catholics 19.9 Protestants 25.2
Swedes 7.7 Swedes 9.3
Irish 4.7 Irish 2.8
Protestants 1.8* Catholics 1.0
Makes no difference 1.3 Makes no difference 1.0
Don't know 1.6 Don't know 1.4
________ _______
252.1%** 267.8%**

Jews Negroes
Negroes 95.0% Jews 57.8%
Chinese 80.0 Chinese 54.1
Catholics 28.8 Swedes 45.0
Protestants 27.5 Irish 42.2
Swedes 9.3 Catholics 29.4
Irish 23.8 Protestants 22.0*
Jews 1.3 Negroes 1.8
Makes no difference. 1.3 Makes no difference 13.8
Don't know 3.8 Don't know 12.8
________ _______
270.8%** 278.9%**
* There is no accounting for the small maverick groups that declare
they would not marry their own kind. But interviewers report that a
number of respondents were, oddly, confused as to the meaning of
"Protestant" some of them thinking they were protesters and "trouble-
makers," others thinking they were some such sect as the Holy Rollers.
** Percentages add to considerably more than 100 because many re-
spondents gave more than one answer.

Source:

Public Opinion, 1935-1946
Book by Hadley Cantril, Mildred Strunk; Princeton University Press, 1951

Jack said...

I'm not that surprised by the coolness of Asians for Jews, and vice versa. I don't see as many Jewish-Asian good friendships as I'd expect. The two groups are now competitors, of course, for Ivy League spots, as well as high-IQ jobs and women, so that might explain some of it.

I, personally, find many Asian men sneaky and passive-aggressive.

MC Rorschach said...

Jack,

Which of the following doesn’t belong?
a) Men
b) Women
c) Ivy League spots

The Undiscovered Jew said...

I'm still waiting for an antisemite to scientifically explain to me how Judaism began as a religion open to different races and ethnicities -including ethnic Europeans - during all of the Greco-Roman era but later became an "ingroup" strategy to defeat Europeans after Jews had already accepted a large number of European converts to Judaism during the early history of Christianity...

Anonymous said...

The Undiscovered Jew,

Don't refer to me as an antisemite. I'm not addressing you as a Jew dissimulator or something. If you want to debate, don't be a bitch about it.

First of all, you're mischaracterizing precisely how "open" and universal Judaism actually was during the time of proselytizing and the active seeking of converts, which ended with the Jewish-Roman Wars. It was nothing like what we think of classic universal, proselytizing religions such as Christianity or Islam, for example, where a short statement professing belief, or simply tacitly, sincerely believing in the religion's major tenets can mean that you have become a member of the religion. You can see some of MacDonald's thoughts regarding this here.

You keep making the same, basic, erroneous claim: that because Jews proselytized and converted those of different races and ethnicities during a period of their history hundreds of years ago, this somehow definitively disproves any claims regarding Jewish ethnocentrism, Judaism as a mechanism of in-group/out-group behavior, etc.

This doesn't disprove anything. The Jews also engaged in extremely savage tribal warfare and conflict during their early history, conquering other tribes and peoples, enslaving them, committing genocide, etc. Does this mean that Judaism is a genocidal, conquering faith, like Islam or something?

Are Arab Muslims, Chinese Buddhists, the Amish, etc., all not ethnocentric at all, and never engage in in-group/out-group behavior simply because they may have proselytized hundreds of years ago, and may still continue to proselytize today?

Not only was Judaism not as "open" and universal as you apparently believe, or would like others to believe, it was also this way hundreds of years ago.

You really need to try again if this is the best claim you can come up with.

Also, at least two of MacDonalds books, "Separation and Its Discontents" and "The Culture of Critique" are both available freely online as full PDFs. You've criticized MacDonald and his work before in the blogosphere. Read his work before criticizing, misrepresenting, and obfuscating it. Most of the criticisms you and others make are of crude caricatures of his claims and arguments.

Anonymous said...

In the link I provide in my previous comment, search for "proselytism" to pull up pages where MacDonald discusses Jewish proselytism.

tommy said...

Asian's coolness towards Jews surprises me a little. As the previously referenced post shows, they also perceive Jews to be less intelligent than other groups do. Anyone have an explanation for this?

1. The intelligence gap is smaller.

2. Asians tend to be numerically skilled. Jews tend to be verbally skilled. Asians may sense that Jews are less intelligent than they seem when Jewish mathematical performance doesn't keep match their verbal aptitude.

3. Asians are more taciturn and less forward than Jews. Jews may often come across as either clownish or boorish to Asians (as they do to many northern Europeans).

4. Asians are less likely to be Christians and less likely to romanticize Jews as a result.

5. Asians, unlike whites in the United States, haven't been subjected to constant guilt trips over Jewish persecution in Europe.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

First of all, you're mischaracterizing precisely how "open" and universal Judaism actually was during the time of proselytizing and the active seeking of converts, which ended with the Jewish-Roman Wars. It was nothing like what we think of classic universal, proselytizing religions such as Christianity or Islam, for example, where a short statement professing belief, or simply tacitly, sincerely believing in the religion's major tenets can mean that you have become a member of the religion.

It does not matter what particular ceremonial/religious hoops one had to jump through in order to convert to Judaism.

If, as Harpending and Cochran argue, that the bulk of Jewish European DNA was picked up by the the time of the late Roman period and there was little DNA pickup afterwards, that means the majority of Jews were of European ancestry throughout most of the Roman era, which means prosyletism was performed on a very large scale.

Which means that Judaism was actively seeking a sizable amount of converts.

And if Judaism was seeking out many European and other Middle Eastern converts, then it remains unexplained how Judaism could be both an ethnic-ingroup strategy while simultaneously seeking large numbers of converts.

If Judaism were an ethnic ingroup strategy then Judaism should never have been proslytist at all and always been ethnically exclusive in order for MacDonald's theory to be correct.

This doesn't disprove anything. The Jews also engaged in extremely savage tribal warfare and conflict during their early history, conquering other tribes and peoples, enslaving them, committing genocide, etc. Does this mean that Judaism is a genocidal, conquering faith, like Islam or something?

Um, so what?

Julius Caesar boasted in his memoirs of killing 1 million Gauls. That doesn't prove the Greco-Roman religion was a genocidal, conquering "ingroup" strategy for Romans.

Are Arab Muslims, Chinese Buddhists, the Amish, etc., all not ethnocentric at all, and never engage in in-group/out-group behavior simply because they may have proselytized hundreds of years ago, and may still continue to proselytize today?

I have never heard anyone claim Islam and Buddhism are ingroup strategies for Arabs and Chinese respectively, so I don't know why you even brought up the subject of of other religions. Buddhism and Islam are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

You keep dancing away from the question I asked you.

Answer my question this time instead of dodging around:

How could Judaism be an ingroup strategy to outcompete Europeans if for over 500 years Judaism aggressively sought out European converts and the majority of Jews by the end of the Roman era were of European background?

Stonewaller said...

I find it interesting that all but 2 of the posts included comments about Jews -- many of them negative.
For 5000 years, being ethnically Jewish and practitioner of Judiasm were virtually the same thing. Over time Jewish ethnicity and Jewish religiosity have diverged to such a point that one is almost talking about two different groups of people in 20th century America.
Were one to compare those who identify as ethnic Jews but not as practitioners of Judaism with those who identify as both, one would see vast differences in their socioeconomic history as well as political philosophy.
As SILLY GIRL observes: the author has failed to make apples-to-apples comparisons when dealing with the Jewish classification in this survey.
ANONYMOUS I think your characterization of Jews as "parasites" smacks of more
than a little antisemitism. Nevetheless, you are correct in your statement that Jews have "not been innocent bystanders of history." As Vietnam antiwar activist, Abbie Hoffman, Southern Poverty Law Center executive director, Morris Dees, National Organization for Women founder, Gloria Steinem, and Gay rights leader, Harvey Milk, exempify: Jews have always been in the forefront of every social justice movement to which they have been proximate. And most outside observers as well as inside participants have viewed the participation of Jews in a postive light.
TEAGEEGEEPEA HALF-SIGMA's determination that "Jews think of themselves as Whites" is debatable.
But not debatable is the fact that most Americans share the view of all Nazis and Klansmen -- whatever Jews may be, White is not among them.
It is also worth noting that Blacks
are the only group the members of which are targeted for hate crimes in greater numbers than Jews. Given that Blacks constitute 13% of the population and Jews 2% of the population, Jews are the group most targeted for hate crimes on a per capita basis -- and most of those crimes are committed by people who identify as "true"
Whites.