Now, this isn't an Israeli/Palestinian point, but just more evidence that Western nations are ethnic identities fighting other ethnic identities. I further don't buy that British are a "nation" and not an "ethnicity".. It has a shared culture, history, (somewhat of) ancestry, etc. It is butting up against other ethnicities (other people in places they are sending their people to). — schopenhauer1

Ethnicities are socially constructed though. It sounds like you're arguing some kind of "ethnic essentialism" where the world can only ever consist of ethnic identity groups "fighting".

Ethnic histories justify racism because they allow people to inherit grievances, fault and characteristics through their ethnicity. We can claim credit, responsibility and ownership of historical events based on our race or ethnicity. We are allowed to exclude or include on the basis of ethnicity and we are allowed to see political and cultural issues as disputes between ethnic groups. That's why I oppose them. — Judaka

I agree with this, by and large. I think the difficult part is to still recognise that people with a different history from you will have genuinely different experiences where you might not even know that you don't know. So from this perspective it seems important to get voices and participation from people of different backgrounds, and in practice those backgrounds will often be based on racial or ethnic groupings. So you basically have to invite these groupings to form in order to avoid "normalcy" bias, while at the same time avoiding falling back into narrowly identitarian thinking.

The best way to do that is probably to have strong political affiliation that can transcend these groupings (preferably towards overall good outcomes, of course. Inclusive authoritarians would still be bad).

Ethnicities are socially constructed though. It sounds like you're arguing some kind of "ethnic essentialism" where the world can only ever consist of ethnic identity groups "fighting". — Echarmion

Arguing that much of history is ethno-history and that the West is not separate from it.. Doesn't mean it can't change over time. But look how it does so, mainly (if it does). It's out of an idea of Pax (fill in the blank). How does that Pax happen though?

After all the butchering of WWI and WWII, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War (which, by the way, has only lessened; it did not disappear) the major economies of the globe have been intentional about keeping a lid on conflict. We should be grateful that a lid is being kept on the kettle, but it isn't because of the arc of justice that this is so. It's caution about unleashing highly disruptive wars. "They" have calculated that war, at this point, would probably not be worth it. (Talking big wars, not little ones.).

Ethnicity and culture are basic building blocks of community. We are not one big Heinz 57 multiculti puree. The impression that we are (a puree) is an elite creation to help suppress inconvenient friction. That will work until material shortages arise (not enough food, water, energy, etc.). Then "WE" will become much more important than "YOU" and business will proceed in the usual and customary warlike way. — Bitter Crank

All good points.. This stemmed out of Judaka claiming thus:

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking? — Judaka

It's basically surrounding ethnic histories being "barely talked about" as if the West is neutered from ethnic history. I gave examples of exactly how colonization is such a history itself and then buttressed it with the idea that if it feels like Pax (fill in the blank), where minorities are allowed to participate in various nations who basically started in Europe, that didn't just get that way by accident.

I said Australian culture is ethnically inclusive, Australian history can be identified with by Australians of any ethnicity and you started talking about our history as a colony. — Judaka

Being ethnically inclusive is not power sharing. Why not let the remaining tribal chiefs of Aborigine run the government? The ones that are left. And the government will run in a style amenable to Aboriginal protocol.. Not British-style parliament.

The timeframe of centuries is incorrect, the West has gone from the worst subscribers to ethnic and racial histories to being, at least, appalled by their racist and tribalistic history. Each decade brings more change than the last, our cultures are changing at breakneck speed. The West making strides towards being ethnically and racially inclusive and reducing the interpretative relevance of race and ethnicity, that's what I want. It's precisely because of the West's history that these strides need to be made. Most of what you're saying is incoherent to me, misplaced grievances and confusing hypotheticals. I don't want individuals to see history as an "us" and "them" thing based on race or ethnicity, it's a simple idea. I want countries and cultures to be ethnically and racially inclusive. Do you have any opposition to this idea which isn't just recounting how racism and tribalism have existed for centuries?

Being ethnically inclusive is not power sharing. Why not let the remaining tribal chiefs of Aborigine run the government? The ones that are left. — schopenhauer1

Can you phrase this in a way that isn't completely moronic?


This is why I was not happy with the title of the thread being "ethnic identities". I think an ethnic group can voice concerns that are not shared by other ethnicities. Ethnic identities are probably fine if we take away ethnic histories and ethnic exclusive cultures. Especially when we're talking about families which recently immigrated and so on. The crucial thing is to have inclusive, pragmatic categorisations which transcend divisive, racist narratives.

The timeframe of centuries is incorrect, the West has gone from the worst subscribers to ethnic and racial histories to being, at least, appalled by their racist and tribalistic history. — Judaka

Again, why not a tribal chieftain government ruling Australia.. at least half and half?

Can you phrase this in a way that isn't completely moronic? — Judaka

Why would that be moronic? It's truly being inclusive.

I don't want individuals to see history as an "us" and "them" thing based on race or ethnicity, it's a simple idea. I want countries and cultures to be ethnically and racially inclusive. Do you have any opposition to this idea which isn't just recounting how racism and tribalism have existed for centuries? — Judaka

When you wipe out all the enemies and let the remainders in under the idea of equality... sure makes all the sense in the world.

You represent what makes ethnic histories dangerous, these insane characterisations. If you would prefer, I'm happy to talk about middle eastern politics instead of European. Just so I can avoid your absurd language that treats me as part of an ethnic and racial monolith that spans centuries. Or will you complain about how I'm not letting other nations play out their wicked racist fantasies as I got to? (as the West)

edit: Actually, forget it, you can just read what I've already written to bitconnect if you want that, I'm done talking about this with you.

I honestly don't give a shit. I was arguing that ethnic histories do matter. I think I made my point. Look I agree with you that inclusivity is the way to go, but I will not agree with you that this inclusivity is not based on a lot of getting rid of other cultures. So yeah, I'm with you to an extent. Let's move towards United Federation of Planets and Star Trek.

Arguing that much of history is ethno-history and that the West is not separate from it.. Doesn't mean it can't change over time. — schopenhauer1

I don't know. This seems like the reification of a category to me. History is driven by the contingencies of situations and the long-term evolution of ideologies and political alliances. If there is a "real" force behind ethnicity I'd argue it's the human tendency towards familial affiliation and xenophobia.

But look how it does so, mainly (if it does). It's out of an idea of Pax (fill in the blank). How does that Pax happen though? — schopenhauer1

Does it matter? State of affairs don't have moral values attached to them in my view, only behaviour does. There isn't a way to roll back history to the first injustice ever perpetrated and then start basing your utopia on this. By necessity, we must start where we are and move somewhere. History should inform our decisions, not put them in a straightjacket.

The crucial thing is to have inclusive, pragmatic categorisations which transcend divisive, racist narratives. — Judaka

:up:

History should inform our decisions, not put them in a straightjacket. — Echarmion

Again, this goes both ways.. The victors can make whatever positive narrative they want for themselves. Who is going to say otherwise? Multiculturalism to a Native Americans just means.. "Oh cool, I see you there.. but you're not getting your shit back". And of course, any animus to the point of war is long gone.. So yeah... It's easy to learn when you did the deed already. Study, analyze, do whatever you'd like.

Again, this goes both ways.. The victors can make whatever positive narrative they want for themselves. Who is going to say otherwise? — schopenhauer1

Us, hopefully.

Multiculturalism to a Native Americans just means.. "Oh cool, I see you there.. but you're not getting your shit back". And of course, any animus to the point of war is long gone.. So yeah... It's easy to learn when you did the deed already. Study, analyze, do whatever you'd like. — schopenhauer1

I really can't make heads or tails out of this kind of criticism. Yes history exists. Do we have any other options apart from starting where we are and trying to make things better?

Ethnic histories justify racism because they allow people to inherit grievances, fault and characteristics through their ethnicity. — Judaka

Every culture or ethnicity tells itself stories and through these stories or histories we come to understand ourselves and the other. Ethnic histories can justify racism if that story is being told in a bad, simplistic way. After WWII so many Jews felt incredibly ill not only of Germany, but the German people as well as Europeans in general.

Thankfully, after (largely Jewish) writers began producing Holocaust-related literature and re-examining that period in history it allowed us to recast our history and our own understanding in more nuanced terms: Europe is not irredeemably anti-Semitic, there were many groups that went out of their way to save Jews, and the story simply isn't as clear cut as many would think it is. The more we study the Holocaust, the more we move away from this simplistic, black-and-white rendition ("woe is me, Europe hates Jews, we can never trust anyone who isn't Jewish") to something a little more reflective of reality.

Many of those who poured hundreds of hours into that writing and research were Jews who were deeply inspired by their ethnic connection to the conflict. In fact, the field of Holocaust literature is largely dominated by Jews who have made a real, serious effort to understand their own history and their people's history and this has allowed Jews to move forward as a group in a much more productive way and reshape their history in a healthier way which benefits everyone. There's also a ton of universal knowledge about human behavior and how humans act under bureaucracy that was revealed through this heavy literature.

So @Judaka's contention is that no nation should ever be built for ethnic historical reasons. Case closed for Israel.

Yeah, under Judaka's ideas there would just be no Jewish people or Jewish identity. I've already been over this with Judaka and I don't feel like rehashing this.

Assimilation can always be an option, but it should never be something to be pushed or forced on a group of people. It takes an incredible degree of arrogance to come as a complete outsider to another group and just tell them outright that they need to "be like us" or "become western" - whatever that means. We've already seen this narrative play out so many times in the Western world like with the Native Americans I just can't believe some people haven't learned by now.

Assimilation can always be an option, but it should never be something to be pushed or forced on a group of people. It takes an incredible degree of arrogance to come as a complete outsider to another group and just tell them outright that they need to "be like us" or "become western" - whatever that means. We've already seen this narrative play out so many times in the Western world like with the Native Americans I just can't believe some people haven't learned by now. — BitconnectCarlos

Surely after WWII, the dispossessed Jews should just reclaim their homes in Germany, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, and such right? What to do with the displaced persons? There have been ideas I've heard to have carved out something in Germany maybe to protect them. No one was interested in that.

There was nothing to go back to. Virtually everything was destroyed or stolen. The European Jews had to seek lives elsewhere whether it was in the US, Canada, UK, or Israel. Jews certainly would not want to have lived in Germany.

US, Canada, UK, or Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

But surely they should have just went to US, Canada, and the UK and foregone Israel, no? As @Judaka and others are claiming, these are ecumenical countries. Israel is a monolithic one- ironically treading against the tide of history which is moving towards ecumenicalism/multiculturalism/diversity.

Are you going to tell holocaust survivors in 1945 that they can't go to Israel? The one place where jews aspire to be ruled by other jews and not risk being murdered by their own host countries? Israel wasn't even a state at this point, it was just jews living in British controlled palestine.

Are you going to tell holocaust survivors in 1945 that they can't go to Israel? The one place where jews aspire to be ruled by other jews and not risk being murdered by their own host countries? Israel wasn't even a state at this point, it was just jews living in British controlled palestine. — BitconnectCarlos

They wouldn't have been murdered surely if they just went to US, Canada, and UK, no?

Probably not, no, but why can't they go to Palestine? In hindsight its all clear the mess we're in but the 40s and 50s were different times and jews were interested in building their own communities in that region.

Probably not, no, but why can't they go to Palestine? In hindsight its all clear the mess we're in but the 40s and 50s were different times and jews were interested in building their own communities in that region. — BitconnectCarlos

Not sure if this informs one way or the other:

Once it became obvious that repatriation plans left many DPs who needed new homes, it took time for countries to commit to accepting refugees. Existing refugee quotas were completely inadequate, and by the fall of 1946, it was not clear whether the remaining DPs would ever find a home.

Between 1947 and 1953, the vast majority of the "non-repatriables" would find new homes around the world, particularly among these countries:[10]

Belgium was the first country to adopt a large-scale immigration program when it called for 20,000 coal mine workers from the DP ranks, bringing in a total of 22,000 DPs near the end of 1947. The program met with some controversy, as critics viewed it as a cynical ploy to get cheap labor.
The United Kingdom accepted 86,000 DPs as European Voluntary Workers as part of various labor import programs, the largest being "Operation Westward Ho". These came in addition to 115,000 Polish army veterans who had joined the Polish Resettlement Corps and 12,000 former members of the Waffen SS Ukrainian Halychyna Division.
Canada first accepted a number of refugees through Orders in Council and then implemented a bulk-labor program to accept qualified labor and a close-relatives plan, that ultimately took the form of a sponsorship plan. By the end of 1951, Canada had accepted 157,687 refugees.
Australia had initially launched an immigration program targeting refugees of British stock, but expanded this in late 1947 to include other refugees. Australia accepted a total of 182,159 refugees, principally of Polish and Baltic origins.[11]
By the time Israel was established in 1948, as many as 50,000 refugees had entered the country legally or illegally. Completely opening its doors to all Jewish refugees regardless of age, work ability, health, etc., Israel accepted more than 652,000 refugees by 1950.
France accepted 38,157 displaced persons.
In Latin America, Venezuela accepted 17,000 DPs; Brazil 29,000; and Argentina 33,000.
French Morocco accepted 1,500 immigrants; Iraq extended an invitation to ten unmarried medical doctors.
Norway accepted about 492 Jewish refugees, largely based on their ability to perform manual labor. These were scattered throughout the country, and most left as soon as they could, primarily to Israel.
The United States was late to accept displaced persons, which led to considerable activism for a change in policy. Earl G. Harrison, who had previously reported on conditions in the camps to President Harry S. Truman led the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons that attracted dignitaries such as Eleanor Roosevelt, David Dubinsky, Marshall Field, A. Philip Randolph, and others. Meeting considerable opposition in the United States Congress with a bias against Central and Eastern European intellectuals and Jews, The American program was the most idealistic and expansive of the Allied programs but also the most notoriously bureaucratic.
After World War II ended in 1945, there were 7 to 11 million displaced people, or refugees, still living in Germany, Austria and Italy. To have some of these refugees come to the United States, Truman asked Congress to enact legislation. Truman’s administration, along with a lobbying group for refugees, Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons, favored allowing European refugees from World War II to enter the United States. Truman signed the first Displaced Persons Act on June 25, 1948. It allowed 200,000 displaced persons to enter the country within the next two years. However, they exceeded the quota by extending the act for another two years, which doubled the admission of refugees into the United States to 415,000. From 1949 to 1952, about half the 900,000 immigrants that entered the United States were displaced persons.[12] In order to qualify for American visas, only those that were in internment camps by the end of 1945 were eligible. The displaced persons that were trying to come to America had to have a sponsor and a place to live before their arrival, a guarantee that they would not displace American workers and, even more preferable, was that they had a relative that is an American citizen. Voluntary social service agencies, created by religious and ethnic groups, helped the refugees settle into American life.[13] Of the DPs the US admitted from eastern Europe between 1941 and 1957, 137,450 were European Jews.[14]

By 1953, over 250,000 refugees were still in Europe, most of them old, infirm, crippled, or otherwise disabled. Some European countries accepted these refugees on a humanitarian basis. Norway accepted 200 refugees who were blind or had tuberculosis, and Sweden also accepted a limited number. In the end most of them were accepted by Germany and Austria for their care and ultimately full resettlement as citizens. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_persons_camps_in_post%E2%80%93World_War_II_Europe

This has some information too:

At its peak in 1947, the Jewish displaced person population reached approximately 250,000. While the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) administered all of the displaced persons camps and centers, Jewish displaced persons achieved a large measure of internal autonomy.

A variety of Jewish agencies were active in the displaced persons camps. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee provided refugees with food and clothing, and the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ORT) offered vocational training. Jewish displaced persons also formed self-governing organizations, and many worked toward the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. There were central committees of Jewish displaced persons in the American and British zones which, as their primary goals, pressed for greater immigration opportunities and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

In the United States, immigration restrictions strictly limited the number of refugees permitted to enter the country. The British, who had received a mandate from the League of Nations to administer Palestine, severely restricted Jewish immigration there largely because of Arab objections. Many countries closed their borders to immigration. Despite these obstacles, many Jewish displaced persons attempted to leave Europe as soon as possible.

The Jewish Brigade Group, formed as a unit within the British army in late 1944, worked with former partisans to help organize the Brihah (literally "escape"), the exodus of 250,000 Jewish refugees across closed borders from inside Europe to the coast in an attempt to sail for Palestine. The Mosad le-Aliyah Bet, an agency established by the Jewish leadership in Palestine, organized "illegal" immigration (Aliyah Bet) by ship. However, the British intercepted most of the ships.

In 1947, for example, the British stopped the Exodus 1947 at the port of Haifa. The ship had 4,500 Holocaust survivors on board, who were returned to Germany on British vessels. In most cases, the British detained the refugees—over 50,000—in detention camps on the island of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The British use of detention camps as a deterrent failed, and the flood of immigrants attempting entry into Palestine continued.

The internment of Jewish refugees—many of them Holocaust survivors—turned world opinion against British policy in Palestine. The report of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry in January 1946 led US president Harry Truman to pressure Britain into admitting 100,000 Jewish refugees into Palestine.

As the crisis escalated, the British government decided to submit the problem of Palestine to the United Nations (UN). In a special session, the UN General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to partition Palestine into two new states, one Jewish and the other Arab, a recommendation that Jewish leaders accepted and the Arabs rejected.

After the British began the withdrawal of their military forces from Palestine in early April 1948, Zionist leaders moved to establish a modern Jewish state. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, announced the formation of the state of Israel, declaring,

"The Nazi Holocaust, which engulfed millions of Jews in Europe, proved anew the urgency of the reestablishment of the Jewish State, which would solve the problem of Jewish homelessness by opening the gates to all Jews and lifting the Jewish people to equality in the family of nations."

Holocaust survivors from displaced persons camps in Europe and from detention camps on Cyprus were welcomed into the Jewish homeland. Many of them fought in Israel's War of Independence in 1948 and 1949. In 1953, Yad Vashem (The Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority), the national institution for Holocaust commemoration, was established. — https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/postwar-refugee-crisis-and-the-establishment-of-the-state-of-israel

Yeah, under Judaka's ideas there would just be no Jewish people or Jewish identity. I've already been over this with Judaka and I don't feel like rehashing this.

Assimilation can always be an option, but it should never be something to be pushed or forced on a group of people. It takes an incredible degree of arrogance to come as a complete outsider to another group and just tell them outright that they need to "be like us" or "become western" - whatever that means. We've already seen this narrative play out so many times in the Western world like with the Native Americans I just can't believe some people haven't learned by now. — BitconnectCarlos

I am against compelling others by law or violence to give up on the idea of ethnic histories. The spirit of the ethnic history's retelling matters and how a person identifies with their ethnic history should be taken into account. While I think that any form of allowing people to identify with and recount history through the lens of ethnicity is dangerous, there's still room for compromise. There's also no benefit in replacing a dangerous idea with another dangerous idea, such as being too heavy-handed in how we treat others with different ideas than us.

I just don't think it's a coincidence that Israel has such a strong belief in ethnic histories and they're in such a mess with ethnic-based disputes. I don't think it a surprise that the CCP is heavily invested in the Chinese Han history and identity whilst being perpetrators of ethnic cleansing. The ethnic conflicts in Africa, the middle east, Europe and around the world. To equate strong beliefs in ethnic and racial histories with racism and tribalism, it's not a stretch, bitconnect, this isn't about some Western cultural attribute. Anyone can just look at history and make the connections.

Your responses in the thread on the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza did not represent the "spirit" that I might endorse. You used the ethnic history of the Jews to sanction conflicts, to claim special rights to land, to describe a history of persecution by other ethnicities, you talked of ethnicities owing other ethnicities compensation and so on. I'm sure there are people who do use ethnic histories in a more-or-less innocent way, to describe their ancestral roots, to take a special interest in a certain history, to practice some interesting holidays. Maybe it's not something I like or agree with but I'm not going to call it racist and tribalistic thinking if the shoe doesn't fit.

You want "outsiders" to shut up about it, let and let live you say, don't be so arrogant to tell others what they can and can't do. But this is a bit of an over-exaggeration, it's not like the West can force the citizens and governments of these various nations to change their thinking and such concerns have got nothing to do with whether ethnic histories are ethical or not.

Within the West, European ethnic histories are virtually a no-go, talking about a white racial history as a white person, is a huge red flag. Many want to celebrate minority ethnic and racial histories, I think it's ridiculous but even then, I think people should have the right to say ridiculous things, I'm against legislating against it. Having a debate about it, discussing the ethics of it, are not things to equate with the genocide of Aboriginals or Native Americans. You are free to think and talk as you want but you are not guaranteed to be free from criticism.

The ethnic conflicts in Africa, the middle east, Europe and around the world. To equate strong beliefs in ethnic and racial histories with racism and tribalism, it's not a stretch, bitconnect, this isn't about some Western cultural attribute. Anyone can just look at history and make the connections. — Judaka

I've never denied this. If we could press a button and eliminate ethnic histories there'd certainly be some not outlandish case for doing so, but in the context of the middle east it's just a fact of life and "phasing out" ethnic histories just isn't a thing. these ethnic stories are also mixed heavily with religion.
we need to deal with reality as it is, not try to encourage people to abandon or phase out their ethnic histories. the cat is too far out of the bag at this point.

You want "outsiders" to shut up about it, let and let live you say, don't be so arrogant to tell others what they can and can't do. But this is a bit of an over-exaggeration, it's not like the West can force the citizens and governments of these various nations to change their thinking and such concerns have got nothing to do with whether ethnic histories are ethical or not. — Judaka

no, i want outsiders - if they choose to engage - to engage as a partner, not as parent or a king unless the offense is very egregious. other cultures will have problems, just like yours, but it's all about how you address it. it's about tact.

Within the West, European ethnic histories are virtually a no-go, talking about a white racial history as a white person, is a huge red flag. — Judaka

you can talk about british history, french history, irish history - it's fine to celebrate that heritage and your connection with it. i'm fine with "german pride" as long as it strongly rejects nazism - again, its all about the story behind it.

there is no "white racial history." brits are not poles who are not czechs who are not italians. there is no "white history."

If we could press a button and eliminate ethnic histories there'd certainly be some not outlandish case for doing so — BitconnectCarlos

Glad you think so, even I recognise that we're talking about a goal that could take hundreds of years to complete, the annihilation or complete watering down of ethnic histories.

no, i want outsiders - if they choose to engage - to engage as a partner, not as parent or a king unless the offense is very egregious. other cultures will have problems, just like yours, but it's all about how you address it. it's about tact. — BitconnectCarlos

The way you talk about your race is a problem, I won't play games about who is and who isn't allowed to speak, especially when it's based on ethnicity or religion. I never really addressed the "Jewish" people, only ever you, because each person is different, I don't take you to be the spokesperson of a race. You know my stance and we don't have to discuss it further. I agree in principle that these issues need to be handled with patience and respect but diplomacy rarely factors into my posting online, I would handle things differently in different contexts.

you can talk about british history, french history, irish history - it's fine to celebrate that heritage and your connection with it. i'm fine with "german pride" as long as it strongly rejects nazism - again, its all about the story behind it.

there is no "white racial history." brits are not poles who are not czechs who are not italians. there is no "white history." — BitconnectCarlos

White racial history is much more of a threat in the West than the various ethnic histories, especially in the US and Australia. I don't think either ethnic or racial histories have any strong basis in reality, they're pretty nonsensical ideas but that doesn't stop them from being politically and culturally impactful. As for ethnic histories in Europe, I think it's important to remain ethnically inclusive. French history should belong to the French nationality, not the "French ethnicities", do you not think that is the best way forward?

The way you talk about your race is a problem, I won't play games about who is and who isn't allowed to speak, especially when it's based on ethnicity or religion. — Judaka

You're allowed to speak, of course, but should you if you don't have a sufficient grasp of the cultural/historical backdrop? As a parallel when writing a philosophy paper before you begin your argument you need to hash out your opponent's position in its entirety and pay it due respect. Same applies to ethno-cultural critiques. One's first task when engaging with a foreign culture is to take it in, to listen, not to judge.

I don't take you to be the spokesperson of a race. — Judaka

I'm no spokesperson of the Jewish people, but I know a hell of a lot more than a non-Jew who has never engaged Jewish culture. I'm also a Jew who has studied quite a bit of Jewish history on top of long-term direct engagement with multiple Jewish communities across the US.

I'm not perfect, but I should be treated as an authority on this subject. I try to be honest when a cultural question transcends my expertise. You're an authority in your own area, where ever that is.

French history should belong to the French nationality, not the "French ethnicities", do you not think that is the best way forward? — Judaka

I don't even know if there is a single French ethnicity. I think it's multiple ethnicities? In any case this is a French matter. I'm not in a position to say who rightfully "claims" their history.

I agree in principle that these issues need to be handled with patience and respect but diplomacy rarely factors into my posting online, I would handle things differently in different contexts. — Judaka

:up: