Then using those to define "Jewish race" rather than finding "Jewish race" as a category rooted in biological difference from "Aryan race"; such a distinction does not identify human population with a distinct character driven by biological differences. — fdrake

I don't think Madfool suggested otherwise. He just said racism is related to our ability to place meaning on distinctions. Ashkenazi Jews lived in their own communities. They dressed differently. They spoke Yiddish. Differences were obvious. What difference does it make to Madfool's point if the differences were biological or not?

And what the fuck is it that doesn't arise from our biology? Racism doesn't come from outer space. It comes from us. It's part of our potential. Biology is the bedrock for everything we are. Why is this confusing to anyone?

Why is this confusing to anyone? — frank

Will ask you a similar question: what makes an Aryan an Aryan and a Jew a Jew?

Will ask you a similar question: what makes an Aryan an Aryan and a Jew a Jew? — fdrake

Circumstances of birth. So?

Circumstances of birth — frank

What're the circumstances of birth that make them distinguished?

What're the circumstances of birth that make them distinguished? — fdrake

Jews are born to Jews. Aryans to Aryans. Again: if your point is that race isn't biological, though true, that's irrelevant to Madfool's point.

Jews are born to Jews. Aryans to Aryans — frank

And the child of an Aryan and a Jew?

Again: if your point is that race isn't biological, though true, that's irrelevant to Madfool's point. — frank

It rather is, it's about what we're attributing causal power; stuff that drives distinctions; to.

And the child of an Aryan and a Jew? — fdrake

I don't know if the Nazis got around to making a law about that. They would probably say the offspring is Jewish.

It rather is, it's about what we're attributing causal power; stuff that drives distinctions; to. — fdrake

His OP isn't about what drives distinctions. So no, genetics is entirely irrelevant.

An Aryan and a Jew have a baby, is it an Aryan or a Jew? How do you decide? — fdrake

The modern concept of the master race is generally derived from a 19th-century racial theory, which posited a hierarchy of races that was based on darkness of skin color. This 19th-century concept was initially developed by Count Joseph Arthur De Gobineau. Gobineau's basic concept, as further refined and developed in Nazism, placed black Indigenous Australians and Equatorial Africans at the bottom of the hierarchy, while white Northern and Western Europeans (which consisted of Germans, Swedes, Icelanders, Norwegians, Danes, British, Irish, Dutch, Belgian and Northern French) were placed at its top; olive skinned white Southern Europeans (who consisted of Southern French, Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Romanians, and Greeks, i.e., those who were called the Mediterranean race, were regarded as another sub-race of the Caucasian race) and placed in its upper middle ranks; and the Semitic and Hamitic races (supposed sub-races of the Caucasian race) were placed in its lower-middle ranks (because the Jews, were Semites, the [u[Nazis believed their cleverness made them extremely dangerous[/u]—they had their own plan for Jewish world domination, a conspiracy which needed to be opposed by all thoughtful Aryans) — Wikipedia

As you can see Nazism had a racial discriminatory policy based on skin color - a phenotype. Racism against the jews was based on a different, but not necessarily true, belief that jews were more intelligent and posed a threat to the Aryans.

Racism against the jews was based on a different, but not necessarily true, belief that jews were more intelligent and posed a threat to the Aryans. — TheMadFool

Maybe, but anti-Semitism was also associated with Germany's failure to become an integrated nation like the UK or France. They attempted forced assimilation through public education, but it didnt work. Jews remained distinct. This is a case where distinctness causes friction that eventually erupts into bloody scapegoating, but racism wasnt the primary driver, it was a symptom of social instability brought on by economic turmoil.

Maybe, but anti-Semitism was also associated with Germany's failure to become an integrated nation like the UK or France. They attempted forced assimilation through public education, but it didnt work. Jews remained distinct. This is a case where distinctness causes friction that eventually erupts into bloody scapegoating, but racism wasnt the primary driver, it was a symptom of social — frank

That was part of it (or maybe even most of it). Christians during the Dark Ages weren’t allowed to be bankers, leaving the profession LARGELY to the Jews who were barred from many other professions. This unfortunately led to mistrust of the Jews, something that they were not at all at fault for.

The Knights Templar were also involved in banking, and they were all slaughtered by the Church in a coup for their so-called heresies.

Yep. In Russia, Jews were employed as tax collectors and the boyars often deflected peasant ill-will away from themselves to the Jews. It was a situation guaranteed to cause deep seated resentment.

Again, what made it all possible was differences and the tendency to attach meaning to differences.

IOW, racism is rooted in something indispensable, as noted by the OP. Food for thought.

Maybe, but anti-Semitism was also associated with Germany's failure to become an integrated nation like the UK or France. They attempted forced assimilation through public education, but it didnt work. Jews remained distinct. This is a case where distinctness causes friction that eventually erupts into bloody scapegoating, but racism wasnt the primary driver, it was a symptom of social instability brought on by economic turmoil. — frank

Indeed, you're right. It seems that the ability to see differences which I'm talking about doesn't quite explain anti-semitism, at least not in a biological sense. As you and others have rightly pointed out social and political factors too were in play. Nevertheless racism against Africans and Asians was/is bases on biology.

The problem with your posts, Fool, is that they're completely lacking in history. They are just-so stories unencumbered by the insights of several decades of research on the topic of how racism originated. So, I propose a short reading list:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s62iy/europe_had_normal_diplomatic_relations_with/ (plus a bibliography at the end)
https://kenanmalik.com/2013/02/17/the-making-of-the-idea-of-race/ (Malik has also written a very good book on the topic called Strange Fruit)

FWIW, anti-semitism is actually paradigmatic in terms of how hatreds were formed, felt and observed. Historically speaking it follows the pattern of observed religious/cultural difference only becoming biological in the modern (in fact 19th century) period.

The problem with your posts, Fool, is that they're completely lacking in history. — coolazice

They're lacking more than just history. Thanks for the links. I don't know if history is necessary at all. I mean history gives context - a background - to an issue but if one is ignorant of history one may always fall back on what hasn't changed, the constants that ground all human activity - our biology and human nature.

Nevertheless racism against Africans and Asians was bases on biology. — TheMadFool

That leads to the question of whether science is itself a social construct (or a type of game). There was once a strong bias against the "recent African origin" thesis which, per Stringer, was based on racist beliefs among white scientists. They wanted blacks, whites, and asians to have evolved separately in different parts of the world from different populations of homo erectus. How exactly that separation in time was supposed to support white supremacy, I'm not sure.

But you can see how a change in culture influenced science. Stringer says the opposition to RAO was strong and at times propelled by anger. In a Nazi world, there would have been no room in science for a voice pointing to the close relationship of all humans.

I guess my point is that biology doesn't stand apart from social construction the way we would like to think it does.

That leads to the question of whether science is itself a social construct (or a type of game). There was once a strong bias against the "recent African origin" thesis which, per Stringer, was based on racist beliefs among white scientists. They wanted blacks, whites, and asians to have evolved separately in different parts of the world from different populations of homo erectus. How exactly that separation in time was supposed to support white supremacy, I'm not sure.

But you can see how a change in culture influenced science. Stringer says the opposition to RAO was strong and at times propelled by anger. In a Nazi world, there would have been no room in science for a voice pointing to the close relationship of all humans.

I guess my point is that biology doesn't stand apart from social construction the way we would like to think it does. — frank

I agree. Science isn't immune to meddling or the vested interests of social groups or the prejudices of the scientists themselves. I've heard a lot of scientists talk of the greatness of science as a very unbiased field of study. However, there have been many scientists with an agenda to push, some of which may be racist for all we know.

one may always fall back on what hasn't changed, the constants that ground all human activity - our biology and human nature. — TheMadFool

The point is precisely that what you are calling 'human nature' has in fact changed over time and this is well-documented by historians.

The point is precisely that what you are calling 'human nature' has in fact changed over time and this is well-documented by historians. — coolazice

How has it changed, might I ask?

If racism has a biological basis, tolerance must also.

If racism has a biological basis, tolerance must also. — frank

Indeed it has. Birds of a feather flock together.

If you construct a bird feeder, you'll see that native American species congregate together without much friction.

But if transplanted starlings show up you'll see a different behavior: a single startling will fight off the other birds for the right to sit in the feeder and graze.

Eventually a startling war will break out as they compete for the chance to eat.

Starlings didn't evolve in North America, so there's no balance.