French Jews Planning Mass Exodus in Wake of Terrorist Attacks

[Hnv1]

My 2 shekels:

1. There has been a long steady wave of immigration for years now (mainly to Israeli coastal towns) and I can assure it's increasing in a rapid pace (boosting rent prices in some Jerusalem neighborhoods now). Is it a mass wave? no, from what I tell a lot of the immigration is from north African french Jews from lower class background but France Jewish community will still fairly big by the end of that wave.

2. Regarding personal safety - as most of those considering the move are living in 'Jewish' neighborhoods, a single well known neighborhood is more threatened than general living in a threatening country. Also, because those neighborhoods are mostly lower middle class they are also more exposed to general crime and violent crime of which Israel as significantly lower rates.

3. My crude estimate is were going to see a small surge in immigration next year and than a return to lull

[ag]

There are no words I hate more than "white Judeo-Christian". Kindly, please leave us alone.

Europeans spent centuries hating my ancestors for not being white European Christians. For a thousamd years, pogrom after a pogrom, massacre after a massacre Jews where hunted from one country to another, from one ghetto to another. Then, after doing a short job with 6 millions of those "white Judeo-Christians" they got all teary-eyed and decided to award us with "whiteness". I am not a "white man" and do not want to be one. Anyone designating me as such would be guilty of basest libel. Please allow me to stay with my black migrant  non- christoan brethren: I do not want any of your "whiteness".

Whiteness is not something you choose. You are white if you look white.

I do not know what that means. In Russia, a Georgian is, unquestionably, black (they, actually, use the word "black"). And a Georgian does not look much different from an Italian or a Spaniard. Nor does a Moroccan or a Turk. Nor does a Jew.

You are white, if you think you are white - or if the society considers you white. Jews and Catholics (Irish included) were not really considered "white" in NY a 100 years ago.

[ag]

Ой, не шейте вы, евреи, ливреи,
Не ходить вам в камергерах, евреи!
Не горюйте вы зазря, не стенайте, —
Не сидеть вам ни в Синоде, ни в Сенате.

А сидеть вам в Соловках да в Бутырках,
И ходить вам без шнурков на ботинках,
И не делать по субботам леха́им,
А таскаться на допрос с вертуха́ем.

Если ж будешь торговать ты елеем,
Если станешь ты полезным евреем,
Называться разрешат Рос… сина́нтом
И украсят лапсерда́к аксельба́нтом.

Но и ставши в ремесле этом первым,
Всё равно тебе не быть камергером
И не выйти на еле́е в Орфе́и…
Так не шейте ж вы ливреи, евреи!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljiWrfZcjqU

[ag]

Very useful indeed. Only I do not see how it is supporting your point.

My main point is that there is not a contest. I tend to think that the French state has done a pretty lamentable job of protecting all of its more obvious minorities. Anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately the report was less than clear on this point and so has deceived you a little; for the purposes of the report it was citing general racist incidents and antisemitic racist incidents were counted separately. Here is a very happy little graph from it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is always a risk with hate crime data, sure. But what's the alternative?

So, I guess, we can say that they suffer as the North Africans, not so much as Jews (there are more identified attacks by the white rightwingers, than by Muslims, in the same report).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Recently immigrated Sephardic Jews from North Africa are not native Europeans.

Ah, but this is precisely why 'native European' is such a dubious concept. Jews lived in the Iberian Peninsular (Sepharad: thus Sephardi) from Roman times¹ until 1492/7, after which they largely ended up in North Africa, the Ottoman Empire and (mostly Conversos in this case) the New World. You could, then, argue that the are more 'native' to Europe than the majority populations of several European countries, certainly more than historic elites.² What's the gap of a few centuries for a group with an absurdly long historical memory?

<sub>1. At least. Arguments have been made for even longer settlement, but there's no consensus on this.
2. And not just in terms of the immediately obvious (i.e. the fact that Magyar incursions into Pannonia did not begin until the 860s). Its clear that the Sephardis existed centuries before the great population movements that destroyed the Roman Empire began.</sub>

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So, I guess, we can say that they suffer as the North Africans, not so much as Jews (there are more identified attacks by the white rightwingers, than by Muslims, in the same report).

Or at least as a very obvious and very visible minority, sure.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You are white if you look white.

I have dark hair and a beard. People have occasionally (not often, but you notice: makes you think as well) acted around me as if I am not white and that this is a 'problem' on some level. Yet, my God, look at my family tree! Christ, some of my Taid's ancestors are probably in the fossil record of the parish he was born in.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Should it just be forbidden to refer to the majority population in Europe by any common label? (then you need to use a lot of stupid coded language, since it is a social reality)

We aren't the same 'people' so it's not an issue.

[ingemann]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

[ag]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

Actually, according to the Basques you all are very recent migrants

More seriously, thanks for letting me know that Jews, truly, do not belong to Europe. Those damns semitic migrants, they should go back to the Middle East where they came from. At least, I guess, you are not going to advocate the extermination - this is now in bad taste, if applied to the Jews. Unfortunately, I am afraid other "non-natives" would not have that "taste" protection clause applicable.

I guess, the reason French Jews are going to Israel is that they met you.

[politicus]

Should it just be forbidden to refer to the majority population in Europe by any common label? (then you need to use a lot of stupid coded language, since it is a social reality)

We aren't the same 'people' so it's not an issue.

Saying it is not an issue is just saying "I do not like this, so make it go away".

Sub-Saharan Africans are not the same 'people' either. They still recognize each other as a race and a civilization. There clearly is both a European civilization and a European race.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is no such thing as human "races".

[ingemann]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

Actually, according to the Basques you all are very recent migrants

Seeing as Baltic Germanics, Sardinians and Dalmatians are the only ones who have significant amount of pre-agricultural Y chromosome left, those uppity outlanders can move back to Mahgreb.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're aware that the closest related group to Ashkenazi are north Italians not Palestinians. I'm not aware who the Sephardic Jews are closest related to, but I would be surprised if it was not the Iberians.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all I fail to see how saying that Hungarians are not some people completely alien from their Indo-European neighbours can be seen as as supporting extermination, unless you think it's wrong that people mix across  language borders, and conquers rarely eradicate the people they conquer.

In fact I find you obsession with blood purity very early 20th century and not in a good way. While I don't think you support some kind of apartheid system, I do find this obsession in bad taste. So I suggest that you join me in the 21st century, where people are free to marry people for love, even if they belong to different ethnic, religious or racial groups.

[ingemann]

There is no such thing as human "races".

No that's incorrect, while the genetic argument for the "three" races is very weak (as example Eurasians, North Africans and the people of Africans horn belong to the same genetic group, through not a biological race), the Sans in southern Africa is distinct enough that we would call them one race and everyone else another, if we only looked at genetics.

But the three "races" exist as a social-cultural construction, which is recognised by everybody but genetists and people who suffer from a bad case of ideological blindness.

[politicus]

This is predictably not going well. Deconstruction is a futile and pointless approach when addressing something perceived as social reality by most people.

Why cant there be a common name for people of European ancestry when there are common descriptions of people of Asian, African and American origin? Why is Native European so bad, when you got Native American? Why is highly diverse Asian an acceptable racial term, when more homogeneous European is not?

[ag]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

Actually, according to the Basques you all are very recent migrants

Seeing as Baltic Germanics, Sardinians and Dalmatians are the only ones who have significant amount of pre-agricultural Y chromosome left, those uppity outlanders can move back to Mahgreb.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're aware that the closest related group to Ashkenazi are north Italians not Palestinians. I'm not aware who the Sephardic Jews are closest related to, but I would be surprised if it was not the Iberians.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all I fail to see how saying that Hungarians are not some people completely alien from their Indo-European neighbours can be seen as as supporting extermination, unless you think it's wrong that people mix across  language borders, and conquers rarely eradicate the people they conquer.

In fact I find you obsession with blood purity very early 20th century and not in a good way. While I don't think you support some kind of apartheid system, I do find this obsession in bad taste. So I suggest that you join me in the 21st century, where people are free to marry people for love, even if they belong to different ethnic, religious or racial groups.

1. You realize that all your discussion here is 10% science and 90% romantic interpretation, don´t you?

2. The only person here obsessed with blood purity here are yourself. For me, that is a meaningless concept.  I am not the one talking about the "pre-agricultural Y chromosome". It is you who are about to start measuring skull shapes for "nativeness".  "Blood purity" is something I find inane even in a conversation about dogs.  

3. I am a migrant bastard, whose family barely has had time to adopt a language of one country before moving on (most of my great grandparents were not native Slavic speakers and my grandchildren, probably, will not be either). I am not even "pure" for the Jews - thanks to a Swiss great grandmother (a "French sweet shop girl from Odessa," as my grandma - her daughter - wrote in her memoirs). There is no place I belong to - or wish to belong to. The likes of you would love to hunt me down and put me into a right ghetto - do not bother, there is no right ghetto for me. I am an anglophone Mexican, born in Russia of parents who never thought themselves Russian. Hopefully, my daughters will be Spanish-speaking East Indians married to some Chinese or African guys, or whatever. Yeah, we are not "native" Europeans: we have only lived there for a 1000 years, rarely spending even 200 years in any given place. We should have settled and assimilated, no doubt. But your "native Europeans" continued killing us throughout, so we had to flee. My Wilno-born great grandma could bake all the Vienna-style pastries she learnt in her childhood home - she still was not a "native European". Of course, she wasn't: she did't even know what her native language was (she had changed three, probably, by the time she was 20). My Riga great-uncle was well-enough "assimilated" to fake a plausible Eastern Prussian German dialect - served him truly well, as he was escaping from the concentration camp, fleeing from those true "native Europeans", who came to occupy the city he had been born in.

Genug (that is Yiddish, not German in this case), enough. I am sick of that "native European" bullcrap. Let my people alone. Do not dare you call us "native Europeans", "Judeo-Christians" or whatever. I do not want to be associated with you in any way.

[ag]

There is no such thing as human "races".

No that's incorrect, while the genetic argument for the "three" races is very weak (as example Eurasians, North Africans and the people of Africans horn belong to the same genetic group, through not a biological race), the Sans in southern Africa is distinct enough that we would call them one race and everyone else another, if we only looked at genetics.

But the three "races" exist as a social-cultural construction, which is recognised by everybody but genetists and people who suffer from a bad case of ideological blindness.

And which of the three races would, say, Mexicans be? In a "socio-cultural" way?

[ag]

This is predictably not going well. Deconstruction is a futile and pointless approach when addressing something perceived as social reality by most people.

Why cant there be a common name for people of European ancestry when there are common descriptions of people of Asian, African and American origin? Why is Native European so bad, when you got Native American? Why is highly diverse Asian an acceptable racial term, when more homogeneous European is not?

There is a very simple answer to your question. "Native Americans" refers to a tiny marginalized minority in the US (and includes people who are only partially Native, who speak no native language). Same as "First Nations" in Canada, of course. In Mexico, on the other hand, "indigenous" lable refers to the marginalized 10% to 15% of the population that speaks native languages. Of course, there are another 70% of Mexicans who have a lot more "Native" blood in them than most US "Native Americans", but nobody would call them "indigenous". Because there is no need: they are the majority, the Mexicans. "Native" lable is ok, when it is used to protect the weak and the disenfranchized. When used by the dominant group it is intrinsically threatening to the rest.

[ingemann]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

Actually, according to the Basques you all are very recent migrants

Seeing as Baltic Germanics, Sardinians and Dalmatians are the only ones who have significant amount of pre-agricultural Y chromosome left, those uppity outlanders can move back to Mahgreb.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're aware that the closest related group to Ashkenazi are north Italians not Palestinians. I'm not aware who the Sephardic Jews are closest related to, but I would be surprised if it was not the Iberians.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all I fail to see how saying that Hungarians are not some people completely alien from their Indo-European neighbours can be seen as as supporting extermination, unless you think it's wrong that people mix across  language borders, and conquers rarely eradicate the people they conquer.

In fact I find you obsession with blood purity very early 20th century and not in a good way. While I don't think you support some kind of apartheid system, I do find this obsession in bad taste. So I suggest that you join me in the 21st century, where people are free to marry people for love, even if they belong to different ethnic, religious or racial groups.

1. You realize that all your discussion here is 10% science and 90% romantic interpretation, don´t you?

Well of course, but it's you who bring up that people who have lived in Europe for centuries are not native Europeans. You're free not to see you self as one. That's you choice, but keep you ideology of blood purity away from me. I only use these terms because for some reason some people keep claiming that people and that people are not Europeans, so I read up on these things, to use in discussions, where Nazi and in this case liberals says that people like the Hungarians are not Europeans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really you keep bringing it up not me. You bring up national romantic sh**t right out of the 19th century about the Basque being the original Europeans and Jews being pure middle easterner up. Here's the thing pure race people doesn't exist, people mix when they live as neighbours. I'm sure you would also say that Romani are Indians rather than Europeans and other crap.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In that case you shouldn't derail the thread because a non-native English speakers use the terms the English (Americans) speakers seem to love and throw a hissy fit if we don't use. No we don't use Judeo when we talk about European culture (we talk about European or Christendom), it's really a American thing, but when you're on a American board... well in Rome do as the Romans, and hope someone with an axe to grind doesn't use it to derail the entire thread.

[ingemann]

There is no such thing as human "races".

No that's incorrect, while the genetic argument for the "three" races is very weak (as example Eurasians, North Africans and the people of Africans horn belong to the same genetic group, through not a biological race), the Sans in southern Africa is distinct enough that we would call them one race and everyone else another, if we only looked at genetics.

But the three "races" exist as a social-cultural construction, which is recognised by everybody but genetists and people who suffer from a bad case of ideological blindness.

And which of the three races would, say, Mexicans be? In a "socio-cultural" way?

I wasn't aware Mexicans was a "race", would you care to enlighten me, please? I have always seen Mexico as a nation populated by a diverse people.

[Gustaf]

Well, this is, eh...

Just wanted to agree with Al, really, that it's absurd to talk of a European race or people because essentially nothing unites Europe. And I think it's pretty controversial to talk about Asian or African races too. And for good reason.

[ingemann]

Well, this is, eh...

Just wanted to agree with Al, really, that it's absurd to talk of a European race or people because essentially nothing unites Europe. And I think it's pretty controversial to talk about Asian or African races too. And for good reason.

It reminds me of the story about the Croatic and the two Serbic veterans who meet each others on Java. Did they start fighting? No they walked into a bar, got drunk, while talking about the old land and sang together.

Europeans may not have a lot in common, when we sit at home, but when we compare us with non-Europeans when suddenly we have a lot in common, from cultural clues to a shared history. 

[ag]

There is no such thing as human "races".

No that's incorrect, while the genetic argument for the "three" races is very weak (as example Eurasians, North Africans and the people of Africans horn belong to the same genetic group, through not a biological race), the Sans in southern Africa is distinct enough that we would call them one race and everyone else another, if we only looked at genetics.

But the three "races" exist as a social-cultural construction, which is recognised by everybody but genetists and people who suffer from a bad case of ideological blindness.

And which of the three races would, say, Mexicans be? In a "socio-cultural" way?

I wasn't aware Mexicans was a "race", would you care to enlighten me, please? I have always seen Mexico as a nation populated by a diverse people.

Mexico has had very little migration. Currently, about 10% of the population, or a bit more, are classified as "indigenous" - these are, basically, people who speak a native language other than Spanish (or, at least, have family members who do). For about half of them a native tongue is their primary language, while their command of Spanish is limited. About 70% of the population views itself as mestizo. This includes people with only slight native admixture - but also (in fact, probably, to a very large extent) people with very little, if any, European ancestry. The only reason they are "mestizos" is that they have no longer any link to any traditional society. Another 15% of the population are of European or Middle Eastern - mostly, Spanish, though there are sizeable numbers of the French, Syrians/Lebanese, Germans, etc. - origin. The remainder (under 5%) includes the few Mexicans with some African ancestry (these are, mostly, heavily mixed with the indigenous population) and even smaller numbers of (East) Asians. So, basically, well over 80% of Mexicans have at least some ancestors who were here before Columbus.

However, of course, there is a Mexican Race. There is a big monument in the middle of Mexico City to The Race (La Raza, there is even a subway station by that name). Of course, The Race of the national mythology is the Mestizo Race, the merger of different origins.

[ag]

Well, this is, eh...

Just wanted to agree with Al, really, that it's absurd to talk of a European race or people because essentially nothing unites Europe. And I think it's pretty controversial to talk about Asian or African races too. And for good reason.

It reminds me of the story about the Croatic and the two Serbic veterans who meet each others on Java. Did they start fighting? No they walked into a bar, got drunk, while talking about the old land and sang together.

Europeans may not have a lot in common, when we sit at home, but when we compare us with non-Europeans when suddenly we have a lot in common, from cultural clues to a shared history. 

Between you and the Spaniards? Or you and the Greeks? Possibly. But there is more in common between the Spaniards and the Moroccans and the Greeks and the Turks.

[ag]

Well of course, but it's you who bring up that people who have lived in Europe for centuries are not native Europeans.

You seem to have problem with my English. So, let me be even blunter. I find the concept of "native Europeans" dangerously offensive in its implications. Anybody, who classifies himself as such I wholeheartedly despise.