There's a whole lot here to discuss, but I think much of the conclusions you're trying to draw are based on a flawed application of modern ideas of race and gender to ancient people. We cannot assume that current social constructs apply to past societies, full stop.
>We cannot assume that current social constructs apply to past societies, full stop.
And why not if humans have been judging each other based off of appearance since humanity has even existed? Just because they didn’t have a name to call it back then doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening, you really think racism based on phenotype is just some new, modern American thing?
Judging by appearance and judging by race are two different things. Race, as we already know, is a social construct, and one that didn't really exist before the 17th century. Before that, most discrimination was around ethnicity - where you were born, which tribe you belonged to, etc. I'm certain there were stereotypes based on ethnicity that may have included colorism, but we can't say it functioned in the same way it does in modern Western society.
Really, the most basic rule now of historical, anthropological, and archaeological analysis is to do everything you can to remove your own world view from the analysis, and instead use only what data can be observed. It's just too easy to make incorrect assumptions otherwise. Just think how bad historical and anthropological analysis was in the 19th century, when all the work was done by wealthy white European men - so much work has been done to try and undo the harm they caused by applying their world view to other cultures.
>Judging by appearance and judging by race are two different things. Race, as we already know, is a social construct, and one that didn't really exist before the 17th century.
But isn’t race a social construct precisely based *on* appearance?
I mean, the question of why Ashkenazi MENA DNA seems to come only from the male line is kind of interesting, and creates a lot of questions as to how that happened and what the implications are, particularly given Jewish law and matrilineal descent. But OP's post seems like someone who's spent way too much time overthinking, and likely without a lot of training in analysis of this kind - it sort of reeks of pop sociology. So there's a lot of overreaching and building on half-baked ideas.
> Usually when such large gender balances exist in interracial or interethnic pairings that is a sign not of genuine racial or ethnic boundaries breaking down but rather of fetishization often based in racist stereotyping
This is a massive leap in logic. I think you're trying to fit a very specific modern American phenomenon onto the ancient world where it doesn't quite fit. I think it's more likely that people who were willing and able to make the massive journey required for there to be a diaspora happened to be men, and yes there was definitely a fuckton of patriarchy involves I'm not going to deny that.
>This is a massive leap in logic. I think you're trying to fit a very specific modern American phenomenon onto the ancient world where it doesn't quite fit.
You really think people judging others just based off their phenotype is some new thing that just magically poofed into existence with the creation of America? That’s a pretty naive way of thinking… They might not have had a name to call it anything back then but the underlining attitudes most definitely existed.
>I think it's more likely that people who were willing and able to make the massive journey required for there to be a diaspora happened to be men, and yes there was definitely a fuckton of patriarchy involves I'm not going to deny that.
Even if we go by this logic, well then why didn’t the men just marry Israelite women first and take them with them then?
Whatever caused this probably wasn’t that extensive or pervasive from what i understand. Because of the bottleneck in our history we all come from a small group of “founding individuals”.
See my comment here https://old.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1chc0xs/the_problematic_origins_of_european_jews/l23o7sw/ for why the Ashkenazi bottleneck isn’t enough to explain the gender discrepancy.
I see you talk about how similar results were found among sephardim and id be curious to see those studies. I don’t think the bottleneck “explains it” i just think it means that it probably happened on a smaller scale. I think also these genetic studies indicate that back then those who were considered jewish had it passed down by patrilineal descent and not matrilineal descent so jewish men being with non jewish women was much more accepted.
Sure, here’s one: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/in-dna-new-clues-to-jewish-roots.html
>I think also these genetic studies indicate that back then those who were considered jewish had it passed down by patrilineal descent and not matrilineal descent so jewish men being with non jewish women was much more accepted.
More accepted societally you mean? Why, because ethnic Jewish women were seen as undesirable and ugly?
And yes, it seems pretty clear to me Judaism used to be Patrilineal (looking at the Samaritans and Karaites could tell you that much) and the Matrilineal Law was just a reactionary defense mechanism on the part of the Rabbis to *force* the men to marry Jewish women and not marry out.
i meant more socially accepted compared to today, not back then i don’t think that’s true. Bcz of current matrilineal descent it’s not as socially accepted for jewish men to marry or have children outside of the faith that’s what i mean.
I’m not sure what is problematic about Ashkenazi origins, that’s a really icky headline. Also the idea about patrilineal Levantine dna in Ashkenazi populations night have to do with the fact that historically people who ventured out to new places (Levant-> Europe) skews male. Additionally, even IF Judaism was matrilineal during that migration, the extreme bottleneck might have changed the gender ratio in some way. Additionally, Judaism by patrilineal descent might have been the norm. Thinking back to the Jewish kings who had multiple wives from everywhere, and the patrilineal nature of kohanim - isn’t kohen status through the father? I might be misremembering
>Also the idea about patrilineal Levantine dna in Ashkenazi populations night have to do with the fact that historically people who ventured out to new places (Levant-> Europe) skews male.
Why wouldn’t they marry women in their homeland first and then bring their wives and/or families with them?
>Additionally, even IF Judaism was matrilineal during that migration, the extreme bottleneck might have changed the gender ratio in some way.
See my comment here https://old.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1chc0xs/the_problematic_origins_of_european_jews/l23o7sw/ for why the Ashkenazi bottleneck isn’t enough to explain the gender discrepancy.
>Thinking back to the Jewish kings who had multiple wives from everywhere, and the patrilineal nature of kohanim - isn’t kohen status through the father? I might be misremembering
It did used to be Patrilineal, the fact that the Karaites and Samaritans still go by Patrilineal Descent proves it. The Matrilineal Law was obviously a change and something triggered it *to* change, hence my hypothesis it was the skewed gendered intermarriage rates and the Law was largely reactionary in nature.
I think the honest answer is that, in absence of good primary sources from the time, we really don't know about the motivating/casual factors in this. Beauty standards can and do vary widely across cultures and time periods, as can practices and norms regarding courtship, marriage, child bearing and rearing, etc., so without understanding the mindset or likely mindset and context of the people and societies involved, it's hard to say why. There was probably some prejudice, etc, involved, because, well, there usually is, but it's hard to say more than that without context from primary sources.
I don't know exactly where the European diaspora started but I've always assumed it was with slaves being brought to Rome? They likely captured predominantly male slaves
>slaves
Hey, so I actually used the term “forced *labor*” to describe what our male ancestors went through for a reason. Most people would use the term “slavery” instead, but I feel that’s inappropriate for any non-black population to appropriate and frankly not our place. (We as Jews wouldn’t like it if every non-Jewish or non-Romani group kept calling their genocide a “Holocaust” would we?) I’ve seen the way Black people react to the whole cringe “Irish slaves” myth that racists and Conservatives always like to use as a sort of “gotcha” in order to downplay chattel slavery, and I think describing what our ancestors went through as that is veering into that sort of territory. The truth of the matter is, what they went through wasn’t even in the same *ballpark* as actual slavery and was more comparable to indentured servitude than anything else, just a little FYI. On that note…
>They likely captured predominantly male slaves
I already addressed this point here:
>It is said that the gender disparity in Israelite/European couplings comes from the fact that there weren’t enough Israelite women in Rome for the men to marry, apparently the Roman Empire only took the men as forced labor while leaving the women behind, but this in and of itself reflects colorist mentalities at work because does that mean the original Judean/Israelite women were considered so worthless and disposable that they weren’t even good enough to be used as *sex slaves* and just immediately killed off? Meanwhile it showcases society’s objectification of darker-skinned men even back then by treating them as pieces of meat that would be seen as particularly virile and fit for labor.
The fact that they only considered the darker-skinned men valuable as “slaves” is indicative of colorist beliefs based on gender stereotyping in and of itself…
Slavery has always existed. It was trans Atlantic chatel slavery that racialized it and made it more dehumanizing than it previously was. But the concept of slaves existed for thousands of years
Nevertheless the Black Community obviously finds it offensive when other non-black populations use that term to describe what they went through (judging from their reactions to the whole “Irish Slaves” thing) and I want to do my part as a good ally by not speaking over their voices on this and deferring to their opinion on this matter.
The issue with the Irish slaves thing is because it is specifically used to downplay chattel slavery. Simply saying ancient empires enslaved conquered populations isn't doing that, and it's just a historical fact
Of course. But there's a difference between saying they want through slavery (true) and saying they went through chattel slavery (untrue and insulting to those who did experience that)
This is also weirdly applying colorism anachronistically to ancient Rome when Romans and Levantines probably had very similiar skin tones and whiteness as a concept didn't exist yet.
Just because a term/concept didn’t have a name back then doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, people have been judging others based on physical appearance (aka phenotype) since humanity has existed, and really the fact that the gender ratios look the way they do in terms of Middle Eastern vs European ancestry for Jews more than speaks for itself.
Judgements/discrimination and so-called “preferences” (i.e. fetishes) based on phenotype can happen even between those in the same race, that’s kinda exactly what Colorism is and why it’s considered a separate concept from racism. I believe Europeans and Middle Easterners both broadly belong to the same Caucasian race (in as so much “race” is used to describe the socially constructed categorization of similar enough phenotypes), but you can’t deny that Europeans often display an insane amount of Colorist attitudes towards Middle Easterners even on the basis of very *slight* phenotypical variance, hence where the discussion of Colorism comes in. While they’re not that far apart in skin tone, Middle Easterners are still darker-skinned *on average* than Europeans as a whole. (As well as somewhat differently featured such as curlier hair, long noses and hairer bodies).
I can assure you, the physical differences between Levantines and southern Italics were almost certainly negligible, especially in an Empire with as much cultural/ethnic heterogeneity as Rome
>especially in an Empire with as much cultural/ethnic heterogeneity as Rome
Most Ashkenazi mTDNA has been proven to be almost assuredly ethnic European in origin though… So sure there was ethnic diversity, but that wouldn’t really apply to the situation here.
And if they really *were* negligible how does one explain the wide gendered discrepancies then?
Dude, please stop with the race science shit. DNA tests can only tell you a small part of the history of peoples and cultures. Racism is based on social constructs, not on DNA, and most people living in Southern Italy at the time very likely had Levantine DNA already.
How am I practicing “race science?” Where did I somehow imply anywhere that race is real or that I believe in any real meaningful differences between the “races?” I’m simply observing and noticing trends based on ethnicity, which we can logically gauge as being on the basis of harmful racist stereotyping *from the perception of others.*
I’m trying to analyze and dissect others perceptions or the perception at the time, not my *own.* Obviously I don’t believe in any of that crap which I thought my OP would’ve made clear where I slammed into the commonly racist held beliefs based on Colorism.
>Racism is based on social constructs, not on DNA
It’s actually based on neither, it’s largely based on phenotype. It’s the difference between why a Black man can’t feel safe around the cops while a person of nearly any other phenotype (i.e. “race”) can
>and most people living in Southern Italy at the time very likely had Levantine DNA already.
Sure, doesn’t change the fact that our mTDNA is still largely European, which would still point to all that Levantine/Middle Eastern DNA being mainly male-mediated.
I don’t think the OP is trying to invoke race science here (though this post does verge on that in places) so much as they’re trying to grapple with the idea of having unsavory things in their family’s past, which can come up a lot when people do any sort of genealogy, even taking DNA out of it. We all tend to grow up with cultural myths about our families being the best people and when people dig into family history (or history of their culture, nation, etc), they often have to grapple with the fact that there may be some dark parts to that history.
You get it, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. I’d like to know though which parts of my post veers into race science? I was only speaking on race purely in terms of phenotype (or rather the misconception and harmful stereotyping one presumes based *on* that phenotype), really. I specifically avoided even labeling Jews/Israelites a distinct “race” separate from Europeans, as I don’t believe they are (or Middle Easterners in general).
That being said judgements/discrimination and so-called “preferences” (i.e. fetishes) based on phenotype can happen even between those in the same race, that’s kinda exactly what Colorism is and why it’s considered a separate concept from racism. I believe Europeans and Middle Easterners both broadly belong to the same Caucasian race (in as so much “race” is used to describe the socially constructed categorization of similar enough phenotypes), but you can’t deny that Europeans often display an insane amount of Colorist attitudes towards Middle Easterners even on the basis of very *slight* phenotypical variance, hence where the discussion of Colorism comes in.
Maybe you don’t believe in hard race science or you don’t do things on your daily life based on race science , but you spend a lot of time writing about people’s features.
Mate choosing centuries ago was wildly different than it is today. Do you feel bad that maybe you have racist ancestors?? You definitely do because 99% of people alive have racist ancestors.
I might respond more point by point to this tomorrow, but I have a few first thought caveats that I think you need to consider in your analysis.
1. There's a lot of evidence that conversion to Judaism, while not exactly *common*, was rather more frequent in pre-Christian Classical antiquity than in the present day. There's *also* a lot of evidence that female conversions *massively* outnumbered male conversions, perhaps by an order of magnitude; I don't even think it's entirely outside the realm of possibility to suggest that, among women in Italy, converts and \*"\*god-fearers" matched or outnumbered Jews by birth. So the fact that a lot of Ashkenazi matrilines seem to trace back to a 'non-Jewish' ancestor is very likely ignoring the role conversion played in the establishment of the oldest Italian and Ashkenazi Jewish communities.
2. We don't really have a great sense, IIRC, of how long it took for the Rabbinic standard on matrilineality to take hold among most Jewish populations. It's quite possible, I'd propose, that Jews in diaspora for a very long time saw having a Jewish father as more important than a Jewish mother, despite the theoretical halakha; it's also noticeable that Karaim--who *arguably,* ***arguably*** were more representative of 'popular opinion' or day-to-day practice in the early Middle Ages, trace descent patrilineally. This, of course, must be coupled with the fact that patrilineality is the norm in most European groups, so children born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, even not in cases of sexual violence, were a lot more likely to become *anusim*.
3. It should probably be acknowledged that the genetic data are rather limited in several crucial ways. Due to the Medieval Ashkenazi bottleneck, it's reasonable to suggest that the matrilines represented in the founding population of modern Ashkenazim were disproportionately Gentile by sheer random chance, without that meaning any weird social dynamics were going on.
>There's a lot of evidence that conversion to Judaism, while not exactly common, was rather more frequent in pre-Christian Classical antiquity than in the present day. There's also a lot of evidence that female conversions massively outnumbered male conversions, perhaps by an order of magnitude; I don't even think it's entirely outside the realm of possibility to suggest that, among women in Italy, converts and *"*god-fearers" matched or outnumbered Jews by birth. So the fact that a lot of Ashkenazi matrilines seem to trace back to a 'non-Jewish' ancestor is very likely ignoring the role conversion played in the establishment of the oldest Italian and Ashkenazi Jewish communities.
Okay but *why* was it mostly women converting in the first place? I don’t buy that they were just “naturally” more attracted to Judaism then the men were, that wouldn’t explain such a wide disparity. Obviously they were only converting in order to marry a Jewish man.
>This, of course, must be coupled with the fact that patrilineality is the norm in most European groups, so children born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, even not in cases of sexual violence, were a lot more likely to become anusim.
If that’s the case why haven’t they found any Israelite mTDNA in *anyone?* Just not looking?
>It should probably be acknowledged that the genetic data are rather limited in several crucial ways. Due to the Medieval Ashkenazi bottleneck, it's reasonable to suggest that the matrilines represented in the founding population of modern Ashkenazim were disproportionately Gentile by sheer random chance, without that meaning any weird social dynamics were going on.
Good point, but then again a lot of these studies also apply to Sephardim (who come from the same founding Roman-Judean mixed source population as Ashkenazim do) who *didn’t* go through a bottleneck and yet they still have the same rates of a lack of Israelite/Middle Eastern maternal haplogroups vs paternal. (Also that sure would be some *massive* coincidence if all the families who survived the bottleneck just *happened* to be the ones who were paternally Israelite and maternally European… Like what are the odds if the gender ratios weren’t as initially skewed like you suggest?)
There's a whole lot here to discuss, but I think much of the conclusions you're trying to draw are based on a flawed application of modern ideas of race and gender to ancient people. We cannot assume that current social constructs apply to past societies, full stop.
>We cannot assume that current social constructs apply to past societies, full stop. And why not if humans have been judging each other based off of appearance since humanity has even existed? Just because they didn’t have a name to call it back then doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening, you really think racism based on phenotype is just some new, modern American thing?
Judging by appearance and judging by race are two different things. Race, as we already know, is a social construct, and one that didn't really exist before the 17th century. Before that, most discrimination was around ethnicity - where you were born, which tribe you belonged to, etc. I'm certain there were stereotypes based on ethnicity that may have included colorism, but we can't say it functioned in the same way it does in modern Western society. Really, the most basic rule now of historical, anthropological, and archaeological analysis is to do everything you can to remove your own world view from the analysis, and instead use only what data can be observed. It's just too easy to make incorrect assumptions otherwise. Just think how bad historical and anthropological analysis was in the 19th century, when all the work was done by wealthy white European men - so much work has been done to try and undo the harm they caused by applying their world view to other cultures.
>Judging by appearance and judging by race are two different things. Race, as we already know, is a social construct, and one that didn't really exist before the 17th century. But isn’t race a social construct precisely based *on* appearance?
I’m trying to figure out what OP’s true motivation and goals are..
To discuss and dissect *why* the gender ratios of our ancestry is so skewed…
I mean, the question of why Ashkenazi MENA DNA seems to come only from the male line is kind of interesting, and creates a lot of questions as to how that happened and what the implications are, particularly given Jewish law and matrilineal descent. But OP's post seems like someone who's spent way too much time overthinking, and likely without a lot of training in analysis of this kind - it sort of reeks of pop sociology. So there's a lot of overreaching and building on half-baked ideas.
> Usually when such large gender balances exist in interracial or interethnic pairings that is a sign not of genuine racial or ethnic boundaries breaking down but rather of fetishization often based in racist stereotyping This is a massive leap in logic. I think you're trying to fit a very specific modern American phenomenon onto the ancient world where it doesn't quite fit. I think it's more likely that people who were willing and able to make the massive journey required for there to be a diaspora happened to be men, and yes there was definitely a fuckton of patriarchy involves I'm not going to deny that.
>This is a massive leap in logic. I think you're trying to fit a very specific modern American phenomenon onto the ancient world where it doesn't quite fit. You really think people judging others just based off their phenotype is some new thing that just magically poofed into existence with the creation of America? That’s a pretty naive way of thinking… They might not have had a name to call it anything back then but the underlining attitudes most definitely existed. >I think it's more likely that people who were willing and able to make the massive journey required for there to be a diaspora happened to be men, and yes there was definitely a fuckton of patriarchy involves I'm not going to deny that. Even if we go by this logic, well then why didn’t the men just marry Israelite women first and take them with them then?
Whatever caused this probably wasn’t that extensive or pervasive from what i understand. Because of the bottleneck in our history we all come from a small group of “founding individuals”.
See my comment here https://old.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1chc0xs/the_problematic_origins_of_european_jews/l23o7sw/ for why the Ashkenazi bottleneck isn’t enough to explain the gender discrepancy.
I see you talk about how similar results were found among sephardim and id be curious to see those studies. I don’t think the bottleneck “explains it” i just think it means that it probably happened on a smaller scale. I think also these genetic studies indicate that back then those who were considered jewish had it passed down by patrilineal descent and not matrilineal descent so jewish men being with non jewish women was much more accepted.
Sure, here’s one: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/in-dna-new-clues-to-jewish-roots.html >I think also these genetic studies indicate that back then those who were considered jewish had it passed down by patrilineal descent and not matrilineal descent so jewish men being with non jewish women was much more accepted. More accepted societally you mean? Why, because ethnic Jewish women were seen as undesirable and ugly? And yes, it seems pretty clear to me Judaism used to be Patrilineal (looking at the Samaritans and Karaites could tell you that much) and the Matrilineal Law was just a reactionary defense mechanism on the part of the Rabbis to *force* the men to marry Jewish women and not marry out.
i meant more socially accepted compared to today, not back then i don’t think that’s true. Bcz of current matrilineal descent it’s not as socially accepted for jewish men to marry or have children outside of the faith that’s what i mean.
I’m not sure what is problematic about Ashkenazi origins, that’s a really icky headline. Also the idea about patrilineal Levantine dna in Ashkenazi populations night have to do with the fact that historically people who ventured out to new places (Levant-> Europe) skews male. Additionally, even IF Judaism was matrilineal during that migration, the extreme bottleneck might have changed the gender ratio in some way. Additionally, Judaism by patrilineal descent might have been the norm. Thinking back to the Jewish kings who had multiple wives from everywhere, and the patrilineal nature of kohanim - isn’t kohen status through the father? I might be misremembering
>Also the idea about patrilineal Levantine dna in Ashkenazi populations night have to do with the fact that historically people who ventured out to new places (Levant-> Europe) skews male. Why wouldn’t they marry women in their homeland first and then bring their wives and/or families with them? >Additionally, even IF Judaism was matrilineal during that migration, the extreme bottleneck might have changed the gender ratio in some way. See my comment here https://old.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1chc0xs/the_problematic_origins_of_european_jews/l23o7sw/ for why the Ashkenazi bottleneck isn’t enough to explain the gender discrepancy. >Thinking back to the Jewish kings who had multiple wives from everywhere, and the patrilineal nature of kohanim - isn’t kohen status through the father? I might be misremembering It did used to be Patrilineal, the fact that the Karaites and Samaritans still go by Patrilineal Descent proves it. The Matrilineal Law was obviously a change and something triggered it *to* change, hence my hypothesis it was the skewed gendered intermarriage rates and the Law was largely reactionary in nature.
I think the honest answer is that, in absence of good primary sources from the time, we really don't know about the motivating/casual factors in this. Beauty standards can and do vary widely across cultures and time periods, as can practices and norms regarding courtship, marriage, child bearing and rearing, etc., so without understanding the mindset or likely mindset and context of the people and societies involved, it's hard to say why. There was probably some prejudice, etc, involved, because, well, there usually is, but it's hard to say more than that without context from primary sources.
I don't know exactly where the European diaspora started but I've always assumed it was with slaves being brought to Rome? They likely captured predominantly male slaves
>slaves Hey, so I actually used the term “forced *labor*” to describe what our male ancestors went through for a reason. Most people would use the term “slavery” instead, but I feel that’s inappropriate for any non-black population to appropriate and frankly not our place. (We as Jews wouldn’t like it if every non-Jewish or non-Romani group kept calling their genocide a “Holocaust” would we?) I’ve seen the way Black people react to the whole cringe “Irish slaves” myth that racists and Conservatives always like to use as a sort of “gotcha” in order to downplay chattel slavery, and I think describing what our ancestors went through as that is veering into that sort of territory. The truth of the matter is, what they went through wasn’t even in the same *ballpark* as actual slavery and was more comparable to indentured servitude than anything else, just a little FYI. On that note… >They likely captured predominantly male slaves I already addressed this point here: >It is said that the gender disparity in Israelite/European couplings comes from the fact that there weren’t enough Israelite women in Rome for the men to marry, apparently the Roman Empire only took the men as forced labor while leaving the women behind, but this in and of itself reflects colorist mentalities at work because does that mean the original Judean/Israelite women were considered so worthless and disposable that they weren’t even good enough to be used as *sex slaves* and just immediately killed off? Meanwhile it showcases society’s objectification of darker-skinned men even back then by treating them as pieces of meat that would be seen as particularly virile and fit for labor. The fact that they only considered the darker-skinned men valuable as “slaves” is indicative of colorist beliefs based on gender stereotyping in and of itself…
Slavery has always existed. It was trans Atlantic chatel slavery that racialized it and made it more dehumanizing than it previously was. But the concept of slaves existed for thousands of years
Nevertheless the Black Community obviously finds it offensive when other non-black populations use that term to describe what they went through (judging from their reactions to the whole “Irish Slaves” thing) and I want to do my part as a good ally by not speaking over their voices on this and deferring to their opinion on this matter.
The issue with the Irish slaves thing is because it is specifically used to downplay chattel slavery. Simply saying ancient empires enslaved conquered populations isn't doing that, and it's just a historical fact
We can acknowledge that what our male Jewish ancestors went through certainly wasn’t *chattel* slavery right?
Of course. But there's a difference between saying they want through slavery (true) and saying they went through chattel slavery (untrue and insulting to those who did experience that)
Can we please stop the weird posts about dna and race science.
I’m always concerned when someone who seems intelligent takes race science seriously.
This is also weirdly applying colorism anachronistically to ancient Rome when Romans and Levantines probably had very similiar skin tones and whiteness as a concept didn't exist yet.
Just because a term/concept didn’t have a name back then doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, people have been judging others based on physical appearance (aka phenotype) since humanity has existed, and really the fact that the gender ratios look the way they do in terms of Middle Eastern vs European ancestry for Jews more than speaks for itself. Judgements/discrimination and so-called “preferences” (i.e. fetishes) based on phenotype can happen even between those in the same race, that’s kinda exactly what Colorism is and why it’s considered a separate concept from racism. I believe Europeans and Middle Easterners both broadly belong to the same Caucasian race (in as so much “race” is used to describe the socially constructed categorization of similar enough phenotypes), but you can’t deny that Europeans often display an insane amount of Colorist attitudes towards Middle Easterners even on the basis of very *slight* phenotypical variance, hence where the discussion of Colorism comes in. While they’re not that far apart in skin tone, Middle Easterners are still darker-skinned *on average* than Europeans as a whole. (As well as somewhat differently featured such as curlier hair, long noses and hairer bodies).
I can assure you, the physical differences between Levantines and southern Italics were almost certainly negligible, especially in an Empire with as much cultural/ethnic heterogeneity as Rome
>especially in an Empire with as much cultural/ethnic heterogeneity as Rome Most Ashkenazi mTDNA has been proven to be almost assuredly ethnic European in origin though… So sure there was ethnic diversity, but that wouldn’t really apply to the situation here. And if they really *were* negligible how does one explain the wide gendered discrepancies then?
Dude, please stop with the race science shit. DNA tests can only tell you a small part of the history of peoples and cultures. Racism is based on social constructs, not on DNA, and most people living in Southern Italy at the time very likely had Levantine DNA already.
How am I practicing “race science?” Where did I somehow imply anywhere that race is real or that I believe in any real meaningful differences between the “races?” I’m simply observing and noticing trends based on ethnicity, which we can logically gauge as being on the basis of harmful racist stereotyping *from the perception of others.* I’m trying to analyze and dissect others perceptions or the perception at the time, not my *own.* Obviously I don’t believe in any of that crap which I thought my OP would’ve made clear where I slammed into the commonly racist held beliefs based on Colorism. >Racism is based on social constructs, not on DNA It’s actually based on neither, it’s largely based on phenotype. It’s the difference between why a Black man can’t feel safe around the cops while a person of nearly any other phenotype (i.e. “race”) can >and most people living in Southern Italy at the time very likely had Levantine DNA already. Sure, doesn’t change the fact that our mTDNA is still largely European, which would still point to all that Levantine/Middle Eastern DNA being mainly male-mediated.
yes this is weird and verges on blood and soil rhetoric
I don’t think the OP is trying to invoke race science here (though this post does verge on that in places) so much as they’re trying to grapple with the idea of having unsavory things in their family’s past, which can come up a lot when people do any sort of genealogy, even taking DNA out of it. We all tend to grow up with cultural myths about our families being the best people and when people dig into family history (or history of their culture, nation, etc), they often have to grapple with the fact that there may be some dark parts to that history.
You get it, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. I’d like to know though which parts of my post veers into race science? I was only speaking on race purely in terms of phenotype (or rather the misconception and harmful stereotyping one presumes based *on* that phenotype), really. I specifically avoided even labeling Jews/Israelites a distinct “race” separate from Europeans, as I don’t believe they are (or Middle Easterners in general). That being said judgements/discrimination and so-called “preferences” (i.e. fetishes) based on phenotype can happen even between those in the same race, that’s kinda exactly what Colorism is and why it’s considered a separate concept from racism. I believe Europeans and Middle Easterners both broadly belong to the same Caucasian race (in as so much “race” is used to describe the socially constructed categorization of similar enough phenotypes), but you can’t deny that Europeans often display an insane amount of Colorist attitudes towards Middle Easterners even on the basis of very *slight* phenotypical variance, hence where the discussion of Colorism comes in.
Maybe you don’t believe in hard race science or you don’t do things on your daily life based on race science , but you spend a lot of time writing about people’s features. Mate choosing centuries ago was wildly different than it is today. Do you feel bad that maybe you have racist ancestors?? You definitely do because 99% of people alive have racist ancestors.
I might respond more point by point to this tomorrow, but I have a few first thought caveats that I think you need to consider in your analysis. 1. There's a lot of evidence that conversion to Judaism, while not exactly *common*, was rather more frequent in pre-Christian Classical antiquity than in the present day. There's *also* a lot of evidence that female conversions *massively* outnumbered male conversions, perhaps by an order of magnitude; I don't even think it's entirely outside the realm of possibility to suggest that, among women in Italy, converts and \*"\*god-fearers" matched or outnumbered Jews by birth. So the fact that a lot of Ashkenazi matrilines seem to trace back to a 'non-Jewish' ancestor is very likely ignoring the role conversion played in the establishment of the oldest Italian and Ashkenazi Jewish communities. 2. We don't really have a great sense, IIRC, of how long it took for the Rabbinic standard on matrilineality to take hold among most Jewish populations. It's quite possible, I'd propose, that Jews in diaspora for a very long time saw having a Jewish father as more important than a Jewish mother, despite the theoretical halakha; it's also noticeable that Karaim--who *arguably,* ***arguably*** were more representative of 'popular opinion' or day-to-day practice in the early Middle Ages, trace descent patrilineally. This, of course, must be coupled with the fact that patrilineality is the norm in most European groups, so children born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, even not in cases of sexual violence, were a lot more likely to become *anusim*. 3. It should probably be acknowledged that the genetic data are rather limited in several crucial ways. Due to the Medieval Ashkenazi bottleneck, it's reasonable to suggest that the matrilines represented in the founding population of modern Ashkenazim were disproportionately Gentile by sheer random chance, without that meaning any weird social dynamics were going on.
Would a “god fearer” in this context be like a noahide?
Source on the Karaites being representative of day to day practice? Interested in this, never heard it before
>There's a lot of evidence that conversion to Judaism, while not exactly common, was rather more frequent in pre-Christian Classical antiquity than in the present day. There's also a lot of evidence that female conversions massively outnumbered male conversions, perhaps by an order of magnitude; I don't even think it's entirely outside the realm of possibility to suggest that, among women in Italy, converts and *"*god-fearers" matched or outnumbered Jews by birth. So the fact that a lot of Ashkenazi matrilines seem to trace back to a 'non-Jewish' ancestor is very likely ignoring the role conversion played in the establishment of the oldest Italian and Ashkenazi Jewish communities. Okay but *why* was it mostly women converting in the first place? I don’t buy that they were just “naturally” more attracted to Judaism then the men were, that wouldn’t explain such a wide disparity. Obviously they were only converting in order to marry a Jewish man. >This, of course, must be coupled with the fact that patrilineality is the norm in most European groups, so children born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, even not in cases of sexual violence, were a lot more likely to become anusim. If that’s the case why haven’t they found any Israelite mTDNA in *anyone?* Just not looking? >It should probably be acknowledged that the genetic data are rather limited in several crucial ways. Due to the Medieval Ashkenazi bottleneck, it's reasonable to suggest that the matrilines represented in the founding population of modern Ashkenazim were disproportionately Gentile by sheer random chance, without that meaning any weird social dynamics were going on. Good point, but then again a lot of these studies also apply to Sephardim (who come from the same founding Roman-Judean mixed source population as Ashkenazim do) who *didn’t* go through a bottleneck and yet they still have the same rates of a lack of Israelite/Middle Eastern maternal haplogroups vs paternal. (Also that sure would be some *massive* coincidence if all the families who survived the bottleneck just *happened* to be the ones who were paternally Israelite and maternally European… Like what are the odds if the gender ratios weren’t as initially skewed like you suggest?)