Long lost capital of Khazaria found in southern Russia

[Plotinus]

Right, but you could say the same thing about most things. There's no clear point where you stop being young and become middle-aged, or one where you stop being middle-aged and become old, but that doesn't mean that it's always purely arbitrary to call people young or old - if it were, the words would have no meaning. Again, there's a continuum between male and female, with various kinds of people not slotting neatly into the "male" and "female" categories, but it doesn't follow that those categories are just arbitrary or even that we can't use them with a fair degree of confidence in most cases. Most things in the real world are fuzzy one way or another but that doesn't make them unreal.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

At least male and female is easily identifiable in the majority of cases . . .

I am not arguing against creating racial categories, just saying they have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[RedRalph]

I suppose that any method of categorising is valid provided it's useful to the people doing the categorising (what they then do with those categories is another matter, of course). But the fact that race is very complex or hard to define or delineate doesn't mean it simply doesn't exist at all as anything other than a social construct: after all, hair colour and height are also biological realities. I'd say that what's social, as opposed to biological, is how we react to these different categories.

But the way we use it dosent correspond to reality. I mean, lets say someone witnesses a mugging. the Gardai ask them to describe the guy, and they say he was tall (something that can be verifyably measured, I'm 6'1), had black hair (I have hair that couldnt be described as any other colour than black), was speaking English (me again) and was white. now that means I didnt look like this:

but it dosent clarfiy whether I look more like this guy :

, this guy:

*, or this guy

.

now, as it happens I often get told I look like the last guy, so the suspect may well indeed resemble him. however, all three examples are white guys, yet look absolutely nothing alike. there are probably chinese guys out there who I look more like than Hugo chavez. If they had said 'they guy had a pretty big nose, a square face, angular features and a broad jaw, very pale skin (and was unbelievably handsome), then I'd be likely to be caught. but they wouldnt, theyd say "he was a white guy". For descriptive purposes, it rules out extremes of 'racial' appearance, but thats about it. What other use is ut? as we said, there are biological differences but not ones that only one 'race' has, so biologically speaking there is no such thing as race (apparently Hitler admitted in private that he knew this was true). Intelligence isnt linked to race. Personality traits arent. so what use is it? Its just a divisive method of categorising people IMO. If you can think of uses for it, by all means tell me. I suppose what I'm saying is, it may have uses, but no really good ones (not in moral terms, in terms of usefulness).


*I know chavez wouldnt be categorised as white in some places, but he would in Ireland.

 

[Pannonius]

Hugo Chavez is not white, according to wikipedia, his family identifies themselves as mestizo, its ancestry is primarily Amerindian, Spanish and Afro-Venezuelan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Hugo_Chávez

 

[RedRalph]

Hugo Chavez is not white, according to wikipedia, his family identifies themselves as mestizo, its ancestry is primarily Amerindian, Spanish and Afro-Venezuelan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Hugo_Chávez

I know, but as I said, most people here would call him white

 

[Pannonius]

I know, but as I said, most people here would call him white

I find this hard to believe. Any evidence?

 

[RedRalph]

I find this hard to believe. Any evidence?

No.

tenchars

 

[Plotinus]

I'd call him mostly white but somewhat mixed race. I certainly don't think "Spanish" is a race.

 

[RedRalph]

I'd call him mostly white but somewhat mixed race. I certainly don't think "Spanish" is a race.

He definitely does have spanish blood, along with black and 'indian' too. but mostly he's just great.

 

[Traitorfish]

That means if a Chinese person converts to Judaism, he or she would become a part of the "Jewish people" too.

Or you can just be Chinese and Jewish from the start. Or Ethiopian, or two kinds of Indian. Works too.

Like Plotinus said, religion and race are not the same thing. Judaism certainly has an ethnic element- it's probably fair to assume that at least the rulers of a Jewish group like the Khazars had some Hebrew ancestry- but it's hardly a distinct and defined ethnic group when considered globally.

 

[silver 2039]

There's a third kind of Indian Jews actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe

 

[Maimonides]

it's probably fair to assume that at least the rulers of a Jewish group like the Khazars had some Hebrew ancestry

Huh? Why would one assume that? There's no reason to believe that. There's no evidence of them being connected to Judaism before the Middle Ages.

Also, they's be better described as "Jewish rulers of a group" than "rulers of a Jewish group" as their conversion started with the monarchy & worked it's way down from there. We have no idea what percentage of their population was Jewish. It could have been a small percentage.

 

[Traitorfish]

Huh? Why would one assume that? There's no reason to believe that. There's no evidence of them being connected to Judaism before the Middle Ages.

Also, they's be better described as "Jewish rulers of a group" than "rulers of a Jewish group" as their conversion started with the monarchy & worked it's way down from there. We have no idea what percentage of their population was Jewish. It could have been a small percentage.

Fair points. All I meant is that the Jewish religion is traditionally tied to the Hebrew ancestry- "Chosen People" and all that- so it seems that the Khazar rulers would probably have had some, however neglible, Hebrew ancestry.
In most cases, when a pagan group converts to monotheism, it is either for political advantages, large numbers of common converts, or a combination of the two. Given that Judaism had no political advantages attached to it as Islam or Christianity did, and that Judaism is not a proselytising religion, the only reason I can see for the Khazar rulers to adopt it is if they had some Hebrew ancestry.

 

[Maimonides]

Yeah. That's the big mystery concerning the Khazars. It doesn't make sense that they adopted Judaism when they had the options of Christianity & Islam. Christianity would have given them political & economic ties to Europe. Islam would have given access to the high scholarship of the Islamic world at the time, made them less of a target for their Muslim neighbors & possibly opened up all kinds of trade routes.

It's good to see that archaeology is finally being done on the Khazars. Until now, we only knew of them from scattered mentions by other peoples. Hopefully, the archaeologists will find some good clues.

 

[aronnax]

Actually I remenber reading somewhere that they adopted Judaism because it would have been better for trade.

Think about it. There are Jews in every major city from Persia to England and the Jews there were usually rich money lenders and traders with links to the cities markets. Though I could be wrong

 

[Maimonides]

That sounds reasonable, but if you scratch the surface, it falls apart. Jews didn't control any trade. They engaged in the trade they were permitted to. Muslims & pagans controlled the routes to the East. Christians controlled most of Europe.

It's true that Jewish communities existed all over Europe Africa & Asia by that time, but they were heavily persecuted, relatively isolated & the vast majority were quite poor.

The idea that Jews were/are "usually rich money lenders and traders" is an old, old prejudice. Today, it's been modernized into statements like "Jews control the media" or "Jews control the government," but it's really just the same old song & dance. If we controlled the banks, media & government, I wouldn't be working my a$$ off every day to support my family...

In Christian Europe, Jews were forbidden by law to own land & practice many trades so they were left with being merchants, jewelers & money lenders. Christians were self-forbidden from practicing usury so Jews, who were outside Church authority, filled the need. Even the nobility needed a loan from time to time, but if, say, one took out a loan & then announced that the plague was caused by Jews poisoning the wells...there wouldn't be anyone left to repay when the riots were over. As far as I know, the Templars were the only Christians given permission to practice usury back then & even they got rounded up & executed in the end. It was easier than paying back the loans.

Life was much easier for Jews in Islamic regions, but there was persecution there, too. One law forbade Jews from riding on camels so that a Jew's head wouldn't be higher than a Muslim's who might be on foot or horseback. To this day, Sephardic & some Ashkenazic Jews sway as if riding on a camel while praying as a hidden protest to that one. If anyone asked, they'd just say they were bowing to G-d. Despite things like that, Judaism had a golden age under Muslim rule in Spain & there were periods when Jews did very well in the Ottoman empire, even being granted titles of nobility.

My point is that Judaism didn't offer any political or economic advantages at all over Christianity or Islam during the Middle Ages. The only reason most of us have even heard of the Khazars is the fascination of their leadership adopting Judaism when & where they did. It can't be shrugged off by just saying that Jews were rich.

 

[alcal]

Actually I remenber reading somewhere that they adopted Judaism because it would have been better for trade.

Think about it. There are Jews in every major city from Persia to England and the Jews there were usually rich money lenders and traders with links to the cities markets. Though I could be wrong

That's not right. Khazars converted to judaism, when they meet jewish immigrants from Iraq/Palestine, with the aim to be independent from any political influence from islamic or christian world.

 

[Dragonlord]

In Christian Europe, Jews were forbidden by law to own land & practice many trades so they were left with being merchants, jewelers & money lenders. Christians were self-forbidden from practicing usury so Jews, who were outside Church authority, filled the need. Even the nobility needed a loan from time to time, but if, say, one took out a loan & then announced that the plague was caused by Jews poisoning the wells...there wouldn't be anyone left to repay when the riots were over. As far as I know, the Templars were the only Christians given permission to practice usury back then & even they got rounded up & executed in the end. It was easier than paying back the loans.

Good post...

Which reminds me: did you know terrorism is financed by bankers? Bankers are behind all the evil in the world....
Come on everybody, go out and slaughter all the bankers....

Just trying to get out of paying back my loan...

 

[The Fishman]

Yeah. That's the big mystery concerning the Khazars. It doesn't make sense that they adopted Judaism when they had the options of Christianity & Islam. Christianity would have given them political & economic ties to Europe. Islam would have given access to the high scholarship of the Islamic world at the time, made them less of a target for their Muslim neighbors & possibly opened up all kinds of trade routes.

It's good to see that archaeology is finally being done on the Khazars. Until now, we only knew of them from scattered mentions by other peoples. Hopefully, the archaeologists will find some good clues.

There's a story I heard about that somewhere, but its probably a legend:
When the Khazars decided to follow one of the western religions as opposed to paganism, they brought before them religious leaders from Christianity and Islam. First, they got the Muslims to speak about why they should convert to Islam. The Muslims were at war with the Christians at the time, so they told the Khazars about all the terrible attrocities of the Christians. Then when the Christians spoke, they told the Khazars all the terrible things about the Muslims and their atrocities. Now they were confused who to believe, so the Khazars decided to become Jews instead!

 

[alcal]

There's a story I heard about that somewhere, but its probably a legend:
When the Khazars decided to follow one of the western religions as opposed to paganism, they brought before them religious leaders from Christianity and Islam. First, they got the Muslims to speak about why they should convert to Islam. The Muslims were at war with the Christians at the time, so they told the Khazars about all the terrible attrocities of the Christians. Then when the Christians spoke, they told the Khazars all the terrible things about the Muslims and their atrocities. Now they were confused who to believe, so the Khazars decided to become Jews instead!

That's a legend man! Do you really believe mongols or khazars feared "western atrocities?