All I am trying to do is point out that Velikovsky and Koestler are not serious sources for a discussion of Khazars and Jews. There are a number of more recent studies with more reliable information such as cited below, but there is still much disagreement.
To argue that there are ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and genetic traits that can be explored in some populations of Jews is one thing. To claim that Jews are a "race" is just wrong, and often tied to pseudo-scientific eugenic theories of race hate groups. That is what I study. I leave the actual science and history to others.
:-)
-Chip Berlet
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bizwas [mailto:bizwas at lycos.com]
Sent: Sun 9/26/2004 7:56 AM
Cc:
Subject: [lbo-talk] RE: We Need More Jews!
Chip Berlet writes:
Hi,
>>Immanuel Velikovsky? Someone is citing Immanuel Velikovsky? His work
is generously described as crackpot. While some elite ruling circle
Khazar's converted to Judaism, most of the population did not actually
do so. >>
Velikovsky may be a crackpot, but the theory that Eastern European Jews descend, in part, from Khazars (a Turkic people)is not. Also, the extent of the conversion and inward migration of Jews to the Khazar kingdom is still controversial, but some very good arguments are made for quite extensive conversion over time. This is an ancient and medieval state that lasted FIVE centuries!
CB further says:
>>Koestler's book is full of unfounded suppostition, and today is mostly
used by race hate groups to argue that Jews are a race (not true); and
that they are not the "people of the book" (not true) since as Khazars
they are not descended from one of the original 12 tribes. >>
You might support your particular case against him here by giving us at least one of his unfounded suppositions. I haven't read his book (expressly stayed away from it), but I have to ask (I'm assuming you are familiar with it in order to debunk it): Does he, like in some anti-Jewish rhetoric I found, claim that ALL Jews (or at least the most populous Ashkenazic branch) descend from a converted Turkic or Caucasian or non-Semitic or non-Palestinian people? And isn't it mind-twisting to consider: anti-Semites arguing their case against the Jews by claiming the Jews aren't 'semitic'? (And I should add that, until the 19th and 20th century revival of Hebrew, most Jews weren't 'semitic' in a linguistic sense, which is the only sense by which the term makes non-racist sense anyway. )
The racists might be confusing issues as to a certifiably historic group of people (the Khazars, who spoke a Turkic language, a dialect of Tatar) with a much earlier period: Rather unverifiable speculation on the origins of ALL Semitic peoples (including the Israelites) and their languages (using the term to refer to ethnicity and language, but with a stretch back in time well beyond the reach of even historic speculation).
Some Caucasusian isolates--such as Chechen--do share phonological similarity with Semitic languages. There is also speculation that, for example, non-Indo-European isolates such the languages of the Etruscans (all forms extinct) and the Basques are also of Caucasus (or Semitic as well in the case of the Etruscans) origins (though note, in modern linguistic accounts, the groupings of 'Semitic' and 'Caucasian' are kept quite distinct, unless you delve into Soviet linguistics that tried for a much more general grouping of languages into very reductive proto-groups). The Phoenicians, were a semitic sea-going people of the ancient world (rivals of the Greeks and Etruscans), who gave a writing system to the Greeks, so the European roman and cyrillic scripts ultimately have a ME origin.
The Khazars might, geographically speaking, include Caucasian peoples, but their language would be grouped under a group separate from Semitic and Caucasian, i.e. Turkic. I wonder to what extent they shared a language like Aramaic with peoples to the south as a lingua franca?
Next, it's not just anti-Semites who argue that Jews are a 'race'. It's also Jewish racists themselves arguing this. Take away language, take traditional cultures, take away strict observance of the religion, and what do you have? Zionism and the fusion of selective history with religious myth about Israelites. And now genetic studies.
Some 'serious' academic work trying to find a 'genetic' basis for Jewishness emanates from N. America, UK and Israel. Basically what they show, though, is that people identified ethnically as E. European Jews have, surprise surprise, a mixed genetic makeup that overlaps with the local non-Jewish populations as well as has characteristics traceable back to the Mediterranean and Palestine. A lot of the actual scientific work is interesting work in human genetics.
Unfortunately for the racists and pseudo-scientists misusing genetics, this isn't a good way to characterize the uniqueness of Jews; it's a good way to characterize much of Europe (including other branches of Jews besides the Ashkenazi). True, there are 'unique' markers attributable to patrilineal and matrilineal lines of the Jews in the study, but this begs the question in at least two ways. Are the unique markers for Jews really unique to Jews, and how would the researchers know (it's circular logic: we wish to identify Jews genetically, so we analyzed the genes of Jews)? And two, on what basis are the Jews studied verified to be Jews by descent rather than conversion and intermarriage where the religion is continued (and how far back)?
See http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
in order to evaluate some of these studies. It would not appear to be an anti-Jewish site, by the way, but rather one that wishes to assert the Jewishness of the Khazars, and diversity among Jews.
Question to C.B. Is your assertion that the 'Jews' are a 'people of the book' an historic or mythic religious claim? What about any converts? Is Elizabeth Taylor a person of the book?
>>There are some serious studies about the Khazars and the Jews, but
Velikovsky and Koestler are not on the short list.>>
So why not tell us the ones you recommend?
One I found would seem to be a non-academic independent scholar who as received recognition in more than one discipline:
http://www.khazaria.com/westernjews.html
http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html
>>My argument, based on extensive research, is that the Russian Jews are descended from a mixture of Central European Jews and Khazarian Jews. Since I have devoted a separate essay to the Khazar contribution, I have decided to create this essay to examine the evidence to support the contention that Russian Jews descend largely from Central European Jews. In providing both of these essays, I hope to counter the faulty either-or extremism which contends that Russian Jews could be either Khazarian Jews or German Jews but not both. I say that they are both.>>end of quote
So, do the Ashkenazi Jews of C. and E. Europe have multiple origins (Western European, Mediterranean, and Eastern European)? This seems quite likely and quite supportable by the evidence there is. There could be a Khazar-related route of inward migration by way of Russia. But there could also be a non-Khazar route involving Slavic dominion over Jews fleeing the E. Mediterranean. This holds out the possibility of Poland-Russia forming a Yiddish-speaking melting pot of Judaism. Did Yiddish culture flourish all over C. and E. Europe because it functioned as a contact language amongst Jews of many different language and ethnic backgrounds? It would appear to be a contact language, arguably even a creole of German, that then found a much larger life across Ashkenazi Jews. Why would Ashkenazi Jews be afraid of reclaiming such history and heritage?
F
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk