I think there may be a lack of understanding among Americans and Canadians here of what a nationality in Europe (or most places in the world) is. The only nationalities in the European sense that exist in North America are the various American Indian tribes and to some extent the Quebecois, Louisiana French, and Amish. Americans and Canadians and Australians (I assume Argentineans and Brazilians as well) confuse nationality with belonging to being a citizen of a particular country, because these countries expanded by taking into people and saying, "voila, you are now Americans or Canadians!" "American" or "Canadian" are not ethnicities/nationalities -- "White" or "Black" would be the closer, but not exact, equivalent to European (or I assume Asian and African) notions of what a nationality is.
Countries in Europe did not form this way. They are the extensions of various tribes and ancient peoples that developed over long periods of time, long before there were such things as countries or states. This area was, say, known as the land of the Yarga people (name completely fictitious). Over time, it becomes known as Yargaland. Over hundreds of years, Yargaland develops agriculture and then industry and consolidates into what is today known as a "state." People prove neighboring Bubbareich move to Yargaland. The Yargans, being overminded and in need of immigration, extend citizenship of Yargaland to the Bubbans. The Bubbans, however, while having Yargaland citizenship, are still Bubbans.
Russia did have an emancipation of the Jews, actually, in 1917.
BTW "German or Frenchman of the Mosaic variety" means "citizen of and loyal to Germany (or whatever German substate there was at the time) or France" not "member of the German or French nation," i.e., a "I am a Bubban who is a citizen of and loyal to Yargaland."
----- Original Message ---- From: James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Sun, January 31, 2010 3:11:11 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Enough With the China Shtick Already!
I think Chris is right, most Jews in most of the world for most of the time thought of themselves as distinctively Jewish, and as tolerated minorities among the Gentiles rather than citizens. That they were chosen and that they were descended from Jews were both things that they did not differentiate. That is the case because for most of the time nationality was conceived of as part and parcel of racial identity - it is only in the twentieth century that the America idea of a non-racial nationalism had any influence.
Of course Jim is right to point out that there was another conception of Jewishness that developed first and foremost in Germany, that of Germans of the Mosaic persuasion, but that is a development away what was then the typical outlook (and the one that persists to this day in Russia). Of course many German Jews took the next logical step and became christians. There is yet another development in the US which was pushed by Randolph Bourne of the cultural Jew (i.e. non-believing, and not necessarily racial, but participating in Jewish culture).
There is a small controversy on these grounds in England right now, where the religious overseers of the Jewish schools (state-funded, Jewish run) here are not admitting children whose mothers are converts, because they insist that Jewishness is by matrilineal descent. To make the point the Chief Rabbi explained that those orn of Jewish mothers were entitled to attend, even if they rejected the Jewish faith, and those who were not were not welcome even if they embraced it. He meant, in effect, that Jewishness was not "a faith". Naturally (if that's the right word) parents among the Reform Jews are outraged at the decision, and it will probably cause problems with the funding authorities (which are secular). ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk