|Endogamy has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Why the random Asian endogamy statistics? At least, put something more relevant up if you're going to make it the eye-catcher of the article.188.8.131.52 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mäni Tanks, dat You helped to let my additions to be transformed being more in proper english... :-))
2006/25/08: I suppressed the last part of "A Japanese endogamist would require marriage only to other Japanese. A Jewish endogamist would require marriage only to other Jews," since:
(1) Jews are an endogamist nation, as it is very well known, but as far as endogamy is concerned, it has nothing to do with "specified social groups, classes, or ethnicities", but concerns sheer RELIGIOUS concerns. Whoever validly CONVERTS to (Orthodox) JUDAISM as a RELIGION becomes automatically a perfectly suitable match for any endogamist Jew, though that convert's "social group, class or ethnicity" isn't affected in any way by that process of conversion;
(2) Jews are not relevant in that respect as an example for "specified social groups, classes, or ethnicities", since a convert to Judaism, whatever his origins and ethnicity, is a perfectly suitable match for any endogamist Jew. The same can't be said of a Japanese endogamist, since it's impossible to turn anybody into a Japanese national (which is different from citizenship, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
- Like it or not, but religions ARE social groups (in fact, institutional religions are a prime example of social groups, the theism is just a bonus), so the example is valid. I'd prefer calling the religious ones Judaists to distinguish them from the ethnic group, but apparently everyone prefers lumping three distinct groups together. Jews may not be endogamous when it comes to ethnicity or nationality (or even culture, when it can be distinguished from religious traditions), but they most certainly DO tend to be endogamous when it comes to religion.
- I suppose there are different "levels" of endogamy, depending on what kind of group it's based on. Religion would probably be the lowest level as it is almost always possible to convert without much trouble, next would be culture which can be adopted even if it is no easy task, then nationality as changing nationality has wider implications, and finally there would be ethnicity (or heritage in general) because it can not be changed. In some cases endogamous groups seem to restrict partnerships on more than one level, but it's enough to distinguish the basic variants.
- Note, however, that Judaism isn't unique. Conservative Roman Catholics might not allow their children to marry Muslims, Jews or other non-Christians, even Christians of other denominations (e.g. Lutherans).
- I strictly disagree with the notion of Judaism being a nation, but I agree that the term encompasses several distinctive groups whose membership is usually (though not always -- e.g. converts can produce non-ethnic offspring) strongly interrelated. If going by the definition that a nation is a group of people of similar culture (including religion), geographic origin and ethnicity, then I agree that Judaism is probably a better example than most modern "nations", but I think the term is unnecessarily politically problematic (especially regarding Israel, which is often falsely thought of as equivalent with Judaism, just as the Arab nations are often considered equivalent with Islam). -- 220.127.116.11 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Good call, 158 -- I've never heard the term "endogamist" except in this article. Continuing on the subject, this article is written with a very distinct "civilizational POV" -- as is the article on exogamy, which I just commented on. The talk about the Samaritans is undue weight, and probably original research -- personally, if I were asked to give a reason for their being close to extinction, I'd say that it had more to do with their living in Palestine and being neither Jew nor Muslim, than with their endogamy. Certainly the Jews in Europe and the Parsis in India -- let alone the Arabs after the Muslim conquest of the whole Near East! -- didn't go extinct because they were endogamous... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Jews and endogamy
I am correcting the limitation of endogamic groups from "Orthodox Jews" into "Jews". Since a Jew is (under religious law) born from a Jewish mother, members in general of this people / religion seek mating among other members of their people / religion. "Orthodox" refers exclusively to religious orthodoxy (ritual rules), while the notion of endogamy applies better to Jews in general who seek mates within their religious / ethnic community. --Laocoont (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group.... " WTF!!?? marrying? it can be only sex, obviously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, good call. Endogamy strictly is breeding within a group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Review needed by expert
The subject matter of this article is very polarizing. Before making comparisons between religious practices, it is vital to be well informed. There is a tag on this page that says the article has only one source. So there is clearly an awareness that this is a problem. By treating this without the seriousness it deserves, you risk offending absolutely everyone!
The article says that Roman Catholics usually marry within their faith, but are not strongly endogamous. But I don't think that Roman Catholics can be married in the church unless both parties have been baptized. If the marriage is not performed by an ordained Roman Catholic clergyman, then it is not a Roman Catholic marriage! Am I certain of this? No. That is why the fact needs to be checked.
Section 1 Adherents refers to Assyrians along with modern era religions. Are there present-day Assyrians, and do they practice endogamy? Or is the entire section supposed to be historical?
In the same section, Islamic belief is initially described as not strongly practicing endogamy. The section ends by stating that Islam tends to be passed on through patrilinearity. The same is true for Judaism, except that in Judaism, progression is through the mother, matrilinearity. So why is Islam only partially endogamous but Judaism is very endogamous? I am not disputing the veracity necessarily, but rather, the seemingly contradictory logic.
In general, as specific to Islam, is the content equally applicable to Sh'iite and Sunni?
Jews by religion, ethnicity and culture
There are inconsistent references to Jews. Orthodox in one place, Ashkenazi in another, just "Jews" elsewhere. Orthodox refers specifically to religion, Ashkenazi refers more to ethnicity and culture, but also to religion, as distinct from Sephardic Jews. There is no mention of Sephardic Jews, though. Does there need to be?
There is class-based bias which results in misrepresentation. It is meant to illustrate how endogamy stifles upward class mobility.
- "Professions also establish endogamy: A child growing up with doctor parents, for instance, learns to feel at home in that world and is likely to choose a similar education and career."
I would counter argue that by this line of reasoning, skilled trades ALSO establish endogamy just as strongly. Specifically,
- "a child growing up with [plumber or electrician parents] learns to feel at home in that world and is likely to choose a similar education and career"
The single instance of genetic effect, the Samaritans, is probably not well sourced enough to warrant inclusion in the WikiGenetics project. There are other examples of the effect of endogamy that might cause legitimate genetic issues (I can think of a few). Those should also be cited.
Religion and marriage practices are not topics to be treated casually. It is asking for trouble and strife to do so. This article needs to be reviewed by someone well-informed in comparative religion, or cultural anthropology. --FeralOink (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- "...children of top executives have an easier time following a similar path as their parents due to similarities between the two..."
Highly debatable! Ideas, attitudes, ways of speaking and acting, knowledge of how to charm and convince others, confidence and tactics that allow individuals to aggressively take over leadership of a group, etc, etc are all things learned (whether through active teaching or by passively soaking up) in the home and extended social group. Add to that family and other social connections to high-ranking executives and preferential access to the best education simply because of cost, and no further explanation for the passing on of rank and privilege is required. The notion that some inherent genetic superiority ("due to similarities between the two") is responsible for high social rank is nonsense propagated by the "elites" in question to provide justification for their privilege and to dissuade others from attempting to change the social structure. This idea of inherent genetic superiority is, of course, also at the root of racialist theory. Heavenlyblue (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Although what you wrote is very interesting, it is purely conjecture.