Talk:American Jews

Why "American Jews" and not "Jewish American"?

Do they consider themselves Jews who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Jewish? DHN (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Jew at all since it is a religion, not an ethnicity or race? Why don't they call themselves Germans, Pols or Russians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm a Caucasian who happens to be Jewish. My religion is Judaism. My ethnicity is Scottish and Norwegian. I'm about as "Hebrew" as Ayres Rock. "Jewish" isn't an ethnicity, because one cannot convert to an ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, I hate this debate. There's a: (1) religion, (2) culture, and (3) ethnicity that are associated with Judaism. It's all of these and none of these.

It is a religion because it has a set of beliefs. It is not a religion because there are copious atheist or agnostic, and even Christian, people who identify and would be recognized as Jewish.

It is a culture because there are a set of shared traditions. It is not a culture because you can be Jewish without having participated in any of it.

It is an ethnicity because of ethnic groupings such as Ashkenazi Jew, who are so genetically similar to each other as to be at higher risk for certain genetic diseases. It is not an ethnicity because you can convert into it.

Can we stop now?--Loodog (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the "Jewish American" terminology might be considered an assimilationist or ‘universalist’ point of view, while the terminology "American Jews" might be considered a non-assimilationist point of view, and the one favored by Jewish nationalists and the more religiously orthodox. This general difference has deep roots both within the religion and within this particular national group. It is also noted by the difference between American Jewish voting habits (discussed) and lobbying and PAC donation habits [1] (undiscussed). This seems similar to the disconnected logic indicated by innumerable references to Jews and Judaism on Zionist pages, while a linked Zionism reference only rates a 'See also' on the Judaism page. This certainly seems to be a proper page for some discussion of these differences. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have always agreed with your above thinking. There is no such thing as a Christian who would be "accepted as a Jew" by any Jew. I know some Rabbis will say that you can never "convert out" of the religion, but based on that, Judiasm is a pretty large religion, since much of the Christian and Islamic world would technically be Jewish. Anybody who converted due to the Inquisition, if you went back in time, would be considered Jewish, so this logic fails. There is certainly an ethnic component to some Jews -- it is a group among the Jews -- but funnily enough, the Ashkenazim are Jews who have mixed with the Europeans. And the Sephardic Jews are as "Arab" or Persian as they are Jewish, ethnically speaking. As far as the atheist or agnostic argument, I know just as many "lapsed/atheist/agnostic Catholics" as I know similarly categorized Jews. These people are Christian, even if they do not actively follow it. If they bring up the next generation without religion, that connection would eventually break, much as it will be most likely for similar Jews. The Jewish version might still tend to eat potato pancakes, and lox, and the formerly Christian families may keep some of their cultural identification, but that does not in any way change the fact that they are no longer Jewish or Christian. So, despite the argument that Jews are an ethnicity, they are no more an ethnicity than New Yorkers are and are no different than Christians. As for the Jewish American versus American Jew, these are two separate things too. My religion is Jewish. I follow many Jewish cultural things, but I am an American first and foremost (I am an American whose religion happens to be Jewish and of mised European ethnicity, not Jewish). However, the incorrect consensus has been reached here, and I am tired of banging my ahead against the wall on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Much of the Christian and Arab world would NOT be Jewish by that definition. Jews have historically been a relatively isolated group and NEVER represented any appreciable fraction of the world's population. Read history. "Jews descend mostly from the ancient Israelites (also known as Hebrews), who settled in the Land of Israel."

2.Your assessment of Ashkenzim and Sephardim only affirms that these are ethnicities, whether or not they're "pure" Jewish (whatever that would mean).

3. When was the last time you heard of a secular Catholic (c.f. secular Jew)?

So Judaism is a culture, religion, and ethnicity, and yet it's none. And I hate rehatchings of the argument insisting on impossible clear delineation.--Loodog (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jews descended from the same people as the Persians do, so I guess I should have said it that way, not Arab, if you believe Abraham was a Persian. So, ethnically, they are one and the same (at least the originals). It has nothing to do with the fact that there's never been a lot of Jews. To the degree that there are Pakistani Muslims that tie their ancestry to the Lost Tribes, and the millions murdered by the Inquisition and the Nazis, and those forcibly converted, there would almost certainly be 100s of millions instead of less than 20 million, using the ethnic definition.

As far as secular Catholic, I don't know where you live, but the vast majority of Catholics I know virtually never go to Church, etc. Somehow, there seems to be a different standard for Jews than Christians. There is nothing more ridiculous in my mind that the ethnic Jew. It was made up by people like Henry Ford, the Nazis, etc.

My assessment of the Sephardim and Ashkenazim confirms that they lived in the same place, but they are not the same. The only reason why Christianity is not ethnic is because they proseletyze far more than Judiasm does. Converts to Judiasm are 100% Jewish in ever manner of the word. The ethnic Jew is imaginary. Judiasm is ONLY a religion. Jewish culture, as most people know it, is indistinguishable from peasant Russian and Polish, except without a belief in Jesus. Sephardic Jews are Middle Eastern, eat the same foods as Arabs, Persians, etc. There is no Jewish culture. There are national cultures that the Jews have adopted.Sposer (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You in one sentence: "The only reason why Christianity is not ethnic is because they proseletyze far more than Judiasm does." You in a later sentence: "The ethnic Jew is imaginary." I'm glad you acknowledge the contradictory nature of what it is to be a Jew. That was all I asked.--Loodog (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I was getting at. I should have written that "the only reason people get away with not considering Christianity ethnic and continuing with the lie that one can ethnically identify a Jew is because the Christians have proselytized." I do not in any way shape or form see anything contradictory about being Jewish. You are Jewish if you convert to Judiasm or are born into it, as long as you don't convert to another religion. However, if you and your family fail to continue in the religious tradition over (as the hidden Jews have), you are not in any way shape or form Jewish, period, end of discussion. Please do not twist my words. Jews hidden and saved during the Holocaust, and who grew up as and converted to Christianity (or were converted to), like Madeline Albright, are Christian and not Jewish. If she desires to return to the fold, then she could be considered Jewish I guess, but that is only because that is how she started out and would not need to go through conversion. I am not going to continue with this, because it is a waste of my time and yours. I consider the ethnic Jew a lie and a fabrication. I know there are Jews that disagree with this, as there are non-Jews, but ethnicity is not religion and Judiasm is a religion and you ain't Jewish unless you convert to Judiasm or are born Jewish and do not convert out. If you disassociate from the religion, then you aren't Jewish anymore.Sposer (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

I say we add Mr.Madoff to the picture listing. Plz add kthnxbai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.227.170 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Given his notoriety, I don't think it'd be appropriate any more than putting Ted Kaczynsky in the Polish Americans article.--Loodog (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

~In all seriousness why wouldnt you put Dr.Theodore Kaczynski? He is polish american isnt he? Do we want this encyclopedia to be completely lopsided and only show the "successful and prosperous" people? Shouldnt we show both sides of the spectrum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.234.194 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff should be included under subsection Popular culture of section Notable American Jews: Jewish_American#Popular_culture. As WP:WELLKNOWN states, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." To exclude Bernard_Madoff because of the negative publicity violates WP:NPOV . Magemirlen (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I could direct you to WP:NOTNEWS. But instead, I'm gonna say, nah, we're not going to edit the article in accord with the wishes of an editor who has made 200 Wikipedia edits, and is obsessed with pointing out the Jewishness of Madoff.[2][3][4] Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Many articles about ethnic, national and religious groups have these photo arrays showing famous members of these groups. I just looked at Germans, Spanish people, Austrians, English people, Italians and a few others, to see whether they have a mixture of great and notorious people, glorious people and criminals. They do not. I see photos of Claudia Schiffer, Andrea Merkel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michelangelo, Picasso, King Juan Carlos, and many many others in a positive vein. I see no Nazis, no Mussolini, no Franco, no thieves, no robbers, no bad guys. I looked at Italian Americans and I see people who played mobsters in movies, directed mob movies, a singer who hung out with mobsters, but I see no actual mobsters. If we are going to start having a mixture of good and bad role models, lets do it uniformly, not just here on this page. As it is, there seems to have been a conscious decision across Wikipedia that these photo arrays are composed of "good guys", and while one could argue that it should not be that way, I think it is a defensible position. Let's not try to change it in one place without a global discussion about all similar situations. That might be a good topic for the Village Pump, but not for here. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

stereotypes

Theres a section in Irish american for stereo types.

Irish Catholics were popular targets for stereotyping. According to historian George Potter, the media often stereotyped the Irish in America as being boss-controlled, violent (both among themselves and with those of other ethnic groups), voting illegally, prone to alcoholism, and dependent on street gangs that were often violent or criminal. Potter quotes contemporary newspaper images:

You will scarcely ever find an Irishman dabbling in counterfeit money, or breaking into houses, or swindling; but if there is any fighting to be done, he is very apt to have a hand in it." Even though Pat might "'meet with a friend and for love knock him down,'" noted a Montreal paper, the fighting usually resulted from a sudden excitement, allowing there was "but little 'malice prepense' in his whole composition." The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati in 1853, saying that the "name of 'Irish' has become identified in the minds of many, with almost every species of outlawry," distinguished the Irish vices as "not of a deep malignant nature," arising rather from the "transient burst of undisciplined passion," like "drunk, disorderly, fighting, etc., not like robbery, cheating, swindling, counterfeiting, slandering, calumniating, blasphemy, using obscene language, &c.[11]

The Irish had many humorists of their own, but were scathingly attacked in German American cartoons, especially those in Puck magazine from the 1870s to 1900. In addition, the cartoons of German American Thomas Nast were especially hostile; for example, he depicted the Irish-dominated Tammany Hall machine in New York City as a ferocious tiger.

Pretty sure there is one for italian americans aswell. But I see none for jews....These page needs a little lightening up and a little less accusations of antisemite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.234.194 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's already an entire article on Stereotypes of Jews.--MPerel 03:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld

Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld should be included in the infobox, they are classic examples, of american celebrities who are also jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.203.128 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We've already got a very long list of famous Jewish entertainers. This article's purpose is to be useful, not an interminable list.--Loodog (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein?

ALbert Einstein's picture is amongst those of American Jews. DO we consider him American because he emigrated to the US? Truly is he not a German Jew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.29.83 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No. "American Jews, or Jewish Americans, are Jews who are American citizens or resident aliens." Einstein was an American citizen for 15 years. The concept of "American" used here doesn't rule out being born elsewhere, as Einstein was.--Loodog (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

I suggest replacing Rahm Emmanuel with Michael Bloomberg on the picture list.