NationStates Jolt Archive

My friend and I are debating about Jews, specifically Ashkenazic being an ethnicity or not. I say no. She says yes. She also thinks Jesus was white. So, what is the truth? Are Jews an ethnicity?

I say no because there are Jews of all different colors and shapes. The original Jews were dispersed around in the Diaspora and had fun with pagan, Christian, or whatever ladies and eventually we had Jews that look all different ways.

She says Ashkenazic Jews look differnet then Christians where they came from. I say that is either imagined or a dominant genetic trait that came from original Jews.

Ashkenazic Jewish is an ethnicity, yes.

There may be genetic studies of the Ashkenazim that would shed light on the question (I'd go look but it's late and I'm lazy). The tendency of Jews to isolate themselves from the communities within which they lived will have kept their gene pool less sullied by dalliances with the "pagan, Christian or whatever ladies" you mentioned. I don't think there was that much of that going on.

So, long way around, I think I agree with your friend, sorry.

Given the conditions and cultural practices of Jewish peoples, I'd say yes. It's hard to convert to Judaism, and given that alone it should show that most people who are Jewish are descended from an exclusive enough group that they could be defined as an ethnic group.

My friend and I are debating about Jews, specifically Ashkenazic being an ethnicity or not. I say no. She says yes. She also thinks Jesus was white. So, what is the truth? Are Jews an ethnicity?

I say no because there are Jews of all different colors and shapes. The original Jews were dispersed around in the Diaspora and had fun with pagan, Christian, or whatever ladies and eventually we had Jews that look all different ways.

She says Ashkenazic Jews look differnet then Christians where they came from. I say that is either imagined or a dominant genetic trait that came from original Jews.

Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinct from the surrounding Germans, Poles, Russians, whatever. You can easily see this by all of the various diseases that they have far more often than those surrounding populations.

Now, "Jews" (in general) are not an ethnicity, since there are also Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, and many other populations that were seperated over the past 2000 years. "Ashkenazim" is a distinct population that discouraged interbreeding (and was discouraged by others).

Edit: There are also facial and other characteristics that prevail more among Ashkenazim from Germans and others. The Nazi's could recognize people with "Jewish Faces" back when they were rounding them up. I for example am recognizably not ethnically Russian, even though my family is from there. At least, other Russians can recognize me as not being Russian. I really can't tell ethnicities from faces that well.

Then how do you explain Jews becoming white, African, Chinese, etc...?

Then how do you explain Jews becoming white, African, Chinese, etc...?

Are Germans any different from the French?

They are two different populations that have been seperated for millenia. While they are both "White" the two ethnicites are different.

Take another population, significantly smaller, that *still* lives relatively isolated , carries on their own traditions and holidays, has its own language and cuisine, and (mostly) only marries within itself. This population lives like this for, oh, lets say 2000 years.

If this population (lets name it, Ashkenazim) is not a seperate ethnicity from the Germans around it, please define ethnicty.

Note: There is no such thing as a "Jewish" ethnicity. There are multiple groups of Jewish people who may (and probably do) hold some common ancestors, but they have been seperated by 2000 years and only recently do they intermix (and interbreed). In Israel the boundaries between Ashkenazim and Sephardim are blurring, in favor of a generic Jewish identity, but that identity doesnt have a defined ethnicity that has been around for thousands of years.

Give Israel a couple millennia and they will interbreed enough and develop enough characteristics in common that it will be a single ethnicity.

As I understand it, Ashkenazi Jews could be considered an ethnic group. Jews as a whole cannot reasonably be so considered.

Jews are an ethnicity, which has nothing whatsoever to do with race if you look up those two words.

Jesus was likeliest a Semite, a branch of the caucasian race, and therefore could technically be considered "white". But therefore, so could Arabs, Hebrews, and all the other causasoid races.

Jewish is not, however, a distinct race. Semitic, Hebraic, yes. Judaism is a relligion and culture and ethnicity (this last by definition). Therefore it's impossible for someone to be, as some claim "half Jewish", which would be a silly as claiming to be "half Shinto", "half Pagan", "half Lutheran" or "half atheist".

No. Jews are not an ethnicity.

They are "a people", bound together by culture and religion, but not by ethnicity in the common sense of the word. There are black jews, white jews, asian jews and everything in between jews.

Are Germans any different from the French?

They are two different populations that have been seperated for millenia.

Take another population, significantly smaller, that *still* lives relatively isolated , carries on their own traditions and holidays, has its own language and cuisine, and (mostly) only marries within itself. This population lives like this for, oh, lets say 2000 years.

If this population (lets name it, Ashkenazim) is not an ethnicity, please define ethnicty.

Note: There is no such thing as a "Jewish" ethnicity. There are multiple groups of Jewish people who may (and probably do) hold some common ancestors, but they have been seperated by 2000 years and only recently do they intermix (and interbreed). In Israel the boundaries between Ashkenazim and Sephardim are blurring, in favor of a generic Jewish identity, but that identity doesnt have a defined ethnicity that has been around for thousands of years.

Give Israel a couple millennia and they will interbreed enough and develop enough characteristics in common that it will be a single ethnicity.
According to Merriam-Webster...

eth-NI-ci-ty (n): The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or social tradition.

...you're wrong. Now substitute the word race for ethnicity...

race (n): Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

...and you've got a point.

No. Jews are not an ethnicity.

They are "a people", bound together by culture and religion, but not by ethnicity in the common sense of the word. There are black jews, white jews, asian jews and everything in between jews.

The title and the post ask two completely seperate questions.

In response to the title: Jews are not an ethnicity.

In response to the post: Ashkenazim are

No. Jews are not an ethnicity.

They are "a people", bound together by culture and religion, but not by ethnicity in the common sense of the word. There are black jews, white jews, asian jews and everything in between jews.
See definitions below (or above, depending on which way you scroll).

The title and the post ask two completely seperate questions.

In response to the title: Jews are not an ethnicity.

In response to the post: Ashkenazim are

Indeed! I had only given the post itself a skim. That'll teach me!

See definitions below (or above, depending on which way you scroll).

Yeah, you know, I hadn't even bothered with a dictionary. Thanks for the info. When most people say "ethnicity" they usually don't mean it that way, it seems to be a synonym for "race" in the vernacular.

I was actually just giving the response that the Jews I know personally have always given me.

eth-NI-ci-ty (n): The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or social tradition.

Actually, I'd still maintain that "ethnicity" doesn't well suit Jews as a whole - unless you think a Renewal Jew from California and an Orthodox Jew from Israel share a "common national or social tradition." I sure as heck don't think they do. ;)

Actually, I'd still maintain that "ethnicity" doesn't well suit Jews as a whole - unless you think a Renewal Jew from California and an Orthodox Jew from Israel share a "common national or social tradition." I sure as heck don't think they do. ;)
Hence the need for the adjective modifiers, hello.

According to Merriam-Webster...
...you're wrong.


Ashkenzi Jews do not "belong to a social group that has a common national or social tradition."? (continued below)


In common usage ethnicity is as much genetic and appearance-oriented as cultural. Someone can say they were adopted and raised by a chinese family, but they would not be commonly considered ethnically chinese if they were black.



Now substitute the word race for ethnicity...

...and you've got a point.

Once again, common usage supercedes dictionary definitions. When most people hear Race they think "White Black or Asian".

Actually, I'd still maintain that "ethnicity" doesn't well suit Jews as a whole - unless you think a Renewal Jew from California and an Orthodox Jew from Israel share a "common national or social tradition." I sure as heck don't think they do. ;)

Would you say that the generic grouping of Yiddish speaking Jews that originated from the area around the Rhine and spread throughout Europe(and the Americas) typically referred to as the Ashkenazim share a common social tradition?

Of course, many philosophical differences have developed between various groups of Ashkenazi Jews, but no matter if you are Orthodox or Reform, you have a greatly increased chance of getting Tay Sachs and your grandmother probably made very tasty matzo ball soup :D

Indeed! I had only given the post itself a skim. That'll teach me!



Yeah, you know, I hadn't even bothered with a dictionary. Thanks for the info. When most people say "ethnicity" they usually don't mean it that way, it seems to be a synonym for "race" in the vernacular.

I was actually just giving the response that the Jews I know personally have always given me.
I know. And it's not their fault. I blame the media, who seldom bother with correct usage, and teachers, who don't teach it anymore, and administrators, who've told the teachers not to.

I find it sad that one must be a work geek (like me) to be proud of usage and try to keep is straight. It is indeed a living language, and I'm not a complete lexical tightass who opposes neologism and slang, but not everything that lives and grows is beneficial (i.e. cancer). Being able to say what you really mean should not be an educational frill.

Please mind the soap box on your way out of this post.

Ashkenzi Jews do not "belong to a social group that has a common national or social tradition."? In common usage ethnicity is as much genetic and appearance-oriented as cultural. Someone can say they were adopted and raised by a chinese family, but they would not be commonly considered ethnically chinese if they were black.




Once again, common usage supercedes dictionary definitions. When most people hear Race they think "White Black or Asian".
And here, at least, common usage is really, really wrong. Ethnically, if a Black child were raised Chinese, guess what, he'd speak the language, have the culture embedded in him -- he'd be Chinese. Raciall, he'd be Black. Not a difficult distinction to make. Besides, how would you delineate him if not as ethnically Chinese?

What is the definition of ethnic. If the aforementioned type of Jew conforms to the definition, then my answer is yes, if not, then my answer is no. Otherwise, this thread should become a discussion about the definition of ethnicity. Simple really.

No. Jews are not an ethnicity.

They are "a people", bound together by culture and religion, but not by ethnicity in the common sense of the word. There are black jews, white jews, asian jews and everything in between jews.
Thank you and I mean Ashkenazim. But still, they are not an ethnic group. Ashkenazim only is seperated by customs and religion from other people, not ethnicity.

Also the dictionary isn't exactly correct. It follows whats considered right, except scientific terms.

Would you say that the generic grouping of Yiddish speaking Jews that originated from the area around the Rhine and spread throughout Europe(and the Americas) typically referred to as the Ashkenazim share a common social tradition?
With themselves? Most certainly.

Hence the need for further clarification through the use of adjective modifiers. The Ashkenazim Jews are ethnically different from, say, the Hassidim.

Thank you and I mean Ashkenazim. But still, they are not an ethnic group. Ashkenazim only is seperated by customs and religion from other people, not ethnicity.

Also the dictionary isn't exactly correct. It follows whats considered right, except scientific terms.
I disagree, and I'll leave it at that.

What is the definition of ethnic. If the aforementioned type of Jew conforms to the definition, then my answer is yes, if not, then my answer is no. Otherwise, this thread should become a discussion about the definition of ethnicity. Simple really.
Read the thread?

The definition's back there (post #11).

Thank you and I mean Ashkenazim. But still, they are not an ethnic group. Ashkenazim only is seperated by customs and religion from other people, not ethnicity.

Also the dictionary isn't exactly correct. It follows whats considered right, except scientific terms.

Take your random Jew from Germany.

Take your random German from Germany.

DNA test them.

The chance that an Ashkenazi Jew will have say, Tay Sachs, is orders of magnitude higher than your average German.

Of course, genetic differences are only dictated by customs and religion.

Read the thread?

The definition's back there (post #11).

Then the answer is simple. Compare against the definition. If it doesn't compare, then either there is something wrong with the definition or what is being compared to the defintion. Which is it?

And here, at least, common usage is really, really wrong. Ethnically, if a Black child were raised Chinese, guess what, he'd speak the language, have the culture embedded in him -- he'd be Chinese. Raciall, he'd be Black. Not a difficult distinction to make. Besides, how would you delineate him if not as ethnically Chinese?

Cultural Heritage would be different from ethnic heritage.

The way that I commonly understand it is, lets say the argument a few weeks back about the Black French Football players.

They are Racially Black.

Their Ethnic heritage (through ancestry) could be (for instance) Nigerian.

Their *Cultural* heritage would be French.

I consider ethnicities to be subgroups of Races (or small groups in and of themselves, such as the types of hispanics), as in there are French, German, English, and Welsh ethnictieis for the "white race" and similar examples for other.

Edit: This is just how I understand the vernacular to be from people I talk to. I can understand this is not the proper dictionary definition, and I should probably do research on the subject.

Cultural Heritage would be different from ethnic heritage.

The way that I commonly understand it is, lets say the argument a few weeks back about the Black French Football players.

They are Racially Black.

Their Ethnic heritage (through ancestry) could be (for instance) Nigerian.

Their *Cultural* heritage would be French.

I consider ethnicities to be subgroups of Races (or small groups in and of themselves, such as the types of hispanics), as in there are French, German, English, and Welsh ethnictieis for the "white race" and similar examples for other.
I disagree. They're ethnically French. The language, the Galois, the penchant for red wine and snails, the rudeness -- everything that makes a Frenchman French, those Black footballers are. Racially, they're sub-Saharan African or Nigerian (I don't know which race specifically beyond that). But ethnically, in every way one can be French, they are French.

It's just semantics. I'm not worked up about it. You're welcome, as ever, to use the term "ethnicity" however you wish. I'm free to see the need to have one word define one aspect (culture, upbringing) and the other define another (genetics).

Then the answer is simple. Compare against the definition. If it doesn't compare, then either there is something wrong with the definition or what is being compared to the defintion. Which is it?
I did exactly that, which is why Jews are indeed an ethnicity and not a race.

I did exactly that, which is why Jews are indeed an ethnicity and not a race.

If you are right, then there isn't much point in me reading this thread, since you have solved the problem. Although I'm not sure where race came into my method.

The Jews can be an ethnicity. There are ethnic Jews, and religious Jews. It really is confusing.

My friend and I are debating about Jews, specifically Ashkenazic being an ethnicity or not. I say no. She says yes. She also thinks Jesus was white. So, what is the truth? Are Jews an ethnicity?

I say no because there are Jews of all different colors and shapes. The original Jews were dispersed around in the Diaspora and had fun with pagan, Christian, or whatever ladies and eventually we had Jews that look all different ways.

She says Ashkenazic Jews look differnet then Christians where they came from. I say that is either imagined or a dominant genetic trait that came from original Jews.

There isn't a single Jewish ethnicity, but several. Important Jewish ethnicities (which have several subgroups) include: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim. There are others as well.

No. Jews are not an ethnicity.

They are "a people", bound together by culture and religion, but not by ethnicity in the common sense of the word.

Errr... Religion and culture are two cornerstones of ethnicity, along with genealogy/ancestry and language and behavioral pactices.

[QUOTE=Revasser]There are black jews, white jews, asian jews and everything in between jews.

And those are all separate Jewish ethnicities.

There isn't a single Jewish ethnicity, but several. Important Jewish ethnicities (which have several subgroups) include: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim. There are others as well.

Errr... Religion and culture are two cornerstones of ethnicity, along with genealogy/ancestry and language and behavioral pactices.


And those are all separate Jewish ethnicities.


Didn't read the first two pages did you?

I think we've gone through uh... all of that.

If you are right, then there isn't much point in me reading this thread, since you have solved the problem. Although I'm not sure where race came into my method.
I sincerely doubt I've done anything of the sort! I've merely stated my semantic take on the issue. I don't claim my way is ultimately correct for anyone but me -- and anyone who wants me to understand what they're really talking about.

I sincerely doubt I've done anything of the sort! I've merely stated my semantic take on the issue. I don't claim my way is ultimately correct for anyone but me -- and anyone who wants me to understand what they're really talking about.

how culturally relative of you.

how culturally relative of you.
How?

Please explain.

I think we've gone through uh... all of that.

You've provided alot of misinformation on the subject, if that's what you mean....

First you need a few definitions. Since the terms all come from anthropology, I'll go straight to the horses mouth, an anthropology glossary.

ethnic group

a category or group of people considered to be significantly different from others in terms of cultural (dialect, religion, traditions, etc.) and sometimes physical characteristics (skin color, body shape, etc.). Commonly recognized American ethnic groups include American Indians, Jews, Latinos, Chinese, African Americans ("blacks"), European Americans ("whites"), etc.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/glossary.htm#ethnic_group

race

a biological subspecies, or variety, that consists of a more or less distinct population with anatomical traits that distinguish it clearly from other races. The human "races" commonly assumed to exist are mostly socio-cultural creations rather than biological realities. They are ethnic groups that are defined on the basis of both physical and cultural characteristics.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/glossary.htm#sectR

Ethnicity refers to selected cultural and sometimes physical characteristics used to classify people into groups or categories considered to be significantly different from others. Commonly recognized American ethnic groups include American Indians, Latinos, Chinese, African Americans, European Americans, etc. In some cases, ethnicity involves merely a loose group identity with little or no cultural traditions in common. This is the case with many Irish and German Americans. In contrast, some ethnic groups are coherent subcultures with a shared language and body of tradition. Newly arrived immigrant groups often fit this pattern.

A race is a biological subspecies click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, or variety of a species, consisting of a more or less distinct population with anatomical traits that distinguish it clearly from other races. This biologist's definition does not fit the reality of human genetic variation today. We are an extremely homogenous species genetically. As a matter of fact, all humans today are 99.9% genetically identical, and most of the variation that does occur is in the difference between males and females and our unique personal traits.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_1.htm


Cultural Heritage would be different from ethnic heritage.

Seeing as culture is one of the defining characteristics of ethnicity, that is not correct.

[QUOTE=Vydro]The way that I commonly understand it is, lets say the argument a few weeks back about the Black French Football players.

[QUOTE=Vydro]They are Racially Black.

Black is not a race.

Their Ethnic heritage (through ancestry) could be (for instance) Nigerian.

Nigerian is a nationality.

Their *Cultural* heritage would be French.

As is French.

I consider ethnicities to be subgroups of Races (or small groups in and of themselves, such as the types of hispanics), as in there are French, German, English, and Welsh ethnictieis for the "white race" and similar examples for other.

Incorrect. Ethnicities are subdivisions of Homo sapiens sapiens, the only existing race of Homo sapiens, and are based on cultural, linguistic, behavioral, ancestral, and religious charactaristics.
White is not a race.

Edit: This is just how I understand the vernacular to be from people I talk to. I can understand this is not the proper dictionary definition, and I should probably do research on the subject.

Yes, you should.

Didn't read the first two pages did you?

Oh, and reading the first two pages would be difficult, seeing as we're still on page one (unless this bumps it over 40).

You've provided alot of misinformation on the subject, if that's what you mean....

First you need a few definitions. Since the terms all come from anthropology, I'll go straight to the horses mouth, an anthropology glossary.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/glossary.htm#ethnic_group

http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/glossary.htm#sectR

http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_1.htm

Seeing as culture is one of the defining characteristics of ethnicity, that is not correct.
Black is not a race.

Nigerian is a nationality.

As is French.

Incorrect. Ethnicities are subdivisions of Homo sapiens sapiens, the only existing race of Homo sapiens, and are based on cultural, linguistic, behavioral, ancestral, and religious charactaristics.
White is not a race.

Yes, you should.

I believe I stated quite clearly that I was using the terms as I understood them to be used in the vernacular. Were this a forum frequented by only anthropolgists, or if I were speaking in a purely accademic setting, then perhaps the way I posted might be inappropriate.

Speaking of vernacular, "race" can be quantified (by many academics, I've *seen* articles showing this) as being classified as "Caucasoid" "Mongoloid" or "Negroid" colloquially known as "White" "Asian" and "Black".

While French is a nationality, there is also an ethnicity commonly known as "French", which encompasses the people that are descended from the original Frankish tribes that settled the area in the third or fourth century and their descendants.

I might not have done as much research as many others into the subject, but do NOT try and call me completely ignorant of what terms to use when.

Oh, and reading the first two pages would be difficult, seeing as we're still on page one (unless this bumps it over 40).

I see 15 posts a page. I apologize for assuming that you also use the same default setting. From now on instead of saying "dont restate the things discussed in the first two pages" I'll say "dont restate the things discussed in the first 30 posts"

Now, lets look at your post in this thread which I replied to with the statement that restating (fairly) settled discussions is pointless.


There isn't a single Jewish ethnicity, but several. Important Jewish ethnicities (which have several subgroups) include: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim. There are others as well.

Errr... Religion and culture are two cornerstones of ethnicity, along with genealogy/ancestry and language and behavioral pactices.

And those are all separate Jewish ethnicities.

These statement saying Jews can be in different groups was mentioned earlier in post 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12. And thats only on the first page... wait, first 15 posts.

Also, religion, culture, genealogy/ancestry, language, and behavioral practices together was *exactly* how I had described ethnicity just 5 posts before yours. The gentleman I was talking to was saying how genealogy/ancestry need not be considered.

Edit: Added a bit of detail. Would also like to say I'm going to sleep. Will catch up on this thread tommorow :) I apologize in advance for any hard to read sentances resulting from lack of sleep

I believe I stated quite clearly that I was using the terms as I understood them to be used in the vernacular. Were this a forum frequented by only anthropolgists, or if I were speaking in a purely accademic setting, then perhaps the way I posted would be decidely inappropriate

Since the common vernacular meaning of ethnicity is derived from the anthropological meaning, it doesn't make any difference. I direct you to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic%20group

And the common usage of race is utterly meaningless. You might as well refer to the "black ragfrfe" as to the "black race".

I see 15 posts a page. I apologize for assuming that you also see this same default setting. From now on instead of saying "dont restate the things discussed in the first two pages" I'll say "dont restate the things discussed in the first 30 posts"

Bingo

[QUOTE=Vydro]Now, lets look at your post in this thread which I replied to with the statement that restating (fairly) settled discussions is pointless.

I took issue with your misinformation.

These statement saying Jews can be in different groups was mentioned earlier in post 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12. And thats only on the first page... wait, first 15 posts.

Fair enough. Again, the issue I was taking was with other misinformation.

Also, Religion, Culture, Genealogy/Ancestry, language, and behavioral practices together was *exactly* how I had described ethnicity just 5 posts before yours.

5 posts before is where you say:

Cultural Heritage would be different from ethnic heritage.

TThis is the polar opposite of what you now claim to have said. Culture is an asspect of ethnicity. It is different from ethnicity. You can't claim to have said the first when you have in fact said the second.

Since the common vernacular meaning of ethnicity is derived from the anthropological meaning, it doesn't make any difference. I direct you to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic%20group

And the common usage of race is utterly meaningless. You might as well refer to the "black ragfrfe" as to the "black race".



I was editing more detail into my earlier post as you wrote this, so you can read above for my views. Basically, "race" can and has been meant as caucasoid, mongoloid, or negroid (white, black, or asian)


Bingo

Since 15 posts to a page is the default, you could have understood what I meant


I took issue with your misinformation.

Fair enough. Again, the issue I was taking was with other misinformation.

You did not state dissent with my "misinformation" in that original post which I quoted as being unnecessary. Had you posted arguments about misinformation then, it would have been new information to the discussion, and I would not have said it was rehashed old information would I?


5 posts before is where you say:

TThis is the polar opposite of what you now claim to have said. Culture is an asspect of ethnicity. It is different from ethnicity. You can't claim to have said the first when you have in fact said the second.

Culture is indeed seperate from ethnicity, but a common culture is one of the characteristics that define an ethnicity.

There is an "American" culture. There is no specific ethnicity associated with it.

There is a "Japanese" ethnicity. There is a culture associated with it.

Perhaps the way I stated it in post #27 was confusing, but one can belong to a culture without belonging to its ethnicity. One can also genealogically be part of an ethnic group and reject the associated culture. I also contend that one cannot reject their ethnicity.

But hey, I'm using the terms as they are commonly used by myself and the people I talk to. I'm sure you can pull out dictionary definitions on me and show me how im greatly mistaken and spreading misinformation.;)

Vydro, I'm not even going to bother. The arguments you are making have been demolished repeatedly on these forums. Go forth in your own admitted ignorance, as lonfg as you stop trying to fost it on others.

Vydro, I'm not even going to bother. The arguments you are making have been demolished repeatedly on these forums. Go forth in your own admitted ignorance, as lonfg as you stop trying to fost it on others.

My argument that as we are people having a discussion on an internet game forum we can use terms as they are widely understood rather than use them by strict academic definitions that your average person doesnt give a rats ass about?

Is race *not* commonly believed to mean "white, black or asian"? I mean, that usage has supposedly been demolished repeatedly on these forums, even though I see it used in a good variety of threads (I read a lot more than I post). Is French *not* accepted as an ethnicity as well as a nationality? How exactly do you term the descendants of the Frankish tribes? Is there not an American culture and a Japanese one, but a Japanese ethnicity and not an American one? Please, tell me where I went wrong in my reasoning.

Or do you mean to argue with my observation that you only brought up your apparent affront to my using terms as they are commonly understood after I posted that your initial entry in this thread did not serve to bring any purpose but was just rehashing information that had been stated multiple times from the fifth post on?

Edit: I added quite a bit of detail and am now honestly going to bed. Good night. I hope to wake up tommorow and see someone who has graced me with a drink from their fountain of knowledge so I may be as enlightened as Daistallia and my ignorance may be cured.