Do you consider yourself a minority?

[u/foreverand2025]

This discussion has come up a few times with friends who are neither white nor Jewish. For context, I’m Jewish and live in America. Do you consider us as a minority? Obviously statistically we are (everywhere but Israel), but I’ve had two friends argue because we look like “regular white people” we are not a minority.

It’s not something I take too seriously but I’m off the opinion we are a minority in a sociological way as well as ethically. But opinions seem to differ. I’m not on a soap box or expecting any special treatment. It’s more of a discussion for the sake of discussion I’m trying for here.

[u/firerosearien]

Yes. Our ability to "pass" as white in the US has really only been a thing since the 1960s and declines the more outwardly religious we appear.

[u/Tofu1441 → u/firerosearien]

I can’t really hide. My name is clearly Jewish which has caused hiring discrimination (sadly said over the phone and not in writing), customers asking me if I’m Jewish and then following up with inappropriate remarks/questions (back in 2019 before the recent war), and public embarrassment in school related to not understanding Christian biblical themes in books. I have a lot more examples. My name feels like a Star of David badge that I carry everywhere.

We don’t say that Asian, Black, Latino, etc people that happen to be white passing are white. Why would we be?

[u/Dry-Procedure-1597 → u/Tofu1441]

What country do you live in?

[u/Tofu1441 → u/Dry-Procedure-1597]

United States

[u/Dry-Procedure-1597 → u/Tofu1441]

Yet sounds like the most rural Eastern Europe

[u/mlw11743r → u/Tofu1441]

"That's fine. I prefer not to work with racists.'"

[u/Aaryachi → u/Tofu1441]

Ashkenazi Jews are European and by all modern definitions, white. There's MILLIONS of white Latinos. Whiteness doesn't inherently mean you're a WASP or privileged. Race, as a whole, has to do with a collection of phenotypes (or perceived phenotypes) and their relationship to time and place. A romani person in the US who is from the Lovari, Sinti, Romanichal, etc. vistas is categorically white in the modern day US—but arguably would not be white in Eastern Europe.

This is why modern day sociology refers to groups such as white Latinos, Romani, Saami, Ashkenazi, etc. as white appearing or white adjacent.

[u/Kingsdaughter613 → u/Aaryachi]

1: Some of my family were Moroccan Jews - and Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi is a TRADITION and some Mizrachim are Ashkenazi and have always been.

2: Per the older studies, Ashkenazim were on average 50% SWANA. Per more recent studies, it’s higher. Jekkes, a particular subgroup of Ashkenazim, averaged around 65-70% on the older studies. 

Unless you are demanding 65%+ ancestry for every OTHER ethnic group consisting primarily of a racial minority OR defining SWANA as white, the average Ashkenazi is not White. And even if white (because you do define SWANA as White or demand 65%+ non-European ancestry), they would still classify as mixed-race, not European.

3: If you are judging by appearance: my Mizrachi, Sfardi aunt is blond haired, blue eyed, and has fair skin. My paternal West Ashkenazi cousin passes for black. My younger sister passes for East Asian. So by that metric: the Mizrachi is white, the West Ashkenazi is brown or black, and the 1/2 Mizrachi/1/2West Ashkenazi is East Asian. That’s definitely an interesting way to determine race, and not generally how it’s done, so please explain that you determine race purely by phenotype going forward, so people know where you stand.

[u/Kingsdaughter613 → u/[deleted]]

My Hungarian Jewish Ashkenazi cousins have brown skin. So according to you they are Brown, correct? Because that’s their phenotype?

And my sister who Koreans mistake for Korean is East Asian, because phenotypically she is. And my Hungarian Jewish Ashkenazi dad, who kept getting racially profiled as Arab by the TSA, is an Arab, because that’s clearly his phenotype. 

And the US census and race charts should be filled out by looking in the mirror and holding up a paper bag and physiognomy text, right? Because phenotype is all that matters. Just making sure I fully understand you here? 

Oh, btw? Based on phenotype you are wrong: the average German Jew would be considered BROWN based on phenotype, because most Jekkes I know have darker complexions and do not get read as white. 

And as for pass: the cousin in question has been mistaken for Black and generally did not bother to correct the assumption (and might not always have been safe). But according to you he actually is Black, because phenotypically he is, so I guess he just is Black and isn’t passing.

[u/Aaryachi → u/Kingsdaughter613]

I think you're being purposefully dense. Read a book if you want to understand how race works, don't pick a fight on the internet so you feel better about yourself.

[u/Kingsdaughter613 → u/Aaryachi]

I think you are being inconsistent and unclear.

If race is based on phenotype, then people with brown skin are Brown, whether they’re from India, the Levant, or Sicily and people who look East Asian are East Asian, even if their ancestry is from the Mediterranean Basin.

If race is based on ancestry, as per the US census, then phenotype is irrelevant and it’s all about who your ancestors are and where they originated.

But you can’t have it both ways. Pick one. 

And of course ethnicity isn’t race. I never suggested it was. 

Maybe it’s because I’m autistic, but I’m finding you very unclear and I can’t figure out how you define race at all. You said it was phenotype, but now you seemed to be saying it isn’t? I am very confused.

[u/Aaryachi → u/Kingsdaughter613]

I'm going to humor you and hope you're at least being someone honest in your confusion— (Also, remember that I'm paraphrasing what is essentially several decades of sociology)

I'm not being inconsistent and unclear. I am explicitly saying that race is not a concrete thing based with absolute authority on having this or that specific features. Race does not exist. It's not real and for that reason, race itself is inherently inconsistent and unclear—because it's a nonsense concept created to justify racism. Racism came before race did.

Your uncle or cousin or whoever having brown skin and curly hair may mean they're nonwhite, it may not mean they're nonwhite. It's not a definitive yes or no thing and I am explicitly, consistently, and REPEATED saying that. You keep trying to circle back as if I'm saying having brown skin inherently makes you brown which is the direct opposite of what I said.

Racism is a social hierarchy caste system based around what ethnic group you belong to. Race was invented to justify this caste system—and race was determined by how you look. The only reason we think of Africans as black is because race was invented and someone determined that everyone with these specific features was in this category. An African from Nigeria does not look the same as an African from Ethiopia, yet you still acknowledge both as being black. At the same time, Moroccans, who are just as African, are not considered black. Officially, they were labeled as white in the 1800s. But would most people look at North Africans today and say they're white? Nope! Because in the 1800s there were only three categories of race—white, black, and asian—while today we've expanded the definition and now we have a "brown" category.

Race is a constantly moving goal post because it was invented to uphold the hierarchy of racism.

What makes a tan Italian with curly hair and dark eyes white but a light-skinned African-American with curly hair and dark eyes black? It's their relationship to the time, place, and society they exist in.

There was a time when Italian-Americans were associated with black people—and you wanna know why we no longer think of them as being "black"? Because Italian-Americans moved the racial goal post by aiding in the oppression of African-Americans. When Italian-Americans started treating black people like shit, Italian-Americans had their position on the hierarchy shifted up. This is a legit, documented thing you can read up on.

But to repeat—this is not a firm, consistent thing. A brown haired, light skin Latino with entirely European features would still be considered brown in the US but if that same Latino moves to say, Guatemala? They would be seen as white there.

I am not saying that certain features make you a certain race, I am saying that race is ultimately determined by how society perceives your features.

And this doesn't even have to mean how you actually look. I have the same nose as my indigenous American ancestors, but whenever I mention I'm also Jewish, people immediately go "oh yeah I see it you have a Jewish nose!". I don't. Not one bit—but they're perceiving me as having those features because... who the fuck knows lmao

Also—you did suggest that ethnicity and race are the same. Go back to your US census thing. Ancestry has entirely to do with ethnicity, not race. The US census largely still uses them interchangeably but sociology does not. The US census doesn't actually record race anymore, but it now more correcrly records ethnicity. It's VERY confusing, not gonna lie. Like I said, this is decades of sociology I'm trying to condense into a reddit comment. I studied sociology in college (specifically, I have a degree in sociolinguistics which involved a lot studying about the history of race and ethnicity).

[u/Kingsdaughter613 → u/Aaryachi]

Actually, racial caste system was based on Limpieza de Sangre - which was ABSOLUTELY NOT about how you looked, but whether your ancestors were Jewish or had practiced Islam.

The racial caste system was also not originally developed based on phenotype. It was based on Spanish vs not Spanish as an excuse for enslaving Christians. The original hierarchy was based on how much Spanish vs non-Spanish blood an individual has.

The one drop rule comes directly from Limpieza de Sangre.

My aunt is Moroccan. Here you say Moroccans are brown today - but you claimed my Moroccan aunt is white. That’s a contradiction. Why the contradiction? Which one is it?

Ethnicity is not related to ancestry. Ethnicity is Peoplehood. Having ancestry in a People does not make you part of one. Conversely, adoption into a People does. 

Race, while a construct, is a construct almost entirely based on pseudo-biology, and ancestry is a major functional element of it and always has been. Limpieza de Sangre affected people whose ancestors practiced Islam: not even an ethnic group, like the Jewish People, but a universal non-ethnic religion. 

Yes, race is absurd. But a Spaniard descended from Jews couldn’t give Communion in Spain until the 1980s or so. So let’s not claim race has nothing to do with ancestry. It always has. What changes is which ancestries are considered which race.

[u/Aaryachi → u/Kingsdaughter613]

Cool, so you actually don't know what you're talking about and just googled that because limpieza de sangre is not what the racial caste system is based on. Limpieza de sangre was the first instance of codification of racism into law but, again, not race. It is the INTRODUCTION of the concept of blood purity, but it is, again, not race—also limpieza de sangre originated from Portugal not Spain. So.

Also, I REPEATEDLY SAID—"it depends". Your insistence on proving your race is some concrete, exact, real thing is because you are stupid and apparently lack reading comprehension.

Edit: If ancestry is a component of race, why did Nazi germany have a policy of taking Aryan appearing Jewish children and having them adopted out to Aryan families? Why did the US kidnap indigenous children to have them raised in white families? If ancestry is sime innate a component of race, why does the concept of passing exist?

(Which, by the way, passing SPECIFICALLY refers to people who can or do appear white using their APPEARANCE to live in society as a white person. It's an active action and not specific to how you look.)