Realitybites said:
Mothra said:
And along this line, can you explain why people from Ethiopia, Yemen, and Israel - who all speak or spoke Semitic languages - look so different if they're the same race?
You're trying to conflate languages and races. Just because two different racial groups speak related languages doesn't mean they somehow become the same racial group. For example in India, there are any number of related and unrelated languages but only two races.
Quote:
5) Do you think all speakers of Indo-European languages (like English, Hindi, and Russian) are a single race too? I would guess so, based on your criteria
Obviously not.
Quote:
6) Under your definition, Ethiopian Jews and European Jews are the same race. Correct?
Obviously not.
You are so locked in to the concept of a Jewish race that I honestly do not think you are capable of understanding an alternative view. Do you think Abraham was Jewish?
" The Levant's genetic landscape is a complex blend of shared ancestry, historical migrations, and cultural intermingling. Distinguishing Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian ancestries through genetic studies presents unique challenges due to overlapping genetic profiles, reflecting millennia of shared history. While certain genetic markers hint at distinctions, the interwoven nature of these populations often obscures clear boundaries."
With regards to your other question, that is a very complex question. The short version is that the region is filled with Semitic genes, in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham in Genesis.
Thanks for the response. I think your reply actually highlights the central issue fairly clearly, because your positions are internally inconsistent.
First, you say I'm conflating language and race - but that was precisely the point I was testing. The term
"Semitic" is historically and academically a linguistic classification. If you agree that language does not define race (as you explicitly stated), then the burden is on you to explain what
does define a "Semitic race," since you are no longer relying on the term's original meaning.
At the moment, your position seems to be:
- "Semitic" is a race
- It is not defined by language
- It is not consistently identifiable by phenotype (since you rejected those examples)
- It has no clearly articulated genetic markers (since none were provided)
That leaves the category undefined.
Second, your India analogy actually undercuts your argument. Modern population genetics does not recognize "two races" in India in any clear biological sense - India is one of the most genetically diverse regions on earth, with continuous variation rather than discrete racial boundaries. So appealing to that example doesn't clarify your definition; it highlights how imprecise the concept of "race" becomes when you try to apply it biologically.
Third, you rejected the Indo-European comparison, but didn't explain
why it's different. That was the key point of the question: if shared linguistic origin doesn't imply shared race in that case, then you need a principled reason why "Semitic" should be treated differently. Simply saying "obviously not" doesn't resolve the inconsistency - it just leaves it unaddressed.
Fourth, you rejected that Ethiopian Jews and European Jews are the same race - but again, that creates a problem for your framework. If groups historically labeled "Semitic" can belong to visibly and genetically distinct populations, then the term is clearly not functioning as a coherent biological category.
Fifth, the quotation you provided actually reinforces my point, not yours. It explicitly states that Levantine populations have overlapping genetic profiles and blurred boundaries, which is exactly what we would expect from geographically proximate, historically intermixed populations; not from distinct, clearly bounded "races."
Finally, appealing to Genesis as an explanation for "Semitic genes" isn't a scientific argument. You're making a claim about biology, genetics, and race - those claims require empirical definitions and evidence that can be tested and consistently applied. Without that, the category becomes, effectively, arbitrary.
Bottom line: If "Semitic" is neither defined by language, nor by consistent genetic markers, nor by identifiable phenotype, and cannot be applied consistently across populations, then it isn't functioning as a biological race.
So I'll restate the core question as clearly as possible:
What objective, testable criteria allow someone to determine whether a given individual is or is not part of the "Semitic race"?
Until that's answered, your position isn't even coherent.
