Talk:Endogamy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Endogamy, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Comments

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.129.97.192.145 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 82.236.231.158 (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). -- 62.143.126.171 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)