Talk:The Thirteenth Tribe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Ironically...

"Ironically, Koestler's thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic has become an important claim of many anti-Semitic groups."

This does not count as very scientific or factual sentence. If we paraphrase it somewhat then it amounts to demagoguery saying that if some jews are not semites, the the antisemites have won :P --Magabund 14:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm. Maybe we're parsing the sentence differently. It is a fact that many (or at least some) anti-Semitic groups (as well as individuals) have seized upon Koestler's thesis to try to use to their advantage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest using the term "anti-Jewish" instead of anti-Semitic here? --MacRusgail 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? (I actually prefer "anti-Jewish" or, more precisely in the case of the groups being referred to here, "Jew-hating", in general; but why in this particular case?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
As Magabund says, there is a contradiction in the sentence. If the hate groups are anti-Ashkenazi, and are actually trying to deny their ?Semiticity, then they still hate the Jewish Ashkenazi, but not for being Semitic, as they don't believe that they actually are! Personally I think the Arabs are ironically more Semitic in ancestry and culture, having retained the language, having Judaean ancestry, and probably mixed less with European peoples. Koestler was not really anti-Jewish, I don't think, in this book... in fact, some say he was actually trying to undermine anti-Semitism. --MacRusgail 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's still no contradiction. "Anti-semitism", "antisemitism", however you want to spell it, isn't about hatred of Semites -- it's about hatred of Jews, regardless of origin; and the groups that use the Khazar theme don't like Jews who are Ashkenazi, even if they aren't of middle eastern descent, any more than they like Jews who are of middle eastern descent. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem is that most people do not realize just how the term "anti-Semite" came into being: it was cooked up by a Jew hater, Wilhlem Marr, who wanted to make his pathology sounds scientific instead of sick. Anti-Semites, ironically enough, use this ignorance because they want to erase a word that pegs them so thoroughly. As always, everyone: knowledge is power! 96.231.116.193 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There might also be anti-ashkenazi jews who use this book.
I think the proper term should be "anti-Jewish". You do find phrases like "sons of Shem" in older anti-Jewish tracts though. The term anti-semitic is very misused. --MacRusgail 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
MacRusgail got an idea what I was talking about. I would like to see the list of "many" or "some" antisemitic groups who use this thesis. Could Palestinians be described as antisemitic group? Here it seems it has been connected, because consecutive sentences attribute its usage to antisemites and then Palestinians. --Magabund 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] middle-eastern genetic testing

The article says: "while there has been mixing with various European populations by Ashkenazi Jews over the centuries, there remains a clearly identifiable Middle Eastern genetic element in virtually all Ashkenazim."

Isn't Turkey part of the middle east and wouldn't Khazars also be middle eastern? This part needs clarification.

Turkey is BOTH Europe and the Middle East. In fact, it's the original "Asia", although most Americans don't seem aware of that. --MacRusgail 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. The 2. research paper uses even wider term "near east". Of course one genetic study does not "disprove" anything, it "contradicts". If some next study finds that Ashkenazim have some "Khazar genes" would it "prove" Koestler's thesis? No, it would only "support" it.. --Magabund 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Thirteenth Tribe

It's a quarter of a century since I read the book, but I thought the point Koestler was making was that it was absurd and ironic to persecute people as a race when they weren't one! I am a socialist who has always thought there was only one race - the human race - and found this a congenial viewpoint. It may also be a peculiarly British viewpoint to note that we seem to be able to think up any number of ways of separating ourselves out into groups and that race is just one of the more tedious and persistent variations. 80.168.173.211 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is only one "race" there is ergo, no race. Humans are a species, not a race. Race is a subdivision of a single species. I think it's a particularly "British" viewpoint to think that the Brits are a nation, and use imperialism to justify that viewpoint within the UK, but there you go. --MacRusgail 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you brought rather more baggage to that than you read in it. As I distantly recall, Koestler thought "nation" was quite a good word for Jews collectively. In my view "nations" are just a chosen identity. Sweet dreams.
I do not think that the Jews are a race or a nation, but "religion" doesn't quite cover their position either. You chose to be a "Brit" eh? I think you're rather naive to believe that. You are probably more conditioned than you'd like to admit, like everyone else, especially in how you buy into "Britishness" which is essentially an identity which comes out of an empire. Oh, but you're not British are you? You're a citizen of the world. Guess what? So am I. I'm a citizen of the world and NOT British. :) Good night... --MacRusgail 19:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No wonder the Celts got their arses kicked by the Romans. Speaking of Celts, where they a nation or a religion? Ah, neither, they were a culture ... like the Jews are today. The Romans were even the same enemy. So what's all the fuss? Jcchat66 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A stupid simplistic view of history. The usual definition of Celts these days, by the way, is neither by religion nor nation, but ties to certain languages. Oh, and by the way, if you actually read history, you would know that the Gauls actually invaded the city of Rome at one point - not to mention that large areas of "Celtic" territory which were never conquered by them, e.g. Ireland. --MacRusgail 09:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was joking, and know full well that neither than lands of the Cruithnach or the Erinach were every conquered by the Romans. Please do not assume that I have no read history, and use such inappropriate words like stupid. I've been studying history for well over fifteen years. My apologies for any offense, but the point was plain enough. The Celts (if that's even a proper name for them) were a culture united by a common language, much like the Hebrews, thus my point. Nation or no nation, religion or not, they existed as a cultural identity. And being British does not come out of an empire, it has a far deeper character than that. If you knew your Celtic history, then you would know of the Britons, and the very root origins of the word from Pritani, thanks to the Greeks.
I think the point of Koestler's book was to shed light on the importance of the Jewish cultural influence on the world at large. (We are not talking about races at all.) The Khazars, as a Jewish culture, played a very important and beneficial role to Western development. And for MacRusgail's benefit, the same can be said for Celtic culture that brought us soap, Molmultine laws that led to common law unique to the rest of Europe, large oceangoing vessels from the Veneti for eventaully crossing the Atlantic, and a host of other great achievements. From the Hebrews and those many nations strongly influenced by them, we received mathematics, language, family virtues, record-keeping, mansonry and carpentry, etc. I was under the impression of Koestler's book that he proclaimed these virtues, rather than tried to deminish them. Perhaps he was wrong about German Jews being descendants of the Khazars, but there should be no doubt that some cultural infuence played its part. Jcchat66 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content moved from article page

The following non-article text was at the top of the article page:

The article as it stands is strongly biased. Following are suggestions for a re-write... and a bit of deconstruction. Nowhere is there a discussion of the book's general contents and their merit as history. The author has made the Wikipedia definition into a polemic, rather than a discussion or definition.

in para 2:

(THIS IS AN OPINION. Branding a group "anti-Semitic" because it does not conform to Zionist pedagogy is intellectually indefensible. The term "Anti-semitic" has become the strongest propaganda tool of Zionist idealogues. It's meaning has been prostituted to such a degree it is no longer meaningful. This is not an objective statement).

Moves by --AlisonW 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Khazar theory and this book

This article should be about the book, and direct responses to it, not the Khazar theory in general. A lot of the stuff here, is not related to Koestler's work. --MacRusgail 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having just finished the book, it's a shame to turn this interesting, well written, excellently researched and thought provoking 250-page work into, for example, nothing more than a book that 'many anti-semites [reference needed]' utilise for their own purposes. Doing so seems myopic at the very least. 201.220.15.66 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Alan
It is worth keeping, but moving over to another article. Koestler wasn't a Jew baiter. Some people have accused him of abandoning his Jewish heritage, but he never made it a secret. It's an interesting book, and not anti-Jewish IMHO. I think he was trying to unmask two of the mysteries of history, like a) what happened to the once substantial Khazars, and b) how can we explain such a large Jewish population in Eastern Europe, when its origins are hazy. Koestler saw that there was an overlap between the once Jewish Khazar empire, and the so called Jewish "Pale". --MacRusgail 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a bunch of unscientific twaddle that abuses the few sources it uses. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a bit of an uncharitable exaggeration. Koestler was trying to match up two historical mysteries, and there was no DNA testing then, so it's anachronistic to speak of it in the context of this book. It's not the first or last hypothesis to be disproven. --MacRusgail 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, he was a non-scientist, who was speculating, for specific reasons (essentially to remove the "stigma" of antisemitism from Jews"). It was never "excellently researched", and it certainly wasn't scientific. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that there was never meant to be any "science" in the book (DNA testing was decades into the future), it was an historical theory, not a biological one. Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is not interesting, or even of cultural value. To drag DNA into it is anachronistic. --MacRusgail 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There certainly was science before DNA research; historians, archaeologists, etc. were scientists too. Koestler, however, was a novelist, and apparently a good writer of fiction. On that scale I'm sure The Thirteenth Tribe measures up well. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder, jayjg, have you even read the book? Strong opinions if you haven't. And as far as someone being an expert in areas in which he has no formal training, isn't that what you are attempting to convince us of about yourself? LOL (Unsigned commend by user:201.220.15.66)
Um, no. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You've not even read the bloody thing?! Thanks for the patronising comment about how they had science when Koestler wrote the book, I never would have guessed, thanks. If you'd read the book, you'd realise that Koestler was focussing on history, and Ashkenazi culture. Koestler's work - erroneous as it may be - is hypothetical; it is not "pseudoscience" but an historical theory. The comments about DNA in this article should be succinct; the Khazar theory itself has developed and diverged far beyond The Thirteenth Tribe into a number of different varieties, from mere acknowledgement of some Khazar cultural influence (which is still certainly not outside the bounds of possibility), to highly unpleasant racial bigotry of a kind Koestler himself would not have espoused. But, none of this is actually to do with the book, only the theory it propounded. --MacRusgail 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My "Um, no" was in response to the question "isn't that what you are attempting to convince us of about yourself?". Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit better! Anyway, to your knowledge is there a separate article on the Khazar theory, and its debunking? There should be. --MacRusgail 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There's an article on the Khazars, and it has a section about the theory. I significantly re-wrote it today, to give a fair bit more of its history. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs an article separate from this and the Khazars. I did some digging around on the internet. It has been picked up in a big ugly way by a lot of the hard right - not what Koestler intended. --MacRusgail 22:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I realise I am crossing paths with the great jaypg of many barnstars, but correct is correct and obstinacy is obstinacy. I have a few 'barnstars' of my own in that I hold a Ph.D. in a field of science, am a tenured professor at a medical school, and have a decent record of scientific publications in peer-reviewed science journals. That may not mean much to you, jaypg, but it should. If you persist in reverting back to unscientific wording and making non-NPOV claims that even the authors of the scientific papers you cite do not make, you are not doing the readers of Wikipedia, nor anyone associated with Wikipedia, a service regardless of your history with Wikipedia. Perhaps it is time you retire.

Now, here is the abstract of one of the articles you cite. Note the authors' use of accepted scientific notation (wording) in the abstract. I've emphasised a few of them for ease:

""Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly [not solely] from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis [not prove] that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest [again, not prove] that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

Please do not persist in attempting to let your own ego ride roughshod over the better interests of Wikipedia and its readers. 201.220.15.66 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Professor Dr. Alan

People can claim to be whatever they want on the internet, and have whatever degrees they please, "Professor Dr. Alan". More importantly, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR, both of which are policy on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they can Jayjg, but it would help if article writers read some of the material they were writing about. Your beef is more with what has followed on from the book. --MacRusgail 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
See comment above. Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)