The Racial Identity of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews

An interesting new report was published about non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities in the US, focusing on Persian Jews in the Los Angeles area, Syrian Jews in Brooklyn, Bukharan Jews in Queens, and Sephardic Jews in South Florida. Naturally, I was especially interested in the section about how these Jews interact with American racial classifications:

Sephardic Jews themselves have varied perspectives on US racial and ethnic categories. When asked, some Sephardic Jews identify as white, others as Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, but many reject US racial and ethnic categories altogether because these classifications do not reflect their experiences in their countries of origin nor represent their self-understanding.

The overwhelming majority of our interviewees—Syrian, Bukharian, Hispanic, Persian, and other Jews from the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region—told us they do not identify with the category of Jews of color.

In my own experience talking to Jews from Israel from non-Ashkenazi backgrounds who immigrate to the US, they are bewildered when they arrive by the classification boxes they are expected to check. Their personal identities are some combination of Israeli, Jewish, country of recent origin (Iraqi, Yemenite, Bulgaria, etc), and Mizrahi. An sometimes they have very strong sub-identities with those categories (e.g., eighth generation Israeli, national-religious Jewish, Kurdish Iraqi). But when they come to the US, they are expected to choose an identity ("Hispanic," "White," "Asian,") that does not even overlap with their personal identities.

It will be interesting to see how the Biden administration's promulgation of a new MENA (Middle East and North African) classification affects American Jewish identity. My short editorial comment is that a classification that includes Israeli Jews, Egyptian Copts, Lebanese Shi'ites, Turkish Sunnis, Iraqi Chaldeans, and much more isn't a very coherent category. To a significant extent it's meant to be a proxy for Arab Americans or Muslim Americans, but a very large percentage of the cohort is either not Arab, not Muslim, or neither.

Comments

[JasonT20]

This is interesting, and it demonstrates some of the issues surrounding racial, ethnic, and even nationality classifications. The main thing that jumps out at me from your post (and all the previous ones on this topic) is the difference between self-identification and government classification.

How people perceive their own heritage and identity is very much what is going to matter to them. Government classification, on the other hand, is entirely about how the majority in power perceives them.

Ideally, that majority wouldn't let its own prejudices determine the classifications, and it would base them on rational and objective factors. The ideal isn't reality, obviously, and the check boxes will reflect at least some of the prejudices and political goals that those in government have.

To a significant extent it's meant to be a proxy for Arab Americans or Muslim Americans, but a very large percentage of the cohort is either not Arab, not Muslim, or neither.

I'm a little curious what the data actually is here, but only a little. Something that does occur to me that I am curious about is this: To what extent is self-identification a response to the political exercise of government classification? That is, do various groups seek what they would view as more accurate check boxes to select because it would give them a greater ability to represent themselves in seeking access to government? It seems to me that if government can dilute the political power of some minority groups by lumping them together in overly broad categories, then each of those groups is going to seek a more finely-tuned category for themselves as a way to blunt that and gain more political power than they would have otherwise.

[Don Nico]

"How people perceive their own heritage and identity is very much what is going to matter to them. Government classification, on the other hand, is entirely about how the majority in power perceives them."
That is the ground truth.
The U.S. Government's partitioning of ethnicities is usually little more than a tool to amplify enthno-racial divisions. It does society more harm than good.

[Lee Moore]

How people perceive their own heritage and identity is very much what is going to matter to them.

Indeed. A good example is the Turks of Turkey, who are descended largely from the Turkic tribes which migrated across Central Asia from as far away as the Altai. The Turks are closely related, as is their language, to other Turkic peoples - the Azeris, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Uyghurs and so on. All a happy Turkic family.

Except they're not. Gene studies show that there's not much Turkic contribution to the gene pool in Anatolia. It's mostly made up of the people who were already there before the Seljuk Turks arrived. Which shouldn't be surprising as the invading Turkic peoples were not that numerous, and they were conquering land with a large settled population.

But it would be unwise to mention that to a Turk, most especially an official Turk. It could get you a punch in the mouth, or worse.

[gormadoc]

It's an amusing happening that many western Turks are more Greek than your average Greek due to Slavic immigration to Greece post-Roman Empire. Don't tell them that though!

[David Nieporent]

It seems to me that if government can dilute the political power of some minority groups by lumping them together in overly broad categories, then each of those groups is going to seek a more finely-tuned category for themselves as a way to blunt that and gain more political power than they would have otherwise.

But one gains more power by being part of a numerous coalition than one does by being a tiny niche group. E.g., Asian Americans can lobby more powerfully than Laotian Americans can.

[JasonT20]

But one gains more power by being part of a numerous coalition than one does by being a tiny niche group.

True, but I was really thinking about how it is better for that tiny niche group to be by itself than to be lumped in with other groups that have incompatible goals. Being part of a large coalition is only beneficial if the rest of the coalition wants at least some of the same things you do.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

My ancestry is from Spain (traceable to the 13th century).

My parents were born in Panama.

I was born in the US.

I have been told I look Dutch.

I am American. I am a US Air Force Veteran.

I am Sephardic.

And those are pretty much the classifications I allow others to slot me into.

[Frank Drackman]

USAF Flight Doc?
Too bad you didn't get to be a Navy one, you know, the service where the Flight Docs actually get to fly themselves
OTOH you guys have all those 2 seat F-16's with the backseat usually empty, like "Toad" in Amurican Graffitt, "Man, what a waste of Machinery"
At Aviano I'd hook up the Schedules guy with the Buzzards with anything he wanted to get me flight time*, It got to the point I got bored in the Vipers.
Whenever I'm asked, I list "Amurican" as my "Race" it's more accurate than German/Scotch/Irish/Jew, except for the Georgia Med Board, they don't have a sense of humor

I was like the Hooker in "Full Metal Jacket"
"Hey, if you can get me some backseat time, I can take care of your Medical needs"
"Like what? Narcotics? "Go" Pills? Condoms??
"Any-thing you want!!!!"

Frink

[Flight-ER-Doc]

I was an F4 Wild Weasel pilot before I went to medical school - and flew C130s in the Air Guard for 15 years after that. I got to fly myself a fair bit. Had more fun in the Hercs than the Phantoms, truth be told.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, and I’m supposed to be the Chess player, Wild Weasel? Means your old (and crazy) as (redacted) consider me kneeling (No Homo) before your throbbing Man-Ness (OK maybe a little Homo)
Up for a game of Crud?
And need a little “Pick me up” I’ve got some Gray market Modafanil that’ll take you straight to the Be-Jesus belt
F-4’s saw the Blue angels in them 1972

Frank

[LivvyTheZioSlayer]

During the Civil War and the Reconstruction period, American Jews were in the forefront of US racism and had no doubt about their whiteness.
Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise was the most prominent 19th century Rabbi. He hated Blacks and abolition. He supported the Confederacy. He had no doubt that Jews were whites.

From When Grant Expelled the Jews by Jonathan Sarna.

Isaac Mayer Wise, a fierce critic of abolitionists and their sometimes virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric, saw evidence of the declining status of Jews vis-à-vis Blacks in the way Congress debated Grant’s order. The abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, he knew, had once described the Jewish leader Mordecai Noah as “that lineal descendant of the monsters who nailed Jesus to the cross between two thieves.” Abolitionist Edmund Quincy of Boston likewise harbored fierce anti-Jewish sentiments.

Now Wise wondered aloud whether Congressman Elihu Washburne, the Radical Republican who engineered the failure of the House of Representatives’ censure resolution against Grant, likewise supported Blacks at Jews’ expense. “If the Hebrew citizens of the United States were ‘gentlemen of color,’ ” he sardonically suggested, “Mr. Washburne would certainly have made a brilliant effort to vindicate their rights and expose a general who committed a gross outrage on them. But being only white men, it would not pay.”¹⁸

Wise may have pretended here that Jews were simply a species of “white men,” but he knew full well that Jews and non-Jews alike considered them to be a “class” apart. Many, indeed, considered Jews to be members of a distinctive “Jewish race.”¹⁹

19th century writers often used race as we would use ethnic group or national group today. A 19th century writer might refer to a French race, a German race, or a Jewish race.

[David Nieporent]

For those of you wondering, this is repeated failed litigant Jonathan Affleck / Joachim Martillo, who in his current incarnation is a virulent antisemite.

[Frank Drackman]

That may very well be, but you have to call it, I can’t call it for you

[ReaderY]

Jews were as split on slavery as the rest of white America, some for, some against. As in the case of John Calhoun, who adopted Unitarianism in part because of its progressive philosophy meant freedom from abolitionism and other archaic superstitions, there were Jews, especially in the South, who rejected traditional Judaism and adopted reform for similar reasons. (The first American Reform Jewish congregation was in Charleston). And it’s absolutely true that some early Reform rabbis supported slavery.

But this was far from universal. Traditionalists and reformers each had a spectrum of views on slavery. Moreover, Jews weren’t much different in this respect from everybody else. Among Christians as well, bothsupport of and opposition to slavery managed to fit into both traditional and reformist theological outlooks, and there was plenty of outspoken people of each kind on each side.

[LivvyTheZioSlayer]

We should ask why any Zionist colonial settler is ever admitted to the USA.

Inadmissibility of Genocide Perpetrators

Under U.S. immigration law, individuals who have committed, ordered, or assisted in genocide, extrajudicial killings, torture, or severe violations of religious freedom are inadmissible to the United States.

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(3)(E)(ii) makes anyone who has “committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide” ineligible for a visa or entry into the U.S.

This also applies to Nazi persecution, extrajudicial killings, and acts of torture.

Enforcement

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) review cases where individuals are suspected of genocide or human rights abuses.

The Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center (HRVWCC) investigates and removes such individuals.

Even if someone enters the U.S. undetected, if later evidence shows involvement in genocide, they can face denaturalization and deportation.

Exceptions

There are no exceptions for perpetrators of genocide. Unlike some other inadmissibility grounds (like certain criminal offenses), there is no discretionary waiver.

Summary:

No, genocide perpetrators cannot be admitted to the United States. U.S. immigration law explicitly bars them, and mechanisms exist to deport anyone who managed to get in by concealing their role.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Livvy, your pager's going off, better answer it.

[Michael D]

Oh wow, Livvy quoted a law and thinks she is showing her intellectual superiority never realizing what she is actually demonstrating.

[Don Nico]

Because there are not "any Zionist colonial settler"
But thanks for your anti-Semitic rant

[ReaderY]

I’m curious what you, as an opponent of settler-colonialism, personally do to celebrate the Tulsa Liberation of 1921. You know - when the settler-colonialists who were given stolen indigenous land by the Federal Government explicitly to settle and colonize were driven out by the indigenous people’s traditional allies. After all, slavery being a traditional Native American practice, and the federal government having driven many out of their traditional lands to Oklahoma, why WOULDN’T the indigenous people ally with people who promised to protect it and them, and seek to be liberated from settler-colonialists seeking to colonize them?

[Jon S]

Newsflash: The concept of "race" is a social construct that varies by geography, era, class, etc. Italians are "white" in the US today; not the case 100 years ago. Tons of examples of this.

[David Nieporent]

Italians were always white in the US.

That does not mean that people all thought that Italians were the same as Anglo-Saxons. If there was an ethnic hierarchy, the latter were at the top of the white group, and southern and Eastern Europeans were at the bottom of that group. And there was anti-Italian prejudice. But they were white.

[Paladin_44]

Maybe northern Italians were, but not so much Sicilians and others from the boot area.
Me, I'm Irish and we've always been white (except whan we weren't)...

[Michael D]

No law should recognize or define people based on race, ethnicity, or similar characteristics, as such distinctions inherently foster division and inequality. A color-blind society, where laws treat individuals solely as individuals, is morally justified because it upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law, ensuring fairness and justice without prejudice. This approach aligns with the fundamental belief that all humans possess equal intrinsic value, regardless of arbitrary traits. While some civil rights laws, designed to address historical injustices, might be challenged under this framework, their core intent, protecting individual rights, can still be preserved through universal, race-neutral protections that focus on equality of opportunity and accountability for discrimination. By emphasizing shared humanity over group identity, a color-blind society promotes unity and reduces the risk of perpetuating systemic biases through race-based policies.

[apedad]

We good with LGBTQIA+ too?

[Michael D]

No, a color-blind society should not designate anyone based on arbitrary traits, including LGBTQIA+ identities. Laws should treat all individuals equally, without reference to group characteristics, to promote unity and fairness.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think the question is so facetious. People (or at least some people) have a natural affinity for doing certain activities with people like themselves. People who prefer to work or do various other activities with people of their own race or sex aren’t inherently any more or less moral than people who prefer to sleep with them. (Or alternatively, some people “are” racist as part of their core being in the same way some people “are” gay, and that’s just their nature) Society can look at people who do (or “are”) such things in moral terms if it wants. It’s one of those things where if a tiny minority does it, it can have little actual effect on others, but if EVERYBODY or even a large number of people does it, it can have a very large effect.

While society can look at things in purely moral terms if it wants, it is sometimes appropriate to look at things a bit more pragmatically. As a purely practical matter, not clear to me that big moral campaigns to eradicate racism are in the long run any more successful than big moral campaigns to eradicate homosexual conduct. Sometimes it’s better for society to live with certain things and look for ways to mitigate their damage to others rather than seek (or at least expect) to eradicate them completely.

[JasonT20]

A color-blind society, where laws treat individuals solely as individuals, is morally justified because it upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law, ensuring fairness and justice without prejudice.

And how well does that line up with thousands of years of human history? A color-blind society is an ideal that would go against how humans evolved to interact with each other. You're expecting to base law on an assumption that all people will use logic and critical thinking to overcome both their conscious and subconscious biases.

While some civil rights laws, designed to address historical injustices, might be challenged under this framework, their core intent, protecting individual rights, can still be preserved through universal, race-neutral protections that focus on equality of opportunity and accountability for discrimination.

This relies on a demonstrably false belief that correcting for historic injustice can be accomplished by ensuring that, from now on, there won't be any more discrimination, which is extremely doubtful anyway, as explained above.

By emphasizing shared humanity over group identity, a color-blind society promotes unity and reduces the risk of perpetuating systemic biases through race-based policies.

I would argue that it would not promote unity or reduce the risk of perpetuating systemic biases. It would preserve existing power imbalances by letting members of the privileged groups avoid having to sacrifice the advantages they gained from past discrimination.

[Michael D]

A color-blind society doesn’t ignore human history’s tribal tendencies but counters them by ensuring laws treat everyone equally, without group labels, fostering unity over division. Historical injustices can be addressed through universal, race-neutral policies like education or economic opportunity that benefit disadvantaged groups without entrenching new divisions.

Far from preserving power imbalances, color-blindness challenges privilege by removing legal group distinctions, promoting fairness and individual merit. Studies on blind hiring show identity-neutral systems reduce bias, proving this approach can erode inequities while uniting society.

[Doug Heffernan]

I don't know what it's like getting all worked up about identity stuff. Apparently it is very important to people who categorize themselves with certain religious and geographic origin stories. It all seems like a tremendous waste of time, imposing these constructs on human beings. But I wouldn't want anyone telling me what to get all worked up about, or what to self-impose upon myself, so I try not to devalue what others consider important.

[ReaderY]

What about an Ashkenazi Cohen or Levi, who trace their lineage patrilineally back to Abraham?

[ReaderY]

Also, my understanding was that prior to the Biden reclassification, Middle Eastern and North African origin people were also classified as White, even though many similarly do not identify as such.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Two ways a white man can get ahead in America today—chop their balls off and become a woman or convert to Islam!! All praise to Allah!!