I have long wondered why more Jews didn't move to Asia to avoid Western persecution. Any ideas?

Interestingly, I knew a Jewish guy whose parents fled the Nazi annexation of Austria, by moving East. They travelled by train, horse and on foot to eventually reach Shanghai, and came by boat to California.

Having said that, IMO Jews have historically moved from more urban to less urban areas where their innate skills in trading and financial management would be more usefull to them, vis a vis the local population. They moved first from the highly urban Middle East to less urban Western Europe, then from there to Eastern Europe. China or India however would be less ideal, as they were already highly urban, and had niche ethnic groups filling the roles that Jews filled in other places.

It's not exactly an easy move to make - it entails moving into a completely foreign culture, with a language utterly unlike your own.

On top of that, your phenotype is even more distinctive, invariably making you the object of unfavourable treatment and outright discrimination. Neither you nor your immediate descendants have any chance of seamless assimilation - you will need to wait for several generations of intermarriage to alter the family appearance. Given the choice, you would probably much prefer tpstruggle against prejudice with which you were already familiar, rather than hazard entry into a completely alien environment. Until things become totally unbearable,of course.

many western jews, from portugal to germany, did move to southern india after expulsions from europe (resulting in "white jews" among the cochin). also, it is famously well known that many sephardic jews resettled in the ottoman empire after expulsion. ken makes good points about further east. but, i'm starting to wonder if the further a jewish community moved east the less likely it was to maintain its identity. i mean, even groups like the bene israel (india) and beta israel (ethiopia) became "less jewish" (that is, not pharisaec) because of lack of contact with the jewry. obvious persecution isn't necessarily determinative, ground zero of that was in the middle east and europe where jews were most numerous.

Before 1300 China was inaccessible to Europe, and not easily accessible to Persia. Islam took hold in Central Asia and military groups brought Islam into China, while Muslims controlled the Indian Ocean and established cities in ports. Jews probably came to China during the early period mostly under Muslim auspices.

Specifically religious aspects of persecution may have been absent in China, but foreign traders were still vulnerable to xenophobia and to extortion by government officials. China's advantages over Islam or Christendom were slight.

Really, bigots are able to make differences important regardless. Jews are Caucasian, but if you want to think that they're different-looking, you can.

Even though some Jews look like Germans, "The Jew" for Germans was the sterotypical Jew who didn't look like a German. Even though Jews are Caucasians, Germans didn't cut them any slack. They were "foreign-looking".

Chinese and Japanese DID come to the use, where their phenotype was strange. But it was a straight shot across the Pacific.

Life certainly wasn't free of peril or persecution for other ethnic minorities who migrated to China in the past - think of the massive pogrom against the Arab and Persian population of Guangzhou during the Tang Dynasty.

The one ethnic minority in China which continues to suffer from the most acute discrimination are the Uighurs of Xinjiang. There are other ethnic groups that share strong affinities with them - Kazakhs and Kirghiz are not only Muslim, they are also Turkic peoples. But Uighur are singled out simply because their disparate physical appearance is so salient. It's relatively easy for a Kazakh or Kirghiz to if not pass for a Han, at least go by unnoticed. For a Uighur it is absolutely impossible.

That being said, in my experience, the Uighurs are not the object of heckling or bellicose prejudice from Han Chinese, but more general, tacit disdain.

Razib, I think you pointed out in the past that ethnic identity amongst the Hui depends upon context (as it does for any group - apparently many Croats and Serbs were not even cognisant of distinctions between themselves under the Ottomans, they were simply "Christians" in the broader context of domination by Muslim overlords). You might find it curious that the Dongan, Muslim Chinese scattered throughout Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kirghizstan, display the type of heightened, ardent patriotism normally associated with British colonials, longing for home in the tropics. They fled Qing persecution in the late 19th century after staging an uprising, and to this day, retain customs and traditions from the period.
In spite of sharing the same religion, and to a significant extent, physical appearance, as the host populations of their new homes, they continue to cling fiercely to their Chinese identity.

In contrast to Hui who are surrounded by Han Chinese, who are more inclined to emphasise their affinity with the Muslim world and the Middle East.

ken, all, as regards the phenotype issue, the book i cite, which is copiously drawn from chinese sources (as well as readings on chinese islam) does not refer to phenotype as anything more than a diagnostic or ancillary issue. in other words, yes, phenotype might cause issues but it is not the fundamental reason there is enmity in pre-modern china between peoples (more on why i bold this below). you are correct to point out that the pogroms in guanghzhou, but

1) the 250,000 killed given in many texts is almost certainly overblown (that is what the footnotes usually assert).

2) this pogrom occurred at a time of intense stress and breakdown of the tang regime, and was concomitant with a full scale assault on buddhism (and the concomitant defrocking of most of china's monks and nuns at the time as well as the reappropriation of temple lands). in other words, again, the attack on foreigners in guanghzhou was a side effect of other instabilities.

3) there have always been people in china who do not "look chinese." it seems highly plausible that some of the early tang notables were of partial central asian extraction. an lushan, though reviled because of his role in the decline of the tang, was a general of some repute and also described as "green eyed."

now, i do think that one must distinguish modern chinese attitudes toward race and pre-modern ones. i have referred to the fact that in the early decades of the 20th century (and late 19th) there was a sharp debate on the racial issue between conservatives (confucians) and progressives (influenced by western science). the latter attempted to generate a sinocentric form of scientific racism cognate with the paradigm dominant in the west at the time. they were roundly attacked by the confucian conservatives. this is not to imply that the confucian conservatives were anti-racist, an examination of imperial descriptions of foreign peoples with dark skin or green eyes or lots of body hair suggests that they were viewed as semi-bestial and repulsive in comparison to the han. but, the scientific racist paradigm was opposed because it seemed to posit an essentialist nature for peoples which was opposed on the grounds of the confucian idea of perfectibility and civilizability via self-cultivation that was open to everyone (in the idea world). one can see this mentality at work in the dao of muhammed where one confucian explicitly asserts that the classics note that there are sages even among barbarians, and proper conduct is the measure by which a muslim official is judged, but the essential nature of muslimness.

i don't think this is necessarily so in modern china. i think scientific racism of a mild sort is probably common to many educated chinese, and the progressives won that war even if they lost the battles. so the aversion to non-chinese phenotypes might be greater today than in the past (in many ways the chinese peasant pre-1900 was irrelevant, it was only what the mandarin thought that really mattered, while today mass culture is more relevant).

p.s. black domestics and sailors were at one time in vogue in imperial china. this was common between the ming and manchu eras.

Regardless of what period you refer to, I think it's an innate human tendency to react differently - initially at least - towards people with a disparate physical appearance. And the complex of beliefs and convictions that underpin the attitudes of the intellectual elite are not going to be relevant for the vast majority of the population.

Most of the Han who discriminate against Uighurs - such as shopkeepers and service staff, suffer from a total dearth of education, and on an instinctive level, react differently to a perfectly-assimilated Uighur,than say, they would react to a Kazakh who speaks Mandarin with a heavy accent.

So I don't think the prevailing intellectual climate completely dictates human behaviour. Although you posit that the triumph of scientific progressives has made phenotype more of an issue amongst the Chinese, the one group which should be most influenced by this shift in attitude - educated Chinese - are the one group who generally have the most tolerant towards the Uighurs. The one group who are least influenced by shifts in the intellectual climate - the uneducated, or the intellectually indifferent - tend to be the ones who resent them the most.

" the scientific racist paradigm was opposed because it seemed to posit an essentialist nature for peoples which was opposed on the grounds of the confucian idea of perfectibility and civilizability via self-cultivation that was open to everyone "

I find that really interesting - if anything it even further heightens my admiration for traditional Confucianism as a humanist philosophy. You wouldn't mind furnishing me with sources, would you?

"black domestics and sailors were at one time in vogue in imperial china. this was common between the ming and manchu eras."

The bodyguard of Coxinga, the Qing-resistance fighter/ pirate, consisted of Lusophone Africans.

Although you posit that the triumph of scientific progressives has made phenotype more of an issue amongst the Chinese, the one group which should be most influenced by this shift in attitude - educated Chinese - are the one group who generally have the most tolerant towards the Uighurs. The one group who are least influenced by shifts in the intellectual climate - the uneducated, or the intellectually indifferent - tend to be the ones who resent them the most.

did i say that pheno-racism as a function of education was monotonic? :) well, that's good to know about the differences though. but to some extent we are dealing with impressions and assumptions. i am skeptical that phenotypic issues were that much of a concern because they aren't in the literature, while you posit a universal aversion tendency that isn't strongly reflected in the literature but is supported by contemporary behavior.

but in any case, source. also, do a lit search on back issues of the journal of ethnic and migration studies.

I wouldn't say a "universal aversion tendency". I would assert that for jerk-offs who are inclined to be bigots, physical appearance is a major factor. If you are inclined to display prejduice against anyone, you do it on the basis of what's most obvious or distinctive.

Just because it isn't mentioned in the literature, doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a significant factor (come on Razib, you've criticised humanist scholars for their myriad short-comings in the past - they are so often the most gormless and myopic members of the academic world).

Just because it isn't mentioned in the literature, doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a significant factor

i concede that. but, going back to the original reasoning, i am skeptical that phenotypic considerations were a non-trivial reason for the lack of migration to china by jews. as a point of comparison, no matter what the absolute magnitude of difference is, south indians and west asians are distinctive enough in appearence that that the same variable would be operative (and in fact, the cochin jews have "white" and "black" factions).

If the population of the world goes into long-term decline, at what point will we start losing more knowledge than we gain?

Kenteoh: Based on my experience living in Xinjiang, the Uighars are definitely unpopular. Like the Jews at times, their sanitary fastidiousness (especially about pork, but also bathing) and belief that the groups around them are dirty (something Asimov borrowed in his "robot" novels) is a definite sticking point with outsiders. Also, while a few Kazakhs can pass as Chinese, a large majority of Kazakhs really cannot. They are larger, darker, and have much larger faces and eyes. Amusingly, Kazakhs in China are proud of looking "European", but this is really not simply a conceit. Some could pass for Eastern European and many could pass for Afghan or Persian. They are a physically diverse group.

Razib wrote:
I am willing to bet that many more surprising "Jewish" groups will be discovered in the next few years (that is, groups will exhibit the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which indicates ancestry derived from the Jewish priestly lineage).

Two points. First the Cohen Modal Haplotype by itself doesn't make one a Jew or Jewish descendant, as it is also found in Armenian, Turkish and otheres in the area. Buy this modal type coupled with other historic evidence could allow you to make this claim.
Second, and this is more for someone like David B, who commented once that Sephardic Jews arrived in England as retainers for their Norman overlords, or words to this effect. Well, I spent a few years in Kilkenny in Ireland, which is dominated by Kilkenny Castle, ancestral home to one of the most famous Hiberno-Norman families, the Butlers of Ormonde - Anne Boleyn was one of them. The city (25,000) today is a designated historic town, which does its best to preserve its medieval past. Some of the oldest streets in the town are called "Hebron road", "Sion road" and "Jacob street". There is a medieval "wealthy merchant's" house called "Rothe House" in the city center. To my knowledge there are no Jews in Kilkenny today, but it would seem to me that there once must have been - not sure if they assimilated or dispersed elsewhere?!

I should add that the most famous Kilkenny person was "Dame Alice Kyteler", who was tried for witchcraft in 1324, she fled, but her maid Petronella burned at the stake - the first and only such burning in Ireland. Could this be evidence of a pogrom of a sort?!

Nice note, Razib. You forgot that Chinese Jews intermarried while Indian Jews did not, the caste system protected them. They assimilated, as American Jews are doing today.

You forgot that Chinese Jews intermarried while Indian Jews did not, the caste system protected them.

no. the bene israel and most of the cochin jews (black and white from what i gather) show phenotypic evidence of admixture, but they also show widespread mtDNA (maternal) admixture.

source:

"The authors note that Cochin Jews carry mtDNA lines that are predominantly Indian."

(south) indian mtDNA is very distinct vis-a-vi west asian mtDNA. this is unlikely to be anything except admixture.

this is not to deny your correct point about the importance of caste. unlike the chinese the indians already had a system of slotting distinctive groups into their society and were totally comfortable with the purity/pollution concerns which might have caused tension in other parts of the world.

Michael,

I guess I haven't encountered that many Kazakhs, but the ones that I have met, aside from the occasional long nose, could have generally passed for Korean or Japanese. I used to have a Kazakh girlfriend, who did appear slightly mixed. But she told me that this was the product of her partial-Slavic ancestry (grandmother), and that most Kazakh looked just like Mongols or Koreans. So I'm quite surprised to hear that they vary so much physically. I know that this is certainly the case with the Uighurs - they can pass for anything from Indonesian to Anatolian Turkish. I always have to chuckle when I think about their Tocharian ancestry, and see Uighurs with red hair and features highly reminiscent of the Murphys and and Meaghers that I went to school with.

Surprisingly, this ex-girlfriend told me that in Xinjiang (she grew up in Kashgar) the Uighurs were just as unpopular with the Kazakhs and Kirghiz as they were with the Chinese. This is curious given that they are all Muslims, and speak cognate languages. You would have expected a stronger sense of affinity to prevail amongst the Turkic/Muslim groups.

My impression was that Han Chinese were generally as ignorant about the Uighurs as, well, most Western expats in Shanghai are ignorant about the Chinese. I've heard so many people spout the most outlandish nonsense about the Uighurs - both Chinese and Westerners (people asserting that they are Slavic immigrants, for example). I'm surprised to hear that their fastidiousness about cleanliness is of significance, since, well, the Uighurs that I've seen, while I wouldn't say they were dirty, they don't seem to be that particular about hygiene. And I would assume that most Chinese in Xinjiang (certainly the recent immigrants from Wenzhou in Zhejiang province) would really give two hoots about Uighur customs or culture.

The stigma attached to being from Xinjiang seems quite strong for some people - this Kazakh girl I dated would become livid whenever I told people that she came from Kashgar. She insisted that I tell people she was from Kazakhstan (even though she had never been there), because she did not want to be associated with Uighurs.

Just out of curiosity, were you in Kashgar or Urumqi? Kashgar I've heard still retains all the trappings of a traditional Silk Road city, but I've seen video footage of Urumqi shot by friends, and it looks just like any other non-descript Chinese city beset by rapid development.

Urumqi

I'm surprised to hear that their fastidiousness about cleanliness is of significance, since, well, the Uighurs that I've seen, while I wouldn't say they were dirty, they don't seem to be that particular about hygiene.

my impression is that many groups raise a stink about faux hygiene. that is, talking to muslims it is clear that many simply attribute to non-muslims by definition a lack of cleanliness and will make a big fuss about it. this is not limited to muslims, various hindu groups, jews and so on are preoccupied with cleanliness in a fashion that often intersects with the concerns of ritual-religious purity. i am not saying that muslims or jews or hindus do not clean themselves more often, but i have observed that all of these groups a) complain about outgroups being unclean b) are often the objects of accusations of uncleanliness from other groups. my impression is that the chinese have fewer hang-ups about ritual purity that many other groups so they rarely get concerned about, for example, taking food from a muslim, but muslims have issues with taking food from pagans (i think it is in shariah), and the hindu pecking order is to some extent about who you will take food from (so chefs need to be brahmin since everyone will take food prepared by them).

in other words, many of the disputes might arise from ascertainment bias and a different definition of "cleanliness" than the plain language might imply (ie; kufir = unclean).

Uighur cleanliness includes not eating pork and avoiding dogs. Not what we'd call cleanliness.

Northern Ireland, Japan/Korea, and SerboCroatia tell us that there can be maximal ethnic hatred with no phenotypic difference to speak of. Hawaii tells us that you can have very mild racial tension with very striking phenotypic difference.

In Central Asia animosities and affiliations are national, ethnic, and political, and Russians or Chinese can affiliate across racial lines.

Race is a contributing cause at best.

..unlike the chinese the indians already had a system of slotting distinctive groups into their society and were totally comfortable with purity/pollution concerns..

Yes, you are right. I am coming to appreciate the Indian system of integrating harmonically such different groups.

integrating harmonically such different groups.

well, the laudable treatment of parsis, jews and others comes at the cost of repulsive treatment of lower caste groups.

.. while I wouldn't say they were dirty, they don't seem to be that particular about hygiene.

Chinese, and to certain point European Christians, are unaware of the concept of ritual cleanliness and purity.

A Muslim's ablution before and after a sexual act have nothing to do with hygiene. If there is no water, ablutions can be done with sand.

Religious Jews will consider impure those having sex with a menstruating woman - again, unrelated with hygiene.

Vuyghurs are definitely unkept.

kufir = unclean

kufir derives from the semitic root k - f - r meaning to deny, to reject, one who rejects or disagrees

It is unrelated to the concept of cleanliness or purity.

Peace

I must say the claim about Jews "shackled under dhimmitude" in the "hostile lands of Islam" is a huge slap in the face of history.

While not denying the existence of periods of persecution and oppression but to paint Jewish existence in the Muslim world as being primarily oppressive is to deny the liberties which they had enjoyed.

Under Islamic rule in Spain, Jews crawled back from the edge of extinction and grew to achieve their golden age. Many Jews attained high ranking positions with the state including Hasdai ben Shapirut. And when forcibly baptised Jews fled Catholic Spain, many found refuge in the Ottoman Empire, where upon reaching its shores, they openly declared their reversion to Judaism.

Yes, Muslim-Jewish relationship has never been all rosy but to use the words "shackled" and "hostile" is to betray a profound lack of knowledge of history.

As last words, let it be emphasized as far as "dhimmitude" is concerned, the Prophet Muhammad was reported to have said : "Whosoever hurt a dhimmi, he has hurt me."

best site
http://www.flowers-shop.org/

good site
http://www.pokkers.org/

nice site
http://www.pregnancy.net.in/