I do not want to this promote this kind of stuff but this video is so bizarre and gives an interesting insight in oriental "Christian" Assyrian racism. The thing that shocks me the most is that the author of the video claims that original Semites were fair skinned and blue eyed!?
PS. I am looking for graphical map on the distribution of Haplogroup E focusing on the Levant and the Fertile Crescent. Thanks!
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing that shocks me the most is that the author of the video claims that original Semites were fair skinned and blue eyed.
Anti-semitic Christians have always been in a bind.
The invent that Jesus was and Aryan, and not Jewish...and Jews killed Jesus.
This somehow relieves them of the parodox that their God is a Jewish God, and their religion is a Jewish religion, without which they are *lost* even in accords to their own beliefs.
Either that, or go back to sacrificing virgins to "Odin and Thor." Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To conceive Jesus as white may be part of it, but I believe the main premise was to distance 'Arabs' from other 'Semites' in the claim that Arabs are not true or original Semites.
I do not want to this promote this kind of stuff but this video is so bizarre and gives an interesting insight in oriental "Christian" Assyrian racism. The thing that shocks me the most is that the author of the video claims that original Semites were fair skinned and blue eyed!?
PS. I am looking for graphical map on the distribution of Haplogroup E focusing on the Levant and the Fertile Crescent. Thanks!
LOL I just got through watching that video and the only thing that could describe this video is white supremacist propaganda.
The only thing accurate the video stated is that Semitic is linguistic and nature and that there are many different groups or ethnicities who speak Semitic languages other than that it is just pure distortion and half-truths.
The video states that 'Arabs' are only to be associated strictly with peoples of the Arabian peninsula and not with peoples north of the region. However, Biblical (Hebrew) texts make the first mention of Arabs as people inhabiting the southern areas of the Levant which according to the video is "true Semitic" territory.
They also assert that since Akkadian (the oldest known Semitic language of Mesopotamia) is the earliest attested Semitic language that therefore the Arabic language is young. This is a silly non-sequitor as just because a language has been attested only recently does not make it young. In fact Classical Arabic preserves many features of proto-Semitic and even proto-Afrasian that Akkadian has. This brings to mind the basic fact that virtually all serious linguist accept today-- which is that Semitic is a branch of proto-Afrasian which originates in Africa. So even if Semitic began in the northern part of Southwest Asia only to be carried further south into Arabia, it still doesn't change the fact that the languages are ultimately African in origin! Something wich the author of the video conveniently failed to mention.
They say that Akkadian and other north Semitic languages have words associated with agriculture and that such an economy has nothing to do with Arabs who are nomads. They even go so far as to say nomads were insignificant to the history of "true Semites". This is really funny because not only is ther evidence that people of Southern Arabia practiced sedentary agriculture also, but even Hebrew/Biblical source shows that nomadism was a lifestyle held by many Semites from since Abraham left Sumer to the Hebrew people themselves as well as their Semitic neighbors who were also nomads! LOL
They then go back to linguistics saying that the more diversity or heterogeneity a language has the older it is. Well apparently they don't know that Arabic is very diverse with many dialects and that Arabia has more Semitic languages today than further north.
They then go back to Biblical legends on geneology and say that is conflicts with the timeframes for what Quranic or post-Quranic geneologies say. Apparently it doesn't matter that even Biblical timeframes conflict with what science shows is not only the true date of population origins in the Middle East but of human origins in the world! It also is not apparent that the divisions of Arabs they mention-- the Adnani and the Qahtani-- are proof that 'Arabs' are not a single people but diverse in themselves.
As far as physical appearance and physical anthroplogy, they then resort to even more distortion as they show the famous Egyptian tomb scene of Beni Halil with Asiatic migrant peoples with lighter yellowish complexions compared with the darker Egyptians. But alongside that scene they show a close up of an Assyrian with brown hair and blue eyes. What they don't tell you is that Assyrian is from the time of the Indo-European Mitanni was present in the area. Speaking of tomb paintings, very few people have even seen the few surviving painted depictions of Akkadians which show them to be quite dark almost no different in complexion from some Egyptians! They then go into some hilarious physical anthropological claims such as 'fair' vs. dark when of course fairer types are more common in northern areas and darker ones in southern areas. And they obviously ignore the fact that Arab tribes such as the Saudis are pretty 'fair' in complexion. They also bring up skull shapes like brachycephaly as the shape associated with "true Semites". Yet they forget that in Mespotamia and particularly around Elam in Iran there exists brachycephalic black peoples as well as in India. They even talk about blue-eyes and then show a photo of the famous Sumerian statues with the blue eyes which aren't even Semitic people and are likely not even Sumerian but Gutians. They emphasize without directly saying that the northern or "true" Semites are white as their modern descendants are today and have recieved little admixture from outsiders, but apparently they've forgotten that northern Mesopotamia and Syria was overrun by Indo-European nomads from farther north such as the Cimmerians (Biblical Gimmeru) Scythians, etc. They go so far as to associate their "true Semites" with groups like Armenians and Kurds who don't even speak Semitic languages but Indo-European languages.
They then delve into genetics and associate M172 (J2) with northern Semites such as Mesopotamians and exclude Arabians from this lineage, but what they don't tell you is that Arabians carry M267 (J1) which is an even older brother lineage of J2! If one were to go by genetic lineages then this would make Arabs the 'original' Semites then! LOL
Yes, it seems the author of this video is either from Dodona or takes cues from Dienekes! Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone: The thing that shocks me the most is that the author of the video claims that original Semites were fair skinned and blue eyed!?
Evergreen Writes:
Interesting topic. The question really is who were the original Semites and what is a Semite? If a Semite is a Semitic speaker then one has to discuss where Semitic was first spoken (versus proto-Semitic).
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The semitic language is part of the Afro-Asiatic group of languages that originated in Africa...the original semitic speaking people looked like you average Black African...even to this day Hebrews and Arabs practice circumcision like in many parts of Africa...well they are all pseudo Africans...forget about the blond hair and blue eyes...By the way I didn't even watch your video...because reality is in science...People don't practice circumcision beyond the area surrounding Africa...no blue eyed or blond original semitic, they were as dark as me...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since proto means first I don't understand the difference between "where Semitic was first spoken (versus proto-Semitic)."
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Stone: The thing that shocks me the most is that the author of the video claims that original Semites were fair skinned and blue eyed!?
Evergreen Writes:
Interesting topic. The question really is who were the original Semites and what is a Semite? If a Semite is a Semitic speaker then one has to discuss where Semitic was first spoken (versus proto-Semitic).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, I pointed out all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies about that video and again the conclusion is the same-- distortionist white racist propaganda. So what's new? You could find alot of that on Youtube.
Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The personage of Shem is purely mythological or allegorical at best and do not reflect true linguistics. For example, among the descendants of Shem are the Elamites who did not speak Semitic languages and among the descendants of Ham there are those who do such as the Canaanites and the Kushites of Arabia.
Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The personage of Shem is purely mythological or allegorical at best and do not reflect true linguistics. For example, among the descendants of Shem are the Elamites who did not speak Semitic languages and among the descendants of Ham there are those who do such as the Canaanites and the Kushites of Arabia.
Then get my first answer, the speak the Semitic language, that is enough proof.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That can be the only valid definition since Semites or Biblical Shemites as descendants of a certain personage spoke different unrelated languages.
Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DJ why bother with that guy. You know that the Hebrew's Shemites and the linguist's Semites aren't the same. He'll never understand that no matter how hard you try. Part Ferrus Cranus, part Garble, part Grunter, part ... ?
Garble is a mystery: Is he a foreigner with only tenuous grasp of English? Is he on drugs? Does he suffer a serious mental debility? Is he typing wearing boxing gloves? Garble's rampant typos, malapropisms and execrable grammar can't be blamed solely on poor typing skills. Garble is all the more puzzling because if one manages to hack his way through the tangled muddle of his messages a discernable idea will often emerge. For example, in a forum discussion about a painting he might say, "Sorry the picchr the har is wrog. The culir. I liike the lips bot teh Paintng is sucs". When someone refers to his random capitalization Garble might say something like, "oPS i HITTED THE CAPDLOCK". Garble drives Grammarian and Nitpick absolutely nuts, but he disdains all efforts at correction, and if complaints persist he will indignantly sign exit saying, "yuor forum si stupef. bYE!" HINT: Garble may be Net Rat.
Grunter always reponds to discussion forum messages with a single word or a short phrase, and he NEVER edits quoted material. Profundus Maximus, Philosopher, Tireless Rebutter, and other verbose Warriors find Grunter a particularly exasperating opponent because he will answer their lengthy pontifications with a simple "Yeah!". "Get a life.", "Whatever", "I agree." "Wrong.", etc. While Grunter is not a strong Warrior, he is very elusive and difficult to engage in direct battle, and only by his extended silence is there any indication that he has been vanquished.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assyrian Christians of today speak Aramaic and Aramaeans are like Akkadians wandering Semitic immigrants to Mesopotamia. They settled from the 9th BC. onward in Mesopotamia and ancient Assyrians distinguished themselves linguistically and ethically from Aramaeans and Chaldeans . With the destruction of Assyria in the 7thBC. Century Aramaean tribes take control of parts of Mesopotamia and displace the Akkadian language. Amusing is that Aramaic is related to Arabic as a Central Semitic language in contrast to Akkadian a East Semitic language. The same foul argument Aramean speaking group’s use today against Arabs like nomads, conquers and speaker of a foreign language, are part of their on history!
posted
^ Apparently PrMidEasterner does not know much about the Mideast.
Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Not sure how accurate this is “limited understanding of the subject” but “Wiki” now claims that Mehri “Yemen,Oman” belongs to the South East Semitic languages related to Akkadian and Eblaite!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehri_languagePosts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Apparently PrMidEasterner does not know much about the Mideast.
No, because i don't live on the Middle East, perhaps my far ancestors did, but I don't, I ain't even pure semite.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
------------------------ No, because i don't live on the Middle East, perhaps my far ancestors did, but I don't, I ain't even pure semite. ------------------------
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: prmiddleeastern wrote:
------------------------ No, because i don't live on the Middle East, perhaps my far ancestors did, but I don't, I ain't even pure semite. ------------------------
No you're half beluga.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaha!!!!!
Angry, pal? I didn't knew your pride was so hurt, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Semite refers to a language that belongs to the Afro-Asiatic languages...Arab language is originally African in that sense...and many cultural aspects of the Levant and the Arab Peninsula are similar to the ones you find in Africa...the reason why Europeans try to associate themselves with Arabs and Hebrews is because of religion and cultural reasons...the Moors brought back "civilization" to Europe...they practice a religion produced by semitic speaking people(pseudo Africans)...but where they connect: it's the skin....that's how stupid human beings are: they forget everything else and they just see the skin...do know you how stupid they are...and Hebrews and Arabs play along...they just see the skin and don't realize that they live next to Africans and practice circumcision like other Africans...I will always be impressed by the stupidity of Human beings....
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: the reason why Europeans try to associate themselves with Arabs and Hebrews is because of religion and cultural reasons
You mean the non-racist ones, right?
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archaeogenetics/1547718128/sizes/l/ Found these two Haplogroup distribution pictures on Flickr. These pictures + Spencer Wells remark gives an interesting insight on Semitic "Afro-Asiatic". “Around 20,000 years ago, the M35 marker appeared in the Middle East among the first farmers who helped spread agriculture from the Middle East into the Mediterranean region.”
quote:These pictures + Spencer Wells remark gives an interesting insight on Semitic "Afro-Asiatic".
the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving [in the Levantine] to find a lot of other people already in the area. - Christopher Ehret
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow this guy has a big complex. The guy posted this comment.
“Unfortunately, the hypothesis of a common origin of Semitic and "Hamitic" languages is rejected by some linguists. You can see Giovanni Garbini on that point. In short: there are no firm phonetic correlations between the two that are of the type supporting, eg., Indo-European classifications. Also, phonetically-based classification is a bit outdated--see Robert Hetzron on that point.”
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic