Posted by 40thStreetBlack, Sun May-08-05 06:36 PM
>The argument is: The people who are in the region today that
>are called jews and arabs as shown on news casts and such,
>olive tone skin soft curly to straight hair, are not the
>original population of the area.
Yeah, that's what I said.
>You do realize Iranians consider themselves descended from
>Persians while Iraqis donít?
No, you were talking about Afghans and Pakistanis and wondering if the modern-day Jews originated there because of the empires and invasions of the era, I'm saying you do realize the people from those areas GOT conquered, they weren't the ones doing the invading and moving around.
In what region did the Assyrian
>empire begin? Or the Persian?
The Assyrian empire began in the northern Mesopotamia region, the Persian empire began on the Iranian plateau.
>Did the Persian empire sprout
>up from within the Babylonian empire?
No, the Persian empire invaded and conquered the Babylonian empire.
>40th what are you doing man? I thought you were above this
>kind of stuff. The title of the post is: "Why Can't People
>Accept that Jesus was African?" African meaning black like
>the people of the continent Africa.
Doing what? You are saying the indigenous population of the Levant was African, I'm asking where are you getting this from? Or are you just posing it as a possibility?
>This study does not show the opposite. Did they sample ALL
>the people of these areas meaning black arabs, or just the
>folk who are assume indigenous to the area?
How many black arabs are in the areas they sampled though? I know about the black populations near Basra in Iraq and Mecca in Saudi Arabia, but how many are in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria? I remember there was a black Palestinian in the Olympics, but over the past 5 years I've seen tons of palestinians on the news and that's the only black Palestinian I've seen. I've seen tons of Lebanese people too, never saw a black one. So I don't know how many there are to sample in these areas anyway.
Furthermore, are you assuming the black populations there are indigenous? (see below)
>The agenda of the
>study was to see if the people we know as Jews today are a
>product intermixing and conversion. Now if you go into the
>study under the assumption that the olive toned people of the
>region today would have been the people that the Jews of today
>would have intermixed with for conversion then there is a flaw
>in the study. Do you see what Iím saying?
No, I don't see what you're saying... the study was to see how much intermixing there was between European Jews and the surrounding European populations they lived among, not Jews and olive-toned people of the Levant today.
>If you assume that
>people who look like Arafat are the people that would have
>been intermixed with when in reality they are all the same
>people who did not originate in the area then the study is
Occam's razor - you are making an assumption based on nothing, therefore it has no place in a scientific study.
>Look at where the lembaís ended up. But the
>study doesnít consider them indigenous to the area.
All the study says is that the Lemba group was located halfway between the Jewish cluster and sub-Saharan African cluster. So by that logic the study doesn't consider them indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa either.
>likely the same attitude they took in relation to other black
>groups in the area. Again I point to Zewariís post as
Zewari's post mentions that most of the black population in Mecca traces back to West Africa, and that the Blacks in Basra trace back to East African slaves.... so they're not indigenous to the area.
>The point I was making with this is the two separate tribe
>shit is made up. The people know it was made but look how
>ingrained it is in their psyche. This was done in less than
And the point I was making is that this false identity was foisted upon them by their conquerers; the conquerers did not adopt false identities for themselves. Why would they?
>Compare that to a group of people claiming
>something that is not theirs for over a thousand years. Is it
>any truer? No. Do they believe its true? For the most part
>hell yes. Best believe that there are those in their ranks
>that know and hide the truth.
Who? The Learned Elders of the Sons of Zion?
>It doesnít disprove either which is the point. What it does
>prove is room to doubt.
Not really. There is no evidence of mass migrations from other regions of those empires into the Levant.
>How many people can tell the
>difference between an Iranian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Saudi Arabian,
>Palestinian, Turk, Afghani, and Kuwaiti, just by looking at
>them? I canít. That doesnít mean that there arenít those who
>can, but that covers a wide area and thee all look similar.
>Someone is moving from somewhere. The question is from
I can't tell the difference between a person from Iceland and Finland either, that don't mean they're the same people.
>Itís not ridiculous and itís not just a circle. Itís
>marketing, advertising, itís a manipulation of perception.
No, it's just a circle. And I repeat; IT'S A SLIDING SCALE. The southern Europeans are closer to the Mid-east populations than the northern Europeans, but the European groups still cluster together without other populations in between them, and you don't need a circle to see that. Is that an illusion too?
>This I took from the above link starting at the second
>sentence. Could that explain it?
That explains that there are populations in Saudi Arabia that have links to other places, it doesn't suggest that the Arabs that claim descent from the original Arab tribes migrated from those areas.
>Another angle that is not being looked at is the Hebrews being
>nomadic for a period of time as well. After being enslaved in
>Egypt for hundreds of years. Mosheh leading the Hebrews out
>of Egypt, after living in the palace of Egyptian Pharaoh as
>his grandson, to Canaan where they established the Jewish
You do realize that there is no historical or archaeological evidence for the Exodus, right?
>Now here come the historic references for invasion
>that you seek. The Assyrians invade Judah around 701 B.C.
>The Assyrians are from the Asia Minor area (present day
>Turkey) and Syria.
The Assyrians were from Northern Iraq and Syria, not Asia Minor.
>From what Iíve read it seems that it was
>common practice for conquering people to adopt the religions
>and gods of those conquered.
But there's no record or evidence of the Assyrians doing this in Judah as far as I know.
>Sure it does. What helps to support it is the Persian and
>Macedonian empires. The Persian reaching Greece and the
>Macedonia originating in Greece. How does one get from Persia
>to Greece and Greece to Persia? Answer: Turkey also known at
OK, first of all you said "All the chart proves is once in this area the people tent to breed amongst themselves for thousands of years. No more no less." What I said was if that was the case then why weren't the Askenazi closer to northern Europeans, meaning they didn't intermix with the Northern Europeans very much (at least on the paternal side).
As for the Greeks, the majority of Greece was never conquered by the Persians. The Macedonians conquering Persia doesn't matter here because it was mostly Greek and Macedonian male soldiers going into Asia Minor & Persia, so if you are suggesting the Jews originate in Asia Minor or Persia that's irrelevant to this study because it wasn't Persian/Asia Minor males going into Greece, so there wouldn't be an inflow of male Y-chromosomes from Persia/Asia Minor into Greece.
>First off bronze is not BURNT brass. Secondly, Jewish afro??
>What? Like Gene Wilderís? Have you ever touched wool? That
>stuff is think and course. Sweaters made from the stuff
>scratch and itch the skin.
First off, bronze is darker than brass. Second off, how burnt was the brass? Just singed? seared? charred? scorched? Third, yeah Jewish afro - and if Gene Wilder has the most extreme Jewfro you've seen, you must not have seen many. Fourth, isn't it lamb's wool? Isn't lamb's wool softer than sheep's wool?
>I have yet to see a pale jew or
>arab with tight curled hair that water beads on. Now my tight
>wooly fro is hair of a different texture.
So water beads on wool? So I can walk out in the rain in a wool sweater and it won't get soaked, the water will just bead up on the wool?
LOL - you're missing my point: it's merely an anecdotal description, and a second-hand one at that... it's pretty meaningless to try to use as empirical evidence to prove what he actually looked like.
>Again you disappoint.
As do you. You've shown that your allowing your prejudice to guide your opinion on the matter.
Now you know - and knowing is half the battle!