Posted by Jeff (24.30.53.181) on November 05, 2001 at 20:41:33:
After all, el presidente is banned from posting there. Ha ha.
&&& Message below:
Written by Confused on 05 Nov 2001 20:57:10:
Here is a dilemma that I believe is a result of pushing Chaldanism to the extreem! Maybe some of you Chaldeans can offer us a solution.
The Archbishop of one the Syriac Churches made a statement saying that he and his people are Arabs.
His Syriac community was furious for labeling them as Arabs, and a statement was going to be issued by some Syriacs to be signed as
Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs. A meeting was held and during the meeting (even though all of them believe that they are one people
Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, and respect the Chaldean name), they decided to drop the Chaldean name, not because they are rejecting the Chaldean
name, but rather because they did not want to open the door to any Chaldean to claim who the hell gave you the right to speak on behalf of the
Chaldeans! After seeing what has happened on this forum about the Assyrian-Maronite Coalition statement.
Note that this issue is an internal Syriac issue, and the name Chaldean was going to be included as a courtesy that we are one people, and not that they
are speaking in the name of the Chaldean Catholic Church.
My question is: If we are to promote all names on equal basis, we need to come to an understanding that each and everyone can speak freely in the
names of Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs. Please note that when some one speaks in the name of Chaldeans, Syriacs and Assyrians this doesn't
mean that he is speaking on behalf of the Syriac Church, Chaldean Church, and Assyrian Church. Aparently many people look at those names as
names of Churches.
Additionally, when the statement that says we are Syriacs and not Arabs, includes Assyrian and Chaldean names that would indirectly imply that they
are Syriacs too. the whole issue is a catch-22, Paradox. Damned if you use all three names Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac respecting all of them, and
damned if you skip one or two of them!
We don't have a high council that includes Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, that speaks for all of us as the official spokesmen of our people, and although
an Assyrian Universal Alliance, Syriac Universal Alliance, Chaldean Universal Alliance might help is representing their own communities, yet they don't
show any unity of all three, because whenever one group wants to make a statement it has to get the approval of the other two, and sometimes time is a
factor, because by the time they exchange drafts and agree on a format, by that time their statemnt will be old news.
The solution is a Federal Universal Alliance that has representatives of all three communities. They will be the seculkar official spokesmen of our people
without getting back to the different churches, ot the respective.
Any better solutions?
Confused
Now
----------
Re: Are we being so picky?
[ Chaldeans Discussion Forum ]
Written by Jeff on 05 Nov 2001 23:30:29:
As an answer to: Are we being so picky? written by Confused on 05 Nov 2001 20:57:10:
Dear Confused,
The Syriacs wouldn't take hell for including the Chaldean name. Most Chaldeans were happy with the Assyrian-Maronite statement, although I would
say the majority of Chaldeans never even saw it.
Only the extremists (no offence intended, Ghassan) made a big deal about the fact that the Chaldean name was included.
What a sad state of affairs in our community where when one group wants the world to know that we aren't Arabs, they can't even include an important
segment of our community becuase a handful of people don't want them to.
Jeff
--------------
Re: Are we being so picky?
[ Chaldeans Discussion Forum ]
Written by Bassam on 06 Nov 2001 02:01:19:
As an answer to: Re: Are we being so picky? written by Jeff on 05 Nov 2001 23:30:29:
Dear Jeff,
Could you please tell us who are those Chaldeans that were happy to be included as religous sector of the "assyrains"? One reason why there wasn't a
stronger action taken by the Chaldeans is majority of Chaldeans never even saw it as you said.
>Only the extremists (no offence intended, Ghassan) made a big deal about the fact that the Chaldean name was included.
I'm a Chaldean and I'm not an extremist, but I was very upset with what happens. If the "assyrians" are so into unity and love everyone why did not
they write Chaldean/Assyrian/Syrics? It is very obvious what they are trying to achieve.
>What a sad state of affairs in our community where when one group wants the world to know that we aren't Arabs, they can't even include an
important segment of our community becuase a handful of people don't want them to.
Our Chaldean people in Australia, those who found out, were upset as well.
---
Re: Are we being so picky?
[ Chaldeans Discussion Forum ]
Written by Jeff on 06 Nov 2001 03:33:31:
As an answer to: Re: Are we being so picky? written by Bassam on 06 Nov 2001 02:01:19:
>Dear Jeff,
>Could you please tell us who are those Chaldeans that were happy to be included as religous sector of the "assyrains"?
Why bring religion into the conversation?
One reason why there wasn't a stronger action taken by the Chaldeans is majority of Chaldeans never even saw it as you said.
True, because many of them don't care about the state of our community. It's a shame, but it's true. Hopefully we can change that, but with unity, not
disunity. It's petty arguments about "Assyrian vs. Syriac vs. Chaldean vs. ____yoyo" that drive everyone away in droves.
>I'm a Chaldean and I'm not an extremist, but I was very upset with what happens. If the "assyrians" are so into unity and love everyone why did not
they write Chaldean/Assyrian/Syrics? It is very obvious what they are trying to achieve.
Yes, they are trying to show that we are ONE people, not THREE separate peoples. Obvious.
>Our Chaldean people in Australia, those who found out, were upset as well.
mmm... interesting.
Jeff