The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> More of "WE KNOWS"!

More of "WE KNOWS"!

Posted by pancho (Guest) - Tuesday, October 30 2007, 19:02:11 (CET) from 12.199.144.42 - mail.shpl.org Non-Profit Organizations - Linux - Mozilla Website: Website title:

agpie praises Warda’s article. Why? The first third pretends a need to prove that Assyrians were never physically wiped out…something no serious historian ever claimed. The middle part tells of the times the word “Assyrian” was mentioned in the Classical age and right through the Christian era. Why is that significant? Why wouldn’t the name be mentioned? Beyond that, how does that relate to his own belief that he’s Assyrian? The last third, like the part before, promises to quote verbatim, so we won’t think he’s making things up, and then he proceeds NOT to quote, or offer references, merely stating things as if they are accepted fact. This is what Magpie does as well…in fact it’s what they all do in their “books”…after which they merely “quote” each other’s follies ad nauseum. Magpie had no facts either. Sure, she said things as IF they were proven facts…or solid evidence…but she offered no references. Her one mention of Xenophon bit her in the ass when it was shown that he called the inhabitants of Assyria “Medes”. On reading this, much to her surprise no doubt, she came up with the notion that he corrected himself when he got home and called them Assyrians from then on…again, without offering any evidence of this. And if you press any of them, they go apeshit and mess the rug. Just to show her stuff she next placed the Peloponesian War in Persia! Okay, we all make mistakes…but let’s be a little humble and forgiving too. Here’s a most reasonable paragraph from a most reasonable and respected scholar…page 30. “ Aramaic language molded widely differing ethnic, social, and political elements into a uniform and integrated culture. Just as Arabic language later amalgamated various ethnic groups, creating the Arabs, without much regard to their Arabian physical origin, so did Aramaic mold peoples of different identities into Aramean (“Syrians”). What is so objectionable in this? Don’t we insist that Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians, Iraqis are all Arabs? I’m the one who keeps reminding people that Arabs come from Saudi Arabia…only to be overruled by our nationalists who insist that something universal makes them ALL Arabs. Does Dr Joseph’s point that the same sort of smooshing together of people under the name and overriding influence of Arameans , not make sense? What’s the difference? In answer to this and similar questions all I’ll get from Magpie and Jumblat is renewed praise for Aprim, Warda or Rosie-Malek and accusations of not being an historian…no one takes on the ISSUES raised…but then they’ve never done that. To continue… “The ancient Assyrians did not “vanish” when they were vanquished in late 7th century B.C., nor did everyone of them immediately “perish”. They merely ‘merged with the mass of Near Eastern Arameans’, just as other peoples before and after them, were similarly assimilated, like the Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians, and others.” Is there a problem with that? Has anyone wondered why only the Assyrians survived? If it’s foolish to claim all Assyrians were wiped out, as it clearly is…then where are the Babylonians and the rest of those people today? How come THEY perished totally? Again, there’ll be no response to this except Magpie may love Warda some more. “About 800 years after the fall of Nineveh, a common religion (Christianity), together with a common language (Aramaic) unified the peoples of this region, just as Islam and the Arabic tongue would arabize and muslimize most of the Arameans a few centuries later, causing THEM (emphasis Dr Joseph’s) to “disappear.” What could be more sane…or reasonable? Don’t we admit the truth of this where Arabs are concerned? Don’t we say they replaced the language and religion and ethnic memory of countless people, even Assyrians, turning them into “Arabs”? Is it so hard to accept that in the same way Assyrians, Babylonians etc were turned into Arameans….and before that Sumerians and then Amorites, Kassites etc were turned into Assyrians…or Babylonians? One more… “Christianity began in an Aramaic environment; Jesus preached his message in an Aramaic dialect. Among the converts to the new faith were Jews and Gentiles of all ethnic backgrounds. The Church and the new religion served as a melting pot; as members of a new dispensation, the converts tended to lay aside former distinctions and prejudices and became in the character of Christians one homogenous people devoted to the Lord, not unlike the Islamic ‘umma’ of the 7th century A.D.” Where’s the “error”? Continued… “Writing in the third century, Bardesanes, the eminent Edessan known as the founder of Syriac literature, did not feel himself to be the leader of a sect but rather belonging unquestionably to the universal Church. ‘What shall we say about ourselves, the ‘new race’ of Christians whom Christ has caused to be raised in all countries as a consequence of his own coming? We are all Christians by the one name of Christ wherever we may be found.’ He then proceeds to speak of the brethren in Gaul, Parthia, India, Persia, Mesopotamia without making distinction.” Dr Joseph then goes on to explain that the Christians could not for long see themselves as one united faith…political forces compelled them to take sides and identify with nations…as when Rome became Christian forcing the Christians of Persia to distance themselves from their co-religionists for fear of reprisal etc. And then… “ The various sections of the dissected Christian community in the Middle East eventually developed into ‘secondary ecological and kinship units.’ They became ‘millets’, a term which, depending on the group’s geography, history, and size, could be translated into sects, communities, minorities, or nationalities…groups of people who owed allegiance to one another and to their religious leaders by the ties of faith and language…” Jesus H. Christ! What defines us BETTER than that??? And then… “ A member who adopted another creed was regarded as a renegade.” …ahem. “ The people who today call themselves Assyrians are, strictly speaking, members of a cultural and religious group, molded together into a minority by ties of common language and, until the nineteenth century, a common church membership which, until the birth of the modern nation-state in the Middle East, was the strongest tie among people.” Again…where’s the fuss? Where’s the BIG mistake? “The lineal origin of the community, like that of most Middle Eastern nationalities…and nationalities the world over…is hidden in the mists of history.” Is there an argument here? “…just as it was the speakers of the Arabian language who gave most of the converts to Islam in the Middle East and North Africa the name ‘Arab,’ so the Arameans gave the various converts to Christianity their mother tongue, and for the next 1,800 years, bequeathed to them the language and liturgy as well as the very name by which they have for centuries called themselves,,,Suraye, Suryoyo.” A footnote to the above: “As noted above, the Syrian Orthodox Christians still refer to themselves as Syrians (Suroyo or Suryoyo), Aramean ancestry, they claim, is not only ancient and one to be proud of, but their linkage with their forebears is one that no one can question or undermine. While they rightly consider the terms ‘Arameans’ and ‘Syrians’ synonymous, the name ‘Syrian’ (Suryan in Arabic, Syriacs in English) is preferred because of its continuous use since ‘the very dawn of Christianity’. See Mar Ignatius Ephrem I, ‘the Syrian Church of Antioch, It’s Name and History’ (Hackensack, New Jersey, n.d.), pp. 1-29, where in detail he shows that the terms ‘Syrians’ and ‘Arameans’ are synonyms. For the recent ‘Assyrian-or-Aramean’ controversy within the Syrian Orthodox minority, see Helga Anschutz, ‘Die syrischen Christen vom Tur Abdin’ (Wurzburg, 1984), pp. 164 seq.; Heinrichs, pp. 99-101, 103, 111; Heidi Armbruster, ‘We speak the language that was spoken by Jesus’: Syrian Christian Migrants in Vienna’, paper presented at the Middle East Studies Assoxiation’s 30th annual meeting, November 21-24, 1996, Providence, Rhode Islan, pp. 20-21.” That’s just one footnote in a book loaded with references, quotes and sources. Yes, scholars do express opinions and make judgments…but they know through training that they must show the sources on which they base their insights. Dr Joseph knows he can’t simply say “I know”, even though he was raised with the same beliefs as Aprim. The man has bothered to learn what it takes to approach these things as an academic, as a scientist and real author who must depend on the quality of his writings and not his credit card, to get published. I’m not a scholar or historian or academic…but I’m a thinking person. I value reason and logic, I enjoy following a trail to see where it leads and I don’t like cheating to win., not in intellectual pursuits anyway. I’ve examined and thought about and read and written about every single point raised by our christo-nationalists, while they adamantly refuse to read anything but what backs them up, usually written by their cousins. They skip over ten things they know they can’t respond to intelligently to focus on the one they think they can…and when that too gets peppered, they leave in a huff saying “you’ll never learn”…meaning they failed to impress. This is what happened to Magpie. She roosted over here until the discussion turned to Dr Joseph’s book(this is after she said we had to do more “research” on Dadeeshoos nonexistent doctorate)… whereupon she made a few attempts to discuss the book rationally but was soon calling Dr Joseph all sorts of names and for good measure, cast doubts on Dr Eden Naby’s career and credentials….as a way of “proving” that scholars and academics, especially when they come from us, and disagree with Magpie, are scoundrels and frauds. She can thank Dr Joseph for having her own forum…as she ran out of here screaming and cursing to form her own place, where SHE can ban and delete and tell people what is acceptable. Again…I don’t have to be a historian myself to read and copy this down…anyone can do it. It would be refreshing if they would try…Warda’s article is by Warda…with very few references provided and a lot of the usual “we knows”. Is there anyone who can quote any serious scholar and historian…at length, so that the person can make his or her OWN case…without being mangled or heavily edited or chopped to pieces…is there? --------------------- - BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic: No replies.

Content-length: 11728 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5 Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Accept-encoding: identity,gzip,deflate Cache-control: max-age=259200 Connection: keep-alive Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Keep-alive: 300 Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.KWay. User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060501 Epiphany/1.6.5 Via: 1.1 localhost:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE13) X-forwarded-for: 127.0.0.1

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9