The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> My Latest Comment on wiki

My Latest Comment on wiki
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Monday, April 23 2012, 9:45:41 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

...at least they have a site that is SUPPOSED to seek accuracy...and, they can't ban and delete so easily...I mean I don't what this guy will eventually do...or the others who write on there. Will they all self-ban too?

here....



I see above that Richard Frye is listed as an Assyriologist when he is a noted expert on Persian history...also, Dr Parpola is being used as a source for modern Assyrian claims. Parpola is an expert in ancient Assyrian history, he has no professional standing in the history of modern day Assyrians. To cite Assyriologists as relevant sources for modern day Assyrians is like citing an historian of Medieval Italian history as an expert on the French in, World War II....why would one do such a thing? Also, no evidence at all exists, or is produced here for the claim that Assyrians have "always existed"...none. It is merely taken for granted. And when the Assyriologists are cited, it is by saying "Parpola shows that...", without actually showing where and when Parpola said whatever he is supposed to have said, and WHAT he said, in his own words.

I find it interesting, and disturbing, that the one, accepted expert on THIS subject, and one who comes from our own community no less, is tossed aside as an "amateur", one who is mistaken, even "silly", when his peers in HIS field and his employer and the State Department hold him in such great esteem. Instead people here are quoting, well, let's be blunt about it, white people, Euros and Americans, to whom great deference is being shown. How many accredited historians, who are published authors, does our community have? I know of no others besides Dr. Joseph. And this is how we treat our own? Why, because we don't like what he says? Because the man bothered to get an actual education in this field? You know, trained historians are mentored as they work their way through this rigorous field. They do not simply read those books which agree with their prejudices, or what their grandparents told them, or their priests. In fact, a scholar is not supposed to HAVE his own point of view...he doesn't search for what supports his pet notions but for the best, and most complete information on the topic at hand, letting the chips fall where they may. He, or she, reads all sorts of material which may go against his own prejudices, may even tell him his own country was wrong, or acted illegally...to bolster HIS case is not the reason he gets a doctorate. In fact, if Joseph is mistaken, where are the historians from OUR community who've been studying this topic, as academics and scholars all these years that we claim there were ALWAYS Assyrians, to set him right? As it is this community has managed to produce ONE Assyriologist and he just recently graduated...why were there none before, from this community?

The historical record is clear; we have always called ourselves Suraye (Syrians) not Aturaye, not until the modern era that is. By "we" I mean the "Assyrians" of Iraq and Iran. I have posted above the source for this statement, and even posted the quotes from a published book, and not from the Vanity-Press industry either, but a book published by two prestigious publishers; Princeton University Press, and Brill Publishers. Does that mean anything here? Or are they dismissed because the book they published, at THEIR expense, displeases us in its estimate of our claims? Is that to be the criterion? If your research and published works, all reviewed by experts in the field, don't coincide with what I was taught, as a child, by my community, you don't count and might also be a fool to boot. Dr. Joseph is referred to above as an "amateur"....he is? What is the definition of the word, as it is used here? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a resting place for personal prejudice...at the very least one would expect a better use and understanding of English-language words.

I think our community is so used to giving its opinions, on everything, without bothering to actually know much, and finding nothing wrong in that, that we assume everybody does the same thing....you have your opinion and Einstein has his...he is welcome to his and you are welcome to yours, except the topic at hand is particle physics, and only ONE of you has studied the field....your two opinions are not "the same"...you are not "entitled" to PRESENT your opinion alongside Einstein's...and I doubt very much you would want it there...but in this case, in the issue of Assyrians always existing, we feel our opinion is as good as Dr Joseph's...and if we don't like his "opinions", we'll go hunting for anyone who DOES like our opinions, and put him down as an EXPERT, regardless of what his actual expertise is. Dr Joseph is not writing his opinions in his books...he is stating the best known, and knowable FACTS about this subject matter...everyone ELSE is stating opinions and doing it as if they WERE facts. It turns out that those calling Joseph an amateur are the amateurs, and I don't mean that slightingly but as a statement of fact.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. This is the problem, that I see, with this page. I see lots of opinions, all of them well known to our community. But I see precious little facts, as the real world understand facts. Dr Joseph wasn't given his doctorate, he earned it after years of rigorous study. He wasn't hired by his college for his opinions about Modern Middle East history and his publishers certainly didn't spend the money, time or place their names on his books because of his opinions. None of them much cared WHAT his opinions were, they were only interested in his standing, as a professional and accredited historian. And he has earned great respect after thirty years of teaching as an instructor and author. How many people from our "Assyrian" community do we have, in America OR Europe, who've had a building named after them on a major college campus, or anywhere else? How many? Is that something to dismiss? Why do we belittle the man and his achievements when people all around us recognize the value of his work and the man himself? Why, because we don't LIKE what he writes? Do you go looking for the auto mechanic who tells you what you LIKE to hear about your transmission...or the best expert you can find? And why treat "your" history with any less regard?

You can read all the medical books you want, even set up a surgery in your basement and operate on the neighborhood kids, if you want to...after all, you've READ the books, you KNOW how to cut out an appendix...but you lay a hand on anyone, and you go to prison. History is being mangled right in front of us, and no one cares. And the one expert, on THIS field, is treated as if HE was the Witch Doctor.

As Dr Joseph says in the preface to the second edition, and I quote, and I bring the actual source...

"...a partisan history of their people (meaning us)...'is paid little respect and eventually is undermined by trained historians'."

Is that what we can't forgive him for? For being a "trained historian"? For causing our cherished beliefs, faith and opinions to be, "paid little respect"...and then become "undermined"? I repeat, Joseph is not a propagandist, he is not a champion of our cause, he has no political agenda and he has no cause, except history as she is writ. Just because he disagrees with OUR political agenda, doesn't mean he must have one too. He is an historian writing the best history available on THIS subject, and recognized as such by the kinds of professionals and peers who DO have the respect of the knowledgeable world. It shouldn't matter what we "like" or dislike, but only what can be reliably known.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9