The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Proving Dr Joseph Wrong

Posted by pancho (Guest) - Wednesday, March 7 2007, 2:23:02 (CET)
from 189.162.82.212 - dsl-189-162-82-212.prod-infinitum.com.mx

Mexico -

Windows XP -

Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

It isn’t difficult to do and he shows how to do it. It’s right there, in his central theme. There’s no need for Fred Aprim to prowl around the edges of it looking for what he thinks, (and I realize more than ever that his unfamiliarity with the English language is nine-tenths of his “discoveries” and “we wonderings”) are “errors”, because they are minor “errors”
if at all, and by themselves will not damage the main thesis…so why not just attack it and be done with it?

It isn’t difficult to know what to do, but the difficulty lies in doing it…and that’s the reason Aprim and Maggie and the rest of them go hunting elsewhere, or go apeshit and gladly disappear. I know, and so does Dr Joseph and anyone else who understands the book, that all one has to do is find evidence that any of the people “mentioning” the Assyrians or Chaldeans, or being identified by someone else as such, did not merely mention them, have those names attached to them, or attach those names to anything else, not even their house or church, but that someone, anyone, at any time before the 19th century, for Assyrian or the 17th century for Chaldean, said , clearly and indisputably that he or she WAS a lineal descendant of either of those two ancient people. And that’s all.

Because Dr Joseph’s point is that where the term Chaldean is concerned, before or even after the schism, that term was used to designate a geographical location and any inference that the people living on the land were the same ethnicity as those under it, or could be assumed to be the same ethnicity as the ancient name of the land, was an error…the same error committed in the 19th century by Euros who believed the villagers above the discoveries at Nineveh were lineal descendants of the people who left those ruins a few thousand years earlier. Dr Joseph provides ample evidence of how this error was made, by whom and when, throughout history, whenever it appears

However, even when Nestorians returned to the Roman Catholic Church and Rome added the name “Chaldean” to them, because their patriarchal see was located in geographical “Chaldee”, the people so called did not think of THEMSELVES as ethnic descendants of the ancient Chaldeans…even they were in on it…even they understood, as a few of their patriarchs admitted, that this was merely a NAME…a designation applied to them simply to mark the region they lived in…and not their lineal descent from the ancient Chaldeans…he goes on to show that by the time the Ottomans recognized the Chaldean Catholic Church officially, in the modern era, that no one, not Ottomans and not the Catholics, thought of them as anything but a religious sect and not a nationality.

By contrast, when this same error was committed, in the 19th century, where the name Assyria and Assyrian was concerned, there developed a gradual acceptance and then a mounting insistence, among the Nestorian Christians, on calling THEMSELVES lineal descendants of the ancient Assyrians… living above the ruins, “as they always had”…and this trumpet call increased in shrillness as the Ottoman Empire was brought to its knees...and it isn’t hard to figure out why…then, as now, there was a fervent hope that world-wide acceptance of the notion that these hardy Nestorians were the “indigenous” people of Iraq, might lead to their being handed “their” country back…and this has been precisely the danger of believing in this error...because, on top of our vulnerability to the manipulations of Western Christians as their co-religionists, they have been able to play on our “national identity” by, at various times appearing to accept our ditzy claim, put forth first by THEM and then later swallowed whole and uncritically by us…and has provided poor nourishment to say the least.

We love to be fawned on and have been able to do nothing on our own in the modern era to deserve notice and praise, on our own, unless it was to attach ourselves, like amorous necrophilliacs, to the corpse of ancient Assyria. And the more we have relied on this to “get us” something; a nation, security, wealth, pride, recognition, fame and oil revenues, the more we have done so to the exclusion of what we, ourselves, with our own hands might actually have built…we have made beggars of our own children by telling them this tall tale is “our history”…very like the poor person who becomes convinced that he is a distant heir to the Rockefellers and quits his job to sit on the sidewalk and wait for his inheritance to be delivered, if the lawyers of the world will, “just know his story”…and that all he has to “DO”, is talkalotaboutit…this has been our “action” since believing this whopper…and what we have “built” has been nothing but increasingly absurd house of cards made of “proooves” which no one but ourselves believe in and , apparently, not much either.

But, rather than dismantle Dr Joseph’s argument directly, we’ve had nothing, in all the time since the book was first published, but a variety of efforts to slander the author instead…which is as clear a sign to anyone, but those satisfied with slander as an historical approach to scholarship…that the central thrust of the book can NOT be disproven…and these latest attempts to do so have fizzled, or detonated, out as well. These two, Maggie and Aprim, are considered, by opposing camps of half-wits, to be among “the best people we have”…Ashur have mercy on us all.

First Maggie hurled her thrashing body in my path, at page nine…when she was finally rolled up and put away…Fred Aprim stepped in front of me at the end of chapter one...and I can only imagine his reluctance to walk onto to the freeway in the path of this rapidly accelerating review…but he had to do it…and so he did and now he’s probably sorry and won’t try it again…though I sincerely wish he could. I’m resigned to finishing my review of chapter one eventually…as soon as the debris gets cleared away and my eyeballs unscramble…obviously…obviously, Dr Joseph hit a raw nerve in 1961…and that same nerve is even more sore and painful today…the cure is coming.

Neither Fred nor Maggie were able to shake the central theme of the book and I doubt anyone can…and I’d be the first to be relieved if they could….but that doesn’t mean I’m so desperate to have it done that I’d scramble my own brains, don warpaint and go to screaming like a cat afire. I don’t know how, or even if , Fred will respond. He’s not good at getting past his own veneer of “historian” or even Assyrian. He can barely stand to make his case coherently the first time…challenge him on any of it and he has to take a long rest. There’s no depth to the man anywhere…not as an engineer, not as a stock trader, not as writer/historian/nationalist…press against any one of those and they’ll collapse…the man cannot, “stand the push”. To his credit his language skills have slightly improved but as I said , the down side is that we understand him a little better, or understand better what he is trying to make understood, but the lack of substance is still the same, only easier to see.

I don’t know how to qualify Maggie’s performance. Her lowest point, in terms of any personal integrity, was when she dragged Dr Eden Naby in by the hair, like any captive she’d clubbed during a raid, to throw before us…she said she had proof that Dr Naby did not earn her doctorate, that her husband, Dr Frye, made it easy for her or in some way made a cheat and a fraud out it…but, that Maggie “would not say” how she knew. This is almost criminal in its abuse of people’s trust…it’s about as low as you can go…Maggie can go even lower.

She pulled this stunt the last time, over Dadeeshoos fake diploma, defending that putz with every ounce of her hulking intellect, which lasted two minutes and then turned into another howling banshee…which, coupled by her accusation against Dr Naby and her claims that Dr Joseph is also one of “those” whose degrees and diploma means nothing because Maggie disagrees with them, convinces me that she is so touchy on the subject because she too has fabricated a degree in Sociology.

Fred Aprim will rely on his “unchallenged” status as the uppity scholar who has no need to respond, beyond a first put-down, to any plebian challenger…when the truth is that he has shot his wad the first time and that’s all there is.

Maggie is counting on leaving behind such a stench, such a rotten performance as the woman scorned, the “kind-hearted” soul who “defended pancho”…the weepy eyed virgin sullied at the hands of a brute, that people will focus on that alone and not recall what an absolute virago she became nor the silly things she was reduced to claiming in her mad effort to deny any validity to a book she clearly hasn’t read…which is WHY she left…to “salvage” her “standing” as a Queen of Knowledge among her brood of Knowledgettes.

We will, Ashur willing, go on to chapter two…one of these days.

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

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

Content-length: 9793
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.PYwx.
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; MEGAUPLOAD 1.0)