The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> in other words.....

in other words.....
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, October 13 2013, 3:06:53 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

...what I draw from this is that while the words athor and athoraya were around before the modern era, they were not used to mean actual Assyrians, living in the present...those were called Arameans or Syrians, as we all know or, at the least Suraye, which is what we called ourselves.

...when someone like Aprim or Taco breathlessly points out that he found the word "Assyria" mentioned somewhere before the 19th century, it does not mean anyone was IDENTIFYING him or herself with the ancient Assyrians...it just means that people knew Assyria had been there at one time...or, it meant someone born in Mosul etc....or even "in Assyria".....however, even if we concede that someone was born "in Assyria" it does not make him any kind of a relative to Ashurbanipal....a Chinese baby can be born "in Assyria", that wouldn't make her ASSYRIAN in any meaningful way.

Now, if the modern name for that region had become Assyria, instead of Iraq, you would have lots of "Assyrians" today.....but they too would have nothing in common with THOSE Assyrians...and, most delicious of all...what would we do with a Muslim Assyrian...born "in Assyria"? And what would happen to our nationalist fools then? Why, they'd be exactly where they found themselves when the country was called Iraq and they wailed for their own private Assyria....they'd have to disguise themselves as a separate "nation" and "ethnicity" and even "Race"....because otherwise they would merely be Christians and even they understood that they couldn't claim a "Christlandia" for themselves. And so...the Assyrian "nation" HAD to be born....



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9