The case for black Mesopotamians

[8man]

I've added it to my favorites. Thanks.

[8man]

Here is a nice outline of the Biblical ideas behind black origins, fascinating--how does this relate or not relate to the subject matter of blacks in Sumeria?

Almighty God created the races : Christianity, interracial marriage,
and American law / Fay Botham.

The Sons of Noah and the Origins of Theologies of Race

Several key narratives from the book of Genesis purport to recount
the lives of the earliest humans, including Adam, Eve, and their children
as well as the righteous patriarch Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. Although none of the stories directly mentions anything that modern
readers would identify as “race,” interpretations of these passages have
made deep and enduring connections between the Bible and the understandings
of human racial origins.5 Genesis 4, for example, tells the story of
how God cursed Adam and Eve’s son Cain for having murdered his brother,
Abel, and how God then placed a “mark” upon Cain. Although the story
makes no reference to racial identity or skin color, some interpreters contended
that this enigmatic “mark” was that of black skin. Another passage
commonly cited as an explanation for racial differences was Genesis 11,
which contains the Tower of Babel story. According to this narrative, all the
people of the world spoke a common language until, swollen with pride,
they attempted to build a tower that reached up to heaven. God, angered
at their effort, then “confounded their language” so that they could not
communicate and “scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of
all the earth.” Some interpreters understood this story as the explanation
of human racial differentiation—something, they pointed out, that God
inflicted as a punishment for pride.

Most influential in the historical Christian hermeneutics of race, and
particularly in American interpretations, were the stories of Noah’s sons
in Genesis chapters 9 and 10. In Genesis 9:18–27, Noah, the righteous
patriarch whose sons peopled the entire earth, cursed Canaan, his grandson
through Ham, to perpetual slavery after Ham observed his inebriated
father naked.

And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and
Ham, And Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the
three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And
Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he
drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his
tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,
and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment,
and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and
covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward,
and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his
wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said,
Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be
his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents
of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.6

Interpreters paired this enigmatic story with the “dispersion” story of Genesis
10, in which Noah’s three sons and their descendants scattered across
the earth in three different directions from their homeland. Canaan thus
became associated with black skin and Africa, since interpreters believed
his descendants to have relocated to Africa. In the context of American
slavery, American Bible readers interpreted this story of “Noah’s curse” and
the dispersion of Noah’s sons as a justification and explanation for racial
slavery.

Since the earliest days of the Common Era, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim
readers and scholars have attempted to unravel the meanings of these
mysterious passages, often coming up with some rather negative interpret
tations, particularly of the figures Ham and Canaan of Genesis 9–11.7 In
his influential Antiquities of the Jews, first-century Jewish historian Josephus
claimed that upon discovering his nude, drunken father asleep in his tent,
Ham “came laughing, and showed him to his brethren.”8 According to religious
studies scholar Stephen Haynes, the idea that Ham’s laughter served
as the reason for his punishment subsequently became a “leitmotif in the
history of interpretation” of the story. The Babylonian Talmud, however,
postulated that Ham’s transgression against Noah might have been sexual
assault or even castration of Noah, while another rabbinic text suggested
that Ham had observed Noah and his wife having sex, which led Ham to try
and castrate Noah.9

Among early Christian interpreters, Augustine asserted that Ham represented
heresy and disruption of Christian peace: “what does he [Ham] signify
but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience,
with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which
they disturb the peace of the saints?”10 Clement of Alexandria associated
Ham with sorcery and depicted him as the first magician.11 Like Josephus,
Ambrose of Milan attributed Noah’s condemnation to Ham’s ridicule of his
father’s nakedness. Significantly, several early Christian commentators also
depicted Noah—in contrast to the sinful Ham—as a pillar of moral rectitude
and forerunner of Christ. Justin Martyr, for example, likened Noah
and Christ in that Christ “regenerated” himself “through water, and faith,
and wood,” while Noah “was saved by wood when he rode over the waters
with his household.”12 Augustine speculated that Noah’s misfortune “elegantly
intimate[d] that Jesus was to suffer the cross and death at the hands
of His own household, His own kith and kin, the Jews.”13 Among this tradition
of thinkers, Noah’s curse acquired a quasi-divine significance, as if in
condemning Ham’s posterity to slavery, Noah spoke on God’s behalf, while
Ham became “the church fathers’ archetype of human depravity.”14
The connection between Ham, Canaan, and slavery is clear—Noah
cursed Ham’s progeny to be “a servant of servants to his brethren” (Genesis
9:25). What is less clear, however, is how Ham came to be associated with
dark skin or blackness. Haynes contends that Ham was “rarely racialized
before Europeans’ exploration of West Africa in the fifteenth century.”15 Yet
premedieval interpretations occasionally connected the legend of Ham and
blackness. Even as early as the second century BCE, The Book of Jubilees, an
anonymous Jewish rendering of the history of creation up through Moses,
linked Ham and Africa. The writer suggested that as his blessing to his
sons, Noah apportioned the earth into three parts, and that the sons subse
quently divided their land among their own sons. Ham’s sons purportedly
received Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya, and the region from Libya to the Atlantic
Ocean.16 Other interpreters offered different ways of associating Ham
and his descendants with blackness. Some asserted that Ham had married
a black woman, a descendent of Cain, thus having mixed-race offspring,
while the Jerusalem Talmud proposed that Ham had emerged from Noah’s
ark “charcoal colored.”17 The Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin elaborated
on this last theory, suggesting that because Ham had misbehaved
on the ark during the Great Flood—allegedly having sex with his wife, in
violation of Noah’s command—he received dark skin and his father’s subsequent
curse as punishments.18 Yet another explanation for the association
between Ham and blackness derived from the fact that the name “Ham”
was linguistically related to the Hebrew word for “dark, black, or hot.”19
Ham and Canaan became associated more closely with Africa and
blackness by the late fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries, when European
Christian interpreters commonly interpreted the Genesis 10 account
to mean that Ham had dispersed to Africa, Shem to Asia, and Japheth to
Europe. Thus by this period, the “dispersion” story sometimes referenced
what twenty-first century observers might call racial differentiation, insofar
as Ham, Shem, and Japheth had—through generations of interpretation of
the stories—come to represent racially distinct groups. Moreover, as some
thinkers from this period associated Ham and blackness with slavery, increasingly
the story of Noah’s curse served to rationalize the enslavement of
Africans, though not until after the Reformation, the European “discovery”
of the New World, and the subsequent enslavement of African and Native
American peoples did the “racialization” of the Genesis stories begin in
earnest. At this time, readers turned to the biblical accounts of human
origins and dispersion to explain the physical and cultural differences between
human beings, which signaled some new interpretive innovations
in the Genesis stories, including that of Cain as well as of Ham. French
Calvinist Isaac de la Peyrère, for example, who was deemed a heretic by
his contemporaries, developed a “pre-Adamite” theory of human origins,
in which he posited that there were human beings prior to Adam and Eve.
Subsequent generations adopted and adapted Peyrère’s polygenetic theory
to suggest that whites were the Adamites and all other groups were the pre-
Adamites, thus establishing a biblically based racial hierarchy with whites
at the top.20 Other early modern interpreters viewed black skin as the punishment
meted out to Ham’s descendants, explaining Africans’ skin color
as well as the deviant sexuality, dishonor, and paganism that European
Christians perceived among African “heathens.”21

By the turn of the eighteenth century, the hermeneutical traditions surrounding
the Genesis stories had crossed the Atlantic and taken up residence
along the shores of Boston’s Charles River. In a 1703 sermon seeking
to understand the origins of slavery, Puritan Samuel Willard proclaimed,
“all Servitude began in the Curse.”22 During the subsequent decades of the
eighteenth century, as British and American thinkers began to debate the
morality of chattel slavery and its relationship to republican ideals of liberty
and equality, defenders of slavery regularly called upon the strange tales of
Ham, Shem, and Japheth, first, to justify slavery, and later, to justify the
enslavement specifically of Africans. By the time the young United States
began inching toward sectional crisis in the 1830s, proslavery advocates appealed
so frequently to the story of Ham as a rationale for their arguments
that abolitionist Theodore Dwight Weld famously remarked in 1837, “this
prophecy of Noah is the vade mecum of slaveholders, and they never venture
abroad without it.”23 More recent scholars confirm Weld’s assertion.
The Ham story, according to historian H. Shelton Smith, formed one of
the “major bulwarks” of proslavery defenses, and Richard T. Hughes and
C. Leonard Allen argue that the story of Noah and his sons “became the
soul of the civil theology of the South.”24

Yet careful analysis of the sources reveals very interesting interpretive
developments in the United States. First, although the hermeneutical history
of biblical racial stories is common to both Catholics and Protestants,
interpretations of the Genesis myths developed a remarkable significance
and endurance particularly among American Protestants. After the Reformation,
what had historically been a broadly Christian history of interpretation
increasingly became a Protestant one. Second, after the Emancipation
of African Americans during the 1860s, the white American Protestant
hermeneutics of the “sons of Noah” stories began to downplay the origins of
slavery and Genesis 9 and to emphasize, instead, the “dispersion” of Noah’s
sons in Genesis 10–11. This shift signaled the culmination of a theology
that justified the segregation of “Hamitic” Africans and their descendants
from the “white” descendants of Japheth. Indeed, the development of biblical
racial origins myths in segregationist literature reveals an increasing
emphasis on the notion of the divine “separation of the races.” Moreover,
by 1900, some American Catholics were beginning not only to reject the
notion of “separate races” outright, but also to designate it as “Protestant.”

In these shifts, we witness not only an example of a local form of racial
doctrine developing among southern white Protestants, but also the biblical
basis for laws against interracial marriage. On the Catholic side, we see
both a reiteration of the traditional view that ecclesiastical doctrine originates
in the church universal, rather than in local congregations, and the
doctrinal basis for opposition to laws banning intermarriage.
“God, the Original Segregationist”:
The Southern White Protestant Theology of Race
In his examination of the Genesis stories as the biblical justification
for American slavery, Stephen Haynes observes that the “American
reliance on Genesis 9–11 as a source for discerning God’s will in racial
matters is responsible for significant continuities between the proslavery
and prosegregation arguments.”25 Indeed, the “dispersion” story of Genesis
10–11 began to replace the “Noah’s curse” story of Genesis 9 as the religious
basis for understandings of race, because it offered an explanation and justification
for the social and political inequality of black persons. With the
demise of the “peculiar institution,” white Americans no longer needed to
explain slavery. But they did need to justify sociopolitical inequality, the political
and economic disfranchisement of African Americans, and the “separation”
or segregation of whites from persons of color. Increasingly, some
white southerners—the primary mouthpieces of these views—sought to
rationalize Jim Crow laws and attitudes with appeals to Genesis 10–11.26
Interpreting the “dispersion” story as one of racial separation, proponents
of this theology of separate races—as we will see—came to view Genesis
10–11 as God’s mandate for racial segregation, most especially in marriage.
As proslavery and antislavery debates became increasingly heated during

[8man]

Of course there are other parts of the Old Testament that imply or suggest a black presence—I don’t have the study, this book at hand. I read it once. It’s not Stolen Legacy, is it?

[zarahan]

Interesting article. here is a brief post I wrote on ES sometime ago when the same "hamitic" thing appeared.

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

The Curse of Ham was around centuries before the European or colonial era. It is no recent creation, but something created by medieval Jewish theologians and repeated by Arab theologians and later again reworked by assorted Christian theologians as the slave trade developed and needed theological justification. Moses pronounced no "curse on Ham". Indeed he notes that the most powerful creators of large scale civilizations would be the Hamitic descendants, and he links them together.

In Genesis 10, Moses notes the sons of Ham as composing Mizraim (Egypt), Cush, Punt, Caanan and Libya. Ironically, the above Jewish, Arab and European writers at certain times did not hesitate to pile on and say Ham was black, because some tinge of inferiority could be placed on his descendants. Weirdly enough though, that tune changes when their logic is followed through consistently. Egypt, Cush, Punt, etc suddenly became "non-black" when the realization struck that the Nile Valley civilizations and those of the Horn and Sahara would have to be credited to these "inferior" sons of Ham. Suddenly and curiously, the "Hamites" became "white" or "Middle Eastern", 'Eurasian" or a mysterious "Mediterranean brown race".

Moses at least was more consistent than assorted modern scholars on this score. He assigned no racial characteristics to the peoples he wrote about in Genesis 10, nor did he cast any badges of inferiority. The so-called "curse of Ham" doesn't exist in the Bible. It is entirely a creation of later Jewish, Arab and European writers, repeated and amplified over time. The Noah story, as recorded by Moses is clearly a prediction - that Caanan (the Lebanon/Sinai region peoples) would be conquered by the Semitic Hebrews, and so it was. Indeed, Moses specifically shows that the peoples of Caanan were more advanced technologically and materially than said Hebrews. The conquering Hebrews took over established cities, farms and other elements of civilization. There is no "curse of Ham" in the Bible. It is entirely bogus. The curse is pronounced on Caanan. And even so, Moses makes it explicitly clear that the Hebrews are coming into a windfall by rigiht of divine sovereignty not their own technologial or "racial" prowess.
-----------------------------
[quote:]
Deuteronomy
6:10
And it shall be, when Jehovah thy God bringeth thee into the land which he swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee: great and good cities which thou buildedst not,
6:11
and houses full of everything good which thou filledst not, and wells digged which thou diggedst not, vineyards and oliveyards which thou plantedst not, and thou shalt have eaten and shalt be full;
6:12
then beware lest thou forget Jehovah who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
-------------------------------------

Ironically, Moses also writes up Nimrod, son of Cush, in commendable terms, noting his descendants as among those most advanced culturally, materially and militarily. Since Moses' conception of Ham includes peoples with a wide range of physical variation, most Africa based, his "anthropology model," or concept so to speak, is much closer to modern researchers like Keita et al, than those who posit the artifical "Mediterranean" or "Eurasian" model where the only "Africans" are those located somewhere far south of the Sahara.

And even more ironically, the Hebrew prophet himself married a black woman, a Cushite, as documented in Numbers 12. He and his black wife certainly would not be welcome on the campus of Bob Jones University, although the denizens thereon quote his writings frequently.

[africurious]

Anyone with anything new to add to this thread in terms of any novel insights?

The criticism of the term "black-head" was good. It always sounded weird to me, like it was an awkward translation. Also, i'd point out that one has to be careful with using dictionaries of ancient languages as well because they too can suffer from the same faults as translations.

Also, i think a good point some posters have made here is that ppl seem to be using the term "black" in 2 senses: 1.as a literal skin color 2.as the racial term that is commonly used in the US. Those are 2 diff things and I think most of us here would agree that black or dark skin does not = african or recent african. The same goes for other things like dolicocephaly, as pointed out by takruri.

Anyone with any genetics info on iraq and iran and the implications for a suggested recent african origin for mesopotamians? From the bit I know, the genetic data may not be clear since many recent africans entered the area in the arab invasion (and after). And many recent africans were prob already in the area since at least the 3rd millenium when the semitic Akkadian language is attested.
Does anyone know of any archaelogical finds that can date the arrrival of these semites in the area?

[azrur]

this is what iraqi guy said 



the blue eyes are not because of from europe the stones are from pakistan that go blue with water they have these because they worship blue eyes as rare wisdom same way the philistines worship insane men 



the curly hair braid and locks are from the curling tool found in mesopotamian palaces and some arab still do the braiding hair today

[azrur]

i think it says on here some about the original mesopotamians
www.worldology.com/Iraq/iraq_history_lg.htm

[samuel]

I wrote this on another thread wanted to bring it to this one.


Also. After reading some of the arguments in that thread. There is no doubt that the near easterns were dark skinned. The question is were they black like west Africa black. E1b1a. Or were they black like Ethiopian black. Or E1b1b. In my opinion. From all of the recent evidence from DNA. The AE were west African black. The Jews and near easterners were more like east Africa black. I don't think that Jewish people are trying to hide any information. They've been in Europe for almost 2000 years. Of course they are going to get lighter over time but even looking at them now. Big pointy noses kinky hair. One can see that they still resemble the old population. In certain phenotypes. They are the actual descendants of the near eastern peoples. It's not like a certain group in Europe one day just decided they were the descendants of the Ancient Hebrews. With modern day genetics we can actually show with their DNA haplotypes that they are similar to modern day Ethiopians. We can also show that the slaves from two hundred years ago are the descendants of the Pharoahs. The slaves in the Americas. We didn't know that 10 years ago. We always assumed they were East African in origin. Things have only become even more bizarre and complicated.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1688/new-film-trailer-exodus-kings?page=9#ixzz3nL2G3ser

[anansi]

Oct 1, 2015 12:28:16 GMT -5 samuel said:

I wrote this on another thread wanted to bring it to this one.


Also. After reading some of the arguments in that thread. There is no doubt that the near easterns were dark skinned. The question is were they black like west Africa black. E1b1a. Or were they black like Ethiopian black. Or E1b1b. In my opinion. From all of the recent evidence from DNA. The AE were west African black. The Jews and near easterners were more like east Africa black. I don't think that Jewish people are trying to hide any information. They've been in Europe for almost 2000 years. Of course they are going to get lighter over time but even looking at them now. Big pointy noses kinky hair. One can see that they still resemble the old population. In certain phenotypes. They are the actual descendants of the near eastern peoples. It's not like a certain group in Europe one day just decided they were the descendants of the Ancient Hebrews. With modern day genetics we can actually show with their DNA haplotypes that they are similar to modern day Ethiopians. We can also show that the slaves from two hundred years ago are the descendants of the Pharoahs. The slaves in the Americas. We didn't know that 10 years ago. We always assumed they were East African in origin. Things have only become even more bizarre and complicated.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1688/new-film-trailer-exodus-kings?page=9#ixzz3nL2G3ser

Well are there differences between West Africans and East African?? look at it this way there are many different phenotype in West Africa as there are in East Africa,

A West African and a East African from the horn,and to top it all off West Africans were originally East Africans the E1b1a is the sibling of E1b1b

Keep in mind that phenotype and genotype need not correlate.
No one is saying all Mesopotamians looked like they came from Africa all though some do and did go back a few pgs for info on the Natufians. but the broad featured phenotype was also there without the relatively recent migrants from Africa.

[truthteacher2007]

Oct 1, 2015 19:41:33 GMT -5 anansi said:

Oct 1, 2015 12:28:16 GMT -5 samuel said:

I wrote this on another thread wanted to bring it to this one.


Also. After reading some of the arguments in that thread. There is no doubt that the near easterns were dark skinned. The question is were they black like west Africa black. E1b1a. Or were they black like Ethiopian black. Or E1b1b. In my opinion. From all of the recent evidence from DNA. The AE were west African black. The Jews and near easterners were more like east Africa black. I don't think that Jewish people are trying to hide any information. They've been in Europe for almost 2000 years. Of course they are going to get lighter over time but even looking at them now. Big pointy noses kinky hair. One can see that they still resemble the old population. In certain phenotypes. They are the actual descendants of the near eastern peoples. It's not like a certain group in Europe one day just decided they were the descendants of the Ancient Hebrews. With modern day genetics we can actually show with their DNA haplotypes that they are similar to modern day Ethiopians. We can also show that the slaves from two hundred years ago are the descendants of the Pharoahs. The slaves in the Americas. We didn't know that 10 years ago. We always assumed they were East African in origin. Things have only become even more bizarre and complicated.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1688/new-film-trailer-exodus-kings?page=9#ixzz3nL2G3ser

Well are there differences between West Africans and East African?? look at it this way there are many different phenotype in West Africa as there are in East Africa,

A West African and a East African from the horn,and to top it all off West Africans were originally East Africans the E1b1a is the sibling of E1b1b

Keep in mind that phenotype and genotype need not correlate.
No one is saying all Mesopotamians looked like they came from Africa all though some do and did go back a few pgs for info on the Natufians. but the broad featured phenotype was also there without the relatively recent migrants from Africa.

The problem is that people are still trying to look at the world in simplistic dualistic terms; they either had to be this, or that. They fail to understand the reality of complexity. If you look at the bedouins you wil find groups that look tropical African and others that look stereotypical Near Eastern. Therefore, just because we can point to depictions of darker peoples in a region doesn't mean that lighter people were not also there as well, it wasn't all or nothing. The name of the game is diversity. As Anansi pointed out, there's no such thing as a "West Africa" or "East African" look. You can find all types all over the continent. But regardless of what the fact is, I think the important thing we must remember is that all this only goes to show that the basic concepts of White supremacy and our modern paradigms of race are false. There are no superior or inferior races, nor can we assume that superficial differences mean that two groups are unrelated. Familial relations can and often do stretch across phenotypic boundaries.

[samuel]

Humans put everything into dualistic terms because it seems like everything in nature is duListic. Yin yang. Male female. 0s and 1s. On off. And of course black and white. Remember that the perception of color is really how much light an object in reflecting. There are however a million different shades of grey. Nobody is truly completely white or completely black. It's just how organisms are trained to view the world. I'm sure if an African had never met a white person their views on duality would see light skinned Africans as being white.

[samuel]

Everything appears to be in cycles as well. Karma have you. I find it fascinating that the rulers in the distant past were black, only to end up slaves 3000 yrs later. Same goes for the Jews having been slaves to what some consider the richest and most powerful people on the planet. Remember that it was Europeans that put the Jews into this position. In the past money was considered dirty because Europe was a highly Christian continent. So of course they have the "other" people the job of working with this what they considered filth. Power back then did not equate to money the way it does today. Sort of like the old south in the U.S. Which was not capitalist. They made their own clothes built their own houses. Money of course was important but not like it was in the north. Anyway I'm going off subject a little. Basically lending money was considered a dirty job. Sort of like drug dealing today. This gave Jewish people enormous power during the industrial revolution. Now they were given the rights to own land, which they didn't have before. Because money became so vital to the economy. People had to buy the goods that were produced and they needed money to purchase them. Serf labor was no longer adequate. They had to begin to pay the serfs money. Which also ties in mind you to the American South. So unwittingly Europeans have their power over to the people who they hated the most.

[truthteacher2007]

Oct 3, 2015 11:48:25 GMT -5 samuel said:

Humans put everything into dualistic terms because it seems like everything in nature is duListic. Yin yang. Male female. 0s and 1s. On off. And of course black and white. Remember that the perception of color is really how much light an object in reflecting. There are however a million different shades of grey. Nobody is truly completely white or completely black. It's just how organisms are trained to view the world. I'm sure if an African had never met a white person their views on duality would see light skinned Africans as being white.

In some aspects of life duality definitely does exist, but it's not the case in all cases. Just as often and maybe even more often, the theme is variation. Perhaps one could say that the space between duality is filled with variation. There is light and there is darkness, but there are varying degrees between the two. A real close look at nature shows this principle of variation.

As for black and white people.... these are concepts. Its the reason why I not only do not identify as black, but I don't speak about Africans or any other people in terms of black or white. I refer to Africans as just that, Africans, they may be light or dark, but even that is a matter of perspective. And to answer you last statement there are indeed cultures in Africa where lighter skinned Africans are considered white. A lot of African Americans experience a shock upon returning to the mother land and finding out that they are not perceived as black but white. The difference is that these terms are mere adjectives for a person's actual appearance. They don't carry the weight of the concept of pseudo biology they do in the west. Therefore, its not uncommon to hear people say things like my brother is black and my sister is white, or I'm white but my father is black. The concept of biological exclusivity doesn't necessarily exist.

With regards to your last post history is indeed cyclical. People of darker complexions were at the top of the totem pole in the past, it shifted to people of lighter complexion and may very well be shifting back again or evolving to a point where different societies on the globe are rising to positions of influence. It really has nothing to do with skin color but historical circumstance. The paradigm of race we take for granted was created in response to the colonial period and the slave trade. It never existed in antiquity. Pretty much people made it up as they went along within the past 500yrs. Just consider that in the USA Jews for the most part were and are considered white, (just discriminated against on theological basis), but definitely were not considered as such in Nazi Germany regardless of their appearance. It was a concept created for the sake of a sociopolitical agenda, in other words, who was white and who was not was a cultural construct. At one time the Irish were considered non white. When they got to the Americas, they were because it fit the need of maintaining a power balance. Same goes with Southern and Eastern Europeans. We won't even consider the logic of how the Ancient Greeks and Romans could have been considered the pinnacle of the white race, but modern Greeks and Italians be considered the unwanted "other", the antithesis of whiteness at the turn of the century. To use laymen's terms, it's all bullshit, but fascinating nonetheless.

[thamm1]

I came across this. Just sad.


In 1941 Abraham N. Poliak, an eminent Jewish scholar, born in Kiev in 1910, arrived in Palestine with his family determined to make a valuable contribution to Eretz Israel. Poliak was appointed professor of Medieval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University. He had read the true history of origins and amalgamations of the original Hebrews and other tribes who lived in that area after the Flood. Qualified, secure, honest, and dignified as a scholar pursuing evidence to publish truth, Poliak read books in Sabean, Cushitic, Aramaic, Arabic, and Hebrew. He then began publishing his findings in many books. In 1941 Professor Poliak wrote a book titled The Khazar Conversion to Judaism! His work appeared in a Hebrew publication called Zion.

The article was a bombshell which shook the Zionist pillars of the structure referred to as Jewishness. Professor Poliak’s book, Khazaria, became even more controversial. It is said to be almost unavailable at this time. Khazaria was published in Tele Aviv 1944, and like “Khazar Conversion it unveiled those who pretend to have the authority to decide who are Jews and who are not Jews. The book proved that the Hasidim and other Europeans were, in fact, converts who could not genuinely shout any famous cry of “anti-Semitism” because they were not Semites or of that origin. Poliak was hated and ostracized for this exposure of false identity. He did not write his story (history) the way other so-called scholars often make it relate to their needs, prejudices, and purposes. Poliak did not offer the facts in the normal European, American or Zionist manner of presenting historical data. His style was not biased genre commonly used when non-Caucasians are represented. The Zionist could not find any blaming of the victims, or misstatements that they could quote as facts. The anti-defamation leagues could not appreciate his unselfishness, but could not label him anti-anyone or anti-anything. Poliak was more educated, honest and sincere than the bigots promising brotherhood under false pretenses. They even called other Jews “anti-Semitic” when the latter exposed them. 

Abraham Poliak read and wrote pristine Hebrew. He was not interested in using his deserved Semitic heritage for political or personal ends. But the Encyclopedias omit him and mention the imposter Halevy instead.

We find Joseph Halevy (1827-1917) recorded as a “French Semitic Scholar” ordained by the society of impostors uber alles. This deceiver lauded in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1959 was praised as follows:

He taught at schools of the Alliance Israelite Universelle in Turkey and Rumania and in 1868, went at the request of the Alliance to Ethiopia were he visited the Falashas. Subsequently the Academic des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres sent him to Yemen where, disguised as a native rabbi, he succeeded in collecting 686 Sabean inscriptions (1869-70). He was appointed professor of Ethiopic studies at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in 1879. He wrote many works in Semitic philology, epigraphy, and biblical exegesis. 8.p.826

The writers and editors of the Encyclopedia admitted that Halevy “disguised as a native” obtained Sabean inscriptions for knowledge of Semitic customs and religious teachings under false pretense. There is another form of deception practiced by authentic Zionists. This dishonesty proves that Ethiopian and Yemenite documents on liturgy, ritual, and Semitic culture was urgently needed for general instruction of converts from Europe and surrounding regions aspiring to practice the Hebrew religion. The question to ask is: Why would Europeans go to Ethiopia and Yemen to procure documents and customs of Hebrews if they in fact were original family members of Hebrew tribes so recognized after the Flood?

Jose V. Malcioln Ph.D. The African Origin of Modern Judaism: From Hebrews to Jews. p. 73-75

[history91]

The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses

m.gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.short