A site visitor wrote to ask me why I didn’t call attention to the problematic term anti-Semitic, which I had used in a sample sentence to illustrate an unrelated error.
The root of the root word is Semite, which refers to one of the three biblical divisions of people, each consisting of descendants of one of Noah’s sons: Shem, Ham, and Japeth. According to the tradition, Shem’s descendants are the Jews and the Arabs, though there is some overlap with the children of Ham, who also include the peoples of North Africa. Japeth’s offspring, meanwhile, populated Central Asia and Europe. (Where East Asians, South Asians, and black Africans come from is a bit muddled.)
By this definition, anti-Semitic would refer to prejudice against all the Semitic peoples, but that would mean that Arabs hostile to Jews (and Jews hostile to Arabs) would also be described as being hostile to themselves. (Can’t we all just get along?)
So, why do we use the term anti-Semitic to specifically describe antipathy to Jewish people, religion, and culture? In western Europe and in other countries settled primarily by people from there, most Semites they encountered were Jews, not Arabs, so the term became identified with the former.
How, exactly? In the late nineteenth century, a German racist introduced anti-Semitism in one of his rants to refer to his philosophy of hatred of Jews, and, like many repugnant ideas, it spread widely and rapidly. (To Wilhelm Marr’s credit, he later renounced and apologized for his anti-Semitic views. But the damage had been done.)
As a result, many people don’t realize that technically, Arabs are Semites, too. (And their languages, as well as Hebrew and others, are part of a language group called Semitic. In addition, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are collectively called the Semitic, or the Abrahamic, religions because they all derive from the same tradition.) But when it comes to racism, logic has no place. And now, even those who are not anti-Semitic in either sense of the word are stuck with a connotation that deviates from the literal meaning.
What can we do about it? Not much. You can write “antipathy to the Jews” or some other phrase to describe what most of us understand to mean “anti-Semitism,” or you can go with the flow, as we do with many other technically incorrect usages in English.
33 thoughts on “Are Anti-Semitic Arabs Self-Haters?”
Why the title is not “Are Anti-Semitic Jews Self-Haters?” ?? Any political reasons??
Great post! Most people aren’t aware of Western Asia’s history or history in general. They’d probably fall over if they knew that Lucifer means light. Their hair would curl if they knew the real meaning of the Swastika (holy) symbol which has been trashed throughout the years.
I agree, can’t we just get along?
“Vijay: Why the title is not “Are Anti-Semitic Jews Self-Haters?” ??
Any political reasons??”
Because people don’t normally think of Anti-Semitic referring to Arabs, therefore the title creates paradox. Anti-Semitic Jews are already known to be self-haters.
This is a simple case of idiom. Anti-semitic, in English, has always meant anti-Jewish. The fact that Arabs and Samaritans and some other obsure groups are “technically” Semites too is irrelevant. It’s like the term air conditioning. Air conditioning could just as easily refer to heating as cooling. Both “condition” the air. But is DOESN’T. A/C means cooling. Heating means heating. An anti-Semite is a hater of Jews. There is nothing more nonesensical about an Arab being anti-Semitic than someone who is too cold wanting the air conditioning turned off.
Sorry for the attack of the Italics, while we’re at it.
“Anti-Semitic” means “against Semites”. Changing it to mean against Jews exclusively is the first step in claiming the Semitic label entirely for Jewish people. Soon, if we continue to use the term as only meaning Jews, as history has proven over and over again, people will forget that Semites are also Arabs, Africans and others.
Changing “anti-semitism” to mean only Jews is a gross calumny against all other Semites. It is an attack on their culture and history. You are, in effect, stealing their identity.
Carl – the term “anti-semitism” was originally coined to mean “anti-Jewish” by someone who only had the Jews in mind when he thought it up (see above). No-one changed it.
First, the European Jew is a convert to Judaism and has no Semitic blood whatsoever.
Second, etymologically speaking, “anti-Semite” means against Semites just as anti-black means against black or anti-gay means anti-gay. No where else in the English language will you find a word that changes meaning because the prefix “anti’ was added to it.
And lets be real here, you know as I do what the effect is of using the term to only mean European Jews. You know most people in the US have no clue what a Semite is and so they are left with the impression that only the Jews are Semites especially when Semites themselves, like Arabs, are called anti-Semitic. Most people know whites can’t be anti-white or Catholics can’t be anti-Catholic, so it would stand to reason that an anti-Semite can’t be a Semite.
This amounts to cultural genocide.
Needless to say, NO OTHER Semitic group accepts this definition and needless to say they were not consulted.
Answer me this one question: If anti-Semite means European Jews only, what do you call some one who is against Semites?
My Carl, perhaps some accuracy would calm you down.
First, the European Jew is a convert to Judaism and has no Semitic blood whatsoever. Well, right off the bat you’re wrong. Euro Jews have ME, non-Euro genetic markers, like the Cohen haplotype, etc.
Second, etymologically speaking, “anti-Semite” means against Semites just as anti-black means against black or anti-gay means anti-gay. No where else in the English language will you find a word that changes meaning because the prefix “anti’ was added to it.
Idioms are idiomatic by the very fact that they don’t conform to normal rules. And your statement isn’t even true. Anti-black has meant many things, depending on the relative meaning of who “black” people were. Asian Indians have long been called blacks—even had the N-word applied to them—even tho they are Caucasian.
And lets be real here, you know as I do what the effect is of using the term to only mean European Jews. Most Americans are only familiar with European Jews. So what? In any case, there is absolutely no historical reason to claim that Euro Jews were the only group ever considered Semites by anyone. If you think you’re being technical, Semitic is a language group. Just s Germanic, Celtic, and Slav are used to classify Euro folks.
Most people know whites can’t be anti-white or Catholics can’t be anti-Catholic, so it would stand to reason that an anti-Semite can’t be a Semite. Are you cereal, Frank? Some “progressive” whites are among the most anti-White people on the planet. Pick up any academic journal in social science or humanities.
This amounts to cultural genocide. This has to qualify for a Godwin Award of some kind.
Needless to say, NO OTHER Semitic group accepts this definition and needless to say they were not consulted. Answer me this one question: If anti-Semite means European Jews only, what do you call some one who is against Semites? How about anti-Arab? I’ve heard that strange term before. Wonder what it means? Or, if this really keeps you up nights, anti-Asssyrian, anti-Babylonian, anti-Ubaid, anti-Carthaginian—or other, more accurate terms for Semitic groups I’m sure you never encounter.
All of that amounts to nothing, sir. The facts are European Jews are NOT Semitic, period. They are converts to Judaism.
Idioms included, show me ONE case of the prefix “anti” changing the meaning of a word in the entire English language.
YOU: How about anti-Arab?
A non-answer, although there is sort of an admission of believing the Jews to be the only Semites on your part.
Try and answer the question as is, without ‘strawmanning’ it…if anti-Semite means Jews only, what do you call someone who hates Semites, that is, they express hatred towards Semites as a language group OR as those who are considered the descendents of Shem of bible lore. That is to say they are expressing hatred towards Arabs, Assyrians, etc. as a whole group not as separate groups.
Try but don’t worry about it too much. After all, it is a REALLY tough question to answer.
Carl, I don’t know why your thong is in a knot over this, but let me try some scissors. European Jews are, genetically speaking, a mixture of Euro and some pretty specific Mid Eastern genes (including the near-uniquely Jewish Cohen haploytidic group mentioned). “Real” Jews from the ME emigrated to Europe at various points in the last 2000 years; they are called “Semites” TODAY because they spoke Semitic languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. Note that Semitic as used now means the speakers of a language group; not any mythological assumptions about Shem. Though linguistic and genetic groups DO have very strong correlation which suggest common physical decent to some degree. Why you think Euro Jews are just a bunch of Cro-Magnon or Indo-European converts, I don’t know. That’s certainly not what genetic evidence says. And genetic evidence is the gold standard for population histories.
I’m not saying *anti-* doesn’t mean against, or opposite. I’m saying Semite does or doesn’t mean Jew depending on context. In English, anti-Semite generically means anti-Jew. That is idiomatic. It is completely irrelevant what Semite means in other contexts. Just like air-conditioning means air cooling only, not heating. That is idiomatic. Just like MP means a member of the House of Commons, not the Lords (tho they are in Parliament, too.) Just like Congressman means a member of the House, not a Senator, even tho they too are just as much “congress- men”. Ant-Semitic does and always has meant anti-Jewish. Period. And yes, Jews were the only “Semites” amongst most Euro populations historically, so the correlation is natural.
What would you call haters of ALL peoples considered Semites? Well, you would obviously need to coin a new term, since anti-Semitic is ALREADY TAKEN, like it or not. Veneman, the linguist, would suggest “anti-Semitidic”. Kind of clumsy, but just as accurate as anything.
You seem to clinging to both outdated and inaccurate ideas of what Semite means, in any case. That alone makes this question easy or complex for completely erroneous reasons.
The migration patterns of the ‘Jews’ from the Caucasus mountains into Europe are well documented. Their conversion to Judaism in the 8th century is well documented. They are NOT the original Hebrew Israelites and are not Semites therefore criticism of Zionist Jews is not ‘anti-Semitic’ in any way. And even if they were Semites, criticism of Jews is still not anti-Semitic. It may be anti-Zionist or even anti-Jewish since criticism is not aimed their supposed Semitic background.
For example my personal criticism of Zionist Jews is the hypocrisy of claiming any questioning of the official ‘holocaust’ story is denial of Jewish suffering while they deny their domination of the African slave trade and the destruction of African people. It was Talmudic Jews who created the ‘Hamitic myth’: the religious-based lie that blacks are cursed by god, which in their sick minds justified the slave trade.
Let’s be clear: Zionist Jews are to claiming to be Semites not b/c of the language they speak, but because Semites are the supposed descendents of Abraham who ‘god’ favors. The narrative they have created (Talmud) is that THEY and they alone are favored by ‘god’ or are ‘god’s chosen people’ and the ‘goyim’ (non-Jews) are their servants. This is why they are trying to claim the Semitic label for themselves at the exclusion of all other Semites.
Thank you for answering the question as is. So in conclusion, Semitic people such as Arabs and Ethiopians, etc. don’t have the right to refer to themselves as Semites b/c the Zionist (who are not Semitic) have stolen it for themselves, which was my original point. Taking someones culture and then preventing them from accessing it is cultural imperialism.
But you have this backwards, Carl. Jews didn’t make up the term anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitic Jew-haters did. So who took whose culture from whom? And frankly, who cares? It’s a term. “Imperialist culture taking” is not a linguistic issue, but a political one. Call a Zionist a Zionist. He might not even be Jewish. I don’t buy into Zionism, or Arabophilic nonsense and reallly don’t care what either group “likes” to be called. The term anti-Semitic and its meaning are long-established in English.
As for the genetics, maybe you are thinking of the Kazars? They were a Turkic people some of whom converted to Judaism. But mostly Ashken. Jews came from the ME. Even today they are very distinct and homogeneous genetic group. A heavily Middle-Eastern genetic group, both on the Y and the mito sides.
Read my statements for what they say instead of what you think they say. I never said they ‘made up’ the term. I said they stole it for themselves. Two entirely different things.
Most all mainstream Jewish organizations use the term incessantly when referring to those who criticize them and/or their organizations. Most people would have never even heard the term if it were not for it being promoted by Zionist organizations.
Although Marr is credited with its ‘coining’ it is undeniable that Zionists have used and promoted its current definition and widespread use.
As I said before the European Jews exodus from the Caucasus area and conversion to Judaism is well documented. You can label them what you want or add any story that suits you. The big point here is they are not Semitic.
No, the ones that came from the Caucusus are not Semites. The ones who came from the ME directly– like most of the Ashken., Euro Jews, are. Partly. It’s genetics. Not the story that suits, the story that tells.
The area now called the ‘middle east’ (western Asia) was peopled by black and dark brown skinned people from Africa (the original Semites) for millenniums. No European has indigenous roots in the so-called “ME”.
Yes, they do Carl. If by European you mean the historical population of Europe. Others besides Semites populated the ME, or Western Asia, too. There were significant infusions of ME genes into Europe, particularly the SE Balkans, in the last 10 millennia.
Semitic culture eventually “took over” much of the ME. but the autochthonic population of that area is not synomymous with Semite.
If by European you mean specifically Cromagnons, the earliest aboriginal Euro modern humans, no they came from the Pontic Steppe area north of the Black Sea and farther east in Asia before that.
Sir, whites are indigenous to NO part of this earth. They are borne of Africans who entered Europe some 30 millennia ago and through protracted genetic grafting, became white. Every part of this earth was originally black, especially the area now called the middle east; all serious African historians know that in the ancient world the ‘middle east’ was considered part of black Africa.
Review to the works of African scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, Ivan Sertima, Dr. Henrik Clarke, Chancellor Williams, Walter Rodney to name a few, all who wrote and spoke extensively on the blackness of all antiquity. Semites existed for ages before the white man realized there was a world outside his cave.
But please share any sources you have supporting your view.
Good God, Carl, are you an Afro-centricst? If so, I didn’t realize I was conversing with loon.Sources? Are serious? Besides the “African scholars”– whatever creature that may be– you list, I’d list EVERY reputable profressional geneticist, pre-historian and anthropologist on the planet, FGS. White Europeans DID evolve- not spring from the earth– in Europe. Albeit, yes, all HSS stock comes originally from Africa, WHITE people come from Europe. The mutations for caucasoid morphology– like light skin– probably started before the arrival in Europe, most likely in the modern Russia area, maybe later. Others like blond hair and blue eyes probably much later IN Europe. Likewise the I y-haplogroup which is uniquely European. The mutations for light skin in north Asians came separately and from different genes, possibly around the same time.
Incidentally, while HSS originally had dark skin, their ancestors further back had LIGHT skin– just like chimps and other apes beneath their fur today. And Semite are not negroid black sub-saharan Africans. Completley different genetic stock. They are caucasoids, too, just not of the Euro variety. ALL of this is told in GENES Carl, GENES. The gold standard. Most real black populations, incidentaly, are STILL peering out of caves, hoping not to get their heads lopped off by an enemy tribes’ machetes, doing dances and making fetishes to improve their chances.
I am not an ‘afrocentrist’ but again feel free to use whatever label makes you happiest.
African scholars = those who hold Ph.D’s in African history.
The only scholar who has dared challenge those scholars I mentioned (as far as I know) is Mary Lefkowitz. She wrote a book called “Not Out Of Africa” and was soundly trounced in a debate with Dr. Henrik Clarke.
I wonder, do you consider the ‘father of history’, Herodotus to be ‘Afrocentric’? He writes about the blackness of ancient KMT (Egypt) including the area of N. Africa and western Asia in the 2nd Histories.
You: “I’d list EVERY reputable profressional geneticist, pre-historian and anthropologist on the planet…” (i.e. David Duke, Adolf Hitler)
LOL No, please don’t…just list the ones you consider to be the most relevant.
Now that you’ve revealed your own white supremacist doctrine of the origins of man, I’d like to ask a question: Do you consider the European Jew to be the “favored by god”?
Carl, you seem to be one of those autodidacts who have a talent for mixing apples and oranges and misunderstanding the conclusions real scholars draw. Yes, HSS evolved in Africa and from there populated the rest of the world. Yes, genetic differentiation took place in the 10sof thousands of years after that so that NOW different groups have a diverse range of internally common characteristics. E.g. caucasoid white people evolved in Euro. Asiatic people evolved in EAsia. Australoids evolved in Austalia and parts of Oceania. An Asian sub-group evolved into Amerinds. Etc. Other sub groups evolved within the groups as well. So-called “Semitics”, generally meaning the original-genetic-stock group who spoke semitic languages, probably emerged in Ethiopia. Quite possibly from a BACK-migration of caucasoids from the ME, then later went back to the ME where most semites are living now.
Ancient Egyptians probably did have dark complexions. They were not, however, sub-saharan negroids. Lots of things go into morphology and genetic groupings besides simply skin color. There are many “black” skinned caucasoids (on the Indian sub-continent, e.g.). There is very little evidence of subsaharan negroid genetics in Eqyptians. They are more genetically similar to Semites, actually. Anyway, all of this is old hat and no mystery to mainstream anthropologists.
CIVILIZATION originated with caucasoid– albeit probably dark skinned– people in Egypt, the ME, India and with East Asians mongoloids in China. Negroid sub-saharan Africans had no civilization till much, much later. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt as to WHY, try someone like Jarrod Diamond who thinks all culture is pretty much accidental anyway and blacks simply weren’t in the right place to advance technologically.
And no, I don’t think Jews, Euro or otherwise, are favored by god or gods. I do think Euro Jews living in the ME NOW are for more civilized than the other Semites they live among, tho.
LMAO @ dark skinned Europeans! Black-white people?!? Incredible.
One last time:
NAME YOUR SOURCES.
Sources? Relethford, RIsch, Oppenheimer, Sykes, Wells, The International Society of Genetic Genealogy, The Y Chromosome Consortium, Cavalli-Sforza, Regular ol’ National Geographic, FGS. It goes on and on and on. Do you really think skin shade is the determinant trait of any genetic group? That would be ignorant to extremes rarely seen anywhere. Any basic textbook on paleanthropology written in the last 20 years, at least, could clue you in to this. I’m not sure if your knowledge of population genetics is very outdated, or simply non-existent.
Despite the list you provided, I didn’t find one argument for ‘white-black people’ in ancient Africa among your sources. Which one of these sources argues for a white Kemet? Which one argues blacks remained in the sub-Sahara (even though for much of African history the desert didn’t even exist). Which of their works deals with these positions?
Clearly, my knowledge is in HISTORY. This should be apparent to anyone reading this thread as all references made to genetics has been made by you, in a clear attempt to change the realm of the discussion. When written documented history disproved the white supremacist doctrine of ‘white Egypt’, whites tried to move a purely anthropological argument. That was dis-proven as well, so now it is a purely genetic argument. What’s next? Space aliens?
No, carl, I’m afraid what you call your “knowledge” is an artificial construct which exists only in the minds of you and those who believe (it’s not thinking) like you do. Genetics trumps “history”, especially fictional, politically motivated history. That’s why who your parents are is finally determined by DNA testing, not by whatever stories someone has told you as you grew up, or who you THOUGHT were mom and dad. Where groups came from and how they are related to each other is a story told in their genes, not in their beliefs, or in what someone wrote down at some point much, much later. And what you seem to refer to isn’t even real history.
All of the sources given would conclude with an ancient Egypt (I assume that is your Kemet) inhabited by caucasoids (western Asians), not negroids (southern Africans). Or more accurately, a people genetically intermediate between Europeans and Africans who were primarily of Eurasian genetic stock. They almost certainly had dark complexions, just like North Africans and MEers do today, but they did not have any of the other distinct traits of what are considered “African” populations in modern terms. Those are the people of today’s sub-saharan Africa (no, there wasn’t always a sahara, it’s simply a reference point) whose ancestors NEVER LEFT Africa while others migrated to Eurasia and points beyond. Some of those Eurasians later came BACK into Africa from the ME. But by then, they had evolved into a group very distinct genetically, and phenotypically, from the never-left-Africa populations. Again, there is much much more to phenotypes than skin color.
What you mean by “white-black” people, I don’t know. I don’t even know what you think white people vs. black people means. If by black you mean black Africans from what is now sub-saharan Africa, they are the descendents of HSaps who never left Africa. If by white people you mean modern Europeans, they are an off-shoot of the large group that did leave Africa 10s of Ks of years ago and who “evolved” lighter skin color AS WELL AS many other distinctive traits much later on. If by black people you include, say, Asian Indians, then you are making a mistake. They have dark skin, but they are not closely related to Africans. They are much closer genetically to Europeans. This is pretty obvious is you consider that EXCEPT for their dark skin, they look like Europeans, not Africans. Ancient Egyptians were part of this Eurasian group too, who migrated from the ME back to North Africa. Cavalli-Sforza was probably the first to map this out, all subsequent sources agree.
And still, having said all of that, you haven’t backed up ONE claim, sir. NOT ONE. You claimed you had sources to prove your point and YOU DO NOT. You are not able to even site the specific work of the scholars that you base your opinions on. And as is always the case when a position can’t be maintained in the face of truth, rather than making scientific arguments you engage in attacking the message/messenger.
None of your sources prove Africans stayed south of the desert or a ‘white’ Kemet.
And are you missing your own point here? If the Sahara served as a barrier as your racist theory usually argues, and the Sahara didn’t exist for much of Africa’s history, then how it possible that after a small time Africans did not make it to the Mediterranean?
How is that even possible when all historians know that Kemet (THE ORIGINAL NAME OF EGYPT) is a ‘child of Ethiopia’, that is, the dynasties started in sub-Saharan Ethiopia and grew up the river to the delta through the ages?
Additionally how does your racist doctrine refute, specifically, the scholarship of Dr. Ivan Sertima who documented Africans in the Americas before Columbus? His book is called ‘They Came Before Columbus’. How do you answer his scholarship?
Let me get this straight. Your mother needed a DNA test to determine you were her child? You realize that through much of history, parentage was determined by actually seeing a child issue forward from its parent, no testing needed? You make some of the most bizarre arguments.
Shit or get off the pot. Can you refute the unchallenged scholarship of the African historians I mentioned or not?
ALL of the sources confirm the point, carl. And ALL the studies. Here is just a quick, tip-of-the-iceberg, with quotes, from REAL scientists in REAL scientific journals. In fact some of the most prominent in the field (Paabo, Cavallie-Sforza, including non-white ones (which I’m sure matters to your racist “sensitivities”) like Wang, Hajjej, El Borgi, Dridi, Cherif; and sources like Human Biology, Tissue Antigens and Genome Research. I highlighted the most relevant quotes so you don’t even have to read an actual refereed journal article, heaven forfend.
”North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes” Henn, Botigué, Gravel, Wang, Brisbin, et al. (2012) “Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations”. PLoS Genetics 8(1): e1002397. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
”North African markers are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans with a West-Eurasian dominance. ”Piancatelli; Canossi; Aureli; Oumhani; Del Beato; Di Rocco; Liberatore, G.; Tessitore et al. (2004), “Human leukocyte antigen-A, -B, and -Cw polymorphism in a Berber population from North Morocco using sequence-based typing”, Tissue Antigens 63 (2): 158, and, Hajjej; Kaabi; Sellami; Dridi; Jeridi; El Borgi; Cherif; Elgaaied et al. (2006), “The contribution of HLA class I and II alleles and haplotypes to the investigation of the evolutionary history of Tunisians”, Tissue Antigens 68 (2): 153
“gene frequencies in Egypt and Ethiopia are known to be intermediate between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa” (Passarino et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2000; Manni et al. 2002). In “Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents”, David Sere, Svante Paabo, Genome Research CHS Press, 2004
And to be immediately relevant to the Egypt issue:
“Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants” Frank Yurco, “An Egyptological Review” in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. pp. 62–100
And what are those current Egyptians like, you ask?
“Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component.” Manni F, Leonardi P, Barakat A, Rouba H, Heyer E, Klintschar M, McElreavey K, Quintana-Murci L (2002). “Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt suggests a genetic regional continuity in Northeastern Africa.”. Human Biology 74 (5): 645–58.
And, of course, from the classic:
Cavalli-Sforza. “Synthetic maps of Africa”. The History and Geography of Human Genes. ISBN 0691087504
If that’s not shyting, then nothing is. Genetics is hard science, carl. The people you cite are simply cranks, hacks, and fanatasy writers. Their “scholarship” is not only successfully challenged long ago and many time over, it is laughable. DNA carl. DNA. Say it again, DNA. It and it alone connects populations to each other in a physical sense.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Finally! You prove how deceptive you are being. Not one of the sources you used was the same as the ones you first mentioned. What happened to Relethford, RIsch, Oppenheimer, Sykes, Wells, The International Society of Genetic Genealogy, etc? LOL. We call that bait and switch. Nice try though.
Still the information you post proves nothing. They are simply words on a screen, statements of opinions. Nothing that refutes the scholarship mentioned.
And ultimately, DNA, as everyone knows, is a slippery rocks religion. Closed to public scrutiny. Which is why you run to it.
Still, you can’t wipe out written documented irrefutable history through DNA hucksterism.
And then, just as I thought you would, you quoted Mary Lefkowitz (left-her-wits), the disgraced professor who has her scholarship publicly corrected by her own students in the college paper. Lefkowitz had to embarrassingly admit she has never even read Herodotus’ 2nd Histories! That is why she lost her debate to Dr. Clarke. He exposed her lack of real scholarship as well. That video is available on youtube.
And anyone who knows ANYTHING about scholarship knows that personal attacks are NOT REFUTATION! Calling the good Dr’s. ‘hacks’ does NOT defeat their scholarship. Calling them names actually proves you have no legitimate argument against their scholarship. Prestigious colleges around the world issued Ph.D’s to these men and here you are on an anonymous website claiming you know more than they when it is clear you are not a historian nor a scientist.
You make claims you can’t back up and then have the gall to boast as if no one can see right through your bull. Give it up man. Go back to doing what you were doing before you decided to play scientist.
Sorry, carl. Every response I put up for you gets taken down by whoever the board police is. Suffice to say that I AM a scientist, and you are simply a blatherer of pseudosceintific fluff. I’ve cited some of the most prestigious journals in real science– not that you have the education to understand them (just cuz YOU can’t grasp DNA, doens’t mean it is “closed to the public”. Why your delusional rants and ad hominem attacks are A-OK on this board, but quotes from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology are not, you’ll have to ask the censors.
You spefically asked me to refute Satima. I did. But whoever “they” are won’t let you see it. Sorry, for you.
An excellent article, with not understanding of genetics required:
Did the ancient Egyptians have brown to black skin? Yes. Where the Egyptians referred to as ethiopians yes, did the Egyptians have kinky nappy hair they wore in Afros? Yes. Then the egyptians where black. I don’t need DNA to tell me that some one who looks like me comes from a similar stalk as me. Could the ancient Hebrews pass as Egyptian? Yes. That makes them black. And the term antisemitic is bull shit unless it includes all Semitic peoples and not just euro Jews. And check out the lemba Jews they came straight from israel after 70 ad and check out how they look like…funny thing is they stay under the sahara that makes them sub Saharan.
Yes Greg, and the Lemba have FAR MORE sub-saharan African genetic markers than Middle Eastern ones. They are a black African people with a small amount of MidEast DNA preserved from a small immigrant population and, obviously, also a tremendous cultural heritage they have preserved from that group. Lots of culture, little biology. Don’t be a Carl and get involved in things you don’t understand. You can’t just “look” at someone and tell their genetic affiliation. Most seals have black skin. Trust me, you’re not that closely related and most of them aren’t from Africa.