Posted by Jeff (220.127.116.11) on February 08, 2002 at 20:16:14:
I couldn't agree more with this Condor fellow: He is responding to Aprim from Hell.
Written by Condor on 01 Feb 2002 19:42:07:
As an answer to: Re: Update: Article by Namroud Hanna (Abu Gilgamesh), Published in Azzaman Newspaper written by Fred Aprim on 01 Feb 2002 17:30:16:
Let me give you an example, which I hope, will clear things up.
There is a saying in Arabic: Khata' sha'e3 khayron min sawab majhul.
(A common known error is better than an unknown correct). Please note that this is not comparing right and wrong, but rather the concept of known and unknown.
If we take the name Nimr in Arabic, and ask any Arabic speaking person what that name means, they will all identify a striped animal which is the tiger. However this Nimr name is a misnomer to that breed of animals, for two reasons:
a- In Arabic, the word Nimr means spotted not striped, (munammar means spotted). In other words technically Nimr means Leopard not Tiger.
b- In Arabic dictionaries the name Bibr is defined as Asad Hindi (an Indian lion) and we all know that lions do not exist in India (only tigers do) therefore the term lion is used means the cat species, and in this case the tiger.
What can we conclude from this?
I don't think that a name should make any difference.
In the above example, even though the name Nimr for tiger in Arabic is wrong, yet whenever the name Ninmr is mentioned any Arabic speaking person would identify it with a specific animal which is the tiger. In other words that wrong name became the actual name of the tiger at the present time.
Note also that Arabs still consider that the Nimr belongs to the cat species, they do not confuse it with any other animal such as a dog, camel, cow, elephant etc.
Your case is like someone who wants to be politically correct in going back and making every Arabic person call the tiger as Bibr. Do you know how many millions of Arabs you have to reach and educate? It is mind boggling, and an uphill struggle that will drain an exhaust you with no results. So why not go with the flow, and accept the fact that what you call Bibr someone else calls it Nimr, and that we are all talking about the same frickin animal, which is the tiger.
Believe me it is a waste of time, and I bet you that even when you agree on a common name (be it Bibr or Nimr), you will find some people who will tell you that they don't agree and bring up the difference just like the difference between the Orange color Indian tiger and the white color Siberian tiger, and some people will even identify themselves with Paper tigers just for the sake of being different.
Remember that tigers are endangered specie and the name that will prevail is the name of the tiger that survives, while all the tigers that become extinct or dissolve in other societies will cease to exist as a unique species.
My advise to you is to concentrate on the survival of your tiger (while keeping the door for other tigers to join), call your tiger with the name that you believe is right, but don't attack other tigers' names, the other tigers have their own survival problem, for example: the only surviving white Siberian tiers are a handful in the world, and they are not roaming free in their habitats in Siberia but rather in few Zoos and in a Las Vegas show rooms, if the other tigers choose to live in zoos and Las Vegas show rooms or want be a paper tiger, then that is their prerogative, let them choose their road and learn from their mistakes. After all it is a free country.
Leave the other tigers alone, don't tell them what to call themselves, let them face their own problems alone (since they seem not to like your interference) offer your help only when asked (don?t impose). They have their own problem of survival as a specie, and pretty soon they will wake up and realize that they single handedly can't do it on their own, then they will be more open minded and might be interested in talking to you.
>Thank you sir, at least you are logical enough to accept reason.
>Now, what does Kaldo mean to Assyrians to accept it today? The answer is nothing, if you said Babylonians, I would naturally think about it since Assyrian/Babylonian inter-relations existed during Imperial periods. What do the ancient Chaldean tribes of southern Mesopotamia have to do with the Catholic Assyrians of the Mosul plains (known as modern Chaldeans)? Answer is and again nothing.
Here is where we differ! What does Kaldo mean to Assyrian????
You are saying that we are the same people, and they are saying that we are the same people, therefore what you call Assyrian they call Chaldean, just like Bibr and Nimr they mean the same animal in Arabic. Having this in mind the name becomes a simple matter of symantics, and if you can overcome the name issue, we can automatically expand our base by the addition of 1,500,000 to our cause. With Kaldo-Assyrian you are talking about 2,000,000 while with Assyrian you are merely talking about 200,000 in Beth Nahrin. Can you tell me who will recognize 200,000 when the Kurds are much greater in numbers and can get no recognition yet.
Modern governments evaluate the rights of a certain group by their numbers, and that is why the foreign governments sympathyze with Kurds more than Assyrians, it is for their sheer numbers, while when they look at Assyrians they think of a negligible minority. Assyrians will get more rights if they pool with Chaldeans as one entity.
>The term is so poorly glued together, it is rediculous and unbelieveable.
It is up to us to glue it in any which way we want, and we can even use crazy glue if that works for our best interest as a nation.
>Lets talk about this seriously. Mesopotamia, at the latter parts of its glory days consisted of Assyria in the north, Babylonia in the center and the south. Later the ancient Chaldean tribes moved in from the Sealand and Elam or from the regions of the Arameans or Arabia and began to settle in southern Babylonia. Well, after existing for some 400 years in southern Babylonia (lets assume the land was called Chaldea). Therefore, we have Assyria in the north, Babylonia in the center and Chaldea in the south. why come today and say Assyro-Chaldea? Why are you by-passing Babylonia which separated the two always? Babylonia was always there, it was the center of the ancient world in those day, why brush it away from history. Why not say for instant Assyro-Babylonia?
We are 2500 years past the time that you are talking about, nations came and went, people changed, even the concept of nationalism is different now. The bond between people is becoming more and more economical and shifting away from ethnicity, and pretty soon you will find that the Assyrian-American in Chicago bonding with the Italian-American and Polish-American and intermarrying with them, and then he will disassociate himself from Assyrians in Mesopotamia. The same is true with the Chaldean-American. America is a melting pot, and it can melt any tiger. So concentrate on Bet Nahrin, and facilitate their achieving their goals there, that is the only way for the survival of any tiger to roam free in their own habitats regardless of the name that they want to call themselves at this moment. Eventually when there are enough tigers (this is where the Kaldo-Assyrian becomes handy), they will establish themselves there, after which they can have some time for education, that is when they will discover their true name on their own, and if they find that name to be Sumerian, then Sumerian it is!
Post a Followup