|Re: The Trouble with Assyriologists....|
- Tuesday, May 1 2012, 6:56:09 (UTC)|
from 188.8.131.52 - 74-82-68-33.rdns.blackberry.net Network - -
That's two different fields we're talking about between ancient Assyrians and the Nestorians who adopted the name some 100 years ago and have been using it since. Aprim hears an Assyriologist say something about the ancients, and he thinks it's him. You deny the Nestorians are direct descendants of the ancients, and the modern nationalists think you are denying the ancients ever existed. These are two different subjects and they fall under two different areas of studies. These Nestorians and Chaldeans fall under the category of modern middle east, and Assyriologists are experts on the ancients. This is also not a simple subject which one can simply know from reading Aprim and wikipedia. It requires research and we have historians on this subject and one is our very own, and he has made the information available to everyone. But the heroes don't bother looking at his book because they are told to stay away and they are too narrow minded.
To be a proud and brave Assyrian you must be a fanatic for Jesus. It's like the more of a fanatic for Jesus you are, the more crucifix tattoos one has, the more he is considered a warrior and descendant of Ashur. Christianity, and the church of east is used as qualification for being an Assyrian and this is their proof that they must be Assyrian. You can't separate modern Assyrian identity from Christianity. They are one and same. You can't be Assyrian without Christianity and all of the Christians of Iraq and Syria are direct descendants of Ashur. Just like Aquinas or whatever his name is starts off by accepting that there must be a god and then writes about it, those who carried out genetic studies on the Christians of Iran also had already accepted that they were Assyrian just because they were identifying by that label. Had they come a 100 years before that and tried to carry out the study, we be having a different conversation now and we would be told the Christians of Iran(Nestorians) don't mix much with others and with Muslims. There wouldn't be any mention of Assyrians because they weren't using that label yet.
I had an Assyrian from Iran, who resides in California, admit himself that until about 1900 or so they were not calling themselves "aturaye" and we already know that. He said we were calling ourselves Suraye and then we "woke up" and said to "ourselves" that we aren't just Suraye, but in reality Aturaye and that's when it started. He knew Suraye wasn't the name for Aturaye as Aprim and the other propagandists like to claim, but he was a hero, too, and was actually trying to explain that we "woke up" at that time and started using our "correct" name and not just Suraya which he didn't like. The more educated Assyrians or Nestorians know the difference between Suraye and Aturaye and many Nestorians even use Suraya to mean Christian and sometimes will use "Arabaya" for a Muslim even when they are not Arabs. The Suraya usage was not meant to be "Assyrian" and the Nestorians who were calling themselves that before they adopted the new label were not calling themselves descendants of the ancients. If they did and knew all along, they wouldn't have jumped on the Chaldean name first, they would not have been telling foreigners that they were Jews from Israel that converted, and they would not have added the name to the church in 76. It would have all been there all along without needing the Europeans nor the discoveries in the 1840s. But those findings were magnificent and who wouldn't drool over it and wanna claim it as his, and especially if one were living around it and it would bring a more benefits in their minds? It was clever but not everyone is fooled by it and it only caused them trouble.
Just think about how there wasn't a "chaldean" discovery, yet the Nestorians who did not convert to Catholicism were going crazy over than name also. Of course they be even more crazy over the Assyrian name now when the findings took place before their eyes. You can see where this was going. They were reading about the ancient Assyrians from the little fairy tales in the bible yet they were not claiming them as their ancestors nor using their names and didn't know anything about them. But then came the findings right before their eyes, and the priests who were seeing $$$ jumped on it and they had a white Christian telling them these things belonged to them. Of course they would jump on that. The Europeans didn't have any evidence these people were Assyrians but it was convenient. They were living there and they weren't Muslims so why not make such absurd claims? The one who started this and made the absurd claims was a Christian himself and nobody can beat them when it comes to absurdities, nobody. After all this, we saw what happened next and where it was really going. They later wore British uniforms and fought their Muslim neighbors. They were given cash, uniforms, schools, and were promised all kinds of things. When the British got what they wanted, they left their "smallest ally" hanging and Muslims would never view them the same again and never trust them again. This wasn't the first time they would do this of course nor the last time. They are still begging to be exploited by America now in Iraq but Bush and Obama don't have any use for them. Hell, Bush only mentioned them once in his speech and that was the end of it.
If these people were truly Assyrians and unique, why the hell would history channel, national geographic and others not jump on them and talk about them. This is capitalism and all about making money. Why wouldn't they have something on them so they could get an audience and make more$ and they could do it even with lies, but they don't because they know it's absurd. We see half naked indigenous tribes in Asia, Africa, South America, etc but nothing about Aprim and his tribe.
The full topic:|
User-agent: BlackBerry8530/184.108.40.2064 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/389