That is cool and interesting."Moroccan ... they were dark skinned according to 7th century account. As a Somali myself who are dark skinned people the Arabs also called us Berber due to our maternal linage with the Berber"
Woah. Okay! Well, now we've really got the Turks involved in Africa."Eqyptian 22th, 23th and 24th dynasties were Berbers"
I would appreciate a period or comma somewhere in this, but alas. Not sure what to make of it."they are not pure berber tuareg are mixed wkth black salves"
Wow. Someone bothered to make a playlist about Tuargs and I'm not even sure if they're saying they are not Black or merely not Arab."check my playlist "Tuargs are not Arab and Black". The so called Black Tuaregs are called Ikelan search what Ikelan is."
Well, to be fair, if you have a secret plan going on in the ancient world you probably don't want to report it to the most loud mouthed media of the ancient world. I am interested in the idea that there actually is evidence (or none) of a Khazarian false conversion to Judaism. I am not sure what that matters, though, except to racist people trying to pin evil deceptions on a particular ethnic group, when there is plenty of evidence that every ethnic group is more than capable of lying for one end or another. Another strange quality of the racist theory is that because Judaism has been "hollowed out" by an evil Eastern component, that somehow makes all Jews corrupted and slaves to the soulless Khazarian Jews. To me it sounds like these people have conflated a space alien invasion to the behavior of a human group. If I actually believed this "secret mass conversion" idea, I couldn't even assume it was spearheaded by Khazars or some other Eastern people but rather some evil vapors using them. And if I thought that, I wouldn't be decrying the race of people but try to bless them and wake them up. So I think the idea of a secret colonization invasion of Judaism is probably ridiculous. Someone else agrees:"To add against the Khazar theory, the supposed conversion most likely never even occurred. When doing archaeological digs and searches in the former kingdoms’ land, not a single remnant of Judaism was found from that time period. From a report on the theory: “archaeologists excavating in Khazar lands have found almost no artifacts or grave stones displaying distinctly Jewish symbols. He also reviews various key pieces of evidence that have been cited in relation to the conversion story, including historical and geographical accounts, as well as documentary evidence. Among the key artifacts are an apparent exchange of letters between the Spanish Jewish leader Hasdai ibn Shaprut and Joseph, king of the Khazars; an apparent historical account of the Khazars, often called the Cambridge Document or the Schechter Document; various descriptions by historians writing in Arabic; and many others.
Taken together, Stampfer says, these sources offer a cacophony of distortions, contradictions, vested interests, and anomalies in some areas, and nothing but silence in others. A careful examination of the sources shows that some are falsely attributed to their alleged authors, and others are of questionable reliability and not convincing. Many of the most reliable contemporary texts, such as the detailed report of Sallam the Interpreter, who was sent by Caliph al-Wathiq in 842 to search for the mythical Alexander's wall; and a letter of the patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas, written around 914 that mentions the Khazars, say nothing about their conversion.”"
Hmm. On the other hand, are we meant to really credit two Jewish tribes with the colonization of Northern Europe, Assyria and Germany? I guess, maybe. I'll try to stop getting hung up on this until there is more about it. It's true that it didn't take many groups of Europeans to invade Turtle Island. There was a lot of homogeny: Spanish, Italian, English, French. Granted these "nations" were all traumatized mixed salads of colonization and empire, but the point is people shifting their place can indeed make a humungous difference, for better and worse."Most haplogroup progenitors lived 7000-2500 years ago. Some older, some younger. The Haplogroup you referred to is R1-b, with began 18,500 years ago, and therefore is massive. The are hundreds, thousands of sub groups in R1-b, for example one originating in England, r1b1a2a1a. Specific haplogroups describe migration in more recent years. Otherwise, they would be redundant. Genetic Researchers would completely disregard any of their origin theories if what you said was true. These Haplogroups I’m referring to either originated in Israel, or were passing through(from areas like Iran, Iraq, North Africa, etc) around 3000-2000 years ago. Disregarding genetics, which also shows many similarities between Jews all around the world, Ashkenazim can be explained through the Jewish Diaspora. The Khazar Theory is extremely unlikely, with no supporting substantial evidence, and evidence that the great conversion never even occurred(see my earlier response)."
Someone posted this link: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/region ... east.shtml
And then someone replied about a video regarding the Khazar Theory of Ashkenazim origins:
"To Unpacked: Your video claims that there was a 400-year chronological break between the Khazar era (ended in 969) and the time when any Jews lived in Belarus/Ukraine. Actually, Jews lived in Kiev and Volodymyr Volynskyi in the 1100s and in Chernigov in the 1200s -- specific names of Jewish merchants and rabbis from those places and times are known -- although there is no evidence that they were Khazarian descendants, and those Jewish communities declined in numbers during the Mongol invasion. Some of these early Jews were descended from Romaniote Jews who came up through the Byzantine Empire while others appear to have been Ashkenazic Jews arriving from the West."
That much is true according to various comments we've explored. Shemite is Semite, is that the argument? But does Semite really mean "Shem"? If so, why is it that Arabs are considered of "Shem" if it's literally an Israelite tribe? I don't think someone saying "Americans are not descendents of Amerigo Vespucci. PERIOD." has as much relevance as it does the energy of an ultimatum."According to Genesis 10 the Hiburu/hebrew Holy Scriptures states that the ASHKENAZIS are the descendants of Ja'pheth the father of GENTILES. The Ashkenazis are Ja'phethite and NOT Shemite.Period"
Then, in the word game category we return to:
I would say HEVOREW is to IVORY as HEBREW is to IBRY and you can lean things any way you choose once thousands of years of similar words have floated around a region. On the other hand, will I totally dismiss this as coincidence? I don't know what to think! I can't!"Côte d'Ivoire ("Cote d' Ivri" ) The coast of the Hebrews .
The word for Hebrew used in the Bible is עברי (pronounced "Ivri")"
Well this Ashkenazim presently leans in the direction of complete unknowing. But I am intrigued by the constant assertions of "Ja'phethite" relation. Here we have something that sounds true as well:"this right here, if you look like a European Caucasian, chances are your ancestors came from Europe and you’re not Semitic at all. As a Yemeni, I’ve come across many Semitic looking jews, who are non Arab, yet they look similar to Arabs, our cousins. Of course you have have arab jews too. Mizrahi jews, Yemenite jews etc but when I come across these ‘ jews’ who reside in north America or uk/Europe I see no resemblance to them at all. They look more like Anglo Saxons. I wonder which tribe Ashkenazi jews thinks they came from"
Aha. Now this makes sense! Yet what are we to make of the supposed history of Japheth's grandson creating Scandinavia? My intuition tells me that, like the mythical Irish legends that merged colonization history with God-Kings of myth, Judaic scribes of the Reign area might have been tempted to try to "tie it all together" with stories that conveniently leap over missing gaps in knowledge in order to, dare I say it, appropriate existing culture? Yep, I said it. Do I believe it? Nah. Just another in the long list of possibilities."You are using the name ashkenaz in the bible and you applied to Jews. But jews that are called ashkenaz are not descend[ed] from the biblical ashkenaz.
Its easily verified by reading some books on the history of the Jewish people . They the Jews began using the name ashkenaz when they reached the Reign area in the 6th century. Try reading Paul Johnson a history of the Jews. Otherwise don't comment on topics that are above your educational level."
But at least now we're getting into some reality about how history is written not just by winners but by pretty much anyone.
This is also what some people say about the legends of Black African Jews:
"And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you- Deuteronomy 28:68
The Hebrew Israelites say that this verse clearly points to them (and no one else) as the true Jews, since they are descended from people who were kidnapped from Africa and taken to the New World in ships to be sold as slaves. When were the people we know as Jews ever sent back to Egypt to become slaves? they ask, rhetorically. Why would they be sent back to Egypt in ships, given that the Land of Israel and Egypt are neighbours? Since it was only Black people who have ever been taken into slavery in ships, this verse clearly demonstrates that only African Americans and Hispanics and West Indians and Native Americans are the true House of Israel, right? And Egypt is clearly a metaphor for America, right, since Egypt means House of Bondage? Clearly, these interpretations are completely wrong, they are based on forced metaphors rather than historical reality.
Obviously, Black people are not the only people in the history of the world to have experienced slavery, whether as slaves or owners. Roman society had no problem at all with one man owning another as his property, and slaves came from different parts of the Roman Empire to be traded in like cattle. Slavery is not a uniquely Black experience, nor does it form the essence of any Black history or identity.
Were Jews ever put on ships to be sold into slavery? Did they ever go back to Egypt as slaves. Oh, yes. This happened after the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the Bar Kochba Revolt. Josephus records:
Because the soldiers were now growing weary of bloodshed, and survivors appeared constantly, Caesar orders to kill only those who offered armed resistance and to take alive all the rest. (415) The troops, in addition to those covered by their orders, slaughtered the aged and infirm; people to their prime who might be useful they herded into the Temple area and shut up in the Court of the Women (lcl. (416) Caesar appointed one of his freedmen as their guard, his friend Fronto, to decide the fate appropriate to each. (417) All those who had taken part in sedition and brigandage (they informed against other) he executed. He picked out the tallest and handsomest of the lot and reserved them for the Triumph (418). Of the rest, those who were over seventeen he put in chains and sent to hard labor in Egypt while greet numbers were presented by Titus to the provinces to perish in the theaters by sword or by wild beasts; those under seventeen were sold- Josephus, The Jewish Wars, Book 6, Chapter 9:2
Innumerable was the multitude of those who were sold away as slaves. At the Annual Market of Terebrinth of Hebron they were offered for sale in such numbers that a Jewish slave was of no more value than a horse. –Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.
This means that when Moses told the Israelites that they would be sold into slavery in Egypt if they disobeyed the Covenant that they had made with the LORD, he literally meant Egypt. The claim is made that “Egypt” in the verse does not refer to the land that we know as Egypt, but rather metaphorically to the Americas. This interpretation is based on the idea that the Bible calls any land where the Israelites have been taken into captivity “Egypt”, because this word can also figuratively mean “bondage.” The problem is that the Bible does not always use the term “Egypt” in a metaphorical sense. For example, the Israelites were taken into captivity to Babylon and at no time in the story of this terrible event is Babylon called “Egypt.” Although it is true that Jewish people sometimes use the word “Egypt” poetically to mean “captivity,” it is not true that the word “Egypt” can always be metaphorically interchanged with the word “captivity”. It comes to us from the Greek a-ku-pi-ti-yo , which in turn comes from the Egyptian ḥ wt-kȝ -ptḥ , i.e., “The land of the temple of the ka of Ptah.” The original Hebrew name in the Bible for Egypt is Mizraim, an ethnonym based on the belief that descendants of Mizraim, son of Ham (Genesis 10:6) settled in that land after the Flood. A Hebrew reader would have never imagined that Mizraim could mean anywhere else besides the land settled by the descendants of Mizraim, son of Ham, son of Noah.
OK, what about ships? Egypt and Israel are geographical neighbours, so why would the Romans need to use ships to transport slaves? Yes, the two lands are neighbours, but the Roman Empire found it easier to use ships of its vast navy to link the different parts of its domain that were located around the Mediterranean Sea. And it is documented that Jewish slaves were taken to Egypt in ships. The aforementioned Schürer continues from above:
What could not be disposed of there was brought to Gaza and sold or sent to Egypt, on the way to which many died of hunger, or of shipwreck.
Another source records:
Now that Betar had been captured, everything came under Human control, while Palestine [Judah] was reduced to a desolate mound. Captives were sold into slavery in numbers too great to count. First they were brought to the grand annual market at the Terebinth-Eloh tree in Hebron, or in the words of Hyranumous, to the Tent-Ohel of Abraham near Hebron. Each slave sold for the price of a horse. Those captives who were not sold there were brought to the market place in Azza [Gaza] which, because of the great multitudes of slaves who were sold there, was called Hadrian’s marketplace. And those who were still not sold there were herded into ships and were taken to Egypt. Many died in transit, whether by starvation or by shipwreck, while many also were killed by cruel masters.- Friedrich Münter, Primordia Eccl. Africanae
So, it is an historical fact that slaves from Israel (or the Roman Province of Judea) were transported to major Roman cities like Alexandria by ship. It is reported that the price of slaves dropped drastically, hence and no man shall buy you . In contrast, the Transatlantic Slave Trade endured for so long, the greater part of half a millenium, because it was that profitable for Europeans and Africans alike.
In contrast, the Hebrew Israelites falsely claim that there was a Kingdom of Judah established in West Africa by their ancestors. However, there is no proof for this claim, rather a fictional connection to the historical Kingdom of Whydah in West Africa. It was located in what is now the modern Republic of Benin, and its economy was founded on slave trading. Its name is from the Yoruba Xwéda, but Europeans distorted it variously to Whydah, Hueda, Whidah, Ajuda, Ouidah, Whidaw, and Juda. It is that last version of this name that Hebrew Israelites have erroneously seized on to claim that there was a Kingdom of Judah established by their ancestors in West Africa, after they fled Israel following the Destruction of Jerusalem. The only primary source to support this claim of a mass migration of Jewish refugees to Africa that I have come across is a book called From Babylon To Timbktu by Rudolph R. Windsor, first published in 1969. Mr Windsor claims that millions (p84) of Jews fled into Africa following the Destruction of Jerusalem, but is shy with his sources. Contemporary Roman sources however have it that 100000 Jews were taken to Egypt in ships to be sold as slaves. More were sent to other parts of the Roman Empire.
The history of the Kingdom of Whydah’s history is adequately documented. It was founded around 1100 C.E. (the Fall of Jerusalem happened in 70 C.E, what were the Jews doing in West Africa for a whole thousand years before finally being sold to European slave traders?)
Thus, it can be established as a historical fact that, contrary to the teaching of the Black Hebrew Israelites, that the people we know as Jews have at some point in their history been transported in large numbers in ships to be sold as slaves in Egypt, and that their presence created a glut in the slave markets and many were unsold. This ignoble chapter of Jewish history would actually be closer to the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28 than that of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
By the way, Native Americans and Hispanics did not get to the New World on slave ships, except those who today have some African ancestry…..
And, by the way, there is no Arab record of kidnapping and enslaving Jewish people out of West Africa. Given that the Arab Slave Trader was longer and captured people, it is quite remarkable that there is no mention of Hebrews at all. They documented Christians and Jews everywhere else they met them, including other parts of Africa."