Ethnic controversies of the Middle East

[golly]

As someone who is called and is considered Jewish or Jew because of Ashkenazim heritage, but who sympathizes with Palestinians who feel they were invaded by a European force authorizing a Zionist solution to diaspora (or perpetual wandering of our various tribes) I am low key fascinated by Biblical history and what it tells about Egypt, Israel and so on. I am told that aspects of this discussion are so contentious that it may get me banned from Middle Eastern countries like Israel-Palestine or Egypt or others. That would be so regrettable because I really do want to know more about the famous pyramids and perhaps even see them one day. However, I think I can handle this sensitively.

I want to begin by writing that I first was brought to this topic by coming across a YouTube discussion taking place on a video that merely played some wonderful Spanish-Arabic music (Or was it? Indeed, that was part of the controversy). The posts there began about music but gradually brought me deep into age-old discussions of rich history. And in this largely disrespectful and frightening discussion that I didn't want to touch with a twenty foot toothpick, there were gems of belief. For the purposes of keeping posts about the subjects, I have removed the names. Yet, for the purposes of interesting points, my bolds are added:

"Babe it's not surprising you have mixture of Spanish and Arab blood similarly People of Portugal have mixture of blood of the Roman and ancient Phonician blood. Phoenicians from Lebanon settled in many places. The entire white race is believed to originate from the Black sea region . Also there were group of Corsairs [Barbary pirates] who raider the shores of Spain and Italy from their base on the shores of Algeria."

"YOU should take a look @ a video here on YouTube on Sephardic Moroccan Gitano flamenco music, it is really good(the Sephardim were the Spanish jews). I read that also one third of Spaniards have jewish blood since the Jews lived in Spain during the period of Arabic domination 711-1492AD. And I am sure that some jews converted to Christianity when Ferdinand & Isabella required jews to convert or leave spain. Since you are Mexican, a Spanish descended people, you could have a little jewish blood also."

So far, we have gained a claim that one third of Spaniards have "jewish" blood. I am not sure what that means in this case, however, because "Jew" has not been defined. The only evidence of one third of Spaniards having "jewish" blood is another claim that Jews lived in Spain during a certain period of Arab rule (what does this have to do with Jews yet?) and during the Christian colonization of Spaniard Jews (the subject of an interesting thrilling book called The Last Jew). Hmm. Can we get more into this?

"Phoenicians were Levantine people, like present day Lebanon/ Syria. These people are Arab only in language. Genetically, they're very different from the real gulf Arabs."

Alright, so now we have this idea that the ancient Phoenicians who lived in the Levant spoke Arabic but were different by blood/genes from "real" Arabs. That would probably be a matter of looking at when Phoenicians came to the Levant, because in my very brief recent research on this subject, Phoenicians lived there a long time and blended with the population after briefly having their own empire and then ultimately serving several armies.

"Pakistan 10000 BC there were cities already! In Anatolia 12000 BC, the oldest human building"

This claim is fascinating and adds to the notion that civilizations are considered "competing" here with cities somehow representing an "advancement" or "superiority" in some views. That's not something I can agree with.

"BTW the Muslims who were in Spain were 99% Imazighen."

Wow! Here's another tidbit. We've got that third of Spanish were "jewish" in some blood way, and now Muslims in Spain are 99% a particular kind of Muslim called "Imazighen". I had to look this up. It basically means a people named Berbers native to the African areas of the middle east.

"not arabic, go to wiki and learn the origin of phenecian. they are samiste and arabic."

Don't even know what this means or responds to. They are apparently Samiste (Semite?) and Arabic. More interesting claims about Phoenicians that I don't know how to interpret!

"Latin America has a Phoenician history before the Spanish entered.
And also a lot of Arabs migrated from Andalusia to Latin America."

Here we have another interesting notion about this increasingly "distinguished" mixing pot. Rather than see it as merely divisive to trace these histories, we wind up looking like a people that have remembered. Look at all the amazing things we have remembered about ourselves, and have passed down despite the chaos of wars and population moves.

"Gypsy ...? were a north Indian tribe forced to fight for the Persians against the romans/byzantines because they were excellent warriors, and then they stayed in the balkans.This was just around 1000 years ago!"

Now this comment I saved because the discussion of someone saying Gypsy (presumably they mean Roma or other nomadic folx) means an East Indian tribe gangpressed or enslaved to fight for Persians and wound up staying in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia — but not as far as Greece.

[golly]

"All butthurt nationalists in the comments trying to claim this music as their own..
Its Arab mixed with spanish because of the arab conquest of spain and that spain was under arab rule for hundreds of years.
Mexico got invaded and colonised by spain and added their own infuence too and its the same case for many latinamerican countries. So its arab mixed with spanish and latino.
Arabic culture poured into spanish culture poured into latinamerican culture and they are all one and are not arrogant enough to "claim" it as their own, they all know the history of their culture and ackowledge it."

Now the music in question is really getting analyzed and extrapolated. Arab mixed with Spanish, is the claim, and particularly because this music came out of Arab rule of Spain. So presumably this means the music is Arabic culture gaining Spanish voice, tinge or instrument. Then, since Spain had retained this Arabic sound in their culture after the invasion/colonization, they in turn brought this music to their targets of colonization. So this seems to be a fair way of saying some ancestor of the music was "originally" Arabic but newer ancestors were Spanish and Latin American or Latinx.

"many were arabs not just from morocco and like the guy that commented said, the ones that ruled spain were from Al Hijaz aka arabian peninsula"

Now we have even more specifics. So the particular Arabs that ruled Spain were from the Western portion of the Arabian peninsula. I am not sure how that particular tidbit was saved but probably because Arabic culture is known for the most extremely sophisticated kinds of documentation. But then along came more fascinating specifics:

"there is nothing called Morocco,they was afriquia Tunisia +Algeria +libya"

So the Arabs from Morocco who came to Spain were not Arabic I guess? Because, they are indigenously African, which tells us that Arabic indigenousness does not include Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. Yet, perhaps Arabs colonized those parts of Africa.

"The Umayyad Dynasty conquered Andalusia , those were 100 % Arabs from prophet Muhammad's own tribe (Quraysh) and their capital was Damascus , there were no Persians in the process and the Berbers were their soldiers who converted to Islam which brought to them by the Umayyad preachers , this is the story here"

Back to Andalusia again, which if we haven't already specified, is that southern part of Spain that is so close to Morocco (which apparently doesn't exist). Meanwhile, the soldiers apparently belonged to a Quraysh clan from the Damascus of Syria, just to the Northeast of Israel-Palestine.

"Berber conquest of andalusia,led by the berber general tariq ibn ziyad. Not arabic at all,it was only part of the umayyad caliphate. for a certain time before becoming taifas and later on invaded by the almoravids and almohad dynasties which were both berber too."

This appears to be another opinion that the famous prophet Muhammad had nothing to do with it and that it was Berber led. Rather than Berbers working for the prophet, it was the initiative of a Berber general Tariq ibn Ziyad. Then, somehow, it became part of the Caliphate, or some kind of possession of the Umayyad. Who are the Umayyad? It's not clear to me here, but they appear to be some kind of important figure between the Berber army and the prophet's tribe Quraysh.

Then, claims this individual, that region of Spain so famous for the rock of Gibraltar (and apparently all these invasions) was subsequently taken by Taifas (which was a brief replacement of the collapsed Caliphate), then Almoravids and Almohad which represented Berber rule.

However:

"no, Tariq ibn Ziad was not the general , he was one of Musa Ibn Nasir's men who was sent first to prepare for his commander's arrival , Musa was the general who was sent by Al-Walid the Ummayad caliphate to be the commander of the Ummayad army which conquered Andalusia ."

And so! Now we are getting into actual individuals and who led who.

The role of the Ummayad is revealed, apparently, as: Al-Walid sending General Musa Ibn Nasir to command the Ummayad army (which suddenly is not Berber at all?), who in turn sent Tariq ibn Ziad to "prepare" the battlefield in some way. It all sounds like a fascinating string of myths, yet it very well could be true as far as I know so far!

[golly]

"ottoman empire never ruled on andalusia,btw umayyad only ruled for a brief moment before going to the almoravids."

I admit I had no clue why the Ottoman empire was mentioned until I found that Berber is considered Turkish and belonging to that empire. Then, Almoravids had a specific kind of Muslim Berber empire within the larger group of Muslim Berbers, and they are the ones that took that part of Spain. It is quite intense to imagine such a huge regional population that multiple empires start sprouting of it.

"Andalusian culture is no Arabic,Arabs dont have music this kind of music is Berber Turkish Persian and Spanish a huge fusion of many music cultures a cross the continent perfected in Andalusian music"

So now someone seems to be suggesting that the southern Spanish music was original to the area, or that Arab culture cannot "have claim" because the Spanish are or should be maybe proud of the region's unique blend of cultures.

"amazigh conquered Spain when Arabs claimed Andalusia it fell due to conflict 8in north africa between the Berbers and the arabs"

This either advances or complicates the story, I guess. Possibly both. Probably both. Like:

"Oh, the melting pot is even bigger than that, my friend. If we have to count all the cultures that mixed into Spain, there's the celtiberians, the romans, germanic peoples (visigoths, as the vandals didn't get much time to settle before being kicked out), and in the Crown of Aragon, occitan as well due to Catalonia, the Languedoc and the Provence. I can always proudly say that as a spaniard, there's very few countries if any that can boast so many different cultures through so many years of history!"

Aha, so one strength of Spain appears to be that it can proclaim the colonization and invasion as a source of pride and culture. It surely must come with pain and trauma, as well, but therein's the rub too: American can also "boast" of so many different cultures but that is because it drew a totally alien border around free tribes and claimed they all belonged to something called the United States. Could the same be said here of Spain? Spain doesn't seem like one forever unified country or people but rather a land mass. And so to say "I am proudly a Spaniard" when claiming the numerous cultures living in Spain under a wide variety of conditions is to somewhat be proud of both being empire and resisting empire. This is sad.

On the other hand, others keep claiming in comments to have brought music to the land as a consequence of the war. But isn't it just as likely to suggest that peace and trade brought the music, and the music helped those experiencing the wars find motivation and inspiration to survive the wars? Why is war credited with saving culture? Were the soldiers carrying musical instruments and playing musical notes at each other? Not likely.

"Tariq Ibn ziyad was the first commander who arrived to andalus and won the first battles under the order of his arab general Musa Ibn Nusayr , but the conquest didn't start until the arrival of Musa with 18000 arab warrior and then followed by his son Abd el aziz ... the berbers of andalus were arabized in everything and bring no culture to andalus , all the andalusian culture is arab : clothes, music , architecture, poetry..."

Now we have an update and a claim of genocide! First of all, we understand there was a follow up to the particular commanders of war. A son Abd el Aziz. But then there is a wild claim that the Berbers were "Arabized" totally. Is that true? We don't know. It seems likely that there is no such total brainwashing conversion that completely erases another culture, and such a strong people as the Berbers most likely did not suffer total identity destruction. That might be a CIA fiction. Or maybe we can only hope it is nothing more.

Yet, since Berber and Arabic cultural contributions are still very muddy, it seems weird to claim that all of the culture is Arab. This response seems apt:

"All the andalusian culture is arab is a very very very wrong statement. All historians disagree with this. First of all Andalus consisted also of Iberian culture, so don't say as if everything was arab. Continuing the architecture is described as Moorish architecture. They made a seperate name for it since it has BOTH berber and arab influence. If not they would just say arab architecture. Continuining, most islamic people of andalus were berbers. Do you think berbers only keep their arabized culture? No, they have their identity too and with such a large amount of people cultural influence is very likely. Your mentality is the reason why most berbers from today dislike arabs."

[golly]

That statement was contradicted by this one:

"Then show me some barbar culture in andalus ?! there isn't ,the dominant culture is arab , barbar were just a part of the conquerors under the orders of the ummayad army and arabs ruled andalus for 600 years while barbars ruled it only 140 years and they were completely arabized there no barbar language in andalus , go search and tell me if you find an andalusian family in morroco, algeria, tunisia that speak barbar language ... they all speak arabic"

The argument seems to be that if the alien language takes over, then the original culture is gone. I don't think that's entirely true, although of course language has such incredible power that it is almost arguably true.

"There was sevral "kingdoms" during the Arabic/mourish/Islamic occupation of the iberian peninsula (pre-"Spain"), 1° by Umayyad caliphate with the capital Damascus; 2° the almoravid caliphate with the capital being agmate, marrakesh, and Cordova. 3° By the almohad caliphate with the capital was marrakesh, 4° the taifa kingdoms that ware several independent Islamic kingdoms, and maybe more that I don't know! But it really matters?!? It past 1000 year's! And if I lived in that time I prefer to live under a Islamic ruler. Than in the barberian Catholic kingdoms. Like know I dont want to live in a dictatorial orthodoxy (Islamic or other)! In fact during the 1° Umayyad incursuons in the iberia, the people tired of pillage, welcome the Invaders, amost without war (with the some exception like the Asturians in the north)"

This seems to break down much of the history into many other branches, presumably the degrees representing 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th? However I would have to actually look into this to know that they aren't meant to chronologically overlap at times too.

"Amazighs are left overs from arabic kingdom of sabaa"

"And arabs ruled from baghdad and damascus all the way to spain"

"What you described as a process is correct however it is not an Arab Culture but its localization in Morocco and especially within the Moors and what we called actually Amazigh that has shaped the culture of Andalucia and the rest of the Spain and Portugal.

The Nuevo Christianos were Moors converted to Christianity that opted to sail to the Vice-Royalty of Nueva Espana and the rest of the Latin American countries. They mixed with other local "indigenous - native" people that gave the fixture of what is called Mestizos and Latin la Calle - la Raza that is predominantly brown in skin and Mediterranean in the look that you can even spot actually in Barrios and Hoods of the Gringo Cities of El Norte.

Other aspects of similarity can be found in many aspects of the cultural expression that is present in Latin America and even names of persons and families

There is lot to say about this and I see it every day around me here in Oakland, California"

Since we are going off the "established fact" that Moors were some kind of Turkish-Arabic people, we might assume too when there is this argument about Arabs ruling everywhere versus Arabic language dominating, it's more specific and correct to say the language rather than the haplo or ethnic group was more populous. So might we be learning something here? Amazighs are a manifestation of co-creation of culture between Arabic Turkish Moors and the local Spaniards of their South.

"Spain: once a Celtic land and virtually all trace of the first culture is completely wiped out.. Spain: conquered by Germanic tribes and Romans and Berbers and Moors (speaking a language learned from their conquerors) . I'm glad that the Muslim scholars brought the "Arabic" numbers. Today Spanish is the language of all it's "conquerors" as is it's culture. Getting all nationalistic is proof that culture is a parasite that attacks the brain."

Here we have a rather sharp opinion that culture is some enemy of people. I think I have met this type of person in America and it's funny how they "share" a culture while thinking it's parasitic. If we are going to talk about what (society and politics) rather than who (race and racism) is parasitic, I think we may be getting somewhere. I think there is a very useful and overly ignored argument that very few humans are born "parasites" and when they are, it's not from a single group but randomly sprinkled around as if the spirit of the individual determines how the body is used for good or evil; and culture itself isn't to blame for making people into parasites. Yet combining toxic people and culture creates reactions and traumas that produce parasitic behavior in people.

I am glad they brought up the Celtic land, however, because it brings up the first traumas that I feel are important to address: the indigenous people of the "Spanish" land which were first invaded and conquered by Celtic and related groups. Will this relate to Turkish in some way? I will get around to this. First, more comments from the YouTube controversy, and we're just getting started.

[golly]

"After banu umayya were thrown out of khilafat , they moved to spain. These umayyads had treated Prophets'(PBUH) family with cruelty and probably no member of Prophet's family moved to spain. Its my belief that their absence from spain ultimately caused a complete eradication of moors from spain."

So here we have another fascinating perspective. It seems the Arabic Umayyads that were ousted from the culture of Umayyads had some sort of spat with the Arabic leadership, which was primarily of Islamic faith. The Prophet Mohamed was responsible for exiling the bad ones for the sake of wisely protecting his family and people and community. These bad ones are the ones that apparently teamed up with (enslaved? hired?) the Berber (Arabized Turks) to invade Southern Spain to colonize and live in another land. Or are they saying that first these Berbers (who they are saying were Moors) came, and then the ousted Umayyads? Possibly the latter.

I guess the concept is "everyone needs a land, even people without land" and therein lies so much of the world's trouble.

"Arab-Andalusian music is the result of a mix between Arab music from the East, Afro-Berber music from the Maghreb And music practiced in the Iberian Peninsula before the year 711, when Tariq ibn Ziyad crossed the strait to conquer Andalusia. Indeed, this region , land of mixing between several civilizations, gives rise to an unprecedented blossoming of a musical art, a dazzling development for more than eight centuries in both Andalusia and the Maghreb"

This seems like an alright time to drop the youtube link in case you wanted to hear the music that started my interest in the whole interesting discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDOGSh9kgyA

[golly]

Now, let us look at the concept of how Semitic people from the Levant area (Arabs and their cross-cultural relatives) have become viewed.

"Frost Bite Jews (Yehudah) were Udi people. Descendants of people from ‘Caucasian Albania’ who inhabited the area of the eastern caucasus along coast of Khazar Sea (Caspian). Biblical Aaron founded Caucasian Albania. Kabbalah (Gabala) was their ancient capital. Hebrews were separated from the Jewish Şəmites by the river Alazon, which flows down from Mount Kavkaz into the Cyrus (todays Kura River). Hebrew, a language named after eber. Ethnic designation derived from Iberia (today’s Georgia)."

Right off the bat, I'm going to be interested in this discussion. It seems "Frost Bite Jews" is some kind of clumsy or even racist term for Udis related to Caucasian Albanians from the coast of the Caspian Sea. And back to the whole idea of Bible as some mix of historical and mythological record, we have the character of Aaron who founded the group.

Lastly in this tidbit we learn that ancient Georgians (once known as Iberians) were so coined "eber" as an ethnic group, which evolved into Hebrew, and despite any other information we are at least informed by this comment that these ancient Georgians lived "on the wrong side" of river Alazon.

This is fascinating because it is today found on Google "Mtkvari", running from the big mountain ranges that separate Russia from Georgia, down to Azerbaijan.

What a cluster! You've got Iran to the South, Georgia (constantly pestered by Russia or as Russia might argue pestered by itself and begging for weird interventions by Russia), some unnamed disputed country between Iran and Georgia that claims to be independent from Armenia's seeping into the middle of the whole thing, and to the West the great land of Turkey.

If I truly am of a Tartar people and Ashkenazim people, this whole Middle East region would be a place to examine where my ethnic history became overwritten a hundred times over.

What seems to be the story so far? Hebrews are Iberians closer to the Caspian Sea. True Semites are on the other side of the river closer to the Black Sea.

Was nobody expected to cross the river? Was nobody expected to mix cultures in such close proximity? Did political pressures in this hotly contested and re-re-re-renamed area provide justification for some to "merge" with a culture in order to preserve an original culture within an empire?

[golly]

Here is more to tie into the expanding discussion on slaves, gangpressed armies and how one enslaved group can come out of or begin an empire, or slavemaster culture, which in turn enslaves, and so on. I personally believe this is the pattern of trauma and re-traumatizing that we see in humans where the abuser becomes the abused and vice versa in a vicious cycle.

We've moved to a part of the YouTube comments that has to do with the African slave trade.

"and sorry to say but yes they were involved. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews about it. And on the website myjewishlearning.org this was said: a number of wealthy Jews were also involved in the slave trade in the Americas, some as shipowners who imported slaves and others as agents who resold them. In the United States, Isaac Da Costa of Charleston, David Franks of Philadelphia and Aaron Lopez of Newport, Rhode Island, are among the early American Jews who were prominent in the importation and sale of African slaves. In addition, some Jews were involved in the trade in various European Caribbean colonies. Alexandre Lindo, a French-born Jew who became a wealthy merchant in Jamaica in the late 18th century, was a major seller of slaves on the island."

Jews are historically known as slaves of the Egyptians among other less pathetic qualities, which does seem sort of plausible. However, when you combine it with the mythology of another people of my past, the Irish, it gets interesting because the medieval writers of Irish history seemed to almost decide to draw a parallel to the Hebrew bible and create a past that erased the original ethnic people of the Emerald Island through a story of Jew-like persecution in a pretext to invade the supposedly "uninhabited" land and declare themselves the God-Kings of the area. More on this later. Let's get back to Jews.

"Almost all modern Jews claim to descend from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The other tribes were expelled by the Assyrians, but most likely were absorbed by Judah. Some (Manasseh and Ephraim) also remained in the north and their descendants are modern day Samaritans."

It's true that the so-called twelve tribes of Israel are totally confused and lost except for the groups of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

This bit about Assyria is fascinating. Let's get a very brief and general "lesson" in Assyrian rule of the Levant from Wikipedia:

the Early Period (2500–2025 BC), Old Assyrian Empire (2025–1378 BC), Middle Assyrian Empire (1392–934 BC) and Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–609 BC). From the end of the seventh century BC (when the Neo-Assyrian state fell) to the mid-seventh century AD, it survived as a geopolitical entity, for the most part ruled by foreign powers such as the Parthian and early Sasanian Empires

Now, Parthian Empire was basically a power (related to Iranian history today) that also extended as far as mid-Turkey about 100 BCE, and sparred with the Roman Empire for the Levant, losing and taking it as each tried to establish rulers for their empire in various quadrants. The Sasanian Empire was the least Iranian dynasty before Islamic religion overtook other local powers. So to summarize, Jews were kicked around here and there but always, it seemed, because they were so poor at making the empires that were so in fashion for 4000 years to today. Then, finally with the help of the Anglo Empire the Zionists finally got their own little empire in the form of Israel (after the great intra-European conflagrations of World War II).

Why my people want to join the club of bullies and violent madmen is beyond me, but I guess it's related to the reason the descendants of African slaves want to help run the American Empire. Perhaps they believe they can somehow make empire better and not a self-destructive psychotic illness. Personally, I think we'd be better off teaming up to devise a final end to empire and its evil racist partners of genocidal colonization. If any of us comes up with something peacefully tolerant and practical, though, we should be sure to post it.

[golly]

Now let's crack open the whole discussion of the true Kingdom of Judah, which is said by Stephen Darby Ministries (brought up in early episodes of Wondering Forum Podcast) to be near the Ivory Coast.

This is a people whose research has determined that Jews are actually African people. This might be a reaction to the presence of the ancient Georgian/Turkish Jews in Israel because the white skin offends the majority of darker skinned inhabitants; and there may be an offensiveness to the pale skin as well because of the "Anglo Empire" (UK) involvement in the establishment of Israel. However, let's look at this response to the idea that the West African location of Judah was covered up. Note the racially charged English "your kind" (my bolds) even if racist emotional injuries weren't actually intended to be part of the discussion.

“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

King James Version (KJV)

I'll forgive you for quoting the KJV - which your kind always does. The scripture was only meant for Hebrew, which you don't speak. KJV is a translation - which says it all really.
Here's the actual verse:
"וְנָשָׂ֥א נֵס֙ לַגּוֹיִ֔ם וְאָסַ֖ף נִדְחֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּנְפֻצ֤וֹת יְהוּדָה֙ יְקַבֵּ֔ץ מֵאַרְבַּ֖ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת הָאָֽרֶץ׃"
This verse isn't talking about you:
1) You aren't dispersed to the four corners of the Earth. Your cult only lives in America. Your ancestors descend from indigenous West Africans. Hardly the four corners.
2) Jews, on the other hand, were literally spread to the four corners of the Earth thousands of years before you started calling yourselves Israelites. There are Jews in America. In Brazil. In China. In Australia. In South Africa. In the UK. Everywhere. Fulfilling the Torah.
3) The gathering has already begun. It actually started in 1209 (when your movement didn't exist). That was the first Aliyah. It then increased exponentially in the years leading up to 1948. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi are all currently in the land. They joined the people that never left after the destruction of the second Beit Ha'Mikdash, who don't look anything like you"

1948 is when the Zionists created the Levant and made the plan to invade the area and displace whomever was there in order to establish some "historic" (or even, dangerously "God given") land that "belonged" to the group. To me, that's like a political movement to start invading Northern Germany (or possibly Mongolia or some part of China or wherever some original red-haired people were from) and inviting every descendent of any Celtic takeover to return "home", and then claiming they have the right to be there and violently overthrow protests because they are surrounded by people opposed to them. Then, to make matters more confusing, it's like saying because of the juxtaposition of this invented extremist country to the vast population around them scratching their heads about why this happened, they must be right because they're in the minority, and so the incredible changes should be allowed. There are many scholars who will probably point out that this sort of thinking is incorrect because it discounts the absence of religious significance to Celtic people. However, I would argue that if your religion requires you to covet something physical, you should research your religion and see if it's actually a colonization program in disguise as a spiritual way of life. This is what my Christian relatives have been so hesitant to face when examining (or avoiding examining) their religion's own culpability and the consequences of its colonization actions. So too, I would encourage my Jewish relatives to look into this extremism and tendency to demean people in their religion. I could be wrong, and I recognize it's a hot issue with many passionate (often irrational) sides.

This commenter mentions "the people that never left" probably because of how it's said that much of the tribe of Judah didn't actually leave the area. So, they look Semite and they are. And this means that although my ancestry in Ashkenazim is more viewed as some "tacked on" group that was on the Caspian Sea side of the Jewish part of ancient Georgia, they are considered "part of Israel" due to the Zionist invitation to the Levant. Whereas, the African-American people saying they are the true Judah tribe are not considered as such by even the scholars and researchers of just who these "twelve tribes" were.

If you are truly an Israelite, take a DNA test and prove your case. If you're truly an Israelite, you should have nothing to worry about, right?
Oh wait! BHIs have taken DNA tests! They came back 0% Israelite! Turns out, while the Israelites were doing their thing, your ancestors were living in their homeland, West Africa. I've personally taken the DNA test plunge. Turns out I'm what we always were, Israelite. Then again, my ancestors have been Israelite for 3000 years. Yours have been claiming to be Israelites for 100.

This is suspicious, because who determines what DNA tests say? If there are biased minds saying that West African DNA is separate from the Judah DNA, then drawing up West Africa DNA will by definition be considered "0% Israelite".

"what is darker but not black?"

Ask the ancient Egyptians:

imagesstuff.jpg (12.75 KiB) Viewed 4134 times

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... u&usqp=CAU
From left to right: North African, Black African, Israelite, Egyptian.
This is how the Egyptians saw themselves and how they saw Israelites.

This is fascinating because nowhere is it described to me how the images here are labeled. The YouTube commenter believes this depicts what they claim, but again, like a magician, these labels could be biased. Where is the true citation? Where is the original? Where is the Egyptian scholar?

The idea that the ancient Egyptians were black has already been dealt with and discarded:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_E ... hypothesis
So much for being Kangz.

This is fascinating because according to the documentary Great Pyramid K 2019, the Egyptians were in fact Black Africans. You can watch the documentary here and decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMAtkjy_YK4

Not to mention we have a 2000 year old account of what the Judeans looked like. It's in the Mishnah, an Israelite text. Oh wait, you don't have it?

Who would have expected that an oral history that needed to be recorded after a threat (like anti-Jew attacks) would codify the people writing the history as the true authorship? It's interesting that it isn't actually 2000 years old but apparently 1950 years old. Now, I know that oral history is greatly respected but I do think my own ancestry's own oral history must be questioned when it has been subject to so very many empires and attacks and not shown a good record of resilience of distinguishing myth from fact. If the oral history establishes for a fact something that contradicts even the possibility of the Black Hebrew hypothesis, I would be curious, but so far, there seems to be just a lot of resistance and not a lot of openness. One would think when my people were treated dismissively they would learn what that feels like and learn to be more careful when doing it to others.

I'm glad this person's opponent replied this way:

"Anyhow, back to the picture it clearly states under the picture from left to right Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, and Egyptian.

The pro-White Jew commenter replies:

"Ah, so this is why you thought I incorrectly quoted the image. I'll explain why this person is an Israelite. Take a good look at the individual. Notice the Tzitzit? Jews still wear them to this day. No other people do. It's an ancient Israelite practice."

This seems interesting on the surface, but Jews also make Hollywood movies, rename Greek food, and have Chinese take out for Christmas. So ... are these ancient Israelite practices as well? Furthermore, it doesn't really address the label "Asiatic" which is an argument for the idea that the YouTube commenter is associating ancient Georgian populations of Jews with all of the possible people "Asiatic" could represent, including Mongolian, Tartar, Turkish and so forth. Perhaps "Asiatic" is even a weird translation from what the Egyptians intended, when they referred to some Eastern people that aren't really clearly identified.

The pro-Black Jew commenter replies:

From what I have read in the Wikipedia article that you have posted you are only taking bits and pieces out of the article, the whole article is actually a debate, there are Scholars that believe that the blacks of Egypt are African and there are Scholars that argues otherwise.

If you were going to post something like that and expect people to read it please mention all of what the article States not just bits and pieces that you want to use to further prove your point .

I just believe that a lot of Scholars don't want to believe that blacks would have been able to achieve such great colonies and civilizations but from the same article that you posted I realized that there are a lot of Scholars who actually do believe that the blacks of Egypt are of African descent.
Even further along in the article Diop took skin samples from some of the mummified bodies to proved that they are of black African descent and even asked the scholars to come and see for themselves, they dismissed him and didn't even go to take a look.

You have stated that people are "desperate" but with the article you have posted, you my friend seems like the desperate one.

It's almost like you skimmed through it soooooo fast you did not see the rest of it you even went as far as using the picture from the article and changed who each person was to fit what you wanted them to be, calling the Asiatic person Isrealite thats pathetic and desperate in my opinion.
With that being said it now throws out everything you have said because it shows you will change information to suit your agenda and liking."

Well, things are getting heated and disrespectful here, but I agree that there is plenty of evidence the Egyptian people are Black Africans, and to dismiss it all does seem to be in denial. I also agree that it taints their entire world view. Of course they would side with whomever has already established for them the comfortable position of being seen as a "rightful heir" to land.

The pro-White Jew commenter adds:

"I guess you can call the Egyptians African since they lived on the African continent, however they were pretty distant ethnically from Sub-Saharan Africans, being closest to Levantines and other Near Easterners. It's pretty disturbing when you have people standing on the street corners claiming to be descendants of the Ancient Egyptians when in fact they have nothing to do with them.

So they admit they are "disturbed" that someone could have a view that contradicts their own. That is the true sign of an open mind, right? Well, let's see what the official data says:

I have access to some ancient Egyptian genomes, which I'll run against modern populations. These are their closest populations:
Distance to: EGY_Late_Period
0.04176076 Coptic_Egyptian
0.04819656 Yemenite_Dhamar
0.04939434 Yemenite_Amran
0.05178746 Yemenite_Ma'rib
0.05512937 Yemenite_Jew
0.05694519 Yemenite_Al_Bayda
0.05723044 BedouinA
0.05875959 Yemenite_Al_Jawf
0.06219038 Palestinian
0.06348335 BedouinB
0.06664471 Saudi
0.06669452 Samaritan
0.06757374 Jordanian
0.06981400 Yemenite_Mahra
0.07289655 Tunisian_Jew
0.07623195 Libyan_Jew
0.07838259 Egyptian
0.07898094 Palestinian_Beit_Sahour
0.08070070 Lebanese_Christian
0.08497977 Karaite_Egypt
0.08757410 Lebanese_Muslim
0.08947886 Lebanese_Druze
0.09099972 Druze
0.09159035 Syrian_Jew
0.09175144 Moroccan_Jew
Distance to: England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o
0.04263837 Coptic_Egyptian
0.04485279 BedouinA
0.04653924 Yemenite_Amran
0.04710676 Palestinian
0.05071827 Jordanian
0.05098030 Yemenite_Dhamar
0.05328437 Samaritan
0.05648936 Yemenite_Ma'rib
0.05838925 Yemenite_Jew
0.05937517 Yemenite_Al_Bayda
0.06249152 Tunisian_Jew
0.06322237 Palestinian_Beit_Sahour
0.06324325 Yemenite_Al_Jawf
0.06370167 Lebanese_Christian
0.06507464 Libyan_Jew
0.06661727 BedouinB
0.06677482 Karaite_Egypt
0.06937106 Lebanese_Muslim
0.06957251 Saudi
0.07131671 Lebanese_Druze
0.07420033 Druze
0.07515171 Syrian
0.07600204 Egyptian
0.07670990 Syrian_Jew
0.07744261 Yemenite_Mahra
Distance to: EGY_Hellenistic
0.05517412 Yemenite_Dhamar
0.05635631 Coptic_Egyptian
0.05914018 Yemenite_Amran
0.06050051 Yemenite_Ma'rib
0.06198049 Yemenite_Al_Bayda
0.06254366 Yemenite_Jew
0.06465316 Yemenite_Al_Jawf
0.06918032 BedouinA
0.07241956 BedouinB
0.07441549 Saudi
0.07570574 Palestinian
0.07657475 Yemenite_Mahra
0.07802007 Samaritan
0.08132798 Jordanian
0.08271892 Egyptian
0.08690035 Tunisian_Jew
0.09057689 Libyan_Jew
0.09497840 Lebanese_Christian
0.09498329 Karaite_Egypt
0.09722658 Palestinian_Beit_Sahour
0.09990951 Lebanese_Muslim
0.10160428 Lebanese_Druze
0.10372098 Syrian
0.10414060 Druze
0.10470074 Syrian_Jew
I think it's safe to say that modern Coptic Egyptians are the actual descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

It's certainly "safe" to say so when academics will support you, and it certainly seems "unsafe" to say otherwise when the academics have a bias that supports a White Supremacist point of view, but that doesn't mean being safe is being right or being unsafe is being wrong. However, I commend the commenter for wanting to be safe. I also wish to safely address the topics, and I am attempting to do so despite the difficulty in navigating the heated opinions. I hope that we will not repeat these disrespectful attitudes toward one another when discussing such confusing matters.

This is why I say the Egyptians weren't black. I can't find any reason to think they were. Certainly the African Americans who claim to be Egyptians are lying, otherwise we would see it in their DNA.

They fulfill the pro-Black Jew's assessment of being "dismissive". But I would be tempted to add "paranoid" if they truly believe people with different views are just lying or "hypocritical" if they are saying things they don't believe just to show opposition to considering another view.

"I just believe that a lot of Scholars don't want to believe that blacks would have been able to achieve such great colonies and civilizations but from the same article that you posted I realized that there are a lot of Scholars who actually do believe that the blacks of Egypt are of African descent."

I agree. There were definitely many great black civilizations. Aksum is a good example. There were many in West Africa as well. But the Egyptians weren't one of them.

Still, they insist Egypt wasn't Black, even when evidence is presented to them. It's a silly argument to say that "I can consider the sky is blue because I've seen blue clouds, but the sky isn't blue."

"l know who we are im from the tribe of Benjamin cause my background is Jamaican which is still under the Judah umbrella taken on ships in the same manner sold into slavery the curses spoken about in Deuteronomy l was trying to see what these guys were going to say"

Now that is interesting! Even through the arguing and dismissiveness, someone still tries to spin out some lessons and oral history to the persistently ignorant. This is why I stayed with the comments. I am fascinated by the knowledge of Jamaican people being of the Jew tribe of Benjamin. It is also interesting that they say it is "under" the Judah umbrella, which the pro-White Jew commenter never mentions. Is it because they merely disagree with everything they are unaware of? Is it because they really didn't know it?

To continue the trend of starting way too many discussions to fit in a single thread, we have someone addressing the claim that my Ashkenazim heritage doesn't belong to the Israeli tribes. They say it does!

"There is no claim to it. The Ashkenazi are from the bloodline & can prove it with this, from the Table of Nations Japheth, Shem & Ham bloodlines-2

Present-day Germanic people groups are descendants of both Japheth and Shem, and there are several references from recent and ancient history. Recent history records the descendants of Gomer migrated and settled in the region that is now northern Europe (Germany and Scandinavia). These tribes became the Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Teutons and Burgundians, descendants of some of the first peoples to migrate to northern Europe from ancient times—"the Askaeni".

"The Askaeni" were descendants of Ashkenaz, son of Gomer, son of Japheth. When the Askaeni arrived in northern Europe, they named the land Ascania after themselves, which later translated Scandia, then Scandinavia. Later in history, we find the Askaeni being referred to as Sakasenoi, which became Sachsen, and finally Saxon. The Saxons played an big part in European and English history.

The Ashkenaz, Judaic title name has been one of the most well preserved names throughout European history.

Semitic peoples also migrated to central Europe (southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland). These people were the descendants of Asshur, son of Shem, and is where the name "German" originates. Asshur is well known in history as the father of the Assyrians. The Assyrians occupied a Mesopotamian city on the lower Tigris River called "Kir" and placed captive slaves there (also referenced in 2 Kings 16:9). The city was populated by the Assyrians for many years, and the inhabitants became known as "Kir-men". The Assyrian "Kerman" were driven from their land shortly after their fall about 610 B.C. They migrated into central Europe where they were called "German" or "Germanni", a general name used by the Romans to represent all Assyrian tribes."

Now here's some really juicy information! Wow! So from one Zionist perspective, the entire Scandinavian and even the German people (who were persistent in murdering all Jewish tribes) should be invited to Israel as well. That's funny. But more critically, do they really think they can claim to "prove" this from still more blood line histories? I just don't know.

In any case, let's consider that they are correct. What does it mean? It seems to imply that rather than leaving the ancient Georgian Jews to be the only "Frost Bitten Jews", we have the idea that the Hebrew record has kept track of several "lost" tribes. It seems that Japheth children settled in the frigid North and even named the place. By the third generation, a prominent son named Ashkenaz (king-like?) sort of renamed their whole people as a subset of Japheth people. The name stuck! Scandinavia, of course! These people apparently claimed the entire Northern continent and spawned the Goths and variants. I'm not sure how they grew into large Vikings at this point, but I supposed it's possible. Maybe to be safe we should say that there was some intermarriage with "Nordic races" (or Nordic aliens?).

In any case, these ambitious Jews were not satisfied to claim all the North. They also "later in history" became the core of the Germanic Saxons and their multiple dynasties and intermarriages with the English (who by this time would have been partially descended from the same stock I suppose, given Scandinavian mixing with Anglican history?).

Finally, some other Jews (of Shem) became the entirety of the Assyrians (also named after their own son-God-King Asshur)! When some subset of Assyrians took a Mesopotamian area on the lower Tigris, their operation and lifestyle was perhaps the basis for the name Kirmen. Was it Assyrian Jews, their slaves, or others? In any case, they were driven out and came to central Europe to become those the Romans called Germans.

It would also mean Germanic and Scandinavian peoples are reunited cousins of different ancient Hebrew tribes. Can we believe this remarkable story? At this point it seems it's about as plausible as everything else we've considered.

[golly]

Meanwhile, the argument continues between the denialists:

"It's ironic when all the fake "Hebrew Israelites" come and say: "Oh, but you're Jew-ish!". No. We're Yehudim. The stupidity of trying to use English to prove their point is truly dumbfounding. Amongst Jews are also Levites. Many members of my family are actual Levites - and not fakes like the African Americans. These members of my family are actually the direct descendants of Aharon, a tradition they'll never have."

and the deep cut researchers:

"I know many Lebanese Ashkenazi Jewish people personally in Las Vegas and they tell me they are not Israelites, they just Descendants of Converts,. They are very nice neighbors and I never had any problems with them... They know they are not Hebrews. They even told me back in 2001 that me and my family are the real Jews, that's when I started researching my roots..this is a real story...I'm very thankful for my neighbors for there honesty. I was told by them that the Russians, Germans and Ukraine whites that lives in Israel are thieves that are stealing people legacy and ancestry identity are vagabonds..."

Now that does have the ring of honest truth to me. If we can even trace "lost" tribes to the foundations of huge European populations, why did my Ashkenazim ancestors never trace their own history in such a way? I think it's because Ashkenazim might actually be Turkish people of the Near East who were "adopted" into the tribes through religious rituals. However, when they say Russians and Germans are stealing identity, it gets more confusing.

Russians genuinely do have their own Christian and Jewish populations, even if the ethnic Russians of my ancestry from the Urals were free of Abrahamic colonization for many thousands of years before those religions appeared on the scene. (Though I need to be very clear, I only have a "sense" that I'm Ural, not necessarily certain knowledge of ancient pre-Abrahamic ancestry.) If Russians are claiming to be Jewish in a religious sense, I wouldn't deny that to them any more than I would deny the Orthodox Russians who made Christianity their own immaculate and beautiful thing of its own. So is the "stealing" of identity accusation due to Russian Ashkenazim actually claiming Hebrew tribe heritage and belonging? If so, that is a serious accusation and should be addressed. However, if Jewish converts are just "welcome" to the imperial State of Israel because of their religion, then I would argue in a very real sense they are not stealing identity, unless they get confused about the invitation. As for Germans, we've apparently established these people are deeply intermarried with if not established by Assyrian Jews.

In any case, a refutation (of the fourth-hand claimant) followed shortly after:

"There was no Ashkenazi community in Lebanon. Lebanese Jews are mixed Mizrahi and Sephardi - and therefore almost entirely Israelite."

There we have it. Ashkenazim simply don't exist in Lebanon. That seems to be a rather stark statement, considering just how many different populations exist all over the European, African and Asian continents. So I'm not sure I can take this claim at face value. Though, I appreciate the attempt to try to make things clear, saying there is "no community" of Ashkenazim in Lebanon sounds like Iranian leadership saying there is "no phenomenon" of gays in Iran.

Finally, the spiritual perspective comes in like a beam of light.

"Don't bother to get involved in this debate, as it's all based on lies.

No one living today can really prove the truth, as these people have been interwoven with the Roman Catholic church since the 3rd century.
In the 18th century they have been used as pawns by the Jesuits, where their history had been rewritten. The new term Jew was invented and promoted has having a secondary meaning, linking it to Judah or Judeans the ancient Israelites of the Bible.

Believe me, only the Holy spirit can reveal the truth, but the world can not perceive it."

Well, so, which is the false secondary meaning? Is it the Kingdom of Judah of West Africa? Or is it some other meaning that covers up the true Hebrew scholarship?

"there are no Judean art pictures of people...the sparse Egyptian Babylonian and Assyrian pictures of Judean sovereigns paying tribute show a typical Semitic person, certainly not sub Saharan"

I don't know how to interpret this comment but I think they are trying to say that Egyptian pictures do not show sub-Saharan (West African) people, and there we have some sort of "proof" that Egyptians were not Black. On the other hand, Japanese people are not television-eyed purple-haired waif babies, either so art is always a bit controversial.

[golly]

"Jews is not a term used in the Bible to describe Judah and Benjamin. It was a term given a secondary meaning in the 18th century to assert a race of people as being the children of Israel of the Bible.

Jewish Encyclopedia states: "Edom is in modern Jewry."

There is only one nation in the world that can prove ancestral ties with Edom, and the Jews themselves claim that dubious distinction."

This still doesn't make sense to me. The word "Jew" was given a secondary meaning or it is an invented word? Is it invented or reinvented? Where did it come from then? Does it mean Judah? In my experience, statements that are considered this confusing, wandering and inconsistently phrased are considered "anti-Semitic" by anti-racism groups. Why does someone being a "Jew" mean they are both not a Jew and also guilty of dubious claims? This is not a strong and clear argument, and there is no reason not to be extremely specific and as well-spoken as possible when talking about identity, and claims of identity.

Come to think of it, how does the word "Jew" relate to the word jewelry?

Anyway here's another brand of racism, which is kinda fun from the perspective of its target:

"You Gentiles refuse to comprehend that the true history of you, an Albinos = white people. You are not from Europe, you are from the Black Sea and Caspian Sea-Mountains; In the Bible you are the children Japheth, Genesis 10:1-5. And Europe was founded by our black Ancestors (Israelites Jews or Hebrews are the children of Shem and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: The children of Ham and Shem are blood brothers; Ham fathered his Black son Mizraim = (Kemet) are the Egyptians: Again, Shem and Ham are black, blood brothers: Ham also fathered the Ethiopia, Lybians, Phut, Canaanites) who were all black people, kept a relationship, by marriage with the original Black Ancient Greeks. Many of the Africans migrated to the Iberian Peninsula, which is the original name before it was called EUROPE; they were the true builders of Europe. And the name Euro is an African Queen, who was brought to Europe, but before they called it: It was called the Iberian Peninsula. This is another Hidden History of white supremacy, who is threatening and inferior to Black History. The Black people brought math, reading, architect, music & instruments, arts, poetry and the science: They use it to build Spain, France, Italy-Rome and Portugal cities, even the Ireland, Wales, Britain and England. The First Kings of these cities where black men, noble families and black knights: Where did you think the term = Black Night come from. You do not see these portraits of them in the false, history books because they whitewash the paintings throughout Europe. We have the King James Bible that is the direct evidence of who God Chosen people are black, and God has only given them the knowledge and understanding of God’s dark secret and parable only. We have all the old, historical references of the original founders, and builders of the original European. The problem is that the white Prejudice, pale face men, refuses to release the bulk of Black historical documents, of Black noble Kings, Court nobility, Royal families of Black people who ruled Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, England, and Great Britain from 100 A.D. To 1698, but the most High Majesty Black King James from the tribe of Judah ruled England, Ireland and Great Britain 1603 – 1625. Only uneducated, unlearned white young, millennials, do there cursing, blasphemy of God, does not understand; God has chosen black people only: And same thing with the white Albinos Daddy’s when they did come into Europe unlearned in reading and writing, uneducated of their Hygiene’s, while they allowed all their outside, wild animals to sleep in their houses."

It is pretty odd and different that plenty of pale skinned people go all over with their domesticated animals and have them in their houses in unclean ways, but some of it to me is charming and indigenous to our people (even if I don't like animal hair and saliva all over the place, personally). It can also be pretty disturbing that many pale-skinned people can have highly questionable hygiene. And it's certainly not a point of pride that white people with power often sat around in their castles fucking their own close relatives, enslaving their townspeople and envying the true powers of romanticized versions of exotic people who had their own advanced forms of math, science, art and civilization.

But then there is this highly alarmist perspective that becomes totally unreadable to me:

Actually, THEY ARE gentiles.. heathens.. pagans and imposters. The 12 tribes are of ONE nation, ONE people, the SAME nation.. and there is NO "-ish" attached to the TRUE children of Israel. "-ish" meaning "jew-like" ...:confused::unamused::unamused:
Notice that THEY love constantly repeating "we're jewish.. we're jewish.." WITH NO reverence, no respect nor praise whatsoever for The Most High GOD of Israel or of The Messiah!!!!! THEY ARE those which SAY they are 'jews'.. and are not.. of Revelations 2:9 & 3:9..
They've been pretending for awhile now.. WHY do you think they stay SO "close" to so-called Negros?
It IS they who boasted to Yahshua that they had been the bondage of NO man in the new testament.., but HOW could that be?? Israel AND Judah had the wrath of GOD poured out onto them for their disobedience; suffering several captivities.. oppressions.. and atrocities... Did they "forget"??!.. Deuteronomy 28: 15-68? THIS IS WHY they want NO comparisons of them and the plight of the so-called "african-americans" ..or our innumerable atrocities, oppressions AND captivities suffered.. why, in the 1800s, the vicious acts against Negros were ALSO labelled pogroms.. Question: WHO are these mystery people YAH prophesied would remember themselves and their GOD, in the land of their captivity????????? The "jews" SAY they KNOW who they are.. plus they are in fact already occupying the Holyland since before 1948.. Biblical prophecy says that gentiles would be stomping down the holyland in the end times, which they ARE; because ESAU IS the end of the world and JACOB IS that which comes after.. The TRUE children of Israel ARE identified by their condition. Have they even read the bible that they corrupted??? True Israel IS the tail and NOT the head!!! they would be known as a rebuke, a reproach, a byword.. The ashkenaz SAY they are made 'jews' through their MOTHER!??.. IS that SCRIPTURE??? NO.
The Israelites, throughout both the old and new testaments trace their lineage by the patriarch, the FATHER!!!
The modern "hebrew" isn't even hebrew at all.. They HAD to invent a new, impure alphabet WITH vowels and marks because they are NOT the true descendants of Israel; THEY are an invention, like MOST of the LYING people groups of modernity.. "jew-ish" people are the cutthroat practitioners of usury, FACT.. ..
GOD's people? Hardly!
They ARE the serpent people of old who worship the Enemy through the talmud NOT the torah.. but rather the kabbalah and demonic occultic "rites"..
YOU refer to your children as 'KIDS' .. like ..as in GOATS! because of THEM; they're the SAME phallic worshipping weimar republic 2.0 khazar ashkenazi imposters who own ALL of your supposed "entertainment and so-called celebrities" ..
The same idolaters who perform idol worship aka davening/sex simulation allegedly with 'shekinah' up against fort antonia's wall; a lewd pelvic thrusting the khazars did LONG before occupying Israel ..
also, there IS a curse of the skin for SIN, biblically.. that of TRUE leprosy, being cast as white as snow.... NOT "black"! ..so much for that old 'curse of ham' aka black skin cursed nonsense... The definition has been altered to hide the TRUTH of leprosy, as well..
These people just are NOT the true inheritance of The Most High GOD and everyone on earth WILL know and see this TRUTH!!
Have YOU heard the GOOD news?
Blessings!

This seems to be a dismissive rant, and ignorant of a number of points we have established through many other opinions, some of them even conflicting. It conflates "jew" and gentile and "jew-ish" and ashkenazi and that doesn't seem to make sense. I thought we were trying to establish that Jews are a term that has been appropriated, but the original meaning is not given. We have established that Jewish is an English word that doesn't even claim to be anything but. We already know that many Ashkenazim have tried tracing their roots and they wind up going back from Europe to the Black and Caspian seas. This is totally separate from the true Hebrew tribes who have traced their ancestry to Judah and so on.

They also seem to have something against the Weimar Republic, which would position them in alignment with Nazis, which is an extremely racist position. This is followed by apparently an attempt to associate all pale people with the disease of leprosy.

On the other hand, they have a religious truth they are trying to say about what they think should be happening according to the Bible. I am not sure I can get on board with that, because I don't see the Bible as the word of God but the word of people, each of the writers trying hard to be something that has lost its original historical context.

It also seems problematic, then, to try to take the Bible's words as the sole evidence of anything at all. Yet, I guess my bias is showing up too much.

"Can you explain these verses that prove unquestionably that African Americans are not Hebrews/Yehudim/Israelites

Genesis 25 :20
And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah for his wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Padan-Aram, the sister to Laban the Aramean.

Genesis 28:5
And Isaac sent away Jacob; and he went to Padan-Aram to Laban, son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.

Deuteronomy 26:5
And you shall speak and say before the Lord your God, A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.

So i we see the patriarchs Abraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov were Aramean and Arameans are not black.
End of story .Your false narrative goes no further than these 3 verses."

"Arameans are not Black" might be a fact, but once more we have to look back at who was writing what makes a person fit a particular label. If we can rely on the text, yes indeed it does seem that whomever is considered truly Aramean as we know them today might be considered not Black. Can we rely on this text? According to the response, it can be relied on but they cannot be considered truly Aramean:

"Go and study to understand and not to deceive.
It is pretty evident, from the text, that by a Syrian (Aramean) we are to understand Jacob, so called from his long residence in Syria with his father-in-law Laban. And his being ready to perish because hard usage and severe labour he had in Laban's service, by which, as his health was much impaired, so his life might have often been in imminent danger.
Jacob was called that because he lived with Laban 20 years to secure his wife Rachel. Jacob is the grandson of Abraham the patriarch of the Hebrew israelite nation. He was not a blood born Syrian (Aramean). So take your unlearned imposter ass and get lost."

Back to the DNA tests:

"It makes sense when Jews Ashkenazi Jews do a DNA test Europe is highlighted not Israel"

"the Hebrews were black including Jesus when Jews from Israel do a DNA Israel isn’t highlighted cause they are not from there they are European There from line of Japheth not Shem .Shem is black"

Now, this is curious. Japheth is supposed to have been the Hebrew patriarch that led to the creation of Scandinavia (also known as the pale frost-bitten lepers that sleep with barn animals). However, Shem was supposed to have created Assyrians, and Assyrians today are characterized by olive skin and dark hair, not Black African features. Although there has been a lot of wonderful mixing taking place, it seems questionable to say for certain that Shem looked so different from his soul brother Japheth.

"Genesis 10:1-5
10 This is the account of Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their descendants. Shem, Ham and Japheth had children after the flood.
2 Japheth’s descendants were
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.
3 Gomer’s descendants were
Ashkenaz , Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 Javan’s descendants were
the people from Elishah, Tarshish, Cyprus, and Rhodes.[a]
5 From these descendants the people of the coastlands spread into their own countries. Each nation had its own language and families.
Ashkenaz descended from Japheth, NOT Shem..."

At last! Here is the first re-confirmed clue we have so far encountered, even if it's just a wild claim, even if it's just a racist or fanatical perspective, that Ashkenazim are related to Hebrews and/or Israelites of the original tribes. If this is true, however, it would require us to figure out how the Black-Caspian Sea ancient Georgian version ended up there when they are also supposed to have quite early on created Scandinavia. Perhaps if these origin stories can be collected and sorted we might be able to compare the possibilities. Could it be that Japheth aspired East, Gomer settled in or rose out of the ancient Georgian area, and his son (Ashkenaz) is the one that went to the far North of Europe?

Well, then, moving on:

"song of solomon 1 king james version
The Bride
5 (https://biblehub.com/songs/1-5.htm)I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
6 (https://biblehub.com/songs/1-6.htm)Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
the bride is literally describing how her skin has darkened in the sun from her much different and lighter complexion.
now.. which race of people get noticeably darker in the sun from there normal light complexion? white/olive skinned people. my whole family gets super dark in the sun easily. so do judean and other white people in the middle east.
why would she describe her self as dark in the sun if she was already black/dark by default? makes no logical sense. you can’t refute this.
the egyptians even depicted them as caucasoid, olive skinned middle eastern people.
never did they look sub saharan west african. even if they had dark skin, a lot of middle easterns do, but they don't look negroid like the fake people trying to claim being israelites cuz they have no history lol"

"Exactly! Real Jews are white and the Egyptian hieroglyphs show them as having red hair and white skin much lighter than the Egyptians and enslaving them...Thus, the many Egyptians and other enslaved people by the Egyptians left with Moses and became part of the Jewish people were probably darker, in addition Jews took wives from the land of Israel which had a darker people than they did because. Jews came from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who wives were all cousins Abraham All part of That Family ...
In fact the Arabs who claim to descend from Ishmael, if that is true ishmael's mother was Egyptian Black, therefore Arabs would be much darker than Jews"

I am not sure if I can follow this line of logic yet but it's probably just the confusing YouTube comment style of grammar. It seems they are saying Jews are red-haired like some Tartar and/or like some Celtic people (another nod to the Celtic connection which we shall still delay returning to yet). It also seems to be that Jews wed darker skinned people who were Egyptian and darker.

Then, out of nowhere, a tidbit about Black Egyptians! If Ishmael, patriarch of Arabic culture, is quarter Black, then Arabs will be darker than the white-Egyptian intermarried Jew people.

Speaking of this, let's return to the color of Berber people. For some reason.

"no Berber was black, you have had only White, Olive, brown, dark brown skinned Berbers"

"Almoravids enslaved black people and brought them to Iberia"

This seems to be an explanation for the movement of black people from Morocco (then "hosting" a Berber Muslim dynasty) to southern Spain.

And meanwhile, more interesting distinctions are attempted about various Berber populations:

"Maghrebis are quasi Arabized Berbers. I've seen Arab erasure of Berber unique identity and it's disgusting. I wish Berbers totally revived Amazigh and their way of life, but Dajari and such are already very influenced by Berber language and not understood by other Arabs."

And then another legacy, as written by modern science followers:

"Let me educate you
The first inhabitants of North Africa, the Iberomaurusians(mtdna u6 and Y E-M35) were archaic cro magnon people who migrated into the territory more than 30 000 years ago from the near east "back" into Africa.
Cro Magnon type skulls, called Mechtoid skulls are found over North Africa.
Multiple studies confirm that the Cro-Magnon (Mechta) population had been living in North Africa for a very long time. According to genetic research published in 2010, part of the modern population displays a genetic marker that is characteristic of a transition from Cro-Magnon (Mechta) type to the Mediterranean type, and is restricted to North Africa. This suggests that an expansion of the Mediterranean group took place in North Africa around 10,500 years ago and spread to neighboring populations. What anthropological studies of prehistoric peoples demonstrate is that the Cro-Magnon (Mechta)-type people were the sole inhabitants of the Mediterranean and North Africa regions, including the Canary Islands, prior to 10,500 years ago. According to Kefi et al. 2005, study about the Taforalt population more than 12,000 yrs ago) the populations had a Cro-magnon-like morphology (Mechtoids) and likely a cultural link with Iberia (Ibero-maurusian culture/Oranian culture) Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change. DNA studies of the Taforalt population that is the closest to the Kiffians on the chart (WMC)shows no Sub Saharan Mt DNA in it, just Eurasian specific lineages H, U, JT, V (90.5%) and North African specific U6.
The majority of the Mechtoid DNA is haplogroup U and U6, along with H, with haplogroup U making up 33% of the Mechtoid genome, with Haplogroup H making up a total of 22% of the Mechtoid genome. And Iberomaurusian fossils excavated at the Ifri'N Ammar site carrying Haplogroup U6, which was displayed at a frequency occurrence of 50% of their genome. Haplogroup U6 emerged 35,000KYA, which is genetically and archaeological consistent with back-to-Africa migration from a Eurasian population that predated the Holocene (12,000YA).
Population expansion in the North African Late Pleistocene signalled by mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6
“The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity… Attested presence of Caucasian people in northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times… Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians... " (“Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography” Nicole Maca-Meyer, Ana M González, José Pestano, Carlos Flores, José M Larruga, Vicente M Cabrera; 2003) North Africans cluster= components(part of our DNA) with people outside of Africa rather than with people below the Sahara. Genetic evidence supports a Eurasian back migration into North Africa ~30,000 BP. Both Europeans and North Africans came out of the Levant about 40-45,000 years ago. The North African ‘Cro Magnids’ differed slightly from their European cousins, with a lower sloping forehead and heavier brows.

I just want to interrupt here to state that these slight differences both describe stunningly beautiful human beings. Lower sloping foreheads and heavy brows, higher foreheads and more unpronounced brows. All of this says to me that different people have been truly lovely for tens of thousands of years, and if we went back in time we could easily fall in love with the sheer beauty of our ancient ancestors.

In case the term "BP" is confusing, don't be alarmed. It's apparently just a supremacist reference to the fake propaganda event called "atomic bomb age" semi-arbitrarily chosen as January 1, 1950. And it basically means subtracting about as many years from any date to find the "Year 0" of the also arguably supremacist Gregorian Christian date. Sheesh. Sorry about that. It helps to have references though.

The Iberomaurusian is mostly restricted to the Maghreb ~20,000 years ago. Iberomaurusian gave rise to the Capsian and Capsian is Berber. Capsians are descendants of Iberomaurusians who were the first mediterranean people ever lived in Northern Africa at least 45,000 years BP.
Capsians were Proto-Berbers/Imazighen partly derived from the natufians in the neolithic. The Capsian people were descendants of the first agriculturalist/pastoralists that moved out of the levant area, with a more ancient ancestry from the earlier ‘Mechtoid’ people, who seem to have migrated into North Africa from Eurasia about 30,000 years ago. Their skulls are described as generally being ‘proto-Mediteranean’, with gracile bones. They are the ancestors of modern Berbers, whose DNA shows a continuity of about 30,000 years in North Africa.
The Fregel 2017 paper showed that the Cardial Ware Folks were EEF, while the Capsian HG were E-L19 → M81 proto-Berber. Capsians were E-L19 → M81 proto-Berber. traditionally classed into two variegate types: Proto-Mediterranean and Mechta-Afalou on the basis of cranial morphology
Berbers are the indigenous people of North Africa, meaning derived from a population which entered north africa in the paleolithics from cro magnon type humans (mtdna u6) ."

"Long before the existence of modern day identities/ethnicities [...] North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations.

“The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)”
Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe'
Among ancient populations, early Neolithic Moroccans share affinities with Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (~9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (~6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (~3,000 BCE) Moroccan remains, in comparison, share an Iberian component of a prominent European-wide demic expansion, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow. Finally, the Andalusian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ~5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities of the Iberian Neolithic cultures with that of North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb

The Berber component(part of DNA) clusters with people outside of Africa rather than with people below the Sahara.
Indigenous North Africans carry the same amount of neanderthal admixture as west Asians as europeans and its NOT due to recent near eastern or european migrations.

North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals
. North African populations have a significant excess of derived alleles shared with Neandertals, when compared to sub-Saharan Africans. This excess is similar to that found in non-African humans, a fact that can be interpreted as a sign of Neandertal admixture. Furthermore, the Neandertal's genetic signal is higher in populations with a local, pre-Neolithic North African ancestry. Therefore, the detected ancient admixture is not due to recent Near Eastern or European migrations. Sub-Saharan populations are the only ones not affected by the admixture event with Neandertals”

North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals
“Compared to other nearby populations, Tunisians appear to be genetically related to Western Mediterranean population, in particular North Africans and Berbers. In conclusion, HLA genotype results indicate that Tunisians are related to present-day North Africans, Berbers and to Iberians, but not to Eastern Arabs (Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese). This suggests that the genetic contribution of Arab invasion of 7th-11th century A.D. had little impact of the North African gene pool."

HLA Class I and Class II Alleles and Haplotypes Confirm the Berber Origin of the Present Day Tunisian Population.
Africa is a huge continent with a variety of climates, peoples/ethnicities same as Asia.

Africa its not an ethnostate and never has been same as Asia. North Africa might be part of africa in terms of physical geography but its history is mostly tied with Europe and the middle east.
Long before the existence of modern day identities/ethnicities."

To sort of overly summarize, we can say we're establishing a few more new points with this last (long) YouTube comment.

Tunisians are related to Berbers, which makes them related to "Far East" people compared with "Near East" Arabs.
Eastern Arabs are distinct from Berbers and are indigenous to Arabic lands. Arabic people are related to Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese.
The Levant was populated by people of West African, Moroccan and Arab descent as well as increasingly over time some from Gibraltar (European and hence Neanderthal).
Arabs are this type of people, too, and so are any Semites.
This seems to be saying that Arabs and ancient Israelites are African and European mixed people, and have historically been in North Africa for a long time, covering even the relatively recent (5000-2500 BC) period of the Pyramid building cultures of North Africa.

Due to the idea that Arabic Tartar mixed people showed up when Tartars emerged from Turkish areas, this tells me that Tartars may be "Far East" people from Turkey or beyond, from the truly far East. I am eager to explore this! Could the Jews considered "outside" the Semitic tribes be those who intermarried with mixed Turkish people? Could this be the source of Ashkenazim when they arrived in far Northern Europe?