|Re: some more thoughts on this issue|
- Friday, April 27 2007, 20:54:07 (CEST)|
from 188.8.131.52 - co422728-a.olden1.ov.home.nl Netherlands - Mac OS X - Mozilla
you said at the end:
> ...When all there is to go by is a "claim"...with no hard evidence. then what is >ridiculous is making such a claim a "fact". If we could have done what the Kurds >just did...no one would be laughing...they might even accept us as the lineal >descendants of Shalmanessar...but as we haven't, but instead have consistently >lost ground and our heads...we have made ourselves a laughingstock.
Indeed, if we would do what the kurds, palestinians, east-timoreze, tamil tigers... did, the world would know us differently. And that chance is gone too. We probably need to do it the jewish way.
Back to the issue of ethnicity, nationality and peoples lineage. My point is that if a person claims to be Aramean or Chaldean or Assyrian, then this same person should be aware of the fact that he can also claim to be from the other two peoples. Simply because those peoples had the same culture and intermixed heavily and formed one or more ancient empires under those names.
When we came to europe, i had ( i was forced to have! ) a turkish passport. Did that make me a turk? Even if I refuse this and I never call myself a turk? But you are completely right, that if I would have accepted to be a turk ( even if I am not a turk ethnically), then i simply would be one with that passport in my hand. And nobody could deny my turkishnes. I agree with you in this.
In matter of fact, many wellknown persons are not what they are known to be. For example: Kemal Mustafa Ataturk, was of greek origin ( how ironic). And the famous Ismet Inonu, the brain behind Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's turkification policy in the post-ottoman period....was of " nestorian" Assyrian stock.
- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -
The full topic:|
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; nl; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/220.127.116.11