Not really. The Suez Canal did nothing more than provide a shallow waterway near the border between Asia and Africa. Even granting the arbitrary nature of the way that humans assign names to places, the Red Sea has always been considered the divider between Africa and Asia (as the Arabian peninsula) and, the Gulf of Suez being substantially larger than the Gulf of Aqaba, the Sinai Peninsula has always been regarded as a part of Asia, as well. Any claim that “Palestine” (or the Levant or whatever name one chooses to give the East coast of the Mediterranean) was ever “part of Africa” can best be described as odd.
Only if one thinks that the Mosaic Exodus was an “out of Africa” experience (that ignores recent archaeological examinations that question whether that event even occurred).
Doesn’t mean everything he wrote outside of fiction is untrue. I know the progression of Judaism, I was just giving Ivory a source I felt he’d be comfortable with.
Not necessarily. It might be “odd” depending on who you’re asking, but that doesn’t mean what I’m saying is untrue. And whether Palestine was considered part of Asia or Africa in the ancient world is immaterial as it pertains to BrainGlutton’s question. A glance at any map would show that it’d be quite easy for the Ethiopians to travel to Palestine.
According to some of the history I’ve read an Exodus did indeed occur. But it didn’t have anything to do with enslaved jews leaving with Moses. A group of Africans left as a result of a religious dispute they’d had with the ruling powers of the time.
No sir, they are not. The original Hebrews were Black. Calling the truth an “afro-centrist theological belief” may give you comfort, and is a popular tactic among European revisionists (who love to call all who expose their untruths “revisionists”), but doesn’t change the fact that the original Hebrews were indeed Black.
I won’t call everyone else an “impostor” though, I’ll just call em what they are: Converts.
I’m not sure what you mean by a source I’d be “comfortable” with. I am an academic (hence my name IvoryTowerDenizen), so I do like academic, well researched sources, but HG Wells is not one in my experience.
What are you getting about about with my “comfort” level?
And for the records, every original Jew was a convert from something else. Every Jew is a either a convert today or a descendent of a convert. We’re all in this together- you seem to be teh one casting aspersions on the validity of one group of Jews over another.
Not to endorse coryoliver’s POV, but the Wiki article on Ashkanazi Jews references the following: However, a 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, from the University of Huddersfield in England, suggests that at least 80 percent of the Ashkenazi maternal lineages derive from the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, probably as a consequence of conversion.[43]
From the livescience article: “The simplest explanation was that it was mainly women who converted and they married with men who’d come from the Near East.” All of this occurring hundreds of years ago. The matter is still under investigation though.
I dunno. Would you consider a dark-skinned Arab to be a black? Because I understand that Palestinians in Caesar’s time tended to have a somewhat darker complexion than they do today, not that it matters.
I’ve encountered groups of the “Black Hebrews” on street corners here in NYC a couple of times, loudly preaching at passersby. As mentioned, they are very big on being the only “true” Jews and that all others are false Jews.
My Israeli friend and I happened to notice a couple of black Jews (identifiable thanks to clothing/area; once again this was in a heavily Jewish neighborhood in Long Island) dining at a restaurant near us. He guessed based on their looks that they might be Libyan Jews.
I think it’s a pretty good bet that every single group that claims that they are the only ‘true [Jews, Christians, whites, blacks, Muslims, etc.]’ and others are ‘false [Jews, Christians, whites, blacks, Muslims, etc.]’ is full of shit.
May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Sid Schwartzman please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Sid Schwartzman please stand up?
We’re gonna have a problem here…
In Judaism, at least, it is considered very poor form to even question is someone is born a Jew or converted. Both are seen as equal and converts are not seen in any way as lesser.
The idea of questioning whose Judaism is more valid (vis a vis conversion) is just odd.
Man, I’d have to jump on my laptop and start going through hundreds of bookmarks. But I’m mainly going off the reading I’ve done through the years on the origins of different religions. Measure cited a source, and while I know most disdain Wiki “sources” it’s a good starting point because it’s basically true in this case.
It would.
my apologies.
Not casting aspersions at all. I was merely speaking the truth as I know it. I know about the Black Hebrew Israelites, and I understand what they’re doing is a response to those who’ve made a practice of questioning the validity of Black Jews. That’s basically what this thread is about - opining on the validity of the Black Jews, so I spoke my piece.
That particular system of religion didn’t originate in Palestine. The elements that comprise Judaism, Islam, and Christianity came out of Africa. The Palestinians of Caesar’s time were descendants of those who had come into contact with Africans who were already practicing that religion. The early ancestors of those Arab Palestinians were among the first “converts.” As is true in history, some of those early Arabs stayed in the region of NE Africa or moved westward along the coast and into Spain, some went back into Asia and took their new beliefs with them, and some left with different groups of Africans who migrated to other places throughout that part of the world.
I hope they thrive and intermarry at an ever increasing rate if only for the sake of health by inserting some genetic diversity into a group that’s self selected to the point of increased likelihood of several genetic diseases.
There are, in reality, lots of different groups who can loosely be described as “Black Jews”. Whether or not other, non-Black Jews accept them as “Jews” has absolutely nothing to do with race - race being a particularly American obsession.
In fact, lots of “Black Jews” are considered “Jews” by non-Black Jews without a single qualm. They include, for example, the traditional Etheopian Jewish community, or Bene Israel. They also include persons who are members of ordinary Jewish communities who happen to be Black. For example, no Jew I know of considers Sammy Davis Jr. to somehow “not be Jewish” just because he was Black.
Where you get controversy, is with groups like the “Black Hebrew Israelis”:
The reason why such “Black Hebrews” are often rejected as “Jews” by other Jews (including other Jews who happen to be Black) has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with religion. Put simply, they are, in many cases, viewed as variants on Christianity, or as expressions of Black nationalism - not as Judaism.
Most (indeed, all) such groups are realy expessions of particularly new World (and mostly American) spirituality and politics - hence, a common belief that American Blacks are more “purely” Jewish descendants of the Jews in the Bible, which acts as a counter-balance to American anti-Black racism, along the lines of ‘my ancestors are more significant than yours’.
Now, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such a belief, but holding it does not make one a “Jew”.
