• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why can't some people accept that the Israelites were black?

Curious George

Veteran Member
The term has a varying definition (like white can). In the U.S. the term is most often restricted to those who are dark skinned and are of African ancestral origin. That's not to say that an aboriginal Australian would not be defined as black in the U.S. either.

aborigines.jpg


If one of these men had gone missing or committed a crime in the U.S. witnesses ignorant of their ancestry would likely describe them as black or a slight variation of black due to the somewhat of a hair deviation (tends to be straighter or even bleach blond in some cases).

The places where the term "black" can be mistranslated to are those places who are either racially or ethnically homogenous or have limited to no interaction with people who are deemed black in the U.S./western world. For example some people like to obfuscate the use of the word black by the Greeks since that is has they described the great ancient Egyptians. They might say that the word black was only in reference to people who were slightly darker then their tawny skin color (since they themselves had African blood), but forget the fact that the Greeks were in constant contact with the "Aethiopians" (Sudanese Nubians) who are some of the darkest skinned people on Earth. The Greeks pointed out clearly the phenotype, culture and religion of the Egyptians and the "Aethiopians" formed a continuum which began in Aethiopia (Sudan) in accordance with Aethiopian and Egyptian history which was taught to them.

So, "black" is a largely reference to phenotypes but actually a reference to geographic ancestry? Thus a person with phenotypes identical to those commonly found in African tribes could be called black, but it could be a mistake?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
All humans are so similar that any group could breed itself to become like any other group. In 100 generations an isolated group of humans could easily go from black to white and back to black and back to white again. It would be a function of the total number in the population and the importance of breeding, but I bet 100 would be too many. I bet they could do it in 50.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
But the study just presented to you all shows that Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic affinity indicating an origin in or around the Caucus mountains, and that this genetic tie with Middle Easterners likely could have come from more recent historical events.

It relates to exactly which time period is being checked for and who's being tested. Even though there undoubtedly was some intermarriage, we well know that this wasn't that common, and those who married outside of the Jewish community pretty much stayed outside the community.

There were relatively small groups of Jews living in the diasporah prior to 70, but we know the vast majority came after 70. Depending on who and how many are being tested, some differences can show up.

However, the point to me is moot since I really don't see what difference it really makes today.

R1b is often characterized as THE European hapologroup because of it's CURRENT distribution, but recent finds in undiscovered Africa has shaken those perceptions to the foundation. Recent studies now suggest a R1b origin in Sub Saharan West Africa and a northward migration into North Africa and then into Europe. So saying that the Lemba have a "Middle Eastern" genetic marker (haplogroup J) does not in anyway challenge the argument that their original Hebrew ancestors were black just like them.

That I can't comment on, but I will try and remember to discuss this with my rabbi since he stayed with them around 5 or so years ago.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
It is quickly becoming common knowledge to people waking up that the Israelites were indeed a black people. It is also understood that many (if not most or all) blacks of slave descent are Israelites as well.

Why is it that in light of such information, people have such a hard time accepting these facts?
Interesting. So why aren't they black now?
 

Asante

Member
It relates to exactly which time period is being checked for and who's being tested.

Yes you are correct. The comparative samples used in previous studies have been an issue according to the author of this study. Previous studies neglected comparative samples from around the Caucus mountain range asserted a superficial relationship with contemporary Middle Easterners through the likely recently absorbed Semitic markers in Ashkenazis.

Even though there undoubtedly was some intermarriage, we well know that this wasn't that common, and those who married outside of the Jewish community pretty much stayed outside the community

So then how does that explain this study's finding that the genetic basis for Ashkenazi Jews is consistent with those populations around the former Kingdom of Khazaria?

There were relatively small groups of Jews living in the diasporah prior to 70, but we know the vast majority came after 70.

The population ballooning that resulted in there being over 8 million Jews by the beginning of the 19th century from a population base of only around 50,000 during the Middle Ages is an impossible scenario through natural births. The only way to explain it is a mass conversion.
 

Asante

Member
So, "black" is a largely reference to phenotypes but actually a reference to geographic ancestry? Thus a person with phenotypes identical to those commonly found in African tribes could be called black, but it could be a mistake?

Yes. Though they are black in their own right. If someone in the states say that an aboriginal Australian is not black then the only thing that they would logically be appealing to is geographical origins and not phenotype.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Yes. Though they are black in their own right. If someone in the states say that an aboriginal Australian is not black then the only thing that they would logically be appealing to is geographical origins and not phenotype.

Do you not agree that all humans originated from Africa?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes you are correct. The comparative samples used in previous studies have been an issue according to the author of this study. Previous studies neglected comparative samples from around the Caucus mountain range asserted a superficial relationship with contemporary Middle Easterners through the likely recently absorbed Semitic markers in Ashkenazis.



So then how does that explain this study's finding that the genetic basis for Ashkenazi Jews is consistent with those populations around the former Kingdom of Khazaria?



The population ballooning that resulted in there being over 8 million Jews by the beginning of the 19th century from a population base of only around 50,000 during the Middle Ages is an impossible scenario through natural births. The only way to explain it is a mass conversion.

You bring up good points, I believe, but I simply don't know the answers.
 

Shermana

Heretic
The recent study by Elhaik is extremely flawed, but of course I'm imagining you'll believe it's automatically true and that the naysayers are trying to cover the truth without actually knowing what the study specifically says, right?

Terra Incognita: The return of the Khazar myth | JPost | Israel News


Terra Incognita: The return of the Khazar myth By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
01/02/2013 22:07

Select Language​▼
Due to an obsessive interest in the “true” origins of the Jewish people, all sorts of scientific norms are discarded in favor of embracing any wild theory. Terra Incognita: The return of the Khazar myth
A recent study (‘The missing link of Jewish European Ancestry’) published online by the Oxford journal Genome Biology and Evolution concluded that “the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco-Romans and Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans, and their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.”

The article has been gaining some buzz in a variety of places, from neo-Nazi websites to radical left-wing blogs, as proof that the Jewish people are not a distinct “people” and that their origins are in the Caucuses, not the Middle East.

The author of the article, post-doctoral researcher Eran Elhaik of the Department of Mental Health at Johns Hopkins University, based his conclusion on what he describes as the “Khazar hypothesis,” which he accepts as a reasonable hypothesis that should be tested.

The Khazar theory for the origin of the Jews was invented by the womanizing communist intellectual Arthur Koestler in his 1976 book The Thirteenth Tribe. The Khazars, a Turkish polity that came to dominate the Caucuses in the 7th century, disappeared eventually several hundred years later, like many other tribal mini-states established in that area during the period. Some of the Khazar elite supposedly converted to Judaism.

Koestler wrote his book without historical training in the history of the Caucuses and primarily as an intellectual provocation about the history of the Jews.

When he came to the part about the fall of the Khazar empire, he noted that “where the historians’ resources give out, legend and folklore provide useful hints.”

Based on his intellectual exercise, which was grounded in nothing more than whimsical thinking, Koestler concluded: “Here, then, we have the cradle of the numerically strongest and culturally dominant part of modern Jewry.”

Elhaik, whose previous articles have dealt with such subjects as the genome sequence of the Leafcutter ant, decided that he could use his background to divine the true origins of the Jewish people.

He analyzed data on 1,287 “unrelated individuals of 8 Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations,” the article said.

“As Judeans and Khazars have been vanquished…contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasian populations were used as surrogates,” Elhaik writes. “Palestinians were considered proto-Judeans” and Armenians and Georgians were considered “proto-Khazars because they emerged from the same cohort as Khazars.”

THE AUTHOR sets out with the claim that he is interested in studying the European Jewish link to the Khazars since European-descended Jews are the “largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, accounting for nearly 90 percent of over 13 million Jews worldwide.”

The analysis then fits the model.

According to the author, some 70% of European Jews “and almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijani Jews.” Surprisingly some 15% of Central European Jews are similar to the Druse and Cypriots.

The author notes that “strong evidence” for the Khazar hypothesis is that Eastern European Jews closely resemble Jews from the Caucuses. “Because Caucasus populations remained isolated in the Caucasus region, and because there are no records of Caucasus populations mass-migrating to Eastern and Central Europe prior to the fall of Khazaria, these findings imply a shared origin for European Jews and Caucasus populations.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, in the case of Elhaik, the evidence is not only weak and misleading, it is based on numerous sources that are not historical, instead employing conjectures and leaps in logic, as well as claims that cannot be substantiated.

One of Elhaik’s very first claims, that “contemporary Eastern European Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, accounting for nearly 90% of over 13 million Jews worldwide” is said to be based on a publication by the United Jewish Communities in 2003, titled the “National Jewish Population Survey, 2000-01.”

Except this source deals with the demographics of Jews in the United States.

An inquiry with Dr. Elhaik resulted in a note that this was a mistake that would be corrected, and that the actual source should be Harry Ostrer’s 2001 paper in genetics, “A Genetic Profile of Contemporary Jewish Populations.”

Except Ostrer wrote that “contemporary Jewry is comprised of ~13 million people… Among the Jews of the United States, ~90% are of Ashkenazi origin.” So right from the beginning Elhaik has made a basic flaw in his use of sources, one that was neither caught by the editors of Genome Biology and Evolution, nor the peer reviewers of his paper.

Yet it is a claim that should have been caught, for most people who study Jews know that 90% of them are not Ashkenazi and their population is much more diverse than that presented by Elhaik.

However, the real flaws in this new research are historical. The author claims a massive knowledge of history that has major implications for his findings.

“There are no records of Caucasus populations mass-migrating to Eastern and Central Europe prior to the fall of Khazaria.” he footnote for this is another genetic research study, but a claim like this requires historical knowledge of the Caucuses. In fact, the Caucuses were a place of great human movement from the 15th to 19th centuries. Cossacks, Circassians, Chechans, Tatars and numerous other groups roamed the region in the period, some of whom, like the Khazars, vanished to history.

The author claims that his evidence shows that “Judaized Greco-Roman male-driven migration directly to Khazaria is consistent with historical demographic migrations and could have created the observed pattern.” Following in the footsteps of Tel Aviv University academic Shlomo Sand’s work, The Invention of the Jewish People, Elhaik claims “no Jewish historiography was produced from the time of Josephus Flavius (1st century CE) to the 19th century.”

But the source, Sand, is not an expert on Jewish history in the period – his book, like Koester’s, was more a polemic.

Elhaik goes further, noting that “the religious conversion of the Khazars encompassed all the Empire’s citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years…the Judeo- Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixing with the neighboring populations.”

There is actually no evidence of this; the general view has been that only some of the Khazar elite converted to Judaism.

Yet Elhaik even claims to know the details of the Judeo-Khazar life. “After the decline of their Empire, the Judeo-Khazars refugees sought shelter in the emerging Polish Kingdom and other Eastern European communities, where their expertise in economics, finances, and politics were valued.”

Elhaik is a vicious fraud with an axe to grind, may he be brought to such shame that he can't live with it. He can't even be trusted with basic facts on history or the data he claims to get samples from. And may those who blindly believe his work lose all credibility with anyone they speak to.

We're talking a guy who thinks Armenians are a base proxy DNA for the Khazars. If you believe that, I've got some waterfront property in Arizona to sell ya. I'll bet Turkey would love that.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/01/sloppy-khazar-genetic-research-gets.html#.UjuKXdK2ZXE

Maybe I should make a thread just for Elhaik's study just for a reference to put it to the fire on each reference to it.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Now as for the issue of 3-5% of Jews having sub-saharan DNA from about 2000 years ago, this leads to an obvious conclusion:

A few rich Jews had some attractive female African slaves during the Roman times.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Now as for the issue of 3-5% of Jews having sub-saharan DNA from about 2000 years ago, this leads to an obvious conclusion:

A few rich Jews had some attractive female African slaves during the Roman times.

I am not sure how you find that conclusion obvious; I think it is more along the lines of offensive.
 

Shermana

Heretic
I am not sure how you find that conclusion obvious; I think it is more along the lines of offensive.

The truth is often offensive. I don't care if anyone finds it offensive. That's how the facts look to me and I'd raise an eyebrow to anyone who interprets it differently.

How do you interpret it? How many possible ways are there of interpreting it?

It's pretty obvious because only 3-5% of Jews have this genetic descent, and it stems from around 0 A.D, and most people who have Black genes at least in America and the West have descent from slaves, and Slavery of defeated Africans was quite common in Roman times. Do you believe 3-5% of us descend from African converts around that time? I'd find that highly unlikely.
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
The truth is often offensive. I don't care if anyone finds it offensive. That's how the facts look to me and I'd raise an eyebrow to anyone who interprets it differently.

How do you interpret it? How many possible ways are there of interpreting it?

It's pretty obvious because only 3-5% of Jews have this genetic descent, and it stems from around 0 A.D, and most people who have Black genes at least in America and the West have descent from slaves, and Slavery of defeated Africans was quite common in Roman times. Do you believe 3-5% of us descend from African converts around that time? I'd find that highly unlikely.

um.. what does America have to do with this?

I do not know enough about the time period to assume any of these things. I would have to research the era. And I do not know that I would assume that the consequence of 3-5% = ancestry of rape victims and rapists.
 

Shermana

Heretic
um.. what does America have to do with this?

I do not know enough about the time period to assume any of these things. I would have to research the era. And I do not know that I would assume that the consequence of 3-5% = ancestry of rape victims and rapists.

Because America is an example of people who have Black descent descending from slaves, I thought I made that clear.

I'll bet you a lot more than 3-5% of humanity descends from "Rape victims". On a side note, our historical religion condones taking virgins of conquered peoples as brides, and the taking of wives of female slaves. It's one of the things you'll often see in Atheist memes. It was standard practice for virtually all cultures, and continues to this day in many parts of the world, especially Africa.

Anyways, you may want to research basic things like this before you whine about what's "offensive".
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
Because America is an example of people who have Black descent descending from slaves, I thought I made that clear.

I'll bet you a lot more than 3-5% of humanity descends from "Rape victims". On a side note, our historical religion condones taking virgins of conquered peoples as brides, and the taking of wives of female slaves. It's one of the things you'll often see in Atheist memes. It was standard practice for virtually all cultures, and continues to this day in many parts of the world, especially Africa.

Anyways, you may want to research basic things like this before you whine about what's "offensive".

I wasn't trying to whine. I am sorry if it came out that way. However, I do not see why it is an obvious conclusion. Given that many suggest the Jews were slaves on the continent of Africa, and Judaism is past through the Matriarchal line, why would it not be equally conceivable that the Jewish slave girls were raped by their Egyptian owners?

My point is that while you may very well know much more about the era and time period than I, but you are either not spelling out all the details and therefore your concept of "obvious" is only "obvious" to you, or you are indeed making a logical jump for which you have no grounds. As I said, I do not know enough about the historical time period to judge either way. But, I can tell that it is not "obvious."

The fact that you make an assumption about how obvious it is that Jews raped African girls and that accounts for any genealogical discrepancies is offensive because it presumes a dominance and class structure that you have not demonstrated.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I wasn't trying to whine. I am sorry if it came out that way. However, I do not see why it is an obvious conclusion. Given that many suggest the Jews were slaves on the continent of Africa, and Judaism is past through the Matriarchal line, why would it not be equally conceivable that the Jewish slave girls were raped by their Egyptian owners?

My point is that while you may very well know much more about the era and time period than I, but you are either not spelling out all the details and therefore your concept of "obvious" is only "obvious" to you, or you are indeed making a logical jump for which you have no grounds. As I said, I do not know enough about the historical time period to judge either way. But, I can tell that it is not "obvious."

The fact that you make an assumption about how obvious it is that Jews raped African girls and that accounts for any genealogical discrepancies is offensive because it presumes a dominance and class structure that you have not demonstrated.

Hebrew Law did say they could do this. They could rape, and take as "his" woman/wife, or concubines, - or rape, and breed, and keep the slaves "forever," passing them down as an inheritance.

*
 

Asante

Member

Your source to counter this peer reviewed study is a one page blog entry (centered around "Jewish" interest) that lacks any sources for it's "counter claims". You are correct in your assumption that I will roll with this study as opposed to the "naysayers" of these results.

For the record I am sure that there are plenty of p-ed off Ashkenazi Jews who have an ax to grind with these results. It's interesting to note that the author of this study is a former Israeli Jew as well.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Hebrew Law did say they could do this. They could rape, and take as "his" woman/wife, or concubines, - or rape, and breed, and keep the slaves "forever," passing them down as an inheritance.

*

Okay, I can understand that. I can even understand that many slaves(of various ethnic groups) and Jewish women were raped by Jewish men(whatever "race" they were). However, the obviousness of this accounting for any genetic discrepancies in the culture today still eludes me.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Your source to counter this peer reviewed study is a one page blog entry (centered around "Jewish" interest) that lacks any sources for it's "counter claims". You are correct in your assumption that I will roll with this study as opposed to the "naysayers" of these results.

For the record I am sure that there are plenty of p-ed off Ashkenazi Jews who have an ax to grind with these results. It's interesting to note that the author of this study is a former Israeli Jew as well.



I sure do have an ax to grind, especially with those with axes to grind. However, if you had bothered to actually address the counter-claims like they did specifically, you'd look like you actually have something of worth to contribute to this discussion, and it's quite obvious why you do roll the study, because you aren't the least bit concerned about the scientists' results whom he is opposing and calling "Frauds and liars". Did you even read it? I got lots more than that. If you're unwilling to go over it, I'll go over each criticism line by line and rub your nose in it.

It's more than obvious that the people who go with this study blindly, like Neo-Nazis and Islamist groups have absolutely no interest in even examining the reasoning behind the criticism of this loner. I guess the scientists who oppose him are automatically just lying because they're trying to "cover up the truth", but you won't even look at why the results and data come from flawed methodology, you won't even address what the sources say to even try to show them wrong! Let me know when you're actually interested in addressing the actual counter-claims instead of just brushing them off.

What's also interesting is that there are plenty of self-hating Jews who are actively interested in sabotaging Jewish cultural concepts, there are anti-Zionist Israeli Jews too. It means jack nothing except that he's perhaps interested in catering to the Stormfront crowd. I guess all the Israeli Zionist Jews who have proven Ashkenazis are NOT related to Khazars beyond a tiny insignificant percent must be lying because they're Israeli Jews.

Everyone has an axe to grind, but some axes are there to grind against the actual facts for their own individualistic reasons.

Until then, "Nuh uh".
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
I wasn't trying to whine. I am sorry if it came out that way. However, I do not see why it is an obvious conclusion. Given that many suggest the Jews were slaves on the continent of Africa, and Judaism is past through the Matriarchal line, why would it not be equally conceivable that the Jewish slave girls were raped by their Egyptian owners?

My point is that while you may very well know much more about the era and time period than I, but you are either not spelling out all the details and therefore your concept of "obvious" is only "obvious" to you, or you are indeed making a logical jump for which you have no grounds. As I said, I do not know enough about the historical time period to judge either way. But, I can tell that it is not "obvious."

The fact that you make an assumption about how obvious it is that Jews raped African girls and that accounts for any genealogical discrepancies is offensive because it presumes a dominance and class structure that you have not demonstrated.

The only other alternative option is that they come from African converts, or that 97% of Jews are liars and fakes or that 97% of Jews come from converts and the 3-5% of Jews who have Sub-Saharan DNA are the "True Hebrews".

If you have any other alternatives, present them, or continue to showcase your militant ignorance and obvious bias and unwillingness to address other sides of the argument that go against your own confirmation bias.
 
Top