7 ms·

I find it somewhat disappointing how cautiously the author avoids the subject on how Assyrians got "...scattered over the past century from homelands where the

by dpq 4y ago

I find it somewhat disappointing how cautiously the author avoids the subject on how Assyrians got "...scattered over the past century from homelands where their language once flourished". It wasn't just an unfortunate occasion when "a Kurdish chieftain murdered a Church of the East patriarch there in 1918". It was a genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo

Mikeb85 4y ago
Shhh it's politically incorrect to question exactly how all the Christians in the Middle East disappeared... Copts, Chaldeans, Assyrians, etc... were all displaced and/or slaughtered by invading Islamic armies.
- liorben-david 4y ago
  I think you're reading too much into the omission of historical narrative in this particular article about linguistics. The author, Ariel Sabar, wrote an entire book about his father's forced exile from his native Kurdistan by the Iraqi government.
- bergenty 4y ago
  No it’s not, this is pretty well known and discussed. Don’t try and make a straw man because you want to paint “liberals” and Muslims in a bad light. You could have just replied with your second sentence… but you have an agenda.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    > No it’s not, this is pretty well known and discussed It definitely isn't. Tons of people think Arabs are actually native to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, etc... or that Turks are native to Turkey/Anatolia. Most Americans and Western Europeans have no clue about the history of Christianity in the Middle East and Turkey, Arab conquests, etc... Or the fact that Christians were still a majority in a Middle Eastern country within the last 100 years.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Very few cultures are really "natives" of the area they live in. The Turkish came out of Asia and took over from the Greeks in Anatolia, but it's not as if the Greeks were "native" either, and were predated by the Assyrians, and the Hittites before that, It's actually quite hard to really define "native" beyond "the people who were living there when we got there". History is full of migration, conquest, and everything in-between. I always find it a bit odd when people go on about "the Islamic conquest" when your own "native" culture's history is probably not that dissimilar in broad lines.
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        It also gets more complicated when considering that many "conquests" actually end up being cultural rather than genetic. So it might still be the same "people". And plenty of migration and mixtures as well further complicate matters.
    - azth 4y ago
      From wikipedia, while not being a reliable source in general, I already know that Arabs came from the North from other sources: > Arabs are first mentioned in Biblical and Assyrian texts of the ninth to fifth centuries BC where they appear as inhabiting part of Syria. Proto-Arabs are presumed to have originated from what is now modern-day northern Arabia, Jordan and southern Syria. Over time, Arabs spread further out sometimes replacing previously spoken Semitic languages.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      Well yes… western education only teaches the history of places that westerners have been or their interactions with other cultures, with some exceptions. No one in the US is taught about China, India or Africa either. Of course people came from all over the place, by your logic the Japanese are Chinese, the Koreans are Chinese, Indians are central Asian, Greeks and Romans are Arabs, Native Americans are Polynesian and Latin Americans are Spanish. Or from a higher level just for rhetorics sake, everyone is African.
    - denkmoon 4y ago
  - catawbasam 4y ago
    Nope. My kid got taught about the evil Crusaders attacking the innocent Muslims.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      Which isn’t incorrect for the crusades. But like I said above, western education only teaches about places westerners have been or touched. There is zero history taught about China, India, Southeast Asia, Africa or literally any other place besides Europe or the United States unless it relates to an interaction with westerners.
  - golemiprague 4y ago
    I don't think delving into christians' history in the ME was necessary in the original articles, however, it is not untrue that most people think the middle east "natives" are Arab Muslims and yes, it is tied to a "liberal" agenda depicting anybody who is not Arab Muslim in the ME as a "colonialist".
- astrange 4y ago
  Luckily the Chaldeans are now starring in the world's highest-earning mobile game.
- azth 4y ago
  The Pact of Umar would like to have a word with you. The Copts exist today and their rights preserved because of the Muslims protecting them. "Slaughtering" people indiscriminately like you're implying is against Islam.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    For anyone interested, this is the Pact of Umar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar#Content Very clearly establishing non-Muslims as second class people, with all kinds of onerous limitations on their everyday life. Calling this pact "protection" is technically correct, but then, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in WWII was a Protectorate as well. I would call this document "subjugation of unbelievers who serve as your tax base, so it doesn't make much sense to kill them outright".
    - azth 4y ago
      So ignorant to call them "tax base", when in actuality, Zakat that Muslims pay is much much more than the Jizya that Dhimmis pay. The Copts exist today because of the Muslims, this is a fact, even if you try to twist the meaning of what I wrote. They are to be treated well, and with dignity, and their rights preserved. Secondly, I don't see what makes them "second class citizens", not to mention that even wikipedia acknowledges discrepancies in the points they mention. As a matter of fact, several Jewish and Christian historians and figures clearly expressed that they would rather live under a proper Islamic rule as it offers them better quality of life compared to secular modernity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6yXYR01Vg&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6yXYR01Vg&t=6s
    - inawarminister 4y ago
      You should compare it to the fate of Protestants in post-Thirty Years War Bohemia and Hungary, indeed.
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        Yup, religiously driven politics sucks and I am all for worldwide secularization.
- dpq 4y ago
  I'm not even speaking about those ancient times. Rather, I mean the events in 1915-1922, when Turks of various political affiliations massacred Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.

by dpq 4y ago

Mikeb85 4y ago

Shhh it's politically incorrect to question exactly how all the Christians in the Middle East disappeared... Copts, Chaldeans, Assyrians, etc... were all displaced and/or slaughtered by invading Islamic armies.

liorben-david 4y ago
I think you're reading too much into the omission of historical narrative in this particular article about linguistics. The author, Ariel Sabar, wrote an entire book about his father's forced exile from his native Kurdistan by the Iraqi government.
bergenty 4y ago
No it’s not, this is pretty well known and discussed. Don’t try and make a straw man because you want to paint “liberals” and Muslims in a bad light. You could have just replied with your second sentence… but you have an agenda.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  > No it’s not, this is pretty well known and discussed It definitely isn't. Tons of people think Arabs are actually native to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, etc... or that Turks are native to Turkey/Anatolia. Most Americans and Western Europeans have no clue about the history of Christianity in the Middle East and Turkey, Arab conquests, etc... Or the fact that Christians were still a majority in a Middle Eastern country within the last 100 years.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Very few cultures are really "natives" of the area they live in. The Turkish came out of Asia and took over from the Greeks in Anatolia, but it's not as if the Greeks were "native" either, and were predated by the Assyrians, and the Hittites before that, It's actually quite hard to really define "native" beyond "the people who were living there when we got there". History is full of migration, conquest, and everything in-between. I always find it a bit odd when people go on about "the Islamic conquest" when your own "native" culture's history is probably not that dissimilar in broad lines.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      It also gets more complicated when considering that many "conquests" actually end up being cultural rather than genetic. So it might still be the same "people". And plenty of migration and mixtures as well further complicate matters.
  - azth 4y ago
    From wikipedia, while not being a reliable source in general, I already know that Arabs came from the North from other sources: > Arabs are first mentioned in Biblical and Assyrian texts of the ninth to fifth centuries BC where they appear as inhabiting part of Syria. Proto-Arabs are presumed to have originated from what is now modern-day northern Arabia, Jordan and southern Syria. Over time, Arabs spread further out sometimes replacing previously spoken Semitic languages.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    Well yes… western education only teaches the history of places that westerners have been or their interactions with other cultures, with some exceptions. No one in the US is taught about China, India or Africa either. Of course people came from all over the place, by your logic the Japanese are Chinese, the Koreans are Chinese, Indians are central Asian, Greeks and Romans are Arabs, Native Americans are Polynesian and Latin Americans are Spanish. Or from a higher level just for rhetorics sake, everyone is African.
  - denkmoon 4y ago
- catawbasam 4y ago
  Nope. My kid got taught about the evil Crusaders attacking the innocent Muslims.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    Which isn’t incorrect for the crusades. But like I said above, western education only teaches about places westerners have been or touched. There is zero history taught about China, India, Southeast Asia, Africa or literally any other place besides Europe or the United States unless it relates to an interaction with westerners.
- golemiprague 4y ago
  I don't think delving into christians' history in the ME was necessary in the original articles, however, it is not untrue that most people think the middle east "natives" are Arab Muslims and yes, it is tied to a "liberal" agenda depicting anybody who is not Arab Muslim in the ME as a "colonialist".
astrange 4y ago
Luckily the Chaldeans are now starring in the world's highest-earning mobile game.
azth 4y ago
The Pact of Umar would like to have a word with you. The Copts exist today and their rights preserved because of the Muslims protecting them. "Slaughtering" people indiscriminately like you're implying is against Islam.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  For anyone interested, this is the Pact of Umar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar#Content Very clearly establishing non-Muslims as second class people, with all kinds of onerous limitations on their everyday life. Calling this pact "protection" is technically correct, but then, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in WWII was a Protectorate as well. I would call this document "subjugation of unbelievers who serve as your tax base, so it doesn't make much sense to kill them outright".
  - azth 4y ago
    So ignorant to call them "tax base", when in actuality, Zakat that Muslims pay is much much more than the Jizya that Dhimmis pay. The Copts exist today because of the Muslims, this is a fact, even if you try to twist the meaning of what I wrote. They are to be treated well, and with dignity, and their rights preserved. Secondly, I don't see what makes them "second class citizens", not to mention that even wikipedia acknowledges discrepancies in the points they mention. As a matter of fact, several Jewish and Christian historians and figures clearly expressed that they would rather live under a proper Islamic rule as it offers them better quality of life compared to secular modernity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6yXYR01Vg&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6yXYR01Vg&t=6s
  - inawarminister 4y ago
    You should compare it to the fate of Protestants in post-Thirty Years War Bohemia and Hungary, indeed.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Yup, religiously driven politics sucks and I am all for worldwide secularization.
dpq 4y ago
I'm not even speaking about those ancient times. Rather, I mean the events in 1915-1922, when Turks of various political affiliations massacred Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.