@Palmyrene
@Palmyrene
I'll repeat myself. The oldest inscription of Arabic not proto Arabic, is in the Levant and can be found both in Palestine and Lebanon. The wikipedia article is irrelevant because it is out dated. All the references come from either the 80s or the 2000s.
The Development of the Arabic Scripts: From the Nabatean Era to the First Islamic Century According to Dated Texts
Read it. The Arabic
ALPHABET as I previously stated, is derived from the Nabataean alphabet as archeologically proven. Nabataeans are in south of Jordan and right on the borders of the Hijaz; Which is why based on most sources, the theories on where did Arabic originate, they put it either in Southern Iraq, north Yemen, or in Hijaz.
There are no sources given in wikipedia for that statement. Can you give a source for that statement
Its mentioned in Bible. In the Talmud. In the Avesta. In the epic of Gilgamesh. In most Hebrew writing of the era. In every ancient records.
You said 100s of scholars said it's recent. I looked that up, 100s of scholars agree that the >
REPBULIC< of Lebanon is recent, not Lebanon itself as a nation.
The map itself shows that only the darl green are mountains. The south of Lebanon is hills.
These are the hills right next to Beirut in the background
This is how the average in Lebanon is.
From Mleeta in the south
In Sidon
Qaro'n
etc.
Hills doesn't mean flat lands.
2. I'm going to need proof that you can verify that your clan is the descendants of ths Itureans.
I never said we are. I said their descendants are still there.
1. They're semi nomadic and had their base around Mount Lebanon. This was the area they called their territory. The map you see in the wikipedia article is in the Roman period. I am referring to the Hellenic period before they were driven out of Mount Lebanon.
Who settled in with the existing tribes, and still are there.
Never say that when it comes to history. The ideas that permeated in previous centuries are completely different from now. Nationalism didn't even exist in the Medieval period.
Nationalism=/= nationhood.
Those are all in the 19th century when Lebanon as a state de facto existed under French (or British?) administration.
What does a book about the royalties of Jordan before the British has to do with Lebanon ?
What source? Since clearly I never gave a source that said the Arab settlers are nomads.
Nor did I say they were. (I know you're having troubles reading, no worries)
The Itureans were nomads who settled in with existing tribes and city states, and their decendents are still there.
Also, they're not Arabs, they're Aramaic.
Ok. No. That's not how genetics. You aren't all genetically identical and even families don't work that way so clearly you aren't all Aramaicl which is a ridiculous notion anyways. Either way, it doesn't determine ethnicity at all. Even you know you're grasping for straws. Tribes mix with other tribes all the time. I recall there's a Lebanese Arab tribe which mixed with Syrian Arab tribes as well.
1- I didn't say we're Aramaic. You appear to have troubles reading again.
If you bothered reading something about Lebanon, you'd know it has large tribes, like the Humaydeyah tribe in the Beqa, north and south; We mixed with that tribe and that's why most tribes and clans in Lebanon are related by blood. Lebanese tribes make up a large portion, arguably majority, of the population. Add to that the Maronites and Greek Catholics in the country, and that's a majority of residents. If we expanded to include all Lebanese people around the world, the portion of Arabs go down significantly.
So do Shias and some lower class Maronites.
The Shia lower classes are mainly in the Beqa' and the south, and they don't identify as Arabs.
These are your ideas taken to their logical conclusion. In the end your inconsistent beliefs rely upon a sense of superiority over the Lebanese Arab population (who you see as foreign) by asserting your own non-Arabness. You remind me of those upper class Maronites who regard being called Arab as being called a dog or filthy.
It doesn't.
You don't have to be ethnically Lebanese to be Lebanese, but that doesn't mean that ethnic Lebanese don't exist.
There's no such thing as ethnic Lebanese. No one in Lebanon identifies as "ethnically Lebanese". They may be Arab, Assyrian, Maronite, and if they're retarded, Phoenician but no one calls themselves ethnic Lebanese.
Phoenician is the Greek name for Canaanite, and the overwhelming majority of the people in Lebanon and Palestine (Jews that is) are descendents from Canaanites.
Maronites are also a sub section of Canaanites.
Ethnicity is not decided by others, it's decided by the people who identify as that ethnicity. Most people in Lebanon identify as Arab. They are descended from the Arabs who settled and continued to settle there in Lebanon for decades.
First of all, false.
Second of all, Lebanon has been settled for thousands of years, before the term Arabs even came to exist.
Assyria is not comparable to modern day Syria. Don't even start with that. Assyria, which has beem gone for literally eons, is not something Syrian Arabs identified as other than actual Assyrians.
And this is another example of you making stuff up about what I say.
I didn't say Syrians are Assyrians, I said Assyria was a collection of city states, all identified as Assyrians before there was an empire to unify them. No one mentioned Syria but you.
Also, if empires ruling over a territory counts as a nation, then everyone identified predominantly as Muslim not Arab or anything else because the Caliphate was the longest lasting empire which existed there.
If a nation was divided among many states and one of them expanded to conquer all of them and unify them, then yes.
No, Iran didn't develop a distinct identity until after Alexander took it over and the Sassanids made an attempt to erase all Greek influence from Iran. It was also then that Zoroastrianism became codified as an actual state religion.
You kidding right?
Iran came to be after Alexander came along?
All that history of the Persian empire before hem, the constant wars with the Assyrians and the Uman manda, the wars with the Medes, etc none of those existed in your mind ?
No they didn't. In the last thousand years they actually identified as Roman. You see, the Byzantine Empire didn't call itself the Byzantine Empire, they called themselves Romans since they were the only surviving part of the Roman Empire. The Western part fell while the Eastern part survived. There's still a small island village off the shore of Greece which still calls itself Roman.
During the Ottoman period, peoples under Ottoman rule were grouped by religion and not by language, under the millet system. Thus the Greeks were simply “Christians”.
Hell, Greece was almost not called Greece. At the beginning of Greek nationalism (late 18th century to early 19th century), there was a fierce competition between the names "Hellenes" and "Romans" as the new name of the Greeks. The name “Hellenes” won, in part because it was useful to evoke the memories of Classical Greece to foreign backers (Britain and France in particular), and in part because “Roman” was then seen as a symbol of the failed, “decadent” Byzantine empire.
@noemon Is this true ? Did your nation (nation not state) not exist before the 18th century ?
No. The short answer is that Napoleon pretty much invented modern unified Italy. The long answer is a bit more complex, with notions of "Italy" changing over time.
The issue of Italian identity has been controversial and debated for a very long time. Italians themselves seem to be unsure: there are examples of Independence and Unification champions travelling to other regions and describing them as "different as Japan" and that was the Age of Nationalism. That's right, Italian regions were soooo different that it was like travelling to another country.
There are generally two different attitudes that are common. One is to identify as Italians against non-Italians. This happens generally abroad and there are examples of this as far back as Boccaccio's novels where even Sicilians are included in the lot. Although the first use if the words Italy and Italians (Italici) dates back to the Bellum Socialis in Roman times.
The other is raising differences when confronting Italians from other regions. This is also reported as far back as early Middle Ages, with a "Lombard" or “Frankish" north and a "Greek" (Byzantine) south and a "Roman" central area that reached as far as Ravenna. The kingdom of Italy, successor if the Lombard kingdom, had its southern border in Tuscany and Marche, and that lasted in Cavour's project in 1850s. The inclusion of southern Italy and Rome in the kingdom was a diversion of Garibaldi and not in the plan of the Piedmontese elites.
But even that's just pushing it. There isn't much which ties Italians together.
And the Romans didn't exist. Nor did Dante Alighieri nor any of these guys existed before then.
Dante was famous because he wrote in common Italian rather than Latin, how could there be common Italians if there were no Italians back then?
Weird.
The Kievan Rus was established in the 14th century. It's not an identity, it's a federation of tribes which didn't identify as Russian and it didn't even include most of modern day Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RussiansOh so I see more unsourced claims like yours.
I have proof from actual academic books to back my claim. You have unsourced wikipedia articles. You're spouting BS not me.
Just like you're failing to correctly read what I'm writing, I'm sure you've failed to read the distinction between Republic and nation in your sources.
No you said Iraqis. The others you mentioned are minorities not the majority.
You didn't mention Arabs in the rest of your sentence.
It had nothing to the with genetics. It had to do with the fact that they're Shia. And Arabs make up the plurality. The mix in genetics has nothing to do it. Everyone is mixed. I'm 1% Native American for fuck's sake.
Why was it targetted at people of Shammari descend then?
Clearly in a country with majority Shias, he could have exiled a whole bunch rather than just a portion of just one ethnic group.
What age limit?
Only those above certain age can be Imams. I believe it's 40 or something.
Your family refers to that. Not the majority of the population. You're not going to convince me based on your own experiences. I want statistics.
If you bothered reading the stats even you came across it, and paying attention to your own argument and what you're saying, you'd know that you agreed with me multiple times over by now.
There 14-18 million Lebanese nationals at the moment, the overwhelming majority of who are Christians or Maronites, followed by shias, Sunnis, Druze, Jews, etc
For general stats, there are none, only internal ones.
We can know that the Lebanese tribes based on the release from the Jafari court have an estimated population of 1.5m people. And we know that the total estimate is coming from the CIA. As well as a local estimate of various churches putting the total Christian population around 1.9m. Other than internal stats published on the news, there are no official records.
I said the entire Lebanese people not your specific community. Stop making strawman.
1- This is not what a strawman argument looks like.
2- Those are example of communities that don't use or speak Arabic, and they're all over the place in Lebanon.
Just because they're Ismaili doesn't mean they're the same genetically. There's Arab Ismailis in Syria (i.e. the Hashashin), the Fatimids in Egypt were Ismaili, there's Ismailis in Iran and they gave the most Ismailis in the world.
Religion is not indicative of race.
An empire targetting an ethnic group for extermination and ending up killing both Alawites and alevis would indicate they're from the same ethnic group.
But I guess the genocides of the early 20th century never happened in your mind as well.
- By Dr House
- By JohnRawls