Jews and Joes Blog
26Feb/104

Black Hebrews MORE original than Ashkenazi Jews?

I keep running into this inconsistent logic. Can't ignore it anymore.

Some black-skinned Africans (who probably do have some variation of Ephraimite and/or Levite mixture in their ancestry) use the genetic evidence found in the black-skinned Lemba tribe as proof that most all Africans are the "original Hebrews"... by making the comparison to the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) found in the Lemba population with the same haplotype found in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. The evidence regarding the Lemba is indeed intriguing...

BUT THEN... on the flipside... they start in on how the Ashkenazi Jews in the Land of Israel today are NOT the "real" Jews. They'll usually quote Revelation 3:9 regarding those "who say they are Jews, but are not". And typically they'll bring in Arthur Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe and use it as evidence that the Ashkenazi are really non-Israelites who descend from Khazarian converts. Yet, they seem to forget the fact that many Ashkenazi Jews also carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype. This logic is inconsistent. Do you see it?

If the Ashkenazi are fake, then the Lemba have nothing in the realm of genetics to support their claim.

The following YouTube video is a perfect example. The first few minutes is a cut from the History Channel's "Digging for the Truth" documentary series where the evidence of the CMH in the Lemba is discussed. Then the points of inconsistency are spliced in...

And of course they use the testimony of European "white" people as self-incriminating further-proof that the European "white" man has conspired together to cover-up the real Hebrew identity of Africans. Now, I like a good conspiracy theory, but this one is registering as "lame" on my handy-dandy conspiracy odometer.

Personally, I believe there is only ONE race, the human race... and I absolutely hate talking or even THINKING in terms of the "white" race and the "black" race and the "yellow" race and the "red" race. Much of those categorizations originated in Darwinian thinking in the 1800's... which is completely unfounded in science, but meshed well with racial-religious undertones found in Europe.

Genetic evidence is showing how interconnected the entire human race is. Black-hating white people and white-hating black people have nothing but ignorance and madness to support their skin-based self-identity and hatred.

Dark-skinned Israelites are going to have to get use to the idea that legitimate Israelites are also found in light-skinned populations... and vice versa... the British-Israelite crowd must come to accept that the ancient Israelites did NOT migrate ONLY to northwestern Europe, but they reside in brown-skinned India and red-skinned pre-colonial America and yellow-skinned Asia AND... you got it... black-skinned Africa. The Cohen Modal Haplotype is just one example of how little skin-color and facial structure has to do with underlying ancestral DNA.

Making all colors mad,
Hanok

P.S. "White" is also a color. To this day, I still do not understand why my Alabama ancestors called African people "colored". And why are red-necks still considered "white" if their necks turn so red with sun exposure? Things to ponder I guess.

Comments (4) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Hehehe. You’re dead on, Hanok, loved this post.

  2. Thank you for exposing this wide-spread deceptive and racial teaching that is prevelant on both sides of the color fence.

  3. Not according to Wikipedia!! In fact, it really states something that is quite laughable in a sense. What I get from it, is that Israel, wants to bomb it’s relatives!!

    It says:

    In contrast, some recent genetic studies found that analysis of the DNA of Semitic-speaking peoples suggests that they have some common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Semitic-speaking Near-Eastern peoples like Arabs, Assyrians and Hebrews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). The studies attribute this correlation to a common Near Eastern origin, since Semitic-speaking Near Easterners from the Fertile Crescent (including Jews) were found to be more closely related to non-Semitic speaking Near Easterners (such as Iranians, Anatolians, and Caucasians) than to other Semitic-speakers (such as Gulf Arabs, Ethiopian Semites, and North African Arabs).[9][10][11]

  4. And Wikipedia is a stellar source, yes?

    That whole paragraph is loaded with controversy. First of all, what or who is a “Semitic-speaking people”? The work of Isaac Mozeson virtually proves that English and many other Indo-European-type languages originated from or were highly influenced by ancient Hebrew or closely related Semetic languages.

    And linguistically, who are modern day Caucasians or Anatolians today? What evidence is there that they were non-Semitc?

    The field of linguistics is probably the most hotly debated amongst all other fields. If you want to increase your chances to see an argument, but two or three linguists in a room together. So making genetic arguments based upon linguistics alone will be ripe with contentious conclusions.


Leave a comment


No trackbacks yet.

Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button