Arab nationalists have deluded themselves into believing that the Middle East was always majority Arab, the demographics of the Middle East just before the Arab conquests say otherwise:>Southern Mesopotamia was inhabited by a group called Chaldeans who were basically descendants of the ancient Babylonians. Despite being Christian they were culturally similar to their Babylonian forefathers and they spoke Aramaic, which is not even in the same sub-category of Semitic languages as Arabic is, Aramaic is a northeast Semitic language while Arabic is a central Semitic language. The Chaldeans were absolutely not Arab.>Northern Mesopotamia was inhabited by Assyrians (yes those Assyrians) who actually still exist today and are absolutely not Arab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people). They are culturally similar to their ancient forefathers, follow Christianity, and speak Aramaic. They are absolutely not Arab.>The Levant was inhabited by Syrians (completely different from modern Syrians btw) who were Christian, spoke Aramaic, and were culturally similar to their Phoenician/Canaanite and Aramean forefathers. They absolutely weren’t Arab.>Egyptians were culturally similar to their ancient forefathers, followed Christianity, and spoke Coptic aka final stage of THE Egyptian language, which btw is not even a Semitic language but rather in its own separate category of the Afro-Asiatic languages. They absolutely weren’t Arab.Arabs were at best a minority in these lands, and even then the few Arabs that lived in these lands heavily assimilated into the dominant cultures.
1. mesopotamia is an iranic geographic concept. It is extremely inconsistent and bears no legitimacy. the proper term is Near East. and no, Arabs were not a minority in those lands. they lived along the southern coast of what is now Iraq.2. Arabs are a tribal offshoot of Assyrians. ancient Near Eastern empires were more welcoming of Arabs than they were with northern savages like Elamites, Gutians, or Cyrtians.3. Assyrians and all their subgroups (Chaldeans, Babylonians, Aramaics, Syrians) are closer to Arabs than anyone else.4. waving a crucifix around and being a heretic doesn't magically change your genetics to European. these populations have long been hated by Europeans and are treated like outsiders, so implying that they're somehow European is just cope. these populations are infinitely more at home in Arab countries than they are in European countries and in all of history, they have sided with arabs in wartime. assyrians were among the umayyad dynasty's most trusted doctors and accountants.
>>18254654I'm really confused about this series of events. The Arabs are incredibly low IQ compared to the peoples that dominated the region but something had to happen to them because it's too much to believe that low IQ retards just beat them all in a string of back-to-back wars. We also have the problem of Nestorianism spanning all of central Asia to the edge of Mongolia but in only three decades they completely disappear and we're supposed to believe Islam just replaced it. The problem is that the Nestorians disappear in places that were either never touched by Islam or didn't convert until the 16th century (see Turpan and Khara Khoto). The "Islamic" architecture just looks vaguely middle eastern with no evidence of Islam, although there's significant evidence of Syriac in Serta (western) script and Nestorian texts at Khara Khoto.There's a theory floating out there that Islam is actually a 9th-11th century development based on Nestorian texts that were reinterpreted as something else, which gave birth to the Quran. Hampering this theory are efforts by the British government to push the Birmingham Quran as being from the 6th century but all we really know about it is that the papyri used for it is that old. Heck, even the Sanaa Quran has older leaves than that. It doesn't even mean the Quran is that old- just that the papyri was produced then, maybe.
(cont.)My opinion is that there's 500-600 years of missing or incorrect history. I'm still not sure what to make of Theophanes when he says the Saraceni conquered Mesopotamia in the 400s, 160 years before the Rashidun Caliphate historically did. The Saraceni I took to be an Arab speaking peoples, but they're idiots. They never built anything, live in the middle of a desert, never produced material culture, and no one else mentions them. And if he was right about that, it means that all of early Byzantine history is just fabricated. The Persians couldn't have existed as the power that fought the Byzantines, it would have had to be against the Saraceni the entire time.
Who fucking cares?A non-Arab brown person is still a brown person.There's bery little difference on the two.
>>18254654>Syrians (completely different from modern Syrians btw) who were Christian, spoke Aramaic, and were culturally similar to their Phoenician/Canaanite and Aramean forefathersSyrians are eastern semites, not north-western.
>>18254668Cope1. The term Mesopotamia is of Greek not Iranic origin and it’s not inaccurate the group the region together as they had a common culture, common language, and common religion. Yes Arabs were a minority as they had barely any presence outside of the border regions.2. Arabs are not an offshoot of anything but the proto-Semites, they were never an offshoot of Assyrians. Also, the Babylonians and Assyrians wrote of Arabs as violent uncivilized savages who had a foreign culture and language.3. Nope, Assyrians and Chaldeans were/are closer to groups such as Yazidis and Mizrahis than they are to Arabs.4. Nobody said anything about them being white Europeans, you are fighting against a Strawman argument. Also, Christianity is not a heresy, enjoy hell.
>>18255200mesopotamia being a greek origin word just makes it all the more illegitimate. greeks wrote entire fiction about lands that they never visited>the Babylonians and Assyrians wrote of Arabs as violent uncivilized savages who had a foreign culture and language.source?>Assyrians and Chaldeans were/are closer to groups such as Yazidis and Mizrahis than they are to Arabs.and a large chunk of mizrahis are accultured assyrians. i have never seen them cluster close with ezidis that's made up nonsense.
>>18255230“Mesopotamia” is merely a calque of an Akkadian name for the region, birīt nārim which has roughly the same meaning (“land between the [two] rivers”). It’s not that bad.Babylonian texts such as the Babylonian Chronicle and Astronomical Diaries all depict Arabs as a backwards people inferior to the glory of Babylon
>>18254654Yeah too bad kara boga big arab cock destroyed those all like it will all of the world soon allah willing.
>>18255358I’m pretty sure they said that about everyone just like greeks. Assyrians were also considered savages by babylonians.
