Home > Uncategorized > Guest Post by YSV Rao: Indian Philo-Semitism and Judaic Indophilia

Guest Post by YSV Rao: Indian Philo-Semitism and Judaic Indophilia

India is the only country in the world which did not persecute its Jewish residents (miniscule as they may have been).Israel enjoys its highest approval rating in India despite the official stance of the Left leaning Indian government.

What ties bind these disparate people, Middle Eastern and South Asian? Monotheists and idol worshippers, of minimalist Abrahamic and extensive pantheon of Vedic beliefs, historical wanderers and notoriously introverted xenophobes.

One of the common links is of course anti Muslim prejudice, though not without good reason. Both Hindus and Jews have been subject to Muslim rule and dhimmi status in the past and Islamic terrorism to the present day. But so did Russia (with there is also a close bond, but the anti Muslim thing is not the main factor),Greece and the Balkan states so why no special relationship with them. These countries don’t capture the Indian imagination like Israel’s stunning victory 1967 war, the raid of Entebbe and various Mossad operations. Again Indians delight in anyone rubbing Muslim noses in the ground but there is something else more primal that I figure most Indians ,particularly males are loath to admit.

Both Hindus are Jews were considered unmanly ,timid merchants known for haggling more than quarreling and quarreling than fighting. The European Jews who founded the nation of Israel were aware that the modern citizens of the future state would have to do away with such attributes and set about luring the intellentsia and their commercial classes from their drawing rooms and markets into the tough, unforgiving landscape of 19th century Palestine to work on the land till it bloomed and till your hands bled and fight the Arabs and the British for what was given to you by God till you make THEM bleed. This combination of brain and brawn created a …ahem New Man as it were in the Holy Land which enabled to survive and thrive even when numerically outnumbered by hostile Arabs in 1948,1967,1973,1st and 2nd intifada and now presently with the information warfare, demoralization strategy via Iran and the Western media and delegitimization and divestment campaign (through European and American universities and think tanks).

It is also interesting to note that both Hindu nationalism and Zionism despite their associations with ancient and profoundly religious people are actually secular ideologies many of whose founders were agnostics if not atheists. Ever since the defeat? of Marathas at Panipat, there had a been a crisis in Hindu manhood. Last breath of Hindu defiance was seen in the War of Independence against the British in 1857 but even this was probably was Koenraad Elst called “Hindus wielding the sword of Islam”.

or in this case the sword of Islam on one side and sword of the British on the other (Hindus fighting the British was united under the Mughal King Bahadur Shah Zafar II while many more Hindus and Sikhs were actually fighting for the British).For a brief period hot-headed middle class Brahmins from Bengal and Maharashtra had taken up the revolutionary cause by spreading terror. Some took matters even further and set up shop in London where managed to assassinate a commissioner and coordinate other revolutionary activities in India.

These individuals were particularly scornful of the current state of Hindu manhood. They exhorted youth use to cease their bookish habits and take up physical exercises and martial arts. They particularly loathed the vegetarianism prevalent in society and promoting the eating of meat and animal sacrifices to get Hindus to quell their squeamishness about shedding blood. They also attempted to undo the efforts of the Western historians to present Hindu history as a long series of defeats. Indeed as they could claim, no other nation had so many invasion attempts thwarted starting with the Greeks, Persians, Scythians, Yue Chi (precursors of the Huns), Huns, Arabs, Turks, Mughals, Pushtoons, Persians, French, Portuguese, Dutch and their current struggle against the British.

However this movement was soon disbanded and arrested (Savarkar was taken to the notorious Kalapani).After his release he never participated in any anti-British activity but directed his ire towards Muslims and what he perceived to be their collaborators such as the pacific Muslim appeaser Gandhi(he was implicated in Gandhi’s assassination due to his association with the killer-at the time comparisons have been to Jewish extremist Yigal Amir who assonated Yitzhak Rabin-whom the former considered a Muslim appeaser to whom he handed over traditional Jewish land as Gandhi portioned Hindu land and handed it over to Muslims). Not surprisingly they were most impressed with the Zionist experiment in Israel and encouraged Hindus to follow their example.

So there you have it, Indian support for Israel is really the emasculated, testosterone starved, meat deprived ,Muslim loathing pacific, Hindu males yearning for a revival of Hindu masculinity when the latter was feared as violent,brave,honorable and stalwart.
From the Jewish side, it had been mostly one of gratitude and affection than admiration. For the simple fact that Jews had thrived in India since the Babylonian exile ,Roman destruction of the temple and various tricklings thereafter. They had become kings, generals, famous actresses and businessman.

The average young Israeli can’t wait to finish his mandatory military service so he can set off for India- mostly Goa and curiously, northern Hindu pilgrimage centers! It is significant most of the partnerships and agreement between India and Israel are mostly regarding military hardware(Israel recently surpassed Russia as India’s top arms supplier) and support for Indian army’s clampdown on Kashmir and other counter terror measures. Again we see the military cooperation and similar pursuits to be considered quite natural and organic by both parties.

It is worth recalling that during the November 2008 Mumbai terror , it caused Indians some pain when a former Israeli commando criticized the rescue efforts of his Indian counterparts in the siege of the Jewish centre.

And rightly so, it was terribly executed. Indian forces were caught with their pants down , there was no central command and if so, it was absolutely clueless. Many Indians realized that their forces were not up to par for highly mobile, precision operations which hostage rescue mission calls for ,yet this downbeat assessment of their capabilities really stung particularly as it was coming from Israel.

Despite these contemporary collaborations and ancient associations no matter how strong will not cause the Indian government to vocally and unabashedly support Israel in the U.N as U.S has. And they may not do so until they actually become more like the Israelis-tough ,resilient ,unapologetic,resourceful,defiant and brave.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Julianus
    February 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    Interesting … I’d not be shocked to see an Indian / Israeli military alliance against the Muslims.

  2. jim
    February 27, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Is there any good sources (books, websites) for Indian history that isn’t white-washed to make them look inferior?

    • YSV Rao
      February 27, 2011 at 10:58 am

      Jim, to be fair – some colonial historians such as Vincent Smith were quite appreciative of Indian civilization(though he did dedicate a disproportionate to Alexanders invasion of India which most Indians at the time didnt take much notice of).

      Another historian worth mentioning is AL Basham ,his Wonder that was India is an incredibly interesting and vivid read.Also he does go out of his way to mention that the current pacific trend in Hinduism is an aberration.He was particularly taken by the ferocity and valor of ancient South Indian societies, Tamils especially.

      Contemporary historians of India that are worth a look are Niall Ferguson(though he examines it through British revisionist eyes, I feel he is far for the most part on the dot) and John Keay.

      Apart from Koenraad Elst, who dedicates himself to mostly to Hindu clash with Islam and Christianity and Aryan/Dravidian issue, there are hardly any Western historians who divert from the flawed AIT(Aryan Invasion Theory) model in Indian history.

  3. Ted
    February 27, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    While what you wrote is quite informative, I would add that India’s Israel envy is relatively recent. It only became economically impressive starting in the 1990s, thanks to large scale Russian immigration and dismantling their socialist mindset. It was that that finally encouraged American Jews that Israel was a friendly place to do business.

    Keep in mind, the Israelis had a saying about the best way to secure one’s country – “Fight Arabs.” Arab militaries are not particularly good – more adept at keeping their own populations in line than in defeating foreign armies. At one time or another, Arabs have been ruled by Romans, Persians, Turks, Brits, and in a less-straight manner, Americans. Israelis were far more adept at organizing modern militaries. But, Arabs make excellent insurgents – as the Israelis discovered to their humiliation in Lebanon and the Americans discovered in Iraq.

    Pakistan, for all its shortcomings as a nation-state, does possess a far more impressive military than any Arab nation. If a nuclear-armed Pakistan bordered Israel the way it borders India, Israelis would find themselves far more limited in what sort of military retaliation it could carry out. That is why Israel is so concerned about Iran possibly getting nukes – they do not want to find themselves in the position India finds itself.

    As far as Israelis vacationing in India, Israel has had to take steps recently to make sure these men & women do not get into trouble in India. The rude Israeli traveler is not that well-liked in Indian hotels, who find that Israelis tend to haggle before and after a sale. A dated, but still interesting take on Israelis in India can be found here:

    “They just don’t care”
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412213,00.html

    • YSV Rao
      February 28, 2011 at 2:07 am

      Ted, though what you stated above is mostly accurate ,it does come with some qualifiers.

      The socialist economic model was dismantled gradually first by Menachem Begin in 1980s,then Shamir and then totally by MIT educated Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1990s.For this reason, along with support for the Soviet backed PLO,outrage against the Lebanon invasion and Israeli right wing dalliance with American evangelicals that the Left soured on Israel.

      Indias attitude towards is not mostly envy (though there is some of that) but admiration of their pluck.India is in a far more comfortable position geopolitically and demographically speaking than Israel.

      What you say about Arabs is correct, their militaries are quite bad and those are unaware of this(many Indians for example) have given Israel a lot of undeserved credit for their ability which borders almost on the supernatural!Arab militaries are bad for various reasons, a lot of which are mentioned in this fantastic essay “Why Arabs lose wars”

      http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

      It could be summarized as this: Nations fight as they train.Their training is a reflection of their society.Arab societies in many aspects are failed ones, so there is no reason their militaries will be successful.

      However ,perhaps out of political correctness or maybe its outside the scope of that essay, the author forgets to mention WHY they are failed societies.It is mostly because apart from Egypt and Jordan,there are hardly any Arab countries which are functioning states in the European sense -ie a dominant ethnic base molded by centuries of shared geographies,customs,language and government.Remember pretty much all Arab countries were within the Caliphate and were haphazardly drawn by the colonial powers after the latters collapse between WWI and WWII.As mentioned Egypt and Jordan were and are the only countries who are capable of dealing Israel a serious blow(as Jordan in 1948 and Egypt in 1973).A person no less than Ariel Sharon expresses admiration for the Egyptian army.Other soldiers of Arab nation dont fight as hard for their because they dont BELIEVE that their country as a viable institution.

      What initially drove Palestinians after 1967 to make such spectacular attacks on Israel was the Soviet backing of various leftist groups in Palestine.Leftism may have been an import but it had true believers who would die for it like it did in Latin America and South East Asia.Gradually Islamism , an ideology that Arabs took to even more
      As you pointed out Arabs make excellent insurgents.Arabs in particular are good at psy ops warfare as well.Think of capture and rape of female Israeli soldiers in 1948 and the castration of the male soldiers(one is reminded of how the Philistines taunted and humiliated the blinded Israelite warrior Samson) which though initially affected morale, in the long term convinced Israelis the overwhelming force projection is the best deterrence.

      • YSV Rao
        February 28, 2011 at 2:21 am

        ..continuing in a seperate entry as wordpress tends to swallow up larger posts..

        Please note that Israeli military is revered not in comparision to its Arabs but is respected in the finest Western educated.Organized chain of command,information sharing and relay, decision making delegated to the lowest,coordination,logistics support,weapons maintainence and development..and on and on.They are not just light years ahead of Arabs when it comes to conventional warfare but also increasingly in counter insurgency.
        It is said that even 9/11 was a for m of classic Arab ambush tactics which tribal societies excel in.

        What is often left unsaid is that many of current insurgent tactics such car bombs,bombs in market places ,airline hijacking,kidnappings etc were actually perfected by Jewish insurgent groups prior to 1948 which the Arabs simply copied!

        http://samsonblinded.org/titles/terrorism_in_Israel.htm

        Which Lebanon war are you referring to ,was the 1980s or 2006?In 1980s , Israeli military was sold a false bill of goods by Ariel Sharon(then defense minister) and Lebanese Maronites.As for 2006,I think the Winograd commission highlighted the foolish mistakes Ehud Olmerts administraion made ,also Condoleeza Rice,who was an Iran appeaser, had an increased access to Bushs ear as she compelled him to get Israel to stop pounding Hezbollah

        Americans and Israelis are getting better at counter insurgency,though only tactically.As long as everyone in Iraq(especially Petraeus) keeps ignoring or appeasing the elephant in the room(Iran) ,little progress will be made in the long term strategic level for Iraqs security or Lebanon and Gaza.

      • YSV Rao
        February 28, 2011 at 2:40 am

        Counter insurgency is tricky as TE Lawrence once said ,its like trying eat soup with a knife!
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nagl

        That is the Western approach.The more effective Arab approach is severe repression, see Egypts brutal crackdown on Islamists,Syrias Hafez Assad leveling of entire Sunni town or Saddam’s chemical attacks on the Kurds.

        Another method is brutal occupation,see Russia in Chechnya or to a lesser extent India in Kashmir.

        Arabs may have been ruled by Roman,Persians et al but they had also turned the tables and conquered Persia,extracted tribute from Rome,challenged Byzantium and annexed Spain and entire North Africa.Osama and co.’s lament is that because Muslims have fallen from piety and orthodoxy that this had occured.When in fact,Arabs of that victorious era were far more open minded ,tolerant and heterodox than they had ever been!

        As for Pakistan, I believe it was at one point capable of defeating India(it never did,the closest it came was in 1965) but cant now as it is overrun by ideologues.

        Despite Pakistan and India nuclear status, we fought a conventional war in 1999 in which India won a “”victory which was really nothing to write home about.Since 2002, Kashmir terrorism was clamped down by Musharraf.11/26/2008 Mumbai attacks were an aberration in almost 6 years of relative peace and increased socio economic cooperation with Pakistan.

        This is the tragedy of Islamic countries( but comedy for us) is that they only have are effective at fighting when they have a secular military.Note what happened in Iran ,after the Ayotallah took over the secular officer class and soldiers were decomissioned prompting Saddam to overrun the country.A similar scenario is taking place in that last bastion of a capable military in a Muslim state-Turkey.

        As for Israeli tourists, I know all about them.My father had a very annoying encounter with them when he went on pilgrimage to a Himalayan town.My point was not that Indians love Israeli tourists-no one does!
        http://www.roadjunky.com/article/582/israelis-abroad-travelers-with-attitude

        but that Israelis love India for some reason I dont quite understand!

    • Nestorius
      February 28, 2011 at 3:01 am

      “At one time or another, Arabs have been ruled by Romans, Persians, Turks, Brits, and in a less-straight manner, Americans.”
      Didn’t the Arabs (whatever that means according to you) rule the Persians also, once upon a time?

      “But, Arabs make excellent insurgents – as the Israelis discovered to their humiliation in Lebanon and the Americans discovered in Iraq.”
      This is similar to the usual HBD crap, like saying that Blacks have a lower IQ because they are Blacks.

      • YSV Rao
        February 28, 2011 at 3:19 am

        <blockquote
        “But, Arabs make excellent insurgents – as the Israelis discovered to their humiliation in Lebanon and the Americans discovered in Iraq.”This is similar to the usual HBD crap, like saying that Blacks have a lower IQ because they are Blacks.

        I dont get this analogy?

      • Nestorius
        February 28, 2011 at 8:05 am

        When you say that Arabs make excellent insurgents you imply that that’s the only thing they are good at (as if they can’t be good at anything else), which all implies that Arabs make excellent insurgents just because simply they are Arabs (whatever that could mean).

        I laugh at your naive understanding of history. When did Persians and Romans rule Arabs? And which Arabs? Who were ‘Arabs’ back then? What do you mean by ‘Arabs’ after all? Says who that ‘Arabs’ back then meant the same thing as ‘Arabs’ right now? Who sets the definition of ‘Arabs’ anyway?

        You should ask yourself those questions before jumping to conclusions. Because jumping to the wrong conclusions will make you reach a point where either you have to reject your own conclusion or you will keep holding to it while covering the flaws.

  4. Ted
    February 28, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Nestorious:

    You may want to brush up on your reasoning. I wrote that Arabs make excellent insurgents. I did not write “Arabs make excellent insurgents, and nothing else.” Pointing out one quality does not exclude anything else. You may also want to ask Arabs their views on Persians, and you will hear plenty of rivalry between the two groups. Some of it is good-natured, and some is the opposite.

  5. YSV Rao
    February 28, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Nestorius, I am a bit confused.Who are you addressing ,me or Ted?

    If you are asking about what how Arabs defined themselves…Arabs like to think they originated in “jazirat arabiya” roughly translated Arabian island,though actually Arabian peninsula ,today comprising GCC countries of UAE,Oman,Qatar,Saudi Arabia,Bahrain and Kuwait and Yemen.The Persian Empire(pre Islamic) controlled Bahrain and the Arabian peninsula.There were tribes in Jordan called Nabateans(who built Petra) were considered Arab and indeed they were conquered by the Romans.However Augustus foray into Yemen(Felix Arabia) was a disaster.

    Also the Turco Persian Safavid empire burned Baghdad to the ground and occupied parts of present day Iraq in the 17th century,so yes you can call it conquest!

    Post Islam, the tribes from GCC region quickly Arabized their Semitic cousins up north ,mostly present day Jordanians,Syrians,Palestinians,Iraqis etc.Except for the Lebanese Maronites,the peoples in these countries dont think of themselves as anything but Arabs(Im ofcourse not including the non Arab minorities like Kurds,Assyrians etc)

    Egypt and North Africa is a different ball game due to the strong Berber influence.My evidence is anecdotal ,many of these individuals say calling them Arabs is akin to calling a Italian American English because he speaks English.Others proudly wear the Arab badge.

    And yes Arabs remember these Persian incursions,pre Islamic,post Islamic and presently are wary of their powerful proxy non state players Hezbollah in Lebanon ,Hamas in Gaza,supporting the Houthi rebellion in Yemen,half the political parties in Iraq,as well increased pressure on Qatar ,UAE(one of whose northern Emirates close to Iran,Ras Al Khaimah is already considered a satellite state).

    They dont remember the Roman conquests as well but they are documented by Roman historians.Apart from Felix Arabia, Rome really didnt find anything worthwhile in the Arabian peninsula so they left it alone.

    • Nestorius
      February 28, 2011 at 10:09 am

      “There were tribes in Jordan called Nabateans(who built Petra) were considered Arab and indeed they were conquered by the Romans.”
      So what if they were called as such? How does that relate to anything? Matter of fact: the Nabateans, whether they were Arabs or something else, are a dead people. They don’t exist anymore. And it doesn’t matter whether right now there are persons whose direct male genealogical lines go directly to Nabatean men.

      “Post Islam, the tribes from GCC region quickly Arabized their Semitic cousins up north ,mostly present day Jordanians,Syrians,Palestinians,Iraqis etc.”
      You see, under the religion of Arab nationalism anybody can think of himself as an Arab. And when I say anybody I mean anybody: a Maronite, an Assyrian, a Turk, a Greek, a Kurd, a Jew, a French, a Zulu, a WASP, just anybody. But all this happened after 1860 not in the 7th century AD. Besides, what is the word ‘Arabized’ supposed to mean? Who defines what it is? How did Arabization happen? Do you know what were the criteria for being Arab back then? If there implicit or explicit evidence for Arabization from that time?

      “And yes Arabs remember these Persian incursions,pre Islamic,post Islamic.”
      Don’t confuse propaganda for a collective memory which doesn’t exist. These days, whenever Arabic-speaking Muslims talk about Persians (al-Furs), they mean the Shiites.

      Indians like to quote and over-analyze the putrid droppings of dead white men.

      • YSV Rao
        February 28, 2011 at 11:13 am

        Nestorius :“If you are asking about what how Arabs defined themselves.”
        This is like saying “If you are asking about what how Asians defined themselves” or “If you are asking about what how Latinos defined themselves” or “If you are asking about what how Red Indians defined themselves”. You’re just assuming that whom you call as Arabs, also call themselves as such. As far as I know, Asians, Latinos or Red Indians didn’t call themselves as such until they encountered the White man and learned those names from him. Now, could this be the same case with the so-called Arabs? Did you ever question that?

        Bad anologies are in bloom today!Latinos,”Red Indians” (BTW the polite term is Native American,saying Red Indian is like using the n word for black, since you are insistent on being pedantic and political correct ,this is the least you can know) Asians never considered themselves a singular group.So such an anology is nonsensical at best!

        Are you seriously making the fantastic claim that no Arabs called themselves before say TE Lawrence?

        Considering that his ancestors have probably lived in middle-east for over two thousand years, I am inclined to believe him rather than some white guy who wrote a few books on “arabs”.

        FYI, your bizarre pedantry fools no one.It seems utterly silly and trivial and furthermore you tend to be terribly illinformed.If Arabs claim that their ancestors were Nabateans ,and this is corroborated by other sources, and they claim that they hail from the Arabian peninsula as their oral histories do,then it is completely arrogant to claim that THEY dont know what they are talking about but you do.If you are claiming that Arabs are very diverse ,with lots of clans and tribes so they possibly couldnt have considered being a part of an ethnic group( I know you dont like this term but I really dont give a shit) then again you fail ,as atleast since time of Mohammad ,they had an idea of what is an Arab.

        In case you have not noticed, middle-easterners see themselves as a rather diverse group of people.

      • YSV Rao
        February 28, 2011 at 11:36 am

        Forgot to mention, a lot of citizens in UAE,Bahrain and Oman are actually Arabs of recent Iranian origin.
        Arabs in these areas atleast dont go around refering to Shias as al-furas or Ajami or anything similar ,it is terribly impolite!I assume the situation is similar in Iraq where the Iranian issue is far more sensitive and Shias are a majority!

        I dont know where you have been ,these days the al -furas are held in high regard among many Arab peoples for their vocal anti Israel and anti American stance.

        Please note that during the Iraq Iran war-Iraqi Shias were loyal to Saddam and Iranian Arabs loyal to Khomeini despite Western predictions to the contrary!

    • Nestorius
      February 28, 2011 at 10:15 am

      “If you are asking about what how Arabs defined themselves.”

      This is like saying “If you are asking about what how Asians defined themselves” or “If you are asking about what how Latinos defined themselves” or “If you are asking about what how Red Indians defined themselves”. You’re just assuming that whom you call as Arabs, also call themselves as such. As far as I know, Asians, Latinos or Red Indians didn’t call themselves as such until they encountered the White man and learned those names from him. Now, could this be the same case with the so-called Arabs? Did you ever question that?

      • YSV Rao
        February 28, 2011 at 11:00 am

        Don’t confuse propaganda for a collective memory which doesn’t exist. These days, whenever Arabic-speaking Muslims talk about Persians (al-Furs), they mean the Shiites.

        Sorry,fail!Persians are viewed as an ethnic group seperate from Arabs!Im aware of some Sunni Arabs whose contempt for Shias and Persians is so intense that they tend to mould them together but that doesnt make it so.I hope you know that there are Arabic Shias and Persian Sunnis!

      • Nestorius
        February 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm

        Khomeini and Khamenei are the direct descendents of Mohammad. That’s why they wear a black turban. These two guys are Arabs and consider themselves as Arabs not as Persians. It doesn’t matter whether some Sunnis like Saddam view them as Persians just because they happen to live in Iran and to be Shiites. Do you know how many person like Khomeini live in Iran? More than a million. Not to forget the Turks, Kurds, Baluchs, Mongols and other peoples who form half of the people of Iran. Surely for the White Westerner and for the Sunnis all these are ‘Persians’.

  6. YSV Rao
    February 28, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Arabization is simply the process of people giving their languages and culture and started adopting Arabic mores,this happened after the time of Mohammad.Not after 1860!This has nothing to with the modern Arab nationalism.So what the heck would you have called the Arab cultural imperialism brought upon by Prophet Mohammad?Dont tell me you will make the weird claim that we cant call him an Arab as well?

    Indians like to quote and over-analyze the putrid droppings of dead white men.

    All history was written by dead men, whether white or not.Are you saying we shouldnt analyze or quote Herotodus or Thucydides or Winston Churchill because they are white? Do you make a habit of not quoting or analyzing white men while studying history?

    • Nestorius
      February 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      “Arabization is simply the process of people giving their languages and culture and started adopting Arabic mores,this happened after the time of Mohammad.”

      Arabs during the time of Mohammad were a human group containing a finite number of tribes distributed among three main groups: (1) the Maaddites, (2) the Quzhaites, (3) the Yemenites. Each of these three groups was divided into other tribes. Membership into the Arabs was determined by membership into any tribe. Membership into a tribe was determined by birth because Mohammad forbade adoption, therefore adoption of non-Arabs into Arab tribes did not happen after Islam. There existed no Arab who did not belong to no tribe. When the Arabs settled in the conquered lands, they introduced their language there but they also adopted the local cultures. In Iran, Arabs adopted the Persian language. Since adoption was forbidden under Islam, none of the conquered peoples became Arabs. Surely, back then many non-Arabs did falsly claim to belong to this or that tribe. Besides this, many members of those Arab tribes who settled in towns and villages forgot their belongingness with time, as no records were preserved and as they mixed with the locals. This is the case now, you have many Muslim families who don’t know to which people they belong.

      • YSV Rao
        March 1, 2011 at 10:10 am

        I never said there were INFINTE numbers of tribes!

        Conquering Arab tribes didnt practice adoption but neither did they practice coitus interuptus!The issue of the women they took from the conquering regions became atleast “half Arabs” and within time they gained respectability as full Arabs.

        So in the end what you are telling me is that peoples such as Palestinians ,Jordanians,Iraqis ,Syrians are not Arabs.

        Then why do they call themselves Arabs, is it just because of Michel Aflaq(who BTW wasnt “white” but an Arab-I use white in quotation marks because Arabs were considered white as per some racial classification systems-look at Mitch Daniels and Ralph Nader,despite their Arab lineage ,no American thinks of them of anything but white!).

        You are saying a good chunk of the Arab world is believing a falsehood about their identity and this falsehood is propagated by white historians(whoever they may be).Thats a very strong allegation to make in a society thats very consicius of its tribal idenities.

        Either way why blame poor Ted and others for referring to those who call themselves as Arabs as Arabs?!You are demanding a really bizarre amount of investigation from the average non Arab!What you are saying is in effect ,that because allegedly some white guy allegedly screwed up the Middle Eastern lineage by painting them a boring plain vanilla Arab, the modern white shmoe must conduct a vast geneological examination on every individual who calls themselves an Arab to pay for his ancestors sins??

        If not, what do you suggest we call these nationalities? If you were standing on a soapbox in Damascus,Baghdad,Ramallah,or Amman in the middle of the market square, how would you try and convince the residents to change their identity and what other identity would you have them convert?

        Im sure youll agree these are all valid questions?

      • Nestorius
        March 1, 2011 at 10:58 am

        “The issue of the women they took from the conquering regions became atleast “half Arabs” and within time they gained respectability as full Arabs.”
        Nobody used to become “half Arab” then “full Arab”. Don’t invent false arguments to prove false conclusions. Being Arab was determined by paternal descent only. Read some ancient sources written by them at least.

        Michel Aflaq is not Arab, he is a Greek (Rumi as we say here). Regardless whether he calls himself as Arab or not, it doesn’t matter he does not belong to any Arab tribe and no Arab tribe has ever accepted him as a member. You see, one liar like Aflaq cannot change historical facts. Well at least they could do it few years ago, but now in the age of easily accessible and widespread knowlegde no one can do it for long anymore.

        “So in the end what you are telling me is that peoples such as Palestinians ,Jordanians,Iraqis ,Syrians are not Arabs.”
        Your mind cannot think of the idea that these peoples can be mixed.

        Mitch Daniels and Ralph Nader are not Arabs. If they are Arabs or if they claim to be Arabs, can you or they tell us to which Arab tribe they belong?

        “You are saying a good chunk of the Arab world is believing a falsehood about their identity and this falsehood is propagated by white historians(whoever they may be).”
        That’s reality, deal with it.

        “Thats a very strong allegation to make in a society thats very consicius of its tribal idenities.”
        Only nomad and semi-nomad Arabs still preserve their tribal belongingness. All those Arabs who settled in towns and villages have forgotten their tribal belongingness except for those who kept genealogical records or for those whose family names indicated their tribal belongingness.

  7. YSV Rao
    February 28, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Considering that his ancestors have probably lived in middle-east for over two thousand years, I am inclined to believe him rather than some white guy who wrote a few books on “arabs

    I am not quoting a white guy but Arabs own oral history.His ancestors couldve lived there for the last 5000 years and descended directly from Noah,that doesnt matter.That will not change the fact that there were Arabs and used to call themselves that.

    In case you have not noticed, middle-easterners see themselves as a rather diverse group of people.

    So whats your point?My point is most of Middle Easterners are Arabs but all werent always Arabs and many became that way due to Arab conquest post Mohammad.

    • Nestorius
      February 28, 2011 at 2:58 pm

      “I am not quoting a white guy but Arabs own oral history.”
      What you call Arabs’ oral history is nothing but what those Arabic-speakers have learnt from schools and the MSM.

      “That will not change the fact that there were Arabs and used to call themselves that.”
      Yeah, but who is Arab and who is not? And who decides? You based on some dead white who thinks his definition is the absolute truth? Or those who call themselves as such?

  8. February 28, 2011 at 11:01 pm
  9. YSV Rao
    March 1, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Nestorius :Khomeini and Khamenei are the direct descendents of Mohammad. That’s why they wear a black turban. These two guys are Arabs and consider themselves as Arabs not as Persians. It doesn’t matter whether some Sunnis like Saddam view them as Persians just because they happen to live in Iran and to be Shiites. Do you know how many person like Khomeini live in Iran? More than a million. Not to forget the Turks, Kurds, Baluchs, Mongols and other peoples who form half of the people of Iran. Surely for the White Westerner and for the Sunnis all these are ‘Persians’.

    Oh dear!I cant believe that a person who has shown remarkable skepticism of the majority of modern Arabs having authentic Arab lineage so mindlessly swallows propaganda that such and such individual is descent from Prophet Mohammad!!I hope you realize it is easier for me to demonstrate lineage from a group than it is for you show lineage from an individual!May I remind you that following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the relevant authorities in Iraq revoked Saddams claim to descent from Prophet Mohammad stating that they did so under duress!So why shouldnt the tyrannical Ayotallahs follow Saddamns example?To my knowledge there are only two regimes whose royal families can claim descent from Mohammad, one is the Moroccan and the other Jordanian.

    I dont know why you blame the white westerner for every goddamn misinformation that comes out of the middle East.As you know,Middle Easterners have a habit of stretching the truth, many a Persian told me that Persians are an uncontested majority in Iran and the notion that they are just 50% is a Zionist lie or something to that effect.

    Once again IT IS NOT THE JOB OF WESTERNERS OR ANYONE ELSE TO CONDUCT EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS OF MIDDLE EASTERN IDENTITIES WHEN MIDDLE EASTERNERS CLAIM TO BE THIS OR THAT! I for example am a South Indian Brahmin, hypothetically speaking: its possible that my ancestors were recent converts to Hinduism from Central Asian invaders(this was more the case in the Northwest)-I CERTAINLY DONT EXPECT NON SOUTH INDIAN BRAHMINS TO GO ABOUT INVESTIGATING MY LINEAGE!!

    As I stated above in another reply you are asking non Arabs to really care deeply about Arab identity for the sake of pedantry….No one really gives a shit and neither should they!Until these Arabs cease to refer to themselves as Arabs and condemn this evil white historian of yours, everyone has a right to call them Arabs!

    • Nestorius
      March 1, 2011 at 11:43 am

      Khomeini and Khamenei descend from al-Husayn son of Ali and of Fatimah daughter of Mohammad. The King of Morocco and the King of Jordan descend both from al-Hasan son of Ali and of Fatimah. All these have old registers showing their descent. Moammar Qaddhafi belongs to the al-Qadhadhifah tribe, part of the Awlad Musa tribe, part of the Sulaym tribe, part of the Maadites. Saddam Hussein belongs to the al-Nawasirah family, part of the Rifaites who descend from Sheikh Ahmad al-Rifai who descends from al-Hasan son of Ali; Saddam did not make this up. All the rulers of Arabian countries are Arabs, but after all this is the Arab original homeland. On the other hand, Husni Mubarak is of unknown descend, he could be Arab, Berber or Copt. Zinel-Abidine ben Ali is also of unknown descend, he could be Arab, Berber or Turk. Some of those who governed Syria before Asad were Turkmens or Kurds.

      “the relevant authorities in Iraq revoked Saddams claim to descent from Prophet Mohammad stating that they did so under duress!”
      Who cares about what those are saying? The family of Saddam knew their belongingness even before the birth of Saddam. Surely, Saddam used his lineage to support his power.

      “I dont know why you blame the white westerner for every goddamn misinformation that comes out of the middle East.”
      Because they are behind the misinformation. You see, there is a cycle of misinformation. Westerners create misinformation and spread it through the educational system in the Middle East. Then, Middle Easterners take this misinformation as absolute truth because Westerners are considered superior. Then, Middle Easterners add misinformation to the original misinformation. Then, Westerners come back to the Middle East and pick up the doubled misinformation on the pretext that it was taken from the mouth of the natives, now that the natives can speak English. Then, Westerners incorporate the new misinformation into a new world view which they again spread in the Middle East through the educational system. And the cycle continues on and on.

      “Once again IT IS NOT THE JOB OF WESTERNERS OR ANYONE ELSE TO CONDUCT EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS OF MIDDLE EASTERN IDENTITIES WHEN MIDDLE EASTERNERS CLAIM TO BE THIS OR THAT!”
      Once upon a time in the 19th and 20th century, the French, the Russians and the English were the champions of Arab Nationalism which was the facade of their own interests. They didn’t care whether non-Arabs existed in the Middle East or whether Arabs were not the majority. They just imposed it because they were the powerfull ones and they didn’t care.

      “I for example am a South Indian Brahmin, hypothetically speaking: its possible that my ancestors were recent converts to Hinduism from Central Asian invaders(this was more the case in the Northwest)-I CERTAINLY DONT EXPECT NON SOUTH INDIAN BRAHMINS TO GO ABOUT INVESTIGATING MY LINEAGE!!”
      Wrong analogy. Saying that you are a Brahmin is not like saying that you are an Arab, its more or less like saying that you are a Hashemite. Again, what applies among Hindus might not apply among Muslims because there is no adoption in Islam.

  10. YSV Rao
    March 1, 2011 at 10:30 am

    Nestorius :“I am not quoting a white guy but Arabs own oral history.”What you call Arabs’ oral history is nothing but what those Arabic-speakers have learnt from schools and the MSM.
    “That will not change the fact that there were Arabs and used to call themselves that.”Yeah, but who is Arab and who is not? And who decides? You based on some dead white who thinks his definition is the absolute truth? Or those who call themselves as such?

    As far non Arabs are concerned ,those who call themselves Arabs decide who an Arab is.
    I am not basing anything on a “dead white” ,I am basing my assumptions on those people who call themselves.If these Arabs had a flashback regarding their identity regarding some white-dead or alive, thats really not my or any other non Arabs problem!

    Seriously lay off this “dead white” stuff,its pretty lame!

    • Nestorius
      March 1, 2011 at 11:07 am

      “I am not basing anything on a “dead white” ,I am basing my assumptions on those people who call themselves.”
      And those people who call themselves as such base their assumptions of dead white men. What you still don’t get is that the Europeans have created Arab Nationalism and have implanted it in what they called the Arab World. You’re still unaware of the negative or positive effects those dead white men had on all humanity in the 19th and 20th centuries. Nobody in the world was left uninfluenced by the peculiar world-view that the European imposed on the world. Why do you think we have the United Nations? What nation is the Tanzanians?

  11. Meme
    March 1, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    “So there you have it, Indian support for Israel is really the emasculated, testosterone starved, meat deprived ,Muslim loathing pacific, Hindu males yearning for a revival of Hindu masculinity when the latter was feared as violent,brave,honorable and stalwart.”

    The world has enough overly-aggressive and highly-testosteronized men. I welcome emasculated Indian men. And the entire world is catching on to vegetarianism anyway. They are ahead of the times!

  12. Meme
    March 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    The best thing about India is that it has not be Abrahamized. Sure, there are Jews, Christians and Muslims – all minorities. While the rest of the world’s ancient cultures, traditions, religions, philosophies faded away under Abrahamization (or was forced out), India, Nepal and Sri Lanka continue to be beacons of ancient South Asian Light.

  1. February 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: