[quote="kahljorn"]
Doesn't the jewish word, "Kushi" translate to disreputable person of African-American descent, whom I think is quite nice? I know I've heard that before. That's why I kept bringing up the term KUSH. KUSH. KUSH. [quote]
Is there a translation of the word black that hasn't been appropriated into a slur in modern times? It just means black. It's not the words Kush or the Curse of Ham which is the basis for these slurs, and if anyone has tried to say so, they weren't doing it as a teaching of mainstream Judaism. I think Mormons put more stock in it then anything. Like I said, you won't find the Curse of Ham discussed on any Judaic websites. It's a modern libel at this point. The Curse of Ham wasn't really anaylized in racial terms until the 16th Century, by Rabbinical scholars.... which means very little unless you were a follower of that particular Rabbi.
[quote="kahljorn"]
Here's an example I found[quote]
Okay, so let me explain you something about Israel. There is and has always been tensions even amongst Jews there. The Germans hate the Iraqis, the Iraqis hate the Kurds, the Russians hate the religious and the Ethipoeans, and the Persians.... and it's neverending. The infighting is ignorant and silly, but it's really just a product of a culture clash. We're talking about a country of refugees. These types of divides are the products of the Diapora not Judaism. For example, I attribute a shitload of anti-semitism to the reason behind why Soviet born Jews can be so fucked. It's the result of institutionalized hatred for Jews, that Jews can display hatred for each other. These politics weren't in place at the time of the first or second Temple, and they go against the basic tenants of Judaism.
[quote="kahljorn"]
And I'm glad you know everything about the ancient israelites.[quote]
Grow up. I'm not even claiming to be a Talmudic scholar, but we have the wiritngs of our Jewish sages and our modern archeaologists, and common sense.
[quote="kahljorn"]
Case in point, it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend you can understand the motivations of ancient israelites, their personal opinions and emotional status. Unless you have one-hundred-thousand journals from 4,000 years ago I don't even want to hear it.[quote]
Again, it's called the Talmud. A lot of the stories even conflict and offer opposing analysis....it's like the footnotes to the Bible. Maybe it's iffy as a historical document, but as a document for understanding "personal opinions and emotional status" it's rock solid. I use a lot of common sense as well. If Jews were enslaved to Egypt, or wandering the dessert then skin pigment would reflect that. There would be little difference in skin color then that of the Canaanites since they were wandering around the same region give or take. We know that the First Temple did not operate with the bias you're talking about. Why would Canaanites be enslaved for skin color, while others with skin like the Falaschas were made High Priests? Jesus was a Rabbi, and while controversial, we know he likely had dark skin. Like I said, Canaanites were enslaved, or killed, and it happened at the hands of Jews.... I'm not excusing it, or pretending that didn't happen, but any stories that have been fictionalized by other religions and other denominations to justify modern behavior such as the Black slave trade should not be attributed to Jews, let alone ancient Jews. You're not talking about really heady stuff here. You haven't hit on stuff where I need to talk out of my ass, to answer. I'll be the first one to tell you if there's something I don't know.
Anyway, maybe you forgot, we were talking about Replacement History. I think we've both managed to refute the Palestinian conection to Canaanites pretty easily.
Threaded Mode
