member 326969 Global
The history I've been explaining to you.Neta1991 said:Sharukinu, what l dont like that we say we are descendants of the Sumerians and akkadians and hurrians and Arameans and the real assyrians etc is because when l read about Assyrian history from old assyrian empire to neo assyrian empire, its like read that "the assyrians conquered the arameans(also being assyrian, our ancestors) and they conquered the babylonians(also assyrians, our ancestors) and the hurrians(our ancestors) , akkadians(our ancestors) , sumerians(our ancestors),l mean which is my real history!
You have to realise that these populations merged. You had 2 parents who in turn had 4 parents who in turn had 8 parents etc. Even only dating back 2 generations, your parents could have come from 8 different societies and from different places. Through that logic, your ancestors from 4000 years ago don't go back to a tribe of just 50 people rather, they amount to numerous people from various places -which I've carefully explained.
All of this is not unique to Assyrians at all. The English for example, descend from Brittonic Celts, Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes and Vikings (especially Normands) as well as any I might have failed to account for. Despite all this, the English keep the name of their Anglian ancestors. You wouldn't say that the Normand invasion of England (resulting in new populations mixing with the locals) isn't the "real history" of the English.
This is history, the truth isn't always a simple story.
These people aren't "other people", they have a role in you genetic lineage and culture to varying degrees which I pointed out. If you mother is from tribe B and your father is from tribe A, you will (normally) adopt your father's tribal identity. You would be very silly to say about yourself that the history of tribe B is the history of "other people".Neta1991 said:I cant read all of the other peoples history and say its my history, meaning sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Aramaean etc, choose one history for god sake.
Just because Assyrians in Sweden call themselves Swedish doesn't mean they are the genetic representation of the Swedish people. However, lets pretend the 30% of Swedes are Assyrians: If the population blends over time, than all of those people will have one identity (Swedish) despite that they can trace their roots two at least two groups; a sum of a Swedish population of 70%, and an Assyrian population of 30%. Therefore, they would accordingly be described as having such a mixed ancestry.Neta1991 said:Is it possible that we call ourselves assyrians and claiming the assyrian history from early period, old assyrian empire to neo assyrian empire? That being our real history even though we mixed with other people, and they became assyrians? I sometimes call my self swedish because l was born in Sweden and claiming the swedish history as my history also, and assyrian history ofcourse, even though swedish people became mixed with other people in scandinavia.
Assyrian history is our history. History is complex, that of the Assyrians is no exception; if anything, it is the epitome of that complexity.Neta1991 said:Is it possible that this Assyrian history is our real history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria?
Sharukinu, l hope you understand what l am talking about.
I think a lot of this confusion arises when people stop applying the abstract thought of examining an entire ancestry (the breadth of your genetic forerunners), choosing to look for a specific lineage only (a particular line within your ancestry).