Talk:Phoenicianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Lebanon | (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Human Genetic History | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
Contents |
[edit] Information
Stop placing information that cannot be proven. Show me that Lebanese people have been proven to be genetically Arab.
- Reading the cited article does not give any genetic proof at all instead giving hopes for a proof for a study to be done !!! So citing that isnt exactly giving any proof of any mean. And about Arab, it's not about genetically proofing, it's about a culture, it's like asking give a proof of some american origin of some white guy!!! So please stop removing this part of the article, after all, every point of view should be given otherwise this encyclopedia wont be neutral and objective --Banzoo 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well there's nothing neutral about that part of the article. This article is about phoenicianism, not arabness.
Why is this page so one sided? It discusses Christian militias killing Palestinians, but doesn't talk about all murdered Christians at the hands of Muslims.
The page was so one sided. Instead of presenting both sides of the argument it just constantly tried to prove phoenicianism wrong. It could link an article done by National Geographic (citation needed)proving that Lebanon has a strong Phoenician ancestry. Lebanon as well as the other Levatine nation have been influenced by many cultures, not only Arab, and that should not be denied.
Langauage and culture are irrelevant. Most Zimbabweans speak English. Does that make them Anglo-Saxons? And does anyone who likes pizza suddenyl become a descendant of the Romans? Whoever created this page is clearly confused by the obvious differences between bloodline and language/culture similarities. Also "Arabic" Lebanese and true Arabic(as spoken in Saudi Arabia) are different to the point that many speakers of one can not understand the other. This article was clearly created by a Zionist spouting the "all Middle Easterners are Arabs" lie, since the recognition of a unique Lebanese people may in turn to them having to recognise a unique Palestinian people. But if they're all "Arabs", then such recognition is not necessary.
- It is a stupid article, Phoenician are Semitics so are Arabs. All of them have the same roots and the same faces!! look at King Abdullah, and Fuad Seniora Faces, Do you see any difference?! (anon.)
-
- But, to turn to the article rather than orate on the subject, this article is intended merely as a report on published discussion of the history of the idea. Published opinions, especially when sourced, interest the Wikipedia reader more than all our personal opinions combined. Let's improve the article with some sourced quotes on the subject "Phoenicianism".--Wetman 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ana Feni'3i And Arabi
You can claim both, Phoenicia is the land. We are Phoenicians. Phoenician Arabs, Phoenician Assyrian, Phoenician Armenians, Phoenician French. Just like the Egyptians can be Egyptian and Arab in the same time, because Egypt is the land! and Phoenicia is our land. If you want to get technical Lebanon is the inner mountains thats the Assyrians/Arameans/Ghassanid rebel moved into (from Syria!) after Islam. The Phoenicians were always in the coasts.--Skatewalk 06:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are so misguided, if you think that ethnicity depends on where you live. You obviously have no understanding of the concept of race. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:33 13 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
As a Lebanese, I'd like to refer to myself as an Arabo-Phoenician, or Phoeniceo-Arab *Whatever you prefer) You have to take into account that heredity is at work here. Also Arabs are not the majority of the Lebanese all the Lebanese are Arabs because it's their native tongue, except Armenians of course, who take pride in their Armenian roots and therefore are welcome legal immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.225.40 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and we've embraced the Arab culture a long time ago, so you can say that the original Arabs conquered us culturally, and therefore we possess the Arab Culture and the minor Lebanese culture that separates us from Palestine, Syria etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.225.40 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have nothing in common with the ancient Phoenicians except that you inhabit their former territory. There are no signs or evidence of Phoenician in the the Lebanese people. Most Lebanese Christians are more related to the Assyrian people rather than Phoenicians. After all, are you not Suryoye? — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 13:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, you don't become a people after accepting their imposed culture and language. No one in his right mind would say African Americans are a Germanic people just because they speak English, which happens to be a Germanic language. You define your ethnicity after your race. Though language does tell you something about your origins and history, it is not the sole decisive factor in determining who you are. And the native tongue of the Lebanese people is Syriac, but it has been replaced by Arabic. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
as a lebanese, i see myself as Arab, not phonecian, i dont share the language, the culture, the heritage, the traditions, the religion, the customs, the identity, Phonecians ARE people that once lived in Lebanon, but they are definatly not modern day lebanese...--Arab League User (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Article, not the soapbox
More pertinently, anyone who has read the titles on the Further reading list I've added would improve this article by adding a summary of the history of this idea. The fact that it's a mistaken idea does not account for the strength of its historical appeal c. 1920-50 nor the historical context of motivations that led to its invention, which are the two aspects of interest to the educated neutral observer. --Wetman 15:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reference(dot)com
Much of this article seems to be taken word for word from the www.reference.com 70.16.19.108 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's called a "mirror" for that very reason. By comparing the page history here you could even tell the date the information was copied. Wikipedia is not the "mirror"; instead, it keeps getting better, bit by bit. --Wetman (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It keeps getting better, bit by bit? Then why is this "Article" included? It appears to display that people claiming descent from people who lived in the same land, spoke a closeley related language, had the same names, same customs, and even appear identical on ancient busts, coins, vases etc., are imagining the whole thing. Of course the modern-day Lebanese(the indigenous people, not more recent migrants of course) are descended from the Phoenicians. Is someone going to start an article called "Egyptianism" which attempts to mock that modern Egyptians "claim to be descended from the ancient Egyptians, with a unique history and culture"? Or an article called "Hellenism" which states that "modern Greeks claim they are the descendants of the ancient Greeks, with their own history and culture"? So why would anyone without some sort of social/political motive find it in any way unusual that modern Lebanese people believe themselves to be descended from the ancient Phoenicians? If wikipedia "keeps getting better, bit by bit", then articles such as this one should be deleted, and blocked from ever being allowed to be recreated ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.207 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Posts that are signed and by editors who are logged in are generally taken more seriously. The fact that there is no cultural or linguistic connection between modern Lebanese and Phoenicians does not impede impassioned outbursts, which are in themselves a sign that "Phoenicianism" is a phenomenon that can be discussed seriously by adults quoting informed sources. --Wetman (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Phoenicians, Canaanites, Jews, Arabs, Greeks, and Egyptians
I (a Jew) happen to be interested in determining the relationships between all of those peoples, who, after all, inhabited the ancient eastern Mediterranean Sea (and one might as well throw in "Israelites", "Hebrews", and "Samaritans" for good measure). As I understand history, Phoenicians were essentially (northern) Canaanites who happened to take to the seas and found various colonies. Jews, as I understand history, somehow emerged from the vicinity (well, the southern Levant) and are related to Hebrews and Israelites (and may be practically the same people), and Samaritans were interlopers. I find it impossible to believe that the peoples involved would remain completely separate without some degree of mixing, trading, intermarrying, etc., etc. Thus, it stands to reason that there are numerous people today of mixed Phoenician/Canaanite/Jewish descent, as well as Jewish/Egyptian, Jewish/Greek, Canaanite/Greek, and so on and so forth, with some Western European as well (after all, there were the Crusades). Have there been any studies into the relationships between the Phoenicians, the Canaanites (if they were, indeed, a separate people), and the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
