Interupting the use of the word 'Negro in the Talmudic

Mr. Onwuka

Beginning with the word ‘Negro’, we can tell right on that the word 'Negro' is very recent and perhaps a 19th century addition to the text. Such that no one in the 6th century through fall of the Moors, perhaps several centuries or so later, used the word Negro. (1) The root of the word ‘Negro’ is in all likelihood is a 19th century invention and suggest to a large extent the age of the spelling 'Negro' and it's insertion into the Talmudic which sponsor a great deal of studies on Jewish writing. The Talmudic or the 'translations' is old, perhaps began as in Jewish centers at Palestine and Babylon, reaching some heights during Rabbi Judah in Jerusalem a few decades from the age of the Second Maccabees. Of course, we no longer regard the Talmudic as essentially the translation of shepherds --- such as Sephardi but to an extent, we regard the Talmudic as Babylonian. The act of characterizing the persons of North Africa as Negroes, owe a great deal to later commentary or what they call Torah. A Torah is commentary on the Laws and began in the third century in Gonim and Mizraghi Egypt, almost in the tradition of Christian commentary which endeared early disciple through the interpretation on Isaiah and the 'suffering servant' fo God. The word Negro is historically recent, and if there are invocations on the word at any age preceding Espana, it is rare use and starved on meaning. For instance, when we say Simon the Niger --- or Pernissus, it runs a separate from latter oracles. Then Adonijah, part Hebrew part Kermit, referring to Black Lord, makes effective mention of the rare formative 'nijah', sonum for 'Negro' but alters in meaning given a separate origin of the word 'Negro' -- possibly 18th century or as with the word 'Norman', it is19th century crediting a false premise on the earliest invocation of the term for the leading citizens of the world.
Such position goes even to a large extent in demonstrating that something is perhaps wrong with the overall statement the appearance of the word 'Negro' in Talmudic commentary in any age than the age of slave trade -- it is so to speak, a  word that was perhaps quoted verbatim by Joseph Harris and perhaps by others of latter day histrionic in rejoining perception of African history through a Jewish vista.
(2) Secondly the statement seems to have descended from the 6th century Babylonian Talmudic. We are suppoed to believe that the presence of the word in the Talmudic makes the case accurate. In many ways than one, we can say, that if the tortured quote 'negro' is accurate it may or may not be the official position of the school of Rabbis, that the Talmudic has a history of its own in terms of Jewish centers and in terms of Hamitic studies suggest that it was not exactly a received learning or general academic consensus. In essence, the Talmudic is just a school of pronunciation and commentary to begin with, a school that return to the fall of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE and to Babylon. And ushc throw back in history led to a new conclusion, that the school remains part of the Jewish intellectual liturgy for a while but no longer central to the society from around the time of Zerubabel and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In all, at the time when Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return home, Jerusalem and their new attitude to translation was not in position to raise objection about their survival as a people.

 In essence, we can say that through the time of Nehemiah of the Minor Prophets - who is more or less Ezra the Priest - to the Second fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, Babylon as the center of Jewish life was no longer relevant. Even if the later accord of a return to Babylon in the 6th century after the death of Christ, we can mention that the Sadducee who came much later to Jerusalem after the fall of Bagdad where not entirely ruler-class, they were Pharisees of Edom and pharisees of Hebrew reconnaissance, both those in Jerusalem and North Africa and the was the focal point was Jewish life and commentary and not Babylon or those who lived in Gonim and in Egypt. Altogether we can also say that when we really look at the period in Babylon, which is the 6th century after Christ, we are talking about a time of deciding African history where much of the world and its intellectual activity had been decided by early Christian fathers and the tradition returns to Africa as the place with the largest fellowship on the traditions of Christ --- many of whom were natives, some of whom were from Asia, but nearly all were Africoid, and to a large extent, Negroid, physically. It doesn't seem to the rest of the world that much of world history until the decline of Islam was essentially African - inspite of the apathy with recent fore-going (3) Much of the early fathers themselves were seriously Africans for instance natives as we mentioned, some of them 'Berber' or Barbarians, Gogh or Garranmetes, Numidians and Normans, types, measly and affectionately Europeans. Some of the lasting images from both Christian and pagan perspective is St Augustine of Hippo - the father of Western Education. Things were no longer the same centuries following the wars with invaders. Memphis which was far from whoever ruled Alexandria, remained central to world power and St Augustine himself, considered the founding father of Western Intellectual society lived in these Hamitic places so to speak, and lived a century earlier than the 6th Babylon anian school of Rabbis. As such Hamitic theory is not a Palestine argument, which is the land following with milk and honey, it is also a reference to the fertile crescent. And by 6th century we dare not contemplate anything less than 6th century AD for any academic Jewish intrusion but what was needed to be said has already been said and like they 'more than oncec'. The rest are perspective and the intrusion of character in questions of faith and complex - the prodigy to all psychology and diction. In essence, there are mistakes about cultures long ago, some of which are no longer at ease without time or any date.
The main point and perhaps the only concern is what Harris himself did not treat well and it concerns Torah Standard. For we still know that even the so called Torah in standard notation beginning in 2nd (3rd) century reaching the adopted form in the 3rd century AD and right form in in (massorie, masoritic - 9th -11th A.D), alters differently that the insertion into a text was not for general consumption, for if the terms for instance, Auto ofu fe, (igbo, one faith) - not act of faith like recent Jerusalem, or Marrano as in despairing Espana -- who have latter hands in San Antonio through Esteban,  such words are taken in strides from earlier meaning no longer the case centuries later. (4) By Sixth Century, much of Jewish society has already been run over, first the persecution of a Christ-like people – or followers of Jesus of Nazareth was a searching light in those years, secondly the conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70 and in 72, where 998 Jews of mostly priestly descent, committed suicide while protecting the inner Sancta, an action that further disintegrated the people of Israel throw on the debility of Jewish centers of learning. That action was accomplished either by poison as accomplished by the two remaining women, or by Jews who eviscerated themselves suggest higher cult which had little purpose for commentaries that appear in Talmudic, yet it was the death of the cream of the society that is important and vanquishing of JEWS in that centuries later brought Titus and the Menorah to Rome, but is popular for smacking to all ends of the world. The persecution that broke in many ways than, and the remnant were dislocated to various parts of the world, in short language, they could or could not be one people following the long gaps from Palestine. (5) Africa proved a center for this Jewish settlement and the failures of either party to enjoin other crusade is dovetail to two strong headed religion in the world, Christianity and Islam. It was in the context of the breakdown of these Jewish societies and Jewish - numbering eight at the time of Christ’s death and were forced in the mountains during the war, faced the death in the deserts during the revolution, wandered into inner parts and reaches of Syria during the translations, and during teh founding of centers - into places that we may now call Turkey, modern day Turkey covering provinces of Asia, Cappadocia, Pamphilia, parts of Phrygia, etc, Africa in general that failure to be awed by the presence of native so to speak may have died differently. (6) At the time of Christ, there were already Jews from different parts of the world, but after the great revolt in Syria led by Bar Choba and after the accounts of I and II Maccabees – written a century or so from each other, then the Jews really sparse all over the world. Yet one area which dominated their world even at time of Nebuchadnezzar was Egypt and the Aswan - the first Cataract into Africa. Africa dominate everything Jewish from its earliest years to much later years of Gnostic, in fact then and as much as now, nothing can be called Jewish that is not entirely African. Too early to dwell on that statement, especially the fact that they were Jews in many parts of Southern Arabia, whose culture through years have grudgingly changed in many ways than one. That they were Jews through Syrian deserts and mountains, may have also given some impetus to the evolution of Islam itself. Yet Islam however wonderful, only managed appears as an institution in Africa. All three religions copying the Memphite priest, then the position of the Christian in their early years was fully enhanced by foreign element in the area. What is happening in this interpretation is that Africa, in terms of the issues concerning the culture and people of the world, is no strangers at least to three religions, especially Christianity and Judaism, that even the Muslims has a lot of bragging about the continent and tell us about the people and about their cultures so to speak. We need suggest that Eusebius himself pointed to a few Christians who knew how to speak Hebrew, one whom was a certain Origen. (7) The breakdown of these religious groups in terms of their 6th century history promotes the difficulty in even contemplating the probable official status of the so called Babylonian Talmud regarding the Negro apostrophe and Hamites culture. It does not mean that it did not take or was not taken into canvas by some Rabbi, yet a lettered one, much yet a Rabbi unfamiliar Judaism can reduce certain teachings to the above lines as exactly stated by Harris. It is important to note that throughout History such issue regarding Ham has always entered in the fore of the history of Africa, and even in terms of the very place we can Afro-Asiatic – both in terms of the people and language – there has always been the issue of Hamitic stock. (7b) This stock is suppose to include everything we know from much of the Bible and its history, on the greater count that the view much of us have been influence by same process, bleaches away any form indication and claim very closely, noting that a place for instance called Canaan is many times larger than anything we know and associate with Israel. That Israel is itself is situated in that part of the world we ultimately we refer to Canaan. In that sense therefore, much need to be said about the place and time of the statement concerning children of Ham, not that it interferes with any particular version of history as far as Africa is concerned, but allows to give label to Ham and give Ham a picture which cannot necessarily fit into a posture by the statement about the Kinky hair Africans. It is the stubble lips that is an issue, since many races of the world so speak has it, it is not the wooly hair, since many races of the world has it, it is not the dark skin since of the culture in the world boast of their very dark ones not necessarily from Africa. It is the prevailing psychology and the time of the psychology that really matters. For one thing, the prevailing psychology of the 6th century is one last revival of the African history since the end of 3rd century. In a sense, much of the world in the war it has survived to us, survive as if the rest of Sub-Sahara had little to offer the world. By sixth century, the culture of the North is just a culture of the so called Asians, it was a culture of Native Africans, many of them very wholly hair, many of them very dark, many of them very kinky hair. These individuals as we have noted in time past also did the world all kinds of favor, they were the spiritual and intellectual center of whatever happened in either the Christian or the Jewish society. Even in Babylon in the 6th century, Babylon and Iran was seriously bejeweled by Blacks, so much so, that much of their very native races in Iran then as well as now, are among the very dark. In a way, the mixed quality of the Iraq of today and not necessarily Iraq of the 19th century, results from three possible groups and three possible influences. Besides the natives - among who were light skinned, were migrants from deep parts of Asia – some of whom are light skinned. The case of Darius is not very complete, he is in fact rumored to wooly haired and smooth skinned. Many Assyrians are like that, many of the ancient Babylonians were noted with same wooly hair and otherwise blacks. As the case may be, we can believing against the fact that rest of these Asian group were so pure in white or strange dark and different from the Africans, that we find the color that sufficient to create all kinds of distinction. (8) These places mentioned, including Babylon where the Jews rested and was saved, are no strangers to dark skinned people. These people are rather used to all kinds of people, and in fact down the coast and around Mesopotamia or through Jordan, Trans-Euphrates were known very well for one the darkest people known to man. Like we have mentioned, a place such as Jordan, remained a dark hue till the coming of Turks of different variety. It was not the Arabs of the 6th and 7th century that created this headache with race, in fact these invading Turks of the 14 and 15th centuries, did not see themselves as white Europeans. All thing in many ways than, relegate the color issue to at 17th century and perhaps 18th century. What the redactors were trying to accomplish is not clear, but providing explanation to certain things or providing justification for certain laws is not unlike Judaism of the 18th century, hence a picture of a certain people believed as philosophers and writers, Luxurio once called them to be the ‘most beautiful of men’. The time frame of the learning and the writing is perhaps 18th century, and if we are bold enough to take a step back to the past, to the centuries preceding the slave trade in much of the world, it is impossible to even contemplate the legacy of such talk. Why the great professor Harris did not treat issues is not quite certain, but that leaves us is the influences of the professor in jotting his own synthesis on the ink. Still at the issue of the 6th century AD, we know also from Christian history we may indicate that as far Christian history was concerned, third century Africa was so full of traffic that anyone not used to the Natives who became it all, was not entirely human. The Jews themselves were not the main event, they were only part of the so many. It was Christianity that enabled Jews rise to the prominence, it happened when enough Christian prejudice against Jews were no longer significant. For Strabo, the writing much earlier indicated that a connection between Jews and Egyptians - essentially Black or the Hamitic stock did not thrive well but it managed differently especially they lived - which reflected how Christians and Jews a few centuries later in Egypt and in what called Palestine today. Phoenician, for such are those who dwelt in Galilee and Jericho and Philadelphia and Samaria, which Herod Sebaste. Although they are so mixed, the predominant opinion among the beliefs concerning the temple at Jerusalem represents the ancestors of those now called Jews as Egyptians.” And these two if not three have remained very close, such that in the later part of the 6th century, we begin to notice great changes in the languages. As in the 6th century, much of the salvation of the Jews came from Africans themselves, especially the Alexandrians, for when Byzantine and the Western church got upper hand in the affairs of the world, they seethes with resentment on the Jews who relapsed into Africa for salvation....