Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "King Herod: Mad Tyrant or Misunderstood Hero?" video.

Herod was not born in "Palestine". There was no "Palestine" until after the Second Jewish Revolt, when Titus pulled down the Temple and renamed Judea after the historical enemies (the Philistines) of the Jews.
1
@Penny Black Well, the notion of "Palestinians" as a distinct people is utter nonsense invented as a reaction to the 1948 founding of Israel - "these stateless people need a country of their own" sounds a lot better than "we don't want to share the Levant with the Jews", which is what the real point was - but assuming you mean Arabs when you say "Palestinians", the Arabs didn't invade until several centuries later - the 7th or 8th century AD.
1
@Penny Black I'm not particularly biblically literate, but doesn't Samson fight the Philistines? The Philistines have no connection to the modern Arabs.
1
@historicalminds6812 The term Arab hasn't been expanded, the Arabs themselves have expanded. Starting in the 7th century, they started invading and conquering everywhere they could get their filthy hands on. The majority of Egyptians aren't Arabs because the word "Arab" has a different meaning than it used to, they're Arabs because the Arabs conquered Egypt.
1
@historicalminds6812 That's not what I said at all. The word "Arab" refers to an ethno-linguistic group. The same one it always did. It's only that this group which originated in the Arabian peninsula started spreading out, because a certain Arab from Mecca named Muhammad ibn Abdullah had some unsavory religious/political ideas that required conquest. It's just like when the Anglo-Saxons went out and conquered vast swaths of the Americas, Australia, etc. Some guy named Smith in America or Australia is still Anglo-Saxon. It doesn't mean that the word's meaning expanded, it just means that the ethnic group who the word refers to expanded and migrated. So no, you aren't right. Not even close. It isn't like the indigenous people of Egypt or the Levant started being referred to as Arabs. It was that the Arabs moved into Egypt and the Levant and a number of other places. If you were as "historically minded" as you seem to think you are, you would understand the very simple concepts of migration and population replacement.
1
@historicalminds6812 That was taken out of context to mean exactly the opposite of what I was saying. No reasonable person could have interpreted it the way you did. Either your English is lacking, or you are rather dense, or you are being willfully stupid.
1
@historicalminds6812 Yeah, no, I'm not. If you spoke and read English at an adult level, you'd understand that the effect of the word "aren't" that you conspicuously chose not to quote right before the words you did quote is to negate that bit that you quoted. And then the bit right after was the alternate, and historically accurate, explanation. Your very premise here is absurd - that the word "Arab" has changed definition from a member of a specific ethno-linguistic group to "all the inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa". One would have to be shockingly ignorant of history to make such an absurd claim. One must also ignore the existence of Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Jews, and any number of other non-Arab ethnic groups who still exist as small minorities in lands conquered by Arabs. You're embarrassing yourself here.
1
@mobpsycho10099 He ate people. People who eat each other are savages.
1
@mobpsycho10099 Why? There are plenty of available sources that will tell you that Shaka Zulu was a cannibal.
1
@baseupp12 Look it up. Yeah, he was a cannibal.
1