Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Omar of the Orient" channel.

  1. Good post. What people don't understand, due to lacking sufficient historical context, is that the Arabs only remained for 800 years in the "already highly civilized" parts of Iberia which were mainly the southern and eastern parts of Iberia. The central, northern and western regions of Iberia were highly underdeveloped and the agriculture mentioned in the video could not be easily brought and started there - the Arabs themselves said those lands were barren and not worth conquering, which is why they never attempted to conquer Asturias. This is never mentioned. The Arabs never saw the value in Iberian lands comprising about the top half of Iberia, which is why it was so quickly conquered back - within one generation from the start of their invasion. So most of Iberia was nowhere near having been controlled by the Arabs for 800 years - not even 50 years for most of the north. The Arabs themselves did not attempt to do that, and they themselves explain the reason why was the worthlessness of the northern Iberian territory.
    15
  2. It was uninvited. Hence the downplay. Not a strange reason.
    2
  3. None of those etymologies are correct.
    1
  4.  @onepartofone  "sure they are. Nothing else makes sense. Geographical and genetic data also supports it." As for that, it is undeniable that the genetic data shows all Eurasians to be simple variants of modern-day Russians. So I will give you the genetic similarity. But when you say: "Nothing else makes sense." That is not correct. What else makes even more sense, is that there was another language who mothered both Russian and the other European languages. Which is what happened, as we can see by the missing glides from Russian in all other European language. That means Russian innovated in inventing glide vowels, while other languages innovated in other ways. The reason European languages couldn't have com from Russian is that there would not have been enough time. Russian only has existed for the past 1,000 years. However, languages like Portuguese on the other side of the continent were already being written down in the year 800.
    1
  5.  @onepartofone  Siberia cannot have come from "Sub-eria". Vowels do not change like that. You need to learn linguistics and phonetics to understand that sounds only change in one direction, and u never becomes i, unless the i is rounded like the German u with umlaut. Al the words you mentioned came straight from Proto-Indo-European down to Old English without passing through anything Russian.
    1
  6.  @onepartofone  Well, geographically you are correct, as proto-Indo-European came from around Russia and thereabouts. But it wasn't called "Russian" and they did not know themselves as "Russians" either. And they were ethnically and genetically different from today's Russians. I have plenty of study in this area, we are measuring each other's depth right now.
    1
  7. That is not the etymology of baccalaureate.
    1
  8. Iberians do not have Arab or Moor blood. First, those people were more blonde and blue-eyed than Iberians. Secondly, their culture was superior to that of Iberians of the time, discouraging them from mixing with the people they saw as savages. And finally, DNA sequencing today shows Iberians as undifferentiated Europeans who are more similar to the Swedish than to southern Italians, let alone north Africans, to whom they have no genetic similarity whatsoever.
    1
  9. Their DNA does not show them to be a mixed people - on the contrary, it shows them to be more homogeneous than other European groups such as the Germans.
    1
  10.  @goodaimshield1115  Wait a second. You're not all correct either. "neither Celts nor Basques are races, but cultures, and Spanish culture is over 90% Roman culture, period, nor Celtic, nor even Basque." That is not correct. Celts are not "a culture". That is what British academics want you to believe, so that they may call themselves "Celts" too. However, "Celts" were not a culture - the ancient peoples did not name cultures, they named ethnicities and their languages after their ethnicities - but instead a people - although the Keltoi of southern France were never found, pottery with the tribal surname "Celti" and "Celtus" have been found in southern France and all over northwestern Iberia (all of Iberia minus the south and the east regions). When Herodotus first talked about the Celts, he placed them "next to the Cynetes, the westernmost people of Europe", which means the Celts must have been the Lusitanians who were the people living adjacent to the Cynetes. You may think incorrectly again that "there's no way the Lusitanians were Celtic since they spoke a non-Celtic language" but that is not how it works. Speaking Celtic never made anyone Celtic in the past - for instance, the ancient Greeks knew that the Ligurians spoke Celtic but nevertheless they said the Ligurians were NOT Celtic. Similarly with the Treveri, a Germanic tribe, which was said to "not speak their original language" but instead to speak "Celtic". Hence, the Ancient Greeks knew very well how to distinguish a language native to a people from one who wasn't. So the reason the Lusitanians are the Celts mentioned by Herodotus is that the Lusitanians used the proper name "Celt" in their tribal names, as well as their personal surnames, as attested in local tombstones. In fact, the highest and densest occurrence of the surname and tribal name "Celt" appears not in France, not even in southern France, but specifically within Lusitanian territory. So the Portuguese are a Celtic people, the Spanish are a Celtiberian people, and those Spaniards on the extreme south and on the eastern coast are more properly called Iberians. Those were three of the six ethnicities located in Iberia when the ancient authors wrote about Iberia. The others were the Poeni, the Phoenicae, and the Persae (source: Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia 3.11.1). So no, the Portuguese and the Spanish aren't Romans - they are ethnically and culturally Celtic and Celtiberian respectively.
    1
  11. "ALL OF THOSE CULTURES LEFT PERMANENT TRACES AND FORMED HISPANIC CULTURE. " DNA says otherwise. It says only the Celts left a genetic legacy to the Iberians.
    1