From: Rick McCallister
Message: 61687
Date: 2008-11-17
> From: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...>I have no problem with Lisramic or Erythraean, but H-S is racist and colonialist.
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: External links (Was Re: [tied] Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia)
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 4:39 PM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Please use the currently accepted designations
> >> Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian. Hamito-Semitic et al. is
> not
> >> scientific and smacks of racism. There is no
> Hamitic
> >> branch and the term Hamitic is rooted in
> pseudo-scientific
> >> racist dogma that originally tried to find
> justification
> >> in the Bible by tainting Africans as accursed
> "sons of
> >> Ham".
> >
> > It also implies the primary split is between Semitic
> and
> > everything else, which is certainly not demonstrated
> and
> > contrary to every classification that I've seen.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> =========
>
> This is about as shallow as thinking the word indo-european
> suggests a
> primary split between Indic and the rest...
>
> And Semitic is the only Asiatic branch,
> so the problem is the same with either name.
> There is no reason to think the primary split is between
> the African part or
> the Asiatic part.
>
> A completely artifical name like Lisramic could make sense,
> but I think it's not necessary.
> The traditional name is perfectly acceptable.
>
> Arnaud