Revision as of 13:15, 8 January 2014 edit 12.11.149.5 (talk) →‎Amorites were WHITE??? lol ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:16, 8 January 2014 edit undo 12.11.149.5 (talk) →‎Amorites were WHITE??? lol Next edit →
Line 156: ::And these assertions won't get much farther than any others without any reliable sources. I'm all up for mentioning anything that can actually be sourced as a significant view and attributing it, but I am against unsourced ideas being plucked out of thin air and aggressively asserted, like "(unspecified) Assyrian sources clearly considered Aryans to be in Canaan". [[User:Til Eulenspiegel\|Til Eulenspiegel]] /[[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel\|talk]]/ 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC) :::LOL at the kitsch-headed individuals writing about "European" Mesopotamian and Levantine elites with absolutely zero evidence and contradicting long-standing linguistical (and yes, anthropological) characteristics of these ~~region~~regions :) Together with Afrocentrism, this is one of the funniest "fake histories" on offer today. Especially considering the fact that the earliest attested IE language (Hittite) is about a thousand years younger than the earliest attested Semitic one (Old Akkadian). And yes, ancient Semites, like today's ones, aren't exactly of Northern European phenotype, however they clearly are of Caucasoid/Europoid phenotype. So if by "white" one means Caucasoid, then yes they are white. == Amorite is a bad language ??? ==

Talk:Amorites: Difference between revisions