Who are we? Boers or Afrikaners? – Answer from Dr Mike Du Toit

(000228.79-:E-000157.73:N-:R-SU:C-30:V)   

---

---

[I had someone write to me about the topic of Boers versus Afrikaners. You can read the original article in English here: https://africancrisis.info/index.php/s-africa-are-we-boers-or-afrikaners-is-afrikaner-a-jewish-invention/ – I decided to approach Dr Mike Du Toit, who was the leader of the Boeremag, and who is a professional academic who is very well versed in our history to answer this. Dr Du Toit not only knows our history in South Africa but also our history in Europe. This was his answer. Jan]

Hello Jan,
There are basically 3 issues here:

Are the Afrikaners and Boers separate peoples? The answer is NO.

Are there separate Afrikaans and Boer languages? The answer is NO. The origin of our language will be discussed here.

The origin of white people in general. We are not Israelites.

I have never in my life read such a heap of nonsense in one letter. To try to explain the truth will take a long time. What I would rather do is send you three articles I have written on the three issues mentioned above.

Regarding the first issue:

Who are we, Afrikaners or Boers?

For some people these days, it seems important to try to prove that the Afrikaans-speaking white population of South Africa is actually made up of two peoples, namely Afrikaners and Boers. From an ethnological point of view, this is entirely untrue and in the current political climate of our people’s history, it is totally inappropriate.

Definition of a people

Before we look at the matter more closely, we must first try to determine what a people is.

A people is a group of people who are distinguishable from other groups of people on the basis of common factors such as racial identity, blood relationship, language, culture, and history.

There is a big difference between the concepts of people and nation. A nation is a group of people who reside within the territory of a particular state and are therefore subject to the authority of the relevant government. There is therefore not necessarily a commonality of race, language, culture, and history. There is, therefore, a South African nation, but not a South African people.

On the other hand, the German people are not bound in a single state; they live in more than one state, namely Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Furthermore, there are also large German communities in almost all neighboring European countries, as far east as Russia, and in other continents such as Namibia and Argentina.

A person does not lose their ethnic identity when they migrate to another country. Usually, such a person retains their identity, and as their children and grandchildren gradually integrate into the new community, they gradually lose their original identity and become part of the new community.

A people is, therefore, an objective fact. A Portuguese cannot be a German, just as a German cannot be a Portuguese. What can happen is that a German can migrate to Portugal, and his children and grandchildren can gradually be absorbed into the Portuguese people, provided they are assimilable. A Dutchman or German can migrate to South Africa, and his descendants can gradually be absorbed into our people through assimilation. A Zulu’s children and grandchildren cannot be absorbed into our people because they are not assimilable due to their racial identity.

Afrikaner or Boer

The historian, Herman Giliomee, points out that since the beginning of the 18th century, we have referred to ourselves as Afrikaners or Boers. The two terms have been used as interchangeable throughout our history. At the time of the existence of the South African Republic (ZAR) and the Orange Free State (OFS), the two terms were still used in the same way as interchangeable terms. No one has ever doubted what Afrikaner or Boer means.

Suddenly, however, there are people who believe that "Afrikaner" and "Boer" are not just different terms but actually refer to different peoples. It is claimed that the "Boers" are the conservative whites who were born and live in the northern provinces. Only they supposedly have a desire for freedom and do not display traits of betrayal. In contrast, it is argued that the "Afrikaners" are the liberal whites who were born in the southern provinces and live there, are not interested in freedom for our people, and are inclined toward betrayal. It is sometimes taken so far as to say that the term "Afrikaners" is the name of a cattle breed.

In terms of the definition of a people, two peoples of the same race, language, culture, and history cannot exist in the same country. The genealogy also clearly shows that every single Afrikaans-speaking white is a close blood relative of every other Afrikaans-speaking white in this country, to such an extent that our people are nothing more than an extended family. Our ancestors were well aware of this; when meeting a stranger, the handshake was accompanied by: "Good day, cousin, how are you doing?" Family ties are therefore presumed and usually explained very quickly.

Differences between northern and southern Afrikaners

Of course, there were differences in the history of the northern and southern communities of our people. For example, the "Boers" of the ZAR were involved in a serious conflict with England since the late 1870s, which eventually escalated into the military struggle of the First War of Independence (1880 – 1881). During the same period, the "Afrikaners" in the Cape launched a language struggle under the leadership of "Die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners" (The Society of True Afrikaners).

However, the fact that there are differences in the history of the Cape and Transvaal communities of our people does not prove that there are two different peoples. During the time of the unification of Germany, under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck in the 19th century, there was also a difference in the history of the South Germans and North Germans. In the period before the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, the South Germans sided with the French against the North Germans and did not want to unite Germany with the North Germans because they shared the Catholic religion with the French. However, this does not mean that the South Germans were French and not Germans.

There are many examples of such differences in the history of almost every people on earth.

Leaders of our people in the Cape

With regard to the argument that the "Boers" and "Afrikaners" in the northern and southern provinces respectively were born and reside, the following counter-argument can be made. If it is unquestionably true that people born in the Cape are not members of our people, then surely the greatest leader our people have ever produced, Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog, is certainly not a member of our people – the same goes for Dr. D. F. Malan, Adv. J. G. Strijdom, Mr. Jaap Marais, Dr. Andries Treurnicht, and Mr. Eugene Terre’Blanche.

The worst of all is that Andries Pretorius, Hendrik Potgieter, and even Paul Kruger were not "Boers" but "Afrikaners," since they all originated from the Cape.

In terms of the argument, we are all Afrikaners anyway because all our ancestors originate from the Cape!!!

Voortrekkers and Trekboere

Sometimes a variation of the above argument is made, namely that those who participated in the Great Trek for certain reasons are "Boers" and those who stayed in the Cape for certain reasons are "Afrikaners." If this argument is true, then the hero of Blood River, Andries Pretorius, is once again not a "Boer" but an "Afrikaner," since he did not trek along with the other Trekkers in 1836. Moreover, after the British annexation of Natalia in 1842, he conveniently remained under British rule and did not immediately leave the area with the second Trek – he was a latecomer.

Furthermore, there were many Trekboers who trekked from the Cape Colony not for political reasons but for purely economic reasons, such as seeking better grazing for their cattle. Therefore, if they are not really "Boers" but "Afrikaners," then Paul Kruger is once again an "Afrikaner" since his father was a Trekboer who only joined the Great Trek later.

Freedom-seeking and betrayal

Regarding the argument that the "Boers" have a desire for freedom and have never betrayed the people’s struggle, and that the "Afrikaners" are not interested in freedom for our people and are prone to betrayal, consider the following: At the end of the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899 – 1902), there were about 22,000 Bittereinders (those who continued the fight) and 24,000 "hensoppers," "joiners," "National Scouts," and traitors in the ZAR and OFS – that is, almost as many people in the northern provinces who were determined to maintain our people’s freedom at all costs as people who were willing to support the English war effort against our people. Furthermore, many Capetonians fought and died as Rebels during the Second Anglo-Boer War on the side of the two Boer republics.

Furthermore, Gen. Christiaan de Wet was certainly the greatest freedom fighter our people have ever produced, while his own brother, Gen. Piet de Wet, was a "National Scout" who fought against his fellow countrymen. Does this mean that Christiaan de Wet is a "Boer" and Piet de Wet is an "Afrikaner"? Can it really be that one son of a family can belong to one people and the other son to another people? That is impossible. The truth, however, is very simple: one was a hero and the other a weakling and a traitor.

It should also be noted that when certain Afrikaner leaders decided in 1914 to restore our people’s freedom, General Manie Maritz, who was in command of the military camp in Upington, rebelled against the Union government with about 2,000 Capetonians.

Capetonians and Transvalers

Furthermore, remember that the Purified National Party, which carried the banner of people’s nationalism from 1934 to 1940, was primarily a Cape political party, while the Transvalers and Free Staters primarily supported the pro-English United Party under General Jannie Smuts.

On the other hand, those who gradually undermined our people’s political power and ultimately handed the country over to the ANC came from the northern provinces. Both John Vorster and F. W. de Klerk were born in the Transvaal and lived there, while P. W. Botha was born in the Free State.

Multiple Names

It is also important to note that several other peoples also have more than one name. For example, Germans refer to themselves as "Deutsch" while the French refer to them as "Allemande."

Cattle and Horse Breeds

Is there a cattle breed known as "Afrikaners?" Yes, of course. The word "Fries" also refers to a people as well as a certain cattle and horse breed. The same goes for "Brahmaan" or "Brahmane," which refers to an Indian deity, an Indian caste, or a cattle breed. It is therefore not uncommon for certain animals, such as cattle or horses, to be named after a people or group of people.

Question

If the story of a separate Boer and Afrikaner people is really true, a very interesting question arises: If a man who resides in North Transvaal marries a lady from the Western Cape, are their children "Afrikaners" or "Boers?"

In conclusion, there are not two different white Afrikaans-speaking peoples in South Africa. Even if it were true, we should focus our energy on overcoming the differences between them and emphasizing the similarities between them to promote unity. We as Boers or Afrikaners all face the same destructive danger, namely that our existence in Africa is threatened. To overcome this threat, we must all stand together and promote unity, even with the other white communities in South Africa such as the English, Germans, Dutch, Portuguese, and Greeks.

Evidence for my position

President Stefanus Johannes Paulus Kruger

Kruger, Joubert, and Jorissen addressed the Afrikaans-speaking Capetonians during their visit to the Cape as follows:

"We are indeed one nation, one blood, one bone, and one flesh."

Source
F. A. van Jaarsveld
Die Ontwaking van die Afrikaner Nasionale Bewussyn (The Awakening of Afrikaner National Consciousness)
Johannesburg
Voortrekkerpers
1959
Page 137

General Christiaan Rudolf de Wet

Shortly before his death on February 3, 1922, Gen. Christiaan Rudolf de Wet wrote the following political testament:

"I feel my end is near. As the Lord wills. If I lie on my deathbed one day and my mind is sound, I would say: Do justice, but remain Afrikaners. If only I could bring my people together – my Afrikaner people! And all who are in soul with us, even if they are English. Then we will put our hands around his neck as if he were a born Afrikaner."

Source
H. J. May and I. Hamilton
Die Dood van Generaal De la Rey (The Death of General De la Rey)
Cape Town
Nasionale Boekhandel Beperk
1968
Page 136

With regard to the second issue:

The history of Afrikaans

Every language has a history, and in the case of Afrikaans, a history that can be traced back to Germanic and ultimately Proto-Indo-European roots. This means that Afrikaans, due to its origin and kinship with other Indo-European and Germanic languages, will always be part of the European language family.

Proto-Indo-European

Proto-Indo-European is the common ancestral language from which all Indo-European languages developed. The language was spoken before 4400 B.C. in the area north of the Black Sea in Ukraine and South Russia. From around 4400 B.C., groups of Proto-Nordic Proto-Indo-Europeans began moving from their homeland to Europe and other parts of the world. In the process, the original Proto-Indo-European language began to differentiate into dialects and later into languages.
During this process, the following Indo-European languages emerged:

The Western Indo-European (Centum) languages:
o The Celtic languages in Central and later Western Europe, which can be divided as follows:
o The Goidelic languages, namely Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx.
o The Bretonic languages, namely Welsh, Cornish, Breton, and Gallo.
o The Germanic languages in Northwest Europe.
o The Italic languages in South Europe, namely Oscan, Umbrian, and Latin, from which Latin became the dominant language and from which all the following modern Romance languages developed: Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, French, Italian, Romansh, and Romanian.
o The Balkan languages in Southeast Europe, namely Greek and Thracian.
o The Anatolian languages, namely Hittite, Luvian, Lydian, and Lycian.
o Tocharian in Central Asia.

The Eastern Indo-European (Satem) languages:
o The Baltic-Slavic languages in Northeast and East Europe, which can be divided as follows:
o The Baltic languages, namely Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian.
o The Slavic languages, which can be further divided as follows:
o The West Slavic languages, namely Polish, Slovak, and Czech.
o The South Slavic languages, namely Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian*. (*Although the original Bulgars were Mongoloids who spoke a Uralic-Altaic language, they intermarried with their Slavic subjects to the extent that the Bulgarian people eventually became Caucasoid, and the Bulgarian language eventually became Slavic.)
o The East Slavic languages, namely Russian (Great Russian), Belarusian (White Russian), and Ukrainian (Little Russian).
o Illyrian (later Albanian).
o Phrygian (later Armenian).
o The Indo-Iranian languages in Southwest and South Asia, which can be divided as follows:
o The Indo-Aryan languages, namely Sanskrit and Prakrit, from which all the following modern Indian languages developed: Urdu, Hindi, Hindustani, Bihari, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Pali, Rajasthani, Sindhi, Sinhalese, and Romani (the language of the Gypsies).
o The Iranian languages, namely Avestan, Kurdish, and Old Persian, from which all the following modern Iranian languages developed: Kurdish, Persian, Afghan, Ossetian, and Pahlavi.

Proto-Germanic
(* Indicates a reconstructed word.)

Regarding Afrikaans, the Germanic group of languages is of particular importance.
According to archaeological evidence, around 600 BC, a relatively homogeneous Germanic population was established in South Scandinavia and along the North Sea and Baltic coasts from the Netherlands to the Vistula River. The linguistic form spoken at that time can be identified as Proto-Germanic or Proto-German. By 250 BC, Proto-Germanic was still a kind of unified language, although it was already dialectically shaded.
There are no writings from the period of Germanic language unity, also known as the "Common Germanic Period." The oldest and only indications are Finnish and Lapp loanwords from Germanic, Germanic words, personal and place names recorded by Classical writers (Caesar, Tacitus, Pliny, and others), and about a hundred runic inscriptions, mainly names found in Scandinavia.
Although no written source of Proto-Germanic exists, and due to time and space, the Germanic languages began to differ from each other, all changes follow a certain course, and in the case of phonetic changes, certain laws. Therefore, the language structure, sound shape, and word structure of Proto-Germanic can be determined using the comparative method of reconstruction.
For example, by comparing the runic -gastir, Gothic gasts, Old Norse gestr, Old English giest, Old Frisian iest, Old Saxon and Old High German gast, the Proto-Germanic word for guest, *gastiz, can be determined. Similarly, a comparison between the runic horna, Gothic haurn, Old Norse, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and Old High German horn leads to the reconstructed Proto-Germanic word for horn, *hornan.
With the migration of Germanic groups from their heartland in South Scandinavia, Denmark, and North Germany, the dialectal shades of Proto-Germanic increased, leading to differentiation into various language groups.

The first divisions took place in North, East, and West Germanic. In contrast to this, there is a current linguistic opinion that the initial division was between Northeast (North and East Germanic) and West Germanic. This opinion is based on the close relationship between North and East Germanic.

North Germanic

North Germanic is the language group of the Germanic ethnic groups located in the northern parts of Scandinavia. Old Norse was used until the beginning of the Viking Age. During the Viking Age, a division between West and East Norse became clear. West Norse branched into Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese, while East Norse gave rise to Swedish and Danish.

East Germanic

East Germanic is very closely related to North Germanic. It is the language group of the Germanic ethnic groups that were established in the vicinity of the Oder and Vistula rivers before the Great Migration. The East Germans include the East and West Goths, Burgundians, and Vandals. During the Great Migration, the East Germanic languages spread over most of Europe and the northern part of Africa, but after the fall of the Gothic and Vandal kingdoms, they almost disappeared. The oldest literary remains of Germanic are found in East Germanic, such as in the Gothic translations of parts of the Bible made by Bishop Wulfila (Ulfilas) in the fourth century.

West Germanic

West Germanic, from which Afrikaans also originates, is the Germanic language group that has exerted the most influence. However, it is not as easy to provide a clear and systematic presentation of the West Germanic languages as in the case of North and East Germanic, as they are very closely related and have influenced each other over time.
West Germanic can be subdivided into North Sea, Weser-Rhine, and Elbe Germans around 250 BC. The renowned Roman historian Tacitus identified them as the Ingvaeones, Istvaeones, and Herminones. The North Sea Germans are the Angles, Frisians, and Saxons. The Weser-Rhine and Elbe Germans are grouped together as Inner Germans and include the Franks, Thuringians, Alemanni, Marcomanni, and Quadi (later Bavarians) and Lombards.
North Sea Germanic is also known as "Lower West Germanic," while the Inner German languages, or German in the broader sense, is known as "Higher West Germanic." The distinction is usually made based on the different elevations above sea level, moving from north to south. Another basis for distinction is the so-called Germanic sound shift, for example: Lower West Germanic "t" and Higher West Germanic "z" (English ten, German zehn). Sometimes Middle West Germanic is also distinguished, but this is actually part of the Higher West Germanic languages.

North Sea Germanic

Among the North Sea or Lower West Germanic languages, Low German had the most significant role. The most important written work in Low German is the Héland (Heiland), an epic poem of about 6,000 lines written around 830. Low German was spoken between the Rhine and Elbe rivers, the North Sea, and the Harz Mountains.
Part of the Saxon population migrated to England with the Angles, and they conquered the land where Anglo-Saxon (Old English) became the language and eventually developed into modern English. Due to colonization, English also spread outside of England, mainly to the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
The Saxons who did not migrate to England and remained on the European mainland spoke Old Saxon, which over time evolved into Low German. From this, modern Low German languages and dialects developed, which are spoken today in the low-lying areas of northern Germany. There is thus a closer relationship between Low German and the other Lower West Germanic languages than between Low and High German, for example: English door, Low German Door, High German Tür. Compare also: eat, eten, essen.
Saxons also merged with Old Low Franconian or West Old Frankish and Frisian to form Dutch. From seventeenth-century Dutch, both modern Dutch (Standard Dutch) and Afrikaans developed. The Dutch language as spoken in Belgium is known as "Flemish."
The second important North Sea Germanic language was Old Frisian, which was spoken between the Scheldt and Weser rivers. It became so closely related to Anglo-Saxon that the two are sometimes classified as a separate subgroup known as "Anglo-Frisian" under North Sea Germanic. The similarities between Old Frisian and the Jutish dialect Kentish indicate a very close relationship between the Jutes and the Frisians and likely a Jutish presence in Frisian territory just before the invasion of England. Modern Frisian developed from Old Frisian and is spoken today in the northern part of the Netherlands.

Inner Germanic

Inner Germanic, or German in the broader sense, refers to more or less the same languages and encompasses the following language groups:

o Franks.
o Hessians and Thuringians.
o Alemannic, Bavarian, and Lombardic.

From these Inner Germanic languages, the Franks played the most significant role.

The Franks existed in three forms, namely Lower, Middle, and Upper Franks, and the distinction is based on the extent to which the language form was influenced by the Germanic sound shift.

Lower Franks, or West Low Franconian, merged with Fries and Saxon to form Dutch. As mentioned earlier, both modern Dutch (Algemeen Beskaafde Nederlands), Flemish, and Afrikaans evolved from 17th-century Dutch.

Middle and Upper Franks, or East Low Franconian, merged with Hessians and Thuringians to form Middle High German. Middle High German became the foundation of the classical German literary language. Alemannic and Bavarian, along with Lombardic (which became extinct around 1000 AD), formed Upper German in the narrower sense of the word. The Germanic sound shift had its full effect in Upper German. Middle High German represents a stage between North Sea Germanic and Upper German. For example, North Sea Germanic (English) bear, Middle High German (Old Frankish) beran, Upper German (Old Alemannic) peran. Compare also guest, gast, kast. The earliest writings in Upper German are eighth-century glosses, while literature only truly began to develop in the ninth century.

Middle and Upper German collectively are known as "High German." This language is spoken today in the highlands of Middle and South Germany, Austria, Alsace in Eastern France, Tyrol in North Italy, Eastern Belgium, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein.

Afrikaans’ Unity with European Languages

Due to the role that old Germanic languages like Saxon and Frankish played in the development of nearly all West Germanic languages, there is a close relationship between English, Friesian, North Germanic languages, Flemish, Dutch, High German, and Afrikaans.

This relationship is confirmed by striking similarities between these languages. The large number of words with the same spelling and meaning is remarkable. Compare the following words: Afrikaans hand, English hand, German Hand. Compare further: ring, ring, Ring. There are also many matching words: Afrikaans vader, English father, German Vater. Compare also: moeder, mother, Mutter.

It is evident that Afrikaans has a very long history with roots that extend as far back in history as all other Indo-European and Germanic languages. The name "Afrikaans" simply indicates that this particular Germanic language form developed on South African soil, away from the Netherlands (Europe). Due to its origins and its relationship with other Indo-European and Germanic languages, Afrikaans will always remain a part of the European linguistic community.

Regarding the third issue:

Are the White peoples of the world descendants of lost Israelites?

The universality of Christianity

The Whites of South Africa have a problem. They want to maintain and promote their Christianity, but the universal nature of Christianity threatens their particular White identity.

Christianity is a religion for all people, and all people are considered equal in it. Everyone is created by the same God, and all can be saved if they accept Jesus as their savior. All saved people go to the same heaven. Because our religion is based on the dogma of equality, there is no reason why our political order cannot also be based on equality, why Whites and Non-Whites cannot all participate in the same political process, why Whites and Non-Whites cannot marry each other, and why Whites and Non-Whites cannot function at the same standard of living or allow their children to intermarry.

However, the majority of Christian Whites in South Africa want to preserve their White identity. They do not believe that Non-Whites are intellectually on the same level as they are. They do not want to continue living in the same state with its decay, poverty, and crime as Non-Whites. They do not want to participate in the same political process where they draw lots with illiterate heathens. They do not want to function at the same standard of living as Non-Whites, and they do not want their children to marry Non-Whites.

To overcome this problem, many people nowadays adopt the Israelite belief. The doctrines of Christianity are retained, but they are made particular. God is no longer the God of all people; He is only the God of Whites. God did not create all people anymore; He only created Whites. The message of Christianity is no longer for all people and nations; it is only intended for the descendants of the ancient Israelites, and these descendants are now identified as the White peoples of the world.

Basis of the Israelite belief

According to the Israelite belief, the Israelites left Egypt around 1200 BC. After arriving in Palestine, they established the kingdom of Israel, with Saul, David, and Solomon as successive kings. After Solomon’s death, the kingdom of Israel split in 922 BC.

The northern part, known as "Israel," consisted of ten tribes, while the southern part, known as "Judah," consisted of two tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin. Eventually, the northern part (Israel) was conquered by Assyria in 721 BC, and the southern part (Judah) was conquered by Babylon in 586 BC. According to tradition, none of the northern part ever returned, hence the belief that these ten tribes became "lost."

In terms of the Israelite belief, the ten tribes did not really become "lost." Instead, they migrated to Europe, where they became the ancestors of the Europeans.

Falsehood of the Israelite belief

However, there are straightforward explanations for what happened to the ten "lost" tribes.

One possibility is that they were assimilated by the Assyrians.

A second possibility is that although their state was destroyed, very few of them were actually carried away. They continued to exist in the north. Some of them eventually intermixed with the Samaritans, while others migrated to the southern kingdom (Judah) (see 1 and 2 Chronicles). The fact that they were not truly "lost" is evidenced by the fact that they still existed during the New Testament period (see Luke).

To now claim that the "lost" Israelites are the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons and the other White peoples of the world is simply untrue for the following reasons:

Europeans belong to the Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean subraces of the Caucasian race, while the ancient Israelites belong to the Orientalid subrace of the Caucasian race. Therefore, the Israelites could not have been the ancestors of Europeans because they differ in appearance from Europeans.

European languages belong to the Indo-European language family, while the ancient Israelite language belongs to the Semitic language family. Therefore, the Israelites could not have been the ancestors of Europeans because their language radically differs from the language of Europeans.

European religion was polytheistic and monistic, while the ancient Israelite religion was monotheistic and dualistic. Therefore, the Israelites could not have been the ancestors of Europeans because their religion differs radically from the religion of the original Europeans.

Europeans practiced monogamous marriages, while the ancient Israelites practiced polygamous marriages. Therefore, the Israelites could not have been the ancestors of Europeans because their marital customs differ radically from the marital customs of Europeans.

The various European racial, linguistic, and cultural identities were already well established in Europe around 2500 BC, while the Israelites supposedly became "lost" only in 721 BC. Therefore, it is impossible for the "lost" Israelites to have gone back in time by about 1800 years to become the ancestors of Europeans.

Then there is also the further problem of identifying the English and Germans as the descendants of certain tribes of Israelites and identifying the Americans as the descendants of other tribes of Israelites, while it is common knowledge that Americans primarily descend from the English and Germans. Even the idea that the Germans and English are the descendants of different tribes of Israelites cannot be true because the English (or Anglo-Saxons) mainly originate from the North Germans (Saxons).

The Israelite belief is based on twisted etymology

There is no archaeological, anthropological, or historical evidence for the Israelite belief. The entire belief is based on distorted etymology, for example:

It is claimed that the tribe of Dan’s descendants live in Denmark simply based on the apparent similarity between the words "Dan" and "Denmark."

It is claimed that Isaac’s sons are the Saxons simply because the words "Isac’s sons" in English sound like "Saxons."

It is claimed that the names of the Don and Danube rivers are derived from the name of the person Dan, simply based on the apparent similarity between the words "Don," "Danube," and "Dan."

Conclusion

From the above, it is clear that the belief that the White peoples of the world are the descendants of the ten "lost" tribes cannot be correct.

Regards,
Mike

---

---