Are the British and Scandinavians Semites or European?
Questions on Anglos Belonging to the Indo-European Race and Language
The Questions

Brit-Am Reply:
(a) The Racial Question
(1) DNA confounds Accepted Racial Science
(2) Ancient Israelite Origins Versus the Modern White Man
(b) The Linguistic Question
(1) Languages Spread More than People
(2) Theory Versus Reality.
(3) The Linguistics and John
(4) A Partial Answer on Linguistics. Terry Blodgett.
(5) Beowulf as an Example.

(c) The Answer

Site Contents by Subject Home
Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
This Site


The Questions:
From: Jonathan Tillotson <>
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1468
#1. Some Limitations (and strengths) of the Brit-Am Exposition

Dear Yair,
Re the mainstream contention both that The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people, and the English language, are of the Indo-European family of peoples and languages; and not Semitic, what would you say is Brit-Am's response.
I don't so much mean how would you re-state Brit am's argument in favour of what it believes, so much as what would you say is wrong about what this mainstream argument says, and how it is flawed.
Regards and best Wishes
Brit-Am Reply:
" The Indo-European family of peoples and languages" is an idea taken from the late 19th century in which an attempt was made to equate language with race. It more or less says that originally the ancestors of the Europeans and of the white castes in India were all one big happy family who lived together near the Caucasus or near Central Asia. From wherever they may have been they split off some going to Europe others to Persia and India. All these peoples speak languages that belong to the same Indo-European linguistic grouping.

We may divide the question into two sections (a) racial and (b) linguistic.
(a) The Racial Question

(1) DNA confounds Accepted Racial Science
Nowadays the conception of Indo-European has been replaced or at least greatly modified by DNA findings. Speaking very roughly (and possibly not too accurately) Indian white men are a mixture of J, G, and R1a with R1a in the majority. R1a is the majority of Slavic people such as Russians, Serbs, Poles. Persians are mainly ca.30% R1a, 30% J, and others though the female mtDNA may have a higher proportion closer to Russians etc.  Arabs are mainly J1 while a third of the Jews are J2. Turkey is like Iran with only 7% R1a, but 15% R1b, 11% E1b1b, J2 24%, 9% J1. The rest are a mixture of Mediterranean and Asiatic groupings. Greece is like Turkey but with ca. 30% E1b1b which is a white version of black African [Negro] E1b. Parts of southeast Europe are similar to Greece. Italy has  40% R1b, 2.8% R1a, 20% J2 and 2% J1, E1b1b  12.6 %.
In the west we have mixtures of the others but R1b is predominant. R1b is distantly related to Slavic-Indian R1a. R1b begins from Germany and extends westwards into Scandinavia, France, Spain, Netherlands, Britain, Ireland, etc. It peaks in Ireland. Small pockets of R1b (usually associated with groups once linked with the Khazars) are also found in the east in former USSR territories. In Europe we also have I (related to J) which is found in Scandinavia, Germany, Sardinia, and Southeast Europe.

We may therefore tentatively identify the so-called "Indo-Europeans" as R1a and R1b.
Classical "Indo-European" Peoples such as the Persians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Italians, etc do not really belong.

The foreroots of R1a and R1b are types of R# which is found in the Cameroons of Black West Africa, amongst a small group in Jordan, in small minorities of Egypt and amongst Australian Aborigines.
R1a may be traced to Central Asia.
R1b however is considered to have begun in Turkey or Mesopotamia.

We find that tye distribution of most Ychromosome (male-associated) DNA haplotypes do not fit any Indo-European scenario. The two haplotypes (R1a and R1b) that it may be somehow possible to associate with a good portion of the Indo-Europeans are found to also belong to other ethnicities and in locations that contradict the Indo-European idea.
DNA therefore does not give us much.

We may therefore answer that the term "Indo-European Peoples" from a racial point of view does not really mean anything. In common parlance however the term is often used as synonymous with European White man.
(2) Ancient Israelite Origins Versus the Modern White Man
Forgetting DNA for the moment and concentrating only on the phenotype or Classical Racial Classification we may re-phrase your question:

By  "The Indo-European family of peoples" we may say we mean white European Peoples.  "The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people" are part of the "white European Peoples". How can they therefore be from the Lost Ten Tribes who belonged to the Middle East?

In reply we could say that the "The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people" are not necessarily all so white and European and the Lost Ten Tribes were not so Middle Eastern. We also have the known influence of environment and racial admixture to some degree.
In other words there is no substantial proven "racial" phenotypical difference between the Ancient Ten Tribes and present-day "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people".
See our articles:

Israel and the White Race


Hebrew Pictures
(b) The Linguistic Question
We may rephrase the question:
Why if the "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people" are descended from the Ten Tribes of Israel do they speak languages that are related to those of other Europeans and not to Hebrew?
(1) Languages Spread More than People
It is estimated that by 2050 the majority of US citizens will be colored people i.e. their ancestors will not have come from Europe.
Nevertheless  it may be assumed that most of them will speak English as a mother tongue. The same applies for Holland where despite a majority of its citizens by that time being of non-European ancestry the mother tongue of the majority will continue to be Dutch.
We have millions of Spanish speakers in Central and South America who are of non-European descent.
Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Sicilian, etc, are all Latin Languages that to some degree are mutually intelligible to each other and derive in part from Latin. For most of them the original Roman speakers of Latin comprise a negligible proportion of their ancestry.
The inhabitants of Turkey speak Turkish but most of them are descended from peoples who lived there before it was conquered by the Turks who came from Central Asia. And so on. Languages spread. German is spoken in east Germany by people of Slavic origin.
Many historians nowadays assume that the original Celts were a small ruling minority who imposed their language and culture on the conquered masses subject to them. In Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, English is spoken by people of non-Anglo-Saxon origin.
In the Caribean Islands English is the mother tongue of a mainly black African population.
(2) Theory Versus Reality
Indo-European languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
# The Indo-European languages are a family (or phylum) of several hundred related languages and dialects,[1] including most major languages of Europe, languages of Iran, Afghanistan and India, and historically also predominant in Anatolia and Central Asia. Attested since the Bronze Age, in the form of Mycenaean Greek and Anatolian [Turkey] languages, the Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical linguistics as possessing the longest recorded history after the Afroasiatic family. #

We saw from above that Genetic reality does not indicate any Indo-European roots for most Indo-European speakers.
The present-day Greeks and inhabitants of Turkey are to a significant extent descendants of the ancient inhabitants of those areas.
The same may be said of the Iranians. Even if we adjust out figures to allow for a great degree of subsequent racial intermixture we still will not be left with anything to indicate racial origins in common with most other Indo-European speakers.
(3) The Linguistics and John Tillotson
A question from John Tillotson provoked the writing of this article. John on a visit to Jerusalem saw the announcement of  a Brit-Am lecture pasted on a wall in the Old City. This piqued his curiosity and he later obtained a copy of  "The Tribes". Subsequently on another visit to the Holy City he met up with my humble self and we had a chat over coffee in the center of town. John is an inhabitant of the UK and at the time was teaching English in Slovakia. He is intelligent, well-read, personable, and pleasant of disposition. Being an English teacher, interested in linguistics, and with experience elsewhere in Europe it is natural that the obvious European affinities of the English raise questions in respect to Brit-Am beliefs.
(4) A Partial Answer on Linguistics: Terry Blodgett
Terry Blodgett (see The Hebrew Sources of Northern Tongues)
shows how linguistic patterns unique to the Germanic Languages may be explained by an infusion of Hebrew Speakers.
The recent researches of Theo Venneman are also permanent.
See: "Brit-Am Now"-863
#3. Runes in Hebrew and/or Cathaginian/Phoenician?

and scroll down a little.
Venneman however posits Semitic type elements in the sub-stratum of Germanic tongues whereas Terry Blodgett speaks of a later addition.
As for Irish and Welsh it is now widely accepted that a non-European substratum existed that was related to Hamitic and Semitic tongues and could well have been a dialogue of Hebrew.

A lot of words in so-called Germanic and Celtic tongues are similar to Hebrew ones. Comparisons of vocabulary are often simply dismissed as due to chance since they do not follow fixed linguistic rules that determine the transference of elements from one language into another.
Studies of Ancient Greece however, such as "The Sea Peoples in the Bible" by Othniel Margalit, 1988 (originally in Hebrew but now available in English translation), quote sources showing that the Greeks borrowed words and names and transmitted them to others quite freely and in ways that defy accepted linguistic rulings. 
(5) Beowulf as an Example
Beowulf was written in ca. 700 CE in an English dialect. 1300 years separate us from Beowulf. The Israelites were exiled in ca. 720 BCE according to conventional dating.  The Hebrew they spoke was a bit different from Biblical Hebrew. It had already absorbed Canaanite, Aramaic and some Indo-European influences. Different areas spoke different dialects. They moved to the west by different routes absorbing linguistic and other influences in their journeying.
There are ca. 1400 years between the time of Israelite Brit-Am Exile and Beowulf.
I would say that the differences between Biblical Hebrew and the English of Beowulf are not much greater than the differences between the language of Beowulf and the English we speak today!
(c) The Answer
John Tillotson asked,
"What is wrong about what this mainstream [Indo-European Origins] argument says, and how it is flawed?"
We would say that from a racial genetic point-of-view the Indo-European thesis does not fit the facts as they are accepted today.
From the point of view of linguistics the axiomatic assumptions no longer hold and other explanations for the observed phenomena exist.

For information as How To Make an Offering to Brit-Am,

Go to:
or deposit a donation in our
PayPal Account

Offering to Brit-Am

Correspond with us
Send Comments or Criticisms
You may not always receive an immediate answer
but anything you say will be considered and appreciated
Send us an

Books and Offering Opportunities

Main Page