Why do people keep saying that the Canaanites, Egyptians and the Philistines were/are SEMETIC & not HAMITIC?

Question

i ask this because the Bible clearly said that these people descended from Ham not Shem. Also the Ancient Babylonians might be Hamitic also. Nimrod son of Cush son of Ham started his kingdom in Mesopotamia present day Iraq. Nimrod's kingdom could possibly be Sumeria or Babylon (Tower of Babel where the languages were confused). When you ask someone about the people in the Middle East I hear people say a lot that all the people are Semetic. Hamitic people lived in and still do live in the area known as the Middle East. I also dont believe that Ham's descedents are only in Africa. I believe and according archeological and historical evidence that Ham's descendents are in Africa, Arabia, Middle East, Far East/Orient &India (Eastern branch of the Cushites).

Answer 1

The Philistines, Canaanites, Egyptians, and all African people were originally Hamitic people. However the  Hamitic people  spread outward to other regions and are not solely in Africa but all over the world today.

Hamitic Race

The term Hamitic, refers to Noah's son-Ham- and is used to describe all of the children and offspring descended from Ham. However, the actual term "Hamitic" was and is greatly misused and abused by anthropological writers and historians- to justify the TransAtlantic slave trade, and abuse of native peoples in African and in various tropical regions.

Hamitic peoples include indigenous African and Meditteranean people and categorized as the following.

(a) Ancient and Modern Egyptian (excluding the Arabs).

(b) Nubians, Beja.

(c) Abyssinians (Ethiopians and Eritreans)

(d) Galla, Danakil, Somali.

1 G. Sergi, The Mediterranean Race. A Study of the Origin of European Peoples (London, 1901); idem, Africa, Antropologia della stirpe camitica (Turin, 1897).

(e) Masai.

(f) Wahuma or Watusi.

2. Northern Branch (a) Berbers of the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Sahara.

(b) Tibbu.

(c) Fula.

(d) Guanches (extinct).

With regard to this classification the following conclusions may be regarded as comparatively certain: that the members of groups d, e and f of the first branch appear to be closely inter-connected by ties of blood, and also the members of the second branch.

Eastern Hamites are brown people. They are a race of independent origins and Eastern Hamites (people in the Meditteranean through the Horn of Africa, and parts of India) are not a cross between white and black in varying proportions, they are found in their greatest purity among the Somali and Galla, and mixed with Bantu blood among the Ba-Hima (Wahuma) and Watussi. The Masai seem to be as much Nilotic-Subsaharan as Hamite. This Galla type does not seem to appear farther north than the southern portion of Abyssinia, and it is not unlikely that the Beja are very early Semitic immigrants with an aboriginal Subsaharan admixture. It is also possible that they and the Ancient Egyptians may contain a common element. The Nubians appear akin to the Egyptians but with a strong Subsaharan element.

Further research has connected the Hamitic peoples of ancient times with the Dravidian peoples of India. It is sufficient for present purposes that the term Hamite, using it as coextensive with Sergi's Eastern Hamite, has a definite connotation. By the term is meant a brown people with frizzy hair, of lean and sinewy physique, with slender but muscular arms and legs, a thin to medium width, straight or even aquiline nose with delicate nostrils, bowed lips and no trace of prognathism.

Ancient Egyptians, according to researchers, are of Hamitic ancestry too. Egypt's geographical position allowed for immigration to take place- making it where people of varying ancestries came over to Egypt in search of economic opportunity. Some influencing groups in Egypt were the Nubians, Ethiopians (Semitic-Hamitic peoples), and Semitic groups, South Asians and East Asians.  

Immigration into Egypt changed the language of Egypt and surrounding areas. However, the Hamitic tongues remained untouched by Semitic influences after the separation of the Hamites and Semites, say 4000 or 6000 B.C. Repeated Semitic immigrations and influences have brought so many layers of loan-words that it is questionable if any modern Hamitic language has now more than 10% of original Hamitic words. Which Semitic resemblances are due to original affinity, which come from pre-Christian immigrations, which from later influences, are difficult questions not yet faced by science; e.g. the half-Arabic numerals of Libyan have often been quoted as a proof of primitive Hamito-Semitic kinship, but they are probably only a gift of some Arab invasion, prehistoric for us. Arab tribes seem to have repeatedly swept over the whole area of the Hamites, long before the time of Mahomet, and to have left deep impressions on races and languages, but none of these migrations stands in the full light of history . Egyptian exhibits constant influences from its Canaanitish neighbours; it is crammed with such loan-words already in 3000 B.C.; new affluxes can be traced, especially c. 1600. Hence the relations of Semitic and Hamitic still require many investigations in detail.

Everyone knows that Africa is the cradle of both civilization and is where people originated. And later, Africans went out, migrated to other parts of the world and populated it---and structurally adapted to the new climates. Since Ham's children mostly populated Africa (as well as the children of Shem--- who dwelled in East Africa all the way up to the Middle East) and Japheth's children populated Africa as well--- it can be said without a doubt that the children of Ham populated the world, as well as the children of Shem and Japheth. Ham, Shem's and Japheth's children also mixed while in Africa.

Example.

Ethiopians- are Cushitic AND Semitic (Hebrew, Amhara and Tigraniya people). Semitic mixing occured in the day's of Moses, Solomon, and all the way to at least 1,000 years ago.

Ancient Egyptians- mostly Cushitic, but has Semitic (Hebrew and Sumerian) DNA mixture.

Answer 2

You're right, they're not, and I did debate this with somebody recently. History clearly shows they're not, even though genetically they are from the same ancestor(as communities integrated). Philistines came before Jews, and integrated into Canaanite culture.

Jews only came after Joshua attacked Canaanite, even then their were a lot of other tribes. I think when they suggest 'semitic', they are referring to languages, as Hebrew and Arabic is classifies as semitic.

However Arab culture was only incorporated, when Arabs defeated Byzantine army at yarmouk, and people converted to Islam. Incorporating Arabic culture and language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Y...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7018...

http://oi.uchicago.edu/museum/highlights...

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/bible...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_...

***Genetics!***

http://www.rense.com/general48/Palestini...

Answer 3

cannanites, who are also known as phoenicians were a semitic - speaking people. the egyptians spoke a hamitic or afro-asiatic language. the philistines are a bit more complicated. they seem to be a conglomeration of peoples from the aegean as well as the near east. in any case they were not hamtic people. the babylonians are clearly semitic -speaking peoples. sumeria is neither semitic not hamitic and is a linguistic isolate.