I strongly believe that our strength and survival is with EDUCATION. It must be admitted that the surface of the name issue was an important events sooner or later we must have dealt with, even though we must admit that the process it took to be presented was questionable to say the least.
We have yet to listen to ONE reasonable argument from people who do not want to call themselves Assyrians for whatever reasons, and opt to identify themselves ethnically as so-called chaldeans. All what we read so far is a weak argument by Fr. Sarhad Jammo which was challenged already and easily. Other than that, what is posted is nothing but emotional cries with bad language and personal attacks by those who cannot find ONE source to justify their claims, and that is unreasonable by any standards.
My question to people who are being part of such empty arguments, why cannot you simply answer this; If you have lived in the Nineveh (Mosul) region, the heart of Assyria, for at least 5000 years; If you have spoken the Syriac language of the region for about 2700 years; If you were Christians contineously for 2000 years (while the southern Iraq region lost its Christianity about 1400 years ago); If you have inhabited the region of Arbil, one of the very few Assyrian settlements that has retained its original name and has been continuously inhabited to this present day by Assyrians; If you have practiced Assyrian rituals, like "The Rogation of the Ninevites" , as asked by the Assyrian King; Why do you think then that you are part of some tribes who lived in the Sealand area around Basrah? Does this make sense to any reasonable person?
The ancient Chaldeans never inhabited northern Mesopotamia (Assyria). It has been attested by many scholars that even when they collaborated with the Medes and attacked Assyria in 612 B.C., they did not stay there. The Medes controlled all of Assyria. The Chaldeans returned to Babylon. There is a strong evidence to this because when Cyrus started later his campaign to attack Babylon in 539 B.C., the only real battle he fought was at Opis . Lets read what excavated historical transcripts state:
"In the month Tishri, when Cyrus fought at Opis on the Tigris River against the troops of Akkad, the people of Akkad, he destroyed by means of a conflagration, he put the people to death."
What is this telling us? Cyrus fought "the people of Akkad" ... he did not say fought the Chaldean people, because they were not there ... simple. So if they were not in Akkad some half way from the centers of Babylonia and Assyria, how would the Chaldeans be in Nineveh itself then? If they were not in Nineveh, and there is no record of any massive migration from the south to the north later in time, what constitute such claims? The only move from the south to the north has been by the Nestorian Patriarch who moved the Church See once from Seleusia-Ctesiphon to Baghdad as the new capital was built, and later from Baghdad to Rabban Hurmiz monastery near Mosul to avoid the Mongols.
The ancient Chaldeans, meanwhile, mixed with the people of Babylon which included many other ethnic groups like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Arameans and some Arabs too and assimilated in the Babylonian society. It seems that many people have this wild image in their minds that Babylon was occupied by Chaldeans only, or Babylonians were Chaldeans! that is absolutely WRONG. Chaldeans became a small part of the Babylonian society only in 626 B.C. when they took the power in Babylon coming from the Sealand region (around Basrah and Arabia). They ruled only 87 years total.
Another fact is that Chaldeans were not Arameans as many would like to claim. there are some theories stating that for sure, but the majority of the theories state that they came from Elam (southwest Persia) or from the Sealand and Arabia region.
In the book "The Sealand of Ancient Arabia" Yale University series Vol. XIX, by Raymond Philip Dougherty, 1932, states:
"However, the existence of numerous Chaldeans, Arameans, and Sealanders outside the land of the two rivers should not be forgotten"
Streek regards ("das gewaltige 'vom Meere' heranruckende de Heer" as composed of the people of the Sealand, i.e., the Chaldeans and the Arameans)
"Since the Sealand gave rise to the Neo-Babylonian Empire and since there are strong reasons for association of the Sealand with Arabia, evidence of Neo-Babylonian contact with Arabia should be of special significance."
From the above quotes we can conclude that the Arameans and Chaldeans were two different peoples. We can conclude too that the Chaldeans came from the Arabia region around Basrah.
If we try to be realistic and used our commonsense to evaluate the ancient Chaldean tribal society which became part of the Babylonian society and studied their practices, it would be only logical to conclude that they must be the ancestors of today's Subbis (Mandaeans) who concentrate in southern Iraq and the Basrah and Amara region in particular.
The present day Chaldeans are nothing but Assyrian Nestorians who began the process of following Rome in the 16th century and were called later "Chaldeans" by the Pope to distinguish between the Nestorians and these new Catholics. This has been attested to by hundreds upon hundreds of historians, scholars, theologists, writers and linguists. Please read the 25 or so examples posted on this forum. Many prominant members of the Chaldean Catholic Church has attested to this fact too.
We must use true history to educate ourselves and learn how to argue among each other using facts and nothing but facts. By doing so we all learn in the process, learn the reality of the matter and hence we will be able to face the world.