This is the end result of indigenous Africans of the littoral consciously taking on European wives over 1000s of years. A complete breakdown with an identity crisis and a be-like complex.
^ THIS
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should I acknowledge an untruth. Unlike you who call yourself a Berber, I'm neither a slave nor a pet nor have I any conquerer.
If you think my facts wrong it's not me who's wrong but the very Amazigh persons themselves who have informed me and these Amazigh produced online citations. They are the ones who are wrong according to you.
Not to convince you, since you obviously have some kind of disinformative mission, but to pad out my earlier reference from AmazighWorld an activist source, I present the following.
... this same term (barba[ic]us,-a, -un, from which the term “Berberisc” also arises) was used by the Romans to designate the peoples in North Africa who did not speak Latin.
... When the Arabs arrived (670-800 A.D.) in the north of Africa, they kept the same name, adapting it to their language; ... “Al barbar” or “Al barbari” –its singular form– to designate the peoples, and “Al barbaria” to refer to their language.
... Amazigh-speakers use their own term “amazighen”, a masculine noun meaning “the free men”, although the most widely used term is its feminine form –“tamazight”–, a term used by Amazigh-speakers to designate their language.
by Adil Moustaoui (PhD candidate Faculty of Arts of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
If you equate the pejorative Berber to the name the people use for themselves Amazigh, then your problem is obvious and no amount of education on my part will help you free your mind.
posted
At least you see that Amazigh is the same as Berber. The difference (according to the quotes) is: Amazigh is the real name, while the name is a pejoratif name. It is like "Black" and "Negro". Black is english, and Negro is portugaise or Spainish (i don't know). It only got the negatif cannotation, while it meant just black.
Mike, I found this (concerning the following pic): Ces peintures rupestres trouvées à Tassili, au sud de l'Algérie (ci-contre), dans une région actuellement désertique et datées de plusieurs milliers d'années avant JC, peuvent nous permettes de nous imaginer à quoi pouvaient ressembler ces "femmes séduisantes".
It says that it dates several milleniums before C.:
This following pic is of a Tamahou, they appeard in the third millenium b.c (2500 b.c?):
Both predate the Sea people and the Vandals.
This comes from the Sahara:
See also (those images are very ancient, it dates it times when the actual sahara was fertile, with lions and other animals, thus very old): http://ennedi.free.fr/
This following (from that site) looks like the Ancient Libyans of the Egyptians:
The sie is not whitecentric, but it only shows the ancient saharan arts. You find here the black pastorals: http://ennedi.free.fr/
It is not because the one is real and the other is fake. The saharan was a place of ethnic diversity. I hope you become more wise, and stop with labelling some as real and others as fake (not for my sake, but for you).
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Mazigh, out of curiosity, nothing more, is that you in the top photo standing between the walls?
You obviously missed the point in that photo, which was basically "blacks/afrocentrists should focus on the walls of zimbabwe and leave berbers and egyptians alone"
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic