posted
Some Taureg do some don't. Not all the Kels are "Black" you have some Arab looking Kels. The Taureg identify as Bidane sometimes, but there are black Taureg.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you mind naming the Kels that do not identify as or look black?
That is the first time I have ever heard of this.
The Tuareg are a population spread over a large expanse of North Africa/the Sahara. Some have indeed been mixed with non African blood. However, many of them are indeed black and identify as black. Libya is a perfect example of this.
However, in some of the more coastal areas there are populations who may call themselves Tuareg but are heavily mixed with non African blood. Likewise there are populations who have migrated as far South as Mali and some identify as Tuareg but some say they are recent heavily mixed Arab migrants who identify as Tuareg.
And of course there are those in Europe who will be selective in researching Tuareg groups and often will play up admixture in order to play up the Tuaregs as having non African origins.
posted
Doug, you just answered your own request. The "Non Black" Kels are those who are heavily mixed with Arabs and other Barbarians many in the Coastal Areas, but majority of Tauregs are just as black as their ancestors, and yes they identify as black. Do the Arab Tauregs Identify as black I don't know.
Some Taureg as other Sahrans might also identify as Bidane esp. when at WAR with so called "Sudani" people like Niger and Mali, this has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a way to contrast their Nomadic lifestyle with the sedintary blacks.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed, Bidan is a genealogical term that has basically nothing to do with skin color (the literal translation is "White" but it is not a denotation). There was a recent round table discussion about this (which included Bruce Hall) that my Prof. told me about where these same conclusions were reached. I've found that it relates more to the Shem vs. Ham thing as well, for instance, Al-Mansur, whose mother was a Fulani concubine, claimed that he was going to unite the lands of Shem and Ham, hence his conquest of Songhay. But how is he of Shem if his mother was Fulani? Because he claimed descent from the prohet and the prophet was a product of Shem and the land of Shem is the Bilad al Bidan.
Another thing in which we are all aware is that the land of Ham before Islam included North Africa so in order to separate themselves from non-Muslims they create these origin myths, distinguishing themselves from the land of Ham further south (later to become "historicized" as the Bilad al Sudan). This is why it was necessary for Ahmed Baba to write his treatise on slavery and it explains Mawlay Isma'il's actions as well.
The Tuareg are what they are, regardless of history and politics. They are Africans by and large who are actually most closely related to the Beja per Tishkoff et al. I actually had to deal with this subject recently in class with a sub who took the term literally and tried to present the Tuareg as "the white people of Africa" (of course I directly challenged him on that). He failed to historicize and simply/lazily projected American concepts onto ancient Afro-Islamic ones.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Exactly, it boils down to Shem and Ham. The Funny part is that the Egyptians are always classified as Hamites..While other North Africans were not Hamites. It is a very confusing mix of Climate Theory, Islamic mythology, etc.
On the Taureg, it should come as no suprise that they group with other Africans, given that they(Tauregs of Mali) carry some of the highest concentrations of E1b1b1b the so called berber marker. The Taureg represent the original Berbers.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HornAfrican: Are the Tuareg people black and do they identify as blacks?
Black is a social construct, so you'd have to include in your question whose society's definition you're referring to. Many Africans, for example, are quite passionate about their belief that Tuaregs, as a whole, are not black. Black, relative to what segment of what society, should be defined first.
If you mean according to Western Society, we could say they'd mostly be seen as black, judging by how that term is already applied in America/the West.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug, you just answered your own request. The "Non Black" Kels are those who are heavily mixed with Arabs and other Barbarians many in the Coastal Areas, but majority of Tauregs are just as black as their ancestors, and yes they identify as black. Do the Arab Tauregs Identify as black I don't know.
Some Taureg as other Sahrans might also identify as Bidane esp. when at WAR with so called "Sudani" people like Niger and Mali, this has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a way to contrast their Nomadic lifestyle with the sedintary blacks.
No I don't believe I did. I asked if you knew of any Kels by name who identify as Arab. Just because some populations called Tuareg are mixed with Arabs does not mean they identify as Arabs. Likewise some populations who identify as Tuareg but are simply mixed Arab clans do not make them a true Kel. There are only 4 main Kels that I know of historically, which is why I asked.
Image of some Tuareg women from Oued Righ in Algeria as found in "Les Tuaregs Du Nord" from the 19th century:
Note the identification as Ethiopian Garamantes.
A lot of historic photographic and textual sources can be found from the French colonial period in North Africa.
Also note the name of one of the Tuareg leaders from Tassili N'Ager:
quote: Ikhenoukhen is sometimes spelt Akhenoukhenbut as the 'practical' leader of the Tuareg of the Tassili-n-Ajjer, having 'supreme political and judicial authority
posted
Tuareg is an ethnicity and we have to be aware of what SOY Keita has rightly pointed that we musn't confuse ethnogenesis with biogenesis. There are a good amount of off-white tuareg and they are true tuaregs because that is their culture. They don't just run around saying i'm tuareg and don't act the part or lack the family and ethnic history.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, one must not confuse ethnicity with skin color. The Tuareg ethnic group is made up of many complexions but predominantly they are of black African stock.
Unfortunately, asking them are they "black" may not get the desired response as this term may indeed be meaningless to them in the American sense. Why? Not because they are color blind, but what does black mean to a population that is primarily black on a continent that is primarily made up of blacks? It is like asking a Southern Italian if they are white. Of course they are.
Unfortunately there have been many European scholars who have gone to great lengths to turn North Africa into the homeland of Aryan African caucasoids hence some people may be confused:
posted
The Garamantes are likely the original people from whence the Tauregs were derived. Not sure if the description is light Brown. They were called Ethiopians which clearly implies that they were dark brown. They traded with North Africans and as a result many of the Northern Taureg groups are mixed with coastal North African people. Southern Taureg are mixed with West Africans. Original type likely are Cushitic.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cushitics are East African. Tuareg are West African. Under the commonality of racial identity the vast majority of Tuareg would fit your black label.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Tauregs are a mixture of people from Africa today but originally I suspect they had a Southern Libyan origin. At this time in history Southern Libya was occupied by a people similar to Nubians.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Tuareg are relatively recent arrivals to West Africa in comparison to more indigenous populations in the region, most importantly Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan speaking communities in the Sahara/Sahel. They like the Sahrawi of the Western Sahara/Mauritania likely migrated to their current locations from Southern Morocco some time after the birth and death of Christ, where they would have bioculturally assimilated the indigenous West Africans in the region; unlike the Sahrawi, the Tuareg were never Arabized and retained their Imazighen identity and culture. Also unlike the Sahrawi, the Tuareg don't have separate categories for people who are in part the descendants of these northern migrants, i.e. Beidane, and those people are predominantly the descendants of the indigenous West African groups in the region, i.e. Haratin.
Autosomally, the Tuareg are likely like the Sahrawi and some Southern Moroccans, who cluster in between coastal NW Africans and West Africans; which makes sense, given that Tuaregs were initially NW Africans who gradually acquired a much larger West African component over a period of time... given their location.
The Wodaabe, and possibly other Eastern Chadic Fulanis (who number around ~5 million people) seem to be partially NW African admixed as well; probably due to gene-flow with the Tuareg in their recent expansion east across the Sahara.
The Wodaabe are consistently ~65% West African and ~35% NW African (this cluster is in large part a combination of various elements, i.e. East African, West African, and European/Western Eurasian).
To answer the question, Tuaregs don't really have an identity based on skin color... although we do have terms in reference to the color of someones skin, but those are simply descriptors.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 5th century Greek historian Herodotus suggested that the ancestral homeland of the ancient Tuareg (ie Garamantes) was the Libyan Fezzan.1 It has been suggested that subsequent to the camel being adopted for Saharan trade in the 1st or 2nd century , the area of Tuareg influence expanded further to the south. Oral accounts and sparse written records in Tifinagh (the script of the Tamasheq language) date back to 14th century when the first caravan traders were documented in the Air Mountains. Hereafter, it seems that from the 17th century onwards the increasingly frequent invasions of North Africa by various Arabic tribes drove the Tuareg yet further southward to the African Sahel.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:those people are predominantly the descendants of the indigenous West African groups in the region, i.e. Haratin.
What evidence do you have suggesting that the Haratin are from "West Africa"? Keita believes they are indigenous Saharans and I see no reason why they wouldn't be.
quote:Autosomally, the Tuareg are likely like the Sahrawi and some Southern Moroccans, who cluster in between coastal NW Africans and West Africans; which makes sense, given that Tuaregs were initially NW Africans who gradually acquired a much larger West African component over a period of time... given their location.
"Likely"? The Beja and Tuareg formed the tightest Cluster according Tishkoff's analysis, so again, I have no idea where you get your information.
I also agree with Osirion that the Tuareg were likely part of the Garamante confederation and this is based on good evidence (see discussion). Not sure why you associate them with southern Morocco. Are you claiming that their ethnic identity was forged there? If so, what are the precise indicators? Maybe you're confusing the Tuareg with the Almoravids?
quote:The Wodaabe, and possibly other Eastern Chadic Fulanis (who number around ~5 million people) seem to be partially NW African admixed as well; probably due to gene-flow with the Tuareg in their recent expansion east across the Sahara.
You should try to limit your speculation. It would make some of your ideas seem more plausible and not simply the product of arbitrary hypotheses.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alot of the Sahawi Populations are recent arrivals of Arabs to the region so their ideas and terms on the indiginees of the region mean squat. Also what with this "West African" type?? The Taureg obviously originate in the Eastern Saharah hence their connections to the Beja, so where is all this "West African" type stuff coming from.
Also I second the position that the Taureg's are the descendants of the Garamante people in accordance with the evidence as well as the descendants of the Sanhadja of the Saharah.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yea, all of this "65% West African", "35% that kind of African" stuff makes no sense. Our friend Doctore spends too much time reading race bloggers and their bogus interpretations. Just another way people like to slice and dice up the continent and its peoples. None of these populations represent discrete biological units so all of these percentages he makes up are meaningless. It's not science.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Old Doctor posts more on Forum Biodiversity, which has some good and decent posters and materials but relies heavily on "Racialism" and Classifying I.E Eye Ball Anthropology.
I find it funny how some of the posters on that site will say how any population that is not a True Negro in West Africa is "Berberid" "Arabid" "N-E African Admixed" etc. Im talking about people from places like Niger, Mali, Nigeria etc(As if Berbers and Arabs had any significant impact below the desert), yet these same folks won't call Leuko-Berbers "Europid" "Spainid" "Greekid" Oh-No the Leuko-Berbers and Coastal Africans are all natural adaptions to the African continent and their enviroment.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on now guys, I know Old Doctore, he believes Tuaregs are 100% African and that NW African component he's talking about does not conform to what we call "Caucasoid" in typological terms but likely a Saharan source. Tuaregs vary genetically depending on which ones are sampled.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HornAfrican: Are the Tuareg people black and do they identify as blacks?
Most of them are in the sub-Saharan regions of Mali and Niger, and are what I would call "blacks".
It does not matter whether they identify themselves as "blacks" or not. Most Africans don't go around calling themselves "blacks" in their own native tongues either, but that is how they are perceived by certain outsiders nonetheless.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Original Tauregs were like the Beja Sudanese.
If this is debate about this I can provide the studies that show that the Taureg cluster closer to the Beja than any other groups of people.
If they were West African they would cluster closely to the Haratin. I don't know anyone in my family that consider themselves closely related to the Tauregs.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Come on now guys, I know Old Doctore, he believes Tuaregs are 100% African and that NW African component he's talking about does not conform to what we call "Caucasoid" in typological terms but likely a Saharan source. Tuaregs vary genetically depending on which ones are sampled.
Didn't mean to "bash" the Doc as he's an excellent contributor. His character is not in question. I've always had a problem with these kind of percentage break downs and racially couched (even if that isn't the intent) language though. It's simply an issue of wordage really (especially with regards to "admixture"). My other point for point criticisms are simply based on the evidence I've alluded to. For instance, I invited the Doc to debate the Garamante-Tuareg connection long ago as he seems to associate the former with the Tebu.
BTW, I don't think anyone believes they are "100%" African (however this is defined).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Come on now guys, I know Old Doctore, he believes Tuaregs are 100% African and that NW African component he's talking about does not conform to what we call "Caucasoid" in typological terms but likely a Saharan source. Tuaregs vary genetically depending on which ones are sampled.
Didn't mean to "bash" the Doc as he's an excellent contributor. His character is not in question. I've always had a problem with these kind of percentage break downs and racially couched (even if that isn't the intent) language though. It's simply an issue of wordage really (especially with regards to "admixture"). My other point for point criticisms are simply based on the evidence I've alluded to. For instance, I invited the Doc to debate the Garamante-Tuareg connection long ago as he seems to associate the former with the Tebu.
BTW, I don't think anyone believes they are "100%" African (however this is defined).
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: You should try to limit your speculation. It would make some of your ideas seem more plausible and not simply the product of arbitrary hypotheses. [/QB]
I'll answer the remainder of your thread some time later this week when given time to do so, I've been pretty busy this week. But anyways, my quote about the Wodaabe and the Eastern Fulani is not based on mere speculation, but concrete facts; with regard to various autosomal studies in reference to the aforementioned populations, including Tishkoff et al. (2009).
based on African samples obtained by Henn et al.(2011) the Wodaabe are autosomally intermediate between other West Africans and NW Africans, although closer to the former. The Wodaabe are only ~50,000 some people, so it's really not surprising that such admixture has only been relatively limited to them and not other West Africans; in addition, such a fact also applies that such admixture is a recent characteristic of the Wodaabe and related groups. The urbanized Eastern Fulani (less than ~5 million people), so basically "former" Wodaabe, are a rather mixed bunch; according to Tishkoff et al. (2009) half of the Cameroonian Fulani clustered with the Wodaaabe while the other half lack any type of NW African affinity and cluster with the Hausa; suggesting that the Fulani's numbers have been significantly increased by the assimilation of non-related groups.
Anyways, my assumption is that such a NW African affinity won't be found among the core Fulani groups in Senegal and so fourth; given the fact that the Wodaabe don't cluster in a tight cluster as is the case for more ancient "hybrids" and the fact that bioculturally related groups like the Dogon and Mandinka lack such admixture and are consistently 100% West African.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Yea, all of this "65% West African", "35% that kind of African" stuff makes no sense. Our friend Doctore spends too much time reading race bloggers and their bogus interpretations. Just another way people like to slice and dice up the continent and its peoples. None of these populations represent discrete biological units so all of these percentages he makes up are meaningless. It's not science.
Then how would you explain the Wodaabe's significant affinity to coastal NW African populations in respect their West African origin?
The "NW African" cluster is in reference to that affinity; when broken down, that affinity becomes diversified, i.e. East African, West African, and European ancestry are all implied.
The "NW African" cluster in respect to it's affinity to other African clusters and their Western Eurasian counterparts, is in most cases "intermediate" between the two extremes implying admixture.
This "intermediate" status is different from the Eurasian pull of East African groups (East African Afrasan, Sandawe, Hadze, and Nilo-Saharan speaking populations all have a significant Eurasian pull in contrast to other African groups), which is largely due to indigenous factors related to the OOA.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ]What evidence do you have suggesting that the Haratin are from "West Africa"? Keita believes they are indigenous Saharans and I see no reason why they wouldn't be.
Did I not refer to these peoples as being indigenous to their current locations, i.e. Southern Morocco,the Western Sahara, Mauritania, etc., so therefore implying that they are in fact indigenous "Saharans"? That still doesn't disregard the fact that they are/were West African, or is "Saharan" and "West African" mutually exclusive? The Haratin likely cluster closer to groups further south like the Mandinka in comparison to groups further north, in contrast to the predecessor of the Zenaga who were likely more similar to the latter.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we are missing time lines here. But the question was simple, are the Taureg Black?
I don't think that is the real question. I think this person wants to know if the Taureg culture originate from a Black African population.
It is clearly an Afro-Asiatic culture: meaning it has components from both Africa and West Asia.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore: I'll answer the remainder of your thread some time later this week when given time to do so, I've been pretty busy this week. But anyways, my quote about the Wodaabe and the Eastern Fulani is not based on mere speculation, but concrete facts; with regard to various autosomal studies in reference to the aforementioned populations, including Tishkoff et al. (2009).
based on African samples obtained by Henn et al.(2011) the Wodaabe are autosomally intermediate between other West Africans and NW Africans, although closer to the former. The Wodaabe are only ~50,000 some people, so it's really not surprising that such admixture has only been relatively limited to them and not other West Africans; in addition, such a fact also applies that such admixture is a recent characteristic of the Wodaabe and related groups. The urbanized Eastern Fulani (less than ~5 million people), so basically "former" Wodaabe, are a rather mixed bunch; according to Tishkoff et al. (2009) half of the Cameroonian Fulani clustered with the Wodaaabe while the other half lack any type of NW African affinity and cluster with the Hausa; suggesting that the Fulani's numbers have been significantly increased by the assimilation of non-related groups.
Anyways, my assumption is that such a NW African affinity won't be found among the core Fulani groups in Senegal and so fourth; given the fact that the Wodaabe don't cluster in a tight cluster as is the case for more ancient "hybrids" and the fact that bioculturally related groups like the Dogon and Mandinka lack such admixture and are consistently 100% West African.
Thanks for replying. This is the problem I have with how you label "admixture". What your PNG shows is genetic distance, not admixture and certainly not "35% NW African ancestry". This is like looking at the genetic distances of Horners and claiming them to be 50% "West African" and 50% European. Such would make no sense as they probably have very minimal ancestry from either group. There is no such thing either as a "100% West African" as West Africans are clearly derived from ancient East Africans per Cruciani et al .(2011). My problem is that people look at genetic patterns, or "structure", and interpret it as discrete or static. The pattern is simply due to the stabilization of a breeding population at a particular point in time but isn't always indicative of ancestry. People couch these patterns with racial euphemisms like "West African" and "NW African" but what is this really supposed to mean?
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Yea, all of this "65% West African", "35% that kind of African" stuff makes no sense. Our friend Doctore spends too much time reading race bloggers and their bogus interpretations. Just another way people like to slice and dice up the continent and its peoples. None of these populations represent discrete biological units so all of these percentages he makes up are meaningless. It's not science.
Then how would you explain the Wodaabe's significant affinity to coastal NW African populations in respect their West African origin?
The "NW African" cluster is in reference to that affinity; when broken down, that affinity becomes diversified, i.e. East African, West African, and European ancestry are all implied.
The "NW African" cluster in respect to it's affinity to other African clusters and their Western Eurasian counterparts, is in most cases "intermediate" between the two extremes implying admixture.
This "intermediate" status is different from the Eurasian pull of East African groups (East African Afrasan, Sandawe, Hadze, and Nilo-Saharan speaking populations all have a significant Eurasian pull in contrast to other African groups), which is largely due to indigenous factors related to the OOA.
The point is that so far, it seems as if this 35% figure you came up with is baseless. You emphasize clusters but ignore clines. Emphasis on clines is used to limit "racial" interpretations. I don't rule out possible contact with Mahgrebis, but Fulani affinity that pulls them towards some Mahgrebis can also be explained by the idea that their cultural antecedents may in fact originate in the Mahgreb as subjects of the Tassili rock art. This is what I mean by "arbitrary hypotheses" in that you prefer, in this instance, certain explanations for no clear reason. Why do you not consider clines and internal variation from drift as an explanation? Why is everything about "admixture"?
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore: Did I not refer to these peoples as being indigenous to their current locations, i.e. Southern Morocco,the Western Sahara, Mauritania, etc., so therefore implying that they are in fact indigenous "Saharans"? That still doesn't disregard the fact that they are/were West African, or is "Saharan" and "West African" mutually exclusive? The Haratin likely cluster closer to groups further south like the Mandinka in comparison to groups further north, in contrast to the predecessor of the Zenaga who were likely more similar to the latter.
I'm not concerned with how the Haratin cluster I am talking about where they originate. Hopefully I didn't misunderstand you when you claimed they were "indigenous West Africans" or here , when you write that "That still doesn't disregard the fact that they are/were West African". When you write "were" you imply that they migrated from somewhere other than where they currently reside regardless of whether or not you see "Saharan" and "West African" as mutually exclusive. I see no evidence for this.
BTW, I don't necessarily have a problem with most of what you're saying but the way that you frame these concepts definitely evokes racial thinking.
^Indeed, I'm not so confident that you'd be capable of explaining why "West African", in the way that you use the term, doesn't actually constitute a race of people, even though I'm sure you don't adhere to the concept. It's simply how you talk about "clusters" as if they were discrete units. It's very confusing to anyone who agrees with and understands the above paper.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug, you just answered your own request. The "Non Black" Kels are those who are heavily mixed with Arabs and other Barbarians many in the Coastal Areas, but majority of Tauregs are just as black as their ancestors, and yes they identify as black. Do the Arab Tauregs Identify as black I don't know.
Some Taureg as other Sahrans might also identify as Bidane esp. when at WAR with so called "Sudani" people like Niger and Mali, this has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a way to contrast their Nomadic lifestyle with the sedintary blacks.
True...depending on where they are living some Tuareg clans identify politically as "black" while others of course don't (since Africans are not African Americans). But to say one is "bidane" in Africa doesn't mean one doesn't belong to the black population or isn't dark in color. The term white in Africa or among dark-skinned Africans doesn't usually mean what it does in the west. It is more of a caste term. That is why many African Americans who go over to Africa are called white.
Its similar to the caste situation in India where one can not often tell the difference between castes solely based on complexion.
In any case it is important to understand many Africans do not regard themselves as black no matter how dark they are. Especially in places where it is still the equivalent of "abid" in meaning.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug, you just answered your own request. The "Non Black" Kels are those who are heavily mixed with Arabs and other Barbarians many in the Coastal Areas, but majority of Tauregs are just as black as their ancestors, and yes they identify as black. Do the Arab Tauregs Identify as black I don't know.
Some Taureg as other Sahrans might also identify as Bidane esp. when at WAR with so called "Sudani" people like Niger and Mali, this has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a way to contrast their Nomadic lifestyle with the sedintary blacks.
No I don't believe I did. I asked if you knew of any Kels by name who identify as Arab. Just because some populations called Tuareg are mixed with Arabs does not mean they identify as Arabs. Likewise some populations who identify as Tuareg but are simply mixed Arab clans do not make them a true Kel. There are only 4 main Kels that I know of historically, which is why I asked.
Image of some Tuareg women from Oued Righ in Algeria as found in "Les Tuaregs Du Nord" from the 19th century:
Note the identification as Ethiopian Garamantes.
A lot of historic photographic and textual sources can be found from the French colonial period in North Africa.
Also note the name of one of the Tuareg leaders from Tassili N'Ager:
quote: Ikhenoukhen is sometimes spelt Akhenoukhenbut as the 'practical' leader of the Tuareg of the Tassili-n-Ajjer, having 'supreme political and judicial authority
Most peoples of the Wedh Righ are mixtures of Hawara or Sanhaja with Zenata groups who were originally Nilo-Saharan speakers Garawa or Jarawa and Zawagha/Zaghawa peoples. These are where most of the darker-skinned peoples of the Wedh Dra'a, Gharian, Guerrara, Tuat, Sus, Ghadames, Fezzan, Jerma, and Wargla etc. originate. These are the "green" Berber people being attacked in Libya.
True Tuareg look more like and are genetically like the taller Ethiopian groups among the Beja and Cushites although many show obvious Turkic (Central Asian admixture) in their faces which according to African manuscripts they most certainly have acquired in recent times.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ Tauregs are a mixture of people from Africa today but originally I suspect they had a Southern Libyan origin. At this time in history Southern Libya was occupied by a people similar to Nubians.
It still is my "African"? friend - It still is. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ Tauregs are a mixture of people from Africa today but originally I suspect they had a Southern Libyan origin. At this time in history Southern Libya was occupied by a people similar to Nubians.
It still is my "African"? friend - It still is.
Not nearly as much resemblance today as they must have been in the past.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic