quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Khawashkar, you OBVIOUSLY are trying to FORCE us to accept that ONLY whites from the EXTREME coast are TRUE Berbers. NOBODY is denying that Arabs introduced Islam to Africa. But YOU are trying to single out Berbers as "special" in the sense that they SOMEHOW are superior to the "black" Africans who were also FORCED to convert to Islam. Islam was basically an arm of of Arab colonialism, just as much as Christianity became a form of EUROPEAN colonialism and you can SEE where the latter got its ideas from the former. Arabs called ALL NORTH Africans that they encountered "Berber" in the Middle to Medeival period. That is a HUGE group of people. Trying to make ALL people labelled as Berber "white" is ridiculous. Those Berbers along the coast are OBVIOUSLY mixed with MANY peoples, including Europeans, Arabs and Africans. However, the ORIGINAL North Africans, including Magrebians, Berbers, Tuareg, Numidians and others were black, and I am going back 5,000 years or so. On the same token, there is historical evidence of the presence of "white" Africans along the coastal areas, but there is a debate over whether the "white" phenotype originated in Africa by itself or derived from foreigners. The fact that most of these "white" Berbers are close to the shore makes it possible that they have had more admixture. Over time various invaders into North Africa have left their genetic imprint on the populations of North Africa even if North Africans have had a indegenous phenotype and population from ancient times. Various Berber groups THEMSELVES say that they trace their lineages back to Yemen or somewhere else OUTSIDE of Africa and some of these people are PITCH black. This is a sad state of affairs in North Africa, as the various colonizers who have INVADED North Africa including, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Italians, Spanish, Portugeuse and the French have ALL tried to twist the social-ethnic-religious environment and history to SUIT their purposes. Even NOW you have the leaders of Morrocco and other North African countries claiming DIRECT descent from the Prophet, a form of Arab centrism, wrapped up in Islamic garb. Therefore, trying to claim that "white" Berbers are the only TRUE Berbers is blatant B.S. This form of white supremacy, which puts white arab followed by white african above black African, is just as bad as ANY form of white supremacy no matter WHAT nationality or religion produces it.
Now, the FIRST Islamic armies that entered North Africa entered into Egypt and were mainly Arabian, with elements from Syria and Persia. These armies FACED a CONFEDERATION of DIFFERENT Berber clans in North Africa led by Al-Kahina. This group was the LAST to offer serious resistance to ARABIZATION and ISLAMIZATION. It is HARD to say exactly WHO made up this federation, but the FACT that it was made up of DIFFERENT berber tribes makes it HARD to say that they were ONLY "white" Berbers among them. In fact, given that this was 1300 years ago, it is HARD to know exactly HOW those people would compare to the Berbers (any group of Berbers) today. Suffice to say, trying to make ALL Berbers of the past white as well as trying to make all Berbers of today white is NONSENSE. The facts of genetics is clear that MOST Berbers share some form of East African heredity associated with the neolithic expansion of Africans across the once moist sahara to ALL parts of Africa.
One thing you must also remember is that Islam was vicious against ALL non Muslims in this period, whether it be European, Persian, African or Asian. Part of the reason that Islam has CRUMBLED is because it absorbed MANY groups under its umbrella, but could NOT keep them all unified under ARABISM or ISLAMISM. This has caused MANY fractures within Islam going back to the very beginning. So the spread of Islam featured as many INTERNAL struggles as EXTERNAL ones. The invasion of North Africa did not CHANGE this at all. In fact, the term Moor only glosses over the fact that there were MANY factions within the Moorish community and that they were not ALL unified as one group. THIS is why you have various dynasties rising up from various areas of North West Africa and ALL of these people were NOT Berbers. Some of them were the descendants of the ORIGINAL Africans in the sahara, some were Berbers (linguistically), some were from West Africa. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to try and put a purely BERBER face on the Moors. The fact is that the term Moor largely came to be used in describing the often dark skinned Africans that began arriving Spain after the muslim invasion. NO, not ALL of these Muslims were black. Nobody is saying that. HOWEVER, to try and say that ONLY "white" north Africans qualify as TRUE berbers or TRUE Moors because they got DEFEATED first is NONSENSE. They got defeated just like MANY OTHER PEOPLES got defeated by the Islamic armies and this is nothing "special" to make note of. There are TO THIS DAY various groups in North West and West Africa who identify themselves as Moors and this stretches from Morrocco, to Niger, Senegal, and Mauretania. You have GOT to be kidding when you try and imply that the some of the Dynasties from these areas were NOT black Africans and would NOT have been identified as such. That is PURELY ridiculous. Just look at all the various factions and dynasties within the Moorish period of Europe as well as Medeival Islamic North Africa and you will SEE that there were MANY tribes, clans and subgroups of Islam and African fighting amongst one another for control. You cannot put all these people into one group because they themselves WERE NOT UNIFIED.
However, it is important to remember that there IS a racial component to the relations between BLACK Africans (berber and non-berber) and white North Africans and a LOT of it stems from the Arab hostility towards blacks. This racial attitude has caused much disruption among the native Black North African populations, as well as the arrival of French and Portugeuese colonists in the 17 and 1800s. But remember that WHITEs were taken into slavery in the Islamic world in VERY LARGE numbers during the Medeival period, so it is NOT as if slavery was STRICTLY a racial concept. In fact, some say over a million European women made it to North Africa as slaves and left an indelible mark on the population.
Bottom line, in focusing on a exclusive "white" identity for Berbers and trying to make them representative of ALL Berbers or ALL North Africans, is ridiculous. It is ALSO ridiculous to try and make "white" North Africans representative of the ORIGINAL populations of North Africa. North AFrica from Morrocco to Egypt covering all of the Sahara is BIGGER than the United States. You CANT be serious in trying to make a COASTAL population of "white" people REPRESENTATIVE of ALMOST 1/3 the continent either currently or historically. It is a RIDICULOUS concept to say the least.
Photos from Morrocco. While they do not show many Black Africans, that does NOT mean that they are not there and were not there historically. Also note that these are NOT the Moors identified as wearing the veil and blue garb seen ELSEWHERE in Africa, signifying that there are MANY groups and sub-groups within Islamic North West and Western Africa and they are NOT the same. Also note that some of these pictures show some of the ongoing struggles WITHIN these communities, making the idea of everyone being of ONE identity A LIE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid (Tashfin himself was black, and the Almoravids were largely from Niger, Senegal and the Sahara, much like the Tuareg, yet MANY authors try and separate him from black "pagans" as if they were of different races, much like what is going on in Sudan today) http://bewley.virtualave.net/tashfin.html But let us not forget that these people supposedly came from the South of Morrocco a historically BLACK African area of Morrocco and were associated with people FURTHER SOUTH.
YOU made alot of good points doug,however as you know medieval nubians fought against the arabs first and were more effective THAN the north africans west of egypt and so was axum and later ethiopia. Many of the black africans however that accepted islam kept thier own faiths too and most africans outside of north africa accepted islam to protect themselves from the constant arab and berber raids and to expand their kingdoms wealth and power.
Up to date learning was a reason to accepted islam too,of course there were many africans who had the up to date learning but did not become muslims in the medieval and early modern period.Many were not muslims in the bambara kingdoms but alot had update advanced african muslim learning.you know this one but i just want to mention it,MOST africans in africa were not muslims.most africans are not muslims today as well,but are alot of african muslisms.
strong african kings protect their people.IN OTHER WORDS not all africans converted to islam by the sword.many of the ones that accepted islam did it for other reasons.The major reasons i have mention already.
OH ANOTHER point,the tuareg that i have seen so far seem to be of the black race and brown race.I THINK HOWEVER there ARE more that are of the brown race,but one thing i know for sure,i have not seen yet any tuareg that are white.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs This is a fact of Maur society that no western biased interpretation can explain away.
Al Takruri,
Don't you realize by now that I just went throuh a bunch of French language articles on this subject. The Haratin and other Blacks are catching HELL based on race. They make up 49% of Mauretania and are the original inhabitants. But, the reality of the situation is not the romanticized view of the great Black Moors of the past. They are defacto slaves. Many of the slaves are Peul. What more do they have to do to you?
BTW, the Tuaregs calls them Izaggaren - the reds.
But, this study has woke me up to a few things and I must get out of here. It's all trouble, trouble, trouble. It's time to go.
posted
Well, I believe we are talking different things on here. In Northern Europe Moor mean Black. In Spain and Italy, Moor mean Muslim invader and particularly Moroccian "white" Berber, and Moors is synonimous of ARAB. In Africa Moor mean Subsaharan.
That way there is not a chance we speak about the same thing. The Moors of Spain are not the same that the Moors of other places, quite simple.
In Spain (711-1492) Moro (Moor) does not and has never meant 'white' Berber. If there was one Umayyad suvivor and he resurrected the dynasty in Spain, in all probability his progeny were of European phenotype! The Almoravides, on the other hand were straight from the desert, sub-Saharan, and led by a few Arabs sidis with the majority being 'brown' for lack of a better word.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Well, I believe we are talking different things on here. In Northern Europe Moor mean Black. In Spain and Italy, Moor mean Muslim invader and particularly Moroccian "white" Berber, and Moors is synonimous of ARAB. In Africa Moor mean Subsaharan.
That way there is not a chance we speak about the same thing. The Moors of Spain are not the same that the Moors of other places, quite simple.
KAWASHKAR
No, we ARE talking about the same thing. The problem is that YOU insist on making a purely "white" identity for Spanish Moors, separate from the African Moors who were and ARE black. It is as simple as that. The fact that Moors can be found over a LARGE swath of North West Africa from Morrocco to Senegal tells you there are MANY Moorish groups that all fall under the banner Moor. Once again, it is YOU who is exposing the ETHNOCENTRIC bias found amongst some scholars and historians who try and make an EXLUSIVE white identity for the Moors contradicting the facts of history.
While I understand that some "white" Muslims from North Africa may they are being omitted by those who seem to want to use Moor to EXCLUSIVELY make the Muslim invaders black, it is still incorrect to propose the OPPOSITE as well. Of course Spain may not call Moors exclusively black, but it is not to be forgotten that many Spanish natives would have been counted as Moors as well. Nevertheless, Europeans to this day STILL regard Moor as signifying the Black presence in Europe during the Middle ages and therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to try and classify Moors or the Muslim invaders as EXCLUSIVELY white:
In Spain (711-1492) Moro (Moor) does not and has never meant 'white' Berber. If there was one Umayyad suvivor and he resurrected the dynasty in Spain, in all probability his progeny were of European phenotype! The Almoravides, on the other hand were straight from the desert, sub-Saharan, and led by a few Arabs sidis with the majority being 'brown' for lack of a better word.
In Spain Moro has always being an insult against Muslims! Moor is just a generic term against Muslims, particularly Arab. Moor in Spanish means something similar to "evil", or a person without the grace of God. A zombie if you wish.
Spaniards do know Moors are not blond blue eyed Germans, lol. However, they always used "Black" for subsaharian peoples and "Moor" for North African ligther peoples. Not that they love them too much either. Remember that all Muslims were invaders and people really hate those "camel riders", regardless of theirs skins. By the way, don't forget some Moors were slavs too. But local Spaniards considered every Islam's follower an allien.
In Spain (711-1492) Moro (Moor) does not and has never meant 'white' Berber. If there was one Umayyad suvivor and he resurrected the dynasty in Spain, in all probability his progeny were of European phenotype! The Almoravides, on the other hand were straight from the desert, sub-Saharan, and led by a few Arabs sidis with the majority being 'brown' for lack of a better word.
In Spain Moro has always being an insult against Muslims! Moor is just a generic term against Muslims, particularly Arab. Moor in Spanish means something similar to "evil", or a person without the grace of God. A zombie if you wish.
Spaniards do know Moors are not blond blue eyed Germans, lol. However, they always used "Black" for subsaharian peoples and "Moor" for North African ligther peoples. Not that they love them too much either. Remember that all Muslims were invaders and people really hate those "camel riders", regardless of theirs skins. By the way, don't forget some Moors were slavs too. But local Spaniards considered every Islam's follower an allien.
KAWASHKAR
We KNOW the Spanish dont like the Islamic invaders who invaded. This is not in dispute. The fact that the Spanish may look at the term Moor in a derogatory manner also is not much of a shock either. HOWEVER, IF the Spanish ARE trying to make Moor meaning EXCLUSIVELY white North West African, the HISTORY and the facts we have REPEATEDLY shown you will prove this to be wrong. The Spanish have EVERY reason to want to deny the Black African presence amongst the Moorish invaders. This has MORE to do with the fact of Spanish history subsequent to the expulsion of the Moors, specifically the fact that this was the precursor to European colonization of Africa, the enslavement of blacks and the genocide of many indigenous people in America. All of these events are promoted as Europeans and the Spanis BRINGING civilization to America and Africa and Europe being the ORIGIN of the concept and techniques of CIVILIZED society. Therefore, OF COURSE they would want to remove the history of Muslims in Spain who introduced the Spanish to civilization and many of the ideas that the Spanish claim credit for and OF COURSE they would want to deny the BLACK AFRICAN role in all of this because that would CONTRADICT the claims of European intellect and superiority in terms of the spread of civilization.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intellectual superiority? Spaniards have never denied ARABS where brilliant. They don't deny JEWS were brilliant. That does not mean Spaniards loved foreigners on theirs lands, or feel affection for Arabs at all.
It is just that all the fuzz about a Black African presence and intellectual superiority in Middle Ages Spain seem to many of us like a tale of the "Arabian Nights". A lie that does not match historical facts.
In fact, Black Subsaharans were invaded at the same time of the Spaniards by the same people: the Muslims.
All the rest is revisionism. Who cares if the Muslims were green? That was a civilization rooted in the Middle East, that spoke ARAB, directed by Arabs, Syrians, Persians and others. And in that world empire Africans of all skins played a subordinated role.
That's the truth, at least with regard to the Islamic influence in EUROPE.
Spaniards don't deny anything, but many people seem to want to falsify history to make egos feel better, rather that accept fact like they are.
posted
^^ "In fact, Black Subsaharans were invaded at the same time of the Spaniards by the same people: the Muslims."
Black is a colour and Muslim is a religion. What you forget is that there are more Black muslims (who consider themselves Arabs by nationality and language) in the world than there are your so-called Arab (white-brown) muslims.
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs This is a fact of Maur society that no western biased interpretation can explain away.
Just as such thinking cannot erase the indigenous type of black that formed the oldest North African Tamazight speaking populations who confederated with early metal age Adriatic and Aegean populations of the non-African Mediterranean and later hosted the Levantine colonialists.
Expressing a white superiority bias that only cedes "Berber," "Tuareg," and "Maur" identities to the lightest members of those ethnies while denying the darker ones the same title is foreign to those peoples themselves and is only a comfort to those washing blacks out of all but a contrived "true negro" history and anthropology that has been rejected by progressive academicians since the debunking of Coon and Baker decades ago.
Only the Amazight activists, heavily Europeanized in their thinking, deny black phenotypes as part of their ethny. The Kel Tamasheq and Maurs do not deny but the Maurs do heavily stigmatize their blacker elements.
^The above is correct, and it appears Karwash denies the basic FACT of history and anthropology that blacks were aboriginal to *all* of the African continent, including the North African coast. 'Berber' is an African language closely related to other Afrasian languages, and both linguistics as well as genetics have shown that the language originated in Northeast/east Africa before it spread to the Magrheb, by blacks. The very word 'Moor' was a description of black peoples, not the fair-skinned ones.
The guys is trying to run away from the above, but it's not working. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the problem in here is that you guys put all people of Africa into the same uniform ethnic group. Afroasiatics are not the same people that Subsaharians (I'm not talking of "whiteness" or "blackness" in here; both racist terms), no matter you can find subsaharian looking peoples up north, and arab looking people down south.
Whatever.
The fact is the Arabs were the rulers of Southern Spain all the time. And those "camel riders" were the guys that received the kick on the butt.
posted
I don't care what you just read. You need to realize others have studied this, and know Mauritanians firsthand, long before yesterday when you first found out about Mauritania and all its woes which is no new news and has been going on for hundreds of years already.
Haratini are not counted among the blacks who are Atlantic speakers. They never have been and never will be. Haratini are mixed with beydani as well as with Atlantics. As for the Atlantics, halPulaaren -- call them Fulani Peuhl Tukolours and then divide them as you will -- once held the warriors rank in Mauritania. I participated in a sit down between a Fulani from far away Cameroun and a beydani and the Hamidu came away with all his demands met.
Things aren't as simple as the simplicities of your internet only sources. You'll come away with s h i t for brains if you rely on blogs and webpages in lieu of legitimate research and field work.
quote:Originally posted by RedCow:
Don't you realize by now that I just went throuh a bunch of French language articles on this subject. The Haratin and other Blacks are catching HELL based on race. They make up 49% of Mauretania and are the original inhabitants. But, the reality of the situation is not the romanticized view of the great Black Moors of the past. They are defacto slaves. Many of the slaves are Peul. What more do they have to do to you?
BTW, the Tuaregs calls them Izaggaren - the reds.
But, this study has woke me up to a few things and I must get out of here. It's all trouble, trouble, trouble. It's time to go.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: I believe the problem in here is that you guys put all people of Africa into the same uniform ethnic group...
No, but YOU seem to put all Berbers into some ethnic group when they obviously are not! LOL
quote:Afroasiatics are not the same people that Subsaharians (I'm not talking of "whiteness" or "blackness" in here; both racist terms), no matter you can find subsaharian looking peoples up north, and arab looking people down south.
As usual you make no sense. 'Afroasiatic' is a language group that is technically Sub-Saharan, since that's where it originated and that's where most of its subgroups still exist! But of course a Semitic speaking Syrian is looks different from a Semitic speaking Ethiopian.
Also "Arabs" do not conform to a certain look because the Arabs of Arabia are of diverse ethnic origins themselves-- some Asiatic, while others African!!
Besides, I don't know what's so "racist" about terms like 'black' or 'white'. They are just descriptive terms in reference to skin color! Is there anything racist about terms like 'blonde' or 'brunette' in reference to hair color?
quote:Whatever.
Yes, whatever you say is silly.
quote:The fact is the Arabs were the rulers of Southern Spain all the time. And those "camel riders" were the guys that received the kick on the butt.
Nope. Arabs were not called Moors but 'Saracen'. Moors were reserved for the black groups of North Africa.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moors were never Slav and viceversa. Slave comes from the root slav, who were in turn have roots in Eastern Europe, i.e. Slavic people so there is no way for a Moor to be confused with a Slav! Turk and Slav may be used interchangeably but not Moor and Slav. Take a look at Suleiman the Magnificant. He was not a Moor! I am trying to stick to ethnic definition/descriptions and eschew any racial epitaph. Many Cubans have roots in Galicia and Catalunya and when they refer to the caribbean dish of 'moros e cristianos', there is no mistake that the moros are the colour of the beans (blue/black). Go to a Cuban restaurant and order some moros e cristianos to see what I mean.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, for talking about Moors, that Cubans speak about "moros y (not 'e') cristianos" has nothing to do with it. By the way, Cubans don't even speak a good Spanish. lol.
You guys believe you know who are the Moors. They problem is the following. What some people called the "Moors" was not what other people called "Moors". I will repeat it once again. The term "Moor" in Spain means Muslim. And, if people does not know, there were also Germanic and Slav people between the Muslim armies, because those armies were international. The term Moor it was applied (IN SPAIN) to any Muslim most of which were Arabs and Berbers.
When I say Berber I mean people like this:
People that is not "Black" like the Subsaharians but not "White" like European either.
Now, you can argue a lot about semantics, but the fact is people do know who were the Moors of Spain and who were the rules there. All the rest is fiction.
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Moors were never Slav and viceversa. Slave comes from the root slav, who were in turn have roots in Eastern Europe, i.e. Slavic people so there is no way for a Moor to be confused with a Slav! Turk and Slav may be used interchangeably but not Moor and Slav. Take a look at Suleiman the Magnificant. He was not a Moor! I am trying to stick to ethnic definition/descriptions and eschew any racial epitaph. ..
There were slavs on Muslim Spain, too. The Muslims, for some reason, have quite a lot of Germanic, Nordic and Slav mercenaries in their armies. That's particularly true in Europe.
How is the TA-SETI temple of the afrocentric religion?
quote:.. As usual you make no sense. 'Afroasiatic' is a language group that is technically Sub-Saharan, since that's where it originated and that's where most of its subgroups still exist! But of course a Semitic speaking Syrian is looks different from a Semitic speaking Ethiopian.
The problem with you, friend, is that you believe the amount of melanine in the body is "culture". Peoples of the North and North East Africa have been in contact with the middle East for the last 6 thousand years and more. They all share many cultural pattern that are different with the people south of Sahara. No race involved there.
quote: Also "Arabs" do not conform to a certain look because the Arabs of Arabia are of ...some Asiatic, while others African!!
Yes. You behave like all racist people. All that matters is "looks". Everybody knows Arabs had admixture of neighbouring people, like anyone else in the planet, by the way.
quote:Besides, I don't know what's so "racist" about terms like 'black' or 'white'. They are just descriptive terms in reference to skin color! Is there anything racist about terms like 'blonde' or 'brunette' in reference to hair color?
If you start to talk about "blonds" culture and "brunette" culture, then it becomes racist.
quote:..Nope. Arabs were not called Moors but 'Saracen'. Moors were reserved for the black groups of North Africa. [/QB]
In Spain Arabs where called Moors. That's what I am tried to tell you a hundred times. A Moor was any dumb Muslim that lived there, regarless of their phenotype. The first invasion of Muslims was done by Berber troops. But the Arabs had the control.
You are plain old confused. Arabs were NEVER called Moors, they were called ARABS. It seems you are DESPERATE to make the Moors into a PURE WHITE RACE. It is ridiculous to go on about this. We KNOW that the Arabs were on top and directed the Muslim invasion of Spain. That goes without question. However, if the Arabs were the PREDOMINANT force who occupied Spain for ALL this time, then WHY would Europeans come up with a SPECIAL name for them, since the Muslims were running rampant ALL OVER the map at this period in history? Why come up with a SEPARATE name for the Muslims who invaded Spain as opposed to just calling them MUSLIM? The reason for these people being called MOOR is because they were NOT ARABS. It has to do with the fact that MOST of these Muslims were from North West Africa and MANY of them were black. That is as SIMPLE as it gets. There is NO NEED to try and CLARIFY such a SIMPLE observation of fact. NO we are NOT saying that ALL Muslims in Spain were BLACK, but we ARE saying that the WORD Moor came about BECAUSE of the presence of BLACKS in the ranks of the Muslims who invaded. Otherwise, they would have JUST been called Muslim, Arab or something else. In Europe Moor means black, ESPECIALLY so going back to the Medeival period. This is in the EUROPEANS own words and whether the SPANISH agree or disagree it does not change the fact that MANY black Africans were present in ALL WALKS OF LIFE during the Muslim occupation of Spain. It is also true that Spain at this time was COSMOPOLITAN, meaning there were Spanish people, Jews, Persians, Arabs, Syrians, "white" North Africans, Egyptians and MANY OTHER peoples present during this time. So YES, one could say that Moor could represent the whole diaspora of people present in Spain during the Moorish period. That does NOT change the fact that the WORD derives from the BLACKS in that population and that is true NO MATTER if the word NO LONGER is used EXCLUSIVELY in that way today.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] I don't care what you just read. You need to realize others have studied this, and know Mauritanians firsthand, long before yesterday when you first found out about Mauritania and all its woes which is no new news and has been going on for hundreds of years already.
The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs
Al Takruri,
I don't mean to upset you. You are the expert of this area. I will never leave the USA. So, it's not my intention to become an expert on people groups that I will never encounter in large numbers. I just wanted to learn more facts on AE, Nubia, the Horn and West Africa on these forums we keep meeting on.
It would be more practical for me to keep learning about Korea, China, Mexico, South and Central America, the Carribean and Europe since those areas are where my neighbors and fellow city dwellers come from. Ain't no Berbers near me in lare numbers if any at all.
The African Americans derive from West Africans including Fula, Hausa, Mande and Tuareg. But, it is very very clear to me that en masse we cannot go back. Atlantic slavery after the Middle Passage was a permanent divider. Frankly, the African Americans near me a largely uninterested and unaware of the basic facts of the African continent. That's the biggest irony. Some want to know, but can't get online or don't know how.
The Internet often has information that cannot be found in books. Going to Africa physically is better. But for me, that'll never happen.
I heard about Mauretania and Sudan before. I heard about the slavery and gory details. But, those francophone articles made the situation more clear. Of course, you can explain the situation better with the nuances and such.
Shalom u'vracha
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One point about musical influence. Many people talk about the African influence on music in Andalus and any BLACK African influence is often downplayed or outright rejected. This is based on prominent research and scholarship being prominently focused in the Levant, Egypt and Near East and almost NONE on Africa.
Note the following:
quote: Of the many lutes which appear in different guises throughout the world, those played in Africa often have a boat-shaped sound-box with a fairly long neck, of wood, which enters the resonator through the skin sound-table. These lutes must have existed in early antiquity, as similar instruments may be seen in the hands of the women musicians depicted in the reliefs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
add www. to the front of these links since the forum wont let me post them directly because of the parentheses
kaminari-sama.com/k-raijin_(instrument_encyclopedia-L).htm (Make sure to listen to the sample sound by clicking on the musical note under african lute)
This leads to a situation of ANOTHER blank slate concerning the history of Africa which allows many to ASSUME that Africans HAVE no history of their own. Yet even a CURSORY view of the range of African musical styles as well as the fact that many musical traditions have died out for MANY reasons and you will get a different perspective. Therefore it is VERY possible that stringed instruments are QUITE old indeed in Africa and did not come from any FOREIGN influence. Once again this is ANOTHER reason for HISTORICAL research in AFrica, to CORRECT the wrongs that have led to Africa being BLOTTED out of human history.
Listen to an example of this instrument being played and you will find the SOund of the South, the Sound of the Blues in an instrument that dates to PRIOR to the FOUNDING of America. Click on the Musical Note under the title African Lute.
Therefore, there is certainly NO NEED to question the role of Africans in Musical history. In fact, there is the need for MORE study on this and ALL aspects of life in Africa upto and prior to the Arab and European invasions, in order to RESTORE the lost history of Africa in ALL aspects of endeavor.
Any way, now that we see that there was GREAT diversity and musical experimentation amongst the West Africans going WAY BACK, we lead to the great Ziryab. Over the years BLACK Africans are promoted as being GREAT at this or that, only to be REMOVED from the list of greats once OTHERS are inspired by them. It is no doubt that among the AFricans the musical heritage is great and has an ANCIENT African connection that cannot be denied. The ONLY reason it is denied is because of the RACIST explosion that COLONIZED and SUBJUGATED Africans from the Islamic Period through the 20th century.
With the knowledge and background I have given, it is NOT surprising that one of the Greatest musicians in Europe, African and Islamic history was a black person:
quote: Blackbird was actually named Abu al-Hasan 'Ali ibn Nafi', and he was born in about the year 789 in the land now called Iraq, perhaps in its capital, Baghdad. Some Arab historians say he was a freed slave-apparently a page or personal servant-whose family had served al-Mahdi, the caliph or ruler of the Baghdad-based Abbasid empire from 775 until his death in 785. In those days, many prominent musicians were slaves or freedmen, some of African origin, others from Europe or the Middle East, including Kurdistan and Persia. Historians differ over whether Ziryab was African, Persian or Kurdish. According to Ibn Hayyan, 'Ali Ibn Nafi' was called Blackbird because of his extremely dark complexion, the clarity of his voice and "the sweetness of his character."
Do not forget that this period of Emergence of Ziryab from Iraq was during the time that MANY BLACK Africans were in Iraq as slaves, who eventually founded the Zanj nation in Iraq.
You are plain old confused. Arabs were NEVER called Moors, they were called ARABS. It seems you are DESPERATE to make the Moors into a PURE WHITE RACE.
I could care less for the "white race". Actually, the term "white race" I believe should be applied to Germans only that, by the way, are not white but pink.
What I don't like, though is fantastic revisionism. Berbers are not white in Nazi terms, but they are a distinctive people Hispanics know from ancient times. The very term moreno "Morish" is applied to Berbers only, and not to Black people. Let me tell you very clear, and in racial terms, Spaniards, Portugueses and Italians know Moors are light "mulattoes". And they accept theirs historical relationship with them.
quote: It is ridiculous to go on about this. We KNOW that the Arabs were on top and directed the Muslim invasion of Spain. That goes without question. However, if the Arabs were the PREDOMINANT force who occupied Spain for ALL this time, then WHY would Europeans come up with a SPECIAL name for them, since the Muslims were running rampant ALL OVER the map at this period in history?
What special with the term "Moor"? "white" Berbers have always been called Moros in Spain. In the Middle Ages and during the Spanish Civil War as well. The algerian troops of Franco where called the Moors and dresses like the characters of Aladine.
quote:Why come up with a SEPARATE name for the Muslims who invaded Spain as opposed to just calling them MUSLIM?
Why not?
quote:The reason for these people being called MOOR is because they were NOT ARABS.
Why they spoke Arab then? Why not Mandinga or Yoruba? No, they speak Arab because most of the Moors were Arab or Arabized peoples. They came from all the corners of the Muslim empire. How many times I will have to repeat the same thing?
quote: It has to do with the fact that MOST of these Muslims were from North West Africa and MANY of them were black.
If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
quote: That is as SIMPLE as it gets. There is NO NEED to try and CLARIFY such a SIMPLE observation of fact. NO we are NOT saying that ALL Muslims in Spain were BLACK, but we ARE saying that the WORD Moor came about BECAUSE of the presence of BLACKS in the ranks of the Muslims who invaded.
Moors is a hate word, indeed.
quote: Otherwise, they would have JUST been called Muslim, Arab or something else.
Spaniards knew the first wave of Muslims were Berbers and not Arabs.
quote:In Europe Moor means black, ESPECIALLY so going back to the Medeival period. This is in the EUROPEANS own words and whether the SPANISH agree or disagree it does not change the fact that MANY black Africans were present in ALL WALKS OF LIFE during the Muslim occupation of Spain.
Yes. Muslims started mass slavery of Black peoples.
quote:It is also true that Spain at this time was COSMOPOLITAN, meaning there were Spanish people, Jews, Persians, Arabs, Syrians, "white" North Africans, Egyptians and MANY OTHER peoples present during this time. So YES, one could say that Moor could represent the whole diaspora of people present in Spain during the Moorish period. That does NOT change the fact that the WORD derives from the BLACKS in that population and that is true NO MATTER if the word NO LONGER is used EXCLUSIVELY in that way today. [/qb]
As I said. The Spaniars used the word Moor to means Moroccian, Tunisian, Algerian of Lybian, the people of the coastal areas they new since ancient times. They were the Moors from the "racial" point of view FOR THE SPANIARDS. Now, that term was generalized to mean Muslim during the reconquest wars.
For Northern Europeans, the "white" Berbers were Black people, so they did not make the distinction the Spanish did. After all, for Northern Europeans, every people that live south of Germany is Black, anyways, Spanish, Italians and Greeks included.
So, in a sense, both Black and White Americans agree on that. Mediterreanean people, don't agree with those points of view.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: One point about musical influence. Many people talk about the African influence on music in Andalus and any BLACK African influence is often downplayed or outright rejected. This is based on prominent research and scholarship being prominently focused in the Levant, Egypt and Near East and almost NONE on Africa.
Actually, although all people knows the "modern" music entered to Europe from Muslim sources during the Middle Ages, scholars were not very interested in finding out about its roots in the Muslim world up to recent times, less in finding out a possible African origin of those "oriental" rythms. The West simply did not want to know about any people that were not westerners.
More research is needed to change that. No doubt about it.
2.Moors in european Literature In David MacRitchie , « Ancient and Modern Britons » , 1884,VOL I, page 46: "Any latin dictionary, any old one at least, will tell you that maurus is a "moor ", a " blackamoor " or a "tawny moor ". And Shakespeare uses the world "moor " as a synonym for "negro" (Merchant of Venice, act III, scene V). At that last world bears nowadays a somewhat restricted meaning , it may be better to take the old fashioned « blackamoor »,as the nearest English rendering of maurus signifying thereby any black, or brown skinned man."
In Page 214:
"And in the diction of the past, A black man was a moor"
Collection of Sir Thomas Wriothesley garter king of Arms (1504-1534) In Golden age of the moors and African presence in ealy Europe
Niger Val Dub : The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century. One of them, was known as King Kenneth, sometimes as Niger or Dubh, a surname which means 'the black man.' It is a historical fact that Niger Val Dubh lived and reigned over certain black divisions in scotland - and that a race known as 'the sons of the blacks' succeeded him in history. (JA Rogers, Sex and Race)
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
Those are Kabyle Berbers, a specific group of Berbers known to have high levels of Maternal European ancestry.
posted
As much as Kawashkhar doesnt want to admit it, his OWN words reflect a RACIST perspective more than one of TRUTH. When the Arabs invaded Egypt and started spreading west there were MANY BLACK African Muslims among the "arab" Armies. This is a KNOWN fact. This is true ACROSS North Africa right into Morrocco. True, white North Africans are in power today in this area, but MUCH of that power comes at the DETRIMENT of the ORIGINAL black population of these areas and is a result of the FORCED expulsion of many of these people by WHITE Arabs and North Africans. The slaves from the Moorish period in Europe were as likely to be WHITE as they were to be BLACK and the FACT that you speak of BLACKS as slaves reflects that fact that LATER, after the Moorish defeat, BLACKS muslims were often subjugated by WHITE muslims, even though they were OF the same faith. THIS is what has caused the populations of BLACKS in North Africans to be FURTHER South, out of power, out of sight and OUT of the history books. This situation about the Moors and trying to convince us that the ONLY BLACK Muslims in Spain were SLAVES is ridiculous.
What you are posting about the Moors is BLATANT B.S. and IGNORES the fact that MOST Moors are NOT in Morrocco today OR Algeria OR Libya. MOST of those called Moors TODAY are in Niger, Senegal, Mauretania and the Sahara. This is a FACT that you CURIOUSLY find fit to omit. And THESE people are NOT slaves in ANY sense. On top of that, if you go back in Morroccan History and look at the photos and journals of Europoeans who VISITED Morrocco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century you will SEE a large BLACK African Muslim population was ALWAYS present in Morrocco and were NOT slaves. This is PRIOR to the COLONIAL period when the French began to use African troops in their Armies. The position of Blacks in Morrocco has as much to do with the history of RACISM as well as the fact that Arabs, "white" Berbers and "black" Moorish Africans have been FIGHTING for control of this area for HUNDREDS of years following the defeat of the Moors. It is YOU who are being dishonest in taking the BLACK African presence OUT of Morroccan history.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Generally speaking, the Hassaniya populations were (or are) divided into several groups, of different social status.
At the peak of society were the aristocratic "warrior" lineages or clans, the Hassane, supposed descendants of the Beni Hassan Arab immigrants. Below them stood the "scholarly" or "clerical" lineages. These were called marabout or zawiya tribes, the latter designation the preferred one in among the Western Sahara-centered tribes, who would also almost invariably claim chorfa status to enhance their religious credibility. The zawiya tribes were protected by Hassane overlords in exchange for their religious services and payment of the horma, a tributary tax in cattle or goods; while they were in a sense exploited, the relationship was often more or less symbiotic. Under both these groups, but still part of the Sahrawi-Moorish society, stood the zenaga tribes - tribal groups labouring in demeaning occupations, such as fishermen and bards, as well as peripheral semi-tribal groups working in the same fields. All these groups were considered to be among the bidan, or whites.
Below them ranked servile lineages known as Haratin, formally freed slaves of mainly black African origins and their descendants, who would normally still be linked to their former masters in a dependent role. They lived serving their affiliated bidan families, and as such formed part of the tribe, not tribes of their own. (Note that "Haratin", a term of obscure origin, has a different meaning in the Berber regions of Morocco.) Below them came the slaves themselves, who were owned individually or in family groups, and could hope at best to be freed and rise to the status of Haratin. Rich bidan families would normally own a few slaves at the most, as nomadic societies have less use of slave labour than sedentary societies; however, in some cases, slaves were used to work oasis plantations, farming dates, digging wells etc.
Slavery persisted among Hassaniya-speaking populations well into the colonial age, despite that both French and Spanish colonial authorities formally banned the practice. While slavery is thought to be more or less eradicated in Western Sahara, there are credible reports that both outright slavery and, more commonly, different forms of informal bondage are still applied to some Haratin lineages in Mauritania.
The point here is that it is HARD to look at modern arab/berber groups and get a TRUE sense of the ORIGINAL clans and groups that occupied North West Africa. What IS clear is that the Arabs have come to DOMINATE this region and the ORIGINAL black Africans have been largely decimated. While that does NOT diminish the presence of "white" North Africans in antiquity, it does show how ARAB colonialism followed by European colonialism has altered the landscape, politically, ethnically and nationally.
quote: From the end of the Ice Age, when the Sahara Desert dried up, contact between the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa was extremely limited by the difficulty in crossing the desert. This remained the case until after the time of the Arab expansion and the spread of Islam; even then, trans-Saharan trade was restricted to costly (but often profitable) caravan expeditions, trading such goods as salt, gold, ivory, and slaves.
Originally, the Maghreb was inhabited by "Caucasoid" Cro-Magnoids (Iberomaurusians) in the north and by "Black" peoples in the Sahara. Later, about 8000 BC, there came from the east "Caucasoid" speakers of northern Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber at least since the Capsian culture.
Many ports along the Maghreb coast were occupied by Phoenicians, particularly Carthaginians; with the defeat of Carthage, many of these ports naturally passed to Rome, and ultimately it took control of the entire Maghreb north of the Atlas Mountains, apart from some of the most mountainous regions like the Moroccan Rif.
The Arabs reached the Maghreb in early Umayyad times, but their control over it was quite weak, and various Islamic "heresies" such as the Ibadis and the Shia, adopted by some Berbers, quickly threw off Caliphal control in the name of their interpretations of Islam. The Arabic language became widespread only later, as a result of the invasion of the Banu Hilal (unleashed, ironically, by the Berber Fatimids in punishment for their Zirid clients' defection) in the 1100's. Throughout this period, the Maghreb fluctuated between occasional unity (as under the Almohads, and briefly under the Hafsids) and more commonly division into three states roughly corresponding to modern Morocco, western Algeria, and eastern Algeria and Tunisia.
After the Middle Ages, the area east of Morocco was loosely under the control of the Ottoman Empire. After the 19th century, it was colonized by France, Spain and later Italy.
Today over two and a half million Maghrebins live in France, especially from Algeria, as well as many more French of Maghrebin origin.
Note, while they talk about the Sahara being a DIVIDER, between Northern and Southern Africa, they curiously CONTRADICT themselves when they admit that there were always "black" people IN the Sahara. Therefore, there WAS no divider and the use of the Sahara is as much a result of the colonization of North Africa as any FACT of geography, much like the Dutch settlement of South AFrica.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As much as Kawashkhar doesnt want to admit it, his OWN words reflect a RACIST perspective more than one of TRUTH. When the Arabs invaded Egypt and started spreading west there were MANY BLACK African Muslims among the "arab" Armies. This is a KNOWN fact. This is true ACROSS North Africa right into Morrocco. True, white North Africans are in power today in this area, but MUCH of that power comes at the DETRIMENT of the ORIGINAL black population of these areas and is a result of the FORCED expulsion of many of these people by WHITE Arabs and North Africans. The slaves from the Moorish period in Europe were as likely to be WHITE as they were to be BLACK and the FACT that you speak of BLACKS as slaves reflects that fact that LATER, after the Moorish defeat,
Quite idealistic and false, indeed. The Muslims (Moor include) had slaves of any color, that's true, but you should not forget the racist attitudes of the Muslims. Those attitudes existed and are well know, they appear everywhere in Muslim secular literature. Perhaps you should take a look at the realities of Slave trade in Africa by Muslims.
quote: BLACKS muslims were often subjugated by WHITE muslims, even though they were OF the same faith. THIS is what has caused the populations of BLACKS in North Africans to be FURTHER South, out of power, out of sight and OUT of the history books. This situation about the Moors and trying to convince us that the ONLY BLACK Muslims in Spain were SLAVES is ridiculous.
Nobody denies that. I only doubt the demographic importance of Black populations in Spain.
quote: What you are posting about the Moors is BLATANT B.S. and IGNORES the fact that MOST Moors are NOT in Morrocco today OR Algeria OR Libya....
If they are (or were) not from Mooroco, Tunisia, Algeria or Lybia then THEY ARE NOT MOORS.
What you don't get I use the term MOOR as used in ancient and modern SPAIN. It mean "white" North African Berber with some degree of Black admixture, but "white-looking". That's what Moro and Moreno means!
quote: MOST of those called Moors TODAY are in Niger, Senegal, Mauretania and the Sahara. ....
Those people are not called Moor in Spain or Italy but Blacks. Quite simple.
quote: This is a FACT that you CURIOUSLY find fit to omit. And THESE people are NOT slaves in ANY sense. On top of that, if you go back in Morroccan History and look at the photos and journals of Europoeans who VISITED Morrocco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century you will SEE a large BLACK African Muslim population was ALWAYS present in Morrocco and were NOT slaves.
Europeans has always know that. It is quite obvious North Africans have certain degree of admixture. And it is obvious as far south from the Mediterranean into central Africa you go, the people turn into Black Africans. That's not rockt science. Everyone knows it.
quote: It is YOU who are being dishonest in taking the BLACK African presence OUT of Morroccan history.
It is you who is being dishonest trying to convert the history of North Africans into the history of the Subsaharians.
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: Khawashkar. whats your thoughts on this
..
I think you should look for more serious sources than Runoko Rashidi. Now, if you are looking for Blacks in Europe there are lots of documentation about it. The case of the Medici, is well known. And the cases of Alexander Dumas, and the ancestors of Pushkin in Rusia are well know as well.
There were Blacks in Europe in the past in the same sense there have always existed whites in Africa and our in China. That's not the point.
What we are talking about here is about WHO WERE the Moors. Not if there were or not some Black people in Europe during the Middle Ages. They were.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: What about Chawis
or Riffanis?
Or Chleuhs?
They don't look exactly Subsaharan.
KAWASHKAR
With the exception of Chleuhs, those are all coastal groups with substantial European DNA (often ancient European mtDNA - U6, but also more recent admixture).
Wrt Chleuhs, showing a few individuals who exhibit European-like phenotypes does not change the reality of their genetics. Rasol, Supercar, do either of you have access to a genetic study on Berbers that specifically goes into the details between the Berber groups?
[url= http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/v077/77.1cherni.pdf#search=%22berber%20U6%22]Here[/url] is one (pdf) specifically on U6, but that doesn't get into Chleuh vs. Chawi vs. Kabyle vs. Haratin vs. Tuareg, etc., etc.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Islam of the day had three levels of adherents. 1. Arab 2. Persian 3. Turkish
Turkey: From the 1300's, it is understandable that due to the invasion of the Balkans/Easter Europe by the Turks, they absorbed many nations states living in their area. DNA shows that part of the occupation/acceptance (albeit forced at times) of Turk Islamic rule of Byzantine land mass.
Spain: When Tarik entered Spain, he was called there by the Visigoths/Ostrogoths (Germanic) king in control of the area at the time to help with opposition. In turn, Tarik realized his power and obviously he had Germanic allies at first. That is rational. That consolidation of power incorporated the peoples of the area. That is how El Cid came to be known and he was the most outstanding. There were other Spaniards who (obviosuly not as well known Diaz de Vivar-El CId's name) followed the path of Islam and supported the cause, at least for where it benefitted them.
One has to remember that we are applying this 'one drop rule' as it pertains to USA and this bogus. America is a very racial climate (less so now) and there are ideas like that which cause many people to look away at their foolishness regarding these kinds of issue. This rule does not apply outside of USA, though. I do not cae because it is amusing, to say the least. The nation/state is the modus operandi of life and liberty not some foregn term that disunites peoples!!!! Just a sidenote.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let it go. The Moors were darkskinned many came from what is now Senegal and south Mauritania. There were many Blacks among them. The Spaniards know they were Black. Only you don't. I know what I'm talking about.
Adios mio!!!! Que piensas este hombre!!!
Try a Cuban dish calles Moros y Cristianos -->black beans on white rice.
Remember, I'm not from this religion you are discussing, but there are many Black Berbers especially in Morocco and areas south and southwest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estevanico Estevanico From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Estevanico (ca. 1503-1539) (also known as "Black Stephen", "Esteban", "Esteban the Moor", "Estevan", "Estebanico", "Stephen the Black", "Stephen the Moor", and "Little Stephen") was a Muslim Berber originally from North Africa who was one of the early explorers of the Southwestern United States. Born in the town of Azamor (Azemmour), which existed as a Portuguese enclave on Morocco's Atlantic coast from 1513 to 1541, Estevanico was enslaved by the Portuguese at an early age. He was sold in 1520 to Andrés Dorantes de Carranza de Carranza, a Spanish nobleman with whom he developed close ties.
Estevanico travelled with Dorantes to Hispaniola and Cuba on Pánfilo de Narváez' ill-fated expedition of 1527 to conquer Florida. They were two of the expedition's four survivors, and had sailed with others on makeshift rafts in an attempt to reach Mexico. The group was shipwrecked on Galveston Island and most of the men either drowned, starved, or were killed by natives; by 1533 only Estevanico, Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, Álvar Núńez Cabeza de Vaca, and Alonso del Castillo Maldonado survived. The four spent years enslaved by the Ananarivo of the Louisiana Gulf Islands, but they eventually escaped into the American interior, contacting other Native American tribes along the way. The party traversed the continent as far as present-day southeastern Arizona, and through the Sonoran Desert to the region of Sinaloa in New Spain (present-day Mexico), where they were reunited with their countrymen.
In 1539, Estevanico was one of the four who would accompany Marcos de Niza as a guide in search of the fabled Seven Cities of Cibola, preceding Coronado. However, the others were struck ill and Estevanico continued alone, opening up what is now New Mexico and Arizona. He was killed at the Zuni village of Hawikuh (in present-day New Mexico); the tribe regarded him with mistrust, partially because his medicine gourd was trimmed with feathers from an owl, a bird that symbolized death to the Zuni.
[edit] Legends It is said that Estevanico was a remarkable linguist and that he was able to learn, in a matter of weeks, the languages of the Native Americans. It is also said that he was accepted as a deity by some Native American tribes because of his knowledge of herbs and medicines. Some historians believe that Esteban was not, in fact, killed by the Zunis, but rather kicked out of their village after being imprisoned. He may have then been hidden by the Pimas, who held him in high regard. An undated scrap of paper was found in Mexican government records that read as follows:
"Esteban arrived at the Rio Mayo, was struck by the beauty and handsomeness of the Mayos [close cousins of the Pimas], hid himself there and stayed. Later he married four or five women according to the custom of the land, had offspring, and in the year 1622 his son Aboray was living there, a tall withered mulatto with an ugly face, a captain or chief of a section of Tesia..." No one knows if this paper refers to the same Esteban.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your debate and the debate of others on this topic in today's world is becoming irrelevant.
Spain today is witnessing a large influx of Blacks of West Africa. They are coming into that country and into the whole of Western Europe from Spain to France to Scandinavia.
While you debate whether or not the Moors were Black, the Blacks and others are moving into Europe and mixing probably like never before. America is too is darkening and this world itself is getting darker and darker.
This is Europe today. Esta es Europa hoy.
Comprenden Uds.?
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
How is the TA-SETI temple of the afrocentric religion?
I'm not Afrocentric. In fact, I'm not even black! LOL
But I am Christian by the way.
quote:The problem with you, friend, is that you believe the amount of melanine in the body is "culture".
What?! Where the heck have I ever said culture was skin color. I merely said that Afroasiatic culture was concieved and developed in Africa by blacks. If I said Indo-European culture was originated by whites, would this mean Indo-European culture is a 'white' culture even though it is practiced by darker skin, even black peoples in India?!
quote:Peoples of the North and North East Africa have been in contact with the middle East for the last 6 thousand years and more. They all share many cultural pattern that are different with the people south of Sahara. No race involved there.
But you are wrong to say that the cultural patterns, specifically Afroasiatic are different from south of the Sahara as I've already cited from Afroasiatic expert Christopher Ehret and religious historian Julian Baldick
In fact, the majority of Afroasiatic culture are located south of the Sahara! LOL
quote:Yes. You behave like all racist people. All that matters is "looks". Everybody knows Arabs had admixture of neighbouring people, like anyone else in the planet, by the way.
LMAO Where have I ever said that looks matter? I am merely stating the FACTS. If anyone is behaving racist, its YOU since you incessantly deny the indigenous [black] African roots of the Egyptians, Berbers, and eventually all Afrasian peoples including peoples of the Middle East.
quote:If you start to talk about "blonds" culture and "brunette" culture, then it becomes racist.
No, not necessarily. So if I were to talk about Asian culture as a description of Chinese and Korean traditions, would that be racist also?!
LOL Again, you merely project your own prejudices towards me. You are just afraid and I dare say desperate about the truth of black African origins of these great cultures of history.
But that's not my problem
quote:In Spain Arabs where called Moors. That's what I am tried to tell you a hundred times. A Moor was any dumb Muslim that lived there, regarless of their phenotype. The first invasion of Muslims was done by Berber troops. But the Arabs had the control.
That still does not change the fact that the term 'Moor' was originally applied to black natives of North Africa.
quote:All the other arguments are just fantasies.
Sorry, but no. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: I could care less for the "white race". Actually, the term "white race" I believe should be applied to Germans only that, by the way, are not white but pink.
Sure, and Yorubas of Nigeria are not black but 'brown'. That's semantics for you! LOL
quote:What I don't like, though is fantastic revisionism. Berbers are not white in Nazi terms, but they are a distinctive people Hispanics know from ancient times. The very term moreno "Morish" is applied to Berbers only, and not to Black people.
Again you distinguish 'Berbers' from black people, even though there are black Berbers and that the original Berbers were always black!
quote:Let me tell you very clear, and in racial terms, Spaniards, Portugueses and Italians know Moors are light "mulattoes". And they accept theirs historical relationship with them.
Of course, which is why North African soccer players are also called monkeys and other racial slurs even by Spaniards.
quote:What special with the term "Moor"? "white" Berbers have always been called Moros in Spain. In the Middle Ages and during the Spanish Civil War as well. The algerian troops of Franco where called the Moors and dresses like the characters of Aladine.
Nope. White Berbers were called Saracen. Moores were referred specifically to the very dark/black ones.
quote:Why not?
Because unlike you, the Spaniards weren't stupid. They know the difference between Arabs and black Almoravids.
quote:Why they spoke Arab then? Why not Mandinga or Yoruba? No, they speak Arab because most of the Moors were Arab or Arabized peoples. They came from all the corners of the Muslim empire. How many times I will have to repeat the same thing?
Yes, and these peoples below are Arabized also and do not cconsider themselves as blacks but Arabs!
Your point?
quote:If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
LOL Again you've forgotten about Berbers like these:
quote:Moors is a hate word, indeed.
Funny that you acknowledge the negativity of the word due to it's black roots but you refuse to acknowledge the roots themselves.
quote:Spaniards knew the first wave of Muslims were Berbers and not Arabs.
Yes they also knew that some of these Berbers were black.
quote:Yes. Muslims started mass slavery of Black peoples.
Yes, but they also started mass slavery of white people too! In fact most slaves in the Arab world were Circassian and Slavic peoples. And the very root of the word 'slave' is Slav. Also many Muslims were black also. What are we to make of Muslim Somalis?!
quote:As I said. The Spaniars used the word Moor to means Moroccian, Tunisian, Algerian of Lybian, the people of the coastal areas they new since ancient times. They were the Moors from the "racial" point of view FOR THE SPANIARDS. Now, that term was generalized to mean Muslim during the reconquest wars.
^You are absolutely correct about that, but that still doesn't change that the peoples aboriginal to these North African areas you listed were still black.
quote:For Northern Europeans, the "white" Berbers were Black people, so they did not make the distinction the Spanish did. After all, for Northern Europeans, every people that live south of Germany is Black, anyways, Spanish, Italians and Greeks included.
All a matter of semantics. In the case of Northern Europeans, 'black' meant 'dark' or 'darker' than themselves. But we are talking about the darker Mediterraneans of Southern Europe who made the distinction!
quote:So, in a sense, both Black and White Americans agree on that. Mediterreanean people, don't agree with those points of view.
No. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Los Kawashkar o Alacalufes son reconocidos como un pueblo nómada del mar. Antiguamente extendían su territorio en los canales australes entre el golfo de Penas y el Estrecho de Magallanes; en la península de Brecknock habitaban en un conjunto de canales navegables con aguas tranquilas de más de 300 millas de longitud. Hoy habitan principalmente en Puerto Edén, Puerto Natales y Punta Arenas.
Debido a las dificultades topográficas impenetrables, los kawashkar buscaron su subsistencia en la costa y en el mar, donde encontraban los productos necesarios para su alimentación, como lobos marinos, nutrias, aves, abundantes peces y mariscos.
La organización social Kawashkar se fundaba en la agrupación familiar, sobre la base de la consanguinidad de padres, hijos y abuelos, extensiva a otros parientes o allegados. La autoridad era ejercida por el padre y, más que jerarquías, existían liderazgos ocasionales y con fines prácticos, ya que ellos se movilizaban separadamente o en grupos unifamiliares.
PERIODO DE LA COLONIZACIÓN
El primer contacto con el hombre blanco se remonta a 1609, con la llegada de los misioneros Chilotes a territorio Kawashkar, donde encontraron muy pocos habitantes; pero en 1779, dos sacerdotes que visitan el mismo sector, hallan un gran número de indígenas, llevándolos en 1786 a la misión de Chiloé, en grupos de unas 60 ó 70 personas, conformados por familias independientes de 8 a 10 personas.
Esta medida afectó negativamente al pueblo Kawashkar, ya que consideraban las tierras aledańas a los canales que ellos recorrían, sobre todo el sector de Última Esperanza. En septiembre de 1874 ocurrió un incidente que provocó la muerte de ocho Kawashkar, seis hombres y dos mujeres, capturando además tres nińos. Frente a estos hechos, los gobernadores no se esforzaron en establecer otro tipo de relación con el Pueblo Kawashkar. En 1940, por iniciativa del Presidente Pedro Aguirre Cerda, luego de su visita a Puerto Edén, se dictó un decreto de protección de la población del archipiélago, encargando a la FACH la protección de los indígenas. La distribución de víveres atrajo a la población kawashkar en torno a Puerto Edén, donde no existían las mínimas condiciones de servicios básicos y salubridad.
El caso de Lautaro Edén, se dio bajo el amparo de la ley de protección que intentó una nueva forma de integrar a los Kawashkar a la sociedad nacional. El joven Lautaro, una vez cumplido su servicio militar, regresó a su zona a cumplir sus obligaciones. Luego de un tiempo desapareció en compańía de una mujer Kawashkar, haciéndose llamar Terwa Koyo (brazo tieso), poco a poco los Kawashkar comenzaron a unirse a aquel que se había vuelto a la práctica del nomadismo en los archipiélagos. Los Kawashkar abandonaron completamente Puerto Edén; junto a ellos, Lautaro comenzó a formar una nueva comunidad en las cercanías de San Pedro, donde vivieron por 3 ańos de la caza de animales de piel fina. Después de su muerte, una parte del Pueblo Kawashkar volvió a Puerto Edén, otros se unieron a los loberos y los restantes, dos familias, regresaron a la vida de cazadores independientes entre el norte del canal Messier y el océano.
These are the Kawashkar or Alacaluf Indians of Chile
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kawashkar antes de mi nombre de Vaca Roja, yo fui Shango, Rey de Ile Ife. Yo soy AfroAmericano. Pero, cada dia yo hablo Espanyol,la lengua de Espanya. La lengua de mi vecinos. Muchas de mis vecinos son mestizos y hay vi la gente nativa de America latina llevando ropa de los indios en la calles de mi ciudad.
Ademas, Kawashkar da respeto a la cultura africana de los moros quien vivieron en Espanya. Muchos de ellos fueron de la raza negra.
Por que nos molesta con esto sujeto? Eres racista contra los negros? Son los ideas de la iglesia de Mormon? Por que?
Una anciana de los Kawashkar.
Kawashkar cierre tu boca por favor.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Kawashkar as a person from a people whose ancestors were victims of genocide, you must realize that there have been many genocidal periods in history. The Australian Aborigenes were almost totally wiped out. The Tasmania people to the south of Australia were completely eliminated. The Armenians are another group. in North America, many Indian nations were wied out. I am part native American myself. Es la verdad.
If you go to Central or Eastern Europe today or definitely went around 1950, you'd not see to many Jews. The Juden were almost wiped out by the NaziSocialists. That doesn't mean that the Jews were not in Ashkenaz for 900 years. The Moors were largely Black. They were expelled and shipped to the Americas as slaves in the original period.
Did you know 1/4 of Million Blacks were killed in Europe during WW2? Did you know the Germans killed Blacks in North Africa during WW2?
Where are the WaTutsi in Rwanda?
Genocide happens as you well know.
Gloria a Dios Gloria a Jesus
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: Khawashkar. whats your thoughts on this
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maure
2.Moors in european Literature In David MacRitchie , « Ancient and Modern Britons » , 1884,VOL I, page 46: "Any latin dictionary, any old one at least, will tell you that maurus is a "moor ", a " blackamoor " or a "tawny moor ". And Shakespeare uses the world "moor " as a synonym for "negro" (Merchant of Venice, act III, scene V). At that last world bears nowadays a somewhat restricted meaning , it may be better to take the old fashioned « blackamoor »,as the nearest English rendering of maurus signifying thereby any black, or brown skinned man."
In Page 214:
"And in the diction of the past, A black man was a moor"
Collection of Sir Thomas Wriothesley garter king of Arms (1504-1534) In Golden age of the moors and African presence in ealy Europe
Niger Val Dub : The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century. One of them, was known as King Kenneth, sometimes as Niger or Dubh, a surname which means 'the black man.' It is a historical fact that Niger Val Dubh lived and reigned over certain black divisions in scotland - and that a race known as 'the sons of the blacks' succeeded him in history. (JA Rogers, Sex and Race)
Here is some more info that I hope will end Washkar's nonsense. (Although I doubt it, since trolls obsessed with misinformation will never relent)
The term Maure derives from the Phoenician term Mahurin (Westerners). From Mahurin the ancient Greeks derive Mauro meaning black , and later Greeks derive Maurikios after them, the Latin derive Mauri meaning Black African. From the same root we derive: Maur , Maurus, Marra , Moro, Morisco , Mohr, Moritz Morelo , Moor, Moru, Maru, Morelo, Maureta, Mauretania, Mauritius, Maureen, Maroon, Morocco , Moore, Maurice , Meuric, Meurig, Morien, Morin, Moryan , Moreto, and such. At one time the whole of the western arm of Africa (what is now West Africa, from Libya to Nigeria and around the Atlantic coast), was called Mauretania . The word Mauretania was interchangeable with all the names of what is now Africa: 'Ethiopia', 'Libya', and the now defunct 'Negroland'
Claudio Ptolemy's map of Mauretania (Notice it includes all of West Africa)
Since the 11th century, the heraldic term Maure refers to the symbol of an African head, or more specifically any blackened image of an African, or a part of an African, or an item associated with or representing Africans.
In the 18th century English usage of the term Moor began to refer specifically to African Muslims, but especially to any person who speaks one of the Hassaniya dialects. This language, in its purest form, draws heavily from the original Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Bani Hassan tribe, which invaded northwest Africa during the 16th and 17th centuries. (Since then, Hassaniya became liturgical speech and lingua franca of all Saharans and Northwest Africans to this day).
Of course, as has been explained ad-naseum in this forum and most recently in this thread. The Islamicized Al-Moravids and Al-Mohads took power and were the main dynasties of the Magrheb after the Arabs. The invasion of Spain was led by Moors (black) Muslims.
Al Hambra, Granada's citadel in the Sierra Nevada, Andalucia - Spain
After the fall of the Umayyads in Damascas, the Africans in Spain, known as the Moro were cut off and came under threat from successive invasions. However, the Moro retained the white flag and it came to be associated with negro troops specifically, whereas the Saracen Arab invaders who followed them into Spain used the red flag of the Khawarij Republican followers of Caliph Uthman III. As pressure from the Reyes Católicos (the Christian Reconquistadors) increased over the centuries, African states in Spain mutated and fell and rose many times. The most stable and longest lived African state in Spain was Grenada, with the magnificent Nasridin dynasty citadel of Al Hambra as its capitol. Al Hambra surrendered to the Reyes Católicos at dawn on January 2, 1492. Spain and Portugal followed this action with the conquest of parts of Africa, the destruction of African communities in Europe and the invasion of the Americas. Lisbon's black population, that out-numbered Europeans in 1550, was devasted by the plagues of the times. The last free blacks in Spain were expelled on April 6, 1609.
The last African flag of Grenada consisted of heraldic "Argent, a pomegranate gules leafed vert" (ie., an all-white flag, with a centred red pomegranate flower with green petals). It is unclear what the symbolic significance of the pomegranate bloom was to blacks in Spain. What is notable, however, is that the Pomegranate gave its name to Granada, as well as to the Hand Grenade which came into use in the 15th century. Moreover, the bloom has the colors Green, Yellow, Red, which coincidentally are the Pan-African colors. Perhaps most cryptic of all is the ancient saying "There is nothing in the world like the pain of being blind in Granada," probably less a reference to the blindfolded Maure and more about the beauty of perhaps the most beautiful place in Europe. Al Hambra is still only second to the Vatican in tourist visitors.
A look at Europe after Muslim invasions:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's ancient Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms
Last but not least, is the legendary Christian Saint, St. Maurice of Egypt!
[i]In Roman times the Theban Legion was led by Maurice, the warrior saint, and Primicerius (commander) of Roman troops from Thebes in Egypt. The Theban Legion was sent to suppress a revolt of the Bagandae in Agaunum in Gaul (St-Maurice en Valais) in the 3rd century. That Maurice ordered his soldiers not to participate in pagan rites. They were punished by the Emperor Maximian Herculeus first by decimation and finally by the wholesale massacre of the Theban Legion. Maurice and his fellow officers were executed in A.D. 287. Some depictions of that St. Maurice rightly portray him as black and show red flags, sometimes with a black stripe.
'St.Erasm and St.Maurice' painted by Matthias Grunewald
In medieval Europe the Maure imagery represented the Sudanese command of the German armies of the Holy Roman Empire in the 12th century. These African officers defended Swedes during the Scandinavian rebellion against Germany. Several settlements in Europe - including St. Moritz - are named after these Africans. The white flag with the black profile became the flag of several separate Orders named for of St. Maurice, that sprung up all over Europe in the 12th century. However, the name Maurice was generic and refers to many different and unrelated black soldiers in medieval European history.
St. Maurice of Magdeburg, Germany Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although my post will probably be ignored, I was to point out something about the so-called Moorish invasion of Spain. The Imazigh[Berbers] that sided with the Arabs and invaded Spain were not Kaybeles nor Chawis but more southern Imazghen groups. The names of the groups were Hawwara, Luwata, Nafza, Masmuda, Zanata, and Sanhadja.
Know the Masmuda,Zenata,and Sanhaja were described as ''black'' by Arabic accounts. The Hawwara are simply an offshoot of the Kel Tamelsheq but I have never seen a description of them by Arabic accounts.
Maybe somebody else with more knowleadge of Maghrebian history can clarify about the rest of the Imazghen that invaded with the Arabs into Spain.
I notice also people keep glossing over the Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] but actually most Kel Tamelsheq Kels originate in Southern Morocco and Libya. Most groups like the Zenaga in modern day Mauritania originate in Libya.
The Kaybeles and most of the mountain dwelling Imazghen fleed to the mountains when Arabs invaded North-western Africa. Only very recently did many convert to islam so I find it hard to believe that both the Chawia and Kaybeles fought in Arab armies and occupied Spain. Both Kaybeles and Chawia are sedentary as compaired to the groups I mentioned above that are nomadic. If the Kaybeles invaded Spain then why is there no mention of a specific weapon the Kaybeles use called a Kissar by Arabic accounts?
Here are some pictures of Imazghen people often ignore:
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Kawashkar as a person from a people whose ancestors were victims of genocide, you must realize that there have been many genocidal periods in history. The Australian Aborigenes were almost totally wiped out. The Tasmania people to the south of Australia were completely eliminated. The Armenians are another group. in North America, many Indian nations were wied out. I am part native American myself. Es la verdad.
If you go to Central or Eastern Europe today or definitely went around 1950, you'd not see to many Jews. The Juden were almost wiped out by the NaziSocialists. That doesn't mean that the Jews were not in Ashkenaz for 900 years. The Moors were largely Black. They were expelled and shipped to the Americas as slaves in the original period.
Did you know 1/4 of Million Blacks were killed in Europe during WW2? Did you know the Germans killed Blacks in North Africa during WW2?
Where are the WaTutsi in Rwanda?
Genocide happens as you well know.
Gloria a Dios Gloria a Jesus
LOL If the guy is one of these indigenous South American peoples, why the heck does he seem to have a problem with black Africans roots of North African peoples?!
He sounds very unindigenous to me, if you know what I mean. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although my post will probably be ignored, I was to point out something about the so-called Moorish invasion of Spain. The Imazigh[Berbers] that sided with the Arabs and invaded Spain were not Kaybeles nor Chawis but more southern Imazghen groups. The names of the groups were Hawwara, Luwata, Nafza, Masmuda, Zanata, and Sanhadja.
Know the Masmuda,Zenata,and Sanhaja were described as ''black'' by Arabic accounts. The Hawwara are simply an offshoot of the Kel Tamelsheq but I have never seen a description of them by Arabic accounts.
Maybe somebody else with more knowleadge of Maghrebian history can clarify about the rest of the Imazghen that invaded with the Arabs into Spain.
I notice also people keep glossing over the Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] but actually most Kel Tamelsheq Kels originate in Southern Morocco and Libya. Most groups like the Zenaga in modern day Mauritania originate in Libya.
The Kaybeles and most of the mountain dwelling Imazghen fleed to the mountains when Arabs invaded North-western Africa. Only very recently did many convert to islam so I find it hard to believe that both the Chawia and Kaybeles fought in Arab armies and occupied Spain. Both Kaybeles and Chawia are sedentary as compaired to the groups I mentioned above that are nomadic. If the Kaybeles invaded Spain then why is there no mention of a specific weapon the Kaybeles use called a Kissar by Arabic accounts?
Here are some pictures of Imazghen people often ignore:
your input is always appreciated Ausar.
I don't know if Washkar would ignore such info. He did gloss over my pictures of indigenous black Berbers. It may be likely he will come up with some stupid (and as always, inaccurate) excuse that these Black Berber groups were of 'Sub-Saharan' "slave" ancestry!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:... While you debate whether or not the Moors were Black, the Blacks and others are moving into Europe and mixing probably like never before. America is too is darkening and this world itself is getting darker and darker.
Really!
Why do you worry so much about that? Genetical engineering is comming. In 20 years most babies will be produced by engineering and people will choose their looks.
Even today, without engineering, the tendencies are clear.
Don't you know that the eggs of a pretty girl is worth US$100.000 and people pays it? Don't you know the men that has more children are artificial insemination the donors? Some have a hundred or more kids each.
Do you know what are the prefered specimens?
Only guess how they will look like. I have no idea, but they will look like the people chooses, no mother nature.
Or, do you believe doctors are doing research just for fun? lol.
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: My psychic sense is on! Why was I writing in Spanish? Where did that come from? Like who would read Spanish here? Well, Well, Well
Hmmmm.....
A Dios Mio!!! Senyor Kawashkar! Yo entiendo todo! Es claro. Eres de la nacion de Chile. Un indio ?
Doug M, Djehuti,
I am mixed. However, If I have to choose between Spaniard and Indian I choose Indian. Yes. And the Kawashkar is a people that lives in my heart and concience.
They were "primitive" people. Nothing glorious. No large cities, piramyds or machinery. They have a simple and pure culture. And they suffered very much under the impact of "western civilization".
If you let me to choose. I don't choose glory, power or fame. I preffer the "primitive" peoples of the Americas, Asia, Australia and Africa. Those are the people that I love the most.
Glory? Ha! Who needs it if other humans beings have to pay the price for it.
Why do you worry so much about that? Genetical engineering is comming. In 20 years most babies will be produced by engineering and people will choose their looks.
Even today, without engineering, the tendencies are clear.
Don't you know that the eggs of a pretty girl is worth US$100.000 and people pays it? Don't you know the men that has more children are artificial insemination the donors? Some have a hundred or more kids each.
Do you know what are the prefered specimens?
Only guess how they will look like. I have no idea, but they will look like the people chooses, no mother nature.
Or, do you believe doctors are doing research just for fun? lol.
KAWASHKAR
It's official. Washkar has lost his mind (much the same way he lost the debate long time ago)!!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original Muslim invasion of alAndalus was done in cahoots with coastal Amazigh groups.
The Tunisian/Libyan forerunners of some Kel Tamasheq obviously couldn't have been pushed south by Arabs before such Arabs had conquered the Mashreq and eastern Maghreb, so they couldn't possibly have been in the Muslim armies of the 711 conquest of alAndalus.
Look up Tariff and Tariq for the precise tribal affiliation of these two Imazighen who led forces into Iberia. Also, alKahina's sons were reportedly minor leaders in the invasions, they were Jerawa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
They have a caste system with Whites on top and Mestizos/Mulattoes in the middle and Blacks on the bottom. So, as a mestizo (probably), He'd have pick on the Blacks by taking the Blackness out of the Moors of Spain whose architecture is all over Latin America.
Mexico city
Santiago, Chile
Bolivia
Lima, Peru
That's why. The Moorish influence extends to Latin America. He has to attack the Blacks.
Certain things just can't be.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
As usual you make no sense. 'Afroasiatic' is a language group that is technically Sub-Saharan, since that's where it originated and that's where most of its subgroups still exist! But of course a Semitic speaking Syrian is looks different from a Semitic speaking Ethiopian.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
What?! Where the heck have I ever said culture was skin color. I merely said that Afroasiatic culture was concieved and developed in Africa by blacks. If I said Indo-European culture was originated by whites, would this mean Indo-European culture is a 'white' culture even though it is practiced by darker skin, even black peoples in India?! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic