posted
This thread is an outgrowth from another where the following points were made about an issue I need to get to the bottom of once and for all.
================================================
I wrote: There's much more to Mazigh's post than this skin polemic you're making of it. I respect the Imazighen's right to self-determination in considering themselves a people whenever it was they began to do so. They certainly defended Haritin inclusion as Imazighen when an Egyptian official wanted to classify them as Gnawa just because they shared phenotype with Gnawa.
Ausar replied: Are you sure it was an Egyptian offical or a Maghrebian offical?
I responded: What was the official's precise ethnicity, name, rank, and sultanate of his service? So far I've only Hagan's take on the matter and need to do more research. Afaik the official was an Egyptian in service to a Moroccan ruler circa 1690 CE.
My current research can only come up with the 'Alawite sultan Mulay Isma'il's recruitment of any blacks (Muslim or non-Muslim, free or enslaved, Haratin or Gnawa) for his personal "'Abid al Bukhari" army. He was opposed by many of Fez's ulema, the most vocal of whom he asassinated.
Maybe I'll open a separate thread on the above in order to finally clothe it and remove it from the realm of anecdote.
==============================================
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's part of a private correspondance I had with an Amazigh activist eight years ago and on whom I based my statement about the officer being Egyptian.
===============================================
quote: The matter of the Harratin has always been subject to controversy. While they were seen for a long time as late comers to the area, some of the most recent findings are suggesting the opposite. The "Blackness" of the Haratin has never been in contention. Even in early history of Morocco, the fact that a deputy of the Egyptian General began to enlist them as soldiers of an all Black Army created a huge debate among the Moroccans, who did not consider them of the same "social category" as the Sudanese, and protest arose because they were "free human beings" and not of the "slave" category susceptible to be rounded up for this Corps of Black slave-soldiers. It created a great stir among "Berbers."
This was a precision to something the Amazigh activist had earlier wrote on a guarded forum:
quote: Imazighen (Berbers) ... are related by language to the Tuaregs of the Sahara and sub-Sahara [.] Even the Black Harratine people of the northern Sahara have recently yielded DNA which makes them closer to Berbers of North Africa than to other neighboouring Black groups. This parentage is also verifiable through language.
posted
I have several questions now, sparked by Ausar's critique, that I never had before because I never looked at the quotes in the previous post with a critical eye.
Just what event is the activist referencing?
The Egyptian is a general in which nation's army?
Who is this unnamed "deputy" of the unnamed general?
What debate ensued among Moroccans due to the activities of the above general and deputy?
What is meant by "free human beings?"
the word amazigh which can mean "free folk?"
people who are neither enslaved nor freedmen?
Which "Berbers" experienced "a great stir" and exactly why?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The importance of question six is integral to whether or not Haratin were considered "Berber" at the time of the event.
By calling them "free human beings" the actual word amazigh may be implied or the phrase could just mean literally what it says in English.
A text in its original language would be decisive. The activist could have been performing sleight of hand interpretation just to score points.
Anyway, here's what I think about Harratine.
The core component of Haritin Imazighen are in all probability the most direct descendents of the historic central and north Saharans written of by Greco-Latin authors, i.e.,
Leukaethiopes
Melanogaetuli
Nigritae
Western Ethiopians (Hesperii)
Pharusii
Icthyophagi Aethiopes
etc.,
These were peoples living approximately 250 miles (or more) south of the littoral. If truly the indigenees, they may have been neolithic "Berber" speakers (after leaving the proto-language's Gharb Darfur birthplace to traverse the Sahara before reaching the Maghreb).
Haratine are a social group of formerly subjugated peoples. Some of them were always in the Sahara and just north of it. Others were kidnapped from their residences in the Western Sahel or sold out of the Western Sudan south of the sahel.
Since they are not all of one homogeneous ethnicity, the freed slaves marrying among each other created a new ethnicity. The bulk of this new ethnic group, "the One Fifth-ers", were the indigenous inhabitants of the Saharan Oases. This is not to exclude the former "owners" as part of the mix. There was sex between the male "owners" and the subordinated females as well as the subordinated males with the "owners'" wives.
Harratine are not related to the other "Berber" groups only by language. They are just as much a part of the Amazigh people by biological lineage, cultural heritage, and time immemorial habitation of the same geographic region.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
This dynamic was what al Jahiz was talking about referring to "unity" within "disunity" when Islam is supposed to unite but with the social classes and their distinct and implicit cues, one actually sees the superimposition of Arab unity on groups who are subjugated.
No wonder his epic book "The Superiority....." would have such a low rating (implicit rather than explicit) among Islamic Western scholars and they do not even give it a beep! They know the implications! jajajeje
allahu akbar
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptian deputy in question was probably not an ''ethnic'' Egyptian meaning somebody reffered to as a fellahin,baladi or Sa3eedi. Most likely if the following dates to the 1690's he is a Ottoman Turk.
As far as the Haratine, I don't believe they are slaves but people that always lived around the Sahara oasis. Haratine are seperated in caste amongst the Tuareg away from Iklan or Bella groups. Haratin from what I read simply means the same as a Fallahin[one who tills the soil].
The people labeled Haratine in Mauritania might be different than the ones in Algeria,Morocco or Libya who I don't believe have slave origins.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of further speculation let's try to establish if there even was an incidence by an Egyptian general's deputy that led to civil unrest in Morocco. So far, that's just anecdotal.
The facts that we have is that the Moroccan 'Alawide sultan Moulay Ismail conscripted an all black army for himself called the Abid al Bukhari. Yet he didn't care if the regiments were composed of free men/Imazighen like the Harratine who were neither technically abid nor bukari but they were without a doubt black.
.
What do you call people who were the autochones of the land yet they yield 4/5 of their produce to a "patron" and cannot travel when and where they please unless permitted by their "patron" and even then had to leave wife/children behind under "patron" protection. Not to mention that even when at home if the "patron" is visiting the "house," then the husband may not enter in? Not slaves because they weren't regularly bought and sold. I use the term subjugated.
Please don't confuse the issue by bringing up Kel Tagelmust castes. The subject is Harratine of Morocco's slave army. The Harratine in Mauritania are Maurs just as other Harratine are "Berbers." I.e., they have the same general identifier of the non-Gnawa who came into the Sahara.
Harratine only means "sharecropper" but every where they are the autochthonees who've been incremented by other blacks from the south of the Sahara and those blacks were freed slaves.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some short shrift info on Moulay Ismail and the Abid al-Bukhari no more accurate than encyclopedia entries can be relied on.
quote:In 1673 Isma'il created the 'Abid (Black) al-Bukhari army known colloquially as buakhar and made up of slaves bought from their masters and enlisted into this army together with freeborn blacks. This contingent was provided with women, and the offspring of these unions were entered into special schools and given specialized military training. Toward the end of his reign he had a black army of more than 150,000 men, of whom about 70,000 were kept as a strategic reserve in and around Meknès. His army was equipped with European arms, and his officers learned to combine artillery with infantry effectively. He used these forces against the Ottomans in Algiers in the years 1679, 1682, and 1695/96 in expeditions designed to pacify his frontiers and to punish the regent of Algiers. In the end the Ottomans agreed to respect Moroccan independence.
In fact, I have a book here called the conquest of Morocco, which is about the campaigns of France in Morocco in the 1800s. In it you see many, many black Moroccans along with other black Africans from elsewhere in photos from the period. In fact, most often you see the black Africans among those leading rebellions and being put to death by the French. Also, there is a tendency among western scholars to attribute ANY black presence in Morocco to being descendants of slaves. A book I often refer to, called Morocco by S.L Bensusalem has many illustrations of black African Moroccans from the early 1800s. Unfortunately, the European can only see them as slaves and does not identify them as Moroccan, just because they are black. In fact, they dont even mention that the first two rulers of the Alouite dynasty had black wives and were black themselves. Moulay Rashid is a good example of this. There are many blacks who have ruled Morocco since the 1600s and there were many more Southern Chiefs who ruled as various periods as well.
Here are other accounts of black Africans in the armies of Morocco, where it is not really clear who is from Sudan, meaning south of the Sahara and who is Moroccan:
quote: Salee is a walled town, strongly defended by a large battery, mounting twenty-four pieces of heavy ordnance, and a redoubt which protects the mouth of the river. It contains about five hundred regular troops, three thousand militia-men, five hundred sailors, and a number of Moorish merchants and Jews. To the north of this garrison is a small town, in a ruinous state, inhabited by a few negro families. I was told it was built by Muley Ishmael for the accommodation of his favourite black troops. To the south, and on the opposite side of the river _Salee_, is the maritime city of _Rabat_, commanded by a black chief, and garrisoned with black soldiers. ..... In the Moorish army there is a prodigious number of blacks, who are reckoned very loyal, and perfectly devoted to the Emperor. This accounts for so many black governors being at the head of the most important districts and provinces of Barbary,
I returned very late from the review, and had scarcely dined when a messenger came to request my early attendance the following morning, to be presented to His Imperial Majesty. I repaired betimes to the palace, which is an immense pile of buildings, enclosed by a strong wall and a large deep ditch. It has four great gates, plated, both on the outside and in, with sheets of iron. I entered the front gate, and by a covered way reached a spacious court, surrounded by a piazza, under which several field-pieces and small mortars were placed. Here I was met by Sidy Ameth, a black officer, who acts as master of the ceremonies, and lord in waiting. He received me with great politeness, and conducted me, through another gate and covered way, to a second square more spacious than the first. In the centre was a most beautiful white marble basin, into which played a fountain of water clear as crystal. Over it was a kind of rotunda, supported by columns of elegant black marble. This superb square is paved with small pieces of marble, intermixed with pebbles of various colours, in the mosaic style. It is formed by four wings of the building. The front wing, exclusive of its magnificent entrance, contains several apartments and waiting-rooms, occupied by the great officers of state; the right, the library, and the treasury of the Emperor; the left, a superb mosque, and a school-room for the use of the Emperor's children, where they are taught to read and write, and study the Alcoran; and finally, the back, the great hall of audience, in which His Imperial Majesty was seated cross-legged upon a kind of couch, under a crimson velvet canopy, most beautifully decorated with figured work in gold. ..... He was succeeded by his brother _Muley Ishmael_, who distinguished himself by some brave actions; and his reign would have formed a grand epoch in the history of this country, had he not stained it by a succession of tyranny and cruelties, too shocking to dwell upon. He died in 1727 at the advanced age of eighty-one, leaving behind him a numerous offspring. This prince, in order to ensure his despotic and arbitrary power, contrived to form a regular army of foreign soldiers, which he effected, partly from the negro families, then settled in Barbary, but principally from a vast number of blacks which he obtained from the coast of Guinea. ..... _Muley-Achmet-Daiby_, one of the numerous sons of Ishmael, ascended the throne of Morocco, and, after reigning two years, died of a dropsy. His successor, _Muley Abdallah_, by far surpassed all his predecessors in point of vices and cruelty. His conduct was so flagrant, that he was deposed no less than six times, but as often re-elected. Amidst civil wars, divisions, and devastations, the plague again made its appearance, and committed the same dreadful ravages as in the reign of _Ishmael_. Being reinstated for the sixth time, _Abdallah_ took advantage of the troubles occasioned by this terrible disease, to excite divisions among his negro soldiers, by whose power alone he had suffered all his humiliations. Vast numbers of this warlike race fell the victims of his treachery, and he succeeded in reducing them so low, that they were no longer a subject of dread to him. Having thus freed himself of all cause of restraint, he recovered his power, and, if possible, plunged deeper than ever into the gulf of iniquity; and each succeeding day was stained with crimes of the blackest hue. The only sentiments with which he inspired his unhappy people were those of terror and disgust. At length, worn out with age, he died at Fez in 1757; and was succeeded by his son _Sidi Mahomet_, who had begun to reform several abuses, during the latter part of his father's reign, when he had been entrusted with the government of Morocco.
From: "Travels through the Empire of Morocco, John Buffa 1810"
In my readings, I have found that there are tales of a purge of blacks from Morocco in the 17th and 18th centuries by Arab chiefs. Most accounts even from the 1800s paint a population with a larger presence of black Africans, both slave and indigenous, than you often see in Morocco today. In fact, it is said that later rulers of Morocco disposessed the black guards of all their possessions and gave them to the Arabs. Likewise, many European writers have commented on the civil wars in Morocco that pitted white against blacks. Unfortunately, this aspect of Morocco's history is largely underreported, as is the legacy of slavery in Morocco and the crimes and abuses of many Moroccan rulers against the people of Morocco. Likewise, since we know that the blacks largely lost this battle, the history of blacks in Morocco as rulers, princes, scholars and artists is largely erased from the official history.
The situation in Morocco is in many ways similar to that of Egypt, where the modern population is in many ways unlike the ancient population or even the population of 200 years ago. As can be seen here:
quote: It is scarcely possible that either France or Spain can contemplate the conquest of the entire Empire of Morocco, as the result of the present impending crisis, the superficial extent of the territory being 219,420 square miles, and the population nearly 8,000,000, [1] of which a large proportion live in a state of perpetual warfare, occupying inaccessible mountain fastnesses, from whence they only descend to the plains for the sake of plunder. The inhabitants may be classified as follows: 4,000,000 Moors and Arabs; 2,000,000 Berbers; 500,000 Jews, and the remainder are of the Negro race. The regular Army consists of less than thirty thousand men, but every Arab is an expert irregular horseman, and the Berbers make good foot-soldiers. ..... It is usual for Moors, particularly negroes, to sing certain choruses, and thus encourage one another in their work. What, however, is remarkable, these choruses are mostly on sacred subjects, being frequently the formula of their confession, "There is no God, but one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet," &c. These clownish tars were deeply coloured, and some quite black. I found, in fact, the greatest part of the Moorish population of Mogador coloured persons. We may here easily trace the origin of the epithet "Black-a-Moor," and we are not so surprised that Shakspeare made his Moor black; indeed, the present Emperor, Muley Abd Errahman, is of very dark complexion, though his features are not at all of the negro cast. But he has sons quite black, and with negro features, who, of course, are the children of negresses. One of these, is Governor of Rabat. In no country is the colour of the human skin so little thought of. This is a very important matter in the question of abolition. There is no objection to the skin and features of the negro; it is only the luxury of having slaves, or their usefulness for heavy work, which weighs in the scale against abolition. .... The history of this Imperial Guard of Negroes is interesting, as showing the inconveniences as well as the advantage of such a corps, for these troops have not been always so well conducted as they are at present. At one time, the Shereefs claimed a species of sovereignty over the city of Timbuctbo and the adjacent countries. In the year 1727, Muley Ismail determined to re-people his wasted districts by a colony of negroes. His secret object was, however, to form a body guard to keep his own people in check, a sort of black Swiss regiment, so alike is the policy of all tyrants. In a few years, these troops exceeded 100,000 men. Finding their numbers so great, and their services so much needed by the Sultan, they became exigeant and rapacious, dictating to their royal master. Muley Abdallah was deposed six times by them. Finding their yoke intolerable, the Sultan decimated them by sending them to fight in the mountains. Others were disbanded for the same reasons by Sidi Mohammed. Still, the effect of this new colonization was beneficially experienced throughout the country. The Moors taking the black women as concubines, a mixed race of industrious people sprang up, and gave an impetus to the empire. It is questionable, however, if North Africa could he colonized by negroes. By mixing with the Caucasian race, this experiment partly succeeded. But in general, North Africa is too bleak and uncongenial for the negroes' nature during winter. The negro race does not increase of itself on this coast. Their present number is kept up by a continual supply of slaves. When this is stopped, coloured people will begin gradually to disappear. ..... The opinions of the Jews here, are the same as those of American slave-holders, with this slight difference, that they consider it right to make slaves of white men and Europeans, as well as of black men, negroes, and Africans, in which idea they are more consistent than their Yankee men-selling brethren.
As there are many Barbary Jews at Mogador, more or less under British protection, I took the liberty of reminding them of their liabilities as British subjects, by circulating among them copies of Lord Brougham's Act.
I had some conversation with Rabbi-El Melek and other Jews about the question of abolition,
_Traveller_.--"What is the opinion of the Jews of this country on the matter of slavery?"
_Rabbi-El-Melek._--"I will show you," (taking the Hebrew Bible he read) "'Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.'"
_Traveller._--"Admitting the curse pronounced here was right, that Ham and Canaan were the progenitors of the African negroes, and that the curse was to be extended to all generations of Africa--are these reasons why the all-Merciful Deity will hold man guiltless who enslaves and maltreats poor Africans? Now, the Jews have been dispersed all over the world, and maltreated, if not enslaved, by both Christians and Mahometans (as now) according to prophecy, but will God hold us guiltless for persecuting or maltreating you, Jews?"
_The Rabbi_.--"But we are the slaves of God, not of you Christians, and besides, we are commanded to treat well our slaves in the Scriptures." Here he quoted many passages from the Pentateuch.
Then followed a desultory conversation, some asserting "that inasmuch as the slavery of the whites was permitted by God, how much more right had they to enslave blacks who were the servants of servants!" Others even added, "If we were Sovereigns of Morocco, we should make slaves of both Mahometans and Christians." This indeed is the genuine feeling of Barbary Jews; oppression begets oppression, and wrong begets revenge. Another observed, "If you ask me what I think as a British subject, and not as a Jew, I will give you my opinion against slavery."
From: "Travels In Morocco Vol. 1, James Richardson 1806-1851"
As you can see, by the 1800s life for blacks in Morocco was very bad indeed, whether indigenous or imported from the South. Blacks have been suffering a wave of violence and oppression in Morocco since the waves of Muslim invaders crossed the sahara. These indigenous Moroccans have always been fierce warriors and after unsuccessfully trying to hold off the Muslim onslaught, became loyal to Islam and were responsible for some of the greatest achievements of Islamic North Africa and Spain. However, Islam offered no protection to these black Africans, especially as they began to be systematically rounded up and enslaved, either as soldiers or workers for the Mulsim Arab elite. What you see today is a Morocco that is almost devoid of a signifigant amount of the original indigenous black Moroccan Africans, having been erased through a policy of ethnic cleansing that went on for hundreds of years. This policy has even caused images of black rulers from the Alouite dynasty to be white washed, in order to remove all traces of blacks in Morocco's history.
More here about the Abid in Morocco (JSTOR): (add http to link) links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882%281977%2910%3A3%3C427%3ACEASTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&size=LARGE and here: links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882%281983%2916%3A1%3C39%3ASSASPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=LARGE
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M, do you have actual documentation that ''blacks'' in Morocco were ethnically cleansed? Just because Maghreb does not have alot of black people amongst its modern population you cannot say definately what such ethnic cleansing occured. The desendants of people captured in Timbuktu called Gnawa still live in Morocco,Tunisa and parts of Algeria but most are lighter than the Haratin.
Most of the slaves brought into Morocco from the south tended to be either males or females. Most African females according to Arabic documents had low fertility rates. The males were mainly used in battle thus having a high casualty rate.
After many years of foreign migrations into Maghreb I would not expect most Maghrebians to be black if they were originally. Take also into account the many Europeans who converted to Islam under the Moors and white slaves imported into parts of the Maghreb.
I can assure you most Moroccans are neither white nor black but many do look ''black'' at least when compaired to what is considered ''black'' in America. Some might also look European.
Your comment on Egypt not being similar 200 years ago is speculative itself considering that you base this off a few scattered black/white photographs from one part of Egypt. While modern Egyptian population has much more foreign elements does not necessarily mean most Egyptians desend from foreigners.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I presented the evidence Ausar. The original indigenous NOrth African blacks have been under attack since prior to the Muslim invasions. I showed above how the black Guard was decimated by the descendants of Moulay Ismael. I also posted eyewitness accounts from the 1800s showing a larger black population in parts of Morocco than you may see today. So no it is not speculation on my part.
The only thing I said was similar between Egypt and MOrocco is that in the 1800s there was a larger percentage of black nappy haired Africans that could be seen among the population versus their relative percentages among the population now. You are totally taking this out of context. Just as Morocco was said to have 8+ million in 1840, there are 24 million today. Not a major boom but it is still 3 times bigger than before.
And the slavery of black Africans in Morocco included the indigenous black Africans even before those from the South.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole "black" thing is a new world construction, so you cant apply it on Morrocons since they don't have the same race values or perception towards who belongs to the Marrocon people/race or not. The criterias are very much different than yours. You focus to much on colour and features but unfortunatly for you they don't, they have other values.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have always been people with "black" skin on this planet. The new world construction you are referring to is the OPPRESSION of people just because they have black or brown skin. And it is not a construction of the new world as it is a construction of Eurasian populations from Europe to Asia, as many of the cultures and civilizations they destroyed were made up of black people, who they subsequently labelled as savages and brutes, while the only savages and brutes in order to justify their destruction or oppression.
"Blacks" have always been in Morocco and those who try and act as if Morocco's history is not tinged with racism against BLACKS is going against the facts:
quote: In the Islamic West black slave troops were more frequent, and sometimes even included cavalry -- something virtually unknown in the East. The first emir of Cordova, 'Abd al-Rahman I, is said to have kept a large personal guard of black troops; and black military slaves were used, especially to maintain order, by his successors. Black units, probably recruited by purchase via Zawila in Fezzan (now southern Libya), figure in the armies of the rulers of Tunisia between the ninth and eleventh centuries. Black troops became important from the seventeenth century, after the Moroccan military expansion into the Western Sudan. The Moroccan Sultan Mawlay Ismaili (1672-1727) had an army of black slaves, said to number 250,000. The nucleus of this army was provided by the conscription or compulsory purchase of all male blacks in Morocco; it was supplemented by levies on the slaves and serfs of the Saharan tribes and slave raids into southern Mauritania. These soldiers were mated with black slave girls, to produce the next generation of male soldiers and female servants. The youngsters began training at ten and were mated at fifteen. After the sultan's death in 1727, a period of anarchic internal struggles followed, which some contemporaries describe as a conflict between blacks and whites. The philosopher David Hume, writing at about the same time, saw such a conflict as absurd and comic, and used it to throw ridicule on all sectarian and factional strife:
"The civil wars which arose some few years ago in Morocco between the Blacks and Whites, merely on account of their complexion, are founded on a pleasant difference. We laugh at them; but, I believe, were things rightly examined, we afford much more occasion of ridicule to the Moors. For, what are all the wars of religion, which have prevailed in this polite and knowing part of the world? They are certainly more absurd than the Moorish civil wars. The difference of complexion is a sensible and a real difference; but the controversy about an article of faith, which is utterly absurd and unintelligible, is not a difference in sentiment, but in a few phrases and expressions, which one party accepts of without understanding them, and the other refuses in the same manner.... Besides, I do not find that the Whites in Morocco ever imposed on the Blacks any necessity of altering their complexion . . . nor have the Blacks been more unreasonable in this particular."
I have posted on this thread more than one eyewitness account of BLACKS in Morocco in historic times, be they called Arabs, Negroes or Blackamoors:
quote: It is usual for Moors, particularly negroes, to sing certain choruses, and thus encourage one another in their work. What, however, is remarkable, these choruses are mostly on sacred subjects, being frequently the formula of their confession, "There is no God, but one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet," &c. These clownish tars were deeply coloured, and some quite black. I found, in fact, the greatest part of the Moorish population of Mogador coloured persons. We may here easily trace the origin of the epithet "Black-a-Moor," and we are not so surprised that Shakspeare made his Moor black; indeed, the present Emperor, Muley Abd Errahman, is of very dark complexion, though his features are not at all of the negro cast. But he has sons quite black, and with negro features, who, of course, are the children of negresses. One of these, is Governor of Rabat. In no country is the colour of the human skin so little thought of. This is a very important matter in the question of abolition. There is no objection to the skin and features of the negro; it is only the luxury of having slaves, or their usefulness for heavy work, which weighs in the scale against abolition.
Many of the books I have read from the 1800s often depict Morocco as having more blacks than you see among the general population today. The point of this thread is to show that all of these blacks were not just Africans from the South and that some were indeed in Morocco from the beginning. Trying to act as if Morocco was some sort of mixed ethnic population from historic times is to over simplify this issue. The populations there now have been impacted by many migrations of Europeans and Eurasians, but the first migrants to this area were undoubtedly black Africans. The racism in Muslim Africa is as real as it was in America and Europe, but much of Islam's history of slavery, including the role of blacks in the slave trade, is underdocumented, thereby painting a false picture of "racial" harmony in Morocco. As I said before, the official government portraits of the Kings of Alouite are almost all depicted as whites, even though many of them are recorded as being dark skinned. This is no coincidence and it does have to do with black versus white. Some of you need to read your history and stop trying to sugar coat it. What is done is done, you cannot change the past, but it is not necessary to distort it and lie about the bad things that happened, because they did happen and are part of the reason for things being the way they are today.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cut this black white sh*t and get back to the topic of the truth or untruth of the Amazigh activist's anecdote about Harratine and their conscription into a Maghrebi army and the flack it supposedly caused.
Please research this matter and contribute what you can specifically find about it here in this thread.
posted
I'm trying to get to a specific point in African history not go on and on with generalities. Do you feel me? If so please comply, otherwise please expand your earlier thread with your current concerns.
posted
Well now do you mention it, I dont understand the point of this thread. If you are goint through the lengths of trying to identify precisely the origins of the troops in the Moroccan black guard units, then it would be important to follow through on what happened next to those same units. That is all I am saying. The purges I was referring to and the writers I posted refer to is related to those same units you are taking pains to identify based on place of origin. I didnt see it as a separate topic as it would seem to me that the two are related.
However, since you only want to discuss origins and not ultimately what happened to these units afterwards, I will refrain from posting any further (even though I had nothing else to post anyway). The other thread already has this stuff in it, which wasnt so much to address concerns of ethnic cleansing other than how the role of various populations of blacks in Morocco has been omitted from the history of Morocco specifically and North Africa overall..... Morocco and North Africa has a long bloody history of civil strife based on ethnic, political and religious lines, so if you are going to be squeamish about it then I would suggest not reading up on it. Unless you only want the sanitized bloodless fairy tale version......
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't understand then just leave it alone. I'm dismantling an anecdote which is a piece of disinformation about Harratine, Gnawa, an all black army of conscripts, so-called "Berber" reaction (supposedly based on Harratin's Amazighity) to Harratine conscription into a supposedly all Gnawa army in the Maghreb.
So far most of the anecdote has been deconstructed.
The next points I'll introduce will be dissent against Moulay Ismail's army, and why, and the fate of dissenters.
Then I plan to produce a more definitive set of statements from Hagan exposing their lack of factual accuracy.
I'd appreciate you keeping comments about my being squeamish to yourself. I haven't resorted to psycho analyzing you and I gaurantee you you don't want me to.
Suffice to say I know more about North Africa then you'll ever know and not just from reading books.
You have no idea what it means to be a either a Gnawi, an Amazigh, a Hartani, or Hamria among the many multi-faceted identities in North Africa.
All you have is a mindset of a beatdown black. Always the black and white thing. Always the wrong suffered by black. You write as if blacks never stand on their feet or do anything having nothing to do with fending off white oppression. There's more much more to black than your idea of blacks as only the whipping boys and girls of whites.
You need to quit being reactionary and writing protest literature and learn how to present positive proactive information about blacks independent of any consideration of non-blacks. You give the white man a god-complex like as if blacks are completely powerless in the face of any act whites want to perpetrate which is a false history as myopic as anything the white supremists postulate: "The blacks are powerless against us and don't have a history outside of reacting to what we do to them."
Little difference between you and them, same MO. I tried to be nice but you want to attack me so take it like this, get the f*ck up off of my back and let me do some historiography. Go on with your own thread that people who have to hear "black this and white that" in order to keep interested or else they can't deal with history.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethnic identity is strong in many parts of the world but only in America is the colour black considered an identity and this is not a good thing! When one goes to the roots of identity, then one can see how one groups acts/reacts to one another. The insightful Gnawa/Haratin societal position is obvious (simialr to Darfur) in that both the oppressor and the oppressed are of the same hue!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I said I would leave your thread alone. You can do what you want and I am not trying to force you to see anything any particular way. However, I wonder what is the reason for this hostility as it is certainly quite odd. People have been oppressed, are being oppressed and will be oppressed for many reasons and by different groups. This is a fact of life. If you really were so concerned about the accuracy of my emphasizing certain aspects of Moroccan history as "black" versus "white", then you could have at least offered alternative views on the subject. Trying to act as if my whole world revolves around black and white because I attempt to point out the facts about situations were people may have been oppressed is ridiculous. People are oppressed on this planet daily and it isn't going to stop any time soon. Now, granted, some may not want to be as vociferous about such issues as I am, but trying to act as if I created these issues or I am creating a black versus white mentality, is to go beyond the realms of the believable and into lala land. If I talked about the history of India, would you label me being centered on Hindu vs Muslim or Hindu vs British because of the historic animosity and conflict between those groups? Would you label me as being centered on Indian versus Whites if I talked about the conflicts in the U.S.A between those groups? I dont know what it is that you are so upset about, but all this name calling for the sake of name calling is evidence of other issues in my opinion. Dont blame me for calling things as I see them, I didnt create this planet, I am not responsible for the injustice in it and I have no problem calling a spade a spade no matter where I see it. However, I do welcome serious debate if it seems I am incorrect....
To talk about the fact that there is an us versus them mentality among various people around the world is not PROMOTING such a mentality. To deny that such exists is ignorant. Now depending on where you sit within things you may not care about who is versus who and where or why and who won or who has the upper hand, which is more to the point. But that is totally different than claiming that someone is PROMOTING such ideaologies because they are somewhat passionate about it or are sympathetic for one group or the other and it is definitely not about being defeatist.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M, none of the websites you posted speculate on anything about ethnic cleansing of ''blacks'' out of Morocco. Indeed, racism and slavery have existed in Morocco or any other ''Arabic'' speaking world. Still I must point out that many of the Arabs that came into Northern Africa had blacks amongst them and there is no evidence that they were treated any differently than other ''Arabs''.
Most of the sources you cite are second hand references from European travelers. European travelers are known for exaggerating claims of racism.
Where are the examples of North-west African being ethnically cleansed before the Arabian invasion or afterwords?
Anyway,alTakruri, I am sorry for hijacking your thread but I felt that Doug M should justify his remarks about ''blacks'' being ethnically cleansed from Morocco or the Maghreb and even his example of Egypt.
Doug M: If you want to open up another thread on racism in northern Africa and other parts of the Arabic speaking world we can. I suggest,however, that you have a little comprehension of both northern African history and have had some interaction with northern African people. Otherwise, you are simply looking at the issue in an eschewed way that is just as distorted as the view of 19th century European travelers or Orientalist in northern Africa.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:alTakruri: All you have is a mindset of a beatdown black. Always the black and white thing. Always the wrong suffered by black. You write as if blacks never stand on their feet or do anything having nothing to do with fending off white oppression. There's more much more to black than your idea of blacks as only the whipping boys and girls of whites.
You need to quit being reactionary and writing protest literature and learn how to present positive proactive information about blacks independent of any consideration of non-blacks. You give the white man a god-complex like as if blacks are completely powerless in the face of any act whites want to perpetrate which is a false history as myopic as anything the white supremists postulate: "The blacks are powerless against us and don't have a history outside of reacting to what we do to them."
Exactly this is also the impression i get when i read Doug M's posts, to much victim mentality.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:alTakruri: All you have is a mindset of a beatdown black. Always the black and white thing. Always the wrong suffered by black. You write as if blacks never stand on their feet or do anything having nothing to do with fending off white oppression. There's more much more to black than your idea of blacks as only the whipping boys and girls of whites.
SubhanaAllah.
I was having a discussion with my mother last night. I have just told her what you wrote.
posted
Well, I said it and I stand by it. You guys, other than saying I have a victim mentality have offered NOTHING and I mean NOTHING in the way of counter evidence. I am not going to discuss this further here or open a new thread, however, it is mad hilarious that when someone claims "ethnic cleansing" they are labelled as having a victim's mentality. There are examples of ethnic cleansing that have taken place, are taking place and will continue to take place all over the planet. It does not make one a whipping boy to claim it. You cannot study history and not deal with the fact that humans are their own worst enemies and can and will justify all sorts of horrendous acts on one another based on anything that they can use to justify such acts. The contradictions in tone here are blatantly obvious as on one hand some admit that slavery and exploitation existed, but then turn right around and say "but"... But what? There is no but. I just hate these labels that are flimsy excuses at a rebuttal. If you can throw around labels then you can throw around evidence. This would have been over a while ago if some hadn't chose to start calling people names for the sake of wanting attention. Stick to the facts and evidence and avoid the name calling is my concern.
Bottom line, the only thing I take from this thread is that there is STILL a lot about the history of North Africa that is lost, missing or under researched because we wouldnt have to be arguing these silly points if it wasnt. That is what I thought this thread was about, understanding the nuances of ethnicity and identity in North Africa, but not DENYING the obvious. The only thing that comes to my mind is that we need to reach out to the scholars in North Africa who have written about their OWN history and KNOW their own history, including the black Africans who have books and libraries buried in the sands all over the Maghreb and West Africa. Why are these books HIDDEN? What do they say? In addition, look at the other books in the Universities of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, even Egypt. Then you have the testimony of the people themselves to go along with this literary research. All of that, plus archeaological and anthropological studies will give us much more than what we have now, which is PURELY superficial. I use the English books because that is the language I understand. It is not always the most accurate, but it helps identify areas for further study. I dont get ANY impression that anyone has any more of an interest in this kind of study, which would take a lot of years, a lot of money and a lot of time to thoroughly research to do properly, other than mere lip service. I may be wrong but hey none of us are professional historians, anthropologists or archeaologists anyway.
As for the whole idea of black versus white in the Islamic world, why dont you talk to Al Jahiz about that before claiming I am fabricating stuff out of thin air. Not only that, but you only have to to to Mauretania to see this kind of system in place, with the pecking order of White Moor, Black Moor, Haratin and "other" black Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no "black vs white" in the old islamic world. What existed was "pagans" who were captured and enslaved, alot were from Africa but their were also alot enslaved "pagans" from the middle-east and Balkan region as well. Its simple as that, again no unified "black" identity or "white" identity as you're trying to create here and apply on them. It was more of religious and cultural differences.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Doug M doesn’t have a victim mentality in fact; the majority of the time M is on point a very articulate person that's how I feel about it.
This post has the potential to get ugly and it’s not even necessary, stay focus! There is a lot of research being done by African Scholars the truth will come to light.
Peace
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa Tukruri, a little fiery at Doug don't you think?
However I have been thinking of this sort of thing alot and I totally agree with the following:
quote:Originally posted by alTukruri: You need to quit being reactionary and writing protest literature and learn how to present positive proactive information about blacks independent of any consideration of non-blacks. You give the white man a god-complex like as if blacks are completely powerless in the face of any act whites want to perpetrate which is a false history as myopic as anything the white supremists postulate: "The blacks are powerless against us and don't have a history outside of reacting to what we do to them."
posted
That is a boat load of nonsense. Nobody gives anyone a god complex by pointing out the fact that the wrongs they have committed. That is inverse logic designed to ridicule those who have ACTUALLY suffered versus addressing the idea of "ethnic cleansing" being a bit of a overstatement. In fact, that is all this argument is about, the word "ethnic cleansing" being an overstatement. Yet you all are incapable of SAYING that and would rather excercise in endless babbling about personality disorders which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is YOU all who are trying to perpetrate a GOD complex by acting as if certain groups of individuals are above reproach and criticisms for their actions towards others. In fact, a god complex is not GIVEN to anyone it is TAKEN by those who have egos so large as to assume that they have the right to spread suffering and oppression in the name of a god. Show how little you understand of the words you use. This complex is a major factor behind much of the suffering of people historically world wide from South America to Asia. The victim of such attrocities did not CREATE this and has no say in the matter. The only SAY the victim has is to DEFEAT those who are against them. So saying that the VICTIM created this complex in the AGRESSOR is an example of laying blame on the VICTIM for the ACTS of the aggressor because such ACTS are the result of a GOD complex not the result of any opinions or accusations by the victim.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was having a discussion with my mother last night. I have just told her what you wrote.
*Creepy*
^Not really. There does seem to be a victomized view floatin around. I've said it to (including to my mother. )
As for this:
quote:Originally posted by Tukruri: All you have is a mindset of a beatdown black. Always the black and white thing. Always the wrong suffered by black. You write as if blacks never stand on their feet or do anything having nothing to do with fending off white oppression. There's more much more to black than your idea of blacks as only the whipping boys and girls of whites.
I totally disagree with this opinion of Doug. He just called out europeans as cowards who wouldn't dare set foot into africa at a certain time. Plus you can't blame him for being reactionary when there's so much bull-sh!t floating around!
I learned a whole lot of important stuff from him when I first got here. He's just someone who is not satisfied with the 'white man's' burden who 'white man' improves by anything he does to him.He and I don't like how everythings set up to look like.
I still agree on your comment about being reactionary that I posted on earlier. I was just thing that, that we need to just move forward and not let the white man set the table. Give him that authority.
But like Doug I believe in TRUTH and JUSTICE, at least info. wise.
Like I said though, it's real eery how inflamatory your comments were.
Almost like you've read absolutely nothing he's posted. It read almost like something horemheb would post.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar You didn't hi-jack my thread. Without your critique I may never have done the research to see that I was mislead by the cheese twists the Amazigh activist fed me. I didn't want to contradict Doug about the ethnic cleansing thing but there's nothing to such a charge. Evidence, pro or con, concerning it should go in one of Doug's threads that's already out there.
Yonis Despite the victim complex DougM still is a heavy hitter. I still rate him five stars. With a little less polemic and shorter paragraphs I'd buy his book.
Arwa Bismillah, you and your mother will understand each other better. Her generation endured American apartheid (Jim Crow) and that took a strength most of us can't even imagine. So try to see where she's coming from.
DougM I've said all I need to say to you. You think you're the only one to ever trod the path you're on. You're dead wrong. Some of us don't continue to sit n stew, instead we progress and take positive action keeping all that stuff in storage until an unknowing youngster needs to learn it for the first time.
Yazid Black Americans have felt, and still feel, the weight of colour pervading every aspect of their lives and to speak in general, the darker they are the harder they feel it. Yet most rise above the dictates of colour by not constantly dwelling on it. They fight it by achieving excellence in their chosen fields of endeavor. As you say, elsewhere in the world their identity would be by religion, culture, language, etc., even profession. Black is only a colour but after being ashamed of it for so long BA's have chosen it to be their identity.
Forum members And now shall we get back to this thread's subject header. Anyone having information directly pertaining to the topic, please chime in.
Doug is already ahead of the game by posting info on the Abid al-Bukhari after Moulay Ismail. Thanks for doing that Doug!
BTW I have it that though they were disbanded they reformed on occasion. They were feared and respected because of their military prowess and administrative skills not to mention their feats of civil engineering too.
Far from being pillar to post whippin' boys, these 'ABID, "black slave" guys, for a stretch of time determined who sat Morocco's throne. Without exaggerating, there'd be no modern nation state Morocco as we know it if not for them.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will y'all stop cluttering this thread with touchy feelies and post some topical contibutions in relation to the subject header which is amply delineated in the first four posts (go back and reread them as a refresher) explicitly defining this thread and the goals I want accomplished by it.
If you don't know a damn thing about it then, "not dissin' but shut up and listen."
Thank you
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:alTakruri: Arwa Bismillah, you and your mother will understand each other better. Her generation endured American apartheid (Jim Crow) and that took a strength most of us can't even imagine. So try to see where she's coming from.
I doubt her mother endured jim crow, isn't she from somalia?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haratin does not call themselves that! It is a term used by those who possess some degree of power over them. It seems that the only common characteristic all Haratin share is profession (manual labour) and or dark skin!
quote: Haratin were mostly dark skinned of Negroid ancestry. Descended either from the original Neolithic inhabitants of the region (before the Moors or Arabs came) or from inter-breeding with West Africans. They were not slaves. They were the "working class", the serfs of the "landed gentry" Ahrar. They worked usually for a fifth (or some portion) of the crop yield. They rarely owned any land and lived in the same quarter within the Kasar. They did not trace their family lineage beyond two or three generations. The haratin were a major portion of the sedentary populations, as big as or larger than the Ahrar.
posted
I have problems with certain comments from the warflag site.
quote:Descended either from the original Neolithic inhabitants of the region (before the Moors or Arabs came) or from inter-breeding with West Africans.
The inter-breeding option doesn't make sense because it doesn't say who did the interbreeding. We know the Sahara (from as far north as the Algerian chottes) was home to a dark skinned indigenous population (with a few lighter skinned populations as well) because we have prehistoric art depicting them and we have texts from the Greco-Latin historian-geographers listing them.
Therefore, this following surmise is also obscurant:
quote:They rarely owned any land
Their landownership was abrogated.They were the original landowners who were subjugated by late arriving folk more militant than they. A folk who knew not the arts of oasis cultivation and had to rely on the proto-Harritine for those skills.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I have problems with certain comments from the warflag site.
quote:Descended either from the original Neolithic inhabitants of the region (before the Moors or Arabs came) or from inter-breeding with West Africans.
The inter-breeding option doesn't make sense because it doesn't say who did the interbreeding. We know the Sahara (from as far north as the Algerian chottes) was home to a dark skinned indigenous population (with a few lighter skinned populations as well) because we have prehistoric art depicting them and we have texts from the Greco-Latin historian-geographers listing them.
Therefore, this following surmise is also obscurant:
quote:They rarely owned any land
Their landownership was abrogated.They were the original landowners who were subjugated by late arriving folk more militant than they. A folk who knew not the arts of oasis cultivation and had to rely on the proto-Harritine for those skills.
posted
An excellent secondary source on the controversy of conscripting Haratine into the Abid al~Bukhari army is online Issue of the Haratin of FasPosts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Right on Al-Takrur!
In fact, I have a book here called the conquest of Morocco, which is about the campaigns of France in Morocco in the 1800s. In it you see many, many black Moroccans along with other black Africans from elsewhere in photos from the period. In fact, most often you see the black Africans among those leading rebellions and being put to death by the French. Also, there is a tendency among western scholars to attribute ANY black presence in Morocco to being descendants of slaves. A book I often refer to, called Morocco by S.L Bensusalem has many illustrations of black African Moroccans from the early 1800s. Unfortunately, the European can only see them as slaves and does not identify them as Moroccan, just because they are black. In fact, they dont even mention that the first two rulers of the Alouite dynasty had black wives and were black themselves. Moulay Rashid is a good example of this. There are many blacks who have ruled Morocco since the 1600s and there were many more Southern Chiefs who ruled as various periods as well.
Here are other accounts of black Africans in the armies of Morocco, where it is not really clear who is from Sudan, meaning south of the Sahara and who is Moroccan:
quote: Salee is a walled town, strongly defended by a large battery, mounting twenty-four pieces of heavy ordnance, and a redoubt which protects the mouth of the river. It contains about five hundred regular troops, three thousand militia-men, five hundred sailors, and a number of Moorish merchants and Jews. To the north of this garrison is a small town, in a ruinous state, inhabited by a few negro families. I was told it was built by Muley Ishmael for the accommodation of his favourite black troops. To the south, and on the opposite side of the river _Salee_, is the maritime city of _Rabat_, commanded by a black chief, and garrisoned with black soldiers. ..... In the Moorish army there is a prodigious number of blacks, who are reckoned very loyal, and perfectly devoted to the Emperor. This accounts for so many black governors being at the head of the most important districts and provinces of Barbary,
I returned very late from the review, and had scarcely dined when a messenger came to request my early attendance the following morning, to be presented to His Imperial Majesty. I repaired betimes to the palace, which is an immense pile of buildings, enclosed by a strong wall and a large deep ditch. It has four great gates, plated, both on the outside and in, with sheets of iron. I entered the front gate, and by a covered way reached a spacious court, surrounded by a piazza, under which several field-pieces and small mortars were placed. Here I was met by Sidy Ameth, a black officer, who acts as master of the ceremonies, and lord in waiting. He received me with great politeness, and conducted me, through another gate and covered way, to a second square more spacious than the first. In the centre was a most beautiful white marble basin, into which played a fountain of water clear as crystal. Over it was a kind of rotunda, supported by columns of elegant black marble. This superb square is paved with small pieces of marble, intermixed with pebbles of various colours, in the mosaic style. It is formed by four wings of the building. The front wing, exclusive of its magnificent entrance, contains several apartments and waiting-rooms, occupied by the great officers of state; the right, the library, and the treasury of the Emperor; the left, a superb mosque, and a school-room for the use of the Emperor's children, where they are taught to read and write, and study the Alcoran; and finally, the back, the great hall of audience, in which His Imperial Majesty was seated cross-legged upon a kind of couch, under a crimson velvet canopy, most beautifully decorated with figured work in gold. ..... He was succeeded by his brother _Muley Ishmael_, who distinguished himself by some brave actions; and his reign would have formed a grand epoch in the history of this country, had he not stained it by a succession of tyranny and cruelties, too shocking to dwell upon. He died in 1727 at the advanced age of eighty-one, leaving behind him a numerous offspring. This prince, in order to ensure his despotic and arbitrary power, contrived to form a regular army of foreign soldiers, which he effected, partly from the negro families, then settled in Barbary, but principally from a vast number of blacks which he obtained from the coast of Guinea. ..... _Muley-Achmet-Daiby_, one of the numerous sons of Ishmael, ascended the throne of Morocco, and, after reigning two years, died of a dropsy. His successor, _Muley Abdallah_, by far surpassed all his predecessors in point of vices and cruelty. His conduct was so flagrant, that he was deposed no less than six times, but as often re-elected. Amidst civil wars, divisions, and devastations, the plague again made its appearance, and committed the same dreadful ravages as in the reign of _Ishmael_. Being reinstated for the sixth time, _Abdallah_ took advantage of the troubles occasioned by this terrible disease, to excite divisions among his negro soldiers, by whose power alone he had suffered all his humiliations. Vast numbers of this warlike race fell the victims of his treachery, and he succeeded in reducing them so low, that they were no longer a subject of dread to him. Having thus freed himself of all cause of restraint, he recovered his power, and, if possible, plunged deeper than ever into the gulf of iniquity; and each succeeding day was stained with crimes of the blackest hue. The only sentiments with which he inspired his unhappy people were those of terror and disgust. At length, worn out with age, he died at Fez in 1757; and was succeeded by his son _Sidi Mahomet_, who had begun to reform several abuses, during the latter part of his father's reign, when he had been entrusted with the government of Morocco.
From: "Travels through the Empire of Morocco, John Buffa 1810"
In my readings, I have found that there are tales of a purge of blacks from Morocco in the 17th and 18th centuries by Arab chiefs. Most accounts even from the 1800s paint a population with a larger presence of black Africans, both slave and indigenous, than you often see in Morocco today. In fact, it is said that later rulers of Morocco disposessed the black guards of all their possessions and gave them to the Arabs. Likewise, many European writers have commented on the civil wars in Morocco that pitted white against blacks. Unfortunately, this aspect of Morocco's history is largely underreported, as is the legacy of slavery in Morocco and the crimes and abuses of many Moroccan rulers against the people of Morocco. Likewise, since we know that the blacks largely lost this battle, the history of blacks in Morocco as rulers, princes, scholars and artists is largely erased from the official history.
The situation in Morocco is in many ways similar to that of Egypt, where the modern population is in many ways unlike the ancient population or even the population of 200 years ago. As can be seen here:
quote: It is scarcely possible that either France or Spain can contemplate the conquest of the entire Empire of Morocco, as the result of the present impending crisis, the superficial extent of the territory being 219,420 square miles, and the population nearly 8,000,000, [1] of which a large proportion live in a state of perpetual warfare, occupying inaccessible mountain fastnesses, from whence they only descend to the plains for the sake of plunder. The inhabitants may be classified as follows: 4,000,000 Moors and Arabs; 2,000,000 Berbers; 500,000 Jews, and the remainder are of the Negro race. The regular Army consists of less than thirty thousand men, but every Arab is an expert irregular horseman, and the Berbers make good foot-soldiers. ..... It is usual for Moors, particularly negroes, to sing certain choruses, and thus encourage one another in their work. What, however, is remarkable, these choruses are mostly on sacred subjects, being frequently the formula of their confession, "There is no God, but one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet," &c. These clownish tars were deeply coloured, and some quite black. I found, in fact, the greatest part of the Moorish population of Mogador coloured persons. We may here easily trace the origin of the epithet "Black-a-Moor," and we are not so surprised that Shakspeare made his Moor black; indeed, the present Emperor, Muley Abd Errahman, is of very dark complexion, though his features are not at all of the negro cast. But he has sons quite black, and with negro features, who, of course, are the children of negresses. One of these, is Governor of Rabat. In no country is the colour of the human skin so little thought of. This is a very important matter in the question of abolition. There is no objection to the skin and features of the negro; it is only the luxury of having slaves, or their usefulness for heavy work, which weighs in the scale against abolition. .... The history of this Imperial Guard of Negroes is interesting, as showing the inconveniences as well as the advantage of such a corps, for these troops have not been always so well conducted as they are at present. At one time, the Shereefs claimed a species of sovereignty over the city of Timbuctbo and the adjacent countries. In the year 1727, Muley Ismail determined to re-people his wasted districts by a colony of negroes. His secret object was, however, to form a body guard to keep his own people in check, a sort of black Swiss regiment, so alike is the policy of all tyrants. In a few years, these troops exceeded 100,000 men. Finding their numbers so great, and their services so much needed by the Sultan, they became exigeant and rapacious, dictating to their royal master. Muley Abdallah was deposed six times by them. Finding their yoke intolerable, the Sultan decimated them by sending them to fight in the mountains. Others were disbanded for the same reasons by Sidi Mohammed. Still, the effect of this new colonization was beneficially experienced throughout the country. The Moors taking the black women as concubines, a mixed race of industrious people sprang up, and gave an impetus to the empire. It is questionable, however, if North Africa could he colonized by negroes. By mixing with the Caucasian race, this experiment partly succeeded. But in general, North Africa is too bleak and uncongenial for the negroes' nature during winter. The negro race does not increase of itself on this coast. Their present number is kept up by a continual supply of slaves. When this is stopped, coloured people will begin gradually to disappear. ..... The opinions of the Jews here, are the same as those of American slave-holders, with this slight difference, that they consider it right to make slaves of white men and Europeans, as well as of black men, negroes, and Africans, in which idea they are more consistent than their Yankee men-selling brethren.
As there are many Barbary Jews at Mogador, more or less under British protection, I took the liberty of reminding them of their liabilities as British subjects, by circulating among them copies of Lord Brougham's Act.
I had some conversation with Rabbi-El Melek and other Jews about the question of abolition,
_Traveller_.--"What is the opinion of the Jews of this country on the matter of slavery?"
_Rabbi-El-Melek._--"I will show you," (taking the Hebrew Bible he read) "'Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.'"
_Traveller._--"Admitting the curse pronounced here was right, that Ham and Canaan were the progenitors of the African negroes, and that the curse was to be extended to all generations of Africa--are these reasons why the all-Merciful Deity will hold man guiltless who enslaves and maltreats poor Africans? Now, the Jews have been dispersed all over the world, and maltreated, if not enslaved, by both Christians and Mahometans (as now) according to prophecy, but will God hold us guiltless for persecuting or maltreating you, Jews?"
_The Rabbi_.--"But we are the slaves of God, not of you Christians, and besides, we are commanded to treat well our slaves in the Scriptures." Here he quoted many passages from the Pentateuch.
Then followed a desultory conversation, some asserting "that inasmuch as the slavery of the whites was permitted by God, how much more right had they to enslave blacks who were the servants of servants!" Others even added, "If we were Sovereigns of Morocco, we should make slaves of both Mahometans and Christians." This indeed is the genuine feeling of Barbary Jews; oppression begets oppression, and wrong begets revenge. Another observed, "If you ask me what I think as a British subject, and not as a Jew, I will give you my opinion against slavery."
From: "Travels In Morocco Vol. 1, James Richardson 1806-1851"
As you can see, by the 1800s life for blacks in Morocco was very bad indeed, whether indigenous or imported from the South. Blacks have been suffering a wave of violence and oppression in Morocco since the waves of Muslim invaders crossed the sahara. These indigenous Moroccans have always been fierce warriors and after unsuccessfully trying to hold off the Muslim onslaught, became loyal to Islam and were responsible for some of the greatest achievements of Islamic North Africa and Spain. However, Islam offered no protection to these black Africans, especially as they began to be systematically rounded up and enslaved, either as soldiers or workers for the Mulsim Arab elite. What you see today is a Morocco that is almost devoid of a signifigant amount of the original indigenous black Moroccan Africans, having been erased through a policy of ethnic cleansing that went on for hundreds of years. This policy has even caused images of black rulers from the Alouite dynasty to be white washed, in order to remove all traces of blacks in Morocco's history.
More here about the Abid in Morocco (JSTOR): (add http to link) links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882%281977%2910%3A3%3C427%3ACEASTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&size=LARGE and here: links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882%281983%2916%3A1%3C39%3ASSASPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=LARGE
It should be noted that Doug M never claimed any "ethnic cleansing", others did that. History shows that indeed blacks were enslaved, even free black men in Morocco, to create the black armies. They were then double-crossed by one Sultan, and given to Arabs like so much chattel property. Doug M is right on several things. Contemporary records attest to the struggle by the blacks against their Arab oppressors.
posted
^ So as I suspected the problem then is really Arab imperialism. I too have never heard of any ethnic cleansing of blacks in the Maghreb but I have heard of blacks being forced into lower classes because of their skin color which is due to Arab supremacists and/or Arab and Western influenced Amazighen.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is neither western nor Arab. Neither of they are gods nor are Africans dupes. This is strictly an internal African affair as far as its roots go. Anything else is just a graft onto the tree.
posted
I'm really not comprehending the idea of "slave" armies. The idea of training and arming the very people you "enslave" is akin to burying land mines in your front yard. Much less to the tune of 250,000. Sounds similar to the falling idea of enslaved "nubians" in the Egyptian army.
Seems more like "paid mercenaries" the more sensible idea.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please try reading this thread from the start and perusing the given links for an understanding of how ruler owned slaves composing an army, like gelded palace officials, can be more reliable than armies of plotting local free men.
Incomprehensible to the 21st century mind or not, it worked quite well and practically all the kingdoms (non-Muslim) in the savannah and forest used slaves in their armies too.
Really researching the Abid al~Bukhari should explain the concept quite well. Mercenaries are free to come and go as they please. Slaves are owned and have no ties and nowhere to go.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
However I have been thinking of this sort of thing alot and I totally agree with the following:
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic