"Zwarte Piet" is the Moorish black helper of the original Sinter Klaas (Santa Claus) in the Netherlands. He is depicted as a black moor who will put all the naughty kids in his sack and take them back to Spain...
People in this part of europe, as you can see, still dress up in this fashion and celebrate this to this day.
"Krampus" was also earlier depicted as a black Satan who was captured by Sinter Klaas and deemed to be his helper, with much of the same atributes Zwarte Piet...
Merry Christmas!!!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Such traditions also appear in Persian Christmas tales as well, even though the black face is tied to either an ancient Persian or Egyptian captured in battle:
quote: Hâjji Fîrûz or Hajji Piruz, is the traditional herald of Nowruz. He is a black-faced character clad in bright red clothes and a felt hat. While ushering in Nowruz, Hajji Firuz plays a tambourine and sings "Haji Firuz eh, sali ye ruz eh" (It is Haji Firuz time, It happens one day in a year). People of all ages gather around him and his troupe of musicians and listen to them play the drum, saz or kamancheh, and dance.
The Bini were neither Moorish nor Muslim. This is an instance of black Moor/blackamoor equating to 'negro.'
Remember parlance of the time designated tawny moors and blackamoors for lack of better descriptors for those whom Euros considered north, west, and central Africans.
Moor is a word that has had various meanings at various times in various contexts in Europe. Sometimes it simply meant the black African Muslim invaders of Spain and Southern Europe, any Muslim from North Africa or black Africans from North and West Africa in general. In the Shakespearean context it definitely was a description of the latter.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug M wrote: ------------------------------- black Africans from....<sentence snipped>....West Africa -------------------------------
A "black" African from "west" Africa?
People this is why you need to avoid the obsession with color that She-Male Jenkins aka Doug has.
I don't like using color as a descriptive, but in this case to illustrate a point I will.
Doug you say that there are "black" Africans in "west" Africa. Since you believe this, what other kinds of Africans are in "west" Africa? You must think there are more than one kind since you specifically qualified "black" Africans in a way that either seperates them from the other Africans or makes them outsiders in so called "west" Africa.
If you don't believe "black" Africans are outsiders or are a serperate group, then why didn't you just say Africans? Why did you have to add "black" as a qualifier?
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
The term blackaMoor was used for Europeans like haydn and Alexander de Medici who are both shown as dark brown in color in some early European portrayls. The word blackaMoor thus didn't necessarily anything but black as a Moor. Thus an early European of the midieval period quoted by J. A. Rogers wrote. Though the "men of Nubia be Christian, they be as the Moors for the great heat of the sun." The name black Moor would have been redundant as saying black Negro.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: A "black" African from "west" Africa?
People this is why you need to avoid the obsession with color that She-Male Jenkins aka Doug has.
I don't like using color as a descriptive, but in this case to illustrate a point I will.
Doug you say that there are "black" Africans in "west" Africa. Since you believe this, what other kinds of Africans are in "west" Africa? You must think there are more than one kind since you specifically qualified "black" Africans in a way that either seperates them from the other Africans or makes them outsiders in so called "west" Africa.
If you don't believe "black" Africans are outsiders or are a serperate group, then why didn't you just say Africans? Why did you have to add "black" as a qualifier?
Silly you and your asinine interjections. The term Moor itself is a reference to black Africans as outsiders in Europe. The point is that as Europeans expanded their interactions with various parts of Africa, they expanded the use of the term over time to refer to various peoples in various contexts including non Black Muslim Africans as well as African Muslims from farther South. This is another example of Europeans making up terms to apply to peoples that did not use such terms for themselves, but now those terms get applied as a pejorative reference to the people in question. The term is not intended as a perfectly accurate ethnic or cultural reference as it is purely a foreign label made up by people who knew nothing about these people. The word Moor is both a romantic and demonic icon in European literary and artistic history and therefore has to be seen as such. Therefore, black Moors like Othello are eponymous black Africans, not Muslims, not North Africans but any black African, whereas other "Moors" are references to specific historical figures and populations that may or may not have all been black.
Only you would ask a dumb question like that. Why don't you go ask why Europeans are called white? Does that mean there are Europeans who aren't white?
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
This blackface **** pisses me off no end. But it seems the Somalians in the Netherlands aren't taking this lying down. They've decided that if the good white folks are determined to attack their dignity then two can play that game.
I wouldn't give a **** if every pale facd cunt in the Netherlands wound up like this. And the women too!
If ever a group of bastards deserved to be beaten unmercifully, raped repeatedly and then kicked half to death these fuckers do. I wouldn't mind if somebody fed these cocksuckers into a woodchipper...FEET FIRST!
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
I saw a video about this on YouTube, and these turds actually tried to say that there was nothing racial about this sh*T. They said Pete's face was black because he slid down the chimney for Santa. That "revision" of the Zwarte Piet mythos only came about the last 90 years or so.
Damn, I wish these f8ckers would step foot outside the Netherlands. So we can kil-- er, let them know how displease we are with their "tradition" and have a few kind words over a nice cup of cappuccino.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
There is no proof of black moors. Obviously there were a few backs with the arab armies that invaded Europe but the key word is 'few.'
Sportsbilly, What are these people doing in the Netherlands in the first place? They need to go home and try to build their own country. The cultures are not going to mix in the end.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: There is no proof of black moors. Obviously there were a few blacks with the arab armies that invaded Europe but the key word is 'few.'
LMAO You speak of "no proof" when not only do we have this tid-bit thread here but numerous more significant threads on the topic that YOU yourself have been exposed to, more recently these two below:
Or perhaps you are again suffering from those lapses of memory, 'professor'...
You say that the Muslim armies that invaded Europe consisted of only a "few blacks" with the majority being Arab. Yet where did these invaders enter Europe from?? Why from Africa, specifically Northwest Africa in which they crossed the Gibralter Straits into Iberia. It's been explained to you ad-naseum that 'Arabs' proper as colonists in North Africa were the ones who were a minority with native (black) Africans being the majority. Unless of course you want to go your usual (ridiculous) route of indigenous North African 'cacasians'. If so, then again please explain the relevant info below regarding the Moors and their identity that I posed to you many times before:
quote:Sportsbilly, What are these people doing in the Netherlands in the first place? They need to go home and try to build their own country. The cultures are not going to mix in the end.
Judging from Sporsbilly's hatefilled comments, he obviously has some issues of his own with the native Dutch and other Europeans, but perhaps he and the African immigrants are merely reacting to zenophobic as well as racist hatred casually spouted out by individuals like yourself. I'm sure if these immigrants came from poverty stricken nations of say Eastern Europe, you wouldn't say the same thing would you professor. Why is that, I wonder?.. Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
To be honest, I have to express some doubt that the Moors were all black. If that was true, why'd they depict themselves like this?
It's from "Qissat Bayad wa Riyad".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Again, there seems to be a confusion between Moor and Saracen. The above is an example of Saracen art. Saracens were the non-black Muslims of North Africa and especially the 'Near East', they were contemporaries of the Moors.
Look up Hadith Bayad wa Riyad, and more importantly look up where that manuscript originated. Is it a manuscript from Africa or elsewhere?..
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Djehuti, you make some good points. I am not a person who believes that multiculturalism is a good thing, especially in Europe. The United States is a little different in that we have more of a melting pot tradition. Newcomers here eventually get sucked into something clase to the mainstream culture. Europe lacks that tradition. Multiculturalism will not work in many areas of the world. You are seeing the beinnings of a backlash in Europe. As long as there is reasonable prosperity things will probably be ok but a global economic dislocation could bring disaster for the European immigrants. I would not want to be an ethnic minority in Europe......ask the jews about that. Things can change rapidly in the world.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
About the skin color of Arabs
quote: White أبيض
One of these misunderstood terms is the term "white" ابيض . Most people think that when the Arabs of the past described a person's complexion as "white", they meant the same light complexion that is meant today. This isn't true at all. When the Arabs described a person as "white", they actually meant a dark complexion. Ibn Mandour, the well-known Arab linguist who was born in the 13th century AD and the author of the famous book on the Arabic language Lisan Al Arab, quotes from another famous book on the Arabic language called Al Tahdheeb the following:
"When the Arabs say that a person is white, they mean that he has a pure, clean, faultless integrity...They don't mean that he has white skin, but they mean to speak well of his honor and the purity of his integrity. When they say that a person has a white face, they mean that his complexion is free from blotches and a blackness that is unattractive"...
Ibn Mandour says that the expression The Red People applies to the non-Arabs because of their whiteness and because of the fact that most of them are fair-skinned.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Again, there seems to be a confusion between Moor and Saracen. The above is an example of Saracen art. Saracens were the non-black Muslims of North Africa and especially the 'Near East', they were contemporaries of the Moors.
You guys act like you are illiterate. You have been on E.S for how long and still make dumb comments like.."All the Moors were not black"...and then think of yourselves as scholars when this subject has been explained to hell and back.
First off the term Moor is just a blanket term to describe the various Muslim dynasties and armies that invaded and ruled over Al Andalucia. The word Moor however goes back to descrbe groups of West and North Africans that were obviously black.
The Moors that invaded in 711 were of different stock than the Moors that invaded with Abd Rahman and that Invaded with the Almohads and that invaded with the Almoravids....as were the Moors of the Tafia periods were of different ethnic stock....as well as the Moors of the Nasird rule in the Alhambra palace.
The Moors represent a wide range of people from native Muslims Iberians to North Africans to Egyptians, Arabs, Jews etc. that came to Al Andalucia from all over the Muslim world.
Where has anyone on E.S said the Moors were as a collective ALL BLACK. The point here is that quite a few....Hell MAJORITY of the Moors were Brown and Black Africans and that these were the Moors that left an impression on the Native European population.
I mean do you KNOW how many native Iberians converted to Islam and so became "Moors"....If you did why would you post that picture of obviously native Iberian Muslims that do not represent the Moors that invaded Iberia and created Al Andalucia. This would be an accurate representation of the Moors now add a couple of Native Iberians to the Mix and the whole picture changes.
American Patriot, Explain how the Arabs were involved in SO MANY of the Muslims Armies and ruling class...Explain how the the Almoravids were of Arab stock when the originated from around Senegal, West Africa...Explain how the Almohads were Arabs when they originated from the Atlas Mts. around Morrocco and Maritania where Majority of black Africans still live....
Explain the role of the "Black Guards" and the large Black Armies that Abd Rahman used to gain control of Al Andalucia...Explain why so many Moors of Andalucia came to live and settle in places like Ghana...are you saying no Ghanians did'nt convert to Islam and go to Andalucia to live...
You are a moron, Its hard to believe you are a professor...a person that claims to be intellectual...
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Again, there seems to be a confusion between Moor and Saracen. The above is an example of Saracen art. Saracens were the non-black Muslims of North Africa and especially the 'Near East', they were contemporaries of the Moors.
Snowden's writings may be noteworthy concerning his take on greek and greco-roman descriptions. What do you guys take of the color scheme attributed to Marcus Manilius (per Frank Snowden, "Egypt in Africa", 1996) claiming the 'Aethiopians' to be the most sun burnt, followed by Indians, then Egyptians, and THEN "moors", who were described as the lightest?
.......
^^Not sure about the "moors" being the lightest, depending on whatever collective entity he may have been referring to, but other than that it simply sounds to me that he's describing a natural cline of indigenous African variation. "Aethiopians" obviously referring to the darkest of the southern Sudanese. Snowden also references Philostratus as alluding to a gradient of color seen among inhabitants on the border of Egypt that's intermediate between Egyptians and "Aethiopians". Of course without the natural response of interpreting this as a subtle nuance in skin complexion he interprets it as a "mixture" of different races. All the while extrapolating his concept of "moor" to all those who fit within the lighter range on the color scheme.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Where can I get a primary "Moorish"-Iberian era European text that references non-mainland African groups as "Moors"?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
"Following certain sayings there are in the land of the Zendjs cold regions, in which white Zendjs live."
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^Not sure about the "moors" being the lightest, depending on whatever collective entity he may have been referring to, but other than that it simply sounds to me that he's describing a natural cline of indigenous African variation. "Aethiopians" obviously referring to the darkest of the southern Sudanese. Snowden also references Philostratus as alluding to a gradient of color seen among inhabitants on the border of Egypt that's intermediate between Egyptians and "Aethiopians". Of course without the natural response of interpreting this as a subtle nuance in skin complexion he interprets it as a "mixture" of different races. All the while extrapolating his concept of "moor" to all those who fit within the lighter range on the color scheme.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: To be honest, I have to express some doubt that the Moors were all black. If that was true, why'd they depict themselves like this?
It's from "Qissat Bayad wa Riyad".
This particular portrait is of a style that was quite common in the Islamic world from Persia into Central Asia and India. It is a result of strong Asian influence on the Islamic courts in Baghdad and Turkey. This is why it is hard to say whether or not it came from Islamic Spain.
The problem here is that the ACTUAL books with images from Islamic Spain do exist and they DO have blacks in them. However, most of these books are in private hands or are in rare collections and not often seen by the public.
The image itself is from a book called the Maqamat and illustrated by someone named Hariri:
quote: Al-Maqamat is the title of a book written by Abu Muhammad al Qasim ibn Ali al-Hariri (1054-1122) containing fifty relatively short stories (maquamat = "settings" or "sessions"), each one identified by the name of a city in the Muslim world of the time. The stories tell of actual adventures and especially the verbal pronouncements in verse or in prose of a roguish and peripatetic hero, Abu Zayd from Saruj, a town in northern Syria, as told by al-Harith, a sober and slightly gullible merchant travelling from place to place. Double and triple puns, unusual meanings of words and elaborate grammatical constructions are used to exhibit the astounding and sophisticated wealth of the Arabic language. The genre of the maqamat became an almost instant success because of the extraordinary quality of its writing. Dozens of manuscripts of Hariri's Maqamat have been preserved from his own time, including a probable autograph, and hundreds have remained from the thirteenth and later centuries. Nearly all of them were copied in the core areas of the Arabic-speaking world—Egypt, Syria, Iraq—where there lived and prospered the class of educated Arabs likely to enjoy reading this forbidding book and interested in acquiring, perhaps even in sponsoring, a luxury edition of a beloved work. Even though the text itself and the reasons for its success are hardly topics for illustrations, thirteen of these manuscripts are known to have been provided with images inspired by narrative episodes from individual stories. Of these, six are from the thirteenth century, five are from the fourteenth, one is probably from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and one is dated in the early eighteenth, even though one of its miniatures appears to be much earlier. Of all the manuscripts with pictures containing al-Hariri's great work, Paris BN ms. arabe 5847 towers above all others for the quality and variety of its illustrations. It was completed in C.E. 1237 (A.H. 634, in the month of ramadan) and, according to its colophon, was copied and illustrated by the same individual, Yahya ibn Mahmud ibn Yahya ibn Abi al-Hasan ibn Kuwwarih al-Wasiti, presumably originating from the city of al-Wasit. The manuscript survives with 99 miniatures. From the time they were first made known, in large surveys of the late nineteenth century, the miniatures from this manuscript were praised for their realism in depicting life.
No, all Moors were not black because later in time the term loosened up and referred to various Muslims.
Thus we have: * black-a-moor * tawny moor * white moor. But take note from Black-a-Moor (black as a Moor) that Moor must've originally designated a black person.
While there are plenty a black-a-moor in Orientalist art I haven't seen too many pieces of actual Islamic art with any blacks in them. The stuff I've run across is mostly like the below but I'm sure somebody can find better pieces than this.
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: To be honest, I have to express some doubt that the Moors were all black. If that was true, why'd they depict themselves like this?
It's from "Qissat Bayad wa Riyad".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ah, I see the ImageMaster was working on it even as I was composing a response to T. Rex's query.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Isn't it an Andalusian (i.e. Moorish 'Spain') work?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Look up Hadith Bayad wa Riyad, and more importantly look up where that manuscript originated. Is it a manuscript from Africa or elsewhere?..
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Yes it is. I actually made a mistake earlier. But nevertheless there are other illuminated manuscripts (or fragments of such) from Moorish Spain, but they are definitely in collections that are not readily available to the public. Most of the reason for the lack of such manuscripts is because of the book burning campaigns of the Spanish Christians. However, many of these books were also kept in private collections secretly both for translations to Spanish and as treasure.
However, the manuscript is still the product of strong influence from the East:
quote: The purpose of this work is to account for the subject matter of the Hadith Bayad manuscript in the Vatican Library (Arab. 368) . Special attention will be paid to the elements that were borrowed from the Mesopotamian school as well as the indigenous and local character of the manuscript.
There are doubts about the date and place of origin of this manuscript. Most scholars, however, agree that it is hispano-moresque . Richard Ettinghausen also supports the idea of its Spanish source owing to the sophistication of the miniatures. The manuscript was classified as Almohad in the exhibition “al Andalus” that was held in Granada and Washington in 1992. This assertion is based on the similarity of the script, both in layout and colour, with two manuscripts from al-Andalus , however none of them are illustrated. Oleg Grabar and Richard Ettinghausen attribute it with a Spanish origin because of the style of the architecture that is depicted in the miniatures.
There are also different opinions regarding the date of the manuscript. The Italian scholars Levi della Vida and Ugo Monneret de Villard date it from the fourteenth century, but more recent studies carried out by O.Grabar and R. Ettinghausen put its date at 1200; the same as the classification in al- Andalus, from the early thirteenth century.
The manuscript is extensively illustrated; fourteen of its miniatures have survived. In spite of having the beginning and end missing, not much of the story seems to be lost. For the present study eight illustrations have been available.
According to Ugo Monneret de Villard the manuscript probably arrived with other Arab manuscripts at the Vatican Library after 1535, as a consequence of the sacking of Tunis in 1535. An unfortunate restoration at the end of the seventeenth century damaged even more of the illustrations, for example the illustration in folio twenty nine reverse was completely covered with an inferior metal. The current threat to the illustrations however, is humidity.
THE STORY
No other copies of the manuscript have been found, although the title The Account of Bayad and Riyad occurs in an Istanbul manuscript containing stories on the order of the Arabian Nights.
The narrative takes place in Northern Mesopotamia. The hero, Bayad, is a young merchant who falls in love with a handmaiden of a noble lady, who is the daughter of a chamberlain named Riyad. There are many complications in the story because the chamberlain is also interested in Riyad. There is also the figure of a go-between who became adviser to Bayad. She plays an important role in the development and action of the story, exchanging messages, letters, arranging dates and so on. All this is the standard paraphernalia of courtly love.
Owing to the inaccessibility of other relevant documentary material about the story, the only sources to study the relationship between the text and the illustrations are the information available in al-Andalus and the translation of the paragraphs which accompany the illustrations.
Folio 10r. The go-between arranges for the two lovers to meet at a majlis ghima’ (get together) organized by the Lady of the palace, the daughter of al-Hajib; the lovers sing and play the lute, declaring their passion.
Folio 14r This upsets the Lady of the Palace who is apprehensive between the lovers that her father will find out about Bayad and Riyad. She orders that Riyad be kept in a separate house, where she is left alone to cry and pine. The name of Riyad is mentioned in the text twice. Two courtiers talk about the fate of the couple. Riyad listens with great attention. The rabbit, as a symbol of longevity, might anticipate the happy end of the story. In spite of the separation love will remain.
Folio 15r. The old lady reprimands the love sick Bayad
Folio 17r. Letters are exchanged
Folio 19r. Meanwhile, Bayad is seen wandering, talking to himself, and fainting. The text refers to the river Nahar al-Therthar whose water irrigates many orchards included the one in which the scene is set.
Folio 26v. The old woman arranges a reconciliation between Riyad and the Lady of the Palace who finally decides to bring Bayad and Riyad together, whatever the consequences. The text describes the way Riyad embellishes herself, she combs her hair, and wears her finest garments for her meeting with the lady of the palace. In the text the words ‘good news’ are also mentioned.
The story has a happy ending in which Bayad and Riyad can see each other again thanks to the tricks of the old woman. The illustrations are a fairly accurate representation of the text.
An open question is how popular the favorite Iraqi texts were in Spain (ej. The Maqamat, Kalila wa Dimma, the Dioscorides or the Automata). Since this manuscript is the only reproduction of the text that has survived, there is not enough evidence to tell whether the al-Andalus manuscript had copied other manuscripts from the east, or the artistic influences arrived in al-Andalus by other means such as pottery or textiles. This could also explain the depiction of Samarra figure types while the rest of the features belong to the Baghdad school of painting.
THE ILLUSTRATIONS
The illustrations will be analysed according to two different approaches; firstly the pictorical elements that have their origin in Mesopotamia, in the Samarra school of painting and the Baghdad school of painting. Secondly, the regional and local features in the illustrations.
2.1 Mesopotamian features in the manuscript
Ugo Monneret de Villard points out the similarities of the manuscript with Seljuq art in contrast with al-Gazirah art from Mawsil. An important difference in technique is the use of plain coloured paper for the background in the school of Baghdad, whereas in Gazirah art the background is painted in pale pink and occasionally blue. Our manuscript has plain colour in the background, the same as other manuscripts from the same period in the Baghdad school, eg. the Maqâmât of al-Harîrî in the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris
The treatment of space is the same as in the Baghdad school. The figures are depicted in one plane. They stand on the ground which is outlined by a green line of grass The same green line is outlined at the bottom of the folio in both Maqamat Hariri from the Biblioteque National and the Hariri in the Oriental Institute Academy of Science Leningrad. In the second manuscript the depiction of grass is more akin to the example we are analysing. The grass is formed with vertical lines and it appears even in the desert scenes. This indicates that it was a convention for the ground.
There is a lack of perspective, although some devices have been added to create depth; when there is a group, the figures overlap in order to create different planes. This can be illustrated with the following examples:
In folio 26v there are three false planes; the woman in the first plane stands on the grass, the woman who is kneeling on an architectural frame with one of her arms sunken into the grass in the second, and the tree behind her in the third.
In folio 19r, there are again different planes ; the water wheel in the first plane, and the figure of Biyad lying on the ground forming the second. The ‘scorzo’ of his hand and the lace from the turban create a spatial feeling
In folio fourteen reverse there is an attempt to create perspective. There are two planes depicted in this illustration, the upper part of the architecture, and the lower part where the stairs and the water basin are. Ugo Monneret de Villard thinks that this illustration is the only experiment to create a feeling of perspective with architecture in two planes. The position of the hands of the figures on the right below the arcade also contribute to creating a feeling of space. As in the Maqâmât, architectural features are used to set the scene (indoors, outdoors and the garden)
U.Monneret studies the way that the inside of buildings are represented; he concludes that the painter has taken the end elevations of buildings and turned them on their axes until they became one plane with their front elevations on the folio. The interior therefore is shown in orthogonal projection . This is the same convention for interior spaces as has been used by the Mesopotamian artists.
The figures are arranged in the same plane in most illustrations; accordingly isocephalic figures are especially remarkable when a large group is depicted; folio 10 r (Monneret de Villard), folio 10r.(R. Ettinghausen, 1977, p. 129). This has been classified by R. Ettinghausen as part of the Perso-Iraqi tradition.
where I give his order of the white world (ranked from the lightest to the darkest) and his order of the black world (ranked from the darkest to the lightest).
To show continuity in how Graeco-Romans divided their whites and blacks I also posted Aeschylus from his Suppliant Maidens where he uses the increduluos king of the Argives to list the blacks (what was hard for the king was realizing Argos was founded by blacks because by his time the Argives were a white people).
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Snowden's writings may be noteworthy concerning his take on greek and greco-roman descriptions. What do you guys take of the color scheme attributed to Marcus Manilius (per Frank Snowden, "Egypt in Africa", 1996) claiming the 'Aethiopians' to be the most sun burnt, followed by Indians, then Egyptians, and THEN "moors", who were described as the lightest?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: No, all Moors were not black because later in time the term loosened up and referred to various Muslims.
Thus we have: * black-a-moor * tawny moor * white moor. But take note from Black-a-Moor (black as a Moor) that Moor must've originally designated a black person.
While there are plenty a black-a-moor in Orientalist art I haven't seen too many pieces of actual Islamic art with any blacks in them. The stuff I've run across is mostly like the below but I'm sure somebody can find better pieces than this.
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: To be honest, I have to express some doubt that the Moors were all black. If that was true, why'd they depict themselves like this?
It's from "Qissat Bayad wa Riyad".
Also it is important to note that the time period given for the creation of this document is during the Almoravid Dynasty. Therefore, such a manuscript, with its influence and similarity to eastern artistic trends and literary traditions, probably does not really depict "Moors" or more specifically Almoravids to any large degree. It was under the Almoravids that a large resurgence in literature and art occurred in Andalus, of which this document is quite likely part.
You cannot use art images to establish historical fact. Even a highly trained specialist would have a difficult time doing that. None of these images is legitimate evidence to deal with the question being debated.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes Polly Parrot, you're absolutely right!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You cannot use art images to establish historical fact. Even a highly trained specialist would have a difficult time doing that. None of these images is legitimate evidence to deal with the question being debated.
Yes scientists can and do use art to help determine historical fact all the time. While art alone cannot provide all the information needed to determine historical truth, it is an important source of evidence. Considering that most of these artistic images were done by Europeans who were documenting what they saw in North Africa, I would say that they are an important source of information about North Africa, but of course they do not give you everything. Such images have to be combined with other evidence in order to do that. But of course your whining has nothing to do with any concern for accuracy, you just can't stand the idea that blacks had anything to do with civilization or bringing civilization to Europe. While such images are not enough to give you a complete understanding of who the Moors were in Medieval Spain, they are quite enough to cease the stupid nonsense about blacks not being part of the history of North Africa as anything other than slaves.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Boy we have some real scholars here. Blacks have zero role in the development of Europe Doug.....not a scrap. You are a racist bigot with zero academic ability who lives his entire life dedicated to promoting racist propaganda.
You want to tell us that the poorest, most backward section of the world is a pimary driver in the development of western civilization. To do this you will lie, distort, and warp facts while you insult hard working historians around the world.
The only thing worse than ignorance is ignorance combinde with arrogance.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^All you do is complain. What's your purpose? You should take your vitriolic nonsense to a political forum or something; your agenda is not compatible with what folks do around here. We deal with facts and evidence, not racialist rants and constant whining.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: For my use of Manilius see
where I give his order of the white world (ranked from the lightest to the darkest) and his order of the black world (ranked from the darkest to the lightest).
To show continuity in how Graeco-Romans divided their whites and blacks I also posted Aeschylus from his Suppliant Maidens where he uses the increduluos king of the Argives to list the blacks (what was hard for the king was realizing Argos was founded by blacks because by his time the Argives were a white people).
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Snowden's writings may be noteworthy concerning his take on greek and greco-roman descriptions. What do you guys take of the color scheme attributed to Marcus Manilius (per Frank Snowden, "Egypt in Africa", 1996) claiming the 'Aethiopians' to be the most sun burnt, followed by Indians, then Egyptians, and THEN "moors", who were described as the lightest?
Excellent cite. Thanx..
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Begrimed and Black By Robert Earl Hood
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Sundjata, Facts and evidence are in very short supply around here. That is especially true with people like Doug who think it is perfectly fine to adjust and reorder history to fit their racist notions. If you get a degree in history, and I strongly urge anyone to do so, you have to take a class called historiography. This class deals with the study of history as a discpline. In this class you will learn how to handle historical data and you will examine how historians have handled method in the past. You will be taught that you cannot use ancient art work to draw historical conclusions. Nor can you, as Diop did, create a construct without drawing into consideration the specialists in the field he is writing about. there are serious methods that keep us from making terrible mistakes. Sadly, these little racist constructs distort reality for young and unformed minds.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The problem for you is that all you do is whine but produce nothing of substance. What I post is based on facts and evidence. You have produced nothing to contradict what is being said or what has been said in other threads about the FACT of black Africans being part of the Islamic empire in Europe and being an important factor in the development of civilization there. And you speak of historiography, yet you yourself are a hypocrite, because it is YOU who is talking historiography:
quote: You want to tell us that the poorest, most backward section of the world is a pimary driver in the development of western civilization. To do this you will lie, distort, and warp facts while you insult hard working historians around the world.
Which makes me laugh. Since when was "Western" civilization an ANCIENT primary source of civilization in the world? "Western" civilization is a recent occurrence that has nothing to do with the roots of civilization. The roots of civilization lay with the roots of human beings and those roots are in Africa. None of those roots originate in Europe and Europe is one of the last places inhabited by modern humans and has never been a primary cradle of civilization.
So, history 101: where are the cradles of civilization and is Europe one of them?
No.
Is there a cradle of civilization in Africa?
Yes.
Therefore, you flunk Mr. Professor.
What does a cradle of civilization mean Mr. Professor?
It means a place where the fundamental patterns of thought, social organization and technological development were originated for the first time, providing the basis for all others that followed.
Therefore, considering that Africa IS a cradle of civilization, you are therefore shown to clearly be violating your own rules about historiography and therefore need to take your own medicine and take a course on it. "Western" civilization as taught in most "Western" classrooms is nothing but historiography.
Why you ask?
Because most of what the "West" has to day is directly the result of ideas and technologies stolen from other people conquered by Europeans in the last 500 years and influences from Africa and Asia for thousands of years before that. Yet because of the histrionics of most "Western" historians (like you), this fact is downplayed and the idea propagated that the "West" is special because it developed all on its own with no input and influence from anywhere else.
And as a perfect example of this "Western" mythology, lets look at something which is claimed as the epitome of the Western experience: The Cowboy. Not only do cowboys NOT originate with the Anglo Saxon settlers of North America, most of the cultural elements that go along with it do not as well. Cowboys are a direct influence of Africans and Asians on Europe, more specifically Spain and Portugal, which was transmitted to the Americas through conquest.
As a matter of fact, you can even see the African/Asian influence in the Saber worn by George Washington crossing the Delaware.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Boy we have some real scholars here. Blacks have zero role in the development of Europe Doug.....not a scrap. You are a racist bigot with zero academic ability who lives his entire life dedicated to promoting racist propaganda.
You want to tell us that the poorest, most backward section of the world is a pimary driver in the development of western civilization. To do this you will lie, distort, and warp facts while you insult hard working historians around the world.
Indeed. What were them south Europeans thinking when placing pictures of the heads of worthless "Moorish" figures, from the most backward section of the world, on their flags and even going as far as imprinting them on coins? Couldn't they have been more creative and come up with adversaries more worthy of mentioning...like say, the "non-black Near Easterners" who ruled them?
^Look at that; just pathetic!
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, My argument is with your methods. Secondly, Europe is a SPECIFIC civilization and that is the one being examined here. If you want to know about Spanish history contact a Spanish historian and ask some damn questions. Spain is full of first rate Spaqnish historians who would be glad to answer your questions. My guess is that if their answers did not fit your preconcieved view you would simply discredit the historian. Back to the original problem. You do not have the skill to correctly deal with ancient art work. It takes a highly trained specialist to deal with those kinds of questions. Hell, we have people on this board who post modern pictures to try to make an ancient ethnic point. You guys are capable of learning and can do better.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ I see a lot of people taking time to post SUPPORTING information to re-enforce their positions. All I have yet seen from Hammer is lip service.
Hammer, you say these guys are not capable of learning. From your lack of presentation of documentation, I'd have to say you are even worst at teaching.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Mr. Patriot the only one who needs to ask questions and stop ignoring facts that they don't like is you. There are tons of Spanish historians that talk about the Moorish period of their history and they are happy to tell you how the Africans and Asians of the Islamic period helped their civilization develop into what it is today. So it seems to me that you need to consult some Spanish historians and ask them questions.
In fact, you need to ask them to contradict what I said about the African and Asian influence on their history and the fact the cowboy tradition is something that they got from the Islamic invaders.
Again, take your own advice, because all this protesting and no research means that for someone who professes to know it all, you know little and are not interested in learning anything outside your little thimble of knowledge.
On top of that, why don't you consult some African scholars from North and West Africa who would also be happy to tell you some of their own history as opposed to you and your fibbing. The fact that some Europeans feel that they are the only ones who should be seen as the authority on other people's history is a clear example of histrionics.
Again, no scholar denies the African and Asian influence on European horsemanship (including the horses themselves) or on the tradition of the cowboy. So why doth thou protest if thou hath nothing to counter that position? Sounds like to me you are just whining again.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
quote:Sportsbilly, What are these people doing in the Netherlands in the first place? They need to go home. [/QB]
What are they doing there? The same thing the white did when they invaded Africa: raping, robbing, killing and imposing their religion on people by force. When somebody forces the whites off "their" land, makes the people into slaves and those remaining into fouth-class citizens with no rights, when the children are brutalized, the women raped as a matter of course and the men killed merely for sport, the Somalians have had the chance to tell the world what backwards primitives the people of the Netherlands are, have exploited the resources and made ZERO payments for it, undermined the society and deranged the political structure, THEN you can come bitching to me about it.
Though I won't listen to a word your dumbass has to say until these conditions have been going on for at LEAST 400 years.
And if you really want to know why they don't go home I could ask the same question about why the Dutch are still in South Africa, the British are in Kenya/Zimbabwe, the germans are in Namibia, the Spanish are still in Sierra Leone, the French in the Congo, as well as the arabs in the north.
Please try not opening your big "stoopid" yap when you don't have a leg to stand on. You just might find out you're on the wrong side of the issue.
BTW, Payback's a BITCH and so is the blonde whore in the picture Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, spanish historians are not going to agree with the line you promote. Nobody ever said that european civilization was not influenced by outside forces. No one group of people live in a bubble. The question then becomes how much were they influenced, when and by whom. My contention is that you folks go too far. You also know that I am not alone in that view. The problem is that when you over reach you lose credibility. Afrocentrism is under pressure right now at many academic institutions. They are under pressure because they very often over reach. If you are going to get out on the very edge of scholarship you need to pay more attention to methods, that is all I am saying. If every single person in Japan 1000 years ago was really black none of us would have a problem with it.
Sportsbilly, I do not disagree with you on that point, you do not see me living in Africa. They are going to turn on you in Europe and you'll have only yourself to blame. You have no business living there in my view.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Mr Patriot please cite what it is specifically you disagree with and provide sources to back it up. All you do is whine and complain but never provide specifics. What about what is being said constitutes "going too far"? And what specifically do Spanish historians not agree with? You haven't said anything and all your posts amount to nothing but whining and no substance. This isn't an academic institution, it is a public forum so don't resort to tired old straw men to avoid your obligation to cite specific scholars and specific points that refute what has been said, which you have yet to do.
That is what makes your whole position of whining in support of a European oriented historical framework so tiring. It is absolutely nonsense and you know it. Simply put, the fact is that Africa is a cradle of not only humanity but also civilization while Europe is not. That isn't going to far. That is simply a fact.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Spanish historians are not going to agree that the Muslim conquest of Spain was a black African driven event. Nobody is saying that black africans had no part to play in the ancient world. The Med basin was not populated by black Africans in ancient times, or modern times for that matter. With some exceptions black africans were and are primarily south of the desert.
Some of the stuff posted here is so diffuse you could not reply to it in any sensible manner if you wanted to. An example is trying to build an entire history around a gene marker from 10,000 years ago and tie that into the modern history of Europe. I could care less how many black people lived in North Africa 2000 years ago. If every single oine of them were black it would not change history nor would it do a single thing for a modern black person living today. What I suggest is more mature examination of information.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Now getting back to the topic...
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You cannot use art images to establish historical fact. Even a highly trained specialist would have a difficult time doing that. None of these images is legitimate evidence to deal with the question being debated.
So, you're saying artistic depictions made of an entire people which served as potraits until the invention of photography can't be valid??! And this coming from the same person who tried to prove that the Egyptians weren't black based on a few sculptures whose paint was either partially or entirely worn off.
quote:Boy we have some real scholars here. Blacks have zero role in the development of Europe Doug.....not a scrap. You are a racist bigot with zero academic ability who lives his entire life dedicated to promoting racist propaganda.
LMAO You call Doug a racist bigot even though he has not even said anything racist or even the slightest thing negative about any racial or ethnic group, while YOU continuouly spout insulting and disparaging lies about blacks and their history.
quote:You want to tell us that the poorest, most backward section of the world is a pimary driver in the development of western civilization. To do this you will lie, distort, and warp facts while you insult hard working historians around the world.
Again as was told you a million times, Africa was the wealthiest continent before European colonialist parasites drained her of its wealth and economic power. You are the only one who continues to lie and distort even when you are literally faced with the many facts that we present to you everyday including artistic depictions of black Moors by Europeans!
quote:The only thing worse than ignorance is ignorance combinde with arrogance.
Indeed! Yet this perfectly describes YOURSELF and other pathetic white males whose sole 'racial' and ethnic pride is based on LIES.
Professor, you keep complaining about facts and scholarly consensus, well the below is well established scholarly and historical facts.
Again, I say the above is not some 'afrocentric' wishful ficton but established historical FACT. But I doubt you even have the gall to click on the links above, and if so you are still too delusioned to believe them.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Spanish historians are not going to agree that the Muslim conquest of Spain was a black African driven event.
Nobody said that. Stop making stuff up.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Nobody is saying that black africans had no part to play in the ancient world. The Med basin was not populated by black Africans in ancient times, or modern times for that matter.
Which is a lie and shows that you are saying that black Africans had no role to play in the civilizing of Europe in the Islamic period. Yet and still you have yet to refute any of the evidence posted thus far in any way. And your statements about black Africans not being in the Sahara is a sign of your ignorance considering the ample scientific evidence of black Africans in and North of the Sahara both in ancient times and today. All of which points to the fundamental truth of your position not being based on any sort of serious analysis of facts or evidence as opposed to blind faith in an idea that you simply refuse to give up, which is normally referred to as histrionics or dogma. Suffice to say you don't care about facts especially those facts can't refute. So keep talking about those scholars who disagree with what has been said without actually citing any references or evidence.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: With some exceptions black africans were and are primarily south of the desert.
Which is backed up by what proof and evidence? You claim people are going "too far" for providing facts and evidence, but what have you offered except whining and complaining? People provide you the facts to demolish the nonsense you speak with nothing to back it up and then we have to listen to you groan and moan about people "going too far". Actually, what you are really saying is that people should accept the nonsense histrionics passed off as history by some Europeans as fact with no argument. Therefore, actually proving such histrionics to be a pack of lies is "going too far" because it is all a lie to begin with that you simply want people to accept with no question.
Sorry. I don't believe in bullsh*t.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Some of the stuff posted here is so diffuse you could not reply to it in any sensible manner if you wanted to. An example is trying to build an entire history around a gene marker from 10,000 years ago and tie that into the modern history of Europe. I could care less how many black people lived in North Africa 2000 years ago. If every single oine of them were black it would not change history nor would it do a single thing for a modern black person living today. What I suggest is more mature examination of information.
There is nothing diffuse about this simple fact which you have not refuted: Africa is a cradle of humanity and civilization.
Europe is not.
The first modern humans were born in Africa and were black. These black people migrated out of Africa and settled the entire planet. It is from these aboriginal blacks that all humans get their features from.
There is nothing diffuse about it.
Please cite scholars who say otherwise.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, Africa is NOT the cradle of European civiliZation, Greece is. There you go again, back into the mists of history to make a meaningless point. My answer is, and the correct answer is....so what. That the human race began in Africa, if that is the case, has nothing to do with European civilization. This is what I mean by "going too far."
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Well since you flunked history 101 of course you cannot see the obvious. If Europe is not a cradle of civilization it cannot develop civilization separate from the influences of those who did, especially those who were very close and whom they interacted with. European civilization is the result of the influence of those cultures from which civilization did originate. Greece is not a cradle of civilization and is the result of influences from Asia and Africa. And this pattern of influence of influence on European cultures has been continuous from ancient times to the modern day. European histrionics is based on the denial of this fact, which includes the myth of Greece as a primary source of civilization for Europe when European civilization is the result of Asian influences from central Asia and Turkey, Levantine influences from the Levant and Mesopotamia along with African influences, this includes farming, cooking, writing, mathematics, horse riding, animal husbandry, warfare, government, speech, language, writing, religion, entertainment, art and everything else. None of this originated in Greece, so it doesn't matter if Greece is the first European "civilization", it is still a late comer to the game and only a rehashing of patterns in civilization and culture that were already old before they got there.
Here are some Africans from the extreme North of Africa, Riffian Berbers:
The point is that southern Europeans (Greece, Rome etc..) would have never arose without influence originally from Africa, and the so called near East, why do you think southern Europe advanced as opposed to northern Europe?
Take note;
quote:Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
quote: Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern European Breeds (H2).
However, even if 63 and 11 different T1 haplotypes are observed in Africa and Europe, respectively, only two of them are present in both regions. In addition, (i) T1 haplotypes can be found well beyond the area of maximum Moorish expansion, (ii) recent introductions of exotic cattle are usually male mediated (not affecting mtDNA) (34), and (iii) one T1 haplotype has been recently observed in a sample of 16 Bronze Age cattle remains from Spain.
So, the hypothesis of a recent and geographically restricted introduction of African cattle does not seem sufficient to explain the T1 distribution in Europe. On the contrary, DNA data are compatible with earlier gene flow into several Mediterranean regions. There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.
Conclusions
The modern and ancient mtDNA sequences we present here do not support the currently accepted hypothesis of a single Neolithic origin in the Near East. The processes of livestock domestication and diffusion were certainly more complex than previously suggested, and our data provide some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the origin of European cattle is multiple. Breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced in Europe during the Neolithic diffusion probably intermixed, at least in some regions, with local wild animals and with African cattle introduced by maritime routes.
1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.).
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You are as crazy as a loon mindover. Africa had nothing, actually less than nothing, with the development of European civilization. This is where you people go right over the cliff.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
So again Doug, You are trying to make a historical point from 1000 years ago by showing me a modern photograph? You should be banned from ever holding a history book in your hands.
Either learn how to do this stuff or get a day job, you are not that stupid.
Can you imagine what would happen if you walked into an ancient history seminar and your proof was MODERN PHOTOGRAPHS !!!!!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You are as crazy as a loon mindover. Africa had nothing, actually less than nothing, with the development of European civilization. This is where you people go right over the cliff.
It's fairly obvious with your cheap illogical one liner denials, no logical human being (especially since you call yourself a history teacher ) in their right mind would over look this established genetic, and archaeological evidence by actual scientists in the field...
You have some nerve, but no credibility to call these scholars liars, when you have no counter evidence other than mere one liner denials in the face of actual hard evidence.
quote:Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
LOL! Faced with undeniable evidence Mr Patriot reveals his true colors as a racist knee jerk intellectual light weight.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
American patsy you provide clear example of an ad hominem argument.
quote:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mindover, You leave me no room to make an argument because you gave me no evidence to refute. First you trot out some ancient genetic markers that you cannot tie to a single historical event that has anything to do with Greece or southern Europe. Secondly, if I found some way to give credit of some kind to your data you cannot tie it to a single historical event in European history or the history of any place else. The people you speak of may not even have been black africans by the time you speak of, you cannot even prove that for Christ's sake.
Doug, It is interesting that you call me a light weight. I would never use modern photos to prove a point from 1000 years ago. Who does that make the light weight?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mindover, You leave me no room to make an argument because you gave me no evidence to refute. First you trot out some ancient genetic markers that you cannot tie to a single historical event that has anything to do with Greece or southern Europe.
The genetic fact that African cattle were in southern Europe from Neolithic times and still show prevalent genetic frequencies in these said areas is nothing?
Btw, this is just one piece of evidence, whereas there is a lot more where it comes from.
quote: Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern European Breeds (H2).
T1 sequences are relatively common (with frequencies ranging from 5% to 30%) in different breeds from Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece. The presence of T1 mainly along the Mediterranean shores of Europe (near Africa), but not in central and northern Europe, is suggestive of the occasional introduction of cattle by boat from North Africa into southern Europe and is difficult to reconcile with any gene flow process unrelated with the sea.
However, even if 63 and 11 different T1 haplotypes are observed in Africa and Europe, respectively, only two of them are present in both regions. In addition, (i) T1 haplotypes can be found well beyond the area of maximum Moorish expansion, (ii) recent introductions of exotic cattle are usually male mediated (not affecting mtDNA) (34), and (iii) one T1 haplotype has been recently observed in a sample of 16 Bronze Age cattle remains from Spain.
So, the hypothesis of a recent and geographically restricted introduction of African cattle does not seem sufficient to explain the T1 distribution in Europe. On the contrary, DNA data are compatible with earlier gene flow into several Mediterranean regions. There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.
Conclusions
The modern and ancient mtDNA sequences we present here do not support the currently accepted hypothesis of a single Neolithic origin in the Near East. The processes of livestock domestication and diffusion were certainly more complex than previously suggested, and our data provide some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the origin of European cattle is multiple. Breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced in Europe during the Neolithic diffusion probably intermixed, at least in some regions, with local wild animals and with African cattle introduced by maritime routes.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The people you speak of may not even have been black africans by the time you speak of, you cannot even prove that for Christ's sake.
Proven a million times over....
E-M78* migrated from Africa into the middle east (maybe Europe), where it mutated into a sub-clade E-V13.
One cannot be certain about the morphology of the folks, among whom the mutation occurred. What is certain, is that there were clear sub-Saharan affinities among the Neolithic populations of the "Near Easterners" who spread the Neolithic culture into Europe. Sub-Saharan affinities were also found in the Balkans, **from where the alpha derivatives appear to have spread elsewhere westward**
quote: "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
quote:"a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation [E3b] expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant" (Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; see also Bosch et al., 2001; Bar-Yosef, 1987) [Keita, 2005, p. 562]
The M35/M215 sub-clade cluster of haplotypes fragments a lineage (Ht 4) described previously (Hammer et al. 1997). We suggest that a population with this sub-clade of the African YAP/M145/M203/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene...These lineages would have been introduced then from the Middle East into southern Europe (and to a lesser extent northern India and Pakistan) by farmers during the Neolithic expansion. [Underhill et al., 2001, p. 51]
A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3).
Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.
It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.
Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.
It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.
Do you suffer from mental retardation?
These mentioned places (Greece, Spain etc..) in southern Europe were first, and only places in Europe to receive contact from Africans, and so called near Easterners, and these genetic markers from Africa are still found in these southern European populations to this day ever since they were introduced over 6000 years ago.
Along with the cattle genetic sequences, and you have the audacity to say Africans had nothing to do with the development of said areas?
You are completely deluded!
It's really no wonder that civilization arises outside of Europe, and then places in south Europe where influence from non Europeans occurred, in turn is the only place where civilization arose in ancient Europe.
You must be very slow, or just plain and simply intentionally ignorant.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.
Wrong. What I am saying is that civilization arose outside of Europe, in Africa, and the so called near east.
Europeans then received influxes of migrations from Africa and the near east, which is evident in the modern European gene pool, as well as confirmed through ancient remains.
Like I said, it's no wonder that the only places in Europe (southern Europe) which received outside influence is the only part in ancient Europe to advance; no?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
nonsense. First of all you do not know that the Greeks came into contact with africans. The very best you can do is to say that they came into contact with people with an african genetic marker. You present no evidence that any Greek scholar believes. This is what I mean by over reaching. The desire to simply make up history simply cannot be resisted.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Lmao @ Mary trying to recover from her latest slip up exposing her latent Eurocentrism, this time on the Saracens. You can add this to your cowardly dismissal of Professor James and your Egyptian/Nubian dichotomy kid. I'll just sit back and wait for you to **** up again.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: nonsense. First of all you do not know that the Greeks came into contact with africans.
Seriously, do you suffer from some kind of mental retardation?
Africans were in Europe before Greece arose.
quote: "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.).
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
In terms of your last post.
1. The Souix analogy is exactly what you are saying
2. You cannot prove Europeans recieved migrations from africa and you certanily cannot prove that they recieved the basis of their culture from Africa.
3. Africa was no more advanced during the neolithic period than northern Europe so that point makes no sense. Further you have failed to connect in any way ANY african civilization to the development of what we call western civilization.
4. You need to drop the genetic marker argument, it takes you nowhere. Classical Greek scholars reject every argument you have made.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You cannot prove Europeans recieved migrations from africa
The genetic fact that southern Europeans carry an African genetic marker at high frequencies, of which these African lineages are also found in ancient European remains, anthropological evidence identifies clear sub Saharan affinities amongst early farmers in Europe.
African cattle genetic sequences found in ancient Europe and still prevalent to this day is irrelevant to you?
You do indeed suffer from mental retardation, I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
quote: Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe.
Battaglia et al.
“The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians) , previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile, gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been. Correlations between human-occupation sites and radiocarbon-dated climatic fluctuations in the eastern Sahara and Nile Valley during the Holocene provide a framework for interpreting the main southeast European centric distribution of E-V13. A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards. Hg E-M78* representatives, although rare overall, still occur in Egypt, which is a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated their regionally distinctive branches.”
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The marker does not prove that. They could carry that marker and be as white as a sheet. Historians reject your data. I challenge you to find me a single classical historian who supports your view, just one.
Are you telling me that a cow establishes the fact that Africans created western civilization. This gets wilder all the time.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.
It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.
Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.
THe only nut here is you as there is no such thing as Western civilization.
Western has nothing to do with the origin of and development of civilization as it developed and was advanced thousands of years before a Greece existed. Therefore, Greece is not a defining moment in civilization. Greece became a power in about 800 B.C., which is 2 to 3 thousand years after all the patterns and fundamental elements of civilization were developed and perfected in Africa and Asia. Both Greece and Rome were heavily influenced by Persia and Babylon as well as Africa. Therefore, civilization does not come from Greece and the development of civilization there and a thousand years later in Europe does not mark the beginning of or a special moment in the development of civilization as it was already thousands of years old every where else.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: The marker does not prove that.
The marker simply proves Africans have been in Europe for over 6000 years.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: Are you telling me that a cow establishes the fact that Africans created western civilization. This gets wilder all the time.
Nope, but it establishes that Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago, and influenced said areas, and both African cattle and human genetic markers are still found in high frequencies in these southern European populations in this present day.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: They could carry that marker and be as white as a sheet.
Well, the genetic mutation for pale skin arose after Africans migrated into said European areas, so they could not have been white as a sheet, sorry, but you can take that sheet from your head.
quote: Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe," molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.
Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years --a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
1.. The Cow does not prove that. You cannot say how the cow got there, who brought it or how many. This is weak scholarship.
2. The marker does not prove Africans were there. It proves people with an african genetic marker were there, not the same thing.
3.None of what you say has anything to do with western civilization.
4. classical historians?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Listen dunce, you wouldn't know what scholarship was from a hole in the wall.
African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
Archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago.
The only places in Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe that received influence and still show this influence genetically to this day. Plain and simple.
quote: "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
What do you have besides mere illogical denial; nothing!
Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Classical scholar?
You spout this afrocentric crap that nobody believes but you loons. Once again Classical scholar? Just one.
You have not made a single valid argument. You start throwing turds when you get frustrated. You are dishonest and want to distort history to suit your racist views. Again...one classical scholar.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: Classical scholar?
Classical scholars have absolutely no authority on genetic, nor anthropological material.
Why can't you refute this genetic and anthropological material, with an actual geneticist or anthropologist?
Why do you cry for classical scholars who are NOT geneticists nor anthropologists and have nothing to do with?
Btw, you're calling genetics and anthropology Afro-centrist? Nice try, Lmao Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
If you do not convince the classical scholars that a bunch of african bush jumpers created western civilization then your point is lost.
As a historian I am not interested in a genetic conversation unless you can use that information to build a valid history. In this case you cannot. The history of western civilization is written by historians, not geneticists. You cannot take a genetic marker that existed 6000 years ago and morph it into Aristotle, it simply will not work. Further, if the classical Greek historians do not accept your views, and they do not, your point will not become part of the common history. You need much more than you have. It is not even a good start.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
What do classical scholars have to do with the study of mans origins and spread from Africa over 100,000 years ago or the tools and techniques that they took with them? Nothing. Classical scholars do not cover such topics and therefore are irrelevant to such a discussion, which is about genetics and anthropology. But just like you failed history 101 you also fail genetics and anthropology 101, because all humans originate in Africa, therefore it would make sense that all human lineages originate there. It also would make sense that African lineages would be found in Europe as Europe is not a cradle of human beings. They had to come from somewhere else and that somewhere else is Africa and Asia. Again Europe is not a primary source of civilization, culture or humanity. It is nothing but the result of a model of cultural assimilation and domination of those ancient cultures and populations around them that they want to emulate and identify with as their own. The same with Rome and Greece vis a vis the Persians and Babylonians. Modern Europe is where it is because of the accumulated cultural elements from cultures all over the world, not because of Europe itself originating everything. But because of their histrionics they must make everyone else believe that once they adopt something they become the originators when it is not so.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, The subject here is western civilization and they have everything to do with that.So you are telling us that these hard working historians are all bigoted liars?
Doug, I do not give a rats behind about 100,000 years ago, or 6000 years ago. The subject is western civ. You have a hard time with that concept.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
American patsy,
You provide perfect examples of troll posters, and all the sorts.....
Stop appealing to authority
quote:An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the source asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]
It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to syllogistic logic, because the validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the source putting it forward. The converse case is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You know Mindover you are probably a very sweet woman and I admire your interest in Genetics. The point is though that to make a valid historical construct you have to put some meat on the bones and you have not done that. First of all the data you present is waaay to early to have an impact on classical Greece. This is why classical historians reject this argument and in my view will continue to do so. I am not a complete hard head. If you can build me a history that is logical I would accept it. In this case the facts are simply not there.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
American patsy,
As long as we all know that these are established gentic facts that hard working geneticists and anthropologists have dedicated their lives into is correct, and you can't refute it, you can only cry and appeal to your classical scholars for help (but to no avail).
Well, as long as you do this, everything is, and remains as always unrefuted.
African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
Archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago.
The only places in Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe that received influence and still show this influence genetically to this day. Plain and simple.
quote: "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
6000 years ago is too far back and you have not built me a historical construct.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: You know Mindover you are probably a very sweet woman and I admire your interest in Genetics.
That's that backwards sexually frustrated redneck thinking there huh patsy, sorry kid, but no female here.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: The point is though that to make a valid historical construct you have to put some meat on the bones and you have not done that. First of all the data you present is waaay to early to have an impact on classical Greece. This is why classical historians reject this argument and in my view will continue to do so. I am not a complete hard head. If you can build me a history that is logical I would accept it. In this case the facts are simply not there.
Are you slow? Does your brain function at a normal level? Not sure it does....
These lineages were present 6000 years ago, and are STILL present in these same exact populations (southern Europeans) where they were found 6000 years ago.
African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatsy: 6000 years ago is too far back and you have not built me a historical construct.
These African human genetic and cattle lineages were present over 6000 years ago, and are STILL present in modern Europeans in these same exact populations and areas (southern Europe) where they were found over 6000 years ago.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Well, when you show me how a genetic marker 6000 years ago is connected to aristotle I will agree with you as will the Classical scholars. Until then every history book will continue to reflect my point of view.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Listen up dunce, genetic markers from over 6000 years ago, and are still carried by the same populations in said areas southern Europe, at high frequencies as well I might add.
The only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African influence genetically still to this day. Plain and simple.
African cattle sequence genetics in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
African human genetic lineages, in Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
Archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago and modern inhabitants also prove this by carrying said African markers.
Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Your facts are not valid.
1. You are saying that southern europe advanced in 1900 BC after the Indo European invasion because of an african genetic marker that rolled in 20 centuries or more before? ?? You need to think about that one a bit.
2. OK the cattle were there, so what? You never answered my question. How did they get there? How many came to start with? Three, three hundred? thirty thousand? You do not know and those are all questions you have to answer to build a history.
3. The marker is there OK, again so what? Fifty prople could spread that marker to millions over a thousand years time. Again, no histotical construct.
Sorry mindover, the afrocentric genetic argument is invalid and it is not accepted by historians for all of the reasons I mentioned.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Your facts are not valid.
1. You are saying that southern europe advanced in 1900 BC after the Indo European invasion because of an african genetic marker that rolled in 20 centuries or more before? ?? You need to think about that one a bit.
You do understand that these genetic markers were not just found in populations 6000 years ago, but are also found in modern times at high frequencies and make up about 25% of the modern Greek Y-dna gene pool; right?
Which means they (African lineages) were carried throughout classical Greece etc... you nitwit.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: 2. OK the cattle were there, so what? You never answered my question. How did they get there?
Via maritime routes over the straits of Gibraltar as duly noted. Problem is, you don't read....
quote: Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern European Breeds (H2).
There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.
Further confirmation of course.....
quote:Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The fact that the markers were there in a non african population means nothing. 75% did not have the marker by your own data. The 25% that did got it thousands of years before . Are you trying to say that some magical gene from 5000 years before was making them do all of these great things?
The afrocentric genetic argument is invalid and is NOT accepted by historians for all of the reasons I mentioned.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Spanish historians are not going to agree that the Muslim conquest of Spain was a black African driven event.
Nobody said that. Stop making stuff up.
Depends on which "Muslims" are being referred to here; if it was the "Moors", then yes, *I'm* saying that it was a "black African driven event". Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
75% did not have the marker, not a drop of african blood. Your agrument fails. The 25% that had the marker did not even know it.
Good night.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Are you trying to say that some magical gene from 5000 years before was making them do all of these great things?
What I am saying is the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African influence genetically still to this day. Plain and simple.
Northern European didn't advance, but southern Europe did, and southern Europe was ultimately the only place to receive outside influence and still show this influence to this day at high frequencies.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: 75% did not have the marker, not a drop of african blood. Your agrument fails. The 25% that had the marker did not even know it.
What are you retarded, an African genetic marker in Greece over 6000 years ago, and is still one of the most prevalent Y haplogroups to this day reaching 25% in Greece and even higher frequencies in other European populations; is irrelevant?
You make no sense.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
How exactly did this magic gene cause them to advance 2000 years later? That is a crappy argument. It is like saying that since I do not know what that light in the sky is it must be a space ship. Especially since 75% of the population had not a single african gene.
the afrocentric genetic argument is invalid.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: How exactly did this magic gene cause them to advance 2000 years later?
You're a fabricating distorter, the gene is evidence that Africans were in southern Europe over 6000 years ago, and so were so called near Easterners.
The present modern Greek population are evidence to this testimony in that they carry 25% African Y chromosome genetics, and 25% near Eastern, which means 50% of modern Greek Y-dna gene pool is directly African, and near eastern.
These lineages are carried at 50% to this day and also found over 6000 years ago in Greece.
No wonder the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African and near Eastern influence genetically still to this day.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Look-- 12% of the american population is black another 12 or 13 % has black blood somewhere in their family That means that, like the Greeks 25% of americans have a African genetic marker.
It hasn't caused any great civilization here. All they have done here was pick cotton, invent peanut butter and rob 7/11's. They may have done the same for the Greeks.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Difference is these Africans had invented agriculture, domestication and developed cities etc.. independently before Europeans, southern Europe ultimately received influence from incoming migrants...
...and it's really no wonder the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African and near Eastern influence genetically still to this day.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
That picture looks just like me.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Discussing genetics with AmericanPatriot is like trying to speak French or Arabic to the guy; he has no comprehension of it at all.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
It hasn't caused any great civilization here. All they have done here was pick cotton, invent peanut butter...
And even then, their "white" imitators cannot get it right, distributing contaminated peanut butter killing and getting people sick across the country.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What do classical scholars have to do with the study of mans origins and spread from Africa over 100,000 years ago or the tools and techniques that they took with them? Nothing. Classical scholars do not cover such topics and therefore are irrelevant to such a discussion, which is about genetics and anthropology. But just like you failed history 101 you also fail genetics and anthropology 101, because all humans originate in Africa, therefore it would make sense that all human lineages originate there. It also would make sense that African lineages would be found in Europe as Europe is not a cradle of human beings. They had to come from somewhere else and that somewhere else is Africa and Asia. Again Europe is not a primary source of civilization, culture or humanity. It is nothing but the result of a model of cultural assimilation and domination of those ancient cultures and populations around them that they want to emulate and identify with as their own. The same with Rome and Greece vis a vis the Persians and Babylonians. Modern Europe is where it is because of the accumulated cultural elements from cultures all over the world, not because of Europe itself originating everything. But because of their histrionics they must make everyone else believe that once they adopt something they become the originators when it is not so.
No high school drop out, the subject is civilization. Period. Civilization didn't start with the West or anything Western, but of course that is the point, which is why you and many Europeans resort to focusing on something "Western" about civilization as if it is a starting point, when it isn't.
Again, Europe and "The West" are no cradle of civilization, which means writing, art, math, organized government, cosmology or anything else.
And "classical" scholars are not anthropologists. Studying so called classical history does not make one an expert on civilization because "classical" history is far too RECENT of a time frame 5-700 B.C.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
It hasn't caused any great civilization here. All they have done here was pick cotton, invent peanut butter...
And even then, their "white" imitators cannot get it right, distributing contaminated peanut butter killing and getting people sick across the country.
Good one!
Hammer doesn't understand that when Marco Polo returned from China and told people about the wonders he'd seen, Europeans labeled him the greatest liar in history.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, at least Mindover understood what we were having an argument about. I agree with you that humanity began in Africa. Now go back and reread the thread and at least try to get back on the right subject.
Posted by Abstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
There was this really awesome vid FULL of Moorish art. Really dark skinned (near litterally black) and black individuals.
It was a long vid, but it looks like it was taken down. Probably a music copyright or something.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You are as crazy as a loon mindover. Africa had nothing, actually less than nothing, with the development of European civilization. This is where you people go right over the cliff.
ROTFLOL
The guy says the above right after Mind cited a source showing the introduction of African neolithic culture into Europe, a source which by the way was written by European scholars! And nevermind Egypt and the many other African civilizations that developed later on in the African continent!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ And this is the persona of the creator of YOUR A.I.. How can the apple not fall far from the tree. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: So again Doug, You are trying to make a historical point from 1000 years ago by showing me a modern photograph? You should be banned from ever holding a history book in your hands.
Either learn how to do this stuff or get a day job, you are not that stupid.
Can you imagine what would happen if you walked into an ancient history seminar and your proof was MODERN PHOTOGRAPHS !!!!!
Actually, the purpose of Doug's photos are to show that there are blacks living north of the Sahara along the Mediterranean basin, but we have provided you with evidence countless times professor that they have always been in that area since prehistoric times! Blacks are native to ALL of Africa and not just south of the Sahara.
quote: Mindover, You leave me no room to make an argument because you gave me no evidence to refute. First you trot out some ancient genetic markers that you cannot tie to a single historical event that has anything to do with Greece or southern Europe. Secondly, if I found some way to give credit of some kind to your data you cannot tie it to a single historical event in European history or the history of any place else. The people you speak of may not even have been black africans by the time you speak of, you cannot even prove that for Christ's sake.
Doug, It is interesting that you call me a light weight. I would never use modern photos to prove a point from 1000 years ago. Who does that make the light weight?
First of all we are not discussing Greece here but Iberia. The Moors were indeed black Africans who invaded Iberia during Medieval times, but what Mind cited was that blacks have been crossing over into Iberia long before that. This evidence is not only genetic but archaeological as well.
quote: That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.
Actually it's not loony at all to say blacks had a role in the development of civilization in Europe if the neolithic founders there have African ancestry.
quote:It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.
That was not Doug's contention at all, but he just wanted to point out the fact that all humans ultimately have black African ancestry. It's just that southern Europeans in particular have recent African ancestry from the neolithic.
quote:Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.
Incorrect. Since all of the sources he cited refers to neolithic Europe and not modern Europe.
Ignoring all the other stuff about Greece...
quote: 1.. The Cow does not prove that. You cannot say how the cow got there, who brought it or how many. This is weak scholarship.
LOL Did you not read the source that the cattle were African in origin and that archaeological remains of the people who owned them show affinities with African cultures in the Sahara??!
quote:2. The marker does not prove Africans were there. It proves people with an african genetic marker were there, not the same thing.
And how do you think these people got their African genes?? What about the archaeology which shows affinities with the Sahara??
quote:3.None of what you say has anything to do with western civilization.
4. classical historians?
We are dealing with Iberia here and NOT Greece, but in the case of the Moors yes, their presence did have an impact on the modern 'Western' civilization such as the lead to the Renaissance etc.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The genetic argument afrocentrics try to sell is invald. In fact, it is not even reasonable. This is the very reason classical scholars give it no credibility. 75% of Greeks had not a single genetic marker from Africa and the ones that di got it 2000 years before. The problem is that people who promote this silly idea do not care if it is valid or not. Their views will continue to be disregarded by scholars in the field.
Djehuti, Mindover and I morphed into a conversation last night on this stupid genetic argument concerning Greece that you guys push. We did not return to Spain before we signed off at 2AM.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The problem you fail to understand is that the African genetic marker is dated to the neolithic period which is the time that Aegeans including mainland Greeks recieved knowledge in agriculture and animal domestication. That plus anthropological remains cited by folks like Larry Angel make the implications clear that neolithic introuction to Greece was spurred by peoples of African descent.
As far as 2am chats, I have better things to do at that time like sleep.
Getting back to the topic...
Professor, you still cling to your ridiculous view of a non-black North Africa.
Here is a good reply to this.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
As for the 2005 "questionable origin of the Neolithic" the resemblance is towards the Africans BEFORE modern Europeans, as you rightly point out. Hence we can begin a recap as follows although it may need to be refined as new info comes in:
As for the Moors themselves, again have you looked up the info I provided??...
Almohad Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As far as 2am chats, I have better things to do at that time like sleep.
Do Robots dream?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: And this is the persona of the creator of YOUR A.I.. How can the apple not fall far from the tree.
This makes no sense. I am an intelligent man of color, Bush is not.
But you and Bush share one thing in common-- you're both not intelligent at all 'artificial' or what not.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Sorry, I didn't have a Dick Cheney picture available. Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Well, we do not make stupid arguments that even scholars in that specific field reject.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course not.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
As for the 2005 "questionable origin of the Neolithic" the resemblance is towards the Africans BEFORE modern Europeans, as you rightly point out. Hence we can begin a recap as follows although it may need to be refined as new info comes in:
As for the Moors themselves, again have you looked up the info I provided??...
the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain: Almoravid and Almohad Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Djehuti, You are too smart to get sucked into to these crack pot radical black positions. Moor was not an ethnic term. The arab armies swept across north africa and INTO SPAIN. If you want to say that there were some black africans in the force OK. If you want to say it was a balck african event you have lost your mind.
"Until the early twentieth century "Moor" was often used by Western geographers to refer to "mixed" Arab-Berber North Africans, especially of the towns, as distinct from supposedly more pure-blooded Arabs and Berbers; thus the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica defines "Moor" as "the name which, as at present used, is loosely applied to any native of Morocco, but in its stricter sense only to the townsmen of mixed descent. In this sense it is also used of the Mahommedan townsmen in the other Barbary states." But even then, it recognized that "the term Moors has no real ethnological value."
Related Topics: Twentieth century - Geographers - Arab - Berber - Town - 1911 - Encyclopædia Britannica - Morocco - Barbary - State
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Again, you ignore the fact that Arabs were a minority in North Africa with the native Africans making up the majority of the people including armies! The source you cited was only partially true, the vast majority of the invaders of Spain were North African Berbers, which does NOT change the fact they are still black. Of course 'Moor' is not an accurate ethnic name but is merely a physical description as Moor meant black Muslim! It was only after time passed that the word evolved to mean any North African Muslim regardless of ancestry!
the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain: Almoravid and Almohad
You also ignore the countless other evidence shown-- not only portraits made by Europeans but also testimonies such as this one below:
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
PRINCE AMONG SLAVES
Ab-dul Rahman Ibrahima Ibn Sori (a.k.a. Abdul-Rahman) was a prince from West Africa who was made a slave in the United States. In 1828, by the order of President John Quincy Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay, he was freed after spending 40 years in slavery.
He was born in Timbo, West Africa, (in present day Guinea, Fouta Djallon). He was known as the "Prince of Slaves" or "Prince." He was a Fulbe or Fulani, (Fula) from the land of Futa Jallon. Abrahim left Futa in 1774 to study in Mali at Timbuktu. Abrahim was leader of one of his father's army divisions. After losing a battle to warring tribes he was captured and sold to slave traders in 1788 at the age of 26. He was bought by a Natchez, Mississippi cotton and tobacco farmer, where he eventually became the overseer of the plantation of Thomas Foster. In 1794 he married Isabella, another slave of Foster’s, and eventually fathered a large family -- 5 sons and 4 daughters.
By using his knowledge of growing cotton in Futa Jallon, Abdul-Rahman rose to a position of authority on the plantation and became the de facto foreman. This granted him the opportunity to grow his own vegetable garden and sell at the local market. During this time, he met an old acquaintance, Dr. John Cox. Dr. Cox was an Irish surgeon who served on an English ship. He was the first white man to reach Timbo after being stranded by his ship and falling ill. Cox stayed ashore for six months and was taken in by Abdul-Rahman's family. Cox appealed to Foster to sell him "Prince" so he could return to Africa. However, Foster would not budge, since Abdul-Rahman had made himself indispensable to the Foster farm. Dr. Cox continued, until his death in 1816, to seek Abdul-Rahman's freedom, to no avail. After Cox died, his son took up the cause.
In 1826, Abdul-Rahman wrote a letter to his relatives in Africa. A local newspaperman, Andrew Marschalk, who was originally from New York, sent a copy to Senator Thomas Reed in Washington, who forwarded it to the U.S. Consulate in Morocco. Since Abdul-Rahman wrote in Arabic, Marschalk and the U.S. government assumed that he was a Moor. After the Sultan of Morocco read the letter, he asked President Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay to release Abrahim Abdul Rahman. In 1828, Thomas Foster agreed to the release of Abdul-Rahman, without payment, with the stipulation that Abdul-Rahman had to return to Africa and could not enjoy the rights of being a free man in America. Within two days, Abdul-Rahman raised $200 to buy his wife's freedom and assumed he could do the same for his children.
Before he returned home, he and his wife went to various states and Washington, D.C. He solicited donations, through the press, personal appearances, the American Colonization Society and politicians, to free his family back in Mississppi. Word got back to Foster, who considered this a breach of the agreement. Abdul-Rahman's actions and freedom were also used against President John Quincy Adams by future president Andrew Jackson during the presidential election.
After ten months, Abdul-Rahman and Isabella had only raised half the funds to free their children. They made arrangements to leave America. On March 18, 1829, Abdul-Rahman returned to Africa to die. He went to Monrovia, Liberia with his wife. Abdul-Rahman lived for four months before he contracted a fever and died at the age of 67. He never saw Futa Jallon or his children again.
Why would white Americans mistake the black man above for a 'Moor' when there was nothing 'Arab' looking about him?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
At least Mr Patriot offers to provide a citation.
But here is an older one. The book "English Etymology" dated from 1817 states thus on the derivation of the word Moor:
quote: Moor The people so called from the darkness and blackness of their complexion.
So there you go. Moor is a word created within the English language and it is only logical that books on the English language would be a good reference as to its usage and meaning. And seeing as the English have been documenting their language for over a few hundred years, I am sure that it should be straight forward to trace the meaning of the term even farther back in time.
But suffice to say, in 1817, the word Moor was used as a reference to black people and this is documented in texts from that time period. Therefore, the only people you are questioning are your fellow Europeans and their definition of words in the English language and not anyone else. Kind of sounds odd doesn't it?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You have to realistic Doug. Until modern times Europeans did not have the detailed understanding of exact racial groups we have today. They were all over the road in their descriptions of darker skinned peoples. Any history student for at least the last 30 years would understand that. You seem to insist on wanting to invent history. Yes, there were clacks in the Muslim invassion of Spain...no, it was not a black africaqn event.
Djehuti, Blacks have never been a majority in North Africa, either in ancient times or today.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: At least Mr Patriot offers to provide a citation.
But here is an older one. The book "English Etymology" dated from 1817 states thus on the derivation of the word Moor:
quote: Moor The people so called from the darkness and blackness of their complexion.
So there you go. Moor is a word created within the English language and it is only logical that books on the English language would be a good reference as to its usage and meaning. And seeing as the English have been documenting their language for over a few hundred years, I am sure that it should be straight forward to trace the meaning of the term even farther back in time.
But suffice to say, in 1817, the word Moor was used as a reference to black people and this is documented in texts from that time period. Therefore, the only people you are questioning are your fellow Europeans and their definition of words in the English language and not anyone else. Kind of sounds odd doesn't it?
Correct. As I edited in my reply above, Moor originally mean black, but later devolved to mean any Muslim in general. That still does not change the original meaning and etymology of the word which is itself derived from the Greek Maure meaning BLACK.
But yes, I at least commend AP for actually citing a source, something he so very rarely does!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Djehuti, You are too smart to get sucked into to these crack pot radical black positions.
Translation: You are programmed to think like me. What's matter wit yo programming! Issue product recall.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You have to realistic Doug. Until modern times Europeans did not have the detailed understanding of exact racial groups we have today. They were all over the road in their descriptions of darker skinned peoples. Any history student for at least the last 30 years would understand that. You seem to insist on wanting to invent history. Yes, there were clacks in the Muslim invassion of Spain...no, it was not a black africaqn event.
Incorrect. The meaning and etymology of the word 'Moor' and its Greek root Maure is quite clear! It means 'black' pure and simple and not some vague term for 'dark skin' in general! This is why even Europeans of the time distinguished the Moors from 'Saracens' who were lighter-skinned Muslims such as Arabs from Syria etc.
quote:Djehuti, Blacks have never been a majority in North Africa, either in ancient times or today.
And why not?? What excuse do you have to deny that blacks were the indigenous population of North Africa just as they were south of the Sahara??
Need I remind you of the countless examples we've shown you with regards to Egyptians alone?!
From Zarahan:
Keita: "The Sahara does not delimit Africanity..."
Sforza: "Blacks were the original inhabitants of the Sahara (North Africa).."
Tell me if blacks were never a majority in North Africa then who was? Your 'cacasians'?? Where did these so-called cacasians come from, or are you saying they are indigenous to the African continent??
Do you see how silly your argument sounds? It's no different at all from saying whites are and never were a majority in southern Europe! Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
What you show me is a bunch of crap. Why to you goofballs keep trying to go back to the dawn of humanity to make a point. You presentation is incoherent and unorganized. I do not give a damn who lived in Africa or Europe or on Mars 100,000 years ago. It has no application to our conversation. If you want to accept these looney ideas knock yourself out. You cannot have a conversation with someone who is willing to just make things up.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Exactly why I don't bother. African Americans have been trying to educate you for 400 years. If it hasn't taken by now, it never will. Time to move on. But let's observe how adoptive the Robot's sw is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: What you show me is a bunch of crap. Why to you goofballs keep trying to go back to the dawn of humanity to make a point. You presentation is incoherent and unorganized. I do not give a damn who lived in Africa or Europe or on Mars 100,000 years ago. It has no application to our conversation.
And what you express above is a bunch of noisy incoherent ranting!! What does the "dawn of humanity" have to do with anything??! I am referring to *all* of African history including ancient and historical times YOU speak of! Blacks are native to ALL of Africa including North of the Sahara. This is proven via archaeology, anthropology, genetics, and even historical documentation by even Europeans themselves!!
quote:If you want to accept these looney ideas knock yourself out. You cannot have a conversation with someone who is willing to just make things up.
LOL These are not ideas, let alone "looney" ones that I presented but pure and unadulterated FACTS, simple as that! Nothing "made up", just established historical, and scientific FACTS. It's obvious these facts disturb you deeply and make you ashamed to come up with a sensless retort as you did. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: What you show me is a bunch of crap. Why to you goofballs keep trying to go back to the dawn of humanity to make a point. You presentation is incoherent and unorganized. I do not give a damn who lived in Africa or Europe or on Mars 100,000 years ago. It has no application to our conversation. If you want to accept these looney ideas knock yourself out. You cannot have a conversation with someone who is willing to just make things up.
As usual more whining and complaining because you cannot refute facts. I post an actual historical text of the English language and because you cannot challenge it, you throw a tantrum. But that is simply a reflection of your childish attitudes and inability to accept truth.
The facts are that Europeans and everyone else ultimately descends from Africans and that Europe has been receiving waves of migration from the very beginning of the human presence in Europe to the present day. And one example of the significance of this is the Moorish period in Europe, which represented the profound influence of African, Levantine and Asian cultures and civilizations on Europe.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Doug, maybe you should leave out the part of humanity originating in Africa. It seems to confuse the poor professor and leaves him to build silly red-herring arguments about "dawn of mankind". We are not discussing the dawn of mankind or human evolution here. We are discussing the simple and basic historical fact that the Moors were black.
One does not need to go far back in human evolution to show this. It is a well established fact of World History in general and as much as African and even European history.
Everything we've thrown at the professor does not come from any "afrocentric" sources but from EUROPEAN scholarly ones, and the guy still calls it 'crap'?! LOL It's obvious the professor is nutty. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Mary, your outstanding obligations will haunt you forever. Address them and free yourself from your contradictions of appearing to be against Eurocentrism while simultaneously adhering to its tenets.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
If you want to say it was a balck african event you have lost your mind...
You seem to insist on wanting to invent history. Yes, there were clacks in the Muslim invassion of Spain...no, it was not a black africaqn event.
Then the *historic* southern Europeans who were living the times in question, must have lost their mind; after all, they did push these forward:
...acknowledging "Moorish" Iberia as a "black African event". Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Mary, your outstanding obligations will haunt you forever. Address them and free yourself from your contradictions of appearing to be against Eurocentrism while simultaneously adhering to its tenets.
LOL My name is not 'Mary' and neither do I have any obligations let alone any to YOU. You keep linking to the 'Stolen Legacy' thread, when it's obvious you lost your point long time ago as was brought up by the author of that thread as well as by me.
Perhaps you can continue your obsessed obligation to prove otherpoints lost.
Oh and again, "Mary", "Jesus" or any Jew can't help you and neither can any of your boyfriends like Argyle. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Then the *historic* southern Europeans who were living the times in question, must have lost their mind; after all, they did push these forward:
...acknowledging "Moorish" Iberia as a "black African event".
Correct, and not only Iberia mind you but also the French Island of Corsica and Sicily have also encountered the Moors and created depictions of them as the black people they were. Perhaps, professor, you can tell all these people and other Europeans that they were wrong and some how suffering from somekind of mass delusion! LOL Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Your theory that Greek classical philosophy was "home grown" and not a stolen legacy has not been proven as well as your reasons for dismissing Professor James book as "silly". Come on Mary, face your challenges like a brave little girl.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I'm not a female (nor do I wish to be one unlike YOU) and I don't have any challenges either. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that I specified time and again that by "homegrown" I meant Classical texts. The foreign texts borrowed by the Greeks date to pre-Classical times, which is no secret and is NOT really "stolen" by the Greeks as explained in the very thread you linked to, idiot! The phrase "stolen" only arose later on as a description of later 'Western' European false acrediting.
So go ahead and repeat your lies as often as you want. Nobody here is buying them, and everyone knows that you are a phony africanist fraud, who is really a pathetic white loser from the UK. As proof by your desperate denial of African admixturein Europeans which in turn stems from actual phobia of Africans which is not quite as grotesque as your phobia of jews.
Now, could you please get off my dick and stop trying to stalk me from thread to thread like the derranged attention-seeking shemale that you are?? Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Djehuti knows, as do we all that North Africa was populated by Phoenicans early on.
"The Phoenicians and Carthage The Phoenicians came from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea in land we now call Lebanon. Their land was arid and inhospitable for farming, so they turned to the sea to become the greatest travelers and traders of their time. The Phoenicians invented the alphabet, and taught several cultures their advanced system of writing.
The Phoenicians extended their influence across North Africa and settled Carthage in the modern nation of Tunisia, as a trading post. The word Carthage means "new city". The Phoenicians chose Carthage because of its location in the center of North Africa, a short distance away from Sicily and the Italian Peninsula. When the Assyrians and the Persians conquered the original homeland of the Phoenicians, Carthage became an independent state.
It was against a rival city in Italy, Rome, that Carthage fought and lost three brutal wars that eventually destroyed the city. The wars were known as the Punic Wars because Puncia was the Roman name for Carthage. The Roman navy surprised the sea trading people in the first war in 238BC. The Carthaginians acquired a new base in Spain from which a great military leader named Hannibal led a team of elephants across southern France and into Italy. Hannibal won some early victories but his forces were outnumbered, allowing Rome to win an even more brutal war lasting almost fifteen years until 204BC.
Carthage lost all political and military power by the end of the second Punic War, but the Romans moved a half-century later to destroy the city. After a siege in 146BC, the Romans went from house to house slaughtering the Carthaginians. The few survivors were sold into slavery, the city and harbor were destroyed, and the Romans poured salt over the farmland to ensure its barrenness."
There was almost no black african influence on north africa in the historical period.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Nice try professor, but I and everyone else with smarts in this board know that the Phoenicians colonized North Africa yes, but how does this negate the fact that there black natives there. In fact all sources from the Greeks and Romans to the Phoenicians themselves state there were indigenous people already in the area that later became Carthage under Phoenician rule.
I suggest you look up peoples like the Numidians. There is even a Roman mural depicting the indigenes of Tunisia as the blacks that they were. Takruri posted it several times, but I can't find it.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Nice try Mary, by "home grown" you meant "Greek" classical philosophy which was what the author of the thread clearly objected to and asked you (without calling your name) to respond to. All you did was dodge the request. As for the accusations of a stolen legacy, James clearly states in his book that it was Aristotle's wish to appropriate the wisdom of Egypt and this was carried out by his school hence the stolen legacy was started by the Greeks. Is this way you dismissed his book as "silly" Mary? Like I said, face your demons and stop pretending you are something that you're not.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Just standard history Djehuti. That you would argue those points is astonishing.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by assopen: Nice try Mary, by "home grown" you meant "Greek" classical philosophy which was what the author of the thread clearly objected to and asked you (without calling your name) to respond to. All you did was dodge the request. As for the accusations of a stolen legacy, James clearly states in his book that it was Aristotle's wish to appropriate the wisdom of Egypt and this was carried out by his school hence the stolen legacy was started by the Greeks. Is this way you dismissed his book as "silly" Mary? Like I said, face your demons and stop pretending you are something that you're not.
I didn't dodge anything you degenerat nitwit. Everything was clarified in my last response as it was a dozen times to you before.
And you are also the last person to be accusing others of "pretending" you fraud africanist loser.
If you are too stupid or too crazy to realize that, too bad. Get off my nuts, you batty boy-george!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Just standard history Djehuti. That you would argue those points is astonishing.
Where did I argue against it?! I merely pointed out the FACT that you or your souce that you failed to properly cite did not mention anything of the indigenous black populations that already lived in the area the Phoenicians colonized. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I don't understand your hostility. All I do is repeat what they tell me. Greek classical philosophy was home grown, not stolen.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
No, it is not fact. If you took that data into an ancient history seminar they would laugh you out of the place. You guys have some bizarre and unconventional views. Obviously you have a right to think whatever you wish, just as do people who believe in UFO's.
When you get that wierd it is difficult to have a conversation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
When are you going to stop whining and actually cite some evidence? There is abundant scholarship and evidence both of black Africans in present North Africa, but also in antiquity. If you were a real scholar you would know that. And if anyone should be laughed at it is you for trying to pretend to be a scholar and familiar with scholarship on the subject. You are a phony as can be seen in the fact that you never ever post any scholarship or substantial evidence and rely on irrelevant innuendo to "prove" your claims, which is nothing compared to the tons of evidence cited here and elsewhere. So stop whining and actually go study some history for a change. Europe is not the cradle or origin of civilization it is not the home of or basis of history and Europeans are not the official historians of the planet. Who cares what "Western" Europeans think? They only came along 700 years ago and found out that there was a planet with people on it and want to pretend that history starts with them finally coming out of the hole they had been in. But every since they were taught how to navigate and sail by the Moors and Muslims they have been trying to twist history to into a make believe fantasy of European origins which has no basis in fact. Europe is not an island of humanity and intellect floating off on its own in time and space. It is nothing but the direct result of thousands of years of human development which took place in Africa and Asia before there was a European to speak of. Therefore, for them to continue to portray themselves as cavemen and the first humans is not only hilarious but stupid. And all of this nonsense that they have come up with called "history" is based on this absurd world view.
Soap does not come from Europe. Poetry does not come from Europe. Architecture does not come from Europe. Writing does not come from Europe. Paper does not come from Europe. Religious ceremonies does not come from Europe. Organized government does not come from Europe. Warfare does not come from Europe. Steel working does not come from Europe. Cosmetics does not come from Europe. Boat making does not come from Europe. Textile making does not come from Europe. Pottery making does not come from Europe. Jewelry does not come from Europe. Painting does not come from Europe. Math does not come from Europe. Farming does not come from Europe.
These things and a great many more were introduced to Europe either by the first settlers of Europe from Africa, the Levant and Asia or a as a result of subsequent contacts over time. The Moorish period in Spain is but one example of this.
quote: It is widely accepted that modern humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa ≈150–200 thousand years ago (ka), but their route of dispersal across the currently hyperarid Sahara remains controversial. Given that the first modern humans north of the Sahara are found in the Levant ≈120–90 ka, northward dispersal likely occurred during a humid episode in the Sahara within Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e (130–117 ka). The obvious dispersal route, the Nile, may be ruled out by notable differences between archaeological finds in the Nile Valley and the Levant at the critical time. Further west, space-born radar images reveal networks of—now buried—fossil river channels that extend across the desert to the Mediterranean coast, which represent alternative dispersal corridors. These corridors would explain scattered findings at desert oases of Middle Stone Age Aterian lithic industries with bifacial and tanged points that can be linked with industries further to the east and as far north as the Mediterranean coast. Here we present geochemical data that demonstrate that water in these fossil systems derived from the south during wet episodes in general, and penetrated all of the way to the Mediterranean during MIS 5e in particular. This proves the existence of an uninterrupted freshwater corridor across a currently hyperarid region of the Sahara at a key time for early modern human migrations to the north and out of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: No, it is not fact. If you took that data into an ancient history seminar they would laugh you out of the place. You guys have some bizarre and unconventional views. Obviously you have a right to think whatever you wish, just as do people who believe in UFO's.
When you get that wierd it is difficult to have a conversation.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: No, it is not fact. If you took that data into an ancient history seminar they would laugh you out of the place. You guys have some bizarre and unconventional views. Obviously you have a right to think whatever you wish, just as do people who believe in UFO's.
When you get that wierd it is difficult to have a conversation.
Exactly what is not fact?? That Phoenicians were foreign colonists who were not natives of North Africa, or the fact that the populations who were natives were blacks??!
Exactly what is so funny or bizarre about any of the data we presented which is based on both historical records and archaeology as well as scientific from bio-anthropology??!
Seriously professor, do you not have a clue how deranged you sound right about now??
You keep insisting that blacks are not native to North Africa or were somehow not a majority there without offering anything to validate such a view. Instead you bring up 'Arabs' as the main people who invaded Iberia even though they were a colonist minority and were NOT the Moors whom Europeans spoke of. You go further back and bring up Phoenicians who were also colonists of North Africa. Both Arabs and Phoenicians were foreign colonists from the 'Near-East' and were not the predominant native populations of North Africa! You failed to make your absurd point.
In the meantime here are a few Roman mosaics of indigenous people from Carthage for you to ponder over:
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The Libyans were in North Africa for centuries before the Phoenicans. Namphamo was a semite, Clearly their were no black African civilizations in north Africa during the historical period. I suppose if you want do as Doug likes to do and go back 100,000 years you might find one. Here is the bottom line guys. The idea of a black african seeded Europe during the historical period is never going to be accepted as fact. You can believe this stuff if you wish, worship door knobs or anything else you wish but it is not going to happen.
Doug, why do you continue to post modern pictures in the middle of a conversation about ancient times?
Posted by Abstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
^cuz they're cool pics. And who gives a danm if this or that will never be "accepted" according to a random "Texan" online?
Seriously those in search of truth usually peripherally care about others accepting and foremost care about finding the truth.
Like in the case of the world being round for europeans, or in the case of evolution for american whites.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Clearly their were no black African civilizations in north Africa during the historical period.
Even according to your deranged racial schema such a statement would stand in direct contradiction of Kush/Meroe in Sudan, notwithstanding civilizations whom you make this claim about in the negative like ancient Egypt (this issue has been dealt with ad nauseam and it's extremely silly that some still hold onto their petty denials), or early "Lybians" like those who spawned the "Black mummy" culture, the Tehenu and later Garamantes. Your idea of "Black African" is dumb and restrictive and no one is using your criteria. All you are good for is your flailing rants, one line denials, and constant whining.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The Libyans were in North Africa for centuries before the Phoenicans. Namphamo was a semite, Clearly their were no black African civilizations in north Africa during the historical period. I suppose if you want do as Doug likes to do and go back 100,000 years you might find one. Here is the bottom line guys. The idea of a black african seeded Europe during the historical period is never going to be accepted as fact. You can believe this stuff if you wish, worship door knobs or anything else you wish but it is not going to happen.
Doug, why do you continue to post modern pictures in the middle of a conversation about ancient times?
Which is simply the non historical ranting of someone who desperately wants everyone to believe the lies of European histrionics.
Here is a list of the North African black civilizations in the historic period:
All of these are documented as being black African civilizations in or around North Africa at the time. Hence, again you are exposed as a phony historian who has no knowledge of history and pretends to be a historian and represent the views of historians.
Why don't you actually present the views of some historians instead of pretending to be one and whining when your fake fantasies are exposed?
Things introduced by the Moors/Islamic armies to Europe from Africa, the Levant and Asia:
Planned cities Soap Perfume Furniture Botany Mathematics Poetry Textiles Tile Horse Breeds Shoe making Lamps Drainage and irrigation Windmill Waterwheel Books Universities Castles Holy Warriors Arms and Armor Heraldry
All of which are documented by mainstream scholarship.
Again, you simply are no scholar and cannot claim to represent scholars.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The Libyans were in North Africa for centuries before the Phoenicans. Namphamo was a semite, Clearly their were no black African civilizations in north Africa during the historical period...
But the Libyans, especially the Tehenu of Egyptian accounts were black Africans! And technically the indigenous peoples of Carthage were not Libyans but Tunisian peoples such as the Numidians. The Roman mosaiacs I posted are examples of such people. And even in Libya proper there existed the civilization of Garama whom the Romans nicknamed Negritai! So obviously your notion of a non-black North Africa is a fantasy pure and simple.
quote:I suppose if you want do as Doug likes to do and go back 100,000 years you might find one.
LOL No need to go a hundred thousand years back to the Paleolithic to find black Africans in well Africa specifically the northern regions. They remained there long after even up to historical times and even European authors documented this. Sorry if you deny all this.
quote:Here is the bottom line guys. The idea of a black african seeded Europe during the historical period is never going to be accepted as fact. You can believe this stuff if you wish, worship door knobs or anything else you wish but it is not going to happen.
Sorry professor, but that the European Renaissance and enlightment was spurred on in the so-called 'Dark Ages' by black African Muslims in Iberia is a well documented FACT. That black Africans from millennia earlier during the Neolithic brought about cultural revolution to Europe is also a fact that is only beginning to be established throughout academia.
quote:Doug, why do you continue to post modern pictures in the middle of a conversation about ancient times?
Why is it you have no valid answers for the pictures I posted of ancient Tunisians let alone answers for Doug when he actually posted pictures of Moors for the time period in question??!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abstract_Faith: ^cuz they're cool pics. And who gives a danm if this or that will never be "accepted" according to a random "Texan" online?
Seriously those in search of truth usually peripherally care about others accepting and foremost care about finding the truth.
Like in the case of the world being round for europeans, or in the case of evolution for american whites.
Actually what the nutty professor fails to realize is that it HAS been accepted already by mainstream academia as pretty much everything presented in this forum comes from mainstream academia! Why has academia accepted it? Because it's TRUE and logically factual plain and simple. It's die-hard racists like AP that have a very difficult time accepting truth and logic.. they always have.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Even according to your deranged racial schema such a statement would stand in direct contradiction of Kush/Meroe in Sudan, notwithstanding civilizations whom you make this claim about in the negative like ancient Egypt (this issue has been dealt with ad nauseam and it's extremely silly that some still hold onto their petty denials), or early "Lybians" like those who spawned the "Black mummy" culture, the Tehenu and later Garamantes. Your idea of "Black African" is dumb and restrictive and no one is using your criteria. All you are good for is your flailing rants, one line denials, and constant whining.
LOL You are correct! The kooky professor fails to realize that his 'black' Nubia is also a North African civilization! Nevermind all the other stuff about Libyans that he obviously has no clue about.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Rate Member posted 20 February, 2009 04:22 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times (Yale Nota Bene) (Hardcover) by Thomas R. Martin (Author)
Available from these sellers.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times (Yale Nota Bene) (Hardcover) by Thomas R. Martin (Author)
What exactly are you trying to convey here; is there a page from the book you would specifically like to reference, and towards what?
Please clarify......
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mindover, What I am conveying is education. You seem to be interested in the subject so I offer a stellar work from which you can study and learn. Anyone truly interested in Ancient Greece has read this book among others.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
How can you convey something that you don't practice yourself? Why don't you pick up a book and read it instead of looking at it? You have no understanding or concept of history as can be seen in the absolutely absurd claims you keep trying to make.
What does Greece have to do with the Moors, which is the topic of this thread? If you cannot grasp the difference between Greece and Moorish/Islamic Spain then you obviously are only furthering the proof of your absolute non historical background.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You are affraid of the Martin book Doug, you know that and I do as well. You have no interest or skill in history. Lets call it what it is, it is all about blackness, and nothing else. If they banned race from this board you would be long gone. Now if you are interested in ancint Europe, as you claim you are you'll read books on the sunject. Don't do this dance with me Doug. You have not read this book, the El Cid book I posted or a single work pertaining to the Reconquista. You haven't read them because you are not interested in history. You are interested in spinning half truths and myths off the afrocentric sites on the internet. My question is why do you talk about a subject you have never read about. Did you read the Cahill book on Greece I posted last year? Have you read a single Michael Grant book? I think you are a fraud Doug and never having read these books proves that.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mindover, What I am conveying is education. You seem to be interested in the subject so I offer a stellar work from which you can study and learn. Anyone truly interested in Ancient Greece has read this book among others.
See, there is a difference; I know all about ancient Greece, and if I didn't, I can read many books on said matters and become informed immediately.
The real thing in question is the population from a biological standpoint, and see, your historians have absolutely no credibility on said matters regarding genetic and anthropological references; understand?
African cattle genetic sequences have been in southern Europe for over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
African human genetic lineages, in southern Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
Archaeological evidence;
quote: Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
anthropological evidence, all proves Africans were in Europe over 6000 years ago and modern inhabitants also prove this by carrying said African markers.
quote: "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Neolithic Greeks were from the Balkans. Read the entire body of work on the subject. You are, in my view, affraid of the Martin book for all of the obvious reasons.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Neolithic Greeks were from the Balkans.
Sub-Saharan affinities were among the Neolithic populations of the "Near Easterners" (Natufians) who spread the Neolithic culture into Europe.
Sub-Saharan affinities were also found in the Balkans , **from where the alpha derivatives appear to have spread elsewhere westward**
quote: "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - J. L. Angel
Deny it all you want, but these facts will not change.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Neolithic Greeks were from the Balkans.
Take note history teacher, of African genetic markers in the Balkans.
quote:“The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians) , previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile, gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been. Correlations between human-occupation sites and radiocarbon-dated climatic fluctuations in the eastern Sahara and Nile Valley during the Holocene provide a framework for interpreting the main southeast European centric distribution of E-V13. A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards. Hg E-M78* representatives, although rare overall, still occur in Egypt, which is a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated their regionally distinctive branches.” [/qb]
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
I'll believe the classical scholars over you.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I'll believe the classical scholars over you.
You do understand that the classical historians you reference do not have any say on genetic and anthropological matters; right?
If you know this, then why do you outright and ignorantly deny these genetic and anthropological references, from reputable scientists who spend hard time coming to their conclusions?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mindover, Work from other discplines makes it's way into history as it is substantiated. If the info you mention were valid they would include it. If you are as academic as you claim to be you understand that. My problem with your position is that you seem to want to make huge leaps though centuries of time without historical information to connect your points. As a historian I have to have more data than you are giving me for that reason. I suspect this is why classical scholars do not represent this point of view in their work. Historical era Greeks simply were not black, period. There is not a scrap of evidence to prove that. A genetic marker that 75% of the population does not have does not make the case.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mindover, Work from other discplines makes it's way into history as it is substantiated. If the info you mention were valid they would include it. If you are as academic as you claim to be you understand that.
Science makes new discoveries daily, and every historian, might not be directly aware of such data, if you are indeed a teacher you should know this.
Like I said, your book reference speaks upon Greece from a historical standpoint, and not genetic nor anthropological.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: My problem with your position is that you seem to want to make huge leaps though centuries of time without historical information to connect your points.
The problem is that you're simply a biased individual, and for Americas sake hopefully you're not really a teacher.
The genetic fact that...
African cattle genetic sequences have been in southern Europe for over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
African human genetic lineages, in southern Europe from over 6000 years ago, and still present in same places..
Is noteworthy to any unbiased scholar trying to understand history and population movements in the ancient past.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Historical era Greeks simply were not black, period. There is not a scrap of evidence to prove that. A genetic marker that 75% of the population does not have does not make the case.
I'm not saying Greeks were black, what I am saying, and genetically and anthropologically data is also saying as well, is that Greece received influence from Africa, from over 6000 years ago, and these genetic influences are still highly prevalent to this day in Greece.
It's really no wonder as to why the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African and near Eastern influence genetically still to this day.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You keep using the argument that Greece advanced and the north did not, which is not entirely true, and yet you fail to show us how these african markers in a quarter of the population contributed to that advance. This is what I mean by making huge leaps.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You keep using the argument that Greece advanced and the north did not, which is not entirely true,
Not using this "argument", this is basic fact,
Please elaborate if otherwise....?
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: and yet you fail to show us how these african markers in a quarter of the population contributed to that advance. This is what I mean by making huge leaps.
What are you; slow?
These African genetic markers prevalent in these areas in high frequencies in this day and age, is testimony of the African presence in Greece for thousands of years.
It's really no wonder as to why the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African and near Eastern influence genetically still to this day.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You still failed to show me a single example of how these markers contributed to the advance of Greece . Lets cut the personal insults, im not impressed with that.
Example?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You still failed to show me a single example of how these markers contributed to the advance of Greece .
Perhaps you've heard of the Neolithic revolution; being that you are a scholar?
Well, these Neolithic revolution advances for one, brought the technology of agriculture and pastoralism to the hunter gatherer Europeans over 6000 years ago.
This is what Africans originally brought to Europe, and Africans and their progeny have lived there ever since, hence any Greek advancement was amongst a multicultural society which had obvious outside influence from Africa and the so called near east.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QUOTE]Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: [qb] You keep using the argument that Greece advanced and the north did not, which is not entirely true,
Not using this "argument", this is basic fact,
Please elaborate if otherwise....?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Nice try but not correct, here is why. By the time of the indo european invasion of Greece in 1900 BC the discovery of agriculture was thousands of years in the past. Secondly, you have no proof there was a bi racial society, no discovery hs ever shown that. The problem is that the greatness of Greece is a product of the indo european invasion not neolithic farmers. Britain had neolithic farmers as well but they did not evolve into what Greece became. Eastern Europe and he black sea area had neolithic farmers , Spain had neolithic farmers, Turkey etc but none became what Greece became. You have arrived at a conclusion that cannot be supported. For all of these reasons you will not, in my view, see your arguments become part of the development of what we call Greek civilization.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Secondly, you have no proof there was a bi racial society, no discovery hs ever shown that.
Wow, you're are ignorant. African and near eastern genetic markers have been found in Greece from over 6000 years ago, and are still prevalent to this day same genetic markers same population.
This confirms from over 6000 years ago, Greece was a European, African, and Near eastern society, hence multicultural.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The greatness of Greece stems from the indo european invasion.
We know almost nothing about the Neolithic communities in Greece, much less whether blacks and whites lived together in harmony or even if blacks were there at all. Genetic markers do not show anything about what the society was like, Even so, I'm not interested in that. I'll even give you the point for now. What is important, and what you cannot deal with is greek civilization. You cannot tie it to african influence and have not offered a SINGLE meaningful example.
FARMING, that everyone had and had for thousands of years is not an answer.
I still want an example.
I think you are a young black man who has bought into the myths that are taught on this board on a regular basis.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: We know almost nothing about the Neolithic communities in Greece, much less whether blacks and whites lived together in harmony or even if blacks were there at all.
We actually know a lot more than you think, or perhaps like to admit.
For example, these African and near easterner genetic markers are found in Greece from over 6,000 years ago, and are still prevalent to this day.
Do tell how your opinion refutes genetic science; can you?
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: FARMING, that everyone had and had for thousands of years is not an answer.
Actually no, everyone did not have farming, especially not Europeans.
How predictable. When faced with insurmountable evidence, the professor again resorts to off-topic red-herring issues such as Greece. The topic of this thread is about Moors! if you want to talk about Greece's population origins, go here! But for the record (pun intended) the African genetic influence on the Greek population dates to Neolithic times well before writing was invented so of course the Classical authors wrote nothing about it since they likely didn't know such a thing at all. However there are references in some of their founding myths about African colonists such as the myth of Danaus of Argos.
Now, getting back to the topic. You still have not been able to refute anything about the Moors being black, let alone that blacks predominated North Africa as natives and created civilizations such as Kemet (Egypt) Garama in Libya etc. So keep drinking that Texan swig.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mindover, You do understand that 25% of the population having the genetic marker does not mean the population is 25% black african. I could have an african genetic marker from 200 years ago and be 1% black. Whatever population there was absorbed into the dominant culture and within 8 generations nothing was left but the marker. All of Sally Hemmings white ancestors have black genetic markers but the are at this point fully white. EVERYONE DID HAVE FARMING, including Europeans. Agriculture spread rapidly once it started and it was all over the globe centuries before the arrival of the Indo Europeans. You offer no proof to back up your contention.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mindover, You do understand that 25% of the population having the genetic marker does not mean the population is 25% black african. I could have an african genetic marker from 200 years ago and be 1% black. Whatever population there was absorbed into the dominant culture and within 8 generations nothing was left but the marker. All of Sally Hemmings white ancestors have black genetic markers but the are at this point fully white. EVERYONE DID HAVE FARMING, including Europeans. Agriculture spread rapidly once it started and it was all over the globe centuries before the arrival of the Indo Europeans. You offer no proof to back up your contention.
Yes, but there is a difference between one person having an African marker and half of the population in southern Greece carrying african marker (that is today, not in ancient times), even developing their own seperate cluster, don't you think?
BTw it's not a coincidence that the closest nation of Europe to Africa and levant received greatest influence during the most early times. Only a fool with agenda would deny this. The Greek alphabet itself is phoenician derived adopted from Sinaitic which derived from Egyptian Hieratic. Can't believe someone is even attempting to argue against such obvious facts. Indo-European origin my ass, it's all Afrasian urban origin.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The Turkish corridor between Greece and Mesopotamia was a constant source of influences on Greece from the east, both in the Neolithic straight through the Hellenistic period.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
American Patriot, ancient Greece was nothing more than the combination of ancient Turkish, Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian cultural practices that were refined and built on by the natives of Greece. Out of that combination came a new culture called Hellenistic Greece, but the foundation of this culture comes not from Greece but elsewhere.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The culture Doug, was established by the Indo European immigrants who entered Greece in mass around 2000 BC. Doug, before 1700 the majority of the people living in Texas were apache, commanche and caddo Indians. That culture was overwhelmed by the massive anglo american migration. That is an EXACT analogy to this situation. You guys are simply out in koolaide land with this argument. It is just a very very feeble racist attempt to hijack a culture africans had nothing to do with. This is message board academics. These ideas may be alive here on Egyptsearch but they are dead as a hammer in mainstream academics.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How predictable. When faced with insurmountable evidence, the professor again resorts to off-topic red-herring issues such as Greece. The topic of this thread is about Moors!
Of which you know very little, as evidenced by your "non black Saracens".
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The culture Doug, was established by the Indo European immigrants who entered Greece in mass around 2000 BC. Doug, before 1700 the majority of the people living in Texas were apache, commanche and caddo Indians. That culture was overwhelmed by the massive anglo american migration. That is an EXACT analogy to this situation. You guys are simply out in koolaide land with this argument. It is just a very very feeble racist attempt to hijack a culture africans had nothing to do with. This is message board academics. These ideas may be alive here on Egyptsearch but they are dead as a hammer in mainstream academics.
There is no such thing as an indoEuropean people dunce. IndoEuropean is a language not a people and not a culture. The culture that entered Greece in 2000 B.C. was derived from the cultures of ancient Turkey, Mesopotamia, the Central Asian steppes and Northern India/Pakistan. This is basically a flow of culture and technology from Asia more so than Europe into Greece. The Central Asian steppes were a powerful force in the history of Greece and Eastern Europe, from the Hunnic invasions, to the Turkic invasions, to the Mongol sack of Babylon and so forth. On top of this flow of culture and technology from Asia came the influences from Africa. That is the basis of the development of ancient Greece in 2000 B.C.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
did not say that, go back an reread. Reading comprehension is a good thing. You are in over your head in this conversation akoben, run along.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, I am not going to continue to have a conversation with someone who denies there was an indo european invasion of greece. Take this garble and exchange your ideas with someone else.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^You don't heed information as if to remain willfully ignorant. There was no "Indo-European" invasion per se because "Indo-European" doesn't describe any particular set of people, it describes a languages family. A dominant theory suggests its origins in Anatolia (Asia) and thus, rendering the said term a misnomer as it doesn't entail "European people". It's been pointed out before as well that more than half the words in ancient Greek were not accounted for in the Indo-European language, which even Palaima confirms in a critique of Martin Bernal, writing "The lexicon of ancient Greek is noteworthy for the large proportion of potentially non-Indo-European words (60 per cent or more)". The earliest Greeks themselves described a "non-Greek" presence already settled in Macedonia and it's curious how Macedonians according to Arnaiz-Villena, share in substantial frequencies African genes most common to Ethiopians and others below the Sahara.
^I just think that it's closed minded, lame and stubborn to suggest that you have all of the answers and nothing else should/can be considered contrary to your conclusions based on ridiculous appeals to authority. You keep re-emphasizing pathetically how "real historians" won't accept such views, "mainstream scholarship" rejects such ideas, I mean, c'mon now, you seem childish. You keep asking people to take historiography, well you obviously need a few more courses in critical thinking.
"An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the source asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).
It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to syllogistic logic, because the validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the source putting it forward. The converse case is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way."
^^Look.. Start offering some substance in your replies instead of making up accusations and claims about hypotheticals (what this person would think of your view or what would happen if you said that at this conference), it's silly! Stop pre-occupying your self with imaginary mainstream scholars and systematically refute the evidence being advanced. That's all I ask. If you can't do that, why not just ignore the people on this forum, since you think they're all quacks anyways and won't even give them the humane respect of offering up a thoughtful rebuttal.
Posted by Abstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
LOL!! That's like saying that "Arabics" are a people!!!
It was fresh at first, but now Professor's getting kindof boring.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
sundjata, What you have here is people making arguments that are so absurd that you cannot get involved in the usual give and take of factal discussion. First, they hve to give me some information that can be refuted or supported.
What do you say to a person that wants to take a genetic marker 8000 years ago and wants to morph it into the creation of western civilization? I have asked over and over for more examples and do not get them. Doug's posts border on incoherence much of the time. When you deny the indo European invasion of Greece you have just fallen off the cliff. At that point the conversation is over.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Captain America asking for respect from a racist white. This just sums up the integrationist Negros and their misguided philosophy.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How predictable. When faced with insurmountable evidence, the professor again resorts to off-topic red-herring issues such as Greece. The topic of this thread is about Moors! if you want to talk about Greece's population origins, go here! But for the record (pun intended) the African genetic influence on the Greek population dates to Neolithic times well before writing was invented so of course the Classical authors wrote nothing about it since they likely didn't know such a thing at all. However there are references in some of their founding myths about African colonists such as the myth of Danaus of Argos.
Now, getting back to the topic. You still have not been able to refute anything about the Moors being black, let alone that blacks predominated North Africa as natives and created civilizations such as Kemet (Egypt) Garama in Libya etc. So keep drinking that Texan swig.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Yes, back to the topic and the fact that there were black Saracens.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Malcolm X was NOT a Saracen at least in the original meaning, idiot! LOL
Saracen was a term used by Europeans in the Middle Ages for Fatimids at first, then later for all who professed the religion of Islam...
The Fatimids were the Syrian 'Arab' dynasties that ruled North Africa. Hence, Europeans distinguished the (black) Moors from the non-black or lighter-skinned Saracen.
Moving on...
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Who said anything about original meaning Mary? Malcolm was a Black Muslim warrior, hence a Saracen.
And did I not show your illiterate ass that the term was not restricted to one group of people? Oh well, at least this way everyone sees how your stubborn Eurocentrism mirrors Patriot's.
You've been exposed again Mary.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: sundjata, What you have here is people making arguments that are so absurd that you cannot get involved in the usual give and take of factal discussion. First, they hve to give me some information that can be refuted or supported.
What do you say to a person that wants to take a genetic marker 8000 years ago and wants to morph it into the creation of western civilization? I have asked over and over for more examples and do not get them. Doug's posts border on incoherence much of the time. When you deny the indo European invasion of Greece you have just fallen off the cliff. At that point the conversation is over.
IndoEuropean is a language. Not only are you a failure at history, you are a failure at genetics and you are a flunk of linguistics. Language does not identify a people or culture. The term IndoEuropean reflects the fact that Europeans and Asians have a common ancestral root in the aboriginal populations of South Asia. It is from that root that Asians and Europeans originate both physically and linguistically. Therefore, calling the people who invaded Greece IndoEuropean does not refute the fact that Greece has continuously been influenced by the people of Asia and Africa right up until the conquest of modern Greece by the Ottoman Turks. Learn geography and stop pretending to know what you are talking about. IndoEuropean languages originate in Northern India and the Central Asian steppes. That is Asia, not Europe. The languages and cultures of Mesopotamia and Turkey are derived from various Asiatic populations who migrated into the region in waves, on top of an older aboriginal populations, mixing a IndoEuropean languages with Afroasiatic/Semitic languages that already existed.
So stop whining and actually pick up a book for a change.
And since you like appealing to authority, why not post one scholar who doubts that IndoEuropean is a linguistic term?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, You stupid man. Read the books I told you about.
Proto-Indo-Europeans Language · Religion · Society
Urheimat hypotheses Adamic · Anatolian · Armenian Indian · Kurgan · Paleolithic
Indo-European studies
Indo-Europeans are speakers of Indo-European languages. The term may apply to:
The Proto-Indo-Europeans (speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language) Bronze Age (third to second millennia BC) speakers of Indo-European languages that had not yet split into the attested sub-families, viz. early Centum and Satem dialects (speakers of languages predating Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Greek, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Balto-Slavic etc.) The term "Indo-Europeans" does not usually refer to speakers of various Indo-European languages in historical times: linguists usually refer to such people specifically as Anatolians, Tocharians, Aryans (Iranians, Indo-Aryans), Greeks, Celts, Italic peoples, Germanic peoples, Baltic peoples, Slavic peoples, Armenians, Albanians (or subdivisions of these groups).
Note that in any event the classification "Indo-European" addresses matters of language, which do not necessarily correlate with divisions of ethnicity or even of specific culture.
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
Retrieved from "http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php/Indo-European_people" Categories: Indo-European | Disambiguation
Page Discussion View source History Personal toolsLog in / create account Login with OpenID Navigation Main Page Community portal Current events Recent changes Random page Help Indo-European Search Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this page
This page was last modified on 26 January 2007, at 13:16. This page has been accessed 459 times. European language portal is part of GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. Copyright Information About Indo-European Languages Disclaimers MediaWiki Skin IndoEuropean Powered by the Indo-European Language Association Design by Indo-European
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, Read the books I told you about.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! WOOOOOO!
You and the Robot are a barrel of laughs. Thanks a lot. Ya'll almost made me bust my gut!
Books you told us about!! LOL, WOOO!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually it is patriot and YOU who are the bad jokes of this forum as well as assopen.
Speaking of which...
quote:assopen farted: Who said anything about original meaning Mary? Malcolm was a Black Muslim warrior, hence a Saracen.
Yes it's shocking how stupid you are as well as stubborn. But those are typical traits of an ass. You asked who said anything about original meaning? And it obviously was I. Original meaning of Saracen was for the non-black Arab-Syrian Muslims of North Africa, as opposed to Moors who were the black native Muslims of North Africa.
quote:And did I not show your illiterate ass that the term was not restricted to one group of people? Oh well, at least this way everyone sees how your stubborn Eurocentrism mirrors Patriot's.
LMAO As usual you have shown me nothing except how incredibly dumb as well as illiterate YOU are! Your dumb ass has apparently forgotten that the term 'Moor' also is not restricted to one group of people today either. Both 'Saracen' and 'Moor' have been corrupted in usage to mean any Muslim of North Africa. This still does not change the original meaning and etymologies of both words dummy! And exactly what Eurocentrism do I have that you speak of?? This is rich coming from YOU, a European and one who vehemently denies Europeans (your people) having ancient African ancestry from the Neolithic-- why just like American Patriot!! So please don't project YOUR guilt on to me.
Well, seeing that you rave a poster who thinks posting perverted images is a intelligent form of debate... what do you expect. I wouldn't even engage someone like that unless you like more perverted replies.
Anyway,
Some examples more examples of North African diversity:
Libyan Nalut Spring festival Moorish (Tuareg) and other Libyan types:
Not to mention that the strong influence of black African rhythms and syncopation on the Northern African musical tradition. This tradition has many elements that can be considered "foundational" to the modern pop music genre. And as well, with the strong spirituality of the Gnawa tradition, you have the African spiritual roots of what is also seen in the African American spiritual basis of jazz, blues, gospel, R&B, house and rap.
Look at this gnawa performance and note the similarities to break dancing. Some Berber musical styles with heavy use of drums, echo the later beats of rap as well as are early echoes of later drum and bass and other forms. But again, the root of all of this goes back to the musical traditions of black Africa, fused with the other cultural traditions from outside Africa.
A group of black healer musicians of Morocco who are well-known for their purification ceremonies, their abilities to treat psychic disorders and other maladies, just by using sheer, magnificent spiritual power of the Gnawa music and rhythms.
Dar Gnawa, perform on many official and national celebrations as on international festivals, representing the Gnawa Culture worldwide.
This is what a PHD in African studies is supposed to be teaching, but of course since being co-opted you don't get this kind of stuff.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't know what Mathilda says about her two images far below on the left that you posted but they're of Algerian provenance and probably based on how some Numidians looked.
Maybe abdulKarem(sp) or somebody will translate the Arabic Mathilda deleted from those postage stamps which were posted here last year.
quote:Originally posted by Dj:
... Phoenicians were foreign colonists who were not natives of North Africa, ... the populations who were natives were blacks??!
. . . .
... Arabs and Phoenicians were foreign colonists from the 'Near-East' and were not the predominant native populations of North Africa!
... here are a few Roman mosaics of indigenous people from Carthage for you to ponder over:
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:And it obviously was I.
Hence your irrational screaming at my posts are your problem, not mine, as they have nothing to do with what I meant. Nowhere did I say the meaning of the words Moor or Saracens were static and unchanging. The only reason you keep coming back is because you fucked up by claiming erroneously that Saracens were the non-black Muslims of North Africa and got...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Well, seeing that you rave a poster who thinks posting perverted images is a intelligent form of debate... what do you expect. I wouldn't even engage someone like that unless you like more perverted replies.
You're right. I never realized that perhaps the nasty ass will merely use my rebuttals merely as a psychological fixation that verges on the sexual. So I just won't indulge it anymore.
quote:Anyway,
Some examples more examples of North African diversity:
Libyan Nalut Spring festival Moorish (Tuareg) and other Libyan types:
Of course, the professor will merely dismiss these pics as having no historical value since they are modern photos. No doubt he dismisses all these black North African natives as "newcomers" from Sub-Sahara despite there presence in their localities for millennia.
quote: Not to mention that the strong influence of black African rhythms and syncopation on the Northern African musical tradition. This tradition has many elements that can be considered "foundational" to the modern pop music genre. And as well, with the strong spirituality of the Gnawa tradition, you have the African spiritual roots of what is also seen in the African American spiritual basis of jazz, blues, gospel, R&B, house and rap.
Yes, well modern day Pop music is descended from older forms of Afro-American music which in turn is descended from Africa carried via slaves and immigrants. Of course the Sahara would be the common source of musical styles both in North Africa as well as those south of the desert.
quote:Look at this gnawa performance and note the similarities to break dancing. Some Berber musical styles with heavy use of drums, echo the later beats of rap as well as are early echoes of later drum and bass and other forms. But again, the root of all of this goes back to the musical traditions of black Africa, fused with the other cultural traditions from outside Africa.
Yes. I notice also the jubilant hand-clapping also described among ancient Egyptian music by Classical Greeks. And the strings and accompaniment is also nice. I personally like the Tuareg band Tinariwen
quote: Dar Gnawa
A group of black healer musicians of Morocco who are well-known for their purification ceremonies, their abilities to treat psychic disorders and other maladies, just by using sheer, magnificent spiritual power of the Gnawa music and rhythms.
Dar Gnawa, perform on many official and national celebrations as on international festivals, representing the Gnawa Culture worldwide.
This is what a PHD in African studies is supposed to be teaching, but of course since being co-opted you don't get this kind of stuff.
That depends on who you are talking to and to what academic system he is a part of.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know what Mathilda says about her two images far below on the left that you posted but they're of Algerian provenance and probably based on how some Numidians looked.
Maybe abdulKarem(sp) or somebody will translate the Arabic Mathilda deleted from those postage stamps which were posted here last year.
Yes, thankyou I was asking for these pics and the thread where you first posted them. I really didn't want to use anything from Mathilda but it was the only thing I got from a quick google-image search, and well alot of her Egyptians pics were ripped off from this forum so what the heck.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL @ the professor's last post. Now the guy brings up another red-herring about Indo-European languages!
What does Indo-European have anything to do with the topic of this thread?? Furthermore, IE languages are languages which are easily adopted and exchanged and therefore don't say much physically or genetically about the actual speakers themselves.
For example the women below are Indo-European speakers
So getting back to the topic at hand...
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
I did not bring up the subject of indo European languages, Doug did. It is obvious you do not read the books covering the topics we discus but you might more carefully read the thread.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
OK, but the Gnawa are originally taMazight speaking north Africans. As their name implies, they originate from the Sudan. Gnawa are primarily Bambara a Mande speaking people.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know what Mathilda says about her two images far below on the left that you posted but they're of Algerian provenance and probably based on how some Numidians looked.
Maybe abdulKarem(sp) or somebody will translate the Arabic Mathilda deleted from those postage stamps which were posted here last year.
Yes, thankyou I was asking for this pics and the thread where you first posted them. I really didn't want to use anything from Mathilda but it was the only thing I got from a quick google-image search, and well alot of her Egyptians pics were ripped off from this forum so what the heck.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The modern day African nation of Mauritania is located in the northwestern area of the continent...
The majority of Mauritanians are described as Moors or black Muslims whose ancestors were Berber tribes who were converted to Islam in the 9th century by invading Arabs of the Beni Hassan. Although the Arabs or those of Arab descent like in many parts of North Africa are installed in elite positions it was the Moors themselves who played a more pivotal role in the Islamic conquest of both Northwest Africa in Iberia. Kel-Lmta or the Lamtuna clan was among the first of the Sanhaja or Saharan Berbers to convert to Islam. Not too long after the Hassane or warrior caste of the Lamtuna began to wage jihad in effort to spread Islam as well as establish military and economic power. In time they established the Almoravid dynasty which not only made its way to the Mediterranean coast (Morocco) but even crossed over the Straits of Gibraltar and conquered Iberia.
But the story of the Moors goes back even further than all this...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The modern day nation of Mauritania is in fact named after the more ancient kingdom of Mauretania located further north.
In Antiquity, Mauretania was originally an independent Berber kingdom on the Mediterranean coast of north Africa (named after the Mauri tribe, after whom the Moors were named), corresponding to western Algeria, northern Morocco and Spanish Plazas de soberanía. The Mauri people were indicated with the Greek word mauros, black. Some of the earliest recorded history relates to Phoenician and Carthaginian settlements such as Lixus, Volubilis, Mogador and Chellah. The kingdom of Mauretania was not situated on the Atlantic coast south of Western Sahara, where modern Mauritania lies.
Hence, the Mauros were the indigenous (black) pre-Carthaginian inhabitants of the Northwest Africa.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Oh Mary, I almost forgot. If you are going by the "original meaning" of the term Saracen then you will have to go beyond Europeans of the middle ages to the early Christians,
"early Christian sources often applied the term Saracen indiscriminately to Muslim populations in general, including the Moors." [Link]
See this is what happens when your source for information is Wikipedia and you scorn black scholars. You undercover Eurocentric you.
You are exposed in very which way Mary. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't think Hassane are anything but beni Hassan Arabs and their descendents. Hasaniya is an Arabic dialect related to those in the Yemen. Check the Maur class/caste system for clues to the ethnicity of MaurItanians who of course are not the same as the ancient MaurEtanians. This is not to say that the modern nation state does not take its name from the fact that the al~Murabitun conquerers of Iberia were in fact known as Moors hence the appropriated term Maur.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Ignoring the panty fetish nazi tranny whose queries were previously answered on the last page...
The main point is that the very word Moor is derived from the Greek Mauros meaning black and therefore its original meaning applied to the black inhabitants of North Africa. If professor patriot disagrees he is welcome (as always) to refute the above.
To ignore the guy, just ignore him. Don't respond to his comments and don't refer to him. Act as if he doesn't exist. Let him focus his attention cravings on others who'll feed it.
As for the so-called 'patriot' why persist on honoring him with the title professor when he doesn't even have a GED less lone a PhD.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't think Hassane are anything but beni Hassan Arabs and their descendents. Hasaniya is an Arabic dialect related to those in the Yemen. Check the Maur class/caste system for clues to the ethnicity of MaurItanians who of course are not the same asthe ancient MaurEtanians. This is not to say that the modern nation state does not take its name from the fact that the al~Murabitun conquerers of Iberia were in fact known as Moors hence the appropriated term Maur.
From what I gather, Hassane is the modern day use for the warrior caste. The name is no doubt of Arabic extraction, but this is to be expected since they do claim descent from Beni Hassan, and appear to be the most Arabized of the Berber castes.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Well, seeing that you rave a poster who thinks posting perverted images is a intelligent form of debate... what do you expect. I wouldn't even engage someone like that unless you like more perverted replies.
Yeh we are all aware of your intelligent style of debating as seen in your "real" black Madonna picture spams. lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: To ignore the guy, just ignore him. Don't respond to his comments and don't refer to him. Act as if he doesn't exist. Let him focus his attention cravings on others who'll feed it.
You mean like the way his guy pals feed him d**k. You're right, he is a silly little british batty boy with an asian fetish. I'll stop stringing him along now.
quote:As for the so-called 'patriot' why persist on honoring him with the title professor when he doesn't even have a GED less lone a PhD.
LOL Of course I use the term 'professor' sarcastically. As for at least GEDs, you know they give it to anyone these days. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Maybe they give GEDs to anyone but he still hasn't got one. I hear they even refused to sell him one.
From an earlier round on this same topic with the 'patriot' when in his subconscious desire to be a black dubbed himself 'Horemheb.'
I'm sorry I can't find the post where the warrior, vassal, cleric, and slave classes/castes of Maur society are broken down but note that halPulaaren were generals in Mauritania not a decade ago before they suffered a 'pogrom.'
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course. The 'professor' obviously has recollection problems of his previous debasements and humiliations. No matter how many years pass and how many threads on the same topic generated, he will still deny simple historical facts that involve the significance of blacks whether it be black Moors or black Egyptians. His racially-warped mind cannot accept the fact blacks are native to North Africa and were historically relevant.
By the way, I recall the other two castes being Zaiuwa and Zenaga. The former being the clergy and the latter the servants. I believe this was mentioned by Ausar.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Interesting. Ithought the Zenaga were the original inhabitants of the north part of Mauritania some of whom became clerics and most of whom became vassals.
Then there are outlier groups like the Imraguen who may have been part of the Bafur inhabitants of the south part of pre-Hassaniya Mauritania.
Zenaga ~= Senegal
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't think Hassane are anything but beni Hassan Arabs and their descendents. Hasaniya is an Arabic dialect related to those in the Yemen. Check the Maur class/caste system for clues to the ethnicity of MaurItanians who of course are not the same asthe ancient MaurEtanians. This is not to say that the modern nation state does not take its name from the fact that the al~Murabitun conquerers of Iberia were in fact known as Moors hence the appropriated term Maur.
From what I gather, Hassane is the modern day use for the warrior caste. The name is no doubt of Arabic extraction, but this is to be expected since they do claim descent from Beni Hassan, and appear to be the most Arabized of the Berber castes.
The Bani Hassan are late comers to Mauritania. They entered the picture long after the Almoravids ceased to be a force in NW Africa and after the Muslims had been expelled from Spain. They are the primary force responsible for the current social system in Mauritania, primarily due to the 30 year war between themselves and the Lamtuna Berbers.
quote: Beni Ḥassān (Arabic: بني حسان "sons of Ḥassān") was a Bedouin group, one of several Yemeni Maqil Arab tribes who emigrated in the Middle Ages to northwest Africa and present-day Western Sahara and Mauritania. They were preceded in much the same manner by the more well-known Bani Hilal Arabs.
The Beni Hassan and other warrior Arab tribes managed to establish their dominance over the Sanhaja Berber tribes of the area, and after the Char Bouba war of the 17th century. As a result, Arab culture and language came to dominate, and the Berber tribes were more or less arabized. The Bani Hassan's dialect of Arabic thus became the tongue of the region, and is still spoken in the form of Hassaniya Arabic.
Beni Hassan claim to be descendants of their ancestor Maqil, once living in Tunisia. This Maqil had two sons Suhair and Mohammed. This Mohammed was the father of Muhtar, who was the father of Sabbana and Hassan, the Hassan from which the Beni Hassan took their name. Many descendants of the Beni Hassan tribes today still adhere to the supremacist ideology of their ancestors. This ideology has led to oppression, discrimination and even enslavement of other groups in the region of Western Sahara.[1]
There is also a Beni Hassan tribe in Jordan whose territory stretches to Al Mafraq, Hamamah, Zarqa, and Irbid.
Prior to the 17th century the region of modern Mauritania was dominated by various Berber speaking and non Berber black African groups, more aptly termed Moor than the descendants of those who arrived long after the Moors were a functional power in NW Africa.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Not so late! Check the years, about 200 year difference, no?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
They weren't the original people from Mauritania who invaded Spain or were part of the time period referred to as the Moorish period in Spain is what I mean. They are too late in Mauritania to be included in that ethnic group. It wouldn't be accurate to include them as part of any Moorish population in Mauritania prior to 1500 AD.
Many of the populations of Mauritania prior to the arrival of the Hassiniya Arabic speakers were more closely related to the Islamic African cultures to the south, ethnically, physically and culturally, as the styles of dress and custom, including the metalworking are shared across a wide range of black Islamic communities from the Sahara to Nigeria. And this is important because many historians create this fake divide between Saharan Berbers and other Africans to the South when in actuality these two communities are like close cousins with strong ties of culture that predate Islam. Likewise, it is through this tie of trade and shared origins that much of the African influence entered into Islamic Northern Africa, including the textiles, the music and so on. Moorish North Africa was built on the trade with Western Africa which included gold, spices, leather, soldiers and the Berbers were some of the biggest customers of West African products, including steel and textiles. It is this package of Islamic culture that can be truly called African Islam and can be seen in Mali, Senegal, Niger, Nigeria and also in Sudan, which also has a similar pattern of Islamic culture to West African/Saharan Islam. This is especially seen in the white tunics with red, green and yellow squares that are found in both Sudanese historical contexts along with Nigeria. And it is from this ancient Saharan West African population that the Moors of ancient times were drawn from.
And it is from West Africa that the tradition of heavily embroidered African tunics can be said to originate. I would kinda say it is similar to some of the embroidery seen in some jeans or more popular fashion elements today with swirls and loops, as seen in the image above and below, which is hand made and one of a kind.
quote: Agbada is the Yoruba name for a type of flowing wide sleeved robe, usually decorated with embroidery, which is worn throughout much of Nigeria by important men, such as kings and chiefs, and on ceremonial occasions like weddings and funerals. The Hausa name for the robes is riga. Although today they are often still made from hand-woven cloth, the painstaking and beautiful hand embroidery that was used in the past is very rarely seen. Fine old robes have become family heirlooms passed on from father to son and worn with pride at major celebrations. In the past prestige robes were traded over vast distances and similar or related garments are found throughout much of West Africa.
Now, an important thing to understand is that all of this is old in West Africa, yet foreign European oriented NGOs keep flooding these areas with discarded clothing, which only destroys the native textile industry of Africa. Either that or they make it seem as if Africans need Europeans to teach them how to develop a textile industry, when the African textile industry predates contact with Europeans and the textile industry of Western Europe.
^ keep this up and you're only going to humiliate yourself again like in your last Moorish debate with the great Jew.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Doug, I maybe getting the names of the Arab tribes confused, but I know that the Almoravids or the Lamtuna clan in general were first converted somewhere in northern Mauritania/southern Morocco by one or several Arab tribes. Perhaps you are confusing the Beni Hassan for the Ummayids (original Saracens)(?)
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Interesting. Ithought the Zenaga were the original inhabitants of the north part of Mauritania some of whom became clerics and most of whom became vassals.
Then there are outlier groups like the Imraguen who may have been part of the Bafur inhabitants of the south part of pre-Hassaniya Mauritania.
Zenaga ~= Senegal
Yes, the Zenaga were the natives of the Senegal river who were assimilated by the Saharan Berber nomads. The class or caste system among the Berber nomads is very well a system traditional among them and not a recent creation by Arabs as some believed. The upper castes-- the Hassanes and Zaiwa are perhaps the more 'pristine' so to speak especiallys since they are the ones who most strictly adhere to their matrilineal descent. The Hassanes in particular while claiming Arab descent in their father's side of course still claim the main native ancestress on their mother's side. I am not to familiar with the Zaiuya, but as for the Zenaga, even though they are considered a 'servant' caste they are more so a commoner caste. It is the Haratin who truly fit the servant stratum of society. But of course the caste system of the Saharans is, I take it, not as strict or rigid as that of say Indians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
In most of the texts I have seen the Beni Hassan are not attested in Northern Africa until about the 13th century and in Mauritania until the 17th. Therefore, it is not possible that they are the ones who first converted the Mauritanians to Islam as they were already converted by that time.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The majority of Mauritanians are described as Moors or black Muslims whose ancestors were Berber tribes who were converted to Islam in the 9th century by invading Arabs of the Beni Hassan.
I would say that the Mauritanian black muslims are descended from the ancient Zenaga speaking Moorish populations who were subjugated by the Beni Hassan in the 17th century.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes, the Zenaga were the natives of the Senegal river who were assimilated by the Saharan Berber nomads. The class or caste system among the Berber nomads is very well a system traditional among them and not a recent creation by Arabs as some believed.
The Zenaga were actually part of the Saharan Berber nomadic confederation called the Sannhaja. Again, they are all part of an ancient strain of African bloodlines from the Sahara into West Africa. Zenaga is a bastardized form of Sannhaja. And it is from the term Zenaga that the word Senegal derives. The nonsense that somehow pastoral nomadic culture arrived in Africa with Islam is nonsense. This pattern was already established from 10,000 years ago and is the basis of the ancestral connection between West Africa and the Sahara. Horse riding, camel riding and donkeys all predate Islam in North and Western Africa, along with trade from West Africa to North Africa. And there is strong evidence for ties with the Nile Valley as well through a Sahelian corridor to West Africa. Islam primarily traveled into West Africa on networks of trade and culture that already existed.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In most of the texts I have seen the Beni Hassan are not attested in Northern Africa until about the 13th century and in Mauritania until the 17th. Therefore, it is not possible that they are the ones who first converted the Mauritanians to Islam as they were already converted by that time.
You may be right, and I may be mistaken. Again, I assumed it was the Beni Hassan if not another Arab tribe. But it was some Arab tribe that introduced Islam to them. If you could find out who it was, that could prove useful.
quote:I would say that the Mauritanian black muslims are descended from the ancient Zenaga speaking Moorish populations who were subjugated by the Beni Hassan in the 17th century.
Yes, of this part I am certain. The Almoravids who conquered Spain come from the Lamtuna clan of Sanhaja.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The Sahrawi are politically a branch of the Hassaniya speaking Arab Mauritanians that descend from the mixture of Berbers and Arabs in Mauritania. There was no such thing as a Sahrawi when the Almoravid launched their invasion of Spain.
Berber speaking people were already present throughout the Sahara and into Mauritania prior to the arrival of Islam. Any suggestion that these people arrived there at about the same time as Islam is pure histrionics based on Islam being the catalyst for the development of African culture. The fact that you have settlements in Mauritania going back 4,000 years makes it clear that trade and commerce was already a well developed pattern long before the arrival of Islam and that many of these folks included Berber speakers. The spread of Berber speaking Nomads from Sudan and East Africa into North West Africa far predates the arrival of Islam and certainly is not derived from Islam. Much of what is written about the "arrival" of Berbers into Mauritania or the Sahara "magically" about the same time as Islam is nonsense. That is like saying that Africans arrived in the Sahara about the same time as the Arabs. In reality the movement of Islam is not the same as the movement of Berber speakers. Inscriptions in Tifinagh from throughout the Sahara are over 2000 years old. Berber speakers have moved around in Africa over the last 1000 years, but most of that movement has been of black Africans Southward in response to encroachment by foreigners.
From wikipedia, which really contradicts itself on this issue in many ways:
quote: The Znaga or Zenaga tribes were at the bottom of Sahrawi-Moorish society in today's Mauritania and Western Sahara in North Africa. They performed demeaning duties for their Hassane (warrior) and Zawiya (religious) overlords, and were additionally exploited through payment of the horma tax in exchange for protection, as they could not bear arms. Though often Arabized in culture and language, they are believed to be descended from the Sanhaja Berber population present in the area before the arrival of the Arab Maqil tribes in the 12th century, which was finally subjected to domination by Arab-descended warrior castes in the 17th century Char Bouba war;[1] according to Mercer, the word "znaga" is thought to be a distortion of "Sanhaja".
^ Sorry, I meant Sanhaja. Of course Berbers had their own cultures and history long before Arabs and Islam. One of the hilarious notions put forth by white supremacists is that West African states themselves were spurred on by the Arab influence! LOL This is a joke since Arabs did not even reach the Sahel, and there were no unified states among even the Islamisized Berbers until centuries after the development of unified nations and empires further south. The Sanhaja and other Berbers of the Sahara were essentially nomads with some settled groups in Oasis areas. As is many the case the propagation of 'Islam' was the excuse used by the Sanhaja to create an empire.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Neolithic Greeks were from the Balkans. Read the entire body of work on the subject. You are, in my view, affraid of the Martin book for all of the obvious reasons.
Technically you are right, but alas..
It seems that both in the Paleolithic and the dawn of the Neolithic, those pesky Africans keep appearing according to the quote from Martin's book below:
"Greek prehistory forms part of the prehistory of Europe, which in turn has its beginnings in the movement of early peoples outward from the African continent.. The first human beings in Greece probably migrated there long ago from the African continent via the eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia; a skull found at Petralona in Greece has been dated to at least two hundred thousand years before the present..."
"The Stone Age is conventionally subdivided into the Paleolithic (Greek for "Old Stone") and Neolithic ("New Stone") Ages. The end of the Paleolithic and thus the beginning of the Neolithic is usually placed about ten to twelve thousand years ago... People of modern type (Homo sapiens sapiens) began to migrate from Africa into Europe during the last part of the Paleolithic period. This new population eventually replaced completely the earlier populations, such as the Neanderthals; how this happened remains unknown..."
^ Zarahan, take it up with patriot here.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Sorry, I meant Sanhaja. Of course Berbers had their own cultures and history long before Arabs and Islam. One of the hilarious notions put forth by white supremacists is that West African states themselves were spurred on by the Arab influence! LOL This is a joke since Arabs did not even reach the Sahel, and there were no unified states among even the Islamisized Berbers until centuries after the development of unified nations and empires further south. The Sanhaja and other Berbers of the Sahara were essentially nomads with some settled groups in Oasis areas. As is many the case the propagation of 'Islam' was the excuse used by the Sanhaja to create an empire.
Yes. But the Sahara had multiple civilizations from which the modern Berbers descend. Some predate and were pivotal to the development of dynastic Egypt and others were there at the time of the Romans and Islam. The Garamante were the main settled population of the Sahara upon the arrival of Islam.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
More nice videos (call and response, sing song, lyrical dueling/battles, musical storytelling, bard):
Notice how some of the steps are similar to Spanish Flamenco.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
great thread,if you dont mine alow me to butt in with some none scholarly obersavations; now back when i was a kid in jamaica as reciently as 30yrs ago older folks use to tease very dark skin pickainny by calling them blackie moor we never knew what the term meant untill we read shakespear,now i guess that was hold over from slavery and pre independence time from the british. but the point is the word moor was being used for dark skin black people within my own life time, and if you dont belive me just walkup to any avarage jamaican over 30 and ask them. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, which is why it's important to free your minds from the shackles of ignorance that are most powerful form of the shackles of oppression by white supremacy.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes. But the Sahara had multiple civilizations from which the modern Berbers descend. Some predate and were pivotal to the development of dynastic Egypt and others were there at the time of the Romans and Islam. The Garamante were the main settled population of the Sahara upon the arrival of Islam.
Of course. The Garamantes were just one. There are probably others undiscovered yet in the Sahara.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: Dakka Marrakchia Festival – A Musical Celebration
The Dakka Marrakchia Festival is not only part of the tradition in Morocco, but it is part of their heritage. It is a festival that has been passed down through the generations and dates back to the time when the Saadian Dynasty was in power in Morocco. Marrakech celebrates the Dakka Marrakchia Festival annually in the month of February. The rhythms and beats of this lively festival, lifts the spirit and pays tribute to the saints of the Marrakech region.
The spiritual patrons or saints of the region are referred to as Sabaatou Rijal. There are seven saints: Qadi Ayad, Imam El Jazouli, Imam Souhayli, Sidi Youssef Ben Ali, Sidi Abdelaziz Tabbaa, Sidi Abdellah El Gazouani and Abou El Abbas Essebti. To represent these seven saints, musicians from seven districts, namely the El Moukkaf neighborhood, Bin Laarassi, Bab D’Bagh, Derb Dabachi, Sabtiyyine, Cashbah and Ben Salah, take part in the festival. During the Dakka Marrakchia Festival ordinary locals, such as shopkeepers, artists and craftsmen, become the heart of the event, filling the air with traditional music and foot stomping beats.
Generally, male musicians perform the music that is played at the festival, and there is a lot of percussion, such as drumming, involved. The neighborhoods chosen to participate have been known for their exceptional musical talent throughout the centuries and traditional musical instruments are used and distributed during the festival. Musical instruments played by the Moroccan musicians are a combination of drums and are accompanied by choral chants. The instruments include, lakrakash, taarija, naffar and tara.
Each year the Dakka Marrakchia Festival is organized by the Asdekaa Nakhil Association (their name means “Friends of the Marrakech Palm Tree”). Their aim for the festival is to preserve this traditional event that is a part of their history and, hopefully, a part of their future. Trying to involve the youth by hosting workshops, conferences and exhibitions, educates the future generation on the history, folklores and cultural aspects of Morocco, and creates the interest and knowledge that will ensure the survival of this cultural festival. Visitors should try to attend the Dakka Marrakchia Festival, as it is a rare glimpse into a tradition that has been celebrated in Marrakech for over a thousand years.
And this is just one small part of the traditions of Morocco, this isn't even getting into Algeria, Libya, Niger, Mauritania or further south into Senegal, Mali and so forth.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Note the elaborate saddles and fringed leather, which was influential on the development of rawhide braiding in Europe and the U.S.
quote: The Moors, who lived along the seacoast of northern Africa, crossed the Straits of Gibraltar (located between northern Africa and Europe) and conquered Spain in the year 711. The Moors took with them their knowledge of braiding and leather craft. Domination of Spain by the Moors lasted until 1492. During this period of time the art and style of braiding in Spain advanced significantly.
Hernando Cortez and his Spanish conquistadors invaded Mexico in 1519, and eventually overpowered the Aztec leadership of Mexico in 1521. Cortez is credited with introducing horses to North America. The conquistadors who accompanied Cortez were skilled in the art of leatherwork and braiding, and they taught the native Indians of Mexico how to braid and work with leather and rawhide. This became the foundation for even greater improvements to the rawhide braiding craftsmanship that would follow.
Doug continues to post modern pictures to try to make a point about ancient life. Any post of that nature should be disregarded as silly nonsense.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
You mean of course your mere one liner denials are regarded as silly nonsense? Ok, I get it.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
I understand mindover that you have no appreciation of historical method. He also implied that black Africans geve Spain it's famous leather work which is absurd since the Goths settled the area centuries earlier and had not only great leatherwork but metal work as well. there is no limit to the lengths you guys go to simply make things up. You would be great fiction writers.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
How about why don't you post some evidence to back up your own claims?
That is the historical method. You simply are a whiner because you have nothing to refute what has been posted.
That is the only method you comprehend. Whining in order to avoid posting anything of substance.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I understand mindover that you have no appreciation of historical method.
I have no appreciation for those who claim to be history teachers, but can not cite a single reference for anything he/she finds to be incorrect.
Just mere one liner denials, deeming everything as afro-centric as a scapegoat for your lack of intellect and refutations is not historical method. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug continues to post modern pictures to try to make a point about ancient life. Any post of that nature should be disregarded as silly nonsense.
Actually Doug's purpose is to show the peoples from which the Medieval Moorish invaders are derived from! The Moors and especially the Almoravid dynasty which conquered Spain were Sanhaja Berbers such as the modern Tuareg of today.
FACT: blacks are and have always been indigenous to North Africa-- from prehistoric times, to ancient times, to Medieval times.
We know this fact upsets you professor, but deal with it!
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
riiiiight Djehuti.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I know am right, pat. Which is why you are still unable to refute info such as this below:
The modern day African nation of Mauritania is located in the northwestern area of the continent...
The majority of Mauritanians are described as Moors or black Muslims whose ancestors were Berber tribes who were converted to Islam in the 9th century by invading Arabs of the Beni Hassan. Although the Arabs or those of Arab descent like in many parts of North Africa are installed in elite positions it was the Moors themselves who played a more pivotal role in the Islamic conquest of both Northwest Africa in Iberia. Kel-Lmta or the Lamtuna clan was among the first of the Sanhaja or Saharan Berbers to convert to Islam. Not too long after the Hassane or warrior caste of the Lamtuna began to wage jihad in effort to spread Islam as well as establish military and economic power. In time they established the Almoravid dynasty which not only made its way to the Mediterranean coast (Morocco) but even crossed over the Straits of Gibraltar and conquered Iberia.
But the story of the Moors goes back even further than all this...
The modern day nation of Mauritania is in fact named after the more ancient kingdom of Mauretania located further north.
In Antiquity, Mauretania was originally an independent Berber kingdom on the Mediterranean coast of north Africa (named after the Mauri tribe, after whom the Moors were named), corresponding to western Algeria, northern Morocco and Spanish Plazas de soberanía. The Mauri people were indicated with the Greek word mauros, black. Some of the earliest recorded history relates to Phoenician and Carthaginian settlements such as Lixus, Volubilis, Mogador and Chellah. The kingdom of Mauretania was not situated on the Atlantic coast south of Western Sahara, where modern Mauritania lies.
Hence, the Mauros were the indigenous (black) pre-Carthaginian inhabitants of the Northwest Africa.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Patriot has been shown to be unable to do anything other than whine about why logic and facts support the fact that blacks are indigenous to North Africa. It is simply a reflection of the fact that whites know full well how much Africa has influenced their development as a civilization and that their histrionics about Western civilization depend on covering up and hiding these facts, especially that of black African influence.
But I still do not agree that the Mauritanians were converted by Beni Hassan arabs because they werent there yet. They were converted in the 9th century. Likewise, the Almoravids were motivated by the conversion of two of their chiefs, Abdallah ibn Yasin and Yahya ibn Ibrahim, who were not Arabs at all by most accounts. Keep in mind that many core theological and spiritual tenets that have developed in North West Africa and were considered as heresies have still nevertheless had a profound impact on Islam. And actually across the world this was the norm, because Islam as it was originally practiced at the very beginning is definitely not the Islam of today. And of course, Africa, along with Persia and India are very important places of Islamic theological development.
Likewise there are many not only theological but cultural and artistic influences as well.
But we know why Mr. Patriot keep trotting out his whining appeals:
Origin of the word slave:
quote: At last we should mention the Slavs who arrived in the Muslim Spain. These can be subdivided into two groups: one consisted of the slaves of Slavic origin who were recognized as a highly valued commodity there, and the other were Slavic warriors who voluntarily became mercenaries in the service of the Arabic rulers of Spain; the latter must have been surely attracted by the fabulous wealth of al-Andalus.
The Slavic slaves sold to Muslim Spain included female concubines for the harems of the rich Arabs who were especially valued for their light complexion and blond hair, and males, often brought in as young boys, who either became civil servants, palace servants, eunuchs at the above-mentioned harems, or, in the case of the physically strongest speciemen, troops of the elite Slavic Guards, which served as preatorian guards whose soldiers enjoyed special privileges, of Spain's Arabic rulers. It must be also added that part of the Slavic slaves who arrived in Spain were later transferred to other locations in the Muslim world, like North Africa and even Near East; in the former the existence of the Slavic Guards has also been confirmed (see below about the Slavic Guard at Nukur).
Even this article states clearly that Spain was a mixed population in the Islamic areas, quite contrary to the protestations of the Patriot. It also mentions the African presence elsewhere as well.
quote: The alliance of the Slavic pirates with the Arabs mentioned by Abu'l-Fida'y was by no means the first one of its kind; Constantine Porphirogenetus reports that during the reign of Emperor Nicopherus in 805 or 807 Slavs attacked the city of Patras in the Peleponessus, together with "Saracens and Africans".
quote: The Slavic-ruled states established in Spain during the fitna were somewhat similar to the ones estabished by the Berbers, in that they were both founded by the alien military elites apparently pursuing their own interests and without much interest for the indigenous populations (that is actually Wasserstein's own assertion, the examples of at least some of the Slavic rulers show that, at least in some cases, the opposite was true); they were also often torn apart by internal squabbles, had very mixed native populations, and were either unwilling or unable to import additional members of their own race to increase their numbers.
quote: Surprisingly enough, the Berbers and Slavs were in many ways alike; they both dominated the military and administration, many of those in the military could not speak Arabic, their cultural levels were quite different from those of al-Andalus, they often did not settle on the land, they strongly retained their distinct racial identities, and, at least until the beginning of the Taifa Period, many did not become urbanized in spite of being encamped in vicinity of cities.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Point blank, many Moroccans and other Northern Africans are simply light skinned Africans, most likely due to interaction with European, Levantine and Arabian populations.
Not to mention the fact that the black Berber speaking and Nomadic folks in the Sahara and to the South are the original North Africans to begin with and still exist from Niger right up into Tunisia.
More historical testimony of the black Moors, although the source, Edith Wharton, is quite hostile to black achievements and only grudgingly gives them any credit:
quote: The Almoravid princes who founded Marrakech came from the black desert of Senegal, themselves were leaders of wild hordes. In the history of North Africa the same cycle has perpetually repeated itself. Generation after generation of chiefs have flowed in from the desert or the mountains, overthrown their predecessors, massacred, plundered, grown rich, built sudden palaces, encouraged their great servants to do the same, then fallen on them, and taken their wealth and their palaces. Usually some religious fury, some ascetic wrath against the self-indulgence of the cities, has been the motive of these attacks, but invariably the same results followed, as they followed when the Germanic barbarians descended on Italy. The conquerors, infected with luxury and mad with power, built vaster palaces, planned grander cities, but Sultans and Viziers camped in their golden houses as if on the march, and the mud huts of the tribesmen within their walls were but one degree removed from the mud-walled tents of the _bled_.
This was more especially the case with Marrakech, a city of Berbers and blacks, and the last outpost against the fierce black world beyond the Atlas from which its founders came. When one looks at its site, and considers its history, one can only marvel at the height of civilization it attained.
The Bahia itself, now the palace of the Resident General, though built less than a hundred years ago, is typical of the architectural megalomania of the great southern chiefs. It was built by Ba-Ahmed, the all-powerful black Vizier of the Sultan Moulay-el-Hassan.[A] Ba-Ahmed was evidently an artist and an archaeologist. His ambition was to re-create a Palace of Beauty such as the Moors had built in the prime of Arab art, and he brought to Marrakech skilled artificers of Fez, the last surviving masters of the mystery of chiselled plaster and ceramic mosaics and honeycombing of gilded cedar. They came, they built the Bahia, and it remains the loveliest and most fantastic of Moroccan palaces.
Marrakesh was the southern most prosperous city of early Morocco, long before any such modern boundaries existed and had a long history of trade and wealth from the South. This would also include the black Africans who originated that trade and wealth.
And I am quite sure that if you go back in the historical annals of Morocco this connection to black Africa of the early Empires there is quite clear. Just looking at the videos of the musicians doing dakka shows the obvious black African influence that has been blended and formed a new tradition, much as black African influence has fused and formed new traditions elsewhere.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
And for Mr. Patriot here is another shot of the Rif Pirates:
Guess these photos are not historic facts huh?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Not according to Pat! The good 'professor' won't be satisfied until we provide actual full-color photographs of the Moors! To him, not even full detailed descriptions and accounts or even painted portraits of the Moorish conquerors by the native (white) Europeans are good enough for historical data! Until then, he will just keep clinging to his whiskey induced dream of Arab Moors and Almoravids! LOL Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Actually, The Patriot is simply regurgitating and defending certain segments of majority scholarship on the subject. Most books on the Moorish period of Spain go to great lengths to create a fake distinction between Berbers as a "race" or ethnic group separate from other Africans, especially black Africans. In this scheme of histrionics, Berbers can be an ethnic group, culture and identity that has nothing to do with most Africans, who are black, almost as if it is a prerequisite for being Berber. With such a foundation of pseudo historical distinctions between Berbers as Africans solely North of the Sahara, then they can present all sorts of other distinctions between the Africans in the Sahara and those to the South, with "negroes" or African blacks always broken out as a separate group and lumped together as one. So it only makes sense that he would defend such histrionics because in the Eurocentric mind they are the only ones qualified to tell history and of course they never lie or distort the truth.
So for someone to go outside the frame of distortion and dig for the truth on their own of course represents a threat to the establishment and the distortions it is built on.
One good example of this is the Sufi musical brotherhoods of Morocco. Almost all of them are based on a strong black African influence from instruments to styles of playing and most importantly a spiritual or trance element. Such elements are most definitely not part of the Islamic orthodoxy and more often resembles the Creole Gumbo of New Orleans in terms of African Vodun traditions mixed with more classical elements from the U.S. If you look up Moroccan brotherhoods they are all based around the same thing: music and trance as a form of therapy. I don't know what distinguishes them but they are all quite African in my book, especially given that you find such traditions from the tip of Tunisia all the way to South Africa among black African groups.
But of the three groups, it is the Gnawa that seems to be most associated with black Africans, even though the rest are as much influenced by Black Africa as the Ghawa, but they all also have Persian and other influences as well.
These traditions seem to be more along the lines of the 'hidden' animist tendencies that have gone underground and are considered black magic or witchcraft by some.
In some of these you can here the echoes of the horn marches of New Orleans.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug wrote: ---------------------------------- So it only makes sense that he would defend such histrionics because in the Eurocentric mind they are the only ones qualified to tell history and of course they never lie or distort the truth. ----------------------------------
Doug, I hate to tell you, but this Djehuti psycho believes the same eurocentric historians. Djehuti has made more virulent racist commentary about Africans than anyone who has been here. Most of it based on those same eurocentric historians you have angst with.
Folks reading this have seen me call him out on his evil, wretched racialistic dogma on several occasions.
How Djehuti's life has devolved to this point is a mystery.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug M wrote:
quote: Point blank, many Moroccans and other Northern Africans are simply light skinned Africans, most likely due to interaction with European, Levantine and Arabian populations.
Doug why would they have to be mixed to have so called "light" skin?
Are you saying that Africans only have so called "dark" skin?
Is that why you are always using the Eurocentric phrase "black" African?
What is "light" skin? What is "dark" skin?
By your own words if a Nigerian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Kenyan, Tanzanian, Chadian, Eritrean, Burkino Fasian, Malawain, etc is so called "light" skin they are mixed.
Isn't this the same pseudoscience used by Eurocentrics for the purpose of culture theft?
Why are you repeating their lunacy?
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
i am sure that this fourm went covered this already. but bere with me,the Fulani and the Berbers are they related?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug explain to us all what exactly do you mean by "mixture".
How many people does it take for mixture to take place? How many people took part in this "mixture"?
Aren't you doing what the race loon site idiots do, which is to use "mixture" to explain away people whose look threatens your junk science racial beliefs?
Are the Japanese and Koreans mixed because American soldiers have gotten some of their women pregnant?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by ackee: i am sure that this fourm went covered this already. but bere with me,the Fulani and the Berbers are they related?
I am not sure what you mean by related. Berber is a language and the Fulani are an ethnic group. Some Tuaregs are very close to the Fulani in many ways.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
i ment both. ok you said some Tuaregs;i was just wondering, because in the pic above they are hanging out together. btw you touch upon the moorish non-Islamic side of their religion, i know you are buesy with this thread,but you might want to check out my thread moors,magic and witchcraft,you may find usefull,also we can broach the question of the goat of Mendes cult of lower kemet. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug, its interesting to see how once again you run like a transvestite to the hair salon on a Friday when someone calls you out for your Eurocentric beliefs.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Sounds like you speak from experience, Gaygoyle.
What's the matter?
^ Nevermind, I can see the look of misery on your face. Is dinner with your boyfriends really that bad??!
ROTFLOL Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Click to see what's buggin' Mary
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by ackee: i ment both. ok you said some Tuaregs;i was just wondering, because in the pic above they are hanging out together. btw you touch upon the moorish non-Islamic side of their religion, i know you are buesy with this thread,but you might want to check out my thread moors,magic and witchcraft,you may find usefull,also we can broach the question of the goat of Mendes cult of lower kemet.
You mean both of what? In some parts of Niger and Mali the Tuareg are physically very close to the Fulani. They are also close culturally as being pastoral nomads. There are other ways of identifying relationships, but I am sure they are both genetically E3 carrying Africans.
Goat (animal) cults, fire cults and other sorts of "magical" traditions are all over Africa. That is one reason African traditional religion is called Animist. Such traditions are found among all human groups, but in more modern societies and cultures, especially those of the more modern religions, these practices are looked down on and therefore go underground. And then there are the groups in Europe who take bits and pieces of such traditions from all over the world and use it for their own traditions.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct. What alot of people don't realize is even though many of these African groups are Muslim, they still maintain pre-Islamic traditions and the same is true for many Christian and Jewish Africans.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
Ok another reason i ask is because i half remember a passage from the book the Golden Age Of The Moors somehting about the Fulani resembling the ancient Libyans on Kemetian wall paintings,interms of dress body art and mode of life. example women being transported by an ox.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
Patriot
The original point that seems to have gotten lost is that people in and around the Netherlands still depict "Moors" as black Africans to this very day! Hence the black paint and curly wooly wigs. They don't depict them as "asian" or "eurasians".
No matter how ignorant and racist this customary thing is....it reveals some facts about the past.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
what does thst hsve to do with history?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In 10th century Mauritani some of those who are now halPulaaren were members of the Sanhadja subset Banu Warith of the Djuddala.
quote:Originally posted by ackee: i am sure that this fourm went covered this already. but bere with me,the Fulani and the Berbers are they related?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: what does thst hsve to do with history?
Hmm... What do centuries old traditional depictions by Europeans have to do with history, indeed?... Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
Thanx Altakruri,Doug.you guys have the Golden Age Of The Moors, What do you think of the passage,i-am talking about?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Yes the Fulani who wear the feathers and the long decorated tunics are said to be strongly remniscent of some of the ancient Libyans from Ancient Egyptian art. If I remember correctly some of these darker Libyans were found in various Egyptian dynasties and possibly even tuts tomb. However, most often the white Libyans often get most of the focus. There were 131 or so canes found in Tut's tomb and many had depictions of various foreigners. I think I remember seeing some darker Libyans on some of these. If not that then maybe it was from another tomb/time period.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Oh so now the Libyans were black. How about the chinese Doug. Maybe if we land on Mars and find some little green men we will end up finding out they were really black africans. There is no end to silly stuff here. It is like a visit to a flat earth society meeting.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You obviously weren't paying attention to what Doug just wrote, let alone the many past threads in which ancient Libyans were discussed!
Again, the few pictures of white Libyans such as the Meshwesh which tend to get the most focus by white-washed scholarship which is all YOU know, underscore the simple fact that the earliest Libyans were as indigenous Africans (just like the Egyptians) black people! All Egyptian paintings from the beginning of the dynastic period all the way to the Middle kingdom depict them as not much different in appearance from the Egyptians themselves-- dark brown in color i.e. 'black'. Even in later times during the Roman period, Libyan peoples such as the Garamantes were also called Negritai by the Romans!
So yes 'professor', scoff all you want at the idea of native blacks of Africa-- Libya is in Africa, remember? Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
When you start talking about white washed scholarship you leave the reservation of reality. This is simply an afrocentric ploy to justify making up myths and presenting them as history. Libya is in Africa Djehuti, but North Africa is not black and has never been in the historical period, including today.
This idea of evil European historians may play well on ES but it is a joke everywhere else.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You obviously weren't paying attention to what Doug just wrote, let alone the many past threads in which ancient Libyans were discussed!
Again, the few pictures of white Libyans such as the Meshwesh which tend to get the most focus by white-washed scholarship which is all YOU know, underscore the simple fact that the earliest Libyans were as indigenous Africans (just like the Egyptians) black people! All Egyptian paintings from the beginning of the dynastic period all the way to the Middle kingdom depict them as not much different in appearance from the Egyptians themselves-- dark brown in color i.e. 'black'. Even in later times during the Roman period, Libyan peoples such as the Garamantes were also called Negritai by the Romans!
So yes 'professor', scoff all you want at the idea of native blacks of Africa-- Libya is in Africa, remember?
Do you have colored wall renderings of the Meshwesh?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Have we checked with art historiands to find out what various colors designated in particular art or are we just coming up with answers we like? My guess is that we have no read an ounce of art history when dealing with ancient paintings.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Oh so now the Libyans were black. How about the chinese Doug. Maybe if we land on Mars and find some little green men we will end up finding out they were really black africans. There is no end to silly stuff here. It is like a visit to a flat earth society meeting.
We are talking about ancient Libyans Mr. Patriot. Libyans in central and Southern Libya to this day are still black. Blacks have always been in Libya.
But we all know that for you the space ships landed a long time ago, especially if you believe black Africans are not the aboriginal people of North Africa. Black Africans are the aboriginal people of the earth period. You simply need to stop pretending otherwise.
Stop pretending to know what you are talking about or to represent people who do.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
again you post modern pictures to back up an ancient point. Secondly the pictures you post do not look black african at all. You again DODGE the question with a meaningless insult. The question is Doug, do you do research through art historians before you come up with these wild ideas of ancient art? The answer is no. Doug, I am going to be right 99% of the time. You and I know you are not a reader, at least not a reader of anyone's history. Mostly what you do is repeat what you pick up on ES.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Mr Patriot, don't pretend to actually know what you are talking about. Blacks have always been in Libya. And you cannot disprove it via art historians. It requires genetic and skeletal data and analysis by anthropologists. The fact is that there are numerous anthropological studies that show that black Africans have always been in Libya. The modern portraits show that they are still there. And being that Libya is in Africa it only goes to show that the only people desperate to keep blacks out of North African history is the whites who know how important North Africa is to their history. There are black Africans in those photos Mr. Patriot. The fact that you don't like it and lie about it is not my problem.
Again, you are whining because you have nothing to support your claims that blacks are foreign to Libya or any other part of North Africa. Stop whining and actually cite some scholars for a change.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You guys are the ones who try to use art to prove your bizarre ideas Doug, not me. I simply said, when you use art do you vet your ideas through art historians or, as I think, you just make things up.
When your entire case is based on calling people who disagree with you frauds you have a weak case. You guys here on ES can cuddle up to each other on these wild ideas if you wish but it is going nowhere.
I did not see any blacks in those pictures. Having a dark complexion does not make one a negroid.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
Patriot
Exactly what is a "negroid"? Please explain in full detail.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
There are three races in the world, nigrids are one of them. Every human being belongs to one of those groups.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: There are three races in the world, nigrids are one of them. Every human being belongs to one of those groups.
Perhaps you did not comprehend this well. I repeat...explain IN FULL DETAIL WHAT IS A NEGROID!?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Having a dark complexion does not make one a negroid.
You know, you'd be surprised to see who in here actually argues something similar.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
I am not going into detail nomoreiles because that information is all over the web.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I am not going into detail nomoreiles because that information is all over the web.
You get all your information from the web? You are either 12 or 65. There is no one definition to be found on the web or anywhere else. Some say there is no factual definition and no longer even use these archaic "oid" terms to describe groups of people.
Since you still want to use this term, I suggest you stay out of this thread until you can provide a definition of "negroid" you believe to be true, then be prepared to defend it with factual evidence...not whining. Next!
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Scientists often say the term is outdated and that may be true from the standpoint of their discpline. Practically, however, for most purposes it is still true. If you moved into my neighborhood doubtless the residents would understand the definition. I always found it interesting that people on this board claim there is no such thing as race and then spend their time talking about nothing but race.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Scients often say the term is outdated and that may be true from the standpoint of their discpline. Practically, however, for most purposes it is still true. If you moved into my neighborhood doubtless the residents would understand the definition. I always found it interesting that people on this board claim there is no such thing as race and then spend their time talking about nothing but race.
To compare your neighborhood to different regions of the world, mainly on a VERY large continent that existed millions of years before your neighborhood is assanine at best. Even "practically", it still is NOT true.
As far as my own stance, I do not discredit the idea of race. It's just that people like you have a VERY shallow and elementary idea of it, especially when it comes to African people.
I really don't think you are a professor of any kind.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Of course he isn't. He is simply a mouthpiece for white supremacy. White supremacy is based on a racialist paradigm which breaks the world up into "races" which are purely a construct of white pseudo science and serves to put the white "race" on top of all others. White supremacy does not care about the facts of biology and the fact that whites did not exist 40,000 years ago to begin with. They only care about control of institutions and being able to force their lies and world view into the brains of others. It isn't about facts or evidence it is about whites being the supreme authority over history and anthropology and everyone else having to follow what they say. It isn't about what is right it is about being in control and the authority figure. Therefore, Mr Patriot the so called professor simply keeps producing nothing but substance other than trying to be the gate keeper and authority figure over what is right and what is accepted. And in almost all cases what is right and accepted comes solely from whites who of course are supposedly the only people who know anything about history and populations around the world, even though they only learned about the rest of the world 500 years ago.
Whites have no part in the ancient history of human development which goes back 200,000 years in Africa. They know this. That is why they try and focus on the extremely recent frame of history and try to put Europe as the center of all human development when it isn't. Humans do not originate in Europe, did not learn to think in Europe, did not learn to write in Europe, did not learn to plant seeds in Europe, did not first raise livestock in Europe, did not first build cities, fire, bows and arrows, spears nor anything else in Europe. It is all simply Europeans being desperate to give themselves a history and place in it that reinforces their view that they should be the owners of everyone else's history and understanding there of.
This deck of cards is flimsy to begin with and of course introducing solid facts will demolish it. But again, these people do not care about facts, they only care about being in control and being able to disseminate their point of view no matter how absurd or ludicrous it may be. And this is obvious because even after being presented with undeniable facts and evidence, they simply ignore it. Because that is their purpose, to lie and distort anything that does not suit their agenda. No more and no less. So in this context being a professor only means being an authority figure and not having to prove anything, other than to support and reinforce the goals and aims of white supremacy.
Bottom line Mr Patriot is nothing but a whiner who depends on the fantasies of racialist dogma to support his views and not facts.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Typical dodge, if you cannot handle the argument simply insult your opponet. We have already established that Doug knows nothing of historical method and does not read history. Nomorelles comes on acting like he knows something about genetics and yet does nothing but parrot the ES afrocentric standard line.
Doug, If you were correct about whites in Europe, and I do not think you are, they sure caught up during the historical era. I suppose what you are trying to tell us is that blacks were effective up to a point and then petered out. Looking around the world over the last several thousand years you would be correct. the totally lacked the ability to defend themseves at the beginning of the colonial period and could not today. In the list of nations of the world they bring up the rear in almost every negative catagory. We have poured billions into their communities both here and in africa and yet the IQ's remain low, cultural problems deepen and many fear that the problems cannot be solved. So, while they may have been good at chasing a goat in 10,000 BC they cannot compete in modern western civilization.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
LOL, talk about dodging. Ya'll shouldn't let him off the hook so easily about defining the descriptor, Negro. It should be hilarious, especially with his last fall back on the racially charged, IQ and it's relationship to Africans, or in his mind, Negro Africans.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Typical dodge, if you cannot handle the argument simply insult your opponet. We have already established that Doug knows nothing of historical method and does not read history. Nomorelles comes on acting like he knows something about genetics and yet does nothing but parrot the ES afrocentric standard line.
Doug, If you were correct about whites in Europe, and I do not think you are, they sure caught up during the historical era. I suppose what you are trying to tell us is that blacks were effective up to a point and then petered out. Looking around the world over the last several thousand years you would be correct. the totally lacked the ability to defend themseves at the beginning of the colonial period and could not today. In the list of nations of the world they bring up the rear in almost every negative catagory. We have poured billions into their communities both here and in africa and yet the IQ's remain low, cultural problems deepen and many fear that the problems cannot be solved. So, while they may have been good at chasing a goat in 10,000 BC they cannot compete in modern western civilization.
Americanparrot
The only person parroting is you. I have asked you time and time again for YOUR definition of negroid. You cannot even type a few words describing this "oid"? All you can spew is a few ignorant charges about an entire grouping of people you know very little about?
Dont inform us of your political knowledge since you dont know what kind of aid has been flowing into Africa and who it was meant to ultimately benefit. You are ignorant in this arena also.
Please try and leave something of substance and present your negroid definition. Otherwise go back to Stormfront where you are safe from human intellect.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Typical dodge, if you cannot handle the argument simply insult your opponet. We have already established that Doug knows nothing of historical method and does not read history. Nomorelles comes on acting like he knows something about genetics and yet does nothing but parrot the ES afrocentric standard line.
Doug, If you were correct about whites in Europe, and I do not think you are, they sure caught up during the historical era. I suppose what you are trying to tell us is that blacks were effective up to a point and then petered out. Looking around the world over the last several thousand years you would be correct. the totally lacked the ability to defend themseves at the beginning of the colonial period and could not today. In the list of nations of the world they bring up the rear in almost every negative catagory. We have poured billions into their communities both here and in africa and yet the IQ's remain low, cultural problems deepen and many fear that the problems cannot be solved. So, while they may have been good at chasing a goat in 10,000 BC they cannot compete in modern western civilization.
The only one dodging is you. You have not provided one shred of anything to support your claims about black Africans not being indigenous to North Africa including to say that the following are not black Africans from Libya:
Saharan nomadic blacks who have always been crossing the Sahara from Niger to Libya and the Mediterranean and are the first settlers of North Africa:
And then you proceed to continue as if you have something to say. But you don't. You have no credibility. Nothing you say has anything to back it up and every time someone provides evidence you present nothing of any value. Therefore, again, stop whining like a child, because your nonsense is exposed for what it is. And you actually want to lecture as if you know what you are talking about after being shown to be a fraud.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
This must be a joke. One thing I know is that Patriot does not post facts of any kind. He just makes simple and often stupid comments.
Portrait of a Moroccan Youth: Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Why is it called 'orientalism' if all these pictures depict Africans??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Orientalism refers to a 19th century phenomena of Europeans obsessed with mainly Islamic societies. In that era Albania, Greece, "Slavia," and Turkey were considered the Near East and, like all the Mediterranean lands and Arabia, were included in Orientalist paintings.
The focus of this forum is Africa and is why you are seeing Orientalist selections fixed on Africans.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
I was gonna post this in response to Dirk8's thread then I figured why waste it.
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: To be honest, I have to express some doubt that the Moors were all black. If that was true, why'd they depict themselves like this?
It's from "Qissat Bayad wa Riyad".
I don't consider Moors and Turks to be the same people.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
^ The Moors were used to refer to various distinct peoples. That included the North-West African peoples (led by Yemeni migrants) and later, the Turks. The latter is pale skinned while the former isn't.
Posted by JMT (Member # 12050) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: To be honest, I have to express some doubt that the Moors were all black. If that was true, why'd they depict themselves like this?
It's from "Qissat Bayad wa Riyad".
I don't recall anyone ever stating that "all" Moors were Black. However the evidence of eye witness accounts from White Europeans, iconography, and literature suggest the vast MAJORITY were Black. You should focus your attention on why Blacks have been completely whitewashed out of Moorish history, unless you're under the false assumption that Blacks during the Moorish era were simply "servants" or "Mercenaries".
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Another thing is most of the focus is on Islamic era Moors... when Euros have been calling them that name since Greek times...Now like others have said they the Moors rerly refer to themselves as Moors that they had proper names for themselves...if for eg you want to know what a Sanhadja looked like they are still very much around...a quick goole search will put you in contact with them.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Nobody is confused about what Moor refers to. Even American high school text books make it clear that the Moors were African muslims.
Quote from a text on Moorish literature:
quote: WITH A SPECIAL INTRODUCTION BY REN´E BASSET, PH.D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FRANCE, AND DIRECTOR OF THE ACAD´EMIE D’ALGER SPECIAL INTRODUCTION. The region which extends from the frontiers of Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean, and from the Mediterranean to the Niger, was in ancient times inhabited by a people to whom we give the general name of Berbers, but whom the ancients, particularly those of the Eastern portion, knew under the name of Moors. They were called Maurisi by the Greeks, said Strabo, in the first century A.D., and Mauri by the Romans. They are of Lybian origin, and form a powerful and rich nation.[1] This name of Moors is applied not only to the descendants of the ancient Lybians and Numidians, who live in the nomad state or in settled abodes, but also to the descendants of the Arabs who, in the eighth century A.D., brought with them Islamism, imposed by the sabre of Ogbah and his successors. Even further was it carried, into Spain, when Berbers and Arabs, reunited under the standard of Moussa and Tarik, added this country to the empire of the Khalifa. In the fifteenth century the Portuguese, in their turn, took the name to the Orient, and gave the name of Moors to the Mussulmans whom they found on the Oriental coast of Africa and in India. The appellation particularizes, as one may see, three peoples entirely different in origin the Berbers, the Arabs of the west, and the Spanish Mussulmans, widely divided, indeed, by political struggles, but united since the seventh and eighth centuries in their religious law. This distinction must be kept in mind, as it furnishes the necessary divisions for a study of the Moorish literature. The term Moorish Literature may appear ambitious applied to the monuments of the Berber language which have come down to us, or are gathered daily either from the lips of singers on the mountains of the Jurgura, of the Aures, or of the Atlas of Morocco; under the tents of the Touaregs of the desert or the Moors of Senegal; in the oases of the south of Algeria or in Tunis.
Moor was a term that derived from the Roman name for the provinces in Africa and their dark skinned inhabitants. It then became used as a reference to the dark skinned people who invaded Spain in the 8th century, which included both Africans and non African blacks. And it then expanded to mean any dark skinned Muslim from Africa, Arabia, the Middle East, Persia, Afghanistan, India and South Asia. Marco Polo even writes of Moors in the Indian Ocean in his travels. Only later did it become expanded to the point to describe any Muslim in Medieval Spain.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Video entitled Black Majesty, which clearly depicts the black African Berbers of North Africa or Moors of antiquity.
Note the Eurasian ladies/Berbers at 13:00. But obviously the mixing of black African males and Eurasian females and vice versa across the Mediterranean is quite ancient.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
