“Moor - in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of Spain, of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Berber origins, who created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries. By extension (corresponding to the Spanish moro), the term occasionally denotes any Muslim in general, as in the case of the Moors of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or of the Philippines.
The word derives from the Latin Mauri, first used by the Romans to denote the inhabitants of the Roman province of Mauretania, comprising the western portion of modern Algeria and the northeastern portion of modern Morocco. Modern Mauritanians are also sometimes referred to as Moors (as with the French maure); the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, however, lies in the large Saharan area between Morocco and the republics of Senegal and Mali.”
- "Moor" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
When the Arab armies swept across Northern Africa in the 7th Century AD, they found in the north-western corner of that continent the Berbers, an ancient grouping of part White origin (indeed, to this day, red hair is not unknown amongst the Berbers).
The Berbers were converted to Islam after a sharp struggle at the beginning of the 8th Century.
“Then Berbers and Arabs then joined in invading and conquering Spain, as a mixed race sprang up called the Moors.”
any one here in a similar situation ...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Moor \Moor\, n. [F. More, Maure, L. Maurus a Moor, a Mauritanian, an inhabitant of Mauritania, Gr. ?; cf. ? black, dark. Cf. Morris a dance, Morocco.] 1. One of a mixed race inhabiting Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli, chiefly along the coast and in towns.
2. (Hist.) Any individual of the swarthy races of Africa or Asia which have adopted the Mohammedan religion. ``In Spanish history the terms Moors, Saracens, and Arabs are synonymous.'' --Internat. Cyc.
Many of the modern definitions of Moor OMIT the fact that there was a LARGE Islamic civilization centered at Timbuktu which ALSO was part of the Islamic population in Spain. Therefore, many of these DARK people were also referred to as "Moors" because of their DARK skin. Therefore, Moors were NOT limited just to the COAST of North Africa.
Posted by cHiMpSs (Member # 11270) on :
well m not sure about certain issues my back ground is so messed im of indian origen but of arab decent ....moors were mentioned cus i ve got spanish cousins who re muslim and live in cordoba ,canu help me in sum way thanx
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
There was never such thing as a moorish race, what united them was the religion, so anyone was a moor who fought for islam from the south in spain, however the majority of the moors were the berbers of marrocco.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
The term Moor comes from the Greek term Mauros which during Greco-Roman times described indigenous North-western African people. Of course the term meant ''dark-skinned''
In later periods during the invasion of the Arabs into Northern Africa it became associated with soliders in the Arab armies. The soliders were generally Imazigh[Berbers] that fought in the Arab armies. Europeans later applied this to the Muslims who occupied Al-Andulas during the Medieval times.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Of course many of the Islamic people who entered Spain were Berbers. HOWEVER, lets us not forget that a LARGE part of Africa subsequent to the invasion of Spain became ISLAMIC along with the coastal areas. As a RESULT of this intrusion of Islam into the HEART of Africa, there would have been MANY BLACK African moors in Spain. It is mind boggling how many people forget that this period is the SAME PERIOD as that of Mali and Timbuktu which are BLACK African Islamic centers from the SAME period as the Moors in Spain.
In fact, for a LONG TIME, Moor has been used as a synonym for BLACK, by EUROPEANS THEMSELVES. It is not ME making this up, but look at OTHELLO and you will see this. So trying to say that Moor has NO connection to the BLACK African muslims from places like Mauritania is RIDICULOUS.
Also, let us not forget that MANY of the indigenous BLACK Africans who were in North Africa were also part of the original campaigns into Spain. Many MOROCCANS at the time were DARK skin Berbers. For a long time in Europe, Moor was synonymous with a BLACK person. It is only recently that people have begun to try and differentiate between DARKER skinned Moors and lighter skinned ones. Some were dark some werent, but it is NOTABLE that many people in Europe who are identified as MOORS from this period are indeed BLACK PEOPLE. You see it in European art, literature AND history.
quote: Continuing on to the southern end of Piazza Navona we find the Fontana del Moro, designed by Giacomo della Porto and erected in 1575. The fountain has statues of four Tritons and the basin is made of special antique rose marble. In 1654, Bernini carved the central figure, a muscular Triton riding a dolphin, that resembles a "Moor". Thus, the fountain is called the Fountain of the Moor. During a restoration in 1874, the original sculptures were moved to the Villa Borghese and substitute copies were made and are still on the fountain.
A famous fountain with a BLACK figure in the center.
Also, you should not forget that Morrocco in the 1800s had a MUCH LARGER population of BLACK AFRICANS than today. There are MANY books from this period which show in pictures and ART the fact that Morrocco had a LARGE BLACK AFRICAN population(who were not slaves). Therefore, to assume that because many Moors came from Morrocco, that they were automatically lighter skinned, is FALSE. Just like the fact that OMITTING the fact that Moor is also related to the nation of Mauritania, ALSO is a distortion. You must also remember that this period is JUST BEFORE the onslaught of European colonial incursions into Africa for slaves and MANY African Kingdoms were destroyed, just as many were destroyed by the Islamic Arabs before them. All of this has taken place within the last few hundred years or so. Therefore, it is hard today to get an accurate picture of the people involved in the ORIGINAL invasions of Islamized Africans into Spain.
quote: The Roman Term "Maur" described the native inhabitants of North Africa west of modern Tunisia. Ancient to modern authors, as well as portraits, show them with a varity of features, just as the modern population contains. This was contrasted with other peoples described as "Aethiopes", or "Ethiopians,who lived further south, and Egyptians, or "Aegyptus". As described above, they composed a variety of peoples in this region who probably had origins in the Sahara when it desiccated in the late Holocene period. Whether they were light skinned and blond hair, dark skinned, or somewhere in between, DR. Keita has noted that this diversity was indigenous to the North African region, and not the result of foreign settlement (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs).
If you want to see some black Moors, look at the Mauritanian picture thread and you will see some. Also look at those of Mali as well and you will see some too. All of these people were part of what was the Moorish empire in that part of Africa.
I am not trying to diminish the fact of Berbers (which can come in MANY complexions) being part of the Moorish invasion. What I am saying is that much of this history ignores the fact that there were LARGE black African Islamic Kingdoms during the period of Moorish occupation in Spain and that some periods of Moorish Spain saw more than a fair share of BLACK African Moorish rulers.
The painting "The Moorish Chief" by Eduard Charlemont is a classic example of the European image of the Moor and a good example of many people in Morrocco in the 18th century. A large reason for the LACK of any large black African community in Morrocco today has to do with Slavery.
vry very interesting please more info thanx
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Moor is a slippery term in the extra African world and Moorish identity varies through time. At the origin of our word Moor is the Greek word mauros an adjective meaning dark applied as a Latin noun, Maurus, denoting the people of the Roman province Mauritania consisting of what is now the north parts of Morocco & western Algeria. One century before the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb, Procopius' History 3.13.29 reports:
quote: And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Mauretanii, but very white in body and fair-haired.
So the first Moors so named by the Greeks and Romans were North African Imazighen, aka "Berbers," notably darker than the north Mediterraneans and certain other Imazighen.
Not long after the above quote was written, Arabs and Arabized "middle easterners" and Iranians professing Islam overcame Amazigh resistance last led by queen Dahya alKahina of the Aures in eastern Algeria. Though technically part of Numidia rather than Mauritania, all these Imazighen adopting Islam and under Arab orders invading and successfully conquering what is now southern Spain came to be called Moros. 150 years later ibn Qutayba wrote down Wahb ibn Nunabbih's opinion:
quote: Kush and Cana`an's descendants are the various races of blacks:
Nubians
Zanj
Qaran
Zaghawa
Ethiopians
Copts and
Berbers.
Maur started out as a north Mediterranean concept of a specific North African region's people, but after the birth of al Andalus ("Vandal Land"), aka "Muslim Spain," the term Moor came to generally mean African Muslim in the European languages. Though the Black-a-Moor is the Moor that mostly captures western imagination there were also Tawny Moors and White Moors. Their ascent in Europe survives in surnames of their European descendents: Moore, Blackmoor, Tanimer, Whitmore, etc.
The term Black-a-Moor is a contraction of the phrase "Black as a Moor." The dominant image of a Moor as literally black, though they were a variety of complexions, is because of two Andalusian dynasties that arose in what is now the modern nations of Mauretania and Western Sahara. They were the al Murabitun and al Muwahhidun which included large numbers of what are now Senegalese who are among the blackest skinned people on earth. Many of the Zenaga al Mulathimun were themselves very dark.
The legacy of the Roman age Mauritanii and the Moros of al Andalus live on in the names of Morocco and Mauretania. To Africans, the Amazigh people of those countries are the Moors and not the Gnawa people of the Sahel and Savanna. In particular the Mauritanians are the Maurs divided into Beydan white Maurs and Haratin black Maurs. Though some Fulani and Wolof have Mauritanian citizenship that stretches back to pre-Almoravid days, they are not Maurs nor do they seek to call themselves Maurs.
Many of the inhabitants of the original old Mauretania were pushed south by the Arabs in turn pushing the Bafur southward. Yemini Arabs penetrated to Mauritania a thousand years ago and eventually became the ruling class among the Beydani which also included Zenaga. The peculiar Hasaniya dialect of Arabic is theirs but these Yeminis are by no means the origin of the Maurs, in fact being the last people and the only Arabs to acquire the name Moor which properly belongs to the northwest Africans.
The Gnawa or western Sudanese are not Moors. The Gnawa attribute the collapse of the Songhai empire to a Moorish invasion from Morocco. The descendents of the Moroccan army in Songhai, which included Spaniards and I think Scotts in their invasion corps as well as genuine Moors, are known as the Arma. Excluding Mauritanians, I don't think any ethnic group located below the Sahara between the Atlantic and Lake Chad other than the Arma call themselves Moors. Its the Euros who indiscriminately threw their word Moor around to the point that even Indians and Filipinos were called Moors.
This is why Moor is such a slippery term because its definition and application to anyone, except the Mauritanians and Arma, is an externally imposed identity and will vary through time and according to the country of the observer using the word Moor.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Great info on the history of 'Moors' as well as Northwest Africa in general, Al Takruri.
It should also be pointed out that these Yemeni Arabs, although a small minority had quite an impact upon the surrounding natives especially bearing the religion of Al-Islam. Which is why some but NOT all the natives in that area of Africa including some Imazighen peoples like Tuareg of like to claim Yemeni ancestry even though they don't. As has been discussed before.
Posted by cHiMpSs (Member # 11270) on :
SO IM INTERESTED TO SEE IF THERE I SNEW DEVELOPMENTS IN IT FROM THE LAST THREADS THAT WERE DONE ,IHAVE A VERY BIG PROBLEM TRYING TO TRACE MY ROOTS WHICHIS UNBELEIVABLY HARD ,IM HPF INDIAN AFRICAN ARAB DECENT AND i got a little of italian in me has well but mostly that from my mums side but very distans they have irish italian in them ..so where wud i strt its along hard struggle to find where u actually come from but iknow the moors were mentioned by my father but another one before he died was he mentioned they emigrated to new zealand has well is this true ,,,canu find out for me ..im on a course to try and trace my ancestory thanx ..
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Al Takruri:
Who are the Bafur? Also, are you saying that the Kingdoms of Songhai, Mali and Dahomey were not part of the Moorish Empire?
Also, this Malaysian Muslim says that the al Murabitun and al Muwahhidun sects of Islam were AGAINST learning and science and are the CAUSE of the downfall of TEACHING in Islam.
quote: SPEECH BY THE HON TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT THE CONFERMENT OF THE HONORARY DOCTORATE IN KNOWLEDGE SCIENCE BY THE MALAYSIAN MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY AT MALAYSIA MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY, MALACCA ON SUNDAY, 25 JULY 2004 ..... 11. Then there are the great civilizations of China and India from where much new knowledge was discovered and developed. Even the Southeast Asian civilizations of Cambodia and Java were the results of knowledge and a complex Hindu culture.
12. It is clear that knowledge is the determinant of human civilizations. Our civilization today began with the European quest of knowledge from the Muslim Arabs and other Muslim races. During the great days of the Muslim civilization, scholars from Europe, mainly the Christian clergy made serious efforts to learn the heritage of knowledge of the Muslim scholars. Later the Europeans re-conquered Spain and gained access to the libraries of the Muslims. The knowledge in the books stored there was assiduously translated, learnt and developed.
13. With this knowledge the Europeans emerged from the Dark Ages during which time they attributed everything they could not understand to the supernatural, to evil spirits, to black magic etc. Now they were set to link their observations to reality and to depend on reason and their senses rather than to the supernatural. It set into motion the studies which demanded material proof and logic, of whatever was found around them. They called the application of proof acceptable to the senses and to logic philosophy at first. But gradually this discipline came to be known as science, a branch of knowledge which required physical and material evidence as proof of the reality of things.
14. This new demand that all knowledge must be proven by the senses of sight, smell, sound, feel and taste clashed with the beliefs which maintained that everything was created that way by God or some supernatural power. To appear to believe otherwise was heresy. And scientists came under supervision and were persecuted, were put to death frequently by burning at the stakes as witches for heresy.
15. But before this happened to the Christian scientists, it had already happened to the Muslim scientists. Towards the middle period of the Muslim occupation of Spain, the weak Muslim states resulting from the break up of the 250 years of dynasty of Abdul Rahman of Al Andalus, had to seek help from their Muslim Berbers in North Africa to fight off the attacks by the Spanish Christians.
16. These North African Muslims had come under the rule of the Al Morabid (Al Murabitun) and the Al Mohads (Al Muwahidun), Muslim sects which rejected all learning except that about the religion. Upon the establishment of their rule in Spain they discouraged the acquisition of knowledge other than that specifically about religion. After the coming of the Almorabids and Almohad, there were practically no more Muslim scientists, physicians and scholars.
17. It may be thought that these Berber Muslims were motivated by a desire to purify Islamic teachings. But their discouragement of learning was more political than religious. Not being learned in the sciences and other knowledge they were afraid that those learned in these subjects would gain influence and power and so undermine the rule of the religiously knowledgeable.
18. Whereas in Europe the scientists gradually gained respectability and with the help of the monarchy managed the separation of the church from the state, in the Muslim world, the religiously learned succeeded in ending non-religious studies and ensured the permanency of the power of the religiously trained.
19. And so we see a divergence in the development of the European civilization and the Muslim civilization. The European embraced the sciences and became ever more rich and powerful, while the Muslim civilization went into decline. To explain this decline and to persuade the Muslims to endure their oppression by the Europeans, the Muslim scholars declared that the world is not for the Muslims because heaven will be their abode in the afterlife. Since afterlife is more permanent while sojourn in their world is temporary, they must consider themselves more fortunate than their oppressors who lead a better life only in this world. There is therefore little need to seek success and a good life in this world. The fact that Islam, according to the Quran enjoins upon Muslims to seek a good life in this world and in the afterlife, is deliberately ignored. The religious scholars insist that Muslims should only seek a good life in the akhirat by performing certain rituals which will confer merit to the individual in the afterlife.
20. The result is the increasing gap between the Muslim civilization and that of the Europeans. Such was the decline of the Muslim civilization that at one stage almost all Muslim territories were occupied and colonized by the Europeans. And all this is due to the decline in the knowledge among the Muslims and the burgeoning of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge among the Europeans.
21. One again, we see the influence of knowledge in human society. The colonial territories, Muslim and non-Muslim which have regained political independence are still dependent on the knowledge of their former European colonial masters. And because they are not pioneering new knowledge on their own, they are likely to remain under European hegemony.
22. It is not entirely due to their intellectual malaise and indiscipline that they are unable to catch up and outstrip the Europeans. Many of the non-Europeans, Asians in particular have migrated and are actually living in ethnic-European countries and contributing to the body of new knowledge there.
23. The reason they are not contributing to new knowledge in their own countries is because often their own countries are still hostile to new knowledge or are not equipped with the necessary facilities, such as sophisticated scientific laboratories, where they can do their research and develop their ideas on new knowledge.
24. And so when the age of knowledge science dawned upon the earth, most of the knowledge originates from the ethnic European civilization. The industrial age has not faded but it has become enhanced by knowledge science, which makes almost the entire store of knowledge worldwide more easily available to scientists and layman alike.
25. This enhanced availability of knowledge has been made possible by the scientific knowledge of the behavior of the electrical charges which can turn on and off tiny switches in circuits printed on even tinier pieces of silicon. Today a large number of switches can be engraved on a chip no bigger than a full stop on an ordinary printed page. Commands can be sent from sensors to the switches in the chip and it can work out the answers or execute an order such as turning on a full-size electric switch or start a complex process of calculations, recall and recovery of stored information, and even answer questions and solve problems. This means that the application of information for any particular purpose can be speeded up.
26. All these can be achieved merely by pressing buttons and touching screens. The average person can literally become a genius through the mastery of very simple procedures.
27. What this means is that the level of intelligence of everyone can be so heightened that the disparities between them can be reduced.
28. Whereas the Europeans had a head start in the Industrial Age, knowledge science with the accompanying information technology which is available to everyone now, offers the opportunity for everyone in the world to start together. The whole world can now develop almost at the same time. No one needs to be left behind. All that is needed is the effort to avail ourselves of the information technology and knowledge science which are literally at our finger tips.
29. The new knowledge age is for everyone. A new world civilization can be created. Those who are behind in terms of industrial technology can now leap frog and catch up with those ahead of them by acquiring the latest in information technology and knowledge science.
30. There would still be some who just cannot afford the hardware and the software. A richer and more caring world should be able to provide them with the means. If this is done we will see greater uniformity in the new world civilization.
31. However we have to accept reality. And the reality is that there will be furious competition between various parts of the world, particularly between Asia and Europe. Those who have always applied science and technology to fashion weapons which will kill efficiently will now have knowledge science to upgrade or to invent newer weapons which will kill even more efficiently. And their victims too will apply knowledge science, perhaps crudely, in order to get back at their oppressors. The world is not going to be a more peaceful place because of knowledge science. But those who ignore this new science will certainly be dominated and oppressed.
32. It is the duty of those who wish to remain free to acquire the knowledge and the science so as to be able to defend themselves. Ladies and Gentlemen,
33. I would like once again to thank the Multimedia University for conferring on me the Honorary Doctorate in Knowledge Science. I hope I deserve this honor.
Other than than, where can I find more information on these groups? It seems that much Moorish history is, as you said, confused and jumbled up, depending on who you get your information from.
Tuareg and the Arab confusion: The page above on the almoravids states:
quote: Almoravides (In Arabic المرابطون al-Murabitun, sing. مرابط Murabit), was a Berber dynasty from the Sahara that flourished over a wide area of Africa and Europe during the 11th century.
Under this dynasty the Moorish empire was extended over Morocco, Mauritania, Gibraltar, Tlemcen (in modern Algeria) and a great part of what is now Senegal and Mali in the south, and Spain and Portugal in the north. The name is derived from the Arabic Murabit, variously translated as religious ascetic or warrior monk.
In several aspects, the Murabits can be considered the Islamic equivalents of the Christian world's Knights Templar. Beginnings The most powerful of the invading tribes was the Lamtuna ("veiled men") from the upper Niger River, whose best-known representatives now are the Tuareg. They had been converted to Islam in the early times of the Arab conquest, but their knowledge of Islam did not go much beyond the formula of the shahada creed---"there is no god but God, and Muhammad is the apostle of God,"--and they were ignorant of the traditions of Shariah, or Islamic law. [Quote]
If you follow the link on Lamtuna it says: [Quote] The Lamtuna are a Berber nomadic tribe of the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara. They claim descent from Himyar, one of the South Arabian eponyms. Genetic evidence suggests they may be descended from Arab invaders.
Again, following the Himyar link reveals:
quote: The Lamtuna are a Berber nomadic tribe of the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara. They claim descent from Himyar, one of the South Arabian eponyms. Genetic evidence suggests they may be descended from Arab invaders.
quote: Little is known of the origins of the indigenous population of the Maghrib, the Berbers, except that they have always been a composite people. After the 8th century ce, a process of Arabization affected the bulk of the Berbers, while the Arab-Islamic culture and population absorbed local elements as well. Under the unifying framework of Islam, on the one hand, and as a result of the Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib. In addition, Berber tribes sometimes claimed Arab descent in order to enhance their prestige. For example, the Berber nomadic tribe of the western Sahara, the Lamtuna, claimed descent from one of the South Arabian eponyms, Himyar. One of the chiefs of this Berber tribe, Lamtuna, is sometimes referred to as Saharawi, meaning “one of the nomads” or “one who comes from the Sahara” (Ibn al-Athir 1898, p. 462; Ibn Khallikan 1972, pp. 113, 128–129; Lewicki 1986). In Arabic sources, however, the name Saharawi is seldom used and does not seem to refer to a specific genealogical group. In light of these historical data, it is not surprising to find, among the Berbers and contemporary Saharawis of northern Africa, Y chromosomes that may have been introduced by recurrent waves of invaders from the Arabian Peninsula.
But at the same token the same website at about.com says that the tuaregs are:
quote: Tuareg or Touareg (both: twä'rĕg) , Berbers of the Sahara, numbering c.2 million. They have preserved their ancient alphabet, which is related to that used by ancient Libyans. The Tuaregs traditionally maintained a feudal system consisting of a small number of noble families, a large majority of vassals, and a lower class of black non-Tuareg serfs, who performed the agricultural tasks. The upper classes, organized in tribes, convoyed caravans and, until subdued by France, were feared as raiders. The fiercely independent Tuareg resented European hegemony in Africa, and they long resisted conquest. Tuareg men go veiled, while the women are unveiled. Women enjoy respect and freedom, and descent and inheritance are through the female line. Though nominally Muslim, the people still retain many pre-Islamic rites and customs. The traditional way of life for the Tuaregs (e.g., raiding neighboring tribes, leading caravans, and exacting taxes from trans-Sahara travelers) has changed. Since the 1970s droughts and famines have forced many Tuaregs from their desert homes into urban areas; many have become farmers. In the 1990s political tensions caused further relocation. Groups of Tuaregs have fought for autonomy from Niger and Mali, but cease-fires were signed in both nations in the mid-1990s.
Seems to me that the Tuaregs are being lumped in with the Saharawi ARBITRARILLY, possibly because of being considered as part of the Berber group. This probably causes the confusion. However, it should be understood that the Tuareg maintain an OLD INDIGENOUS tradition, including a script tracing back to ancient Libya and are LOOSELY associated with Islam. Therefore, it would be hard to claim that ARABS are responsible for the ENTIRE population of the Sahara, ancient or modern . There may have been Arab blood in North Africa, but MOST Saharans are derived from INDIGENOUS African people.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
repost...
Posted by HERU (Member # 6085) on :
Yusuf ibn Tashfinn was described by Ali ibn Abd allah in Roudh el-Kartas as “Brown [in] color, middle height, thin, little beard, soft voice, black eyes, straight nose, lock of Muhammad falling on top of his ear, eye brow joined, wooly hair”
I would consider him the most fascinating leader of the latter dynasties.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
All the Tuareg Kels trace back to Lemtuna and Tin Hanan. Both these are matriarchs of the various Kels. BTW, the word Toureg are a derogatory term used by Arabs to means ''those without god''. Touregs call themselves Kel Tamelsheq.
I am guessing you got that article about the Lamtuna from Wikipedia. One of the main reason I don't trust Wikipedia all the time and can lead people to inaccurate information such as the following about the kel Tamelsheq people.
Most modern Kel Tamelsheq are not very fervent about Islam,for you can find many pre-islamic pratices amongst them.
The Sanhaja were a mixture of various Imazighen people that might have included some Kels of the Kel tamelsheq.
The person who claimed a Yemen or even Caanite desent for the Imazghen was Ibn Khaldun. These writings of Ibn Khaldun on the Imazghen people have been shown to be inaccurate.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The Bafur were the original inhabitants of what would become Mauritania whom the Imazighen first encountered on arriving there.
Songhai and Mali can both be classed together as Sahelian/Savanna kingdoms/empires. Dahomey was a forest kingdom culturally distinct from the former, i.e., it wasn't in the "camel system."
However neither of the three ever were a component of any "Moorish Empire" nor were their citizens known to themselves as Moors.
For West Africans, only the Moroccans (their Ruma army that campaigned against Songhai and the Arma descendents of that army settled along the Niger), Saharawis, and Mauritanians were Moors.
Nowadays only Hasaniya Mauritanians (beydani and haratini) and the Arma Maliens are Maurs or Moors.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Al Takruri:
Who are the Bafur? Also, are you saying that the Kingdoms of Songhai, Mali and Dahomey were not part of the Moorish Empire?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I'm currently separated from my library but always will recommend UNESCO's General History of Africa as a still excellent reference after nearly two decades since its publication. Hopefully another forum member will post up to date and specific resources for you. In the meantime here's a little something on al muWahhidun and Andalusian academia.
quote: The Almohad period in al-Andalus was characterized by cultural fluorescence ...
`Abd al-Mu'min's successor, Abu Ya`qub Yusuf, was a highly cultivated man who amassed a large library and patronized the arts and intellectual endeavors. In was in his court that the philosopher, Ibn Tufayl, found patronage. It was Ibn Tufayl who introduced the famed Aristotelian philosopher Ibn Rushd, known to medieval Europe as Averroes, to the Almohad court. And it was under the Almohads that the famous Jewish philosopher Musa ibn Maymun, or Maimonides, began his career. Mysticism also flourished in this period which produced one of the most famous Sufis of all time, Ibn al-`Arabi. Architectural projects were also undertaken. Many Andalusi cities had walls built during the latter half of the twelfth century and which can still be seen today. Three distinctive minarets constructed during this period also survive: the Giralda of Seville, The Tour Hassan in Rabat and the Koutoubiyya in Marrakesh.
I must add that Maymun left Andalusia as a child, had a low opinion of Berberiscos -- whether Muslim or Jew -- as very religious but highly superstitious, and attained his scholarly fame in Egypt.
The above mentioned Koutoubiya in Marrakesh was a great library and bookshop, the first book bazaar in western history.
quote: ... the crucial role of these two powers from Morocco can be seen if one thinks of all the eminent names who lived in the realm of Islam under Almoravid and Almohad rule, such as the herbalist Al-Ghafiqi (d.1165) wrote Kitab al-Adwiyat al-Mufradah (the Book of Simple Drugs) and Ibn al-Baytar (1197-1248), of Malaga, the author of the largest pharmacological encyclopedia that has survived to our time; the traveler Ibn Jubair (Ibn Jubayr); Ibn Rushd (1126-1192); the astronomer Jabr Ibn Aflah (d.1145) and so many more, who would have been lost to Islamic civilization had Spain been lost prior to the Almoravids, and their successors, the Almohads.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Also, this Malaysian Muslim says that the al Murabitun and al Muwahhidun sects of Islam were AGAINST learning and science and are the CAUSE of the downfall of TEACHING in Islam.
quote:
16. These North African Muslims had come under the rule of the Al Morabid (Al Murabitun) and the Al Mohads (Al Muwahidun), Muslim sects which rejected all learning except that about the religion. Upon the establishment of their rule in Spain they discouraged the acquisition of knowledge other than that specifically about religion. After the coming of the Almorabids and Almohad, there were practically no more Muslim scientists, physicians and scholars.
Other than than, where can I find more information on these groups? It seems that much Moorish history is, as you said, confused and jumbled up, depending on who you get your information from.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
I look at it from the perspective of sedentary vs nomadic culture. When the first Arabs began to establish cities, they developed accoridng to that tradition of scholarship and learning. Their nomadic cousins and those opposed to staying in one place (the soldiers) went on jihad to secure allies in Africa (Berber/Taureg/etc) and Asia proper (Central Asians). The term Moorish history is a European perspective but we know people with dark skins (Moros) came from many cultures and were not a homogenous group per their (Europeans) outlook/perspective.
At any time, Moors were either Arab, Berber, Taureg, Syrian, Turk, Persian because of their influence and power structure dynamics.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Again, thanks for all the info al Takruri. It has been most enlightening.
But again I should point out the effects of Arabization and how some but not all Imazighen make claims to an Arab, specifically Yemeni ancestor based on the small yet significant presence of Yemenis in the area.
Also Takruri, you recently stated that the Bafur were the original inhabitants of Mauritania but you said in your initial post, "Many of the inhabitants of the original old Mauretania were pushed south by the Arabs in turn pushing the Bafur southward." This sounds like the original inhabitants of Mauretania were a different people living north of the Bafur whom they pushed further south. So which is it?...
And who were the Gnawa??..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: I look at it from the perspective of sedentary vs nomadic culture. When the first Arabs began to establish cities, they developed accoridng to that tradition of scholarship and learning. Their nomadic cousins and those opposed to staying in one place (the soldiers) went on jihad to secure allies in Africa (Berber/Taureg/etc) and Asia proper (Central Asians)...
Perhaps one could look at it that way.
quote:...The term Moorish history is a European perspective but we know people with dark skins (Moros) came from many cultures and were not a homogenous group per their (Europeans) outlook/perspective.
At any time, Moors were either Arab, Berber, Taureg, Syrian, Turk, Persian because of their influence and power structure dynamics.
If you read all the info, you would know that originally 'Moor' was applied to those "dark-skinned" (black) indigenous peoples of Northwest Africa. Their fair-skinned counterparts-- Arab, Syrian, Turk, Persian etc. were called Saracen.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Mauretania Maurtiania
Notice one letter distinguishes the one from the other.
Maur e tania - ancient NW Africa at what today is Morocco and western Algeria.
Maur i tania - modern nation state of West Africa and a member of the Maghreb Union.
quote: The legacy of the Roman age Maur[e]tanii and the Moros of al Andalus live on in the names of Morocco and Maur[i]tania. . . . . Many of the inhabitants of the original old Mauretania were pushed south by the Arabs in turn pushing the Bafur southward. . . . . ... some Fulani and Wolof have Mauritanian citizenship that stretches back to pre-Almoravid days, ... . . . . Yemini Arabs penetrated to Mauritania a thousand years ago and eventually became the ruling class
So yes the original Mauretanians (who were the Maurs or Maures of the ancients) did live north of the Bafur who lived in what today is Mauritania. Among others, the Imraguen are thought to be descendents of the Bafur which is a generic term.
Hopefully this all falls into place now, and sorry for any earlier typos adding to the confusion.
Gnawa is basically a term Imazighen use to distinguish themselves from the Africans who originated south of them that didn't originally share in their language and culture.
Technically, to the best of my recall, Gnawa is actually a word from the Bambara. There are a few alternate proposals for the etymology such as it first being applied to old Ghana, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also Takruri, you recently stated that the Bafur were the original inhabitants of Mauritania but you said in your initial post, "Many of the inhabitants of the original old Mauretania were pushed south by the Arabs in turn pushing the Bafur southward." This sounds like the original inhabitants of Mauretania were a different people living north of the Bafur whom they pushed further south. So which is it?...
And who were the Gnawa??..
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
al Takruri,
Do you recall the group who were known as The Veiled Ones? (said to be blue/black)!! The were a group of Moros who formed a very 'religious' brotherhood in Spain and their presence was said to be imposing to the Spanish populace! may be from Senegambia? Mauretania? but I do not know their tribal affiliation
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^If they were called "The Veiled Ones" then it is most likely they were of the Kel Tamelsheq (Tuareg) whose men today veil their faces.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Mauretania Maurtiania
Notice one letter distinguishes the one from the other.
Maur e tania - ancient NW Africa at what today is Morocco and western Algeria.
Maur i tania - modern nation state of West Africa and a member of the Maghreb Union.
The legacy of the Roman age Maur[e]tanii and the Moros of al Andalus live on in the names of Morocco and Maur[i]tania. . . . . Many of the inhabitants of the original old Mauretania were pushed south by the Arabs in turn pushing the Bafur southward. . . . . ... some Fulani and Wolof have Mauritanian citizenship that stretches back to pre-Almoravid days, ... . . . . Yemini Arabs penetrated to Mauritania a thousand years ago and eventually became the ruling class
So yes the original Mauretanians (who were the Maurs or Maures of the ancients) did live north of the Bafur who lived in what today is Mauritania. Among others, the Imraguen are thought to be descendents of the Bafur which is a generic term.
Hopefully this all falls into place now, and sorry for any earlier typos adding to the confusion.
Gnawa is basically a term Imazighen use to distinguish themselves from the Africans who originated south of them that didn't originally share in their language and culture.
Technically, to the best of my recall, Gnawa is actually a word from the Bambara. There are a few alternate proposals for the etymology such as it first being applied to old Ghana, etc.
Thanks again, Takruri. But now I ask, who are the Imraguen? And other than being the original inhabitants of Mauritania, what else is known of the Bafur?? I ask because Imraguen sounds Berber. Are the Imraguen Berber speakers? Were the Bafur Berber speakers or did they speak an Afrasian language at all??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Nice on target shot Yazid!
The "Veiled Ones" you speak of were the Mulathimun (wearers of the litham/veil) aka the Sanhaja al~Murabitun dynasty, not the chronologically later "Tuareg" called Kel Tagelmust of the Kel Tamasheq.
A lot of this really requires some kicking around and about in northern African cultural history in between the end of Roman/Byzantine eras and the early Islamic era.
A folk's tribal geneaology, though couched in lineage terms, doesn't necessarily correspond to modern/Euro/American ideas of biological genetic kinship relation. And I might add, with absolutely no apology, nor does it need to fit in the foreign detribalized western scientific straight jacket which is this forum's modus operendi.
All "TuaregS" don't have a single origin. Many clans in the Sahara came together to form those people we call "Tuareg." Some who moved south from Tunisia/Tripolitania took on a kel identity. Some from what's now the Morocco/Western Sahara southside of the Atlas and south of the Atlas went into the Sahara taking on a kel identity. Even those of the Hawwara who went Saharan rather than Egyptian or Maghribi made a kel identity for themselves.
To remain in sync with the passing of time, the "Tuareg" weren't the only or earliest veil wearers in the Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Many of the Zenagaal Mulathimun were themselves very dark.
If one of the great divisions of Imazighen were the Sanhaja, then in turn one segment of Sanhaja were those who lived in the Sahara and wore the veil. The veil/litham/gelmus was a sign of distinction and identity for the al~Murabitun and no one in Almorabid dynasty Spain dare wear the veil if they in fact weren't of al~Murabitun.
All the following Saharan folk were Sanhaja and muLaththamun or veil-wearers:[list] [*]Anbiya [*]Djuddala [*]Kakdam [*]Lamtuna [*]Lamta [*]Masufa [*]Targa [*]Tizki [*]Wurika
The veil was a fashionable necessity of post Roman/Byzantine era Saharan Sanhaja that became a uniform accessory of early Islamic era al~Murabitun far from the desert up in what would become Spain to finally be retained en vogue in our current era by the Kel Tagelmoust.
Ah, but did early metal age Saharans also wear the veil? Rock art and seemingly fanciful Greco-Roman accounts do indicate that very likely they did.
The Veiled Ones who were the Blue Men probably got that moniker from the indigo dye of ther garments. RedCow can fill us in on the indigo industry of West Africa and its transplanting in the USA southlands.
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: al Takruri,
Do you recall the group who were known as The Veiled Ones? (said to be blue/black)!! The were a group of Moros who formed a very 'religious' brotherhood in Spain and their presence was said to be imposing to the Spanish populace! may be from Senegambia? Mauretania? but I do not know their tribal affiliation
From information on this site, it seems tie dye originated amongst Africans.
I would also like to know how old the tradition of clothing in this part of Africa is (Southern Morrocco to Senegal).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice on target shot Yazid!
The "Veiled Ones" you speak of were the Mulathimun (wearers of the litham/veil) aka the Sanhaja al~Murabitun dynasty, not the chronologically later "Tuareg" called Kel Tagelmust of the Kel Tamasheq.
A lot of this really requires some kicking around and about in northern African cultural history in between the end of Roman/Byzantine eras and the early Islamic era.
A folk's tribal geneaology, though couched in lineage terms, doesn't necessarily correspond to modern/Euro/American ideas of biological genetic kinship relation. And I might add, with absolutely no apology, nor does it need to fit in the foreign detribalized western scientific straight jacket which is this forum's modus operendi.
All "TuaregS" don't have a single origin. Many clans in the Sahara came together to form those people we call "Tuareg." Some who moved south from Tunisia/Tripolitania took on a kel identity. Some from what's now the Morocco/Western Sahara southside of the Atlas and south of the Atlas went into the Sahara taking on a kel identity. Even those of the Hawwara who went Saharan rather than Egyptian or Maghribi made a kel identity for themselves.
To remain in sync with the passing of time, the "Tuareg" weren't the only or earliest veil wearers in the Sahara.
^Thanks for the info. I keep forgetting that the Tuareg are not a single homogenous group. The fact that they were nomadic as well as the genetic evidence which especially shows varied maternal lineages should be proof enough of that. So I guess the Tuareg of the Sahara can be compared to I guess 'Arabs' of Arabia who consisted of different peoples that all adopted the Arab name then.
So who, if possible, can be identified as the 'origina' Tuareg?
quote:If one of the great divisions of Imazighen were the Sanhaja, then in turn one segment of Sanhaja were those who lived in the Sahara and wore the veil. The veil/litham/gelmus was a sign of distinction and identity for the al~Murabitun and no one in Almorabid dynasty Spain dare wear the veil if they in fact weren't of al~Murabitun.
All the following Saharan folk were Sanhaja and muLaththamun or veil-wearers:
Anbiya
Djuddala
Kakdam
Lamtuna
Lamta
Masufa
Targa
Tizki
Wurika
The veil was a fashionable necessity of post Roman/Byzantine era Saharan Sanhaja that became a uniform accessory of early Islamic era al~Murabitun far from the desert up in what would become Spain to finally be retained en vogue in our current era by the Kel Tagelmoust.
Ah, but did early metal age Saharans also wear the veil? Rock art and seemingly fanciful Greco-Roman accounts do indicate that very likely they did.
The Veiled Ones who were the Blue Men probably got that moniker from the indigo dye of ther garments. RedCow can fill us in on the indigo industry of West Africa and its transplanting in the USA southlands.
So exactly how old is the tradition of Saharan men wearing the veil? Are there really Greco-Roman accounts of them, if so can you provide any? By the way, that rock painting example looks rather vague to me. Are there any more clear examples of possible veils being worn?
Also, can you answer this previous question:
quote:Djehuti asked: ...who are the Imraguen? And other than being the original inhabitants of Mauritania, what else is known of the Bafur?? I ask because Imraguen sounds Berber. Are the Imraguen Berber speakers? Were the Bafur Berber speakers or did they speak an Afrasian language at all??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I must thank you for additions to this discussion, the ones that have caused me to sit up and revisit some old ideas with fresh insights.
I spent some time today rereading Diop's Precolonial Black Africa and instead of posting my own take, intend to post some quotes him back in 1960 that still hold true and are very instructive. Should I open a new thread for them?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Again, thanks for all the info al Takruri. It has been most enlightening.
But again I should point out the effects of Arabization and how some but not all Imazighen make claims to an Arab, specifically Yemeni ancestor based on the small yet significant presence of Yemenis in the area.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Once again, my current assignment has me separated from my library save a few boxes of books none of which have the volumes on Mauritania and Mali.
Imraguen are thought to be one people who are a remnant of the generic category Bafur. Imraguen are Atlantic coastals today and probably were always Imazighen. The Mauritanian government tendsto assign them a "living fossil" position in that their lands are protected and the people themselves aren't goaded in any direction or the other. Imraguen stand outside the Maur social system. These things, and their affinity with dolphins, is about I can recall and hope I did recall them correctly.
The Soninke founders of Ghana, who may as well have been the dominant ethny of the civilizations of the Dhar Tichitt region, were probably one of the Bafur components.
Arabic records mention Bafur as "blacks who profess Judaism." So the vanquished Mauritanian Jewish Kingdoms may've been partially peopled by one component of Bafur. Once incorporated into al~Murabitun armies they were granted Sabbath rest from their military obligations.
I think I agree more with Dalby who proposes a northern wider area of linguistic affiliation more than with those linquist who adhere to linguistic genetic phylogeny. It looks to me like the Bafur first employed a more Mande-like language that with time acquired Afrasan and Atlantic (another Niger-Congo language family) languages. Then as each component people dispersed west, southwest, and south, the languages became more firmly distinct.
But what can I say of any surety about the peoples inhabiting what would become southern Mauritania and adjacent Mali over a 3100 year time period of between 2000 BCE and 1200 CE when those Bafur left us no historical records of their own in any language?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Thanks again, Takruri. But now I ask, who are the Imraguen? And other than being the original inhabitants of Mauritania, what else is known of the Bafur?? I ask because Imraguen sounds Berber. Are the Imraguen Berber speakers? Were the Bafur Berber speakers or did they speak an Afrasian language at all??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't know, the concept of "original Tuareg" seems inapplicable to the reality of what attracts various Kel Tagelmust or Kel Tamasheq together into a geo-social aggregate sharing an overlapping ethnicity that borders on nationality. Still I'd like to hear your view as to who was first. Arabs invented the Tuareg, I think the desert Anabiya were the first Mulathimun Sanhaja that they wrote about.
Greco-Latin accounts mention Saharan humans with eyes in their chests or similar such approximations as heard from their supra-Saharan informants. You can get a book on Tassili N'Ajjer rock art for the given and for finding other examples of veiled desert dwellers for yourself.
Rock art is hard to concretely date. The age of paintings of veiled men depends on their style. There's no definitive agreement on stop start dates of overlap dates for the main styles of Tassili N'Ajjer rock art.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Thanks for the info. I keep forgetting that the Tuareg are not a single homogenous group. The fact that they were nomadic as well as the genetic evidence which especially shows varied maternal lineages should be proof enough of that. So I guess the Tuareg of the Sahara can be compared to I guess 'Arabs' of Arabia who consisted of different peoples that all adopted the Arab name then.
So who, if possible, can be identified as the 'original' Tuareg?
So exactly how old is the tradition of Saharan men wearing the veil? Are there really Greco-Roman accounts of them, if so can you provide any? By the way, that rock painting example looks rather vague to me. Are there any more clear examples of possible veils being worn?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Once again, my current assignment has me separated from my library save a few boxes of books none of which have the volumes on Mauritania and Mali.
Do you mind me asking what kind of work you do?
quote:Imraguen are thought to be one people who are a remnant of the generic category Bafur. Imraguen are Atlantic coastals today and probably were always Imazighen. The Mauritanian government tends to assign them a "living fossil" position in that their lands are protected and the people themselves aren't goaded in any direction or the other. Imraguen stand outside the Maur social system. These things, and their affinity with dolphins, is about I can recall and hope I did recall them correctly.
So I take it the Imraguen are Berber speakers. I believe I may have heard of them. I do remember hearing about a coastal West African people who have the dolphin as their totem.
quote:The Soninke founders of Ghana, who may as well have been the dominant ethny of the civilizations of the Dhar Tichitt region, were probably one of the Bafur components.
Arabic records mention Bafur as "blacks who profess Judaism." So the vanquished Mauritanian Jewish Kingdoms may've been partially peopled by one component of Bafur. Once incorporated into al~Murabitun armies they were granted Sabbath rest from their military obligations.
I have known of the existence of Judaism in Northwest Africa, but I didn't know how widespread or prevalent it was. I was under the impression that it was confined mainly to the northern coasts. So Judaism made it as far south as Mauritania, and there were actual Jewish Kingdoms in that area as there were in Ethiopia.
So who was Dahia al-Kahina then? All I know is that she was a Jewish North African leader of a Berber resistance group against the Arabs. Was she black? All the depictions of her from Western sources show her as a "caucasian" or white Berber.
quote:I think I agree more with Dalby who proposes a northern wider area of linguistic affiliation more than with those linquist who adhere to linguistic genetic phylogeny. It looks to me like the Bafur first employed a more Mande-like language that with time acquired Afrasan and Atlantic (another Niger-Congo language family) languages. Then as each component people dispersed west, southwest, and south, the languages became more firmly distinct.
So this would explain why certain Berber languages in the area have Niger-Congo affinities and vice-versa-- why certain Niger-Congo languages like Wolof in Senegal have Afrasian affinities!
quote:But what can I say of any surety about the peoples inhabiting what would become southern Mauritania and adjacent Mali over a 3100 year time period of between 2000 BCE and 1200 CE when those Bafur left us no historical records of their own in any language?
True. Which is why as interested as I am in the early history of Northwest Africa, it also difficult to piece together. In Northeast Africa, especially the Nile Valley, there is an abundance of historical records however vague they may be at sometimes. But the mystique of Northwest Africa is what peaks my curiosity and interest in that region.
quote: I don't know. The concept of "original Tuareg" seems inapplicable to the reality of what attracts various Kel Tagelmust or Kel Tamasheq together into a geo-social aggregate sharing an overlapping ethnicity that borders on nationality. Still I'd like to hear your view as to who was first. Arabs invented the Tuareg, I think the desert Anabiya were the first Mulathimun Sanhaja that they wrote about.
Well I don't have a clue as to who to posit as being the first or 'original' Tagelmust. Although I believe Wally offered one hypothesis about how the early Libyans whom the Egyptians called Tjemehu could possibly be the original Tagelmust. According to Wally, the Mdu Neter etymology of Tjeme is 'shining' or 'dazzling' and is usually used to describe things like faience which is usually blue.
quote:Greco-Latin accounts mention Saharan humans with eyes in their chests or similar such approximations as heard from their supra-Saharan informants. You can get a book on Tassili N'Ajjer rock art for the given and for finding other examples of veiled desert dwellers for yourself.
Yeah well Greco-Latin accounts also described one-eyed, dog-faced, and one-legged peoples in Sudan. There is sure to be a grain of truth in some Greco-Latin accounts but it remains to be seen in these particular ones.
quote:Rock art is hard to concretely date. The age of paintings of veiled men depends on their style. There's no definitive agreement on stop start dates of overlap dates for the main styles of Tassili N'Ajjer rock art.
I agree that dating of rock art can be difficult at times, and some artwork has things that are recently added by locals today. But I will try to find books on the topic.
Thanks again, Al Takruri. Your insights are as always appreciated.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
al Takruri,
Mamnoonah. Thank you. With DNA we see outliers of those who belong to the group (share DNA), those who intermarry into the paternal or maternal side (with their corresponding DNA complex) and those who by language and proximity (location) may share the side by side allied relationship but be separate from the main group.
Posted by tuaregwodabe (Member # 11813) on :
we are confused by the different names given to different people around the world. Let's remember that the country borders we have now did not exist before, so someone called somali or maroccan does not exist. What exists is the ethnical group one belongs to. And people are creating more division and clans which is getting more complicated. because we have people who look the same and act very similar but are said to be from different countries. It is like if we would divide somalia in 5 different countries and 100 years later trying to find why they are so similar. same thing happened around the world. we have people who have moved from one part of africa to another while they look the same as the people from the other side. there is no such thing as someone looking west african or east african. because we have people in west africa who look exactly like ethiopian or are light skinned or look mixed race while we have people in east africa who look like a Yoruba nigerian for example. The fulani people are the most myseterious people in the world and thousands of books have been written about them and how they even reached Europe before many Africans did. Europeans have found so many theories about their origins from india, Phoenicians (because of their typical indigo blue clothing), judeo-syrians, jews, moors,..... since the fulanis/tuaregs come into so many different names and they are the known nomadic group of africa they must have been the moors even the way they dress etc... they often ride on their horses and have turbans like the moors. A clan of the Fulani known as the yarlabe the Bah clan (read 'Peuls' by Monenembo) were just like Moors and even feared by the Fulanis/tuaregs themeslves. they rode on horses like The Moors and had a reputation of being violent and warriors. They wore turbans, rode on horses, had light red or brown eyes, they burnt villages and many of them were killed and people tried to extinguish/exterminate them. That is why we don't hear about them today. the remaining yarlabe clan is today part of fulani.
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by tuaregwodabe: The fulani people are the most myseterious people in the world and thousands of books have been written about them and how they even reached Europe before many Africans did...
This guy is obviously a Fulani circle jerker propagandanist. His only intention is to glorify the Fulani people and paint them as white as possible LOL Posted by tuaregwodabe (Member # 11813) on :
Fulani is not white. I am guessing you are some kind of black ethnic group like mandingo or yoruba looking. Fulanis do experience jealousy from a lot of Africans. Since you are not Fulani YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM OBVIOUSLY. You should at least read some books about them before saying anything. They were the majority in Egypt. Fulani is a common name for fellata, beja, fulah, tukuleur.... and so on.
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by tuaregwodabe: Fulani is not white. I am guessing you are some kind of black ethnic group like mandingo or yoruba looking. Fulanis do experience jealousy from a lot of Africans. Since you are not Fulani YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM OBVIOUSLY. You should at least read some books about them before saying anything. They were the majority in Egypt. Fulani is a common name for fellata, beja, fulah, tukuleur.... and so on.
I can't stop laughing at you. My best friend is Hausa/Fulani (mix). I'm not jealous; I'm just annoyed at your stupid postings.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
The Moors, at least the ones that lived in Spain, had the following ethnic composition:
(1) Most of them were Native Spaniards. (2) The upper classes were Arabs, usually from the Middle East from places like Bagdad, Syria or Egypt. (3) The foreign people was mainly Berber. And Berbers are caucasoids.
Black subsaharian people were quite a few in Spain, and they represented less of the 1% of the Moors' foreign population, and were mainly slave and servants. Although they produce a big impact in peoples that have never saw Blacks before, so there are reports of theirs precency in literature.
Actually, the first wave of invaders of Spain was pure Berber. Only in the 12th century there is a report of a Subsaharian army of Almoravides that briefly took the control of certain Muslim kingdoms in Spain and it was opposed by both Muslims and Christian Spaniards. That was the beginning of the reconquist of Spain, because Europeans understood at that time they were at risk, and they knew they will be invaded either by Black Africans or by Turks, so it was the time to get rid of the Moors and they did.
Kawashwar
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
A couple problems with your assertions:
1. How do you define a 'caucasoid'' What exactly makes a caucasoid a caucasoid and how does it apply to the Berbers?
2. Where do you get your figures that sub-Saharans were %1 od the total population of Moorish territories? Did they have census of who was sub-Saharan as opposed to who were not?
3. Almoravids and Almohads both were pure Berbers that came from the Sahara and Anti-Atlas.
Posted by cHiMpSs (Member # 11270) on :
dear auser salaams to you dear brother , when me threaded this i was wanting to know where im orinated from ,ive of indian arab decent indians who migrated to africa ,im have indian has well has slight italian in me but of arab blood has well but ive had my cousins mention moors but i have recently found that the moors did excist once in india but im researching to no avail ,my arab decent has black in its veins , im just curious to where my state or others are in same predicamnet to know of there ancestory , beingim of indian im of memon sect . w/s sandra saira (saiba) i wud be grateful brother for some imput ...
and my features have mixed complex of indian arab black with them my mum calls me a throw back ,even though she is of english and irish decent she has none of my charecteristics ,..
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
> A couple problems with your assertions: > > 1. How do you define a 'caucasoid'' What > exactly makes a caucasoid a caucasoid and how > does it apply to the Berbers?
North Africans, in particular Berbers, were considered the same "kind of people" by the Spaniards. A person that looks like the soccer player ZIDANE, for example, does not call the attention in Spain. A Subsaharian African does call the attention very much.
> 2. Where do you get your figures that sub- > Saharans were %1 od the total population of > Moorish territories? Did they have census of > who was sub-Saharan as opposed to who were > not?
Although there were not racial census at those times, the references in literature to subsaharians are always described as something extraordinary; not the standard thing, sort of speak. Arabs, Syrians and Berbers were so numerous they did not called the attention of writers.
>3. Almoravids and Almohads both were pure >Berbers that came from the Sahara and Anti->Atlas.
Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And that was the last drop that initiated the reconquest of Spain by the Christians.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: > A couple problems with your assertions: > > 1. How do you define a 'caucasoid'' What > exactly makes a caucasoid a caucasoid and how > does it apply to the Berbers?
North Africans, in particular Berbers, were considered the same "kind of people" by the Spaniards. A person that looks like the soccer player ZIDANE, for example, does not call the attention in Spain. A Subsaharian African does call the attention very much.
> 2. Where do you get your figures that sub- > Saharans were %1 od the total population of > Moorish territories? Did they have census of > who was sub-Saharan as opposed to who were > not?
Although there were not racial census at those times, the references in literature to subsaharians are always described as something extraordinary; not the standard thing, sort of speak. Arabs, Syrians and Berbers were so numerous they did not called the attention of writers.
>3. Almoravids and Almohads both were pure >Berbers that came from the Sahara and Anti->Atlas.
Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And that was the last drop that initiated the reconquest of Spain by the Christians.
KAWASHKAR
Your facts are wrong. First off, the confusion comes about with the definition of Berber. Modern Berber is often times listed as a MIXTURE of various FOREIGN entities with the indigenous African peoples. ALL Berbers do NOT have the same mixtures and do NOT all look the same. The coastal Berbers are sometimes identified based on the ties that they have to the foreigners that they have come to mix with. For example, you chan have Franco-Berber, Arab-Berber and so on. But at the same time, some like to OMIT these ethnic variations of Berber and just call them all just plain Berber. Secondly, there were, up until the last few hundred years, MANY black Africans who lived in North Africa and came to be lumped under the term "berber" when the Arabs FIRST invaded. Therefore, Berber is a BROAD category that has NO meaning as far as ACTUAL ethnicity. HOWEVER, MOOR from its USE in Europe has ALWAYS meant black person. It is only RECENTLY that Europeans and others have started trying to make a more GENERAL definition of Moor to include ANY Medeival muslim in Spain. Othello the Moor is NOT about a Muslim, it is about a BLACK man, period. And this was WRITTEN in the ERA close to when the MOORS ruled Spain. Showing how Europeans identified MOOR with black. And this is not the ONLY example of it. There are MANY historical figures in Europe who are labelled as MOORS even though they have NOTHING to do with Islam. Moor is originally based on the term for North Africans given by Romans, Maures or Mauros, both of which mean black and became the name for the country Mauritania, which did indeed have one of the DARKEST populations of Africans in Africa. Note that NOW Mauritania is identified as ARAB, not even BERBER, even though MOST of the country is BLACK African.
Many in North Africa try to "claim" Berber identity in order to LEGITIMIZE their place in North Africa. This is because the MUSLIM invasions of North Africa have caused WIDESPREAD disruptions of people and populations. Islamic armies DESTROYED those they crossed, INCLUDING the ORIGINAL Berbers, and subsequently began converting and enslaving many others. Add to the mix the many European slaves bought to North Africa as well as the Jewish expatriates from Spain and Portugal and you have a MIX of ethnicity that probably has LITTLE to do with the ORIGINAL Black African population of North Africa. There WAS no Morrocco until it was founded by Africans and then TAKEN over by Arabs.
Many of the Northern African countries today claim to be Arab, some DIRECTLY descended from Mohammed and have NOTHING to do with Africa or Africans, Berber or otherwise. THEREFORE, do not be so quick to lump all Berbers together or to automatically assume that Berbers are NOT dark Africans or assume that THOSE spreading islam into the rest of Africa from the North are Berbers. Most of these people are being spurred on by Arabs. Africans may have adopted Islam as a means of survival, but that does NOT change the fact that Islam in North AFrica is a form of ARAB colonialism.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
> Your facts are wrong. First off, the confusion >comes about with the definition of Berber.
I BELIEVE THAT YOURS FACTS ARE THE ONE WRONG.
>Modern Berber is often times listed as a >MIXTURE of various FOREIGN entities with the >indigenous African peoples.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "INDIGENOUS"? THERE STARTS THE PROBLEMS. BERBERS ARE VERY ANCIENT AND THEY HAVE ADMIXTURE WITH PHOENICIANS AND ROMANS SINCE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.
>ALL Berbers do NOT have the same mixtures and >do NOT all look the same. The coastal Berbers >are sometimes identified based on the ties that >they have to the foreigners that they have come >to mix with. For example, you chan have Franco->Berber, Arab-Berber and so on. But at the same >time, some like to OMIT these ethnic variations >of Berber and just call them all just plain >Berber. Secondly, there were, up until the last >few hundred years, MANY black Africans who >lived in North Africa and came to be lumped >under the term "berber" when the Arabs FIRST >invaded.
SOME BLACKS HAVE COME TO NORTH AFRICA ALL THE TIME, AND ALSO SOME WHITES HAVE GONE THERE. BUT YOU DREAM IF YOU BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL BERBERS WERE NUBIANS OR BANTU WEST AFRICANS. THE "CAUCASIAN" PEOPLE OF NORTH AFRICA IS VERY ANCIENT AND NO REVISIONISM WILL CHANGE THAT.
>HOWEVER, MOOR from its USE in Europe has ALWAYS >meant black person.
THAT'S ABSOLUTE IGNORANCY. MOOR HAS ALWAYS MEAN IN SPAIN M-U-S-L-I-M, AND ONLY MUSLIM. THAT'S WHAT ALL PEOPLE KNOWS IN THERE. MAHOMMED WAS A MOOR, AND ANY FOLLOWER OF ALLAH IS A MOOR. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.
>It is only RECENTLY that Europeans and others >have started trying to make a more GENERAL >definition of Moor to include ANY Medeival >muslim in Spain.
IS ONLY RECENTLY THAT AFROCENTRISM HAS CONVERTED THE MOORS IN BLACK SUBSAHARIAN AFRICANS.
>Othello the Moor is NOT about a Muslim, it is >about a BLACK man, period.
SHAKESPEAKE WAS AN IGNORANT. HE WAS BRIT AFTER ALL. PERIOD AND MORE PERIOD.
>And this was WRITTEN in the ERA close to when >the MOORS ruled Spain. Showing how Europeans >identified MOOR with black.
NO BLACK AFRICAN EVER RULED SPAIN. READ THE RECORDS. THE LAST "MOOR" OF SPAIN WAS BLOND BLUE EYED. LOL
>And this is not the ONLY example of it. There >are MANY historical figures in Europe who are >labelled as MOORS even though they have NOTHING >to do with Islam.
THAT'S TRUE FOR NORTHERN EUROPE BUT NOT FOR SPAIN.
>Moor is originally based on the term for North >Africans given by Romans, Maures or Mauros, >both of which mean black and became the name >for the country Mauritania, which did indeed >have one of the DARKEST populations of Africans >in Africa.
ANOTHER BIG AFROCENTRIC DRIVEN MISTAKE. MAURITANIA OF TODAY IS NOT THE MAURITANIA OF HISTORICAL TIMES. ANCIENT MAURITANIA WAS THE MAGREB.
TODAY'S MAURITANIA WAS INVADED BY THE MOORS AND CONTROLLED BY THEM, LIKE MOST OF THE NORTHERN PART OF SUBSAHARIAN AFRICA THAT WAS CONTROLLED BY THE NORTH AFRICANS.
>Note that NOW Mauritania is identified as ARAB, >not even BERBER, even though MOST of the >country is BLACK African.
THEY ARE MUSLIM. BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE HISTORICAL MOORS.
>Many in North Africa try to "claim" Berber >identity in order to LEGITIMIZE their place in >North Africa. This is because the MUSLIM >invasions of North Africa have caused >WIDESPREAD disruptions of people and >populations. Islamic armies DESTROYED those >they crossed, INCLUDING the ORIGINAL Berbers, >and subsequently began converting and enslaving >many others. Add to the mix the many European >slaves bought to North Africa as well as the >Jewish expatriates from Spain and Portugal and >you have a MIX of ethnicity that probably has >LITTLE to do with the ORIGINAL Black African >population of North Africa.
WRONG ONCE AGAIN. THAT'S WHAT AFROCENTRISM PRETENDS. NORTHERN AFRICA WAS ALWAYS A PLACE THAT RECEIVED MEDITERRANEAN IMMIGRANTS: SEMITES, PHOENICIANS, JEWS, ARABS, GREEKS, ROMANS, IBERIANS. AND ALSO IT WAS A REGION THAT SEND PEOPLES TO NORTHERN EUROPE.
ONLY RECENTLY BLACK AFRICANS ARE GOING IN MASS UP NORTH.
>There WAS no Morrocco until it was founded by >Africans and then TAKEN over by Arabs.
WHICH "AFRICANS"? NORTH AFRICAN OR SUBSAHARIANS?
>Many of the Northern African countries today >claim to be Arab, some DIRECTLY descended from >Mohammed and have NOTHING to do with Africa or >Africans, Berber or otherwise. THEREFORE, do >not be so quick to lump all Berbers together or >to automatically assume that Berbers are NOT >dark Africans or assume that THOSE spreading >islam into the rest of Africa from the North >are Berbers.
YES, BUT YOU QUICKLY LUMP TOGETHER NORTH AFRICANS WITH BLACK SUBSAHARIANS. EH? HAVE YOU ASK THEM IF THEY WANT TO BE IN THE CLUB?
>Most of these people are being spurred on by >Arabs. Africans may have adopted Islam as a >means of survival, but that does NOT change the >fact that Islam in North AFrica is a form of >ARAB colonialism.
YES, BUT PEOPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY ARE. THE MOORS ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE MAGREB SINCE HISTORICAL TIMES. THEY ARE NOT THE PEOPLE OF MAURITANIA (DON'T BE SILLY).
THE MOORS ARE NOT PART OF THE HISTORY OF BLACK PEOPLE BUT THEY HAVE ITS OWN HISTORY.
THAT IS VERY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND, ISN'T?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
So where do the terms "blackamoor" and "tawnymoor" come from, if not from Europeans describing Africans resident in Europe--especially Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain from the 8th century onwards.
And in the Spanish language the term "moreno"("like a Moor") invariably refers to someone darker than the olive coloured Iberians(Spanish and Portguese).
And how do we explain the fact that Cubans( Cuba was once a Spanish settlement colony) refer to their popular "[white]rice and [black] beans as "moros y(and) cristos". The meaning is obvious: the Moors of Spain were black and the indigenous Spaniards were "white Chritians".
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Kawasshkar said:
quote:oes it apply to the Berbers? > A couple problems with your assertions: > A couple problems with your assertions: > Ausar responded > 1. How do you define a 'caucasoid'' What > exactly makes a caucasoid a caucasoid and how > does it apply to the Berbers?
Kawashkar said: North Africans, in particular Berbers, were considered the same "kind of people" by the Spaniards. A person that looks like the soccer player ZIDANE, for example, does not call the North Africans, in particular Berbers, were considered the same "kind of people" by the Spaniards. A person that looks like the soccer player ZIDANE, for example, does not call the attention in Spain. A Subsaharian African does call the attention very much.
Ausar responds: The physical apperance of one French Algerian soccer player is a non-sequitir. I asked you to define ''caucasoid'' and from what criteria of ''caucasoid'' do Berber speakers fit such a label? What evidence do you have that ties Spainards in with Berber speaking people?
quote:Although there were not racial census at those times, the references in literature to Although there were not racial census at those times, the references in literature to subsaharians are always described as something extraordinary; not the standard thing, sort of speak. Arabs, Syrians and Berbers were so numerous they did not called the attention of Although there were not racial census at those times, the references in literature to subsaharians are always described as something extraordinary; not the standard thing, sort of speak. Arabs, Syrians and Berbers were so numerous they did not called the attention of writers.
Ausar responds:
Could you please cite examples. Which literature are you referencing? Arabic literature or Spainard literature? What specifically do such writers use to differentiate Berbers,Arabs, or sub-Saharans?
KAWASHKAR said:
quote:Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And that was the last drop that initiated the reconquest of Spain by the Christians
Ausar responds:
This is not true. Ever since the conquest of Spain some Western Africans groups were part of both the Arabic and Berber forces.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
kawashkar said:
quote:WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "INDIGENOUS"? THERE STARTS THE PROBLEMS. BERBERS ARE VERYANCIENT AND THEY HAVE ADMIXTURE WITH PHOENICIANS AND ROMANS SINCE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO
Ausar responds: The question is wheather the modern Berber speaking population matches the original inhabitants of North-western Africa.
kawashkar said:
quote:SOME BLACKS HAVE COME TO NORTH AFRICA ALL THE TIME, AND ALSO SOME WHITES HAVE GONE THERE BUT YOU DREAM IF YOU BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL BERBERS WERE NUBIANS OR BANTU WEST AFRICANS. THE "CAUCASIAN" PEOPLE OF NORTH AFRICA IS VERY ANCIENT AND NO REVISIONISM WILL CHANGE THAT
Ausar responds: This is incorrect. North-western Africa has always had indigenous ''black'' populations that had affinities with Africans further south. During the Neolithic the Sahara desert did not exist and within the Sahara were people biologically related to most Western African people. Even today you have the Haratin poeple that are indigenous to Southern Morocco.
Know you have yet to define your terms:
1. How do you define ''caucasoid'' and from what criteria is used to determine if the Berber speaking poeple are such? 2. Who were the original Berber speaking people? On what basis can we say the modern Berber speaking people are pristine examples of the original populations of North-western Africa?
kawashkar said:
quote:FOLLOWER OF ALLAH IS A MOOR. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. THAT'S ABSOLUTE IGNORANCY. MOOR HAS ALWAYS MEAN IN SPAIN M-U-S-L-I-M, AND ONLY MUSLIM. THAT'S WHAT ALL PEOPLE KNOWS IN THERE. MAHOMMED WAS A MOOR, AND ANY AT'S ABSOLUTE IGNORANCY. MOOR HAS ALWAYS MEAN IN SPAIN M-U-S-L-I-M, AND ONLY
Ausar responds: The problem with this is the fact the term Moor was not first used in Spain but actually by both the Greeks and Romans. The term Mauros meant people with ''dark skin''.
kawashkar said:
quote:SUBSAHARIAN AFRICANS.IS ONLY RECENTLY THAT AFROCENTRISM HAS CONVERTED THE MOORS IN BLACK ONLY RECENTLY THAT AFROCENTRISM HAS CONVERTED THE MOORS IN BLACK
Ausar responds: See again the etymology of the term Moor as stated in previous quote
kawashkar said:
quote:LOLNO BLACK AFRICAN EVER RULED SPAIN. READ THE RECORDS. THE LAST "MOOR" OF SPAIN AFRICAN EVER RULED SPAIN. READ THE RECORDS. THE LAST "MOOR" OF SPAINWAS BLOND BLUE EYED. LOL
Ausar responds: Could you please cite a reference for this claim?
kawashkar said:
quote:THAT'S TRUE FOR NORTHERN EUROPE BUT NOT FOR SPAIN
In Italy many black figures such as St. Benedict the Moor as called as such.
kawashkar said:
quote:NOTHER BIG AFROCENTRIC DRIVEN MISTAKE. MAURITANIA OF TODAY IS NOT THE ANOTHER BIG AFROCENTRIC DRIVEN MISTAKE. MAURITANIA OF TODAY IS NOT THE MAURITANIA OF HISTORICAL TIMES. ANCIENT MAURITANIA WAS THE MAGREB.
TODAY'S MAURITANIA WAS INVADED BY THE MOORS AND CONTROLLED BY THEM, LIKE MOST OF THE NORTHERN PART OF SUBSAHARIAN AFRICA THAT WAS CONTROLLED BY THE NORTH TODAY'S MAURITANIA WAS INVADED BY THE MOORS AND CONTROLLED BY THEM, LIKE MOST OF THE NORTHERN PART OF SUBSAHARIAN AFRICA THAT WAS CONTROLLED BY THE NORTH AFRICANS
Ausar responds: Yes, the ancient Mauretania was around parts of today's Northern Africa but the term Mauros used by the Greeks still means dark skinned. The Greeks thought the people in Mauretania were darker than them.
Modern Mauritania was invaded both by Northern Africans and by Yemeni Arabs.
kawashkar said:
quote:THEY ARE MUSLIM. BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE HISTORICAL MOORS
Who were the historical Moors? Did they have an exact name to go by? You contridicted yourself saying that Moor only applies to Muslim.
kawashkar said:
quote:WRONG ONCE AGAIN. THAT'S WHAT AFROCENTRISM PRETENDS. NORTHERN AFRICA WAS ALWAYS A PLACE THAT RECEIVED MEDITERRANEAN IMMIGRANTS: SEMITES, PHOENICIANS JEWS, ARABS, GREEKS, ROMANS, IBERIANS. AND ALSO IT WAS A REGION THAT SEND PEOPLES TO NORTHERN EUROPE.
True, but was the population density greater than the original inhabitants of Northern Africa? Would such groups leave a large enough impact before 700 A.D. We also know that during the Medieval period into the early 1900's millions of white slaves went into Northern Africa. Add to this Converted Christian Spainards that went back into Northern Africa and settled down.
The rest of your post is just rhetoric not validated with any documentation.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:SOME BLACKS HAVE COME TO NORTH AFRICA ALL THE TIME
Of course we've corrected the above brand of nonsense many times before on ES, and will many times again no doubt.
But for the record:
The original population of all of AFrica was certainly melanoderm, ie - Black.
The white people of Europe are the product of depigmentation that occured largely in Europe during the ICE ages between the Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic.
White skin is maladaptive in Africa.
There is no proof that any population ever developed depigmented skin within Africa.
As for the Berber - Berber is and African language group - it is not a homogeneous ethnic group, a race, or a skin color.
The Berber languages likely originated in East Africa.
Berber are diverse physically because their ancestry varies greatly.
The darker complected Berber tend to be predominently to overwhelmingly of African ancestry.
However the depigmented Berber tend to be predominently Eurasian and even Western European on the maternal side.
Of course, there are no Berber in Europe, and Berber languages are utterly unrelated to the predominently Latin languages of Southern Europe.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
However the depigmented Berber tend to be predominently Eurasian and even Western European on the maternal side.
True, that the level of "depigmentation" found in coastal west Afrasan ("Berber") speakers can be attributed to gene flow from the Iberian peninsula and southwest Asia (Levant); but even these "depigmented" coastal west Afrasan speakers are predominantly African from a patrilineage standpoint:
Per Bosch et co., we have the following...
H50 found in one Moroccan "Arab", and H104 found in one southern Moroccan "west-Afrasan/"Berber"" speaker, three Moroccan "Arab" speakers, and one north-central Moroccan "west-Afrasan" speaker.
Bosch et al. go onto conclude that:
So far, our analyses have allowed a clear dissection of almost all NW African and Iberian paternal lineages into several components with distinct historical origins. In this way, the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: **75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), 4% historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28). In contrast, the origins of the Iberian Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. It should be noted that H58 and H71 are not the only haplotypes present in the Middle East and that the Neolithic wave of advance could have brought other lineages to Iberia and NW Africa. However, the homogeneity of STR haplotypes within the most ancient biallelic haplotypes in each region indicates a single origin during the past, with possible minor reintroductions, with the Neolithic expansion, from the Middle East. Thus, Neolithic contributions may be slightly underestimated.
^^Whereby Hg E is denoted by the following:
H35=E3b-M78, H38=E3b-M81, and H36=E3b-M35; H22=E3a-M2, and H28=E1-M33
Hg J denoted by the following:
H58=J2*-M172
Hg F denoted by the following:
H71=F*-M89
Hg I denoted by the following:
H50=I1b2-M26, and H52=I*-M170.
Hg R denoted by the following:
H104=R*-M173
Thus note that the "4%" "historic", NOT pre-historic, European contribution quite likely from the Iberian peninsula, is a combination of I lineage (.6%), which was found in only one Moroccan "Arab" speaking individual AND R lineages (2.8%) found in five Moroccan individauls; three of them "Arab" speakers, and two of them "west-Afrasan" speakers. On the other hand, the sampled "Berber"/West Afrasan speakers were predominantly of the E3b patrilineal background, with tropical African origins.
Hence, generally speaking, it is safe to say that...
"Northern modern Berber-speakers are frequently notably "European," in phenotype but even they have tropical African "marker" gene frequencies than those found in southern Europeans. "Blacks" have long lived in northern Africa (see review in Keita 1990)." - Keita.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: So where do the terms "blackamoor" and "tawnymoor" come from, if not from Europeans describing Africans resident in Europe--especially Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain from the 8th century onwards.
The term "Blackamoor" does not exist in Spanish or Portuguese. Moors or Moro means "hated Muslim" of any kind.
quote: And in the Spanish language the term "moreno"("like a Moor") invariably refers to someone darker than the olive coloured Iberians(Spanish and Portguese).
Moreno means Brunette. Most Moors weren't Blond. Moreno sometimes is applied to Black people in an euphemistic way, so not to offend the subject. But the word does not mean black skinned but black haired.
quote: And how do we explain the fact that Cubans( Cuba was once a Spanish settlement colony) refer to their popular "[white]rice and [black] beans as "moros y(and) cristos". The meaning is obvious: the Moors of Spain were black and the indigenous Spaniards were "white Chritians".
"Whites" in Spanish mean European. Many Spanish have the same complexion than North African Berbers.
The Moor stereotype of Black was part of a hate campain of Christians against Muslims.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote: 1. How do you define a 'caucasoid'' What > exactly makes a caucasoid a caucasoid and how > does it apply to the Berbers?
Impossible. If you things in a broader sense all humans belong to the same race. Now, Berbers look like Southern Europeans with some "admixture". What exist between Germany and Ghana is a "cline". A gradient of phenotypes that goes between German blonds to dark skinned Subsaharian Africans.
The point is. Where do you make the cut? In Gibraltar or in the Sahara desert? As the matter of fact the change in complexion is more abrupt crossing the Sahara than crossing the Gibraltar strait.
quote: The physical apperance of one French Algerian soccer player is a non-sequitir. I asked you to define ''caucasoid'' and from what criteria of ''caucasoid'' do Berber speakers fit such a label? What evidence do you have that ties Spainards in with Berber speaking people?
The point is quite clear. Spaniards, Portugueses, Italians and Southern French have a high degree of admixture with North Africans. So, it does not matter how you define "Caucasian". The fact is they belong to a population that is closely related between themselves rather than with both Northern Europeans or Subsaharian Africans.
See the distances in the map and you will figure it out. North Africa is right besides Spain, Italy and France, and a lot closser than Ghana or Russia.
quote: Could you please cite examples. Which literature are you referencing? Arabic literature or Spainard literature? What specifically do such writers use to differentiate Berbers,Arabs, or sub-Saharans?
Spanish classical literature. In there the descriptions of Moors are quite amazing. Most of them are brown but many rulers are blond. Actually Moors have a fascination with slav women so they were usually the favorites. King Alphonse X the wise, for instance, once describe with a lot of surprise a Black general of the Moors armies. That was not something common to see. In classicals like Mio Cid you can see how Moors and Christians were the same people, plus some upper classes comming mainly from the Middle east and a low class Moor minority comming from North Afric.
quote:
quote:Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And that was the last drop that initiated the reconquest of Spain by the Christians
Ausar responds:
This is not true. Ever since the conquest of Spain some Western Africans groups were part of both the Arabic and Berber forces.
That's is really true. It is written in the Mio Cid. The XII Century classic. The first invaders of the 7th Century were Berbers and Arabs, but in the 12th Century the new fanatic muslims, who at those times had invaded Subsaharian Africa, brough for the first time an army formed by Subsaharians whose drums spread terror in the civil population. That was one of the causes the Christian knight got serious with the reconquest. And you can see that was the beginning of the end of Al-Andalus.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
1. The term "Moor" generally refered to one who professed Islam, and usually a conqueror Those who ruled) 1from 711-1492.
2. There were varying identities associated with the word Moor. Some were good and some were bad. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar was like a brother to the Moors (he was in their employ!) and he was called El Cid because of his noble and brave countenance. At some point, he broke ranks and was a Christian saviour. There were groups of mozarabes, Christians who due to where they lived or their allegiances, dressed in the ways of Arabs (generic description) and adired the desired peoples, wherever they were from.
3. The concept of a low class Moor is a modern one because Moors, when they were in control in the earlier era/period, were the conquerors and they had their choice in land, women and rituals.
4. To say Moors who were African were 1% is a dubious claim. Berbers are African. The distinction is whether we are refering to African as ethnicty or specifically African who are black (relating to color, as in sub-Saharan). The European verison of Islam is very different from the actual experience. Moors were either Syrian, Berber, native born Spaniard of biracial heritage, Sub-Saharan i.e.Lamtuna and others. Ther is even mention of a few Moors who were specifically mentioned as being sub-Saharan by description. I will have to track down the narrative describing this person.
Way of dress would affect how one would be called. Many mozarabes were probebly seen as Moors based on how they dressed just like in todays society with the terror threat, many Latinos/Hispanics may be mistaken for Arabs because of the apparent simialrity of skin colour when compared to an Anglo-Saxon one. All things are relative
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote: 1. How do you define a 'caucasoid'' What > exactly makes a caucasoid a caucasoid and how > does it apply to the Berbers?
Impossible. If you things in a broader sense all humans belong to the same race. Now, Berbers look like Southern Europeans with some "admixture". What exist between Germany and Ghana is a "cline". A gradient of phenotypes that goes between German blonds to dark skinned Subsaharian Africans.
The point is. Where do you make the cut? In Gibraltar or in the Sahara desert? As the matter of fact the change in complexion is more abrupt crossing the Sahara than crossing the Gibraltar strait.
quote: The physical apperance of one French Algerian soccer player is a non-sequitir. I asked you to define ''caucasoid'' and from what criteria of ''caucasoid'' do Berber speakers fit such a label? What evidence do you have that ties Spainards in with Berber speaking people?
The point is quite clear. Spaniards, Portugueses, Italians and Southern French have a high degree of admixture with North Africans. So, it does not matter how you define "Caucasian". The fact is they belong to a population that is closely related between themselves rather than with both Northern Europeans or Subsaharian Africans.
See the distances in the map and you will figure it out. North Africa is right besides Spain, Italy and France, and a lot closser than Ghana or Russia.
quote: Could you please cite examples. Which literature are you referencing? Arabic literature or Spainard literature? What specifically do such writers use to differentiate Berbers,Arabs, or sub-Saharans?
Spanish classical literature. In there the descriptions of Moors are quite amazing. Most of them are brown but many rulers are blond. Actually Moors have a fascination with slav women so they were usually the favorites. King Alphonse X the wise, for instance, once describe with a lot of surprise a Black general of the Moors armies. That was not something common to see. In classicals like Mio Cid you can see how Moors and Christians were the same people, plus some upper classes comming mainly from the Middle east and a low class Moor minority comming from North Afric.
quote:
quote:Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And Yes, but they were the first that brought a subsaharian army, drums included, to Spain. And that was the last drop that initiated the reconquest of Spain by the Christians
Ausar responds:
This is not true. Ever since the conquest of Spain some Western Africans groups were part of both the Arabic and Berber forces.
That's is really true. It is written in the Mio Cid. The XII Century classic. The first invaders of the 7th Century were Berbers and Arabs, but in the 12th Century the new fanatic muslims, who at those times had invaded Subsaharian Africa, brough for the first time an army formed by Subsaharians whose drums spread terror in the civil population. That was one of the causes the Christian knight got serious with the reconquest. And you can see that was the beginning of the end of Al-Andalus.
KAWASHKAR
Kawashkar, you are really blowing this out of proportion. There are very distinct issues here, but you are lumping everything together as one issue.
1. Who were the Berbers ethnically upto and including the Islamic era in North Africa.
2. What Black African populations existed in North Africa outside this "Berber" group.
3. How many Black Africans (Berber or otherwise) participated in the initial incursion into Spain and subsequent incursions.
4. How many Black Africans were part of the Islamic Armies sweeping across North Africa from Arabia.
5. How much do modern coastal Berber populations who show close affinity to Europeans have with other Berber populations elsewhere in the Sahara as well as ANCIENT North African populations from PRIOR to the Islamic and other invasions.
The story of the Arab/Muslim invasion of North Africa is long and complex, MAINLY because of the disruption of the NATIVE populations of North Africa. There is no doubt that there were light skinned populations of Berbers who lived along the coast. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that all North Africans at this time were LIGHT skinned. Populations in the Sahara to the south were NOT necessarily the same as those lighter skinned populations to the north. With the incursions of the Arab/Muslims, more light skinned Berbers, along with lighter skinned Arabs as well as black Africans went to the south and began converting and enslaving other Africans.
The problem here is that you try and act as if ALL Africans in the Sahel are the SAME, whether called Berber or Arab or anything else. In fact you have black African Sudanese calling themselves Arab. Therefore, labels like Berber, Arab and Muslim are USELESS in this regard.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This should be the end of the nonsense here
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of course we've corrected the above brand of nonsense many times before on ES, and will many times again no doubt.
But for the record:
The original population for *ALL* of AFrica was certainly melanoderm, ie - Black.
The white people of Europe are the product of depigmentation that occured largely in Europe during the ICE ages between the Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic.
White skin is maladaptive in Africa.
There is no proof that any population ever developed depigmented skin within Africa.
As for the Berber - Berber is an *African language group* - it is not a homogeneous ethnic group, a race, or a skin color.
The Berber languages likely originated in East Africa.
Berber are diverse physically because their ancestry varies greatly.
The darker complected Berber tend to be predominently to overwhelmingly of African ancestry.
However the depigmented Berber tend to be predominently Eurasian and even Western European on the maternal side.
Of course, there are no Berber in Europe, and Berber languages are utterly unrelated to the predominently Latin languages of Southern Europe.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
" A Picture is worth a 1000 words"--so those who doubt that the Moors--as distinct from the fellow travelling Arabs--were African in the phenotypical sense of that term might want to just browse through the photographs of Moors in Spain during their presence there as presented in Ivan Van Sertima's "Golden Age of the Moor". Moors--evident by their African tint and tightly curled hair--seem to have occupied all social stations during their stay in Iberia. The photos also show that Moors were easily distinguishable from Arabs and Christians. Check it out.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: " A Picture is worth a 1000 words"--so those who doubt that the Moors--as distinct from the fellow travelling Arabs--were African in the phenotypical sense of that term might want to just browse through the photographs of Moors in Spain during their presence there as presented in Ivan Van Sertima's "Golden Age of the Moor". Moors--evident by their African tint and tightly curled hair--seem to have occupied all social stations during their stay in Iberia. The photos also show that Moors were easily distinguishable from Arabs and Christians. Check it out.
LOL. Ivan Van Sertima !!!! The most reliable scholar of all!!!
Yes, that guy see Subsaharian Africans wherever he looks.
If you want to continue dreamming in fantasies is up to you, people.
The reality is very simple. Moors are the people of the Magreb. And although they do have some admixture with subsaharians, they are not phenotypically Subsaharians.
They are distinct people, different from both Europeans and Subsaharians, and very different from Black Americans as well.
Pictures by Van Sertima. Lol. The more serious scholar of all. Lol and more lol.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^I believe the term is 'Sub-Saharan' Africans, not "Sub-Saharians".
But yes, you are right that Ivan Van Sertima is wrong in some of his premises about black Africans being present in some places outside of Africa like India and responsible for cultures there.
This by the way does not change the fact that indigenous black Africans are native to *all* of Africa, not just "Sub-Sahara". That the Sahara was not always desert, and that the ancient Egyptians as well as the ancient Magrebians were black Africans and some still are.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Funny thing on the way to the casbah! I just looked at the Modern Journal of Military History?? and Suleiman the Magnificant (Turk) was on the cover and he looked more "European" than most Europeans. Again, his bi-ethnic ancestry included women from the harem, usually Slav/Eastern Euorpean with a few Greeks here and there!
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Kawashkar
But you are evading the point. I was referring specifically to the reproductions of original paintings and their captions of Moors in Iberia during their soujourn there. You might dispute Sertima's ideas but a picture is picture--unless you are implying that they are somehow doctored. Get the text, study the reproductions, then get back with a useful response.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To Kawashkar
But you are evading the point. I was referring specifically to the reproductions of original paintings and their captions of Moors in Iberia during their soujourn there. You might dispute Sertima's ideas but a picture is picture--unless you are implying that they are somehow doctored. Get the text, study the reproductions, then get back with a useful response.
The problem with pictures is they are not statistically significant. It is quite easy to prove a point picking some pictures from many.
Moreover, nobody is denying there were Subsaharians in Spain at a given time of history. They were part of the invasors who where themselves a minority in a occupied land. What I doubt is the statistical significance of them, and also the cultural impact on locals of that segment of the population. As the matter of fact, there were Slavs, Persians, Egyptians and other peoples at the same time in Spain, and also the Gypsies were comming at those times, but they were minorities of a minority: the foreigners in Spain.
What I am trying to make clear is that Moors were a multinational, multiethnic group. The large majorities of Moors were Berbers (the actual "Moors") , and the upper classes where Arabs by large. The language they spoke it was Arab. The culture, literature and music they played was Arab as well.
If you were to land in a time machine in Al-Andalus you will notice it was not much different before or after the Moors were there at all.
So, the idea of a great Subsaharian Empire in Europe is a recent myth. Was existed was a Muslim invasion directed by Arabs and whose hand labour were mainly Berbers.
Yes. The impact of Arabs in Spanish culture is very real in language and literature. The impact in music is direct as well. The genetical impact can't be measured because Arabs, Berbers and Souther Europeans share most genetics. The impact of Berbers culture itself was almost null. The Arab part was the one that predominated.... Before they received the kick on the butt, of course.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^And the main problem is that you still don't get the point----
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of course we've corrected the above brand of nonsense many times before on ES, and will many times again no doubt.
But for the record:
The original population for *ALL* of AFrica was certainly melanoderm, ie - Black.
The white people of Europe are the product of depigmentation that occured largely in Europe during the ICE ages between the Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic.
White skin is maladaptive in Africa.
There is no proof that any population ever developed depigmented skin within Africa.
As for the Berber - Berber is an *African language group* - it is not a homogeneous ethnic group, a race, or a skin color.
The Berber languages likely originated in East Africa.
Berber are diverse physically because their ancestry varies greatly.
The darker complected Berber tend to be predominently to overwhelmingly of African ancestry.
However the depigmented Berber tend to be predominently Eurasian and even Western European on the maternal side.
Of course, there are no Berber in Europe, and Berber languages are utterly unrelated to the predominently Latin languages of Southern Europe.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To Kawashkar
But you are evading the point. I was referring specifically to the reproductions of original paintings and their captions of Moors in Iberia during their soujourn there. You might dispute Sertima's ideas but a picture is picture--unless you are implying that they are somehow doctored. Get the text, study the reproductions, then get back with a useful response.
The problem with pictures is they are not statistically significant. It is quite easy to prove a point picking some pictures from many.
Moreover, nobody is denying there were Subsaharians in Spain at a given time of history. They were part of the invasors who where themselves a minority in a occupied land. What I doubt is the statistical significance of them, and also the cultural impact on locals of that segment of the population. As the matter of fact, there were Slavs, Persians, Egyptians and other peoples at the same time in Spain, and also the Gypsies were comming at those times, but they were minorities of a minority: the foreigners in Spain.
What I am trying to make clear is that Moors were a multinational, multiethnic group. The large majorities of Moors were Berbers (the actual "Moors") , and the upper classes where Arabs by large. The language they spoke it was Arab. The culture, literature and music they played was Arab as well.
If you were to land in a time machine in Al-Andalus you will notice it was not much different before or after the Moors were there at all.
So, the idea of a great Subsaharian Empire in Europe is a recent myth. Was existed was a Muslim invasion directed by Arabs and whose hand labour were mainly Berbers.
Yes. The impact of Arabs in Spanish culture is very real in language and literature. The impact in music is direct as well. The genetical impact can't be measured because Arabs, Berbers and Souther Europeans share most genetics. The impact of Berbers culture itself was almost null. The Arab part was the one that predominated.... Before they received the kick on the butt, of course.
KAWASHKAR
Kawashkar, we have told you time and time again that Berber genetic studies have shown Berbers to have ORIGINATED in East Africa and have AFRICAN paternal lineages with EUROPEAN maternal lineages. ALL Berbers are NOT White. ALL Berbers are NOT on the coast of North Africa. ALL Berbers do NOT look like Europeans. Modern European Berbers LOOK European because SOME have RECENT European admixture OWING to the fact that MANY Europeans DID come to North Africa subsequent to the Moorish invasion as well as the MANY European slaves that were brought through North Africa. The FACT that you claim Berbers to be Europeans SHOWS that these are not "PURE" Africans. Which you INSIST on trying to claim. YES, many Berbers look like Europeans, but they have the MOST European admixture and therefore are NOT "PURE" Africans. It is telling that as you go south, you find more Berbers that are NOT like Europeans at all, like the Tuareg. So please stop beating a dead horse. The fact is that there were BLACK Africans involved in the Moorish invasion of Spain from BEGINNING to END and MANY North Africa or otherwise called Sahelian Africans ARE BLACK. Saying that the Moors were MOSTLY Berber is meaningless racially AND ethnically because Berber is a LANGUAGE family that ORIGINATED in EAST AFRICA and has NOTHING to do with EUROPE.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:
Kawashkar, we have told you time and time again that Berber genetic studies have shown Berbers to have ORIGINATED in East Africa and have AFRICAN paternal lineages with EUROPEAN maternal lineages. ALL Berbers are NOT White. ALL Berbers are NOT on the coast of North Africa. ALL Berbers do NOT look like Europeans. Modern European Berbers LOOK European because SOME have RECENT European admixture OWING to the fact that MANY Europeans DID come to North Africa subsequent to the Moorish invasion as well as the MANY European slaves that were brought through North Africa.
That's false. Phoenicians and Romans populated Northern Africa with large numbers of people. It is also well known that "WHITE" Berbers are Native to NORTH AFRICA.
As the matter of fact, there is ONE theory that links "WHITE" Berbers directly to the Khoi-San peoples, the original mankind.
quote: The FACT that you claim Berbers to be Europeans SHOWS that these are not "PURE" Africans. Which you INSIST on trying to claim.
I don't say Berbers are Europeans. Berbers is just another Mediterranean people, and belong to the same melting pot.
quote: YES, many Berbers look like Europeans, but they have the MOST European admixture and therefore are NOT "PURE" Africans. It is telling that as you go south, you find more Berbers that are NOT like Europeans at all, like the Tuareg. So please stop beating a dead horse.
Nobody say North Africans are "pure like clear water". Nobody is. But the fact is North African population and culture is DIFFERENT and DISTINCT from Africa south of the Sahara. And very ancient indeed.
quote: The fact is that there were BLACK Africans involved in the Moorish invasion of Spain from BEGINNING to END and MANY North Africa or otherwise called Sahelian Africans ARE BLACK. Saying that the Moors were MOSTLY Berber is meaningless racially AND ethnically because Berber is a LANGUAGE family that ORIGINATED in EAST AFRICA and has NOTHING to do with EUROPE.
Saying that North Africans are BLACKS is fantasy for kids. Besides Moors that invaded Spain speak Arab. LOL.
You people should be ashamed of loving so much the Moors and claimming for yourself. The Moors, and that is a fact, where perhaps the MOST RACIST people ever in the slave trade business. In comparison European slave owners looked like good people. Moors used to treat Black people in the most inhuman way possible.
Get informed about the Moors and their racism. I am Glad Spain got rid of those peoples, anyways.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
It funny that I was just studying this stuff this mourning without even knowing this debate was going on. I was just reading this mouring a book called, "Golden Age of the Moor" edited by Ivan Van Sertima. The book is on point. One of the scholars in the book, I believe her name is Dana Renoldys(something like that) said that "in MODERN scholarship concerning the racial background of the Moors, it has been suggested that the term "Moor" didn't necessarily mean Black-skinned, but people who were darker than Europeans(something like that)." She explains, however, that that opinion doesn't take into account the various family genealogies that show Moorish ancestry, and almost always Black-skinned persons(whether man or woman)".
This info is in the book. If you don't believe me, I can go back and quote word for word Kawa. Also, MANY Islamic scholars spoke of the Berbers as being from the lineage of Ham, and some of the scholars most definitely included them amongst the Black races.........Also, if you study the FOUNDATIONS of Arabian civilization, you will see that they stem from Kushites. That is why some parts of Yemen are still called by that name.
I am not silly: it is obvious that there are light, and even "white", skinned people amongst the MODERN Berbers, just as there Black-skinned people amongst the Berber. But it is important to know the history, and in this age of Western/Eurocentric imperialism, history has not been taught correctly. It is all about truth.
BTW, the Moors enslaved white people as well, PLENTY of them. Study the recent centuries of North Africa(speicifically Morocco) and you will read about North African pirates who enslaved tens of thousands of European Christians........Some European sailors who saw these North African pirates called them "niggers"............I don't like the word, but I use it to make you think about some stuff........Salaam
Then again Kawa, why am I dealing with you. You kinda already smell like a troll.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
I wonder if this Kawa guy is one of the past trolls that you guys have mentioned before.....
Ey Kawa, just because YOU don't like Sertima, that doesn't mean that Sertima is wrong. I mean, who the heck are you? Are you some type of authority or something? Tell you what, write a book to combat Sertima, ok? Or better, explain in rational terms that is sensible why you disagree with him. Since you dislike him so much, EXPLAIN why you don't like him.........
I guess I am giving you a chance in order to see if you are a troll or not. We'll see I guess........Even if you are a troll, please EXPLAIN WHY you don't agree with Van Sertima's ideas.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: That's false. Phoenicians and Romans populated Northern Africa with large numbers of people. It is also well known that "WHITE" Berbers are Native to NORTH AFRICA.
Do you have an exact consensus on the number of Phoenician and Roman colonists?
Yes white Berbers are native to Africa because they have lived there for quite a long time, but are they indigenous or aboriginal to the area? Genetics as well as common sense, suggest they dont.
quote:As the matter of fact, there is ONE theory that links "WHITE" Berbers directly to the Khoi-San peoples, the original mankind.
So you consider Khoisan peoples to be 'white'?! Khoisan are relatively light-skinned compared to other Sub-Saharans, but they ARE Sub-Saharans (found in Southern Africa to be exact) and genetically link to blacks in East Africa and Central Africa also.
quote:I don't say Berbers are Europeans. Berbers is just another Mediterranean people, and belong to the same melting pot.
'Mediterranean' is a loose term that can be applied to indigenous and specifically aboriginal blacks of the North African coasts like the Jerba people of Tunisia.
quote:Nobody say North Africans are "pure like clear water". Nobody is. But the fact is North African population and culture is DIFFERENT and DISTINCT from Africa south of the Sahara. And very ancient indeed.
LOL But the question is how distinct. I know of several cultural aspects that connect Berber peoples to thier 'Sub-Saharan' kin and NOT Europeans or Middle Easterners.
quote:Saying that North Africans are BLACKS is fantasy for kids. Besides Moors that invaded Spain speak Arab. LOL.
*yawn*
Moroccan Haratin:
Algerian Tuareg:
Libyan Siwa:
quote:You people should be ashamed of loving so much the Moors and claimming for yourself. The Moors, and that is a fact, where perhaps the MOST RACIST people ever in the slave trade business. In comparison European slave owners looked like good people. Moors used to treat Black people in the most inhuman way possible.
Really? I understand that they treat blacks fine back then, but what about their white slaves??
quote:Get informed about the Moors and their racism. I am Glad Spain got rid of those peoples, anyways.
ROTFLH I suggest YOU get informed about who the Moors are! The origin and identity of the Moors has already been addressed on this thread, and you would know this if you read the first part of the thread.
A non-black origin of the Moors would be more likely only if they came from the coastal areas of North Africa, but the Moors are derived from the Al-Moravid and Al-Mohad dynasties of the Sahara desert which was all black back then.
In fact the very word "Moor" is derived from the Greco-Roman word Mauros which means extremely dark [read: black].
quote:KAWASHKAR
Wakhashem!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Notice how he ignores my reply in here also.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:..Do you have an exact consensus on the number of Phoenician and Roman colonists?
Yes, they were 2.356.115 by 300 B.C. (don't be an idiot)
quote:..Yes white Berbers are native to Africa because they have lived there for quite a long time, but are they indigenous or aboriginal to the area? Genetics as well as common sense, suggest they dont.
Common sense says the other way around.
quote:So you consider Khoisan peoples to be 'white'?! Khoisan are relatively light-skinned compared to other Sub-Saharans, but they ARE Sub-Saharans (found in Southern Africa to be exact) and genetically link to blacks in East Africa and Central Africa also.
Khoisans are the living group that is the closest the ancestors of all mankind. No matter you like it or not, Blacks, Moors, Asians, East Indians, Australian Aborigenes, all come for a close relative to the Khoisan.
quote:'Mediterranean' is a loose term that can be applied to indigenous and specifically aboriginal blacks of the North African coasts like the Jerba people of Tunisia.
Mediterranean is a geographical term. "Black" is a loose term. Tell me, what is a Black and what is not? Make a definition and you'll find out the very concept of "black" (or any other race) is idiotic.
quote:.. But the question is how distinct. I know of several cultural aspects that connect Berber peoples to thier 'Sub-Saharan' kin and NOT Europeans or Middle Easterners.
Nobody denies that. I also know several cultural aspects that connect North Africans with Southern Europeans, more than you perhaps think.
The question is they look different and are different from both Subsaharians and Europeans, therefore they are a distinct population.
I see you choose your pictures from the Tuaregs from Mali. People that usually cross the desert as we know. Well, most Moroccans are Berbers, and Berbers look like this.
If you consider those people "Black" is your choice, but they look different from the Subsaharians. And Berbers are the real Moors.
quote:.. Really? I understand that they treat blacks fine back then, ...
Well, if you believe that mass castration of Black males was a fine practise. Dream on your harmony with Moors, things were not that way in the past.
quote:.. A non-black origin of the Moors would be more likely only if they came from the coastal areas of North Africa, but the Moors are derived from the Al-Moravid and Al-Mohad dynasties of the Sahara desert which was all black back then.
You got to get better history books, lol. Those dynasties are from the 12th century. Moors invaded Spain in the 7th century and a little bit later they invaded down south into Subsaharan Africa. Those Almoravid troops where really Black Subsaharan African troops; NOT MOORS (North Africans).
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Per Bosch et co., we have the following...
H50 found in one Moroccan "Arab", and H104 found in one southern Moroccan "west-Afrasan/"Berber"" speaker, three Moroccan "Arab" speakers, and one north-central Moroccan "west-Afrasan" speaker.
Bosch et al. go onto conclude that:
So far, our analyses have allowed a clear dissection of almost all NW African and Iberian paternal lineages into several components with distinct historical origins. In this way, the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: **75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), 4% historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28). In contrast, the origins of the Iberian Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. It should be noted that H58 and H71 are not the only haplotypes present in the Middle East and that the Neolithic wave of advance could have brought other lineages to Iberia and NW Africa. However, the homogeneity of STR haplotypes within the most ancient biallelic haplotypes in each region indicates a single origin during the past, with possible minor reintroductions, with the Neolithic expansion, from the Middle East. Thus, Neolithic contributions may be slightly underestimated.
^^Whereby Hg E is denoted by the following:
H35=E3b-M78, H38=E3b-M81, and H36=E3b-M35; H22=E3a-M2, and H28=E1-M33
Hg J denoted by the following:
H58=J2*-M172
Hg F denoted by the following:
H71=F*-M89
Hg I denoted by the following:
H50=I1b2-M26, and H52=I*-M170.
Hg R denoted by the following:
H104=R*-M173
Thus note that the "4%" "historic", NOT pre-historic, European contribution quite likely from the Iberian peninsula, is a combination of I lineage (.6%), which was found in only one Moroccan "Arab" speaking individual AND R lineages (2.8%) found in five Moroccan individauls; three of them "Arab" speakers, and two of them "west-Afrasan" speakers. On the other hand, the sampled "Berber"/West Afrasan speakers were predominantly of the E3b patrilineal background, with tropical African origins.
Hence, generally speaking, it is safe to say that...
"Northern modern Berber-speakers are frequently notably "European," in phenotype but even they have tropical African "marker" gene frequencies than those found in southern Europeans. "Blacks" have long lived in northern Africa (see review in Keita 1990)." - Keita.
As I noted when I first posted this piece in an earlier discussion, Bosch et al.'s terminology in some instances, can be misnomers; for example, "Upper Paleolithic" Y chromosome gene pool, is misleading considering that though Hg E lineages are of Upper Paleolithic background, the northwest African gene pool are of later coalescence timeframes. In another instance, E3a derivatives are lumped under "sub-Saharan", although the E3b-M35 subphylogen, i.e. E3b-M78 and as we've come to learn, even the M81 derivative, now under the M78 superphylogen, have been identified as far south as not only the Sahelian regions of west Africa, but also Ethiopia. However, the important thing to take away from the study, is the findings in coastal northwest African gene pool, i.e. its constituents and the frequencies in which they appear.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote:Impossible. If you things in a broader sense all humans belong to the same race. Now, Berbers look like Southern Europeans with some "admixture". What exist between Germany and Ghana is a "cline". A gradient of phenotypes that goes between German blonds to dark skinned Subsaharian Africans
You first used the term ''caucasoid'' to describe Berbers. I asked you in my previous responce to define 'caucasoid', but know you know the definition is impossible. If you donot know how to define a term then why apply it to the Berbers?
The same argument about a gradient of phenotypes existing from Germany to Northern Africa can also be used for so-called Sub-Saharan Africans. Not all sub-Saharan Africans have the same phenotype.
Berbers exist in various phenotypes from a Kaybele down to a Tuareg. You cannot choice and select what Berber phenotype to represent the whole.
The question is what the original inhabitants of North-western Africa looked like and not the apperance of the modern North-western African. I advise you to study more about North-western African pre-history before you jump to conclusions.
Your average Morocco,Tunisian,or Libyan might not be black but they definately don't look like Southern Europeans either. You have alot of Southern European looking people in Algeria and even other parts of Maghreb but they are not in the majority.
Kind of ironic you used Zidane as a example but leave out what his biological family look like. I doubt they would be mistaken for a Spainard in Spain.
quote:The point is quite clear. Spaniards, Portugueses, Italians and Southern French have a high degree of admixture with North Africans. So, it does not matter how you define "Caucasian". The fact is they belong to a population that is closely related between themselves rather than with both Northern Europeans or Subsaharian Africans.
Where is your evidence that Northern Africans and Southern Europeans are highly related? The reason for some genetic linkage can be attributed to recent historical events or southern European immigration into Northern Africa. Did you know that Italy once had a historic Northern African slave trade? Do you have any evidence this connection goes back to earlier times than the Middle Ages? Can you then explain why the indigenous languages of North-western Africa are not spoken also in anywhere in Southern Europe?
Remeber I am speaking of the Northern Africans around 700 A.D. and not modern Northern Africans.
quote:See the distances in the map and you will figure it out. North Africa is right besides Spain, Italy and France, and a lot closser than Ghana or Russia
Geographical distance does not translate to closeness in terms of phenotype or even culture. If such were the case then all of southern Europe would look like North-western Africans and this is not the case.
You also forget that the Sahara desert was never a barrier either in Neolithic times nor in recent historical times. Many countries within Western Africa have parts of the Sahara within them.
quote:Spanish classical literature. In there the descriptions of Moors are quite amazing. Most of them are brown but many rulers are blond. Actually Moors have a fascination with slav women so they were usually the favorites. King Alphonse X the wise, for instance, once describe with a lot of surprise a Black general of the Moors armies. That was not something common to see. In classicals like Mio Cid you can see how Moors and Christians were the same people, plus some upper classes comming mainly from the Middle east and a low class Moor minority comming from North Afric.
How would a foreigner writing in Spainish language literature know much about Islamic Kingdoms in either Portugal or Spain? Did the Spainish language authors differtiate the so-called ''blacks'' from the rest of the Moors? If so what term did they use to differtiate the ''blacks'' from the regular Moors?
Where in El Cid did he say the Christian Europeans and Muslim Moors were the same people? Give some direct quotes from these texts that validate your position.
quote:That's is really true. It is written in the Mio Cid. The XII Century classic. The first invaders of the 7th Century were Berbers and Arabs, but in the 12th Century the new fanatic muslims, who at those times had invaded Subsaharian Africa, brough for the first time an army formed by Subsaharians whose drums spread terror in the civil population. That was one of the causes the Christian knight got serious with the reconquest. And you can see that was the beginning of the end of Al-Andalus
I ask the same question as in my previous posts. How did El Cid differentiate between the Moors and so-called Sub-Saharans?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Unfortunately, Ausar your advise fall on his deaf ears.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Yes, they were 2.356.115 by 300 B.C. (don't be an idiot)
And what about the aboriginal Mauros (black) peoples?
quote:Common sense says the other way around.
So you think whites are aboriginal to Africa?! LMFOH Now I know you are deluded!
quote:Khoisans are the living group that is the closest the ancestors of all mankind. No matter you like it or not, Blacks, Moors, Asians, East Indians, Australian Aborigenes, all come for a close relative to the Khoisan.
And the Khoisan are *Sub-Saharan* Africans of southern Africa. Yes they possess very ancient lineages but so do many other Sub-Saharans. All non-Africans are descended from East Africans really and not the southern African Khoisan who also just happen to share these lineages. The Khoisan may be somewhat lighter than other Sub-Saharans but they are not leucoderms (fair-skinned) but still melanoderms i.e. light-skinned blacks. Common sense also says other black Africans are more related to Khoisan than non-Africans because they never left the African continent!!
Your argument is so full of illogical inconsistancies it's hilarious! You even claim aboriginal white Africans! LOL Please stop the nonsense!
quote:Mediterranean is a geographical term. "Black" is a loose term. Tell me, what is a Black and what is not? Make a definition and you'll find out the very concept of "black" (or any other race) is idiotic.[quote] You're right Mediterranean is a geographic term but one which covers anyone from Syrians, to Italians, to black peoples of Tunisia.
As for what a black person is.
black /blæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[blak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb, adverb
–adjective
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but blacks are aboriginal to *all* of Africa, but whites are not!
[QUOTE]Nobody denies that. I also know several cultural aspects that connect North Africans with Southern Europeans, more than you perhaps think.
That still doesn't change anyting. Southern Europe is still a part of Europe while North Africa is still a part of Africa!
quote:The question is they look different and are different from both Subsaharians and Europeans, therefore they are a distinct population.
Nope. They are mixture of Europeans and black Africans-- they are a *mixed* population. (but not all of them)
quote:I see you choose your pictures from the Tuaregs from Mali. People that usually cross the desert as we know. Well, most Moroccans are Berbers, and Berbers look like this.
I meant to show a Tuareg from Algeria, but it doesn't matter since they are nomads home to many North African countries.
Also, the black Moroccan family I showed ARE Berbers! They are Haratin!
quote:
Nit picking pictures of white Berbers will not change the FACT of the existence of black Berbers who are the *original* Berbers. Also as Supercar and others have shown as further proof of black Berbers being original is that even white Berbers carry indigenous [black] African lineages (E3b2, E2, etc).
quote:If you consider those people "Black" is your choice, but they look different from the Subsaharians. And Berbers are the real Moors.
Nope. I made my point already
quote:Well, if you believe that mass castration of Black males was a fine practise. Dream on your harmony with Moors, things were not that way in the past.
"mass castration"?? I don't think so. The Berbers were heirarchal and follow a caste like system with the noble clans on the top. There was never any need to castrate anyone as proof of the lower clans.
And how funny that you ignored by citing of white slaves.
quote:You got to get better history books, lol. Those dynasties are from the 12th century. Moors invaded Spain in the 7th century and a little bit later they invaded down south into Subsaharan Africa. Those Almoravid troops where really Black Subsaharan African troops; NOT MOORS (North Africans).
Nope. The Almoravids came from the Saharan NOT 'Sub-Saharan' Sanhaja tribes.
Moors is derived from the Greco-Roman Mauros-- black!
I suggest you end your fantasy world of aboriginal whites of Africa and get back to reality.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
kawa..
Your choice of fotos reflect individuals and not groups. It is similar in Latin AMerica to see individuals of varying colours and phenotype within the same family and they are related! That is just part of mestizaje. The same thing occurs with within the sphere of al-arabiyya. Magrebhin are multicultural and multiethnic and they are equally African. No more, no less.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Bottom line, the "white" berbers are descendents of ancient and modern invaders from Europe and the Levant. YOU even said this yourself, when speaking about carthage. Therefore, you CANNOT say that "white" Berbers are MORE native than BLACK Berbers, ESPECIALLY when YOU YOURSELF mention FOREIGN ancestry for the "white" Berbers. On top of that the "white" Berbers are found ON THE COAST, doesnt that TELL YOU SOMETHING? Obviously, these people were more open to foreign contact than Berbers to the south. So, yes, there are MANY "white" Berbers, but to say that "white" Berbers are the ORIGINAL Berbers and to try and IGNRORE the fact that the ORIGINAL population of the Sahara WAS BLACK is NONSENSE. MOST historians even say that the "white" coastal Berbers, who are partly descended from the various invaders, have been STEADILY pushing the NATIVE BLACK AFRICANS further South. Therefore, the history of the "white" Berber has ALWAYS tinged with racism, ESPECIALLY after the arrival of the Arabs, who spurred MANY "white" Berbers to raid and take BLACK African slaves from the South. Morrocco, Algeria and Libya ALL have racial discrimination against the ORIGINAL blacks of North Africa. This is partly due to arabism, partly due to Islam and PARTLY due to a new "white" Berber nationalism and ethnocentrism that tries to OBLITERATE any connection between "white" Berbers and the ORIGINAL black populations of North Africa.
So I am NOT disagreeing that there are many "white" Berbers in North Africa. What I AM saying is that there is a tendency to try and PUSH "white" Berbers from the COAST as SUPREME representatives of ALL Berbers and to try and DOWNPLAY or outright OSTRACIZE and OMIT that there are MANY black Berbers all over North Africa and that the ORIGINAL Berbers and Berber culture comes from BLACK Africans in the Sahara who came from East Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Psuedo-science contradicts itself...
This statement describes Karwash perfectly.
The guy just refuses to admit that he's all washed up.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:And what about the aboriginal Mauros (black) peoples?
Romans used the word "Mauros" to talk about North Africans, but used (sorry, no pun intended) the word "Niger" to talk about Subsaharians. That says a lot. It says Romans distinguished between North Africans and Subsaharians.
quote: So you think whites are aboriginal to Africa?! LMFOH Now I know you are deluded!
Once again. What do you mean by "White"? Berbers are Native to Africa if that's what you mean. They are not "Black". At least they don't have the phenotype of Idi Amin. lol.
quote:..And the Khoisan are *Sub-Saharan* Africans of southern Africa.
By Genetics Khoisans are not directly linked to Bantues. Actually they are closer to Ethiopians and Berbers. People has to come from some origin and they seem to be the closer.
quote:.. The Khoisan may be somewhat lighter than other Sub-Saharans but they are not leucoderms (fair-skinned) but still melanoderms i.e. light-skinned blacks.
Actually, color of skin is the least important of features. Color of skin changes fast. And people has turned white and black several times in history. What change slower are the other characteristics of people, like facial features, for example. The fraternity because of color of skin is just plain ignorancy. I believe.
quote: You're right Mediterranean is a geographic term but one which covers anyone from Syrians, to Italians, to black peoples of Tunisia.
Exactly! All those people are related. Now, the term "black peoples" is just rethorical trick you are using.
quote: As for what a black person is.
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.[/i]
Well, that is non-sense from the Genetical point of view. Khoisan, Indians, Micronesians and Australian aboriguines ARE NOT closer to Bantues than East Asians or Europeans.
Your fantasy is simply confusing BANTU with Black and with African. That's non-sense. Not all "Blacks" are Bantues. Not all "Africans" are Blacks. Not all "Bantues" live in Africa, today.
White is also a term without a real meaning, by the way.
quote: Nope. They are mixture of Europeans and black Africans-- they are a *mixed* population. (but not all of them)
They are part of a "cline". I hope you understand the technical term. Those populations are not European but not Subsaharians either. They have always been know like the Moors. Too dark to be European, too light to be Subsaharians.
quote:..mass castration"?? I don't think so. The Berbers were heirarchal and follow a caste like system with the noble clans on the top. There was never any need to castrate anyone as proof of the lower clans
And how funny that you ignored by citing or white slaves. .
Moors treat all theirs slaves very badly. You know that. Whites, Blacks and any foreigners suffered with them.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Romans used the word "Mauros" to talk about North Africans, but used (sorry, no pun intended) the word "Niger" to talk about Subsaharians. That says a lot. It says Romans distinguished between North Africans and Subsaharians.
Again, the word is Sub-Saharans but no the Romans never made such distinctions. 'Mauros', 'Negros', and 'Aethiopes' were used interchangably by the Romans and they never used the word "Niger" which was coined by French millenia later when they named the river and the country Niger! Most of Northwest Africa was inhabited by indigenous blacks but the Greco-Romans acknowledged the presence of a people called Leuko-athiopies [literally- white Ethioians].
quote:Once again. What do you mean by "White"?
Don't play dumb. I mean the people YOU posted pictures of.
quote:Berbers are Native to Africa if that's what you mean. They are not "Black".
'Berbers' is a linguisto-cultural group that cover various ethnicities. Some of which ARE black and it was these blacks who were the original Berbers. No one ethnographer in the right mind accepts the notion of a white population aboriginal to the African continent.
quote:At least they don't have the phenotype of Idi Amin. lol.
Are you saying all indigenous [black] Africans look like Amin?! ROTFL You obviously haven't seen that many Africans then. I suggest you take a look at Kings African picture threads.
quote:By Genetics Khoisans are not directly linked to Bantues. Actually they are closer to Ethiopians and Berbers. People has to come from some origin and they seem to be the closer.
How are Khoisans not "directly linked" to Bantus when they inhabit the same region?! How is it Berbers from North Africa are closer related to Southern Africans than Sub-Saharan Bantu?!Khoisan are related to *all* Africans as proven by the PN2 genetic clade in males and mtDNA in females.
Your knowledge on genetics is obviously poor.
quote:Actually, color of skin is the least important of features. Color of skin changes fast.
Correct, which is why those modern Berbers and even modern Egyptians who don't look black still carry African lineages from their black ancestors.
quote:And people has turned white and black several times in history.
Nope. People have only turned white or fairskinned only once. Black people have always remained because black skin color was the original color of all humans since all humans originated in tropical Africa.
quote:What change slower are the other characteristics of people, like facial features, for example.
Not really, even facial features like nasal and facial shape are highly mutable which is why Western scholars of the past (and some today) use their bogus classification of "caucasoid" to include everyone from Egyptians to Somalis, to Dravidian Indians, to even Ifugao Filipinos.
quote:The fraternity because of color of skin is just plain ignorancy. I believe.
LOL True enough, since black Aborigines of Australia are most distant to black Africans. However, I don't know how the feautures help you since many Khoian have the same features as 'Bantus'!
quote:Exactly! All those people are related.
Nope. Not all of them. Sardinians are not closely related to Syrians or black Djerba, but there are other Mediterraneans like Greeks who are related because of Neolithic African ancestry
quote:Now, the term "black peoples" is just rethorical trick you are using.
Nope. It's a definition that's a hell of alot more accurate than that "caucasoid" term that YOU use!
quote:Well, that is non-sense from the Genetical point of view. Khoisan, Indians, Micronesians and Australian aboriguines ARE NOT closer to Bantues than East Asians or Europeans.
The definition of 'black' never said anything about genetic relation. It is only a reference to skin color. Also Indians, Mircronesians and Australian aborigines are non-Africans so of course they are closer related to East Asians and Europeans, but Khoisan ARE Africans as such how the heck could they be related to non-Africans like East Asians than to their own Bantu neighbors?!
Again, your knowledge of genetics is skewed.
quote:Your fantasy is simply confusing BANTU with Black and with African...
That's what YOU have been doing, not me!! Since when have I even mentioned anything about 'Bantus', that was YOU! LMAO
quote:That's non-sense. Not all "Blacks" are Bantues. Not all "Africans" are Blacks. Not all "Bantues" live in Africa, today.
Correct, but that still doesn't change the FACT that all peoples aboriginal to the African continent are black. The Berber language, whoever speaks them now, originated in Africa among aboriginal Africans.
quote:White is also a term without a real meaning, by the way.
It has a meaning also, as subjective as it is it is more valid than "kacazoid".
quote:They are part of a "cline". I hope you understand the technical term.
LOL Do YOU?!
quote:Those populations are not European but not Subsaharians either.
It has already been shown that all Berbers including the 'light/white' ones carry African paternal lineages with varying maternal lineages.
quote:They have always been know like the Moors. Too dark to be European, too light to be Subsaharians.
You talk as if Sub-Saharans come in one color only, when in fact they vary in a cline to use your term. Even those in Sub-Sahara range from jet-black Sudanese to yellowish-brown Khoisan!
quote:Moors treat all theirs slaves very badly. You know that. Whites, Blacks and any foreigners suffered with them.
LOL Not really, or not as bad as you say. But definitely not castration. Which something I think you made up to propose a kind of 'racism'(?)
Sorry Washkar, but you are running out of incorrect answers.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Don't you think we are swimming in semantic?
If you don't like the term "caucasian" is fine. I don't like it either. Point by point.
(1) Romans had different terms to talk about distinct people. Don't twist it, please.
(2) Berbers are not "white" or "blacks". They are Berbers. They look "intermediate". And I agree they show a wide range of phenotypes. Why not? That's the reality.
(3) I know Africans vary quite a lot. From "white" Berbers and Ethiopians to Zulues and Malgaches. The point is some people want to confuse Subsaharians West Africans with the Moors of the Magreb. That's what I don't like, because they are different people. Hutus are Hutus and Tutsis are Tutsis. Do you get it?
(4) Berbers ARE ABORIGINALS Africans, no matter they look "white" to you. Don't confuse them with Arabs and European migrants that also exist in North African.
(5) Bantues invaded the lands of the Khoisan. Don't tell me lies about the "fraternity of peoples". Not again, please.
(6) Don't use the term "African" and African Aboriguin to mean "Bantu". There are more people in Africa than Bantues, since the beginning of the continent. Besides, Africa is the original name of the Magreb, not of Zimbabwe. lol
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Don't you think we are swimming in semantic?
I'm not but I think that YOU are drowning in them.
quote:If you don't like the term "caucasian" is fine. I don't like it either. Point by point.
Agreed with this at least.
quote:(1) Romans had different terms to talk about distinct people. Don't twist it, please.
Of course. Like the term 'Nubian' to designate peoples to the south of Egypt however having no reference to 'black'.
While I don't doubt the Romans distinguishing North Africans from peoples south, they never used skin color to do it because many North Africans at that time were already black. 'Niger' was not used by Romans but by recent European colonialist, namely the Portuguese and French.
quote:(2) Berbers are not "white" or "blacks". They are Berbers. They look "intermediate". And I agree they show a wide range of phenotypes. Why not? That's the reality.
Yes, because Berber speaking peoples came from various backgrounds, but the main stem is African as shown by the Berber language itself. You can't deny that recent genetic analysis shows even the 'white' Berbers with fair hair as sharing indigenous African lineages with black peoples in Senegal or Ethiopia.
quote:(3) I know Africans vary quite a lot. From "white" Berbers and Ethiopians to Zulues and Malgaches. The point is some people want to confuse Subsaharians West Africans with the Moors of the Magreb. That's what I don't like, because they are different people. Hutus are Hutus and Tutsis are Tutsis. Do you get it?
I understand that. But YOU don't seem to get that no one is confusing them with anyone. In fact, the only one confused here is YOU. Moors of the Magreb were indigenous black Africans derived from black peoples like the Sanhaja. 'White' Berbers or those with Middle-Eastern ancestry aren't even called Moors but Saracens.
quote:(4) Berbers ARE ABORIGINALS Africans, no matter they look "white" to you. Don't confuse them with Arabs and European migrants that also exist in North African.
That depends. Black Berbers like the Haratin or Djerba people are obviously aboriginal but not the 'white' ones with fair hair and blue eyes like the Kabyle. But even the fair ones have ancestors who were aboriginal (black).
quote:(5) Bantues invaded the lands of the Khoisan. Don't tell me lies about the "fraternity of peoples". Not again, please.
Yes, and Bantus mixed with some Khoisan and even before they "invaded" their lands BOTH groups share a common African ancestry and genetic lineage.
quote:(6) Don't use the term "African" and African Aboriguin to mean "Bantu". There are more people in Africa than Bantues, since the beginning of the continent. Besides, Africa is the original name of the Magreb, not of Zimbabwe. lol
As I said, YOU are literally drowning in semantics.
I suggest you look here for some info about Africans you desperately need.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
kawa...,
You seem to be familiar with Latin America so my question to you is why does not Mexican TV reflect the images of the greater native community like Zapotec, Tarahumara and tribal group?
A Dominicana (mulata/morena) won Miss Universe some years ago and recently came up as a top runner up and her phenotype did not represent the majority of black-mulato (product of mulataje)! Are we to say she reflects the totality of Dominicanos as a group? There was a Dominicana living in Italy who won a local Miss Italy contest and despite being mulata and beautiful, the local Italians referred to her as 'macacca' and were disrespectful!
The Turks loved Slavs (Mamluks) and they were used as the backbobe of the military (yeniseri/janissaries) across the Balkans and North Africa. Many Slavs joined the Turks because the preferred the benenevelence of Islam to the trachery of Christianity in finding what we call a "job market".
a dios (hoda hafez)
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:
quote:(1) Romans had different terms to talk about distinct people. Don't twist it, please.
Of course. Like the term 'Nubian' to designate peoples to the south of Egypt however having no reference to 'black'.
While I don't doubt the Romans distinguishing North Africans from peoples south, they never used skin color to do it because many North Africans at that time were already black...
¿? So much change in historical times. I doubt it. Differences in aspect exists from prehistorical times.
quote:
quote:(2) Berbers are not "white" or "blacks". They are Berbers. They look "intermediate". And I agree they show a wide range of phenotypes. Why not? That's the reality.
Yes, because Berber speaking peoples came from various backgrounds, but the main stem is African as shown by the Berber language itself.
quote:
Languages prove CULTURAL relations between people that exist. Nobody denies Berbers have a language originated in Africa and related with other African peoples. But saying that "languages" are equilavent to "ancestral relations" is going back into the ideology of the Indo-European peoples.
[QUOTE]You can't deny that recent genetic analysis shows even the 'white' Berbers with fair hair as sharing indigenous African lineages with black peoples in Senegal or Ethiopia.
I don't deny that. Berbers are very close to Ethiopians. Actually, is an ancient branch that established in North Africa. 'Blackness' has nothing to do with it.
quote:[QUOTE](3) I know Africans vary quite a lot. From "white" Berbers and Ethiopians to Zulues and Malgaches. The point is some people want to confuse Subsaharians West Africans with the Moors of the Magreb. That's what I don't like, because they are different people. Hutus are Hutus and Tutsis are Tutsis. Do you get it?
I understand that. But YOU don't seem to get that no one is confusing them with anyone. In fact, the only one confused here is YOU. Moors of the Magreb were indigenous black Africans derived from black peoples like the Sanhaja. 'White' Berbers or those with Middle-Eastern ancestry aren't even called Moors but Saracens.
So what? Moors were not Black subsaharian Africans, no matter theirs ancestors could be. The point is, Moors are different peoples. As the matter of fact so different IN LOOKS that even outsiders can recognize them at once.
quote:
quote:(4) Berbers ARE ABORIGINALS Africans, no matter they look "white" to you. Don't confuse them with Arabs and European migrants that also exist in North African.
That depends. Black Berbers like the Haratin or Djerba people are obviously aboriginal but not the 'white' ones with fair hair and blue eyes like the Kabyle. But even the fair ones have ancestors who were aboriginal (black).
There you are wrong. Obviously. You are not sure how people was 100.000 years ago. If they look like many ethiopians of today, some groups turned lighter and others turned darker. You are not certain, please.
quote:
quote:(5) Bantues invaded the lands of the Khoisan. Don't tell me lies about the "fraternity of peoples". Not again, please.
Yes, and Bantus mixed with some Khoisan and even before they "invaded" their lands BOTH groups share a common African ancestry and genetic lineage.
All people do share a common African ancentry. lol.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: [QB] kawa...,
You seem to be familiar with Latin America so my question to you is why does not Mexican TV reflect the images of the greater native community like Zapotec, Tarahumara and tribal group?
I am not Mexican, but most Mexicans seem quite Native-American-looking to me. So, I believe the TV reflects the phenotype. Now, there is an ethnic (not racial) thing going on in there. Mexicans downplay rural native cultures.
quote:A Dominicana (mulata/morena) won Miss Universe some years ago and recently came up as a top runner up and her phenotype did not represent the majority of black-mulato (product of mulataje)! Are we to say she reflects the totality of Dominicanos as a group?
I don't know what Dominicans think. I believe DR People has all the phenotypes so any one of them could represent the country.
quote:There was a Dominicana living in Italy who won a local Miss Italy contest and despite being mulata and beautiful, the local Italians referred to her as 'macacca' and were disrespectful!
I don't think a DR lady represents Italians at all. I get that's why Italians reacted like street gangs.
quote: The Turks loved Slavs (Mamluks) and they were used as the backbobe of the military (yeniseri/janissaries) across the Balkans and North Africa. Many Slavs joined the Turks because the preferred the benenevelence of Islam to the trachery of Christianity in finding what we call a "job market".
That's quite true. For some reason I ignore, Arabs and Turks were fascinated with Slavs and Germans, and they recruit for theirs armies, harems and burocracies. Turks imported so many Slavs that there are many Turks today who look Nordic, lol.
Actually, that may be the origin of the pathological prefferences of many Spaniards and Hispanic for blond beauties. Muslims are guilty of that.
Chao,
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
In summary, we have gone around this topic many times, but we need to clarify:
Moor or the Moors is a term that is a BROAD term referring to the Muslims who invaded Spain in the 8th century from North Africa. The term derives from old Roman and Greek references to the people in North Africa who were identified as dark. No one can say with ANY amount of credibility how many dark skinned Muslims were present in Europe over this long period. However, it is generally noted that some Europeans also took the term Moor to refer to the dark skinned Muslims and other Africans (muslim or not) in Europe during the Medeival period. Because of this the term Moor gets rather confused, abused and misused by many in an attempt to identify WHO exactly the Moors were. Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify the Moors strictly with ONE single group. The Moors or Islamic armies in Spain had many groups of Muslims from many different areas of the Islamic world at the time. Therefore, Persians, Babylonians, Syrians, Jordanians, Arabians, Egyptians and of course Africans were part of this Moorish occupation of Europe. The Islamic period in Spain was a Multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious affair, which, in certain periods, reached the ideal of a "melting pot" long before the CONCEPT of a United States of America was even imagined. THIS is a key point that underlies the signifigance of Islamic growth in the period after the fall of Rome in the Byzantine Empire.
One must NOT forget, however, the the spread of Islam was also part of the spread of Arab, Persian and Turkish imperialism and ethnocentrism. Not only that, but though many different peoples were unified under the banner of Islam, there remained many signifigant splits that caused the Islamic world to crumble into many separate factions.
In North Africa, the history of the Islamic invasions is very long and very complex. North Africa today is a deeply woven tapestry of various competing interests based on race, class, culture, ethnicity, religion and gender. It is impossible to strictly talk about North Africans as one monolithic group. Each major group in North Africa has its own sub groups and competing interests. You have the Arabs and their competing interests, you have divisions among Berbers, you have divisions among the Muslim sects, you have divisions between the aboriginal African groups, you have divisions between the aboriginal Africans and the other groups. So it is not easy to define a "unique" identity and heritage amongst this patchwork of identitifications. If this complicates the process of determining the identity of an individual person in North Africa, then it makes the process of determining a historical identity for various North African persons even MORE complex.
The overall issue and problem with identifying the presence of black Africans in Moorish Spain is strictly one of race and racism. Unfortunately the history of Africa subsequent to the Arab invasion of North Africa has been one of tragedy on top of depravity. The Arab invasions begat a whole slew of attrocities against black Africans in the name of religion, ethnicity, race and economics. Therefore, those who are trying to recover the identity of the black Africans who were among the many Islamic groups in medeival North Africa are not trying to RECOVER the history of a people that have been SAVAGELY suppressed by almost all who have set foot in Africa since the 8th century.
One thing to note in this is the way that they try to separate the black African Berbers from the REST of the Berbers as JUST being Berber speakers, as if they arent "real" berbers, even though Berber is REALLY a language which ORIGINATED among black Africans. This reflects that MODERN North Africa has a caste system in effect, which basically puts Arabs at the top, followed by Berbers and the black Africans at the bottom. This is another reason why it is important to recover the identity of black African populations in Medeival North Africa, because MANY are trying to write black Africans OUT of North African history as well as OBLITERATE black Africans in North Africa PERIOD.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:You are not sure how people was 100.000 years ago
^ More boring ill-informed remarks that force us to reiterate what should be common knowledge on this forum by now:
The evolution of the different skin colors is thought to have occurred as follows: the haired ancestors of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin under their hair. Once the hair was lost, they evolved dark skin, needed to prevent low folate levels since they lived in sun-rich Africa.
In the time that humans lived only in Africa, humans had dark skin to the extent that they lived for extended periods of time where the sunlight is intense.
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein
Doug, your statements are on. Many Amazigh activist with Euro mommies think Haratin are Berber but black Berber.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Oh yes, they think of their miscegenated selves as true Berbers, i.e., white Berber = true Berber no matter how mixed OR is it because of the mix?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Note on the Haratin, sometimes called the "black" Berbers:
quote: Haratin (also transliterated Haratins, Harratins or Haratine, etc, singular Hartani) is a Saharan / Sahelian word of obscure origin applied mainly in Mauritania, southern Morocco, Western Sahara, Algeria, Senegal and Mali to largely sedentary oasis-dwelling black populations speaking either Berber or Arabic dialects. In Mauritania in particular it is used to refer to an Arabicised and Islamised former black slave class of uncertain modern status.
The populations called Haratine appear to be a mix of indigenous black populations that became Berberised and descendants of free sub-Saharan African slaves, and/or the children of said slaves and the lighter skinned Arab or Berber ruling class.
The name itself is of obscure origin and has been variously traced to Arabic roots meaning cultivator and Berber roots meaning "dark skinned". .......
In Morocco, the word Haratin tends to be applied to the dark-skinned agriculturalists of the southern oases, stretching towards Western Sahara, who largely identify as Chleuh berbers, although some native Arabic speakers also exist. In some Moroccan oral history traditions, the Haratin of the south eastern oases were the 'original' inhabitants[1]. The term is used separately from that of Gnawa, which tends to refer to a clearly former sub-Saharan slaves and to a somewhat distinct cultural and religious movement composed of Sufi turuq (orders or brotherhoods) and music groups that has began to include different ethnicities. As Moroccan society has modernised and urbanised, the categories have broken down with inter-marriage and rural to urban migration.
Haratin "Berbers" are the remnants of the ORIGINAL African populations of this area. Berberization of Haratins is a MISLABEL, firstly because "Berber" culture has ties with Africans from the Sahel and because the language itself is AFROASIATIC, meaning AFRICAN. Likewise, many acknowledge that the different dialects among Berbers almost are considered to be so different as to be unrelated, so what is the "true" Berber language then? All of this is an example of how the FACTS get mixed up and USED by various peoples with their own agendas.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Kawashkar, Doug, Djehuti and others,
The proper Tamazigh (Berber) word for North Africa is Tamazhga. Moor(English), Moro(Spanish) or Maure(French) is a European word used to desribe the people who invaded Espanya and Gaul coming from North West Africa. They were a combination of Arabs (Hassaniya), Berbers(Zenaga and Zenata) and Black Africans. These terms describe the ethnicity of one's father. A Berber has a Berber father with Y chromosome E3b2 usually.
But, many Amazigh and Arab men have Black maternal ancestry. The Black maternal ancestry in Berbers and Spaniards and Portuguese s largely West African. The Black maternal ancestry in Arabs is mainly East African. So, a Berber/Arab man can have his pale father and himself be as black as the night which is what happened many times. The kids from these unions can also be various shades of brown with Y chromosmes E3b2/J and mtDNAs of L1, L2, L3. That's what entered Iberia. Many of the soldiers were Black Africans exclusively.
In 1492, Espanya threw out the Moros and Judios(Jews). The Spanish Inquisition forced pale skinned Jews to convert and Black slaves were rounded up all over Europe and sent to the Americas from Europe in the following years. Christopher Columbus opened the Western Hemisphere for slavery and those original Blacks slaves came from Europe then they took people from Senegal and going further south until reaching Angola.
The Rock Art of the Sahara show a combination of mostly Black people in black, brown and red paint. Yet, there are a few "Whites" depicted on the Rock Art of Tamazgha also. The Ancient Egyptian walls show that the paleskinned people of Tamazgha did exist.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
The original inhabitants of Africa were the pygmies. They lives in the north, south, east and west. The Khoi-San or !Kung are one of a handful of African pygmy groups that still exist. The Khoi-San are the closest living people to "Adam and Eve". Their Y chromosomes are A and B and their female lineages are L1 and some L2 with no L3.
L1, L2, and L3 are found all over the African continent. L1b is found in the northern half of the African continent while L1c is the southern half. MtDNA L1 Pygmy women are the foremothers of about 1/3 of all Africans. L2 gets about 1/3 and L3 gets about 1/3. After the San, West Africa is the next oldest population group in the world. The West African Negroes are the second oldest people group on Earth maternally with a large number of L1bs.
The Khoi-San language is the world's oldest living language. Xhosa and Zulu are part Khoi-San. The second oldest language group in the world are the Nergo languages of West Africa commonly called "Niger-Congo". THEY ARE NOT BANTU. They are older than Bantu. Southern Africa's Bantu languages developed in the last 3,000 years from Negroes moving south east from Nigeria and Cameroon.
The geneticists originally got their Black African lineages from studying African Americans. The African American male population has a small minority of the orginal "Adamic" A and B Y chromosomes from the pygmies. However, most are E3a Negroes. The African American female African lineages are 40% L3 and the rest L1 and L2. African American descend from Senegambians(Mande, Wolof, Fula), Hausa, Kanuri, Tuareg, Ibo, Akan, Tikar, Bubi, Congolese and Angolans mainly. AfroAsiatic Berber speaking Tuaregs and Chadic speaking Hausa are part of the African American ancestry.
The invaders of Iberia emerged out of what is now Mauretania just north of Senegal. This is where ancient Ghana was. The Black natives, the Bafuur, were the ancestors of present day Tukulors, Soninke, Peuls and Wolofs etc. They were invaded by Amazigh people from the north who gave them a new foreign religion from the East. The original religion of Tamazgha was a mix of Judaism and paganism. Christianity came after 33 AD. Tin Hinan and Dihya Al Kahena were probably Jewish Christians practicing some pagan rites Mauretania was the Moorish heartland.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
TODAY, in Mauretania, the Berbers and Arabs are called the "Whites" as opposed to the Peul/Soninke/Wolof "Blacks". The "Whites" are called THE MAURES = Moors. They are not as White as the Europeans, but much lighter than the Blacks. Some Amazigh from the most northern reaches of Tamazgha are descended from actual real White Europeans - The Vandals, Goths, and Romans.
TODAY, in Tamazgha Black people are moving north and north en route to Spain and France to be immigrants. In North Africa, these new Blacks are called all kinds of racists names.
TODAY, the descendants of the Moors are immigrating to Spain, Portugal and France. History is repeating itself in another form.
TODAY, Negroes are scattered all over the world. The TransSaharan slave trading system was crushed when Europeans reversed the routes away to the Atlantic coastal regions. So, the Americas received millions of Negroes. So, in reality Tamazgha's power in the world fell and a new Negro (West African) society was born.
TODAY, many people outside of Europe and the Americas don't realize what has happened.
Ancient Egypt is gone, Ancient Kush is gone, Ancient Axum is gone, the Moorish Civilization is gone.
And new kids are on the block. Many of you don't realize what has happened.
Adios Amigos.
Es un mundo nuevo = It's a new world.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: The Khoi-San or !Kung are one of a handful of African pygmy groups that still exist.
So the Khoisan are pygmy?
'Learn something new everyday. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
One caveat, there are "blackskins" who are Maurs, Mauritanian Haratin are Maurs.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In summary, we have gone around this topic many times,...
Yes; actually beaten to death, and yet, there are still long-standing posters here, and others who've been lurking around this site for quite some time, who cease to understand the clear and verifiable points that have been reiterated each and every time this topic is discussed.
quote:Doug M:
The term derives from old Roman and Greek references to the people in North Africa who were identified as dark. No one can say with ANY amount of credibility how many dark skinned Muslims were present in Europe over this long period.
The Almoravids were mainly dark skinned Muslims from Sahelian west Africa, where the contemporary nation of Mauritania now lies.
quote:Doug M:
However, it is generally noted that some Europeans also took the term Moor to refer to the dark skinned Muslims and other Africans (muslim or not) in Europe during the Medeival period. Because of this the term Moor gets rather confused, abused and misused by many in an attempt to identify WHO exactly the Moors were.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify the Moors strictly with ONE single group. The Moors or Islamic armies in Spain had many groups of Muslims from many different areas of the Islamic world at the time. Therefore, Persians, Babylonians, Syrians, Jordanians, Arabians, Egyptians and of course Africans were part of this Moorish occupation of Europe.
Perhaps just a casual error here, but as you already know, Egyptians are Africans. The term "Moors", in its original context, really isn't confusing a term as some make it out to be; "Moors" was a term initially applied to dark skin/black Africans and whose rule started in Sahelian Africa [Mauritanian-Nigerien region], and subsequently established an intra-west African empire encompassing coastal Northwest Africa [Maghreb], from where they then ruled Spain...and I reiterate:
There is no need to "mystify" the "Moors" as mentioned in the intro article. The "African" rulers of Spain were referred to in specific terms which are not "ambiguous," or to allow confusion of "African" groups with the "non-African" groups.
These were the "Almoravids" - Africans, "Almohads" and their subsequent offshoots - again Africans.
The Nasrids were probably led by local Spanish [i.e. if not Africans themselves] rulers who were "proxies" of the African Moors in Spain.
The Spanish Moors = Almoravids + Almohads = Africans
Ps - Don't confuse the African Moors with the Umayyads, who ruled Spain after using North Africa as a springboard to do so, i.e. prior to the arrival of the Almoravids. The Umayyads, along with the Abbasids, were indiscriminately referred to as Saracens. Now of course, the Umayyads had "Berber" collaborators in their rule in Spain, including African soldiers in the conquest of Spain.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: ¿? So much change in historical times. I doubt it. Differences in aspect exists from prehistorical times.
Sorry, but prehistoric whites or non-blacks of North Africa did not exist
quote:Languages prove CULTURAL relations between people that exist. Nobody denies Berbers have a language originated in Africa and related with other African peoples. But saying that "languages" are equilavent to "ancestral relations" is going back into the ideology of the Indo-European peoples.
You are correct about this one; however it has been proven by genetics that even the non-black looking Berbers carry lineages from black ancestors. There are whites in Europe and especially in America that carry African ancestry but don't look like it and certainly don't speak any African languages.
quote:I don't deny that. Berbers are very close to Ethiopians. Actually, is an ancient branch that established in North Africa. 'Blackness' has nothing to do with it.
Berbers are also close to Kenyans and Tanzanians as well as closer Senegalese. The same ancient branch established in North Africa is established in other parts of Africa. Of course these lineages have no direct correlation to skin color i.e. blackness, yet no scholar denies that these lineages were originally spread and carried by black people! You still fail to address the presence of black Berbers like the Haratin, Jerba, and others.
quote:So what? Moors were not Black subsaharian Africans, no matter theirs ancestors could be. The point is, Moors are different peoples. As the matter of fact so different IN LOOKS that even outsiders can recognize them at once.
LOL Again, Moors were black and technically they were Saharan or Supra-Saharans. As far as outsiders like Europeans, again the term 'Mauros' was associated with black skin.
quote:There you are wrong. Obviously. You are not sure how people was 100.000 years ago. If they look like many ethiopians of today, some groups turned lighter and others turned darker. You are not certain, please.
Sorry but all anthropologist agree on what early humans looked like:
Jablonsky: *Black* was the original human condition
quote:(All people do share a common African ancentry. lol.
ROTFL Yes! but the relation between populations who never left Africa are much closer than those outside of Africa!
No offense, but you are beginning to border on idiocy.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Perhaps just a casual error here, but as you already know, Egyptians are Africans. The term "Moors", in its original context, really isn't confusing a term as some make it out to be; "Moors" was a term initially applied to dark skin/black Africans and whose rule started in Sahelian Africa [Mauritanian-Nigerien region], and subsequently established an intra-west African empire encompassing coastal Northwest Africa [Maghreb], from where they then ruled Spain...and I reiterate:
There is no need to "mystify" the "Moors" as mentioned in the intro article. The "African" rulers of Spain were referred to in specific terms which are not "ambiguous," or to allow confusion of "African" groups with the "non-African" groups.
These were the "Almoravids" - Africans, "Almohads" and their subsequent offshoots - again Africans.
The Nasrids were probably led by local Spanish [i.e. if not Africans themselves] rulers who were "proxies" of the African Moors in Spain.
The Spanish Moors = Almoravids + Almohads = Africans
Ps - Don't confuse the African Moors with the Umayyads, who ruled Spain after using North Africa as a springboard to do so, i.e. prior to the arrival of the Almoravids. The Umayyads, along with the Abbasids, were indiscriminately referred to as Saracens. Now of course, the Umayyads had "Berber" collaborators in their rule in Spain, including African soldiers in the conquest of Spain.
Information has already been presented on this thread on who the Moors were. If some ignorant folks didn't bother reading it or ignored it, that's not our problem. Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: One caveat, there are "blackskins" who are Maurs, Mauritanian Haratin are Maurs.
Shalom Aleichem Al Takruri,
I will check a few things out. But, my goal is not to become an expert on this part of the world. The Amazigh, Tuaregs, Maures, and Peuls are a strange bunch outside of the reach of the modern world spanning Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. These people are indeed very interesting.
Yet, their racialist customs carry on today and they still enslave people. The slaving of war-captives led to the selling of their people and other West Africans to Europeans in the Americas from Canada to Argentina. So, we are linked by real history.
Now, do I celebrate the Maures who enslave Blacks today? No.
Luckily, for me. There are none of these people around me. My concern is the growing Hispanic and East Asian cultural groups in America and the old time Americans Black and White.
Hasta Luego Amigo, Viva America, Viva Los Hebreos (Am Yisrael Chai)
Admirer of the Red Cow
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:..The invaders of Iberia emerged out of what is now Mauretania just north of Senegal. This is where ancient Ghana was.
The invaders of Spain WERE MUSLIMS. By the time they invaded Spain they were also invading Ghana. So, the invading troops did not came from Ghana. Actually, Both Spain and Subsaharan Africa were invaded by the same Muslim peoples directed by Arabs with Moor (North African or "white" Berbers) troops.
It was in the 12th Century (not in the 7th) when a Subsaharan army of 15.000 soldiers was sent to Spain. Defeated locals in a series of battles and was send back to Africa by the Muslims.
quote: The Black natives, the Bafuur, were the ancestors of present day Tukulors, Soninke, Peuls and Wolofs etc. They were invaded by Amazigh people from the north who gave them a new foreign religion from the East.
Do you see? The Moor-Arab coalition was the one that invaded Subsaharian Africa and converted the region in Muslim. That happened at the same time of the invasion of Spain.
quote: Mauretania was the Moorish heartland. [/QB]
Mauritania WAS NOT the Moorish heartland at all. The Magred was the original "Mauritania".
What happened is that the Subsaharans become "Islamized" and they were from there on considered "Moors" also.
Don't confusse CAUSE with EFFECT.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... The term "Moors", in its original context, really isn't confusing a term as some make it out to be; "Moors" was a term initially applied to dark skin/black Africans and whose rule started in Sahelian Africa [Mauritanian-Nigerien region], and subsequently established an intra-west African empire encompassing coastal Northwest Africa [Maghreb], from where they then ruled Spain...and I reiterate:
That ABSOLUTELY false. Moors ARE NOT originally from Mauritania, but from the Maghreb. Moors is the ancient name of the coastal regions of Morocco+Algers+Tunisia+Lybia, regions so close to Europe people can cross back and forth by rowing on a boat
quote: There is no need to "mystify" the "Moors" as mentioned in the intro article. The "African" rulers of Spain were referred to in specific terms which are not "ambiguous," or to allow confusion of "African" groups with the "non-African" groups.
The rulers of Al-Andalus (Not all Spain) where not Moors, they were ARABS. Moors were only subordinated troops. The point is Spaniards called Moors all allien Muslim people.
quote: These were the "Almoravids" - Africans, "Almohads" and their subsequent offshoots - again Africans.
Almoravids were not the guys that invaded Spain. They were part of a fundamentalist group that tried to take the control out from the Muslims Spaniards. Actually, Many Spanish Moors allied with the Christians against the Almoravids. Almoravid troops were Subsaharans, indeed. Theirs pass for history was short but they caused the reaction of the Christians of Spain and theirs intervention was the beginning of the end of Muslim Spain.
quote: The Spanish Moors = Almoravids + Almohads = Africans
Bad math. Northern "White" Berbers are Africans but not Almoravids. The Spanish Moors were of any "color" and almost none of the was Subsaharan African. Almoravids where Blacks, but they were not the founders of Al-Andalus, they were not the rulers (all Africans both "white" Berbers and Black Subsaharans, worked for Muslims Arabs; they were no more than employees).
quote: Ps - Don't confuse the African Moors with the Umayyads, who ruled Spain after using North Africa as a springboard to do so,
LOL. You got a problem with your time machine. You got the scales backwards. The Arabs rules all the time in Spain. Black Almoravides troops where never present before the 12th century, simply because Arabs hadn't subjugated Black Africans as yet! Black Africans were not the rulers during the Islamic invasions, but subordinated to Arabs!
quote: i.e. prior to the arrival of the Almoravids. The Umayyads, along with the Abbasids, were indiscriminately referred to as Saracens.
Those are the people called Moors in Spain: the Saracens and the Berbers. They were called Moors because they came from Morocco, not Ghana. And Arabs were also called Moors.
Almoravids NEVER took control of Spain. Arabs continued to rule for all the time the Muslims lived in there.
quote: Now of course, the Umayyads had "Berber" collaborators in their rule in Spain, including African soldiers in the conquest of Spain. [/QB]
Of course the invasion was done with African soldiers. The "white" Moors ARE AFRICANS, no matter they have a different complexion than Subsaharians.
But you should not forget that Muslims armies were multi-national and multi-racial. Muslims colonizers, though, were mainly from the Middle East. And the rules of the Muslim Caliphates were, almost without exception ARABS.
The language spoke in Spain, Sicilia and also in Tombuctu was ARAB. Because the Muslim invasion was planified, financed and controlled by the ARABS.
Sad to say, but the "Africans" were only low payed workers of the Arabs, with one or two generals that were the exception that confirmed the rule.
Glorious Moors? Ha. Behind all the invasions of both Europe and Subsaharian Africa it was the hand of Mahoma and the Arab: the upper class of the Muslim world.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Hi Doug,
I like your comment very much, because of the precision of it. I wish people could read it in detail
KAWASHKAR
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In summary, we have gone around this topic many times, but we need to clarify:
Moor or the Moors is a term that is a BROAD term referring to the Muslims who invaded Spain in the 8th century from North Africa. The term derives from old Roman and Greek references to the people in North Africa who were identified as dark. No one can say with ANY amount of credibility how many dark skinned Muslims were present in Europe over this long period. However, it is generally noted that some Europeans also took the term Moor to refer to the dark skinned Muslims and other Africans (muslim or not) in Europe during the Medeival period. Because of this the term Moor gets rather confused, abused and misused by many in an attempt to identify WHO exactly the Moors were. Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify the Moors strictly with ONE single group. The Moors or Islamic armies in Spain had many groups of Muslims from many different areas of the Islamic world at the time. Therefore, Persians, Babylonians, Syrians, Jordanians, Arabians, Egyptians and of course Africans were part of this Moorish occupation of Europe. The Islamic period in Spain was a Multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious affair, which, in certain periods, reached the ideal of a "melting pot" long before the CONCEPT of a United States of America was even imagined. THIS is a key point that underlies the signifigance of Islamic growth in the period after the fall of Rome in the Byzantine Empire.
Only a thing to notice with the idea of Spanish "melting pot". Spain was an invaded land where the large majorities of people (more than 90%) where local Spaniards. The melting pot was an institution enforced by the foreigners that carried an allien religion (for Spaniards). Spaniards considred themselves "Romans", Christian and subjugated. Therefore, when Spaniards finally broke free from the Muslims they took revenge on foreigners and theirs descendents. The ones that could be assimilated they were and the rest where deported. Many people was killed or burn.
Sometimes when the melting pots are created against the will of the local people, revenge could happen like it happened in Spain.
quote: One must NOT forget, however, the the spread of Islam was also part of the spread of Arab, Persian and Turkish imperialism and ethnocentrism. Not only that, but though many different peoples were unified under the banner of Islam, there remained many signifigant splits that caused the Islamic world to crumble into many separate factions.
In North Africa, the history of the Islamic invasions is very long and very complex. North Africa today is a deeply woven tapestry of various competing interests based on race, class, culture, ethnicity, religion and gender. It is impossible to strictly talk about North Africans as one monolithic group. Each major group in North Africa has its own sub groups and competing interests. You have the Arabs and their competing interests, you have divisions among Berbers, you have divisions among the Muslim sects, you have divisions between the aboriginal African groups, you have divisions between the aboriginal Africans and the other groups. So it is not easy to define a "unique" identity and heritage amongst this patchwork of identitifications. If this complicates the process of determining the identity of an individual person in North Africa, then it makes the process of determining a historical identity for various North African persons even MORE complex.
The overall issue and problem with identifying the presence of black Africans in Moorish Spain is strictly one of race and racism. Unfortunately the history of Africa subsequent to the Arab invasion of North Africa has been one of tragedy on top of depravity. The Arab invasions begat a whole slew of attrocities against black Africans in the name of religion, ethnicity, race and economics. Therefore, those who are trying to recover the identity of the black Africans who were among the many Islamic groups in medeival North Africa are not trying to RECOVER the history of a people that have been SAVAGELY suppressed by almost all who have set foot in Africa since the 8th century.
One thing to note in this is the way that they try to separate the black African Berbers from the REST of the Berbers as JUST being Berber speakers, as if they arent "real" berbers, even though Berber is REALLY a language which ORIGINATED among black Africans. This reflects that MODERN North Africa has a caste system in effect, which basically puts Arabs at the top, followed by Berbers and the black Africans at the bottom. This is another reason why it is important to recover the identity of black African populations in Medeival North Africa, because MANY are trying to write black Africans OUT of North African history as well as OBLITERATE black Africans in North Africa PERIOD.
Well, it is tragic that people still think that Moors invaded Spain. The Muslims invaded Spain using North Africans as troops. Those same Muslims were the once that started the international slave trade with Black subsaharian Africans.
I believe many people suffered because of the Muslims invasion. Is a pitty the Africans don't realize they were invaded in the same way Spain was, by the Muslim troops, and that that was the start of the suffering of millions of people in Subsaharan Africa.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Thank God for Jesus. I don't belong to that religion. Most of the 150 Million Africans living in the New World do not belong to that religion.
We are free from the Amalekites. We are free living under the one true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacab and Samuel, and David, and Solomom and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John.
Viva Jesus el Cristo Viva la Libertad
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Al Takruri,
Almost forgot. Forget about Mauretania today. It's lost. Lost. Lost. Lost. The Haratin are sharecropping de facto slaves. They are physically and mentally enslaved. The Haratin are not free and are not Maures. They are said to be Maures only in that they are linked to their Maure masters. It's a way of covering. up slavery It's a shame.
The Blacks in the south of Mauretania in the Hodh region are in a bad place as well.
Ancient Ghana is no more. All pun intended.
The Sanhaja (Zenaga) included Jewish tribes in the past. But, they are no longer openly Jews by practice. The true divine spiritual light is gone from Mauretania, the land of Haratin and abid slaves. The Maures are grouped by lineages if not by tribes; slaving owning tribes that drain the life-force out of Black souls.
Que lastima! Lo siento! Es muy triste!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Khawashkar, you OBVIOUSLY are trying to FORCE us to accept that ONLY whites from the EXTREME coast are TRUE Berbers. NOBODY is denying that Arabs introduced Islam to Africa. But YOU are trying to single out Berbers as "special" in the sense that they SOMEHOW are superior to the "black" Africans who were also FORCED to convert to Islam. Islam was basically an arm of of Arab colonialism, just as much as Christianity became a form of EUROPEAN colonialism and you can SEE where the latter got its ideas from the former. Arabs called ALL NORTH Africans that they encountered "Berber" in the Middle to Medeival period. That is a HUGE group of people. Trying to make ALL people labelled as Berber "white" is ridiculous. Those Berbers along the coast are OBVIOUSLY mixed with MANY peoples, including Europeans, Arabs and Africans. However, the ORIGINAL North Africans, including Magrebians, Berbers, Tuareg, Numidians and others were black, and I am going back 5,000 years or so. On the same token, there is historical evidence of the presence of "white" Africans along the coastal areas, but there is a debate over whether the "white" phenotype originated in Africa by itself or derived from foreigners. The fact that most of these "white" Berbers are close to the shore makes it possible that they have had more admixture. Over time various invaders into North Africa have left their genetic imprint on the populations of North Africa even if North Africans have had a indegenous phenotype and population from ancient times. Various Berber groups THEMSELVES say that they trace their lineages back to Yemen or somewhere else OUTSIDE of Africa and some of these people are PITCH black. This is a sad state of affairs in North Africa, as the various colonizers who have INVADED North Africa including, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Italians, Spanish, Portugeuse and the French have ALL tried to twist the social-ethnic-religious environment and history to SUIT their purposes. Even NOW you have the leaders of Morrocco and other North African countries claiming DIRECT descent from the Prophet, a form of Arab centrism, wrapped up in Islamic garb. Therefore, trying to claim that "white" Berbers are the only TRUE Berbers is blatant B.S. This form of white supremacy, which puts white arab followed by white african above black African, is just as bad as ANY form of white supremacy no matter WHAT nationality or religion produces it.
Now, the FIRST Islamic armies that entered North Africa entered into Egypt and were mainly Arabian, with elements from Syria and Persia. These armies FACED a CONFEDERATION of DIFFERENT Berber clans in North Africa led by Al-Kahina. This group was the LAST to offer serious resistance to ARABIZATION and ISLAMIZATION. It is HARD to say exactly WHO made up this federation, but the FACT that it was made up of DIFFERENT berber tribes makes it HARD to say that they were ONLY "white" Berbers among them. In fact, given that this was 1300 years ago, it is HARD to know exactly HOW those people would compare to the Berbers (any group of Berbers) today. Suffice to say, trying to make ALL Berbers of the past white as well as trying to make all Berbers of today white is NONSENSE. The facts of genetics is clear that MOST Berbers share some form of East African heredity associated with the neolithic expansion of Africans across the once moist sahara to ALL parts of Africa.
One thing you must also remember is that Islam was vicious against ALL non Muslims in this period, whether it be European, Persian, African or Asian. Part of the reason that Islam has CRUMBLED is because it absorbed MANY groups under its umbrella, but could NOT keep them all unified under ARABISM or ISLAMISM. This has caused MANY fractures within Islam going back to the very beginning. So the spread of Islam featured as many INTERNAL struggles as EXTERNAL ones. The invasion of North Africa did not CHANGE this at all. In fact, the term Moor only glosses over the fact that there were MANY factions within the Moorish community and that they were not ALL unified as one group. THIS is why you have various dynasties rising up from various areas of North West Africa and ALL of these people were NOT Berbers. Some of them were the descendants of the ORIGINAL Africans in the sahara, some were Berbers (linguistically), some were from West Africa. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to try and put a purely BERBER face on the Moors. The fact is that the term Moor largely came to be used in describing the often dark skinned Africans that began arriving Spain after the muslim invasion. NO, not ALL of these Muslims were black. Nobody is saying that. HOWEVER, to try and say that ONLY "white" north Africans qualify as TRUE berbers or TRUE Moors because they got DEFEATED first is NONSENSE. They got defeated just like MANY OTHER PEOPLES got defeated by the Islamic armies and this is nothing "special" to make note of. There are TO THIS DAY various groups in North West and West Africa who identify themselves as Moors and this stretches from Morrocco, to Niger, Senegal, and Mauretania. You have GOT to be kidding when you try and imply that the some of the Dynasties from these areas were NOT black Africans and would NOT have been identified as such. That is PURELY ridiculous. Just look at all the various factions and dynasties within the Moorish period of Europe as well as Medeival Islamic North Africa and you will SEE that there were MANY tribes, clans and subgroups of Islam and African fighting amongst one another for control. You cannot put all these people into one group because they themselves WERE NOT UNIFIED.
However, it is important to remember that there IS a racial component to the relations between BLACK Africans (berber and non-berber) and white North Africans and a LOT of it stems from the Arab hostility towards blacks. This racial attitude has caused much disruption among the native Black North African populations, as well as the arrival of French and Portugeuese colonists in the 17 and 1800s. But remember that WHITEs were taken into slavery in the Islamic world in VERY LARGE numbers during the Medeival period, so it is NOT as if slavery was STRICTLY a racial concept. In fact, some say over a million European women made it to North Africa as slaves and left an indelible mark on the population.
Bottom line, in focusing on a exclusive "white" identity for Berbers and trying to make them representative of ALL Berbers or ALL North Africans, is ridiculous. It is ALSO ridiculous to try and make "white" North Africans representative of the ORIGINAL populations of North Africa. North AFrica from Morrocco to Egypt covering all of the Sahara is BIGGER than the United States. You CANT be serious in trying to make a COASTAL population of "white" people REPRESENTATIVE of ALMOST 1/3 the continent either currently or historically. It is a RIDICULOUS concept to say the least.
Photos from Morrocco. While they do not show many Black Africans, that does NOT mean that they are not there and were not there historically. Also note that these are NOT the Moors identified as wearing the veil and blue garb seen ELSEWHERE in Africa, signifying that there are MANY groups and sub-groups within Islamic North West and Western Africa and they are NOT the same. Also note that some of these pictures show some of the ongoing struggles WITHIN these communities, making the idea of everyone being of ONE identity A LIE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid (Tashfin himself was black, and the Almoravids were largely from Niger, Senegal and the Sahara, much like the Tuareg, yet MANY authors try and separate him from black "pagans" as if they were of different races, much like what is going on in Sudan today) http://bewley.virtualave.net/tashfin.html But let us not forget that these people supposedly came from the South of Morrocco a historically BLACK African area of Morrocco and were associated with people FURTHER SOUTH.
The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs This is a fact of Maur society that no western biased interpretation can explain away.
Just as such thinking cannot erase the indigenous type of black that formed the oldest North African Tamazight speaking populations who confederated with early metal age Adriatic and Aegean populations of the non-African Mediterranean and later hosted the Levantine colonialists.
Expressing a white superiority bias that only cedes "Berber," "Tuareg," and "Maur" identities to the lightest members of those ethnies while denying the darker ones the same title is foreign to those peoples themselves and is only a comfort to those washing blacks out of all but a contrived "true negro" history and anthropology that has been rejected by progressive academicians since the debunking of Coon and Baker decades ago.
Only the Amazight activists, heavily Europeanized in their thinking, deny black phenotypes as part of their ethny. The Kel Tamasheq and Maurs do not deny but the Maurs do heavily stigmatize their blacker elements.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:... The term "Moors", in its original context, really isn't confusing a term as some make it out to be; "Moors" was a term initially applied to dark skin/black Africans and whose rule started in Sahelian Africa [Mauritanian-Nigerien region], and subsequently established an intra-west African empire encompassing coastal Northwest Africa [Maghreb], from where they then ruled Spain...and I reiterate:
That ABSOLUTELY false. Moors ARE NOT originally from Mauritania, but from the Maghreb. Moors is the ancient name of the coastal regions of Morocco+Algers+Tunisia+Lybia, regions so close to Europe people can cross back and forth by rowing on a boat
Before engaging in amateur attempts at worthless strawmans, you might first want to assure yourself with a minimal understanding of what you are purportedly responding to, and in what language it is being communicated.
quote:kawashkar:
quote: There is no need to "mystify" the "Moors" as mentioned in the intro article. The "African" rulers of Spain were referred to in specific terms which are not "ambiguous," or to allow confusion of "African" groups with the "non-African" groups.
The rulers of Al-Andalus (Not all Spain) where not Moors, they were ARABS. Moors were only subordinated troops. The point is Spaniards called Moors all allien Muslim people
You truly are a vindication that illiteracy can be a crime. While the post that you are purportedly responding to is referring to precise and specifically identified groups, you go on pointlessly nattering about "rulers of Al-Andalus" not being 'Moors'. For your sake, I just hope you are not delusional enough to actually expect any lettered scholar to entertain your hairbrain commentary about Almoravids or Almohads, with respect to their African background and their rule in Spain...or are you?
quote: kawashkar:
quote: These were the "Almoravids" - Africans, "Almohads" and their subsequent offshoots - again Africans.[/i]
Almoravids were not the guys that invaded Spain.
You ain't kidding; which ragtag fiction writer has inspired you to come to this unbelievably retarded conclusion?
quote:kawashkar: They were part of a fundamentalist group that tried to take the control out from the Muslims Spaniards. Actually, Many Spanish Moors allied with the Christians against the Almoravids. Almoravid troops were Subsaharans, indeed. Theirs pass for history was short but they caused the reaction of the Christians of Spain and theirs intervention was the beginning of the end of Muslim Spain.
In what cave have you been hiding, to be this much out of touch with reality? So according to "history" that you've been bombarded with, the Almoravids were supposed to have "tried" but did not actually rule Spain. Tell me, where did you learn basic history, because you are definitely not for real.
quote: kawashkar:
quote: The Spanish Moors = Almoravids + Almohads = Africans
Bad math.
^A brain-dead attempt for an answer!
quote:kawashkar:
orthern "White" Berbers are Africans but not Almoravids. The Spanish Moors were of any "color" and almost none of the was Subsaharan African. Almoravids where Blacks, but they were not the founders of Al-Andalus, they were not the rulers (all Africans both "white" Berbers and Black Subsaharans, worked for Muslims Arabs; they were no more than employees).
Pray tell where the Amoravids came from, if not Africa?...perhaps from the Pluto?
quote:kawashkar:
quote:Ps - Don't confuse the African Moors with the Umayyads, who ruled Spain after using North Africa as a springboard to do so,
LOL. You got a problem with your time machine. You got the scales backwards. The Arabs rules all the time in Spain. Black Almoravides troops where never present before the 12th century, simply because Arabs hadn't subjugated Black Africans as yet! Black Africans were not the rulers during the Islamic invasions, but subordinated to Arabs!...
...blah blah blah
I am afraid kawashkar, your posts [a.k.a distracters] thus far, have just been atrociously incoherent and materially-empty to warrent me to even minimally take you seriously. At the least, take elementary education on the matters at hand, not to mention basic geography, before you take on grown folks. Advice: If you are under any illusion that your half-baked and intellectually under-developed rantings here assist you in passing yourself off as someone with any semblance of intelligence, I suggest that you seriously reconsider that thought. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Khawashkar, you OBVIOUSLY are trying to FORCE us to accept that ONLY whites from the EXTREME coast are TRUE Berbers. NOBODY is denying that Arabs introduced Islam to Africa. But YOU are trying to single out Berbers as "special" in the sense that they SOMEHOW are superior to the "black" Africans who were also FORCED to convert to Islam. Islam was basically an arm of of Arab colonialism, just as much as Christianity became a form of EUROPEAN colonialism and you can SEE where the latter got its ideas from the former. Arabs called ALL NORTH Africans that they encountered "Berber" in the Middle to Medeival period. That is a HUGE group of people. Trying to make ALL people labelled as Berber "white" is ridiculous. Those Berbers along the coast are OBVIOUSLY mixed with MANY peoples, including Europeans, Arabs and Africans. However, the ORIGINAL North Africans, including Magrebians, Berbers, Tuareg, Numidians and others were black, and I am going back 5,000 years or so. On the same token, there is historical evidence of the presence of "white" Africans along the coastal areas, but there is a debate over whether the "white" phenotype originated in Africa by itself or derived from foreigners. The fact that most of these "white" Berbers are close to the shore makes it possible that they have had more admixture. Over time various invaders into North Africa have left their genetic imprint on the populations of North Africa even if North Africans have had a indegenous phenotype and population from ancient times. Various Berber groups THEMSELVES say that they trace their lineages back to Yemen or somewhere else OUTSIDE of Africa and some of these people are PITCH black. This is a sad state of affairs in North Africa, as the various colonizers who have INVADED North Africa including, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Italians, Spanish, Portugeuse and the French have ALL tried to twist the social-ethnic-religious environment and history to SUIT their purposes. Even NOW you have the leaders of Morrocco and other North African countries claiming DIRECT descent from the Prophet, a form of Arab centrism, wrapped up in Islamic garb. Therefore, trying to claim that "white" Berbers are the only TRUE Berbers is blatant B.S. This form of white supremacy, which puts white arab followed by white african above black African, is just as bad as ANY form of white supremacy no matter WHAT nationality or religion produces it.
Now, the FIRST Islamic armies that entered North Africa entered into Egypt and were mainly Arabian, with elements from Syria and Persia. These armies FACED a CONFEDERATION of DIFFERENT Berber clans in North Africa led by Al-Kahina. This group was the LAST to offer serious resistance to ARABIZATION and ISLAMIZATION. It is HARD to say exactly WHO made up this federation, but the FACT that it was made up of DIFFERENT berber tribes makes it HARD to say that they were ONLY "white" Berbers among them. In fact, given that this was 1300 years ago, it is HARD to know exactly HOW those people would compare to the Berbers (any group of Berbers) today. Suffice to say, trying to make ALL Berbers of the past white as well as trying to make all Berbers of today white is NONSENSE. The facts of genetics is clear that MOST Berbers share some form of East African heredity associated with the neolithic expansion of Africans across the once moist sahara to ALL parts of Africa.
One thing you must also remember is that Islam was vicious against ALL non Muslims in this period, whether it be European, Persian, African or Asian. Part of the reason that Islam has CRUMBLED is because it absorbed MANY groups under its umbrella, but could NOT keep them all unified under ARABISM or ISLAMISM. This has caused MANY fractures within Islam going back to the very beginning. So the spread of Islam featured as many INTERNAL struggles as EXTERNAL ones. The invasion of North Africa did not CHANGE this at all. In fact, the term Moor only glosses over the fact that there were MANY factions within the Moorish community and that they were not ALL unified as one group. THIS is why you have various dynasties rising up from various areas of North West Africa and ALL of these people were NOT Berbers. Some of them were the descendants of the ORIGINAL Africans in the sahara, some were Berbers (linguistically), some were from West Africa. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to try and put a purely BERBER face on the Moors. The fact is that the term Moor largely came to be used in describing the often dark skinned Africans that began arriving Spain after the muslim invasion. NO, not ALL of these Muslims were black. Nobody is saying that. HOWEVER, to try and say that ONLY "white" north Africans qualify as TRUE berbers or TRUE Moors because they got DEFEATED first is NONSENSE. They got defeated just like MANY OTHER PEOPLES got defeated by the Islamic armies and this is nothing "special" to make note of. There are TO THIS DAY various groups in North West and West Africa who identify themselves as Moors and this stretches from Morrocco, to Niger, Senegal, and Mauretania. You have GOT to be kidding when you try and imply that the some of the Dynasties from these areas were NOT black Africans and would NOT have been identified as such. That is PURELY ridiculous. Just look at all the various factions and dynasties within the Moorish period of Europe as well as Medeival Islamic North Africa and you will SEE that there were MANY tribes, clans and subgroups of Islam and African fighting amongst one another for control. You cannot put all these people into one group because they themselves WERE NOT UNIFIED.
However, it is important to remember that there IS a racial component to the relations between BLACK Africans (berber and non-berber) and white North Africans and a LOT of it stems from the Arab hostility towards blacks. This racial attitude has caused much disruption among the native Black North African populations, as well as the arrival of French and Portugeuese colonists in the 17 and 1800s. But remember that WHITEs were taken into slavery in the Islamic world in VERY LARGE numbers during the Medeival period, so it is NOT as if slavery was STRICTLY a racial concept. In fact, some say over a million European women made it to North Africa as slaves and left an indelible mark on the population.
Bottom line, in focusing on a exclusive "white" identity for Berbers and trying to make them representative of ALL Berbers or ALL North Africans, is ridiculous. It is ALSO ridiculous to try and make "white" North Africans representative of the ORIGINAL populations of North Africa. North AFrica from Morrocco to Egypt covering all of the Sahara is BIGGER than the United States. You CANT be serious in trying to make a COASTAL population of "white" people REPRESENTATIVE of ALMOST 1/3 the continent either currently or historically. It is a RIDICULOUS concept to say the least.
Photos from Morrocco. While they do not show many Black Africans, that does NOT mean that they are not there and were not there historically. Also note that these are NOT the Moors identified as wearing the veil and blue garb seen ELSEWHERE in Africa, signifying that there are MANY groups and sub-groups within Islamic North West and Western Africa and they are NOT the same. Also note that some of these pictures show some of the ongoing struggles WITHIN these communities, making the idea of everyone being of ONE identity A LIE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid (Tashfin himself was black, and the Almoravids were largely from Niger, Senegal and the Sahara, much like the Tuareg, yet MANY authors try and separate him from black "pagans" as if they were of different races, much like what is going on in Sudan today) http://bewley.virtualave.net/tashfin.html But let us not forget that these people supposedly came from the South of Morrocco a historically BLACK African area of Morrocco and were associated with people FURTHER SOUTH.
YOU made alot of good points doug,however as you know medieval nubians fought against the arabs first and were more effective THAN the north africans west of egypt and so was axum and later ethiopia. Many of the black africans however that accepted islam kept thier own faiths too and most africans outside of north africa accepted islam to protect themselves from the constant arab and berber raids and to expand their kingdoms wealth and power.
Up to date learning was a reason to accepted islam too,of course there were many africans who had the up to date learning but did not become muslims in the medieval and early modern period.Many were not muslims in the bambara kingdoms but alot had update advanced african muslim learning.you know this one but i just want to mention it,MOST africans in africa were not muslims.most africans are not muslims today as well,but are alot of african muslisms.
strong african kings protect their people.IN OTHER WORDS not all africans converted to islam by the sword.many of the ones that accepted islam did it for other reasons.The major reasons i have mention already.
OH ANOTHER point,the tuareg that i have seen so far seem to be of the black race and brown race.I THINK HOWEVER there ARE more that are of the brown race,but one thing i know for sure,i have not seen yet any tuareg that are white.
peace.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs This is a fact of Maur society that no western biased interpretation can explain away.
Al Takruri,
Don't you realize by now that I just went throuh a bunch of French language articles on this subject. The Haratin and other Blacks are catching HELL based on race. They make up 49% of Mauretania and are the original inhabitants. But, the reality of the situation is not the romanticized view of the great Black Moors of the past. They are defacto slaves. Many of the slaves are Peul. What more do they have to do to you?
BTW, the Tuaregs calls them Izaggaren - the reds.
But, this study has woke me up to a few things and I must get out of here. It's all trouble, trouble, trouble. It's time to go.
Well, I believe we are talking different things on here. In Northern Europe Moor mean Black. In Spain and Italy, Moor mean Muslim invader and particularly Moroccian "white" Berber, and Moors is synonimous of ARAB. In Africa Moor mean Subsaharan.
That way there is not a chance we speak about the same thing. The Moors of Spain are not the same that the Moors of other places, quite simple.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
kawa,
In Spain (711-1492) Moro (Moor) does not and has never meant 'white' Berber. If there was one Umayyad suvivor and he resurrected the dynasty in Spain, in all probability his progeny were of European phenotype! The Almoravides, on the other hand were straight from the desert, sub-Saharan, and led by a few Arabs sidis with the majority being 'brown' for lack of a better word.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Well, I believe we are talking different things on here. In Northern Europe Moor mean Black. In Spain and Italy, Moor mean Muslim invader and particularly Moroccian "white" Berber, and Moors is synonimous of ARAB. In Africa Moor mean Subsaharan.
That way there is not a chance we speak about the same thing. The Moors of Spain are not the same that the Moors of other places, quite simple.
KAWASHKAR
No, we ARE talking about the same thing. The problem is that YOU insist on making a purely "white" identity for Spanish Moors, separate from the African Moors who were and ARE black. It is as simple as that. The fact that Moors can be found over a LARGE swath of North West Africa from Morrocco to Senegal tells you there are MANY Moorish groups that all fall under the banner Moor. Once again, it is YOU who is exposing the ETHNOCENTRIC bias found amongst some scholars and historians who try and make an EXLUSIVE white identity for the Moors contradicting the facts of history.
While I understand that some "white" Muslims from North Africa may they are being omitted by those who seem to want to use Moor to EXCLUSIVELY make the Muslim invaders black, it is still incorrect to propose the OPPOSITE as well. Of course Spain may not call Moors exclusively black, but it is not to be forgotten that many Spanish natives would have been counted as Moors as well. Nevertheless, Europeans to this day STILL regard Moor as signifying the Black presence in Europe during the Middle ages and therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to try and classify Moors or the Muslim invaders as EXCLUSIVELY white:
In Spain (711-1492) Moro (Moor) does not and has never meant 'white' Berber. If there was one Umayyad suvivor and he resurrected the dynasty in Spain, in all probability his progeny were of European phenotype! The Almoravides, on the other hand were straight from the desert, sub-Saharan, and led by a few Arabs sidis with the majority being 'brown' for lack of a better word.
In Spain Moro has always being an insult against Muslims! Moor is just a generic term against Muslims, particularly Arab. Moor in Spanish means something similar to "evil", or a person without the grace of God. A zombie if you wish.
Spaniards do know Moors are not blond blue eyed Germans, lol. However, they always used "Black" for subsaharian peoples and "Moor" for North African ligther peoples. Not that they love them too much either. Remember that all Muslims were invaders and people really hate those "camel riders", regardless of theirs skins. By the way, don't forget some Moors were slavs too. But local Spaniards considered every Islam's follower an allien.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: kawa,
In Spain (711-1492) Moro (Moor) does not and has never meant 'white' Berber. If there was one Umayyad suvivor and he resurrected the dynasty in Spain, in all probability his progeny were of European phenotype! The Almoravides, on the other hand were straight from the desert, sub-Saharan, and led by a few Arabs sidis with the majority being 'brown' for lack of a better word.
In Spain Moro has always being an insult against Muslims! Moor is just a generic term against Muslims, particularly Arab. Moor in Spanish means something similar to "evil", or a person without the grace of God. A zombie if you wish.
Spaniards do know Moors are not blond blue eyed Germans, lol. However, they always used "Black" for subsaharian peoples and "Moor" for North African ligther peoples. Not that they love them too much either. Remember that all Muslims were invaders and people really hate those "camel riders", regardless of theirs skins. By the way, don't forget some Moors were slavs too. But local Spaniards considered every Islam's follower an allien.
KAWASHKAR
We KNOW the Spanish dont like the Islamic invaders who invaded. This is not in dispute. The fact that the Spanish may look at the term Moor in a derogatory manner also is not much of a shock either. HOWEVER, IF the Spanish ARE trying to make Moor meaning EXCLUSIVELY white North West African, the HISTORY and the facts we have REPEATEDLY shown you will prove this to be wrong. The Spanish have EVERY reason to want to deny the Black African presence amongst the Moorish invaders. This has MORE to do with the fact of Spanish history subsequent to the expulsion of the Moors, specifically the fact that this was the precursor to European colonization of Africa, the enslavement of blacks and the genocide of many indigenous people in America. All of these events are promoted as Europeans and the Spanis BRINGING civilization to America and Africa and Europe being the ORIGIN of the concept and techniques of CIVILIZED society. Therefore, OF COURSE they would want to remove the history of Muslims in Spain who introduced the Spanish to civilization and many of the ideas that the Spanish claim credit for and OF COURSE they would want to deny the BLACK AFRICAN role in all of this because that would CONTRADICT the claims of European intellect and superiority in terms of the spread of civilization.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Intellectual superiority? Spaniards have never denied ARABS where brilliant. They don't deny JEWS were brilliant. That does not mean Spaniards loved foreigners on theirs lands, or feel affection for Arabs at all.
It is just that all the fuzz about a Black African presence and intellectual superiority in Middle Ages Spain seem to many of us like a tale of the "Arabian Nights". A lie that does not match historical facts.
In fact, Black Subsaharans were invaded at the same time of the Spaniards by the same people: the Muslims.
All the rest is revisionism. Who cares if the Muslims were green? That was a civilization rooted in the Middle East, that spoke ARAB, directed by Arabs, Syrians, Persians and others. And in that world empire Africans of all skins played a subordinated role.
That's the truth, at least with regard to the Islamic influence in EUROPE.
Spaniards don't deny anything, but many people seem to want to falsify history to make egos feel better, rather that accept fact like they are.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by TK (Member # 10103) on :
Kawashkar how could Africans of all skins played a subordinate role when they especially the Almoravides RULED spain?
Maybe i'm lost as to what the implications of that word means in regards to the Almoravides dynasty. so can someone please explain it to me?
Thanks.
Posted by Lord of the Nile (Member # 10305) on :
^^ "In fact, Black Subsaharans were invaded at the same time of the Spaniards by the same people: the Muslims."
Black is a colour and Muslim is a religion. What you forget is that there are more Black muslims (who consider themselves Arabs by nationality and language) in the world than there are your so-called Arab (white-brown) muslims.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs This is a fact of Maur society that no western biased interpretation can explain away.
Just as such thinking cannot erase the indigenous type of black that formed the oldest North African Tamazight speaking populations who confederated with early metal age Adriatic and Aegean populations of the non-African Mediterranean and later hosted the Levantine colonialists.
Expressing a white superiority bias that only cedes "Berber," "Tuareg," and "Maur" identities to the lightest members of those ethnies while denying the darker ones the same title is foreign to those peoples themselves and is only a comfort to those washing blacks out of all but a contrived "true negro" history and anthropology that has been rejected by progressive academicians since the debunking of Coon and Baker decades ago.
Only the Amazight activists, heavily Europeanized in their thinking, deny black phenotypes as part of their ethny. The Kel Tamasheq and Maurs do not deny but the Maurs do heavily stigmatize their blacker elements.
^The above is correct, and it appears Karwash denies the basic FACT of history and anthropology that blacks were aboriginal to *all* of the African continent, including the North African coast. 'Berber' is an African language closely related to other Afrasian languages, and both linguistics as well as genetics have shown that the language originated in Northeast/east Africa before it spread to the Magrheb, by blacks. The very word 'Moor' was a description of black peoples, not the fair-skinned ones.
The guys is trying to run away from the above, but it's not working. Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
I believe the problem in here is that you guys put all people of Africa into the same uniform ethnic group. Afroasiatics are not the same people that Subsaharians (I'm not talking of "whiteness" or "blackness" in here; both racist terms), no matter you can find subsaharian looking peoples up north, and arab looking people down south.
Whatever.
The fact is the Arabs were the rulers of Southern Spain all the time. And those "camel riders" were the guys that received the kick on the butt.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
see below
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't care what you just read. You need to realize others have studied this, and know Mauritanians firsthand, long before yesterday when you first found out about Mauritania and all its woes which is no new news and has been going on for hundreds of years already.
Haratini are not counted among the blacks who are Atlantic speakers. They never have been and never will be. Haratini are mixed with beydani as well as with Atlantics. As for the Atlantics, halPulaaren -- call them Fulani Peuhl Tukolours and then divide them as you will -- once held the warriors rank in Mauritania. I participated in a sit down between a Fulani from far away Cameroun and a beydani and the Hamidu came away with all his demands met.
Things aren't as simple as the simplicities of your internet only sources. You'll come away with s h i t for brains if you rely on blogs and webpages in lieu of legitimate research and field work.
quote:Originally posted by RedCow:
Don't you realize by now that I just went throuh a bunch of French language articles on this subject. The Haratin and other Blacks are catching HELL based on race. They make up 49% of Mauretania and are the original inhabitants. But, the reality of the situation is not the romanticized view of the great Black Moors of the past. They are defacto slaves. Many of the slaves are Peul. What more do they have to do to you?
BTW, the Tuaregs calls them Izaggaren - the reds.
But, this study has woke me up to a few things and I must get out of here. It's all trouble, trouble, trouble. It's time to go.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: I believe the problem in here is that you guys put all people of Africa into the same uniform ethnic group...
No, but YOU seem to put all Berbers into some ethnic group when they obviously are not! LOL
quote:Afroasiatics are not the same people that Subsaharians (I'm not talking of "whiteness" or "blackness" in here; both racist terms), no matter you can find subsaharian looking peoples up north, and arab looking people down south.
As usual you make no sense. 'Afroasiatic' is a language group that is technically Sub-Saharan, since that's where it originated and that's where most of its subgroups still exist! But of course a Semitic speaking Syrian is looks different from a Semitic speaking Ethiopian.
Also "Arabs" do not conform to a certain look because the Arabs of Arabia are of diverse ethnic origins themselves-- some Asiatic, while others African!!
Besides, I don't know what's so "racist" about terms like 'black' or 'white'. They are just descriptive terms in reference to skin color! Is there anything racist about terms like 'blonde' or 'brunette' in reference to hair color?
quote:Whatever.
Yes, whatever you say is silly.
quote:The fact is the Arabs were the rulers of Southern Spain all the time. And those "camel riders" were the guys that received the kick on the butt.
Nope. Arabs were not called Moors but 'Saracen'. Moors were reserved for the black groups of North Africa.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Moors were never Slav and viceversa. Slave comes from the root slav, who were in turn have roots in Eastern Europe, i.e. Slavic people so there is no way for a Moor to be confused with a Slav! Turk and Slav may be used interchangeably but not Moor and Slav. Take a look at Suleiman the Magnificant. He was not a Moor! I am trying to stick to ethnic definition/descriptions and eschew any racial epitaph. Many Cubans have roots in Galicia and Catalunya and when they refer to the caribbean dish of 'moros e cristianos', there is no mistake that the moros are the colour of the beans (blue/black). Go to a Cuban restaurant and order some moros e cristianos to see what I mean.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Actually, for talking about Moors, that Cubans speak about "moros y (not 'e') cristianos" has nothing to do with it. By the way, Cubans don't even speak a good Spanish. lol.
You guys believe you know who are the Moors. They problem is the following. What some people called the "Moors" was not what other people called "Moors". I will repeat it once again. The term "Moor" in Spain means Muslim. And, if people does not know, there were also Germanic and Slav people between the Muslim armies, because those armies were international. The term Moor it was applied (IN SPAIN) to any Muslim most of which were Arabs and Berbers.
When I say Berber I mean people like this:
People that is not "Black" like the Subsaharians but not "White" like European either.
Now, you can argue a lot about semantics, but the fact is people do know who were the Moors of Spain and who were the rules there. All the rest is fiction.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Moors were never Slav and viceversa. Slave comes from the root slav, who were in turn have roots in Eastern Europe, i.e. Slavic people so there is no way for a Moor to be confused with a Slav! Turk and Slav may be used interchangeably but not Moor and Slav. Take a look at Suleiman the Magnificant. He was not a Moor! I am trying to stick to ethnic definition/descriptions and eschew any racial epitaph. ..
There were slavs on Muslim Spain, too. The Muslims, for some reason, have quite a lot of Germanic, Nordic and Slav mercenaries in their armies. That's particularly true in Europe.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Hi Djehuti,
How is the TA-SETI temple of the afrocentric religion?
quote:.. As usual you make no sense. 'Afroasiatic' is a language group that is technically Sub-Saharan, since that's where it originated and that's where most of its subgroups still exist! But of course a Semitic speaking Syrian is looks different from a Semitic speaking Ethiopian.
The problem with you, friend, is that you believe the amount of melanine in the body is "culture". Peoples of the North and North East Africa have been in contact with the middle East for the last 6 thousand years and more. They all share many cultural pattern that are different with the people south of Sahara. No race involved there.
quote: Also "Arabs" do not conform to a certain look because the Arabs of Arabia are of ...some Asiatic, while others African!!
Yes. You behave like all racist people. All that matters is "looks". Everybody knows Arabs had admixture of neighbouring people, like anyone else in the planet, by the way.
quote:Besides, I don't know what's so "racist" about terms like 'black' or 'white'. They are just descriptive terms in reference to skin color! Is there anything racist about terms like 'blonde' or 'brunette' in reference to hair color?
If you start to talk about "blonds" culture and "brunette" culture, then it becomes racist.
quote:..Nope. Arabs were not called Moors but 'Saracen'. Moors were reserved for the black groups of North Africa. [/QB]
In Spain Arabs where called Moors. That's what I am tried to tell you a hundred times. A Moor was any dumb Muslim that lived there, regarless of their phenotype. The first invasion of Muslims was done by Berber troops. But the Arabs had the control.
All the other arguments are just fantasies.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Kawash,
You are plain old confused. Arabs were NEVER called Moors, they were called ARABS. It seems you are DESPERATE to make the Moors into a PURE WHITE RACE. It is ridiculous to go on about this. We KNOW that the Arabs were on top and directed the Muslim invasion of Spain. That goes without question. However, if the Arabs were the PREDOMINANT force who occupied Spain for ALL this time, then WHY would Europeans come up with a SPECIAL name for them, since the Muslims were running rampant ALL OVER the map at this period in history? Why come up with a SEPARATE name for the Muslims who invaded Spain as opposed to just calling them MUSLIM? The reason for these people being called MOOR is because they were NOT ARABS. It has to do with the fact that MOST of these Muslims were from North West Africa and MANY of them were black. That is as SIMPLE as it gets. There is NO NEED to try and CLARIFY such a SIMPLE observation of fact. NO we are NOT saying that ALL Muslims in Spain were BLACK, but we ARE saying that the WORD Moor came about BECAUSE of the presence of BLACKS in the ranks of the Muslims who invaded. Otherwise, they would have JUST been called Muslim, Arab or something else. In Europe Moor means black, ESPECIALLY so going back to the Medeival period. This is in the EUROPEANS own words and whether the SPANISH agree or disagree it does not change the fact that MANY black Africans were present in ALL WALKS OF LIFE during the Muslim occupation of Spain. It is also true that Spain at this time was COSMOPOLITAN, meaning there were Spanish people, Jews, Persians, Arabs, Syrians, "white" North Africans, Egyptians and MANY OTHER peoples present during this time. So YES, one could say that Moor could represent the whole diaspora of people present in Spain during the Moorish period. That does NOT change the fact that the WORD derives from the BLACKS in that population and that is true NO MATTER if the word NO LONGER is used EXCLUSIVELY in that way today.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] I don't care what you just read. You need to realize others have studied this, and know Mauritanians firsthand, long before yesterday when you first found out about Mauritania and all its woes which is no new news and has been going on for hundreds of years already.
The Maurs have two major divisions beydani = white Maurs haratini = black Maurs
Al Takruri,
I don't mean to upset you. You are the expert of this area. I will never leave the USA. So, it's not my intention to become an expert on people groups that I will never encounter in large numbers. I just wanted to learn more facts on AE, Nubia, the Horn and West Africa on these forums we keep meeting on.
It would be more practical for me to keep learning about Korea, China, Mexico, South and Central America, the Carribean and Europe since those areas are where my neighbors and fellow city dwellers come from. Ain't no Berbers near me in lare numbers if any at all.
The African Americans derive from West Africans including Fula, Hausa, Mande and Tuareg. But, it is very very clear to me that en masse we cannot go back. Atlantic slavery after the Middle Passage was a permanent divider. Frankly, the African Americans near me a largely uninterested and unaware of the basic facts of the African continent. That's the biggest irony. Some want to know, but can't get online or don't know how.
The Internet often has information that cannot be found in books. Going to Africa physically is better. But for me, that'll never happen.
I heard about Mauretania and Sudan before. I heard about the slavery and gory details. But, those francophone articles made the situation more clear. Of course, you can explain the situation better with the nuances and such.
Shalom u'vracha
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
One point about musical influence. Many people talk about the African influence on music in Andalus and any BLACK African influence is often downplayed or outright rejected. This is based on prominent research and scholarship being prominently focused in the Levant, Egypt and Near East and almost NONE on Africa.
Note the following:
quote: Of the many lutes which appear in different guises throughout the world, those played in Africa often have a boat-shaped sound-box with a fairly long neck, of wood, which enters the resonator through the skin sound-table. These lutes must have existed in early antiquity, as similar instruments may be seen in the hands of the women musicians depicted in the reliefs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
add www. to the front of these links since the forum wont let me post them directly because of the parentheses
kaminari-sama.com/k-raijin_(instrument_encyclopedia-L).htm (Make sure to listen to the sample sound by clicking on the musical note under african lute)
This leads to a situation of ANOTHER blank slate concerning the history of Africa which allows many to ASSUME that Africans HAVE no history of their own. Yet even a CURSORY view of the range of African musical styles as well as the fact that many musical traditions have died out for MANY reasons and you will get a different perspective. Therefore it is VERY possible that stringed instruments are QUITE old indeed in Africa and did not come from any FOREIGN influence. Once again this is ANOTHER reason for HISTORICAL research in AFrica, to CORRECT the wrongs that have led to Africa being BLOTTED out of human history.
Listen to an example of this instrument being played and you will find the SOund of the South, the Sound of the Blues in an instrument that dates to PRIOR to the FOUNDING of America. Click on the Musical Note under the title African Lute.
Therefore, there is certainly NO NEED to question the role of Africans in Musical history. In fact, there is the need for MORE study on this and ALL aspects of life in Africa upto and prior to the Arab and European invasions, in order to RESTORE the lost history of Africa in ALL aspects of endeavor.
Any way, now that we see that there was GREAT diversity and musical experimentation amongst the West Africans going WAY BACK, we lead to the great Ziryab. Over the years BLACK Africans are promoted as being GREAT at this or that, only to be REMOVED from the list of greats once OTHERS are inspired by them. It is no doubt that among the AFricans the musical heritage is great and has an ANCIENT African connection that cannot be denied. The ONLY reason it is denied is because of the RACIST explosion that COLONIZED and SUBJUGATED Africans from the Islamic Period through the 20th century.
With the knowledge and background I have given, it is NOT surprising that one of the Greatest musicians in Europe, African and Islamic history was a black person:
quote: Blackbird was actually named Abu al-Hasan 'Ali ibn Nafi', and he was born in about the year 789 in the land now called Iraq, perhaps in its capital, Baghdad. Some Arab historians say he was a freed slave-apparently a page or personal servant-whose family had served al-Mahdi, the caliph or ruler of the Baghdad-based Abbasid empire from 775 until his death in 785. In those days, many prominent musicians were slaves or freedmen, some of African origin, others from Europe or the Middle East, including Kurdistan and Persia. Historians differ over whether Ziryab was African, Persian or Kurdish. According to Ibn Hayyan, 'Ali Ibn Nafi' was called Blackbird because of his extremely dark complexion, the clarity of his voice and "the sweetness of his character."
Do not forget that this period of Emergence of Ziryab from Iraq was during the time that MANY BLACK Africans were in Iraq as slaves, who eventually founded the Zanj nation in Iraq.
You are plain old confused. Arabs were NEVER called Moors, they were called ARABS. It seems you are DESPERATE to make the Moors into a PURE WHITE RACE.
I could care less for the "white race". Actually, the term "white race" I believe should be applied to Germans only that, by the way, are not white but pink.
What I don't like, though is fantastic revisionism. Berbers are not white in Nazi terms, but they are a distinctive people Hispanics know from ancient times. The very term moreno "Morish" is applied to Berbers only, and not to Black people. Let me tell you very clear, and in racial terms, Spaniards, Portugueses and Italians know Moors are light "mulattoes". And they accept theirs historical relationship with them.
quote: It is ridiculous to go on about this. We KNOW that the Arabs were on top and directed the Muslim invasion of Spain. That goes without question. However, if the Arabs were the PREDOMINANT force who occupied Spain for ALL this time, then WHY would Europeans come up with a SPECIAL name for them, since the Muslims were running rampant ALL OVER the map at this period in history?
What special with the term "Moor"? "white" Berbers have always been called Moros in Spain. In the Middle Ages and during the Spanish Civil War as well. The algerian troops of Franco where called the Moors and dresses like the characters of Aladine.
quote:Why come up with a SEPARATE name for the Muslims who invaded Spain as opposed to just calling them MUSLIM?
Why not?
quote:The reason for these people being called MOOR is because they were NOT ARABS.
Why they spoke Arab then? Why not Mandinga or Yoruba? No, they speak Arab because most of the Moors were Arab or Arabized peoples. They came from all the corners of the Muslim empire. How many times I will have to repeat the same thing?
quote: It has to do with the fact that MOST of these Muslims were from North West Africa and MANY of them were black.
If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
quote: That is as SIMPLE as it gets. There is NO NEED to try and CLARIFY such a SIMPLE observation of fact. NO we are NOT saying that ALL Muslims in Spain were BLACK, but we ARE saying that the WORD Moor came about BECAUSE of the presence of BLACKS in the ranks of the Muslims who invaded.
Moors is a hate word, indeed.
quote: Otherwise, they would have JUST been called Muslim, Arab or something else.
Spaniards knew the first wave of Muslims were Berbers and not Arabs.
quote:In Europe Moor means black, ESPECIALLY so going back to the Medeival period. This is in the EUROPEANS own words and whether the SPANISH agree or disagree it does not change the fact that MANY black Africans were present in ALL WALKS OF LIFE during the Muslim occupation of Spain.
Yes. Muslims started mass slavery of Black peoples.
quote:It is also true that Spain at this time was COSMOPOLITAN, meaning there were Spanish people, Jews, Persians, Arabs, Syrians, "white" North Africans, Egyptians and MANY OTHER peoples present during this time. So YES, one could say that Moor could represent the whole diaspora of people present in Spain during the Moorish period. That does NOT change the fact that the WORD derives from the BLACKS in that population and that is true NO MATTER if the word NO LONGER is used EXCLUSIVELY in that way today. [/qb]
As I said. The Spaniars used the word Moor to means Moroccian, Tunisian, Algerian of Lybian, the people of the coastal areas they new since ancient times. They were the Moors from the "racial" point of view FOR THE SPANIARDS. Now, that term was generalized to mean Muslim during the reconquest wars.
For Northern Europeans, the "white" Berbers were Black people, so they did not make the distinction the Spanish did. After all, for Northern Europeans, every people that live south of Germany is Black, anyways, Spanish, Italians and Greeks included.
So, in a sense, both Black and White Americans agree on that. Mediterreanean people, don't agree with those points of view.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: One point about musical influence. Many people talk about the African influence on music in Andalus and any BLACK African influence is often downplayed or outright rejected. This is based on prominent research and scholarship being prominently focused in the Levant, Egypt and Near East and almost NONE on Africa.
Actually, although all people knows the "modern" music entered to Europe from Muslim sources during the Middle Ages, scholars were not very interested in finding out about its roots in the Muslim world up to recent times, less in finding out a possible African origin of those "oriental" rythms. The West simply did not want to know about any people that were not westerners.
More research is needed to change that. No doubt about it.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
Khawashkar. whats your thoughts on this
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maure
2.Moors in european Literature In David MacRitchie , « Ancient and Modern Britons » , 1884,VOL I, page 46: "Any latin dictionary, any old one at least, will tell you that maurus is a "moor ", a " blackamoor " or a "tawny moor ". And Shakespeare uses the world "moor " as a synonym for "negro" (Merchant of Venice, act III, scene V). At that last world bears nowadays a somewhat restricted meaning , it may be better to take the old fashioned « blackamoor »,as the nearest English rendering of maurus signifying thereby any black, or brown skinned man."
In Page 214:
"And in the diction of the past, A black man was a moor"
Collection of Sir Thomas Wriothesley garter king of Arms (1504-1534) In Golden age of the moors and African presence in ealy Europe
Niger Val Dub : The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century. One of them, was known as King Kenneth, sometimes as Niger or Dubh, a surname which means 'the black man.' It is a historical fact that Niger Val Dubh lived and reigned over certain black divisions in scotland - and that a race known as 'the sons of the blacks' succeeded him in history. (JA Rogers, Sex and Race)
quote:If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
If you apply the one drop rule - everyone on earth is Black.
The Kawkazoid rule is even more ridiculous - according to which you may be referrred to as Kawkazoid without any actual cacuasian ancestry.
It is effectively a *NO DROPS RULE* that works on the basis of 'race magic', and sloppy thinking.
Caucasians are the ethnic groups from the caucasus region of WestEurasia.
Blacks are the ethnic groups with dark skin.
Blacks and caucasians exist....but they are not races, no matter the contrived, irrational beliefs of the racialists.
Ironically, while there are no caucasian Berber [good luck finding berber in the caucasus].
There are plenty of Black Berber.... Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
Those are Kabyle Berbers, a specific group of Berbers known to have high levels of Maternal European ancestry.
(where the image is shown)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
As much as Kawashkhar doesnt want to admit it, his OWN words reflect a RACIST perspective more than one of TRUTH. When the Arabs invaded Egypt and started spreading west there were MANY BLACK African Muslims among the "arab" Armies. This is a KNOWN fact. This is true ACROSS North Africa right into Morrocco. True, white North Africans are in power today in this area, but MUCH of that power comes at the DETRIMENT of the ORIGINAL black population of these areas and is a result of the FORCED expulsion of many of these people by WHITE Arabs and North Africans. The slaves from the Moorish period in Europe were as likely to be WHITE as they were to be BLACK and the FACT that you speak of BLACKS as slaves reflects that fact that LATER, after the Moorish defeat, BLACKS muslims were often subjugated by WHITE muslims, even though they were OF the same faith. THIS is what has caused the populations of BLACKS in North Africans to be FURTHER South, out of power, out of sight and OUT of the history books. This situation about the Moors and trying to convince us that the ONLY BLACK Muslims in Spain were SLAVES is ridiculous.
What you are posting about the Moors is BLATANT B.S. and IGNORES the fact that MOST Moors are NOT in Morrocco today OR Algeria OR Libya. MOST of those called Moors TODAY are in Niger, Senegal, Mauretania and the Sahara. This is a FACT that you CURIOUSLY find fit to omit. And THESE people are NOT slaves in ANY sense. On top of that, if you go back in Morroccan History and look at the photos and journals of Europoeans who VISITED Morrocco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century you will SEE a large BLACK African Muslim population was ALWAYS present in Morrocco and were NOT slaves. This is PRIOR to the COLONIAL period when the French began to use African troops in their Armies. The position of Blacks in Morrocco has as much to do with the history of RACISM as well as the fact that Arabs, "white" Berbers and "black" Moorish Africans have been FIGHTING for control of this area for HUNDREDS of years following the defeat of the Moors. It is YOU who are being dishonest in taking the BLACK African presence OUT of Morroccan history.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: Generally speaking, the Hassaniya populations were (or are) divided into several groups, of different social status.
At the peak of society were the aristocratic "warrior" lineages or clans, the Hassane, supposed descendants of the Beni Hassan Arab immigrants. Below them stood the "scholarly" or "clerical" lineages. These were called marabout or zawiya tribes, the latter designation the preferred one in among the Western Sahara-centered tribes, who would also almost invariably claim chorfa status to enhance their religious credibility. The zawiya tribes were protected by Hassane overlords in exchange for their religious services and payment of the horma, a tributary tax in cattle or goods; while they were in a sense exploited, the relationship was often more or less symbiotic. Under both these groups, but still part of the Sahrawi-Moorish society, stood the zenaga tribes - tribal groups labouring in demeaning occupations, such as fishermen and bards, as well as peripheral semi-tribal groups working in the same fields. All these groups were considered to be among the bidan, or whites.
Below them ranked servile lineages known as Haratin, formally freed slaves of mainly black African origins and their descendants, who would normally still be linked to their former masters in a dependent role. They lived serving their affiliated bidan families, and as such formed part of the tribe, not tribes of their own. (Note that "Haratin", a term of obscure origin, has a different meaning in the Berber regions of Morocco.) Below them came the slaves themselves, who were owned individually or in family groups, and could hope at best to be freed and rise to the status of Haratin. Rich bidan families would normally own a few slaves at the most, as nomadic societies have less use of slave labour than sedentary societies; however, in some cases, slaves were used to work oasis plantations, farming dates, digging wells etc.
Slavery persisted among Hassaniya-speaking populations well into the colonial age, despite that both French and Spanish colonial authorities formally banned the practice. While slavery is thought to be more or less eradicated in Western Sahara, there are credible reports that both outright slavery and, more commonly, different forms of informal bondage are still applied to some Haratin lineages in Mauritania.
The point here is that it is HARD to look at modern arab/berber groups and get a TRUE sense of the ORIGINAL clans and groups that occupied North West Africa. What IS clear is that the Arabs have come to DOMINATE this region and the ORIGINAL black Africans have been largely decimated. While that does NOT diminish the presence of "white" North Africans in antiquity, it does show how ARAB colonialism followed by European colonialism has altered the landscape, politically, ethnically and nationally.
quote: From the end of the Ice Age, when the Sahara Desert dried up, contact between the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa was extremely limited by the difficulty in crossing the desert. This remained the case until after the time of the Arab expansion and the spread of Islam; even then, trans-Saharan trade was restricted to costly (but often profitable) caravan expeditions, trading such goods as salt, gold, ivory, and slaves.
Originally, the Maghreb was inhabited by "Caucasoid" Cro-Magnoids (Iberomaurusians) in the north and by "Black" peoples in the Sahara. Later, about 8000 BC, there came from the east "Caucasoid" speakers of northern Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber at least since the Capsian culture.
Many ports along the Maghreb coast were occupied by Phoenicians, particularly Carthaginians; with the defeat of Carthage, many of these ports naturally passed to Rome, and ultimately it took control of the entire Maghreb north of the Atlas Mountains, apart from some of the most mountainous regions like the Moroccan Rif.
The Arabs reached the Maghreb in early Umayyad times, but their control over it was quite weak, and various Islamic "heresies" such as the Ibadis and the Shia, adopted by some Berbers, quickly threw off Caliphal control in the name of their interpretations of Islam. The Arabic language became widespread only later, as a result of the invasion of the Banu Hilal (unleashed, ironically, by the Berber Fatimids in punishment for their Zirid clients' defection) in the 1100's. Throughout this period, the Maghreb fluctuated between occasional unity (as under the Almohads, and briefly under the Hafsids) and more commonly division into three states roughly corresponding to modern Morocco, western Algeria, and eastern Algeria and Tunisia.
After the Middle Ages, the area east of Morocco was loosely under the control of the Ottoman Empire. After the 19th century, it was colonized by France, Spain and later Italy.
Today over two and a half million Maghrebins live in France, especially from Algeria, as well as many more French of Maghrebin origin.
Note, while they talk about the Sahara being a DIVIDER, between Northern and Southern Africa, they curiously CONTRADICT themselves when they admit that there were always "black" people IN the Sahara. Therefore, there WAS no divider and the use of the Sahara is as much a result of the colonization of North Africa as any FACT of geography, much like the Dutch settlement of South AFrica.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... Those are Kabyle Berbers, a specific group of Berbers known to have high levels of Maternal European ancestry.
What about Chawis
or Riffanis?
Or Chleuhs?
They don't look exactly Subsaharan.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As much as Kawashkhar doesnt want to admit it, his OWN words reflect a RACIST perspective more than one of TRUTH. When the Arabs invaded Egypt and started spreading west there were MANY BLACK African Muslims among the "arab" Armies. This is a KNOWN fact. This is true ACROSS North Africa right into Morrocco. True, white North Africans are in power today in this area, but MUCH of that power comes at the DETRIMENT of the ORIGINAL black population of these areas and is a result of the FORCED expulsion of many of these people by WHITE Arabs and North Africans. The slaves from the Moorish period in Europe were as likely to be WHITE as they were to be BLACK and the FACT that you speak of BLACKS as slaves reflects that fact that LATER, after the Moorish defeat,
Quite idealistic and false, indeed. The Muslims (Moor include) had slaves of any color, that's true, but you should not forget the racist attitudes of the Muslims. Those attitudes existed and are well know, they appear everywhere in Muslim secular literature. Perhaps you should take a look at the realities of Slave trade in Africa by Muslims.
quote: BLACKS muslims were often subjugated by WHITE muslims, even though they were OF the same faith. THIS is what has caused the populations of BLACKS in North Africans to be FURTHER South, out of power, out of sight and OUT of the history books. This situation about the Moors and trying to convince us that the ONLY BLACK Muslims in Spain were SLAVES is ridiculous.
Nobody denies that. I only doubt the demographic importance of Black populations in Spain.
quote: What you are posting about the Moors is BLATANT B.S. and IGNORES the fact that MOST Moors are NOT in Morrocco today OR Algeria OR Libya....
If they are (or were) not from Mooroco, Tunisia, Algeria or Lybia then THEY ARE NOT MOORS.
What you don't get I use the term MOOR as used in ancient and modern SPAIN. It mean "white" North African Berber with some degree of Black admixture, but "white-looking". That's what Moro and Moreno means!
quote: MOST of those called Moors TODAY are in Niger, Senegal, Mauretania and the Sahara. ....
Those people are not called Moor in Spain or Italy but Blacks. Quite simple.
quote: This is a FACT that you CURIOUSLY find fit to omit. And THESE people are NOT slaves in ANY sense. On top of that, if you go back in Morroccan History and look at the photos and journals of Europoeans who VISITED Morrocco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century you will SEE a large BLACK African Muslim population was ALWAYS present in Morrocco and were NOT slaves.
Europeans has always know that. It is quite obvious North Africans have certain degree of admixture. And it is obvious as far south from the Mediterranean into central Africa you go, the people turn into Black Africans. That's not rockt science. Everyone knows it.
quote: It is YOU who are being dishonest in taking the BLACK African presence OUT of Morroccan history.
It is you who is being dishonest trying to convert the history of North Africans into the history of the Subsaharians.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: Khawashkar. whats your thoughts on this
..
I think you should look for more serious sources than Runoko Rashidi. Now, if you are looking for Blacks in Europe there are lots of documentation about it. The case of the Medici, is well known. And the cases of Alexander Dumas, and the ancestors of Pushkin in Rusia are well know as well.
There were Blacks in Europe in the past in the same sense there have always existed whites in Africa and our in China. That's not the point.
What we are talking about here is about WHO WERE the Moors. Not if there were or not some Black people in Europe during the Middle Ages. They were.
KAWASHWAR
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: What about Chawis
or Riffanis?
Or Chleuhs?
They don't look exactly Subsaharan.
KAWASHKAR
With the exception of Chleuhs, those are all coastal groups with substantial European DNA (often ancient European mtDNA - U6, but also more recent admixture).
Wrt Chleuhs, showing a few individuals who exhibit European-like phenotypes does not change the reality of their genetics. Rasol, Supercar, do either of you have access to a genetic study on Berbers that specifically goes into the details between the Berber groups?
[url= http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/v077/77.1cherni.pdf#search=%22berber%20U6%22]Here[/url] is one (pdf) specifically on U6, but that doesn't get into Chleuh vs. Chawi vs. Kabyle vs. Haratin vs. Tuareg, etc., etc.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Jast a clarification.
Islam of the day had three levels of adherents. 1. Arab 2. Persian 3. Turkish
Turkey: From the 1300's, it is understandable that due to the invasion of the Balkans/Easter Europe by the Turks, they absorbed many nations states living in their area. DNA shows that part of the occupation/acceptance (albeit forced at times) of Turk Islamic rule of Byzantine land mass.
Spain: When Tarik entered Spain, he was called there by the Visigoths/Ostrogoths (Germanic) king in control of the area at the time to help with opposition. In turn, Tarik realized his power and obviously he had Germanic allies at first. That is rational. That consolidation of power incorporated the peoples of the area. That is how El Cid came to be known and he was the most outstanding. There were other Spaniards who (obviosuly not as well known Diaz de Vivar-El CId's name) followed the path of Islam and supported the cause, at least for where it benefitted them.
One has to remember that we are applying this 'one drop rule' as it pertains to USA and this bogus. America is a very racial climate (less so now) and there are ideas like that which cause many people to look away at their foolishness regarding these kinds of issue. This rule does not apply outside of USA, though. I do not cae because it is amusing, to say the least. The nation/state is the modus operandi of life and liberty not some foregn term that disunites peoples!!!! Just a sidenote.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Hola Kawashkar,
Let it go. The Moors were darkskinned many came from what is now Senegal and south Mauritania. There were many Blacks among them. The Spaniards know they were Black. Only you don't. I know what I'm talking about.
Adios mio!!!! Que piensas este hombre!!!
Try a Cuban dish calles Moros y Cristianos -->black beans on white rice.
Remember, I'm not from this religion you are discussing, but there are many Black Berbers especially in Morocco and areas south and southwest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estevanico Estevanico From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Estevanico (ca. 1503-1539) (also known as "Black Stephen", "Esteban", "Esteban the Moor", "Estevan", "Estebanico", "Stephen the Black", "Stephen the Moor", and "Little Stephen") was a Muslim Berber originally from North Africa who was one of the early explorers of the Southwestern United States. Born in the town of Azamor (Azemmour), which existed as a Portuguese enclave on Morocco's Atlantic coast from 1513 to 1541, Estevanico was enslaved by the Portuguese at an early age. He was sold in 1520 to Andrés Dorantes de Carranza de Carranza, a Spanish nobleman with whom he developed close ties.
Estevanico travelled with Dorantes to Hispaniola and Cuba on Pánfilo de Narváez' ill-fated expedition of 1527 to conquer Florida. They were two of the expedition's four survivors, and had sailed with others on makeshift rafts in an attempt to reach Mexico. The group was shipwrecked on Galveston Island and most of the men either drowned, starved, or were killed by natives; by 1533 only Estevanico, Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, and Alonso del Castillo Maldonado survived. The four spent years enslaved by the Ananarivo of the Louisiana Gulf Islands, but they eventually escaped into the American interior, contacting other Native American tribes along the way. The party traversed the continent as far as present-day southeastern Arizona, and through the Sonoran Desert to the region of Sinaloa in New Spain (present-day Mexico), where they were reunited with their countrymen.
In 1539, Estevanico was one of the four who would accompany Marcos de Niza as a guide in search of the fabled Seven Cities of Cibola, preceding Coronado. However, the others were struck ill and Estevanico continued alone, opening up what is now New Mexico and Arizona. He was killed at the Zuni village of Hawikuh (in present-day New Mexico); the tribe regarded him with mistrust, partially because his medicine gourd was trimmed with feathers from an owl, a bird that symbolized death to the Zuni.
[edit] Legends It is said that Estevanico was a remarkable linguist and that he was able to learn, in a matter of weeks, the languages of the Native Americans. It is also said that he was accepted as a deity by some Native American tribes because of his knowledge of herbs and medicines. Some historians believe that Esteban was not, in fact, killed by the Zunis, but rather kicked out of their village after being imprisoned. He may have then been hidden by the Pimas, who held him in high regard. An undated scrap of paper was found in Mexican government records that read as follows:
"Esteban arrived at the Rio Mayo, was struck by the beauty and handsomeness of the Mayos [close cousins of the Pimas], hid himself there and stayed. Later he married four or five women according to the custom of the land, had offspring, and in the year 1622 his son Aboray was living there, a tall withered mulatto with an ugly face, a captain or chief of a section of Tesia..." No one knows if this paper refers to the same Esteban.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Kawa y Doug M,
Your debate and the debate of others on this topic in today's world is becoming irrelevant.
Spain today is witnessing a large influx of Blacks of West Africa. They are coming into that country and into the whole of Western Europe from Spain to France to Scandinavia.
While you debate whether or not the Moors were Black, the Blacks and others are moving into Europe and mixing probably like never before. America is too is darkening and this world itself is getting darker and darker.
This is Europe today. Esta es Europa hoy.
Comprenden Uds.?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Hi Djehuti,
How is the TA-SETI temple of the afrocentric religion?
I'm not Afrocentric. In fact, I'm not even black! LOL
But I am Christian by the way.
quote:The problem with you, friend, is that you believe the amount of melanine in the body is "culture".
What?! Where the heck have I ever said culture was skin color. I merely said that Afroasiatic culture was concieved and developed in Africa by blacks. If I said Indo-European culture was originated by whites, would this mean Indo-European culture is a 'white' culture even though it is practiced by darker skin, even black peoples in India?!
quote:Peoples of the North and North East Africa have been in contact with the middle East for the last 6 thousand years and more. They all share many cultural pattern that are different with the people south of Sahara. No race involved there.
But you are wrong to say that the cultural patterns, specifically Afroasiatic are different from south of the Sahara as I've already cited from Afroasiatic expert Christopher Ehret and religious historian Julian Baldick
In fact, the majority of Afroasiatic culture are located south of the Sahara! LOL
quote:Yes. You behave like all racist people. All that matters is "looks". Everybody knows Arabs had admixture of neighbouring people, like anyone else in the planet, by the way.
LMAO Where have I ever said that looks matter? I am merely stating the FACTS. If anyone is behaving racist, its YOU since you incessantly deny the indigenous [black] African roots of the Egyptians, Berbers, and eventually all Afrasian peoples including peoples of the Middle East.
quote:If you start to talk about "blonds" culture and "brunette" culture, then it becomes racist.
No, not necessarily. So if I were to talk about Asian culture as a description of Chinese and Korean traditions, would that be racist also?!
LOL Again, you merely project your own prejudices towards me. You are just afraid and I dare say desperate about the truth of black African origins of these great cultures of history.
But that's not my problem
quote:In Spain Arabs where called Moors. That's what I am tried to tell you a hundred times. A Moor was any dumb Muslim that lived there, regarless of their phenotype. The first invasion of Muslims was done by Berber troops. But the Arabs had the control.
That still does not change the fact that the term 'Moor' was originally applied to black natives of North Africa.
quote:All the other arguments are just fantasies.
Sorry, but no. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: I could care less for the "white race". Actually, the term "white race" I believe should be applied to Germans only that, by the way, are not white but pink.
Sure, and Yorubas of Nigeria are not black but 'brown'. That's semantics for you! LOL
quote:What I don't like, though is fantastic revisionism. Berbers are not white in Nazi terms, but they are a distinctive people Hispanics know from ancient times. The very term moreno "Morish" is applied to Berbers only, and not to Black people.
Again you distinguish 'Berbers' from black people, even though there are black Berbers and that the original Berbers were always black!
quote:Let me tell you very clear, and in racial terms, Spaniards, Portugueses and Italians know Moors are light "mulattoes". And they accept theirs historical relationship with them.
Of course, which is why North African soccer players are also called monkeys and other racial slurs even by Spaniards.
quote:What special with the term "Moor"? "white" Berbers have always been called Moros in Spain. In the Middle Ages and during the Spanish Civil War as well. The algerian troops of Franco where called the Moors and dresses like the characters of Aladine.
Nope. White Berbers were called Saracen. Moores were referred specifically to the very dark/black ones.
quote:Why not?
Because unlike you, the Spaniards weren't stupid. They know the difference between Arabs and black Almoravids.
quote:Why they spoke Arab then? Why not Mandinga or Yoruba? No, they speak Arab because most of the Moors were Arab or Arabized peoples. They came from all the corners of the Muslim empire. How many times I will have to repeat the same thing?
Yes, and these peoples below are Arabized also and do not cconsider themselves as blacks but Arabs!
Your point?
quote:If you apply the "one drop rule", then Berbers are Blacks. That's the only way to force it. Look at this meeting of Berbers.
LOL Again you've forgotten about Berbers like these:
quote:Moors is a hate word, indeed.
Funny that you acknowledge the negativity of the word due to it's black roots but you refuse to acknowledge the roots themselves.
quote:Spaniards knew the first wave of Muslims were Berbers and not Arabs.
Yes they also knew that some of these Berbers were black.
quote:Yes. Muslims started mass slavery of Black peoples.
Yes, but they also started mass slavery of white people too! In fact most slaves in the Arab world were Circassian and Slavic peoples. And the very root of the word 'slave' is Slav. Also many Muslims were black also. What are we to make of Muslim Somalis?!
quote:As I said. The Spaniars used the word Moor to means Moroccian, Tunisian, Algerian of Lybian, the people of the coastal areas they new since ancient times. They were the Moors from the "racial" point of view FOR THE SPANIARDS. Now, that term was generalized to mean Muslim during the reconquest wars.
^You are absolutely correct about that, but that still doesn't change that the peoples aboriginal to these North African areas you listed were still black.
quote:For Northern Europeans, the "white" Berbers were Black people, so they did not make the distinction the Spanish did. After all, for Northern Europeans, every people that live south of Germany is Black, anyways, Spanish, Italians and Greeks included.
All a matter of semantics. In the case of Northern Europeans, 'black' meant 'dark' or 'darker' than themselves. But we are talking about the darker Mediterraneans of Southern Europe who made the distinction!
quote:So, in a sense, both Black and White Americans agree on that. Mediterreanean people, don't agree with those points of view.
No. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
My psychic sense is on! Why was I writing in Spanish? Where did that come from? Like who would read Spanish here? Well, Well, Well
Hmmmm.....
A Dios Mio!!! Senyor Kawashkar! Yo entiendo todo! Es claro. Eres de la nacion de Chile. Un indio ?
Los Kawashkar o Alacalufes son reconocidos como un pueblo nómada del mar. Antiguamente extendían su territorio en los canales australes entre el golfo de Penas y el Estrecho de Magallanes; en la península de Brecknock habitaban en un conjunto de canales navegables con aguas tranquilas de más de 300 millas de longitud. Hoy habitan principalmente en Puerto Edén, Puerto Natales y Punta Arenas.
Debido a las dificultades topográficas impenetrables, los kawashkar buscaron su subsistencia en la costa y en el mar, donde encontraban los productos necesarios para su alimentación, como lobos marinos, nutrias, aves, abundantes peces y mariscos.
La organización social Kawashkar se fundaba en la agrupación familiar, sobre la base de la consanguinidad de padres, hijos y abuelos, extensiva a otros parientes o allegados. La autoridad era ejercida por el padre y, más que jerarquías, existían liderazgos ocasionales y con fines prácticos, ya que ellos se movilizaban separadamente o en grupos unifamiliares.
PERIODO DE LA COLONIZACIÓN
El primer contacto con el hombre blanco se remonta a 1609, con la llegada de los misioneros Chilotes a territorio Kawashkar, donde encontraron muy pocos habitantes; pero en 1779, dos sacerdotes que visitan el mismo sector, hallan un gran número de indígenas, llevándolos en 1786 a la misión de Chiloé, en grupos de unas 60 ó 70 personas, conformados por familias independientes de 8 a 10 personas.
Esta medida afectó negativamente al pueblo Kawashkar, ya que consideraban las tierras aledañas a los canales que ellos recorrían, sobre todo el sector de Última Esperanza. En septiembre de 1874 ocurrió un incidente que provocó la muerte de ocho Kawashkar, seis hombres y dos mujeres, capturando además tres niños. Frente a estos hechos, los gobernadores no se esforzaron en establecer otro tipo de relación con el Pueblo Kawashkar. En 1940, por iniciativa del Presidente Pedro Aguirre Cerda, luego de su visita a Puerto Edén, se dictó un decreto de protección de la población del archipiélago, encargando a la FACH la protección de los indígenas. La distribución de víveres atrajo a la población kawashkar en torno a Puerto Edén, donde no existían las mínimas condiciones de servicios básicos y salubridad.
El caso de Lautaro Edén, se dio bajo el amparo de la ley de protección que intentó una nueva forma de integrar a los Kawashkar a la sociedad nacional. El joven Lautaro, una vez cumplido su servicio militar, regresó a su zona a cumplir sus obligaciones. Luego de un tiempo desapareció en compañía de una mujer Kawashkar, haciéndose llamar Terwa Koyo (brazo tieso), poco a poco los Kawashkar comenzaron a unirse a aquel que se había vuelto a la práctica del nomadismo en los archipiélagos. Los Kawashkar abandonaron completamente Puerto Edén; junto a ellos, Lautaro comenzó a formar una nueva comunidad en las cercanías de San Pedro, donde vivieron por 3 años de la caza de animales de piel fina. Después de su muerte, una parte del Pueblo Kawashkar volvió a Puerto Edén, otros se unieron a los loberos y los restantes, dos familias, regresaron a la vida de cazadores independientes entre el norte del canal Messier y el océano.
These are the Kawashkar or Alacaluf Indians of Chile
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Kawashkar antes de mi nombre de Vaca Roja, yo fui Shango, Rey de Ile Ife. Yo soy AfroAmericano. Pero, cada dia yo hablo Espanyol,la lengua de Espanya. La lengua de mi vecinos. Muchas de mis vecinos son mestizos y hay vi la gente nativa de America latina llevando ropa de los indios en la calles de mi ciudad.
Ademas, Kawashkar da respeto a la cultura africana de los moros quien vivieron en Espanya. Muchos de ellos fueron de la raza negra.
Por que nos molesta con esto sujeto? Eres racista contra los negros? Son los ideas de la iglesia de Mormon? Por que?
Una anciana de los Kawashkar.
Kawashkar cierre tu boca por favor.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Well,
Kawashkar as a person from a people whose ancestors were victims of genocide, you must realize that there have been many genocidal periods in history. The Australian Aborigenes were almost totally wiped out. The Tasmania people to the south of Australia were completely eliminated. The Armenians are another group. in North America, many Indian nations were wied out. I am part native American myself. Es la verdad.
If you go to Central or Eastern Europe today or definitely went around 1950, you'd not see to many Jews. The Juden were almost wiped out by the NaziSocialists. That doesn't mean that the Jews were not in Ashkenaz for 900 years. The Moors were largely Black. They were expelled and shipped to the Americas as slaves in the original period.
Did you know 1/4 of Million Blacks were killed in Europe during WW2? Did you know the Germans killed Blacks in North Africa during WW2?
Where are the WaTutsi in Rwanda?
Genocide happens as you well know.
Gloria a Dios Gloria a Jesus
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: Khawashkar. whats your thoughts on this
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maure
2.Moors in european Literature In David MacRitchie , « Ancient and Modern Britons » , 1884,VOL I, page 46: "Any latin dictionary, any old one at least, will tell you that maurus is a "moor ", a " blackamoor " or a "tawny moor ". And Shakespeare uses the world "moor " as a synonym for "negro" (Merchant of Venice, act III, scene V). At that last world bears nowadays a somewhat restricted meaning , it may be better to take the old fashioned « blackamoor »,as the nearest English rendering of maurus signifying thereby any black, or brown skinned man."
In Page 214:
"And in the diction of the past, A black man was a moor"
Collection of Sir Thomas Wriothesley garter king of Arms (1504-1534) In Golden age of the moors and African presence in ealy Europe
Niger Val Dub : The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century. One of them, was known as King Kenneth, sometimes as Niger or Dubh, a surname which means 'the black man.' It is a historical fact that Niger Val Dubh lived and reigned over certain black divisions in scotland - and that a race known as 'the sons of the blacks' succeeded him in history. (JA Rogers, Sex and Race)
Here is some more info that I hope will end Washkar's nonsense. (Although I doubt it, since trolls obsessed with misinformation will never relent)
The term Maure derives from the Phoenician term Mahurin (Westerners). From Mahurin the ancient Greeks derive Mauro meaning black , and later Greeks derive Maurikios after them, the Latin derive Mauri meaning Black African. From the same root we derive: Maur , Maurus, Marra , Moro, Morisco , Mohr, Moritz Morelo , Moor, Moru, Maru, Morelo, Maureta, Mauretania, Mauritius, Maureen, Maroon, Morocco , Moore, Maurice , Meuric, Meurig, Morien, Morin, Moryan , Moreto, and such. At one time the whole of the western arm of Africa (what is now West Africa, from Libya to Nigeria and around the Atlantic coast), was called Mauretania . The word Mauretania was interchangeable with all the names of what is now Africa: 'Ethiopia', 'Libya', and the now defunct 'Negroland'
Claudio Ptolemy's map of Mauretania (Notice it includes all of West Africa)
Since the 11th century, the heraldic term Maure refers to the symbol of an African head, or more specifically any blackened image of an African, or a part of an African, or an item associated with or representing Africans.
In the 18th century English usage of the term Moor began to refer specifically to African Muslims, but especially to any person who speaks one of the Hassaniya dialects. This language, in its purest form, draws heavily from the original Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Bani Hassan tribe, which invaded northwest Africa during the 16th and 17th centuries. (Since then, Hassaniya became liturgical speech and lingua franca of all Saharans and Northwest Africans to this day).
Of course, as has been explained ad-naseum in this forum and most recently in this thread. The Islamicized Al-Moravids and Al-Mohads took power and were the main dynasties of the Magrheb after the Arabs. The invasion of Spain was led by Moors (black) Muslims.
Al Hambra, Granada's citadel in the Sierra Nevada, Andalucia - Spain
After the fall of the Umayyads in Damascas, the Africans in Spain, known as the Moro were cut off and came under threat from successive invasions. However, the Moro retained the white flag and it came to be associated with negro troops specifically, whereas the Saracen Arab invaders who followed them into Spain used the red flag of the Khawarij Republican followers of Caliph Uthman III. As pressure from the Reyes Católicos (the Christian Reconquistadors) increased over the centuries, African states in Spain mutated and fell and rose many times. The most stable and longest lived African state in Spain was Grenada, with the magnificent Nasridin dynasty citadel of Al Hambra as its capitol. Al Hambra surrendered to the Reyes Católicos at dawn on January 2, 1492. Spain and Portugal followed this action with the conquest of parts of Africa, the destruction of African communities in Europe and the invasion of the Americas. Lisbon's black population, that out-numbered Europeans in 1550, was devasted by the plagues of the times. The last free blacks in Spain were expelled on April 6, 1609.
The last African flag of Grenada consisted of heraldic "Argent, a pomegranate gules leafed vert" (ie., an all-white flag, with a centred red pomegranate flower with green petals). It is unclear what the symbolic significance of the pomegranate bloom was to blacks in Spain. What is notable, however, is that the Pomegranate gave its name to Granada, as well as to the Hand Grenade which came into use in the 15th century. Moreover, the bloom has the colors Green, Yellow, Red, which coincidentally are the Pan-African colors. Perhaps most cryptic of all is the ancient saying "There is nothing in the world like the pain of being blind in Granada," probably less a reference to the blindfolded Maure and more about the beauty of perhaps the most beautiful place in Europe. Al Hambra is still only second to the Vatican in tourist visitors.
A look at Europe after Muslim invasions:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's ancient Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms
Last but not least, is the legendary Christian Saint, St. Maurice of Egypt!
[i]In Roman times the Theban Legion was led by Maurice, the warrior saint, and Primicerius (commander) of Roman troops from Thebes in Egypt. The Theban Legion was sent to suppress a revolt of the Bagandae in Agaunum in Gaul (St-Maurice en Valais) in the 3rd century. That Maurice ordered his soldiers not to participate in pagan rites. They were punished by the Emperor Maximian Herculeus first by decimation and finally by the wholesale massacre of the Theban Legion. Maurice and his fellow officers were executed in A.D. 287. Some depictions of that St. Maurice rightly portray him as black and show red flags, sometimes with a black stripe.
'St.Erasm and St.Maurice' painted by Matthias Grunewald
In medieval Europe the Maure imagery represented the Sudanese command of the German armies of the Holy Roman Empire in the 12th century. These African officers defended Swedes during the Scandinavian rebellion against Germany. Several settlements in Europe - including St. Moritz - are named after these Africans. The white flag with the black profile became the flag of several separate Orders named for of St. Maurice, that sprung up all over Europe in the 12th century. However, the name Maurice was generic and refers to many different and unrelated black soldiers in medieval European history.
St. Maurice of Magdeburg, Germany Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
To Kawashkar:
Although my post will probably be ignored, I was to point out something about the so-called Moorish invasion of Spain. The Imazigh[Berbers] that sided with the Arabs and invaded Spain were not Kaybeles nor Chawis but more southern Imazghen groups. The names of the groups were Hawwara, Luwata, Nafza, Masmuda, Zanata, and Sanhadja.
Know the Masmuda,Zenata,and Sanhaja were described as ''black'' by Arabic accounts. The Hawwara are simply an offshoot of the Kel Tamelsheq but I have never seen a description of them by Arabic accounts.
Maybe somebody else with more knowleadge of Maghrebian history can clarify about the rest of the Imazghen that invaded with the Arabs into Spain.
I notice also people keep glossing over the Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] but actually most Kel Tamelsheq Kels originate in Southern Morocco and Libya. Most groups like the Zenaga in modern day Mauritania originate in Libya.
The Kaybeles and most of the mountain dwelling Imazghen fleed to the mountains when Arabs invaded North-western Africa. Only very recently did many convert to islam so I find it hard to believe that both the Chawia and Kaybeles fought in Arab armies and occupied Spain. Both Kaybeles and Chawia are sedentary as compaired to the groups I mentioned above that are nomadic. If the Kaybeles invaded Spain then why is there no mention of a specific weapon the Kaybeles use called a Kissar by Arabic accounts?
Here are some pictures of Imazghen people often ignore:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: Well,
Kawashkar as a person from a people whose ancestors were victims of genocide, you must realize that there have been many genocidal periods in history. The Australian Aborigenes were almost totally wiped out. The Tasmania people to the south of Australia were completely eliminated. The Armenians are another group. in North America, many Indian nations were wied out. I am part native American myself. Es la verdad.
If you go to Central or Eastern Europe today or definitely went around 1950, you'd not see to many Jews. The Juden were almost wiped out by the NaziSocialists. That doesn't mean that the Jews were not in Ashkenaz for 900 years. The Moors were largely Black. They were expelled and shipped to the Americas as slaves in the original period.
Did you know 1/4 of Million Blacks were killed in Europe during WW2? Did you know the Germans killed Blacks in North Africa during WW2?
Where are the WaTutsi in Rwanda?
Genocide happens as you well know.
Gloria a Dios Gloria a Jesus
LOL If the guy is one of these indigenous South American peoples, why the heck does he seem to have a problem with black Africans roots of North African peoples?!
He sounds very unindigenous to me, if you know what I mean. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: To Kawashkar:
Although my post will probably be ignored, I was to point out something about the so-called Moorish invasion of Spain. The Imazigh[Berbers] that sided with the Arabs and invaded Spain were not Kaybeles nor Chawis but more southern Imazghen groups. The names of the groups were Hawwara, Luwata, Nafza, Masmuda, Zanata, and Sanhadja.
Know the Masmuda,Zenata,and Sanhaja were described as ''black'' by Arabic accounts. The Hawwara are simply an offshoot of the Kel Tamelsheq but I have never seen a description of them by Arabic accounts.
Maybe somebody else with more knowleadge of Maghrebian history can clarify about the rest of the Imazghen that invaded with the Arabs into Spain.
I notice also people keep glossing over the Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] but actually most Kel Tamelsheq Kels originate in Southern Morocco and Libya. Most groups like the Zenaga in modern day Mauritania originate in Libya.
The Kaybeles and most of the mountain dwelling Imazghen fleed to the mountains when Arabs invaded North-western Africa. Only very recently did many convert to islam so I find it hard to believe that both the Chawia and Kaybeles fought in Arab armies and occupied Spain. Both Kaybeles and Chawia are sedentary as compaired to the groups I mentioned above that are nomadic. If the Kaybeles invaded Spain then why is there no mention of a specific weapon the Kaybeles use called a Kissar by Arabic accounts?
Here are some pictures of Imazghen people often ignore:
your input is always appreciated Ausar.
I don't know if Washkar would ignore such info. He did gloss over my pictures of indigenous black Berbers. It may be likely he will come up with some stupid (and as always, inaccurate) excuse that these Black Berber groups were of 'Sub-Saharan' "slave" ancestry!
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... While you debate whether or not the Moors were Black, the Blacks and others are moving into Europe and mixing probably like never before. America is too is darkening and this world itself is getting darker and darker.
Really!
Why do you worry so much about that? Genetical engineering is comming. In 20 years most babies will be produced by engineering and people will choose their looks.
Even today, without engineering, the tendencies are clear.
Don't you know that the eggs of a pretty girl is worth US$100.000 and people pays it? Don't you know the men that has more children are artificial insemination the donors? Some have a hundred or more kids each.
Do you know what are the prefered specimens?
Only guess how they will look like. I have no idea, but they will look like the people chooses, no mother nature.
Or, do you believe doctors are doing research just for fun? lol.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: My psychic sense is on! Why was I writing in Spanish? Where did that come from? Like who would read Spanish here? Well, Well, Well
Hmmmm.....
A Dios Mio!!! Senyor Kawashkar! Yo entiendo todo! Es claro. Eres de la nacion de Chile. Un indio ?
Doug M, Djehuti,
I am mixed. However, If I have to choose between Spaniard and Indian I choose Indian. Yes. And the Kawashkar is a people that lives in my heart and concience.
They were "primitive" people. Nothing glorious. No large cities, piramyds or machinery. They have a simple and pure culture. And they suffered very much under the impact of "western civilization".
If you let me to choose. I don't choose glory, power or fame. I preffer the "primitive" peoples of the Americas, Asia, Australia and Africa. Those are the people that I love the most.
Glory? Ha! Who needs it if other humans beings have to pay the price for it.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Really!
Why do you worry so much about that? Genetical engineering is comming. In 20 years most babies will be produced by engineering and people will choose their looks.
Even today, without engineering, the tendencies are clear.
Don't you know that the eggs of a pretty girl is worth US$100.000 and people pays it? Don't you know the men that has more children are artificial insemination the donors? Some have a hundred or more kids each.
Do you know what are the prefered specimens?
Only guess how they will look like. I have no idea, but they will look like the people chooses, no mother nature.
Or, do you believe doctors are doing research just for fun? lol.
KAWASHKAR
It's official. Washkar has lost his mind (much the same way he lost the debate long time ago)!!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The original Muslim invasion of alAndalus was done in cahoots with coastal Amazigh groups.
The Tunisian/Libyan forerunners of some Kel Tamasheq obviously couldn't have been pushed south by Arabs before such Arabs had conquered the Mashreq and eastern Maghreb, so they couldn't possibly have been in the Muslim armies of the 711 conquest of alAndalus.
Look up Tariff and Tariq for the precise tribal affiliation of these two Imazighen who led forces into Iberia. Also, alKahina's sons were reportedly minor leaders in the invasions, they were Jerawa.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
In Latin America,
They have a caste system with Whites on top and Mestizos/Mulattoes in the middle and Blacks on the bottom. So, as a mestizo (probably), He'd have pick on the Blacks by taking the Blackness out of the Moors of Spain whose architecture is all over Latin America.
Mexico city
Santiago, Chile
Bolivia
Lima, Peru
That's why. The Moorish influence extends to Latin America. He has to attack the Blacks.
Certain things just can't be.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^LMAO Well good luck with his 'crusade' against blacks! Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: [QB] Kawashkar antes de mi nombre de Vaca Roja, yo fui Shango, Rey de Ile Ife. Yo soy AfroAmericano. Pero, cada dia yo hablo Espanyol,la lengua de Espanya.
Es un placer que te hayas tomado el tiempo de aprenderla. Y la hablas muy bien.
quote: La lengua de mi vecinos. Muchas de mis vecinos son mestizos y hay vi la gente nativa de America latina llevando ropa de los indios en la calles de mi ciudad.
Esa es mi gente.
quote: Ademas, Kawashkar da respeto a la cultura africana de los moros quien vivieron en Espanya. Muchos de ellos fueron de la raza negra.
Si. Yo se que hubieron Africanos de raza negra en Espana (No puedo escribir la ene con tilde). Sin embargo, estoy defendiento un hecho historico. Moros es el termino usado por los españoles para describir al invasor Musulman. Los negros fueron una minoria entre los invasores, y estos a su vez fueron una minoria entre los Espanoles. El resto es una distorsion y exageracion historica.
quote: Por que nos molesta con esto sujeto? Eres racista contra los negros? Son los ideas de la iglesia de Mormon? Por que?
No. Estoy discutiendo un punto historico. Los Moros son nuestros ancestros. ¿No sabes eso? La mayoria de los Moros fueron Berbers y no eran muy diferentes de los espanoles.
Esa es la verdad. Nada mas.
quote: Kawashkar cierre tu boca por favor.
No lo hice durante una dictadura militar, ¿por que lo habria de hacer ahora? Solo quiero que se sepa la verdad.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ausar: [qb] To Kawashkar:
Although my post will probably be ignored, I was to point out something about the so-called Moorish invasion of Spain.
No. I will not ignore it this time and sorry if I did it before.
quote: The Imazigh[Berbers] that sided with the Arabs and invaded Spain were not Kaybeles nor Chawis but more southern Imazghen groups. The names of the groups were Hawwara, Luwata, Nafza, Masmuda, Zanata, and Sanhadja.
Know the Masmuda,Zenata,and Sanhaja were described as ''black'' by Arabic accounts. The Hawwara are simply an offshoot of the Kel Tamelsheq but I have never seen a description of them by Arabic accounts.
Maybe somebody else with more knowleadge of Maghrebian history can clarify about the rest of the Imazghen that invaded with the Arabs into Spain.
I notice also people keep glossing over the Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] but actually most Kel Tamelsheq Kels originate in Southern Morocco and Libya. Most groups like the Zenaga in modern day Mauritania originate in Libya.
... Here are some pictures of Imazghen people often ignore:
your input is always appreciated Ausar.
quote: I don't know if Washkar would ignore such info. He did gloss over my pictures of indigenous black Berbers. It may be likely he will come up with some stupid (and as always, inaccurate) excuse that these Black Berber groups were of 'Sub-Saharan' "slave" ancestry!
Look at your own pictures above. Those people have dark skin, of course. Does they look subsaharian, though?
As I say before, North Africans are a people that live between "white" Europe and "black" Subsaharian Africa. Berbers have different degrees of admixtures of both peoples. The Muslims of Spain (The actual Moors), have a good numbers of berber troops and population.
I am only saying that you can't the history of North Africa as the roots of subsaharian Africa and the diaspora. After all the Moors, of all colors, together with the Arabs where the people that started the opression of Subsaharan Black Africans.
The Moors=Berbers+Arabs, where the beginning of the Black Holocaust. They invaded Spain but also the South, and they teach the "white man" the most hateful of trades: slavery.
Moors? Well, here you have one:
And other one:
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: He'd have pick on the Blacks by taking the Blackness out of the Moors of Spain whose architecture is all over Latin America.
That arquitecture is ARAB. Don't you know that the arquitects of Al-Andalus where Arabs, Persians, Syrians and even Egyptians? Get back to your records.
And yes! Arab architecture is very appreciated in Spain and Latin America.
quote: That's why. The Moorish influence extends to Latin America. He has to attack the Blacks.
What influence? I am not attacking "Blacks". I am just saying that you people forget the invasion of Spain was done by and for Muslims. It was not a campain of a Black African chief, but an international movement of Muslims to conquer the world.
The "Oriental" influence on Spain is Muslim. In language is Arabic. That's the truth.
Yes, one can find influences from Arabs and Middle Easter intelectuals in Spain, and also from Jews. But there is not a single cultural achievement that can be traced to Subsaharian Africa. At least, nothing can be shown as yet.
Just playing at the pictures chosing won't change the historical truth.
Things are like they are. We can only change the future but not the past.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Actually the difference between Moor and Negro was that Negro was used exclusively for enslaved inner Africans and they were not Muslim. They were also known as Ladinos upon aculturization to Iberian languages and customs
All Muslim inner Africans were known as Moors.
After the Reconquista few inner African Muslims remained in Iberia. Even blue eyed blond Muslims relocated. Only converted Moriscos remained.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: [QB] Kawashkar antes de mi nombre de Vaca Roja, yo fui Shango, Rey de Ile Ife. Yo soy AfroAmericano. Pero, cada dia yo hablo Espanyol,la lengua de Espanya.
Es un placer que te hayas tomado el tiempo de aprenderla. Y la hablas muy bien.
quote: La lengua de mi vecinos. Muchas de mis vecinos son mestizos y hay vi la gente nativa de America latina llevando ropa de los indios en la calles de mi ciudad.
Esa es mi gente.
quote: Ademas, Kawashkar da respeto a la cultura africana de los moros quien vivieron en Espanya. Muchos de ellos fueron de la raza negra.
Si. Yo se que hubieron Africanos de raza negra en Espana (No puedo escribir la ene con tilde). Sin embargo, estoy defendiento un hecho historico. Moros es el termino usado por los españoles para describir al invasor Musulman. Los negros fueron una minoria entre los invasores, y estos a su vez fueron una minoria entre los Espanoles. El resto es una distorsion y exageracion historica.
quote: Por que nos molesta con esto sujeto? Eres racista contra los negros? Son los ideas de la iglesia de Mormon? Por que?
No. Estoy discutiendo un punto historico. Los Moros son nuestros ancestros. ¿No sabes eso? La mayoria de los Moros fueron Berbers y no eran muy diferentes de los espanoles.
Esa es la verdad. Nada mas.
quote: Kawashkar cierre tu boca por favor.
No lo hice durante una dictadura militar, ¿por que lo habria de hacer ahora? Solo quiero que se sepa la verdad.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
What about Chawis
or Riffanis?
Or Chleuhs?
They don't look exactly Subsaharan.
KAWASHKAR
With the exception of Chleuhs, those are all coastal groups with substantial European DNA (often ancient European mtDNA - U6, but also more recent admixture).
Wrt Chleuhs, showing a few individuals who exhibit European-like phenotypes does not change the reality of their genetics. Rasol, Supercar, do either of you have access to a genetic study on Berbers that specifically goes into the details between the Berber groups?
While the “U” designation, which had been used to label an Eurasian L3 sub-phylogeny, might entice some to associate the U6 with Eurasian origin, U6 is actually an African specific matrilineage, as we have discussed before. Gonzalez et al. 2006 for instance, found U6 to be higher in frequency within Sahelian west African groups, like Mauritanians, than within the coastal West Afrasan/“Berber” speaking groups. Simply put, the general trend in “Berber”/West Afrasan lineage distribution patterns can be assessed through acquaintance with a multitude of published DNA studies, particularly Y-DNA and mtDNA. Examples of such studies include those from Nebel, Cruciani, Luis, Semino, Arredi, Achilli et al, and so forth; DNA study groups like those of Nebel et al. 2002, Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, or Arredi et al. 2004 made much emphasis on paternal lineages, while other research groups like Macaulay et al. 1999, Achilli et al. 2004, Cherni et al., or Gonzalez et al. 2006, focused relatively more on matrilineages. Cherni et al. for instance, compared west Afrasan/”Berber” speakers within a single nation, i.e. Tunisia, and drew contrasting conclusions in the patterns of mtDNA distributions. On other hand, Achilli et al. 2004 make note of the contrasting frequencies of designated matrilineages across the continent. Having gone through such discrete studies and taken into consideration, trends in the corresponding findings, one can put into perspective an educated assessment of lineage distribution patterns of the specific regions sampled; speaking of which, coastal “Berber” gene pools generally revealed higher frequencies of European mtDNA than the southerly groups. For example, as part of the picture of this trend in coastal Northwest Africa, Achilles et al. point out…
Sub-haplogroup H1 turned out to encompass a large proportion of H in the western part of its distribution range. It has a frequency peak among the Basques of Spain (27.8%) and very high frequencies in the rest of Iberia (17.7% - 24.3%), Morocco (19.2%), and Sardinia (17.9%). The spatial pattern depicted in figure 3 appears to indicate the presence of an overall gradient for H1, with a peak centered at the most southwestern edge of Europe and in Morocco and declining frequencies towards both the northeast and southeast… - Achilles et al.
Likewise, based on sampled populations, as one moves away from Sahelian/sub-Saharan west Africa towards the north, there appears to be a gradient of declining sub-Saharan specific mtDNA frequencies towards coastal northwest Africa.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: .. Well good luck with his 'crusade' against blacks!
Crusades are done against the Moors, which means against the Muslims. Crusades are not againts Black peoples.
Moors, like Osama Bin Laden and his followers, continue to attack the West. They destroyed the WTC, bombed the Spanish trains leaving 200 deaths, bombed London, killed 200 in Bombay, and don't want to stop.
The West is in war against the Moors, and that is the crusade going on. That's why the U.S. is in Iraq, anyways.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Actually the difference between Moor and Negro was that Negro was used exclusively for enslaved inner Africans and they were not Muslim. They were also known as Ladinos upon aculturization to Iberian languages and customs
All Muslim inner Africans were known as Moors.
After the Reconquista few inner African Muslims remained in Iberia. Even blue eyed blond Muslims relocated. Only converted Moriscos remained.
That's very true. Actually, I am very interested in the parallels between the Muslim invasion of Europe (Portugal, Spain, Sicily) and the invasion of Subsaharan West Africa.
The Moors (Muslims) invaded simultaneously both region and with similar effects. In Europe they build centers of learning in Toledo, Cordoba, they also founded the school of Medicine of Salerno. The presence of the Moors started the "renacense" of Western Civilization.
South of the Sahara, the Moors started the marvelous university and libraries of Timbuktu, and were an important impulse on the Middle Ages African Kingdoms.
That's the possitive side of their presence. The negative it was slavery and the subjugation of local people. And its effect can still be seen in the modern world.
Now, it is true that many Muslims were deported from Spain after the reconquest, but many also remained there, given they renounced to Mohommed. Berber looking peoples are common in Spain, particularly in Andalucia. This is a picture that show that.
Now, south of the Sahara, even so down south like Nigeria, there are still have some degree of "arabian" looks. Like these ones
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Actually the difference between Moor and Negro was that Negro was used exclusively for enslaved inner Africans and they were not Muslim. They were also known as Ladinos upon aculturization to Iberian languages and customs
All Muslim inner Africans were known as Moors.
After the Reconquista few inner African Muslims remained in Iberia. Even blue eyed blond Muslims relocated. Only converted Moriscos remained.
That's very true. Actually, I am very interested in the parallels between the Muslim invasion of Europe (Portugal, Spain, Sicily) and the invasion of Subsaharan West Africa.
The Moors (Muslims) invaded simultaneously both regions and with similar effects. In Europe they build centers of learning in Toledo, Cordoba, they also founded the school of Medicine of Salerno. The presence of the Moors started the "renacense" of Western Civilization.
South of the Sahara, the Moors started the marvelous university and libraries of Timbuktu, and were an important impulse on the Middle Ages African Kingdoms. The spread of literacy to the southern regions was also theirs.
That's the possitive side of their presence. The negative it was slavery and the subjugation of local peoples. And its effect can still be seen in the modern world.
Now, it is true that Spain broke free from Muslims, but that happened because fellow Europeans, particularly French and the Roman Church, supported the efforts of the Christian knights. The people South of the Sahara was not as lucky, and could not get rid of the invasors.
Now, it is true that many Muslims were deported from Spain after the reconquest, but many also remained there, given they renounced to Mohommed. Berber looking peoples are common in Spain, particularly in Andalucia. This is a picture that show that.
Now, south of the Sahara, even so down south like Nigeria, there are still have some degree of "arabian" looks. Like these ones
KAWASHKAR
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
have you not been listening? u r not gonna succeeed in making the past of north africa white Since the 11th century, the heraldic term Maure refers to the symbol of an African head, or more specifically any blackened image of an African, or a part of an African, or an item associated with or representing Africans.
In the 18th century English usage of the term Moor began to refer specifically to African Muslims, but especially to any person who speaks one of the Hassaniya dialects. This language, in its purest form, draws heavily from the original Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Bani Hassan tribe, which invaded northwest Africa during the 16th and 17th centuries. (Since then, Hassaniya became liturgical speech and lingua franca of all Saharans and Northwest Africans to this day).
Of course, as has been explained ad-naseum in this forum and most recently in this thread. The Islamicized Al-Moravids and Al-Mohads took power and were the main dynasties of the Magrheb after the Arabs. The invasion of Spain was led by Moors (black) Muslims.
Al Hambra, Granada's citadel in the Sierra Nevada, Andalucia - Spain
After the fall of the Umayyads in Damascas, the Africans in Spain, known as the Moro were cut off and came under threat from successive invasions. However, the Moro retained the white flag and it came to be associated with negro troops specifically, whereas the Saracen Arab invaders who followed them into Spain used the red flag of the Khawarij Republican followers of Caliph Uthman III. As pressure from the Reyes Católicos (the Christian Reconquistadors) increased over the centuries, African states in Spain mutated and fell and rose many times. The most stable and longest lived African state in Spain was Grenada, with the magnificent Nasridin dynasty citadel of Al Hambra as its capitol. Al Hambra surrendered to the Reyes Católicos at dawn on January 2, 1492. Spain and Portugal followed this action with the conquest of parts of Africa, the destruction of African communities in Europe and the invasion of the Americas. Lisbon's black population, that out-numbered Europeans in 1550, was devasted by the plagues of the times. The last free blacks in Spain were expelled on April 6, 1609.
The last African flag of Grenada consisted of heraldic "Argent, a pomegranate gules leafed vert" (ie., an all-white flag, with a centred red pomegranate flower with green petals). It is unclear what the symbolic significance of the pomegranate bloom was to blacks in Spain. What is notable, however, is that the Pomegranate gave its name to Granada, as well as to the Hand Grenade which came into use in the 15th century. Moreover, the bloom has the colors Green, Yellow, Red, which coincidentally are the Pan-African colors. Perhaps most cryptic of all is the ancient saying "There is nothing in the world like the pain of being blind in Granada," probably less a reference to the blindfolded Maure and more about the beauty of perhaps the most beautiful place in Europe. Al Hambra is still only second to the Vatican in tourist visitors.
A look at Europe after Muslim invasions:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's ancient Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms
Last but not least, is the legendary Christian Saint, St. Maurice of Egypt!
[i]In Roman times the Theban Legion was led by Maurice, the warrior saint, and Primicerius (commander) of Roman troops from Thebes in Egypt. The Theban Legion was sent to suppress a revolt of the Bagandae in Agaunum in Gaul (St-Maurice en Valais) in the 3rd century. That Maurice ordered his soldiers not to participate in pagan rites. They were punished by the Emperor Maximian Herculeus first by decimation and finally by the wholesale massacre of the Theban Legion. Maurice and his fellow officers were executed in A.D. 287. Some depictions of that St. Maurice rightly portray him as black and show red flags, sometimes with a black stripe.
'St.Erasm and St.Maurice' painted by Matthias Grunewald
In medieval Europe the Maure imagery represented the Sudanese command of the German armies of the Holy Roman Empire in the 12th century. These African officers defended Swedes during the Scandinavian rebellion against Germany. Several settlements in Europe - including St. Moritz - are named after these Africans. The white flag with the black profile became the flag of several separate Orders named for of St. Maurice, that sprung up all over Europe in the 12th century. However, the name Maurice was generic and refers to many different and unrelated black soldiers in medieval European history.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: have you not been listening? u r not gonna succeeed in making the past of north africa white Since the 11th century, the heraldic term Maure refers to the symbol of an African head, or more specifically any blackened image of an African, or a part of an African, or an item associated with or representing Africans.
Arabs and Berbers are not "white". The only whites that exist are Germans. Well, the ones that are not pink, anyways.
quote: In the 18th century English usage of the term Moor began...
18th century brits were a bunch of stupid ignorants. The only intelligent guy they have was Newton. All the rest are the ancestors of the huligans
quote: Of course, as has been explained ad-naseum in this forum and most recently in this thread. The Islamicized Al-Moravids and Al-Mohads took power and were the main dynasties of the Magrheb after the Arabs. The invasion of Spain was led by Moors (black) Muslims.
There it goes again: Al-Moravids and Al-Mohands were Black people. But they were not the Moors that invaded Spain. They attacked Spain in the 12th century, 5 centuries after the Moors invaded it.
quote: As pressure from the Reyes Católicos (the Christian Reconquistadors) increased over the centuries
Lol. That's so imprecise that I have to comment it. The Catholic Kings did not live for centuries. They governed Spain at the end of the 15th century. They conquered Granada, the last Moor kingdom in the hands of the moors, and kick at the butt, out of Spain, the last Moor. By the way, the last Moor was blond blue eyed and look like a german.
quote: , African states in Spain mutated and fell and rose many times.
Those were not "AFRICAN" states. They were Muslim states. Remember that Africa was also under the tirany of the Muslims at those times.
quote: In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded".
Interesting. Heraldic is an interesting hobbie. Although does not show not demographics.
See the following images. These are real Moors, not fantasies:
The Moorish ambassador to Queen Elizabeth the first.
Abd aL-Rahman II
Hisam II
Boabdil (the last Moor of Granada
The Moor rulers looked like that. Sorry.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by MULLAH'S_REVENGE (Member # 11724) on :
checkmate..
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Picking a "Black" in the crowds of Moors is a nice hobby. Interesting indeed. Using the same method some have proven Chinese are really Nubians. Afrocentrism is a fascinating exercise of logic twisting.
Afrocentric "picture picking" is an excelent exercise to change history and create false pasts. At least you don't want to know the truth, you should avoid that religion.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Kawashakar, you are dragging this on for no reason. NOBODY said that ALL Muslims in Spain were BLACK. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. HOWEVER, we ARE saying that the WORD Moor is HISTORICALLY a reference to BLACK Muslims. As far as Africans being only SLAVES in Islamic Africa, then what about the Tuareg? What about the SELF PROCLAIMED Moors in Senegal, Mali and Niger? MOST people no longer even CALL the Berbers MOORS in any ethnological sense, most are called plain Berber or Arab. MOST times when you see the word MOOR in reference to AFRICAN ethnic groups, you see it in terms of DARK skinned Muslims from the areas I identified.
And these are just ONE GROUP of the STILL EXISTING BLACK MOORS in Africa. I didnt even go into the ones in Senegal or the Tuareg clans or the many OTHER remaining Moorish clans. YOU on the other hand want to EXCLUSIVELY focus on the WHITE, mixed Spanish, European and Arabs in the North of Morrocco, Libya and Algeria EXCLUSIVELY as Moors, both NOW AND in the past. However, at the SAME time you FORGET to mention how ARABS have come to DOMINATE NOrth Africa, and I mean ARABS from Arabia, not just ARABIZED Berbers either and you FORGET to mention that among even the WHITE Berbers Arabs seek complete hegemony. ON TOP of that, while talking about the SLAVERY amongst the black Africans, you ALSO forget to talk about how ARABS and ARABIZED groups PUSH Black Africans OUT of the countries that they were IN ORIGINALLY, INCLUDING those who ARE MUSLIM. So in all reality you are spewing a BUNCH OF NONSENSE. Arabs have come in WAVES to North Africa in the period SINCE the Moorish occupation and CONTINUE to go there and maintain ARAB hegemony. But while you GLORIFY what "Arabs" and "White" Berbers do to BLACK Africans, you FAIL to acknowledge that the BLACKS were THERE UNTIL they were WIPED OUT, either as SLAVES or PUSHED OUT as a result of wars BETWEEN Muslims, which in MANY cases was JUST about Arabs gaining DOMINANCE over LOCAL arabized Muslim peoples, INCLUDING black African Muslims. Also, you DENY that arabs forced CONVERSION to ISLAM as part of their spread across North Africa, meaning MANY black and white North Africans became Muslim and meaning that MANY black Africans were present in Islam in North AFrica and NOT as slaves or Mercenaries amongst the Moors. What is HAPPENING is that WHITE Muslim Arabs are PUSHING these BLACK Muslims OUT of their homelands and ORIGINAL areas and PUSHING a WHITE ARAB ethnic identity.
An example of this EXPULSION of NATIVE black African Muslims from their place in North Africa IS the Tuareg:
quote: The Tuareg Rebellion was an uprising of the 1990s by various Tuareg groups in Niger and Mali with the aim of achieving autonomy or forming their own nation-state.
Tuareg people form a distinct minority in all the Saharan countries they inhabit and a majority in many Saharan regions. In many cases, the Tuareg have been marginalised by governments based in the Sahel or on the Mediterranean coast. Desertification and droughts in 1972-74 and 84-85 killed livestock and forced the alteration of traditional migration routes, increasing conflict between neighbouring groups. Aid from national governments was often unforthcoming, and many sided against the Tuareg - one notable exception being Libya.
So here we SEE DIRECTLY how the BLACK Muslim groups are marginalized by ARAB CONTROLLED WHITE Muslim countries and NO ONE denies that the Tuareg are the INDIGENOUS people of the Sahara and even THEY are being moved south. So stop trying to deny that White Muslims have PUSHED black muslims OUT of countries and areas that they have BEEN IN since BEFORE becoming Muslim.
Another example of how the Morroccans ENSLAVED and OPPRESSED even the BLACK Muslims IN Morocco (not GNAWAS but the ORIGINAL BLACK MOORISH Muslims):
quote: Chouki el Hamel: There was always slavery. Berbers were slaving blacks. Blacks were also enslaving other people. But before the coming of the Arabs, black West Africa was not perceived like a huge pool of slaves. It did not have great slave markets. That was a development that came with the Islamization of Africa. So with the Islamization of Africa there was an increase of the trans-Saharan trade. It is the conquest, actually, that stimulated this need for black soldiers. So there was a huge demand for enslaved people from West Africa. And why? It is because, legally, you can slave only people perceived to be “pagan.” And the area that was perceived to be “pagan” was the area of the Sudan and beyond that.
The race question came during the Crusades where Europe emerged as a strong power, and basically, the enslaved people who came from areas in Europe were diminishing. So the Arabs and Berbers dynasties that ruled North Africa turned, of course, south. And then slowly it became color slavery. So that is why I have said that in many dynasties, that ruled Morocco for instance, they relied on black soldiers. And during Mawlay Isma`il, it went even further because he enslaved all blacks, including the free ones, including the Muslims. That is an act that is actually outright illegal in Islam, but he did it. But the muftis, judges and scholars of Islam in Fez were against that. They went against the voices that had influence on the society, they were sometimes killed. We have evidence that one of them was killed. His name is Gassus. He was a very strong voice against the enslavement black Muslims.
So ONCE the Moors were expelled from Spain RACE based slavery became predominant WITHIN Morrocco AGAINST Islam, so even those ORIGINAL black MUSLIM MOORS were enslaved. PRIOR to that, ONLY pagans could be enslaved and THIS is why MANY converted to Islam in North West Africa in the first place, INCLUDING the Berbers.
As far as West African Muslim slavery. MOST West African enslavement came toward the end and AFTER the Moorish occupation of Europe when Portuese and Spanish armies OCCUPIED Spain and used Moriscos (converted Moors) to attack Mali and Songhai. THIS shows that Morrocco was already becoming a VASSAL state of FOREIGN rulers including Spanish, Portuguese, Turks and others. So in all reality, it was the END of the Moors in Spain that bought about the subgution of black WEST Africans by Muslims.
Doug, no disrespect,but many of your facts are wrong about the opression of the Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq],so I suggest you do a little reserch on your own from books instead of internet sources. The Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] were mostly rebelling against the Sahelian Western African goverments of Mali and not the goverments of Algeria,Morocco or even Tunisia.
You are right about the Tuaregs being driven from Northern Africa by bedouin Arab tribes such as the Bani Hilal during the 1200's. During this period most Tuaregs[Kel Tamelsheq] were not Muslims but actually still followed traditional Kel Tamelsheq spirituality. Most Kel Tamelsheq today still have very unorthodox view of Islam that have elements of pre-Islamic traditions.
Mulay Ishmali was actually son of a Western African concubine and a Moroccan father.
Your article rightfully noted that Haratin populations in southern Morocco are an indigenous ''black'' group within Moroccan society distinct from the Gnawa.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
To kawashkar:
Why are you atributing the apperance of these Hausa people to Arab influence? The Hausa people have no mixture with Arabs or any other foreign groups. Arabs never ventured into Western Africa nor took up permanent residence in any region of Western Africa.
You also made a comment about the ''Moors'' founding Timbuktu which is actually inaccurate. The Universities of Timbuktu were founded by indigenous Western African Muslims!!!! Some of the students might have been non-Western Africans but the founders were indigenous Western African Muslims!!!!!!
Also the pictures you posted of Moorish rulers? What time period do these pictures date to? Do they date to the same period as these rulers existed or did they appear at a latter time period during the 1600's-1800's? You might not know that Islam forbids any painting of living images of plants,human beings,or animals.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
There was only one Moorish invasion of the western Sahel, Morocco vs Songhai. This was long after Muslims ruled alAndalus. In fact the Moroccan invading force was under command of a renegade Spaniard turned Moor, one Djudar "Pasha." The Songhai were Muslims and had been so for centuries before the war.
The historical innacuracy you posit of a two pronged Arab attack on alAndalus and the Sahel is no more than your personal fantasy unsupported by any documents left by Arabic writers whether of the Sahel, the Maghreb, the Mashreq, or the Mizrahh.
Its level of the ludicrous is only exceeded by the stretch of imagination it takes to see Arab faces in women of West Africa. While the level of intentional misrepresentation is expressed in the European mesticized North Africans as the only phenotypically true "Berbers." We know the coastals have Euro mommies. In the old days these Euro mommies were bought in the slave marts. Today they are picked up mostly on the college campus.
There's no one way to look "Berber." Genetically North Africans and Saharans have overwhemingly African NRY DNA while their mtDNA is predominantly Eurasian it is also ~30% African. The cline is for dark skin is from south to north, the opposite of the cline for northwest Mediterranean features which quite naturally is heavy at the coast among Kabylies who, by the way, also have a smattering of darks among them.
Also, the fact is that Sahelian Africans of the Tekrur were Muslim before the Sanhadja converted to al Islam. The forerunner of alMuribitun expressed his desire to go be among the blacks who were already Muslim because he was disgusted with his own people who were not Muslim.
Thus the core initiates of the Ribat were Takruri not Imazighen and by no means were they Arab. In fact the Honein were staunchly on the side of the Soninke of Wagadu as were the Zenata. The Honein and Zenata were Muslims.
Muslim merchants in the "Sudan," no Muslim military invasion at all in the way you suggest at the time alAndalus was subdued. The Ghana, or Kaya Magha, could field a 200,000 man army with 40,000 of them being cavalry. The Arabs of the 8th century didn't stand a chance and they knew it.
quote:Earlier alTakruri wrote: Actually the difference between Moor and Negro was that Negro was used exclusively for enslaved inner Africans and they were not Muslim. They were also known as Ladinos upon aculturization to Iberian languages and customs
All Muslim inner Africans were known as Moors, a designation for any and all African Muslims in distinction to Saracens, Syrian and "Arab" Muslims. At times either term was applied to the wrong group by inattentive writers.
Luso-Hispanic Moros was simply a continuation of the older Latin Maurus (from the Greek Mauros), the word used by the ancients for the generaly dark skinned inhabitants of Morocco and western Algeria.
After the Reconquista few inner African Muslims remained in Iberia. Even blue eyed blond Muslims relocated. Only converted Moriscos remained.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: That's very true. Actually, I am very interested in the parallels between the Muslim invasion of Europe (Portugal, Spain, Sicily) and the invasion of Subsaharan West Africa.
The Moors (Muslims) invaded simultaneously both regions and with similar effects. In Europe they build centers of learning in Toledo, Cordoba, they also founded the school of Medicine of Salerno. The presence of the Moors started the "renacense" of Western Civilization.
South of the Sahara, the Moors started the marvelous university and libraries of Timbuktu, and were an important impulse on the Middle Ages African Kingdoms. The spread of literacy to the southern regions was also theirs.
That's the possitive side of their presence. The negative it was slavery and the subjugation of local peoples. And its effect can still be seen in the modern world.
Now, it is true that Spain broke free from Muslims, but that happened because fellow Europeans, particularly French and the Roman Church, supported the efforts of the Christian knights. The people South of the Sahara was not as lucky, and could not get rid of the invasors.
Now, it is true that many Muslims were deported from Spain after the reconquest, but many also remained there, given they renounced to Mohommed. Berber looking peoples are common in Spain, particularly in Andalucia. This is a picture that show that.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Picking a "Black" in the crowds of Moors is a nice hobby. Interesting indeed. Using the same method some have proven Chinese are really Nubians. Afrocentrism is a fascinating exercise of logic twisting.
Afrocentric "picture picking" is an excelent exercise to change history and create false pasts. At least you don't want to know the truth, you should avoid that religion.
KAWASHKAR
True, picking pictures is a FALSE pseudoscientific activity. However, how can you post a few pictures from Alfonso's book and try to claim that ALL Moors look like this? That is ALSO a ludicrous statement. Likewise, if there were so many BLACK African merceneries and soldiers during these times, as YOU YOURSELF have stated, sometimes WHOLE armies, why arent they more PROMINENT in these images. Bottom line these images are NOT a accurate reflection of ALL people who were in Moorish Spain for 700 years of Islamic rule.
HOWEVER, if you look at artwork from the ORIENTALISTS during the 19th century you WILL find a LARGE body of work that is MOST accurate in depicting the people of North Africa at the time. Orientalist painters were like PHOTOGRAPHERS during this time period and made some VERY important historical portraits of North Africans.
Also note these images from Delacroix which show "white" Arab and Berber North Africans quite LIBERALLY:
I strongly suggest that those interested to a good portrait of Morrocco in the 19th century get the book "Morrocco" by A.S. Forrest. You can download a FREE copy from the project Gutenburg website. It is basically a travelogue and has many good paintings of Morroccans from the period.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ... NOBODY said that ALL Muslims in Spain were BLACK. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. HOWEVER, we ARE saying that the WORD Moor is HISTORICALLY a reference to BLACK Muslims.
I have not denied there were "Blacks" in Spain during the middle ages. I am just pointing out that the Moors of SPAIN was the Muslim population. By demography, almost 90% of the Moor population of Spain was Native spaniard. In the population of "foreign" Moors, there was people of all nationalities comming as far away as Persia. The population of "Blacks" exist, but most "Africans" where from the coastal zones of the Maghred.
quote: As far as Africans being only SLAVES in Islamic Africa, then what about the Tuareg? What about the SELF PROCLAIMED Moors in Senegal, Mali and Niger?
Nobody is saying the ONLY slaves were the Black peoples. As far as I know, the Maghreb was an ancient source of pirates that captured European slaves, and traded people as far away like slavs (from where the word slave comes in the first place). The Maghred was attacked by the ways lots of time in the history because of its behavoir.
quote: MOST people no longer even CALL the Berbers MOORS in any ethnological sense, most are called plain Berber or Arab. MOST times when you see the word MOOR in reference to AFRICAN ethnic groups, you see it in terms of DARK skinned Muslims from the areas I identified.
I agree with you. That's the common use in the English language, but that is not the meaning of the word during the Middle Ages, particularly in Southern Europe.
Let me comment your picture form the point of view of the Spanish culture:
These people won't be considered Moors but Blacks.
However, these fellows will be considered Moors
As the matter of fact, the important difference (for Spaniards) is not the color of skin but the facial features. If they are "arab-looking" the person is considered Moor.
quote: And these are just ONE GROUP of the STILL EXISTING BLACK MOORS in Africa. I didnt even go into the ones in Senegal or the Tuareg clans or the many OTHER remaining Moorish clans. YOU on the other hand want to EXCLUSIVELY focus on the WHITE, mixed Spanish, European and Arabs in the North of Morrocco, Libya and Algeria EXCLUSIVELY as Moors, both NOW AND in the past. However, at the SAME time you FORGET to mention how ARABS have come to DOMINATE NOrth Africa, and I mean ARABS from Arabia, not just ARABIZED Berbers either and you FORGET to mention that among even the WHITE Berbers Arabs seek complete hegemony. ON TOP of that, while talking about the SLAVERY amongst the black Africans, you ALSO forget to talk about how ARABS and ARABIZED groups PUSH Black Africans OUT of the countries that they were IN ORIGINALLY, INCLUDING those who ARE MUSLIM.
That's true, but you forget there was a prehistorical immigration of Middle Easterners that settled in the Maghred comming from the East. Black populations of the region are older, but "moor-looking" people where numerous in the region even before history stars. You also forget that Carthago it was a Phoenician empire.
quote: So in all reality you are spewing a BUNCH OF NONSENSE. Arabs have come in WAVES to North Africa in the period SINCE the Moorish occupation and CONTINUE to go there and maintain ARAB hegemony. But while you GLORIFY what "Arabs" and "White" Berbers do to BLACK Africans, you FAIL to acknowledge that the BLACKS were THERE UNTIL they were WIPED OUT, either as SLAVES or PUSHED OUT as a result of wars BETWEEN Muslims, which in MANY cases was JUST about Arabs gaining DOMINANCE over LOCAL arabized Muslim peoples, INCLUDING black African Muslims.
Don't you see that Arabs acted against Black Africans in the same way they did in ocupied Europe?
quote: Also, you DENY that arabs forced CONVERSION to ISLAM as part of their spread across North Africa, meaning MANY black and white North Africans became Muslim and meaning that MANY black Africans were present in Islam in North AFrica and NOT as slaves or Mercenaries amongst the Moors.
I know that. They did the same in all the territories the Muslims conquered, from Europe to India. They used the local people. Foreigners where usually minorities between the locals.
quote: What is HAPPENING is that WHITE Muslim Arabs are PUSHING these BLACK Muslims OUT of their homelands and ORIGINAL areas and PUSHING a WHITE ARAB ethnic identity.
That's only partially correct. "White" people existed in North Africa since prehistorical times, and Black peoples exist there since older times. They mixed together and there are populations of all the shades in the region.
quote: So here we SEE DIRECTLY how the BLACK Muslim groups are marginalized by ARAB CONTROLLED WHITE Muslim countries and NO ONE denies that the Tuareg are the INDIGENOUS people of the Sahara and even THEY are being moved south. So stop trying to deny that White Muslims have PUSHED black muslims OUT of countries and areas that they have BEEN IN since BEFORE becoming Muslim.
Well, I not precisely a defender of the actions of Muslims. I don't deny that.
quote: Another example of how the Morroccans ENSLAVED and OPPRESSED even the BLACK Muslims IN Morocco (not GNAWAS but the ORIGINAL BLACK MOORISH Muslims):
I know that. I know how the Moors feel about Black peoples. That's what I was saying all along. Is the same case as in Sudan, for example.
quote: MOST West African enslavement came toward the end and AFTER the Moorish occupation of Europe when Portuese and Spanish armies OCCUPIED Spain and used Moriscos (converted Moors) to attack Mali and Songhai. THIS shows that Morrocco was already becoming a VASSAL state of FOREIGN rulers including Spanish, Portuguese, Turks and others. So in all reality, it was the END of the Moors in Spain that bought about the subgution of black WEST Africans by Muslims.
That's interesting.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: [QB] To kawashkar:
Why are you atributing the apperance of these Hausa people to Arab influence? The Hausa people have no mixture with Arabs or any other foreign groups. Arabs never ventured into Western Africa nor took up permanent residence in any region of Western Africa.
In many places of Subsaharan Africa there are arab-descendents. That's very clear in East Africa, but also exist in a small degree in West Africa as well. In the same way Black peoples went up North, Arab-looking people went down south. As a result, there are some "Black" individuals in West Africa that could be taken as Mulattoes in Brazil.
quote: You also made a comment about the ''Moors'' founding Timbuktu which is actually inaccurate. The Universities of Timbuktu were founded by indigenous Western African Muslims!!!! Some of the students might have been non-Western Africans but the founders were indigenous Western African Muslims!!!!!!
Moors also means "Islamized". Muslims founded Timbuktu, and the books they wrote were in Arabic. No matter they were "Blacks".
quote: Also the pictures you posted of Moorish rulers? What time period do these pictures date to? Do they date to the same period as these rulers existed or did they appear at a latter time period during the 1600's-1800's? You might not know that Islam forbids any painting of living images of plants,human beings,or animals.
Good question. Those are pictures of the rulers of classical Al-Andalus, except the last one which was the last Moor of Spain. Now, Muslims did not paint theirs mosques, but they have in close contact with the Christian kindgdom to the point they shared most of the customs with them. However, it is not easy to find pictures of the rulers of Al-Andalus, there exist some of them available. Moors books, for example, were usually illustrated. Remember those people where in close contact with all the European rules and the Bizantine Empire, and followed many "European" custums like the painting of the rulers.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Kawaskar:
Quite silly thinking re so-called "racial phenotypes" as you display with you photo of Hausa women. Would you say then that East Asians are descendants of the San people of the Kalahari or vice versa(as some demented anthropologists once thought). Or given that the hair type of Europeans is intermediate--in terms of straightness--between that of Africans and east Asians would you say that the European peoples are a hypbridized mixture of Africans and East Asians? Curiously enough the respected evolutionary anthropologist Carvalli-Sforza wrote that Europeans are 60% Asian and 40% African recent genetic ancestry.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I have not denied there were "Blacks" in Spain during the middle ages.
Denial is process of trying to evade or obscure or deflect from the truth.
So I would say that you *are* in denial of this fact.
quote:I am just pointing out that the Moors of SPAIN was the Muslim population.
This is and example of deflecting. Did anyone say that Moors were not Muslim? No. So this does not address any point in contention.
quote:By demography, almost 90% of the Moor population of Spain was Native spaniard.
Don't make stuff up. Present proof. Thanks.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To Kawaskar:
Quite silly thinking re so-called "racial phenotypes" as you display with you photo of Hausa women.
What's silly about that? Do you still believe in the "purity" of races. The fact is wherever peoples have been in contact they mix. Arabs and Berbers were south of the Sahara, too.
quote: Would you say then that East Asians are descendants of the San people of the Kalahari or vice versa(as some demented anthropologists once thought).
Not only East Asians but all mankind descend from a group that is very close to the San people. Curiously enough, if you look Sans with care, you will notice they carry some characteristics of Bantu, Asian and even European in them.
quote: Or given that the hair type of Europeans is intermediate--in terms of straightness--between that of Africans and east Asians would you say that the European peoples are a hypbridized mixture of Africans and East Asians?
Although "hybridized" is not exactly the word. Yes, all mankind belong to the same "race". There is a global cline and you can go from Nigeria, Sweeden and Beijin and back to Nigeria and you'll never see a division between races. You will see that people change but that there is a continuity as well.
quote: Curiously enough the respected evolutionary anthropologist Carvalli-Sforza wrote that Europeans are 60% Asian and 40% African recent genetic ancestry.
Not only Europe. All continents carry admixture of several populations. That's a fact.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Curiously enough the respected evolutionary anthropologist Carvalli-Sforza wrote that Europeans are 60% Asian and 40% African recent genetic ancestry.
True, Europeans show as a genetic mixture 2/3 asian and 1/3 african.
This is one of the most important and least understood revelations of population genetics.
The reason for this is also little understood.
All non African descend from a small group of East Africans 50 thousand + years ago.
Some of these people migrated far from Africa and have had relatively little intermixture with African ever since - Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, etc..
However Europeans migrated from Central Asia back into Europe where they mixed repeatedly with African and SouthWest Asian populations since the Neolithic and subsequently.
And because Europe is not from whence the major peopling of the Earth originated.....but rather one of the *last* regions populated, it is possible to conceive of them as a combination of inputs from diverse earlier populations [ie - Africa and Asia].
Thus Sforza found that Europeans have African originated alleles that East Asians and others don't have.
When measured in terms of genetic distance Europeans are closer to Africans than Chinese or Australians are because Europeans have received genetic admixtures from Africans.
The Moors are but one example of this.
Europeans are not a race.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:...Don't make stuff up. Present proof. Thanks. [/QB]
Well, I will show what means "MORO" in Spanish. This is from RAE, the oficial dictionary of the Spanish language. As you can see. Moro DOES NOT MEAN subsaharan African in Spanish.
moro, ra. (Del lat. Maurus). 1. adj. Natural del África septentrional frontera a España. U. t. c. s.
(Natural of North Africa)
2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte de África.
(From North Africa)
3. adj. Que profesa la religión islámica. U. t. c. s.
(Muslim)
4. adj. Se dice del musulmán que habitó en España desde el siglo VIII hasta el XV. U. t. c. s.
(MUSLIM LIVING IN SPAIN)
5. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a la España musulmana de aquel tiempo.
(From MUSLIM SPAIN)
6. adj. Se dice del musulmán de Mindanao y de otras islas de Malasia. U. m. c. s.
(Muslim of MALASYA)
7. adj. Dicho de un caballo o de una yegua: De pelo negro con una estrella o mancha blanca en la frente y calzado de una o dos extremidades.
(Black horse with a white star on the forefront)
8. adj. coloq. Dicho del vino: Que no está aguado, en contraposición al bautizado o aguado.
(Pure wine)
9. adj. coloq. Dicho de una persona, especialmente un niño: Que no ha sido bautizado.
(Person that has not received the bautism)
10. adj. Cuba. Dicho de una persona mulata: De tez oscura, cabello negro lacio y facciones finas.
(ONLY EN CUBA: Mulatto of black skin but straight hair and european features)
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... When measured in terms of genetic distance Europeans are closer to Africans than Chinese or Australians are because Europeans have received genetic admixtures from Africans. ...
Yes, particularly from Ethiopia. Some genetic admixture existed but above all, it is important to note the origin is the same. Some Ethiopians went West and gave origin to the Bantu populations. Other went North East and gave origin to Arab and European populations. Now, Europeans could be defined like a decolored variety of East Africans.
Whites and Blacks are recent brothers... what a surprise, isn't it?
For example, follow the populations of curlies in Europe and the Middle East, and it is obvious they have a recent common origin.
Now, I am not certain with Australians, because antrophologist had a hard time to distinguish Europeans from Australian skulls.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I will show what means "MORO" in Spanish.
Moor:
From Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black". Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;"
*later* (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. etymonline.com
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Kawashikar,
Lets cut through all the crap and just get to the core facts:
1) Moors were Arabized Africans and Arabs who entered Spain in 711 AD.
2) The Moorish civilization of Al Andalus over time included MANY groups from NorthWest Africa including VERY BLACK Africans as well as Persians, Arabs, "white" Berbers and others.
3) Moor was a term that became SYNONYMOUS with blacks in MANY parts of Europe during this period, but that does NOT mean that ALL Moors were black by ANY stretch of the imagination.
4) Many Morroccans have been mixed with "white" Berber, Arab and native Magrebian populations, with DARK skinned populations being present in Morocco since even BEFORE the founding of the country.
5) Many of those who are MODERN descendants of the Moors live in Morocco, the Western Sahara, Senegal, Niger and Mauritania and MANY of these people are indeed BLACK and DONT LOOK ARAB.
And as far as the Hausa picture posted earlier, they are LIGHTER than the Moor in this image.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB]
quote:I will show what means "MORO" in Spanish.
Moor:
[i]From Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black". .
That's NOT what MORO means in Spanish. GET THAT. It seems you got a problem reading, don't you? Moro means Muslim. PERIOD.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawashikar,
Lets cut through all the crap and just get to the core facts:
1) Moors were Arabized Africans and Arabs who entered Spain in 711 AD.
The "Moros" were originally the North African Berbers troops that conquered Spain for Islam. During the Middle Ages ANY Muslim was called a Moor. Most Muslims were local Spaniards.
Berbers are Africans. Not all Africans are Black. Don't you know that?
By the way, Moors were never in control of Spain but Muslims. And the upper classes of Al-Andalus were Middle Eastern peoples. They spoke Arab. And (curiously enough) look down on North Africans.
quote: 2) The Moorish civilization of Al Andalus over time included MANY groups from NorthWest Africa including VERY BLACK Africans as well as Persians, Arabs, "white" Berbers and others.
Moorish Civilization of Al Andalus was mainly ARABIC. The most brilliant intelectuals came from places like Persia, Syria and Egypt. The rulers were Arabs. The troops were international, but most of them were European mercenaries. There was not a special place form Black Africans in Al-Andalus, like you pretend.
quote: 3) Moor was a term that became SYNONYMOUS with blacks in MANY parts of Europe during this period, but that does NOT mean that ALL Moors were black by ANY stretch of the imagination.
That was a distorsion invented in Northern Europe.
quote: 4) Many Morroccans have been mixed with "white" Berber, Arab and native Magrebian populations, with DARK skinned populations being present in Morocco since even BEFORE the founding of the country.
And what? People knows North Africans have some admixture. They are not considered Blacks in Spain if you ask that. They are considered Moors. A Moor (in Spain) is the intermediate phenotype between a Southern European and a Black African.
quote: 5) Many of those who are MODERN descendants of the Moors live in Morocco, the Western Sahara, Senegal, Niger and Mauritania and MANY of these people are indeed BLACK and DONT LOOK ARAB.
Blacks are not considered Moors in Spain. Definitions are different in different places.
quote: And as far as the Hausa picture posted earlier, they are LIGHTER than the Moor in this image.
The Hausa, like many people of just below the Sahara had admixture from you know who. Many Black Africans have Arab or European face features, and some of them do have admixture. That's why some of them look like Black Americans (who are 25% European descendent)
These are Berber-looking people from Mali:
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB]
quote:I will show what means "MORO" in Spanish.
Moor:
[i]From Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black". .
That's NOT what MORO means in Spanish. GET THAT. It seems you got a problem reading, don't you? Moro means Muslim. PERIOD.
KAWASHKAR
Kawash, get a grip. We have SHOWN you from EUROPEAN sources that the WORD Moor in has had a HISTORY of being identified with BLACK Africans, including THOSE who invaded and occupied Spain in the Medeival period. MOROS is indeed Spanish and the Spanish definition is NOT exactly that of the English and other Europeans. FINE.
However, this is a description of the Moros of the Phillipines:
quote: The Spaniards had learned this the hard way. It was, in fact, the early Spaniards who gave them the name Moro, for "Moor" because of their intense Islamic faith. But culturally the Moros were Malays. Mixed with the blood of negro slaves, Filipino tribal hillmen, Chinese, and Dyak pirates the result was a unique and ferociously independent people.
Even HERE we see not JUST Moros as a sign of Islam, but also Moros SPECIFICALLY as related to those with AFRICAN blood. Nowhere else in Asia are Muslims called Moros exept in the Philippines among those who are MIXED with Africans and are Muslims. So indeed your definition of Moros as being PURELY a term of identification for Muslim and not related to BLACK Africans once again turns out to be wrong.
And again here:
quote: Called Moros by the Spanish because they reminded Europeans of Muslim, Moroccan Moors, the Moro tribes occupied—and still occupy—Mindanao, the second largest Philippine island, which is about the size of Indiana. An irregularly shaped, bay-indented splotch of land, Mindanao is a tropical mix of jungle, small mountains and valleys, with Lake Lanao located in the north central area.
Once again the Moros are identified with Moors because of their SIMILARITY to Moroccan African Muslims, even though they dont say WHAT the similarity is either features, skin color or both. Either way, once again your point about Moros being a GENERAL Spanish term for Muslim turns out to be FALSE, ESPECIALLY, as I mentioned before, NO OTHER Muslims are called Moros EXCEPT for those that they feel have AFRICAN blood or LOOK African in some way.
But this only singles out that the Spanish term is more AMBIGUOUS than the European version of the same word which is QUITE clear:
So yes, Moros in Spanish does generally refer to ALL Muslims in Andalus (arab, African and Spanish) it STILL is used as a reference to AFRICAN Muslims and Muslims with African heritage as opposed to just plain MUSLIM or Muslim Arab. The word for Muslim in general in Spanish is Musulmanes.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawashikar,
Lets cut through all the crap and just get to the core facts:
1) Moors were Arabized Africans and Arabs who entered Spain in 711 AD.
The "Moros" were originally the North African Berbers troops that conquered Spain for Islam. During the Middle Ages ANY Muslim was called a Moor. Most Muslims were local Spaniards.
Berbers are Africans. Not all Africans are Black. Don't you know that?
Stop throwing around strawman arguments. I never said all Africans are black. I said that the Moors were Arabized Africans and last time I checked Berbers are INDEED Arabized Africans. Why dont you read what I said and stop making up stuff. Arabization also includes conversion to Islam, in case you did not understand. And did yo NOT know an Arabized Black African Muslim is still BLACK? Muslim is a religious term, Arabized is a cultural term and BLACK is a skin color. All three CAN coexist in ONE person.
By the way, Moors were never in control of Spain but Muslims. And the upper classes of Al-Andalus were Middle Eastern peoples. They spoke Arab. And (curiously enough) look down on North Africans.
WRONG. The Almoravides were NOT under the control of ANY Arab.
quote: 2) The Moorish civilization of Al Andalus over time included MANY groups from NorthWest Africa including VERY BLACK Africans as well as Persians, Arabs, "white" Berbers and others.
Moorish Civilization of Al Andalus was mainly ARABIC. The most brilliant intelectuals came from places like Persia, Syria and Egypt. The rulers were Arabs. The troops were international, but most of them were European mercenaries. There was not a special place form Black Africans in Al-Andalus, like you pretend.
Another strawman. Arabic is a language. Arabic was spoken by a WIDE range of people in the time of Al Andalus, including BLACK Africans, WHITE Europeans and Jews. The African Moors opened schools and Universities in Spain and had bookstores that allowed ALL to STUDY works produced in the Islamic world. THEREFORE, the fact that the language of the country was ARABIC does not make the PEOPLE Arab. You are contradicting yourself because most Andalusians were SPANISH, even IF they spoke Arabic. Likewise, MOORISH scholars are mentioned IN THEIR OWN RIGHT by MANY historians from the period and are NOT identified as Arab, Persian or anyone else but North African.
quote:
3) Moor was a term that became SYNONYMOUS with blacks in MANY parts of Europe during this period, but that does NOT mean that ALL Moors were black by ANY stretch of the imagination.
That was a distorsion invented in Northern Europe.
No that is the DEFINITION of an ENGLISH WORD and the English have EVERY right to define a word as they see fit. Whether you LIKE it or not, Europeans saw the Moors as largely BLACK Africans. I already said that all Moors in Spain were not BlACK so why do we keep covering the same territory on this. You are ONLY throwing around STRAWMEN.
quote:
4) Many Morroccans have been mixed with "white" Berber, Arab and native Magrebian populations, with DARK skinned populations being present in Morocco since even BEFORE the founding of the country.
And what? People knows North Africans have some admixture. They are not considered Blacks in Spain if you ask that. They are considered Moors. A Moor (in Spain) is the intermediate phenotype between a Southern European and a Black African. What MODERN Spanish consider as black is IRRELEVANT. Moors were Africans and MANY were BLACK Africans during the Moorish period in Spain. Whatever words the Spanish want to call them in this regard is irrelevant. You are again using STRAWMEN.
quote: 5) Many of those who are MODERN descendants of the Moors live in Morocco, the Western Sahara, Senegal, Niger and Mauritania and MANY of these people are indeed BLACK and DONT LOOK ARAB.
Blacks are not considered Moors in Spain. Definitions are different in different places.
More strawmen. We are not talking about ANY OLD BLACK AFRICAN as in the sense the other Europeans use the term. Other European countries use the term Moor to refer to ANY black African in Europe in the Medeival period. The Moros definition YOU keep talking about is more specific to the MUSLIM Africans who invaded Spain from Morocco. There were MANY blacks among the Moors that ruled Spain, but as I said ALL Moors were NOT black.
quote: And as far as the Hausa picture posted earlier, they are LIGHTER than the Moor in this image.
The Hausa, like many people of just below the Sahara had admixture from you know who. Many Black Africans have Arab or European face features, and some of them do have admixture. That's why some of them look like Black Americans (who are 25% European descendent)
These are Berber-looking people from Mali:
KAWASHKAR
[b] Still doesnt change the fact that the PORTRAIT of the Moor I posted is DARKER than those Hausa women. In case you dont know, Senegalese are some of the DARKEST people in West Africa and were indeed part of the Moorish population at various points in history. Also, in case you didnt know, there were ALWAYS blacks in the Sahara. It is only with the arab expansion across Africa in 700 and the subsequent WAVES of Arab expansion that the ORIGINAL black populations of North AFrican Sahara have been moved south. Therefore, these Mali "Berbers" are do NOT necessarily represent a FOREIGN phenotype or mixture. You would HAVE to do a DNA sample to prove that.
Now, as far as the arab RACISM in modern Mauretania, this is only from AFTER the Moors were expelled from Spain. These Hassaniya Arab Moors were NOT the people who invaded Spain, since they did NOT get to Mauretania, where MANY Moors already were, until the 1700s. Mauretania was ALREADY Muslim at that time and ruled by the Sannhaja Berbers. Therefore, DONT confuse modern Hassaniya derived rulers from Mauretania as being the ancient Moors of the Almoravids. They are NOT the same people.
quote: Mauritania
Country, northwestern Africa. It is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean. Area: 398,000 sq mi (1,030,700 sq km). Population (2005 est.): 3,069,000. Capital: Nouakchott. The Moors (of mixed Arab-Berber and Sudanic descent) constitute the great majority of the population. Languages: Arabic (official), Fulani, Soninke, Wolof (all national). Religion: Islam (official; predominantly Sunni). Currency: ouguiya. Most of Mauritania is made up of low-lying desert that forms the extreme western part of the Sahara. Only a tiny fraction of its land is arable, but almost two-fifths is suitable for grazing, and the herding of goats, sheep, and camels occupies a significant portion of the largely nomadic population. Ocean fishing and iron ore production are major sources of revenue. Mauritania is a republic with two legislative houses; its head of state and government is the president, assisted by the prime minister. Inhabited in ancient times by Sanhaja Berbers, in the 11th–12th century it was the centre of the Berber Almoravid dynasty, which imposed Islam on many of the neighbouring peoples. Arab tribes arrived in the 15th century and formed several powerful confederations: Trarza and Brakna, which dominated the Sénégal River region; Kunta in the east; and Rigaibat in the north. The Portuguese arrived in the 15th century. France gained control of the coastal region in 1817, and in 1904 a formal French protectorate was extended over the territory. In 1920 it was added to French West Africa as a territory. In 1960 Mauritania achieved independence and left the French Community. The country's first president, Moktar Ould Daddah, was ousted in a coup in 1978, and a military government was established. In 1991 a new constitution was adopted, and a civilian government was installed in 1992. The country has faced continued economic hardship and political unrest.
The RESULT of this arab invasion is the BASIS of the racism that you see today in Mauretania, even though the Africans there were ALREADY Muslims. Also, note that these original BLACK inhabitants of Mauretania, are STILL called Moors in many quarters. This oppression of NATIVE MOORISH blacks in Mauretania has led to a crisis in Mauretania and Senegal.
quote: Twenty years ago, it is estimated that as many as 500,000 Mauritanians lived in Senegal, most of them tradesmen. But in April, 1989, a minor border dispute over grazing rights along the Senegal river erupted into an international conflict between the two countries and pushed them to the brink of war. Both countries agreed to the repatriation of Mauritanian and Senegalese nationals from either side in order to quell tension, but Mauritania—which has long been characterized by ingrained racial discrimination and a caste system—exploited the agreement as an opportunity to purge its country not only of Senegalese nationals, but of black Mauritanians as well. As this racial tension came to a head, the capitals of Dakar and Nouakchott erupted into violence with pogroms and lynchings carried out against blacks in Mauritania and Moors in Senegal. The clashes left between 250 and 400 dead in both countries and caused the mass exodus of thousands, according to reports by the Associated Press. In Nouakchott, scores of black civil servants and soldiers were brutally executed, and in Dakar, Mauritanian-owned shops were set on fire and Moors were attacked.
Although the conflict was resolved before it was able to transform into an actual war, tension continued to characterize state relations for years after; expulsions of black Mauritanians continued into the early 1990s, and the fate of some 20,000 black Mauritanian refugees still living in camps within the northern border of Senegal has yet to be determined.
Bottom line, the ARABS are STILL coming into Africa, intermarrying with local African muslims and trying to make an ARAB identity for Muslims. This is why sometimes the lighter skinned Arab rulers in Mauretania are identified as MOORS, even though they WERE NOT THERE when the Almoravids ruled Spain.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
KAWASHKAR said:
quote:Moors also means "Islamized". Muslims founded Timbuktu, and the books they wrote were in Arabic. No matter they were "Blacks".
Not entirely true. They also found many books in Timbuktu that are in indigenous African languages like Songhai,Mande and Tamelsheq. Most Western Africans wrote in their own language but used the Arabic script to develop their own alphabet.
KAWASHKAR said:
quote:In many places of Subsaharan Africa there are arab-descendents. That's very clear in East Africa, but also exist in a small degree in West Africa as well. In the same way Black peoples went up North, Arab-looking people went down south. As a result, there are some "Black" individuals in West Africa that could be taken as Mulattoes in Brazil
1. Define ''Arab'' looking
2. Prove that Arabs went into Nigeria or any other region of Western Africa.
3. You insist on not using African definitions of ''black'' but use Brazilian racial categories that are rather ambigious. Even if we use Brazilian categories those women would be considered prieta. By America's definition the Berbers I posted could be considered ''black'' in America.
Just attributing ''Arab'' looking to Hausa people show you are both ignorant of African diversity and the Arabian peninsula. Plus you have not cited one historical study nor genetic study that Hausa carry any lineages from Western Asian Arabs. I seriously doubt if some foreigners settled with the Hausa it would effect their phenotype.
Eastern Africans have intermarried with ''Arabs'' but it has not really effected their phenotype much.
KAWASHKAR said:
quote:Good question. Those are pictures of the rulers of classical Al-Andalus, except the last one which was the last Moor of Spain. Now, Muslims did not paint theirs mosques, but they have in close contact with the Christian kindgdom to the point they shared most of the customs with them. However, it is not easy to find pictures of the rulers of Al-Andalus, there exist some of them available. Moors books, for example, were usually illustrated. Remember those people where in close contact with all the European rules and the Bizantine Empire, and followed many "European" custums like the painting of the rulers.
You have still not answered my question from when to these paintings exist and if they are contemporary with the time period of the rulers. I asked you the question but you provide me with no answers.
KAWASHKAR said:
quote:The Hausa, like many people of just below the Sahara had admixture from you know who. Many Black Africans have Arab or European face features, and some of them do have admixture. That's why some of them look like Black Americans (who are 25% European descendent)
What are ''European or Arab'' facial features? How do you know the Hausa have mixture with foreigners? Many people look like ''white'' Europeans but often have non-white mixture in them. Having some mixture does not really alter ones phenotype. Africans had the physical diversity before the arrival of foreigners into African soil. The following sounds like the ''Hamitic Hypothesis'' that has been discarded by most academics. Plus you have no evidence that Arabs or any other foreigners settled amongst the Hausa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: In many places of Subsaharan Africa there are arab-descendents. That's very clear in East Africa, but also exist in a small degree in West Africa as well. In the same way Black peoples went up North, Arab-looking people went down south. As a result, there are some "Black" individuals in West Africa that could be taken as Mulattoes in Brazil.
LOL Ausar (a North African) just told you a FACT-- that Arabs never ventured that far south, especially to Hausaland Nigeria, yet you contradict him and again with no evidence.
Also, there is very little Arab lineages in East Africa either!
As you can see above the only significant Asiatic lineage in East Africa is J in northern Ethiopia. And although J is usually the haplotype associated with Arabs, the actual type found in Ethiopia dates back to Neolithic times millenia before there were any "Arabs".
quote:Moors also means "Islamized". Muslims founded Timbuktu, and the books they wrote were in Arabic. No matter they were "Blacks".
Actually. Timbuktu was founded by black African Muslims from the Sahara, but it was only a mere camel station. Non-Muslims blacks like the Mande were the ones who transformed it into a thriving city.
quote:Good question. Those are pictures of the rulers of classical Al-Andalus, except the last one which was the last Moor of Spain. Now, Muslims did not paint theirs mosques, but they have in close contact with the Christian kindgdom to the point they shared most of the customs with them. However, it is not easy to find pictures of the rulers of Al-Andalus, there exist some of them available. Moors books, for example, were usually illustrated. Remember those people where in close contact with all the European rules and the Bizantine Empire, and followed many "European" custums like the painting of the rulers.
And yet you ignore MY pictures and finds:
quote:The term Maure derives from the Phoenician term Mahurin (Westerners). From Mahurin the ancient Greeks derive Mauro meaning black , and later Greeks derive Maurikios after them, the Latin derive Mauri meaning Black African. From the same root we derive: Maur , Maurus, Marra , Moro, Morisco , Mohr, Moritz Morelo , Moor, Moru, Maru, Morelo, Maureta, Mauretania, Mauritius, Maureen, Maroon, Morocco , Moore, Maurice , Meuric, Meurig, Morien, Morin, Moryan , Moreto, and such. At one time the whole of the western arm of Africa (what is now West Africa, from Libya to Nigeria and around the Atlantic coast), was called Mauretania . The word Mauretania was interchangeable with all the names of what is now Africa: 'Ethiopia', 'Libya', and the now defunct 'Negroland'
Claudio Ptolemy's map of Mauretania (Notice it includes all of West Africa)
Since the 11th century, the heraldic term Maure refers to the symbol of an African head, or more specifically any blackened image of an African, or a part of an African, or an item associated with or representing Africans.
In the 18th century English usage of the term Moor began to refer specifically to African Muslims, but especially to any person who speaks one of the Hassaniya dialects. This language, in its purest form, draws heavily from the original Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Bani Hassan tribe, which invaded northwest Africa during the 16th and 17th centuries. (Since then, Hassaniya became liturgical speech and lingua franca of all Saharans and Northwest Africans to this day).
Of course, as has been explained ad-naseum in this forum and most recently in this thread. The Islamicized Al-Moravids and Al-Mohads took power and were the main dynasties of the Magrheb after the Arabs. The invasion of Spain was led by Moors (black) Muslims.
Al Hambra, Granada's citadel in the Sierra Nevada, Andalucia - Spain
After the fall of the Umayyads in Damascas, the Africans in Spain, known as the Moro were cut off and came under threat from successive invasions. However, the Moro retained the white flag and it came to be associated with negro troops specifically, whereas the Saracen Arab invaders who followed them into Spain used the red flag of the Khawarij Republican followers of Caliph Uthman III. As pressure from the Reyes Católicos (the Christian Reconquistadors) increased over the centuries, African states in Spain mutated and fell and rose many times. The most stable and longest lived African state in Spain was Grenada, with the magnificent Nasridin dynasty citadel of Al Hambra as its capitol. Al Hambra surrendered to the Reyes Católicos at dawn on January 2, 1492. Spain and Portugal followed this action with the conquest of parts of Africa, the destruction of African communities in Europe and the invasion of the Americas. Lisbon's black population, that out-numbered Europeans in 1550, was devasted by the plagues of the times. The last free blacks in Spain were expelled on April 6, 1609.
The last African flag of Grenada consisted of heraldic "Argent, a pomegranate gules leafed vert" (ie., an all-white flag, with a centred red pomegranate flower with green petals). It is unclear what the symbolic significance of the pomegranate bloom was to blacks in Spain. What is notable, however, is that the Pomegranate gave its name to Granada, as well as to the Hand Grenade which came into use in the 15th century. Moreover, the bloom has the colors Green, Yellow, Red, which coincidentally are the Pan-African colors. Perhaps most cryptic of all is the ancient saying "There is nothing in the world like the pain of being blind in Granada," probably less a reference to the blindfolded Maure and more about the beauty of perhaps the most beautiful place in Europe. Al Hambra is still only second to the Vatican in tourist visitors.
A look at Europe after Muslim invasions:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's ancient Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms
Last but not least, is the legendary Christian Saint, St. Maurice of Egypt!
[i]In Roman times the Theban Legion was led by Maurice, the warrior saint, and Primicerius (commander) of Roman troops from Thebes in Egypt. The Theban Legion was sent to suppress a revolt of the Bagandae in Agaunum in Gaul (St-Maurice en Valais) in the 3rd century. That Maurice ordered his soldiers not to participate in pagan rites. They were punished by the Emperor Maximian Herculeus first by decimation and finally by the wholesale massacre of the Theban Legion. Maurice and his fellow officers were executed in A.D. 287. Some depictions of that St. Maurice rightly portray him as black and show red flags, sometimes with a black stripe.
'St.Erasm and St.Maurice' painted by Matthias Grunewald
In medieval Europe the Maure imagery represented the Sudanese command of the German armies of the Holy Roman Empire in the 12th century. These African officers defended Swedes during the Scandinavian rebellion against Germany. Several settlements in Europe - including St. Moritz - are named after these Africans. The white flag with the black profile became the flag of several separate Orders named for of St. Maurice, that sprung up all over Europe in the 12th century. However, the name Maurice was generic and refers to many different and unrelated black soldiers in medieval European history.
St. Maurice of Magdeburg, Germany
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: will show what means "MORO" in Spanish.
quote:rasol wrote: Moor:
From Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black". . -etymonline.com
quote:Kawashkarw rites: That's NOT what MORO means in Spanish.
GET THAT
lol. The word isn't Spanish in origin. It's derived from the Greeks.
quote:Moro means Muslim. PERIOD.
Moro comes from Moors, or Greek Mouros - meaning dark or black. The term precedes Islam and has nothing to do with Muslim.
Muslim is and Arabic word meaning to submit.
The Arabic word Muslim has nothing to do with the Greco-Latin word, Moor.
Thanks for making me laugh though.
Your desparation sure is funny. Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ... KAWASHKAR [/qb]
Kawash, get a grip. We have SHOWN you from EUROPEAN sources that the WORD Moor in has had a HISTORY of being identified with BLACK Africans, including THOSE who invaded and occupied Spain in the Medeival period. MOROS is indeed Spanish and the Spanish definition is NOT exactly that of the English and other Europeans. FINE. [/QUOTE]
That's my point. In Spanish the word Moro is used to describe, the Muslims and the Berbers. So when people go to Spanish sources (which are important to study Moors in Spain) they must realize the people described were Muslims; not necesarily Blacks. Moors is also used for the coastal peoples of North Africa, like Berbers and Arabs.
Now, I will tell you something I have not said before so I don't add confussion. Moor also means a person that is "impure" because it has some degree of Black African blood, like all North Africans are. So, Moors is an insult against North Africans accussed of being Blacks.
It was used like a hate word during the Middle Ages against all Muslims, which the Europeans accused of being Mulattoes. Racist propaganda of Christians addressed againts the Muslims emphatized the fact some of them have Black ancestry out of all proportions.
I hope do you get why the word Moors has a relation with Black African. It is because Northern Africans (all of them) have admixture with Black Africans.
However, in Iberia people don't call Moor a Subsaharan subject, but only to "White-looking" North Africans.
I know that because my mother language is Spanish and I grew up knowing Hispanic culture.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: 1. Define ''Arab'' looking
2. Prove that Arabs went into Nigeria or any other region of Western Africa.
3. You insist on not using African definitions of ''black'' but use Brazilian racial categories that are rather ambigious. Even if we use Brazilian categories those women would be considered prieta. By America's definition the Berbers I posted could be considered ''black'' in America.
Just attributing ''Arab'' looking to Hausa people show you are both ignorant of African diversity and the Arabian peninsula. Plus you have not cited one historical study nor genetic study that Hausa carry any lineages from Western Asian Arabs. I seriously doubt if some foreigners settled with the Hausa it would effect their phenotype.
Eastern Africans have intermarried with ''Arabs'' but it has not really effected their phenotype much.
LOL How many times do we run across this problem of peoples inaccurate concepts of phenotype.
quote:You have still not answered my question from when to these paintings exist and if they are contemporary with the time period of the rulers. I asked you the question but you provide me with no answers.
Because he has no answers, except incorrect ones.
quote:What are ''European or Arab'' facial features? How do you know the Hausa have mixture with foreigners? Many people look like ''white'' Europeans but often have non-white mixture in them. Having some mixture does not really alter ones phenotype. Africans had the physical diversity before the arrival of foreigners into African soil. The following sounds like the ''Hamitic Hypothesis'' that has been discarded by most academics. Plus you have no evidence that Arabs or any other foreigners settled amongst the Hausa.
LOL The guy has no clue about the phenotypic diversity of indigenous Africas and like Salsassin and AMR he is just a 'mixed-up' guy trying to 'mix' all the populations of the world! LMAO .
Again, look at the map of lineages below:
^^Notice Europe has more recent African lineages (E) than Africa has non-African lineages!
The guy is just talking out of his mouth without saying anything substantial.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
kawashkar said:
quote:That's true, but you forget there was a prehistorical immigration of Middle Easterners that settled in the Maghred comming from the East. Black populations of the region are older, but "moor-looking" people where numerous in the region even before history stars. You also forget that Carthago it was a Phoenician empire
What are ''Moor'' looking poeple? Where is your evidence of any foreign migration into North-western Africa during the pre-historic era? How can you determine your following claims? Do you even know enough about the pre-history of North Western Africa to comment?
kawashkar said:
quote:That's only partially correct. "White" people existed in North Africa since prehistorical times, and Black peoples exist there since older times. They mixed together and there are populations of all the shades in the region.
Where is your evidence that ''white'' populations existed in north-western African pre-history? You keep making erroneous claims but not validating them with any documentation.
kawashkar said:
quote:I agree with you. That's the common use in the English language, but that is not the meaning of the word during the Middle Ages, particularly in Southern Europe.
Let me comment your picture form the point of view of the Spanish culture:
These people won't be considered Moors but Blacks
But... you contradict yourself stating that Moor only means Muslim but then try to attach a certain phenotype to what consitutes a Moor. Eithr a Moor is just a Muslim or consitutes a phenotype.
You then bend the definitions of a Moors to include the founders of Timbuktu.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^We have shown Karwash the answers.
quote:The term Maure derives from the Phoenician term Mahurin (Westerners). From Mahurin the ancient Greeks derive Mauro meaning black , and later Greeks derive Maurikios after them, the Latin derive Mauri meaning Black African. From the same root we derive: Maur , Maurus, Marra , Moro, Morisco , Mohr, Moritz Morelo , Moor, Moru, Maru, Morelo, Maureta, Mauretania, Mauritius, Maureen, Maroon, Morocco , Moore, Maurice , Meuric, Meurig, Morien, Morin, Moryan , Moreto, and such. At one time the whole of the western arm of Africa (what is now West Africa, from Libya to Nigeria and around the Atlantic coast), was called Mauretania . The word Mauretania was interchangeable with all the names of what is now Africa: 'Ethiopia', 'Libya', and the now defunct 'Negroland'
Claudio Ptolemy's map of Mauretania (Notice it includes all of West Africa)
Since the 11th century, the heraldic term Maure refers to the symbol of an African head, or more specifically any blackened image of an African, or a part of an African, or an item associated with or representing Africans.
In the 18th century English usage of the term Moor began to refer specifically to African Muslims, but especially to any person who speaks one of the Hassaniya dialects. This language, in its purest form, draws heavily from the original Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Bani Hassan tribe, which invaded northwest Africa during the 16th and 17th centuries. (Since then, Hassaniya became liturgical speech and lingua franca of all Saharans and Northwest Africans to this day).
Of course, as has been explained ad-naseum in this forum and most recently in this thread. The Islamicized Al-Moravids and Al-Mohads took power and were the main dynasties of the Magrheb after the Arabs. The invasion of Spain was led by Moors (black) Muslims.
Al Hambra, Granada's citadel in the Sierra Nevada, Andalucia - Spain
After the fall of the Umayyads in Damascas, the Africans in Spain, known as the Moro were cut off and came under threat from successive invasions. However, the Moro retained the white flag and it came to be associated with negro troops specifically, whereas the Saracen Arab invaders who followed them into Spain used the red flag of the Khawarij Republican followers of Caliph Uthman III. As pressure from the Reyes Católicos (the Christian Reconquistadors) increased over the centuries, African states in Spain mutated and fell and rose many times. The most stable and longest lived African state in Spain was Grenada, with the magnificent Nasridin dynasty citadel of Al Hambra as its capitol. Al Hambra surrendered to the Reyes Católicos at dawn on January 2, 1492. Spain and Portugal followed this action with the conquest of parts of Africa, the destruction of African communities in Europe and the invasion of the Americas. Lisbon's black population, that out-numbered Europeans in 1550, was devasted by the plagues of the times. The last free blacks in Spain were expelled on April 6, 1609.
The last African flag of Grenada consisted of heraldic "Argent, a pomegranate gules leafed vert" (ie., an all-white flag, with a centred red pomegranate flower with green petals). It is unclear what the symbolic significance of the pomegranate bloom was to blacks in Spain. What is notable, however, is that the Pomegranate gave its name to Granada, as well as to the Hand Grenade which came into use in the 15th century. Moreover, the bloom has the colors Green, Yellow, Red, which coincidentally are the Pan-African colors. Perhaps most cryptic of all is the ancient saying "There is nothing in the world like the pain of being blind in Granada," probably less a reference to the blindfolded Maure and more about the beauty of perhaps the most beautiful place in Europe. Al Hambra is still only second to the Vatican in tourist visitors.
A look at Europe after Muslim invasions:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's ancient Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms
Last but not least, is the legendary Christian Saint, St. Maurice of Egypt!
[i]In Roman times the Theban Legion was led by Maurice, the warrior saint, and Primicerius (commander) of Roman troops from Thebes in Egypt. The Theban Legion was sent to suppress a revolt of the Bagandae in Agaunum in Gaul (St-Maurice en Valais) in the 3rd century. That Maurice ordered his soldiers not to participate in pagan rites. They were punished by the Emperor Maximian Herculeus first by decimation and finally by the wholesale massacre of the Theban Legion. Maurice and his fellow officers were executed in A.D. 287. Some depictions of that St. Maurice rightly portray him as black and show red flags, sometimes with a black stripe.
'St.Erasm and St.Maurice' painted by Matthias Grunewald
In medieval Europe the Maure imagery represented the Sudanese command of the German armies of the Holy Roman Empire in the 12th century. These African officers defended Swedes during the Scandinavian rebellion against Germany. Several settlements in Europe - including St. Moritz - are named after these Africans. The white flag with the black profile became the flag of several separate Orders named for of St. Maurice, that sprung up all over Europe in the 12th century. However, the name Maurice was generic and refers to many different and unrelated black soldiers in medieval European history.
St. Maurice of Magdeburg, Germany
He has no valid answers. The guy is just 'washed up'.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Isn't this Kawaka guy the same white boy Jaime ya'll was talking about?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Note the first thing the Academy says under moro
quote: moro, ra. (Del lat. Maurus).
which brings us right back to
quote: Luso-Hispanic Moros was simply a continuation of the older Latin Maurus (from the Greek Mauros), the word used by the ancients for the generaly dark skinned inhabitants of Morocco and western Algeria.
There's just no escaping the natural fact that the Iberians were only continuing the practice of the Romans when they called their Amazigh conquerors Moros, the same name they called coastal northwest Africans even before they conquered alAndalus and raided far into what would become France in the name of Islam for their Arab and Saracen rulers.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Well, I will show what means "MORO" in Spanish. This is from RAE, the oficial dictionary of the Spanish language. As you can see. Moro DOES NOT MEAN subsaharan African in Spanish.
moro, ra. (Del lat. Maurus). 1. adj. Natural del África septentrional frontera a España. U. t. c. s.
(Natural of North Africa)
2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte de África.
(From North Africa)
3. adj. Que profesa la religión islámica. U. t. c. s.
(Muslim)
4. adj. Se dice del musulmán que habitó en España desde el siglo VIII hasta el XV. U. t. c. s.
(MUSLIM LIVING IN SPAIN)
5. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a la España musulmana de aquel tiempo.
(From MUSLIM SPAIN)
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
From Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black". Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;"
*later* (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. etymonline.com
Thanks for coming back to the gist of my earlier comment about who were regarded as "Moors" at a time when the Sahelian/sub-Saharan Almoravids reigned in Spain [ca. 1090-1145], to be followed by the North African based Almohads [ca. 1145-1232]. When put into precise context, which in this case seems to be temporally dependent, the blanket term "Moors" is nothing to be mystified. For instance, no contemporaneous [to the time in question] documentation of reference to the Muslim rulers in Spain under the Umayyad mantle [ca. 711-1031] as "Moors" has been provided. However, we do know what the term meant to the Romans, and how it was twisted years after the African Moorish presence in the Iberian peninsula.
“And Yusuf ibn Tashfin, leader of the Almoravid forces, was "a brown man with wooly hair", according to the Arab chronicler Al-Fasi. (per DeCosta)
quote:Djehuti:
He has no valid answers. The guy is just 'washed up'.
...which is why I presume that he continues to get all this undeserved attention, only because people want to entertain themselves.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Doug, Ausar, Jehuti, Takuri, Mullah, and even Supercar(....... ), ya'll are holding it down with the science!
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: ...They also found many books in Timbuktu that are in indigenous African languages like Songhai,Mande and Tamelsheq. Most Western Africans wrote in their own language but used the Arabic script to develop their own alphabet.
Sources please. I got interested on that.
quote: 1. Define ''Arab'' looking
People that has the facial features of Arabs, starting for those long and narrow noses they have and thin lips. Many Ethiopians and Somalians, and also most "Black" Tuaregs are "Arab-looking"
quote: 2. Prove that Arabs went into Nigeria or any other region of Western Africa.
That's easy. From the site of the Embassy of Nigeria in Washington you can read about the "Shuwa-Arabs" and Tuaregs
quote: Virtually all the native races of Africa are represented in Nigeria, hence the great diversity of her people and culture. It was in Nigeria that the Bantu and SemiBantu, migrating from southern and central Africa, intermingled with the Sudanese. Later, other groups such as Shuwa-Arabs, the Tuaregs, and the Fulanis, who are concentrated in the far north, entered northern Nigeria in migratory waves across the Sahara Desert. The earliest occupants of Nigeria settled in the forest belt and in the Niger Delta region.Today there are estimated to be more than 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria. While no single group enjoys an absolute numeric majority, four major groups constitute 60% of the population: Hausa-Fulani in the north, Yoruba in the west, and Igbo in the east. Other groups include: Kanuri, Binis, Ibibio, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Efik, Nupe, Tiv, and Jukun.
quote: 3. You insist on not using African definitions of ''black'' but use Brazilian racial categories that are rather ambigious. Even if we use Brazilian categories those women would be considered prieta. By America's definition the Berbers I posted could be considered ''black'' in America.
Yes, the definitions of race are quite fuzzy, aren't they?
quote: Eastern Africans have intermarried with ''Arabs'' but it has not really effected their phenotype much.
Are you sure? Many Ethiopians, Somalians and other coastal groups of Africa still say "Arab" in their faces.
quote: You have still not answered my question from when to these paintings exist and if they are contemporary with the time period of the rulers. I asked you the question but you provide me with no answers.
Those pictures were contemporary to the rulers.
quote: What are ''European or Arab'' facial features? How do you know the Hausa have mixture with foreigners? Many people look like ''white'' Europeans but often have non-white mixture in them. Having some mixture does not really alter ones phenotype. Africans had the physical diversity before the arrival of foreigners into African soil. The following sounds like the ''Hamitic Hypothesis'' that has been discarded by most academics. Plus you have no evidence that Arabs or any other foreigners settled amongst the Hausa.
I would say it is true that some groups could have casual European looks without having ancestry. That happens with some Zulues, for example. However, most Africans up north that look "European" or "Arabs" is because they do have some degree of "foreign" ancestry.
This an ethiopian woman
The same happened in West Africa to a small degree. Perhaps I am wrong but the following show clear northerners admixture.
Tuareg:
Fulani:
Look at the person at right in the following picture of Fulanis.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The New York politician named Lenora Fulani as an example of northern mixed Fulani people??? Makes as much sense as the pic of uncle Muamar [Ghadafi] you used to represent a Moor.
Face it son, you've been more than owned, like a zillion times already!
You argument is so off kilter you don't even provide your debunkers the fun of having to go back and do more research. Patented tom-foolery is its own refutation.
I think you're just kickin' back sippin' cider and chucklin' 'bout how you can get the forum to seriously reply to the lamest assed goofy s h i t you can dream up.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Oh, yeah. And don't forget Adrianne fired off her killer ballistics too! And also Rasol too.
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Doug, Ausar, Jehuti, Takuri, Mullah, and even Supercar(....... ), ya'll are holding it down with the science!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The New York politician named Lenora Fulani as an example of northern mixed Fulani people???
Who cares about "gringos" of any color?
quote: Face it son, you've been more than owned, ......how you can get the forum to seriously reply to the lamest assed goofy s h i t you can dream up.
I guess I touch some sensibilities. Lol.
So, the idea is to show that Europeans have Black admixture (with figures of saints, heraldics, and all sort of ridiculous genealogy). The idea is to say Moors are Africans "therefore" Blacks. That Berbers did not exist. That Africa is Black no matter there are hundred of millions in there that aren't precisely Black Africans. etc.
Yes. Let's show the white man they are blacks. But if someone even hint at the fact many "Blacks" are not "Black" but mixed people as well, even in Africa, some people get upset.
Face it. Black Americans are mixed. Millions of people in North and East Africa are mixed as well, with (horror!!) whites or arabs.
Saying that is perceived like an attack to the religious dogma of Black purity.
Yes, Sicilians are "Blacks" but Black Africans can't have a non-Black ancestor at all. They are all pure Black. That's R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S.
Realize it, all people has admixture.
And the conclusion is: There is not a Black History because "Black" is a fuzzy, not well defined concept.
Define who is Black and who is not, please. Try.
As far as I know the Blackest person I have seen in my life it was an East Indian.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Must be you, you're the goofball that posted the pic of Lenora because you thought she was a good example of northern mixture into Fulanis.
Go wiggle worm.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The New York politician named Lenora Fulani as an example of northern mixed Fulani people???
Who cares about "gringos" of any color?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Sources please. I got interested on that.
We've been asking for sources for YOUR claims since you first started posting on this forum and you have yet to produce any.
On Ausar's request to "define 'Arab'-looking"
quote:People that has the facial features of Arabs, starting for those long and narrow noses they have and thin lips. Many Ethiopians and Somalians, and also most "Black" Tuaregs are "Arab-looking"
Cranial features: The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.
Which is why we have studies like this:
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al. ...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
And...
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:
It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial” program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,- JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa
So features like narrow faces and noses do *NOT* indicate foreign ancestry or ‘admixture’!
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Egyptian (North African)
Tutsi (Central African)
^^Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called *super-negroid* indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!
The same can be said about so-called "negroid" features like broad noses and such. The person below has features similar to those of a stereotypical 'Bantu' or other but is in fact an aboriginal of Southeast Asia.
Andamanese (Asian)
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
So all this talk of such peoples being “not black” and “mixed” because of certain looks is downright silly.
quote:That's easy. From the site of the Embassy of Nigeria in Washington you can read about the "Shuwa-Arabs" and Tuaregs
Tuareg are not Arabs, and many of the so-called Shuwa are actually Arabized African groups. They are no more 'Arab' than Sudanese.
Whatever that website says, what Ausar says still holds true. Tuareg and Fulani are both black African groups with little not no Arab ancestry. The Tuareg maybe Afrasian speakers but not the Fulani who speak languages related to Bantu.
quote:Yes, the definitions of race are quite fuzzy, aren't they?
Not as fuzzy as your logic. LOL
quote:Are you sure? Many Ethiopians, Somalians and other coastal groups of Africa still say "Arab" in their faces.
Nope. See answers above.
quote:Those pictures were contemporary to the rulers.
Which say little about the common populace.
quote:I would say it is true that some groups could have casual European looks without having ancestry. That happens with some Zulues, for example. However, most Africans up north that look "European" or "Arabs" is because they do have some degree of "foreign" ancestry.
Not necessarily. Again, see answers above!
quote:This an ethiopian woman
Yes and some Ethiopians, mainly northerners might have admixture but not the vast majority. See the genetic lineage map I have shown (although it shows paternal i.e. male carrying ancestry).
quote:The same happened in West Africa to a small degree. Perhaps I am wrong but the following show clear northerners admixture.
Yes, but a very small degree not like Europe of the Near East!
quote:Tuareg:
The Tuareg are shown to have diverse maternal lineages. Some from East Africa, some from West Africa, and some from Europe. But you cannot tell from looks. Why? Again, see answers above.
Very rare that Fulani look like that. One study in which Fulani sampled were shown to have 100% West African lineages.
Therefore, your selective picture spams mean nothing.
Have a look at one of King's picture thread.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Must be you, you're the goofball that posted the pic of Lenora because you thought she was a good example of northern mixture into Fulanis.
Ups! Well, someone clue me that picture as a proof Nigerians did not looked like Idi Amin. My fault and touche!
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:...Very rare that Fulani look like that. One study in which Fulani sampled were shown to have 100% West African lineages.
Therefore, your selective picture spams mean nothing.
Why it is so strange that people living south of the Sahara have certain degree of Berber, Arab or even European admixture?
I am not talking about people of Congo or South Africa in here, but of people that lived in contact with Tuaregs and other foreigners at some point of time. And you know those groups have admixture.
I am not saying there is the impact in West Africa is very significant, but only that you can find evidence of it once in a while.
For Coastal East Africa the things are different. In Egypt, Ethiopia and even Somalia. In there the admixture of peoples is evident, and it is coincident with the historical records.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What's wrong Jaime? Can't you post your mestizo madness on that mixeduprace.org forum anymore?
Of course most of us humans are mixed. Instead of whining about it we live with and identify with whatever ethny we were raised up in regardless of phenotype or out-parentage.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Who cares about "gringos" of any color?
Obviously YOU. YOU who tries to give false labels and misrepresentation to people both and ancient and modern peoples of the African continent!
For a Hispanic, you've got serious pyschological issues you need to work out.
quote:I guess I touch some sensibilities. Lol.
Not really, but judging by your nonsensical replies, your "sensibilities" have been more than just touched.
quote:So, the idea is to show that Europeans have Black admixture (with figures of saints, heraldics, and all sort of ridiculous genealogy)...
quote:..The idea is to say Moors are Africans "therefore" Blacks..
Nope. We just said 'Berber' is a language group that says nothing about appearance, but the original Berbers were indeed black.
quote:..That Berbers did not exist..
LOL Who said that?!
quote:..That Africa is Black no matter there are hundred of millions in there that aren't precisely Black Africans. etc.
LOL Last time I checked it was the hundreds of millions who are black Africans, while the non-blacks are a minority! You've obviously lost it.
quote:Yes. Let's show the white man they are blacks.
Well we've tried showing this Mestizo (YOU) the facts, but apparently his mind is not taking.
quote:But if someone even hint at the fact many "Blacks" are not "Black" but mixed people as well, even in Africa, some people get upset.
Sorry, but your "mixed" claims have been proven wrong. *see my last post above*
quote:Face it. Black Americans are mixed.
Yeah, and?
quote:Millions of people in North and East Africa are mixed as well, with (horror!!) whites or arabs.
Not the majority. Sorry to ruin your 'mixed-up' fantasies.
quote:Saying that is perceived like an attack to the religious dogma of Black purity.
Nope. No one ever claimed any dogma of 'purity' but your dogma of 'mixture' is just as ridiculous and just as bad though.
quote:Yes, Sicilians are "Blacks" but Black Africans can't have a non-Black ancestor at all. They are all pure Black. That's R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S.
Nope. Just your premise is ridiculous and that is all.
quote:Realize it, all people has admixture.
Once you learn that the whole premise of typological race is rooted in fallacy than you will realize that 'admixture' is essentially baseless as is 'purity'. But I doubt everyone in the world has ethnic admixture the way you claim. Are Pygmies mixed with Arabs or Europeans? Are Andamanese mixed??
quote:And the conclusion is: There is not a Black History because "Black" is a fuzzy, not well defined concept.
Define who is Black and who is not, please. Try.
black /blæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[blak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb, adverb
–adjective
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
quote:As far as I know the Blackest person I have seen in my life it was an East Indian.
Which is why 'black' is strictly in reference to skin color not ancestry. However this does not change the FACT that indigenous Africans are black and have always been black and that they inhabitated *all* of Africa not just "Subsaharia"! LOL
quote:KAWASHKAR
What a headcase. Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
kawashkar said:
quote:People that has the facial features of Arabs, starting for those long and narrow noses they have and thin lips. Many Ethiopians and Somalians, and also most "Black" Tuaregs are "Arab-looking"
Here is were you are mistaken. Such features are indigenous to the African continent without admixture from any external pressence. Long narrow noses and thin lips come from climatic adaptations to dry climates instead of moist climates that tend to have more ''broad'' features.
No such thing as exclusive traits to Arabs or Europeans so you cannot call them ''Arab'' or ''European'' looking. The reverse is actually true.
See my references[which you will probably ignored] about narrow noses and lips within the African continent:
Journal Title: American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 87 Issue: 3
Month/Year: March 1992 Pages 245-254
Article Title Keita,S.O.Y
'Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dyansty Egyptian Tombs Using Multiple Discriminant Functions
'''........Hiernaux [1975] has accounted for variations in Africa using a nonracial approach;he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail ,but his concepts ,based on microevolutionary principles[adaptation,drift,selection], are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans ,narrow faces and noses [versus broad ''Negro'' ones] donot usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or ''Europoid''[Caucasian] genes called Hamitic as once thought ,but represent indigenous variation,either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift [Hiernaux,1975]. Hiernaux calls this morphology ''Elongated African.'' Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity [Sutton ,1974;Hiernaux,1975; after Chamla,1968] who emigrated to the Nile Valley[Hassan ,1988] might be an example. The view that ''elongated'' chracteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African [''Black''] for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel [1966], Hiernaux[1975] and Rightmire[1975a,b] The range of variation,''Broad''[streotypical Negro] to Elongated , can be assumed within a single unit designated Africoid ,thereby acknowleading the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadpative strategeies,as well as drift...........'''
""....Nose form is function largely of climatic factors,such as temperature and mositure content of the air,rather then a simple result of racial affinities. The nose serves moisten the inspired air,so in the drier regions of thwe world people have noses which pocess the greatest surface area of the moucous membrane,a condition achieved by the longer ,more narrow nose form;so among desert and mountain peoples the narrow nose is predominant.[7] Even in cold and drier climates the Eskimos have a narrow nasal aperature,which provides an effiecent mechanism for warming as well as moistening the inspired air. It is simple matter of fact that a high narrow nasal opening can warm and mositen air more effeciently than a short borad one,and in climates where the moisture content of the air is very low ,selective forces act on this particular nose form ,wheather the dryness is due to intense heat or intense cold[Table 3-8]
Since face form is due to the interaction of the growth processes of several facial bones,and single feature is interacting forces. This is especially true of nose form,whose width is correlated with climate,as noted above ,but also with the size and proportion of the upper dental arch.As the palate gets wider,the nasal aperature becomes broader. The case of the Australian Aboriginees is a good example;though they live in a very dry area of the world,their noses are extremely broad ,and this dimension is related to the chewing process exerted on the velop. Also,prongnathism tends to be associated with a short borad nose,and significant correlation is found between the length of the skull base and nasal width.
These factors of climatic influence and structural interrelationship suggest that human face form is extremely complex,numerous varible being invovled in growth and development. Conclusions should not be drawn about relationships between two populations on the basis of a similairty in structure ,because face form[like the small statue in pgymies and Negritos discussed above] develops according to local factors of natural selction. It is not ncessary to postulate migrations and intermixtures to explain similairites between populations,as once was done for the Nilotic face form found in groups like the Nuer,Shilluk,and others in Eastern Africa. At one time their long striaght noses were believed to be due to contact and interbreeding with caucasoid groups form Western Asia. subsequent genetic studies donot borne this theory out . No doubt,over a period of thousand years,contact with Western Asia populations has taken place and some interbreeding has resulted,but people with Nilotic face are the result of local selective forces acting on the population;it is not merely a matter of interbreeding between races......."""""[/b]
Page 63-64
Race,Types,and Ethnic Groups the problem with human variation Stephen Molnar
As already discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, a number of African populations have an elongated body build, with narrow head, face, and nose. Their skin is dark(in varying degree), their hair is spiralled, and they have thick but everted lips. In many of these people, such as the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi and related Hima of Uganda, the Masai of the East African steppes and the Fulani communities of the Western Sudanic savanna, there is no evidence of an exotic(Arabic or North African) element in their gene pool. Their physical features can best explained in terms of genetic adaptation to dry heat. Apparently they represent the result of a peculiar evolution in the semi-arid crescent which caps sub-Saharan Africa to the north and northeast.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) page 126
kawashkar said:
quote:Are you sure? Many Ethiopians, Somalians and other coastal groups of Africa still say "Arab" in their faces
What do you mean by costal groups of Africa? Somalis and Ethiopians have a specific phenotype that is not due to Arab admixture. I also cited references in my above post refuting the notion that their phenotype is from mixture with Arabs.
Since you don't seem very knowledgeable with genetics you might not know there is no genetic signiture that corresponds to physical bone morphology. If you don't believe this then please send an email to Dr. Peter Underhill. Genetics is not sophisticate enough to break down bone morphology or percentages of mixture in people.
kawashkar said:
quote:Those pictures were contemporary to the rulers
How about a reference from Al-Andulasian art historians that date the specific paintings to their contemporary rulers. You have provided no reference or any dates for the pictures but insist based upon your own words that such pictures are contemporary.
kawashkar said:
quote:I would say it is true that some groups could have casual European looks without having ancestry. That happens with some Zulues, for example. However, most Africans up north that look "European" or "Arabs" is because they do have some degree of "foreign" ancestry
What do you mean by Africans up north? I already disproved your claim that such phenotype as narrow noses and narrow lips are exclusively to Europeans or Arabs. Such apperance comes from adaptation to dry hot climates as opposed to moist climates.
kawashkar said:
quote:The same happened in West Africa to a small degree. Perhaps I am wrong but the following show clear northerners admixture.
What makes the people in the picture appear to have ''northern'' mixture?
Your reference of a website about Shuwa Arabs migrating into Nigeria shows how little you know or understand about African history. What you might not know is that the Shuwa are really Arabized Nilotic Sudanese that migrated from Sudan into Nigeria. The Shuwa are not ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula but actually closely related to Southern Sudanese groups like the Dinka,Nuer,and Shilluk. The Shuwa are a sub-group of the Baggara bedouins in Sudan.
pg 126
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M Kawash, get a grip. We have SHOWN you from EUROPEAN sources that the WORD Moor in has had a HISTORY of being identified with BLACK Africans, including THOSE who invaded and occupied Spain in the Medeival period. MOROS is indeed Spanish and the Spanish definition is NOT exactly that of the English and other Europeans. FINE.
That's my point. In Spanish the word Moro is used to describe, the Muslims and the Berbers. So when people go to Spanish sources (which are important to study Moors in Spain) they must realize the people described were Muslims; not necesarily Blacks. Moors is also used for the coastal peoples of North Africa, like Berbers and Arabs.
Now, I will tell you something I have not said before so I don't add confussion. Moor also means a person that is "impure" because it has some degree of Black African blood, like all North Africans are. So, Moors is an insult against North Africans accussed of being Blacks.
It was used like a hate word during the Middle Ages against all Muslims, which the Europeans accused of being Mulattoes. Racist propaganda of Christians addressed againts the Muslims emphatized the fact some of them have Black ancestry out of all proportions.
I hope do you get why the word Moors has a relation with Black African. It is because Northern Africans (all of them) have admixture with Black Africans.
However, in Iberia people don't call Moor a Subsaharan subject, but only to "White-looking" North Africans.
I know that because my mother language is Spanish and I grew up knowing Hispanic culture.
KAWASHKAR
Kawashkar,
Modern Spanish views preferences, biases and usages of the term Moros have NOTHING to do with the fact that 1300 years ago Muslims invaded Spain and among them were BLACK Africans. No amount of MODERN Spanish word games will change that fact. I could care LESS about how MODERN Spanish people use or abuse the word, it does not CHANGE what happened to history. NOBODY can DECIDE who they want to or DONT want to be a part of their own history. What is done is done and there is NOTHING that can change the past. I am not here to argue about whether or not Spanish people do or DONT look down on people of color from Africa, because we KNOW that the Spanish, as well as other Europeans were RACISTS in the period after 1492. Therefore, that is all the MORE reason for ESPECIALLY the Spanish to downplay any BLACK presence among the MOROS because it CONTRADICTS many of their own CHERISHED beliefs about RACE. THAT is the only reason why it is important to point out that BLACK Africans played a signifigant role in the introduction of civilization to Europe, no matter whether Spanish people want to accept it or not.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
The Chilien poster is not Jaime. He is a Chiliean poster that regularly posts on a certain forum dedicated to racially mixed people. All of this is no relevant to me. He has not personally attacked anybody or made any racist remarks. He has remained civil in the debate.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Ups! Well, someone clue me that picture as a proof Nigerians did not looked like Idi Amin. My fault and touche!
KAWASHKAR
Since when the heck does an African anywhere on the continent, let alone in the Congo have to look like Idi Amin?!
Maybe I should start using Carlos Mencia as an example of what people in South America should look like!
Deet-dee-dee
quote:Why it is so strange that people living south of the Sahara have certain degree of Berber, Arab or even European admixture?
Again, Berber is not a phenotype. Many Berber groups are black and *originally* all Berber speakers were black.
'Arab' is also not a phenotype as they are of diverse origins themselves. The original Qahtani Arabs of Arabia were actually of black African descent!
Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that Africans are not as "mixed" as you think?!
quote:I am not talking about people of Congo or South Africa in here, but of people that lived in contact with Tuaregs and other foreigners at some point of time. And you know those groups have admixture.
Tuaregs are among the blackest Berber groups and how are Tuaregs "foreign" when they are indigenous Africans themselves?!
quote:I am not saying there is the impact in West Africa is very significant, but only that you can find evidence of it once in a while.
Sorry but I already corrected your false "evidence" of looks to judge 'admixture'.
quote:For Coastal East Africa the things are different. In Egypt, Ethiopia and even Somalia. In there the admixture of peoples is evident, and it is coincident with the historical records.
Nope. Again, I have already corrected your false belief in evidence of admixture because of features.
And I don't know what historical records you've read, but Ethiopia and especially Somalia has no record of large incursions of non-Africans into their country.
quote:KAWASHKAR
Deet-dee-dee! Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
OK so Kwashiokor isn't Jaime, he's son of Jaime!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
* What constitutes a 'pure' African versus an African of 'mixed' non African ancestry??
Answer: No one is truly ‘pure’ because all humans originated from Africa. Because of this fact, *indigenous African populations possess the greatest genetic and phenotypic diversity in the world in a number of features such as skin complexion, cranial features, and hair form, but ALL are adapted to tropical to subtropical climate.*
Skin color: Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Relethford JH. Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA. Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.
African skin complexions range from almost jet-black along the equator to yellowish-brown just outside the tropical latitudes which are the sub-tropical zones. With some North African Berber groups living just north of the tropic of Cancer and South African Khoisan groups living just south of the tropic of Capricorn.
Khoisan
Hair form: Hair form naturally varies among indigenous Africans so not all Africans have the ‘kinky’ type hair form found among the stereotypical African. Hair can range from wavy to the spiral tuft form found among the Khoisan peoples of southern Africa. The ‘kinky’ type seems to be in between these extremes. Even outside of Africa, those indigenous black populations who remained in the tropics also maintained this diversity inherited from their African ancestors.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Cranial features: The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.
Which is why we have studies like this:
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al. ...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
And...
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:
It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial” program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,- JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa
So features like narrow faces and noses do *NOT* indicate foreign ancestry or ‘admixture’!
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Egyptian (North African)
Tutsi (Central African)
^^Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called *super-negroid* indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!
The same can be said about so-called "negroid" features like broad noses and such. The person below has features similar to those of a stereotypical 'Bantu' or other but is in fact an aboriginal of Southeast Asia.
Andamanese (Asian)
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
So all this talk of such peoples being “not black” and “mixed” because of certain looks is.. well, stupid!
Deet-dee-dee! Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The Tuareg are shown to have diverse maternal lineages. Some from East Africa, some from West Africa, and some from Europe.
Shown where?
Ps - I asked the question mainly with respect to getting the details on European mtDNA, though it is not inconceivable that Tuaregs and other West African groups exchanged DNA with coastal "Berber" groups, and hence, would share these lineages with them to some degree.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Example of the Moors I talk I about:
quote: The Galouis constitute a "dynasty" of Caids that ruled a swathe of south Morocco (which varied in size) from the XVIII century (2) to the Iindependence of Morocco in 1956 (3).
Madani Glaoui was the Grand - Vizir (prime minister) of Moulay Hafid, ever since the latter acceded to the throne ( Madani was the major contributor to this accession ) in 1908 until 1911. His junior, Thami , was pasha of Marrakech (sort of vice-king for the southern half of Morocco) from 1912 to Independence.
Picture of the most FAMOUS pascha of Moroccan colonial times: Thami El Glaouis
Stories (in French):
quote: Discussion with Abdessadeq El Glaoui, author of the book the Rallying "El Glaoui was a hero" The objective first of Abdessadeq El Glaoui, wire of most famous of the Moroccan pashas, is initially to bring its lighting of eyewitness over the last years of French Protectorate to Morocco. For him, Thami El Glaoui is a patriot deceived by the French authorities of the time.
quote: Thami El Glaoui, pasha de Marrakech, rehabilitated by his/her son the lord of the gangsters Abdessadeq El Glaoui tries by the publication of its deliver-testimony, "the Rallying", to rehabilitate his/her father the pasha Thami El Glaoui. A book which recalls the last years of French Protectorate in Morocco. Return on the fabulous life of the pasha El Glaoui. Amale Samie ? Thami El Glaoui. The Glaoua country is a hard country, summer like winter, but the rains, and especially snow, are abundant there. Glaoua, Iglioua in amazigh, constitute an influential tribe which increased little by little with the detriment of its neighbors. They live close to the highest summits of the Western Atlas, it is a ground of mountain pastors and small farmers specialized in cereals of mountain. The most powerful chief, a Berber kind of kinglet, was to face his neighbors, pertaining to other such powerful tribes of the High Western Atlas, Mtougga and Goundafa, which will provide caïds almost as famous as those of Glaoua. Most known of the children of this tribe, it is Thami. He is the younger brother by Madani, allied and protected early from the French of 1907 to 1911, where he was relieved of his post of Large Vizier by the sultan Moulay Hafid. He will die in 1918. It was the first "félon" of the family, it had made a pact with colonial France before even as she does not invade Morocco and protectorate does not impose to him.
Here is how Alfonso X(1252-1284), king of Spain described the Moors and their conquest of Al Andalus:
All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their BLACK faces were like pitch and the most handosme of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flame ; their horses fast as leopards....The vile people of AFRICA, who were not used to kindness and all of whose deeds were accomplished with tricks...were now exalted....Poor Spain, Your death was so afflicted that none remainded to lament you in your dire suffering, for you are considered more dead than alive".(From Anwar Chejne, MUSLIM SPAIN--ITS HISTORY AND CULTURE, p.126)
Note agin from the same author: "The Berbers were perhaps the most important group participating in the conquest of al-Andalus. They constituted the first group al-Andalus under Tariq b. Ziyad, who succeeded in conquering a good portion of the peninsula. The Berbers were dissafected from the onset because their share of the booty did not equal that of their Arab co-religionists. Initially they outnumbered the Arabs....The conquering grouips of Berbers were never integrated. After the copnquest, the various components of those armies settled in regions distinguished by ethnic lines, the the Arabs taking the fertile plains, the Berbers the mountains....the relationship between the two groups was marked by constant friction and bloody wars...."(p.112-113)
ON SLAVERY IN AL ANDALUS
"The [/]Saqualibah[/b] were originally captives or slaves from Northern Spain, France, Germany, and Eastern European countries. As slaves, they were bought in the market places at a tender age. They were easily indoctrinated into the Arabic language and religious prcatices and mores of the court...."(p.114-115)
"Some male Saqualiba were castrated to become eunuchs in the caliphs' harems, and others served as guards. Female saqualibah with fair skin and blue eyes were eagerly sought as concubines. The price could be very high depending upon a girl's talents as a singer or dancer and upon her physique...."(p.135).
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
The Hausa, like many people of just below the Sahara had admixture from you know who. Many Black Africans have Arab or European face features, and some of them do have admixture. That's why some of them look like Black Americans (who are 25% European descendent)KAWASHKAR [/QB][/QUOTE] --------------------------------------------------
I DISAGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS ABOVE. THIS IS NOT TRUE,MOST HAUSA ARE UNMIXED black africans.DID VERY FEW INTERMARRIED WITH OUTSIDE GROUPS FOR A EXAMPLE IN RECENT TIMES? MAYBE BUT MOST IF NOT ALL ARE STILL UNMIXED BLACKS TODAY.
By the way most folks on earth marry within thier own groups.IF A GROUP TENDS TO HAVE most folks with some form of mixture,there are a few reasons for that.one reason,rape,another reason they are a small group in that state and lived amoung others for along time and alot OF rape OR WARS do get thier women happen and a decline of populatian at one point etc, etc..this is what happen to many nubians in modern times,not all however. a small group who lives in state does not effect the larger population in most cases anyway unless that small group has the upper hand like the mongols in russia for example or the europeans in many latin america states,but this does not happen all the times in history for an example.most of africa is a good example,of course european rule in africa as awhole was way much shorter than it was in latin america.
Most europeans did not mingle with most africans from what i read in history books. A matter of fact,EUROPEANS allowed the local rulers to govern while the europeans stay on the coast and pulled the strings to a certain extent.ARABS WERE a small group in africa .the greater impact that arabs had on the population of africa was in north africa and most of northern sudan.some arabs in the sudan are really unmixed black brain washed nubian,but that is another topic.EVEN IN north africa most berbers do not have any arab backgrounds and many arabized berbers too.alot of those arabs in north africa by the way are arabized berbers and many do not have any arab background.they would be called brainwashed berbers.some berbers talk about this on thier webites and scholar have books on this too.
YES some black africans have some form of admixture from outside groups ,but most do not have any admixture. THE % OF BLACK AMERICAN WITH SOME FORM OF EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE ON average is about 17% i think ,but some of it is lower or much lower and some of higher.it depends on the family and region. Some african americans do not have any european admixture and some do not have any admixture. AFRICAN americans are not mixed or mixed like many latinos,mixed means biracial or recent parents of different races as well. I WOULD clear this one up fast,let me help you.I POSTED SOMETHING awhile ago on this topic.MOST AFRICAN AMERICANS HAVE SOME FORM OF MIXTURE(about 80%, mark shiver the dna expert said so.),AND AS YOU KNOW the admixture any african american has VARIES,but there are some that do not have any admixture.I DO NOT SEE BY THE WAY ANY EUROPEAN IN THE SAN PEOPLE. another point i would not call somebody mixed if they have only 25% european admixture.they would not be mixed if they have only 10% or less than 1% admixture too,but they would have some or very little admixture.WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH WORDS .alot of white americans have recent african and indian adamixture but i would not call them mixed either and white americans and other groups would agree.
THAT IS ALL I have say about this subject because it has been talk to death before.Now back to the topic on the moors. peace.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: KAWASHKAR said:
quote:Moors also means "Islamized". Muslims founded Timbuktu, and the books they wrote were in Arabic. No matter they were "Blacks".
Not entirely true. They also found many books in Timbuktu that are in indigenous African languages like Songhai,Mande and Tamelsheq. Most Western Africans wrote in their own language but used the Arabic script to develop their own alphabet.
TRUE AND A native AFRICAN script was created by the mande in called vai IN LIBERIA and they did not used any arabic letters .
Speaking of scripts,there is another african native script too in cameroon that was created by non-mande africans .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Like I said, ALL Moors werent black. The problem is that Moroccan history is a patchquilt of people and ideologies that is CONFUSING if you dont know the major players. Firstly and rightly, there are the berbers. But there are MANY Berber groups and in the past SOME of these Berber groups did NOT convert to Islam. Berber tribes put up FIERCE resistance to the Islamic onslought under Al Kahina and the Sannhadja federation. This confederation eventually was defeated, with various Berber groups allying with the Muslims and orginizing their own local kingdoms. Throughout the history of North Africa there is a history of DIFFERENT berber tribes with DIFFERENT names all being involved at some point or another. The problem is that ALL of these tribes dont look alike and MANY of the Berber tribes that ONCE inhabited the desert have been destroyed or moved by the Arabs. This is because many of the kingdoms established by the Berbers in various parts of North Africa were seen to have become rebellious against the ARAB rulers and caused a NEW wave of Arab invaders to enter North Africa. One example of a such a saharan tribe is the Tuareg. They were once the primary traders in the trans saharan caravan routes from Sudan to Morrocco. They helped make the Southern Morroccan city of Marrakesh (land of the couch men) profitable because of its trade. The did not convert to Islam until relatively late after the second wave of Arab invasions. As I said before, the second and subsequent Arab intrusions into North Africa have had the largest affect on the populations. Many more have been arabized and with this second wave MANY indigenous people to the sahara, including Berbers were enslaved. Many Berber groups have migrated from place to place, with some sharing MUCH arab blood. Therefore, it is HARD to try and identify all the various people who were involved in Berber historical movements because of the amount of time that has passed AND because of the fact that things have changed A LOT since then. But at the time of the Arab invasions, ALL people of the Saharan north Africa from Sudan to Morocco were called Berbers. OBVIOUSLY all these people did not look the same. Many SOUTHERN Berber groups were decimated because the Sahara has continued to grow, causing them to move in search of arable land. All of this makes it hard to establish a true Berber identity and history. Suffice to say, modern Kabyle and other "white" Berbers have come to DOMINATE Berber identity, even though this only represents COASTAL berber people and does not reflect the diversity of Berber groups from the 7th century in ALL of North Africa.
Keep in mind also that SOME berbers in the Sahara are descended from the GARAMANTES an ancient population that had been cultivating land in the Sahara using underground irrigation canals. These tribes were decimated partly due to the spread of desertification and the arrival of the arabs. Remnents of the garamantes went south and West becoming part of the Tuareg groups, settling amongst those of the Ghana empire and moving west to form the tribes of what became Morrocco. Their knowledge of irrigation and agriculture is partly descended from the Original tribes that were once in the Sahara. This is the technique that was used among the Moorish tribes who invaded Spain.
quote: There is considerable disagreement in the literature as to whether the takouba was historically limited to the Ihaggaren (the Tuareg aristocratic warrior class) or whether it was carried into battle by noble and vassal alike (Nicolaisen (1997, pp 589, 595) and Spring (1993, p. 28, 30)). Today, Spring (1993, p. 30) notes that the takouba has been adopted for wear by prosperous men of numerous ethnic groups in Sudanic Africa. The smiths, ineden, who make and mount these swords are predominantly of Negroid Sudanic African ancestry, and form a separate caste which has its own secret language ténet. Members of the blacksmith caste do not intermarry with the Tuaregs and are often regarded as possessing dark mystic powers (Nicolaisen (1997, pp 57 - 61)).
Other tidbits about Morrocco that are significant:
quote: Marrakech is a Berber city, with little influence by Arabs. Marrakech has been the capital of Morocco, as well as for smaller countries up through history. There are many monuments in Marrakech, most famous is the Koutoubia mosque. It is the old city, the suuq and the square in front, Jamaa l-Fnaa, that attracts most tourists. It is from Marrakech that Morocco has received its modern name. Europeans got the name of the city wrong, first reducing the "ch"-sound to s, and later even removing the ending until the French were left with "Maroc" and the English "Morocco".
HISTORY 1062: A capital for the Almoravids is founded by Yussuf bni Tashufin. It gets the name "Marra Kouch", which means "Land of the Kouch-men". Kouch was the name given to warriors with black complexion from modern Mauritania.
Also note that the ORIGINAL Almoravid rulers of Mauretania were CONQUERED by Arab tribes in the 1700s.
Many of the BERBERS you see in Marrakesh today are NOT the Berbers or BLACK Africans who founded the city in ancient times. El Hiba was one of the last Saharan rulers to exert authority over the area and the Glaouis tribe, which I posted about earlier, are the remnants of the black Berbers who were influential in Moroccan history. More info on the Glaois: http://lexicorient.com/morocco/telouet.htm
It must also be mentioned that the Berbers of the Mountains RESISTED Islam for a LONG period after the Arab invasions, THAT is why they WENT to the mountains in the FIRST place. Many of the Berber warriors and tribes involved in the spread of islam were BLACK Saharan berbers like those of the Almoravid Dynasty from the South. There WAS no Morrocco when the Arabs invaded and the LINK above shows you that the name derives from the BLACK Islamic populations that migrated there and founded cities like Marrakesh. However, there is a strain of white berber that also did go to Spain and there is no doubt that the Flamenco tradition of the Spanish traces back to the traditions of some of the white Berber tribes who also are renowned for their beauty in North Africa, like the Ouled Nail and other LATER Berber Groups.
But modern day people speak of Berbers as a SINGLE race when they are not a race. Berber is a language that has come to identify MANY DIFFERENT people under a single banner both in MODERN and ANCIENT times, which causes much of the confusion.
Also, the MODERN ARAB rulers of Morocco, Algeria and Mauretania often DOWNPLAY the history of BLACK Africans in their countries. This is a RECENT development because in ANCIENT times, black Africans were a SIGNIFICANT part of the ruling and WARRIOR classes.
Moorish coat of arms for the Christian pope Benedict XVI:
quote: Caput Aethiopum. According to the website of his former Archdiocese:
"The shield, which is divided into three sections, displays the “Moor of Freising." The Moor’s head, facing left and typically crowned, appeared on the coat of arms of the old principality of Freising as early as 1316, during the reign of the Bishop of Freising, Prince Konrad III, and it remained almost unchanged until the “secularization” of the Church’s estates in that region in 1802-1803. Ever since that time the archbishops of Munich and Freising have included the Caput Aethiopum, the head of an Ethiopian, in their episcopal coat of arms."
Ps - I asked the question mainly with respect to getting the details on European mtDNA, though it is not inconceivable that Tuaregs and other West African groups exchanged DNA with coastal "Berber" groups, and hence, would share these lineages with them to some degree.
I don't have my pc with me right now, so it will take me time to find the info that was posted here about Tuareg lineages.
I do have the data table about Tuareg paternal lineages.
But from what I remember from Rasol, Tuareg possess maternal lineages from indigenous East Africa, West Africa, North Africa, and a few with European. But the majority of those lineages are African.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Example of the Moors I talk I about:
The Galouis constitute a "dynasty" of Caids that ruled a swathe of south Morocco (which varied in size) from the XVIII century (2) to the Iindependence of Morocco in 1956 (3).
Madani Glaoui was the Grand - Vizir (prime minister) of Moulay Hafid, ever since the latter acceded to the throne ( Madani was the major contributor to this accession ) in 1908 until 1911. His junior, Thami , was pasha of Marrakech (sort of vice-king for the southern half of Morocco) from 1912 to Independence.
Picture of the most FAMOUS pascha of Moroccan colonial times: Thami El Glaouis
Stories (in French):
Discussion with Abdessadeq El Glaoui, author of the book the Rallying "El Glaoui was a hero" The objective first of Abdessadeq El Glaoui, wire of most famous of the Moroccan pashas, is initially to bring its lighting of eyewitness over the last years of French Protectorate to Morocco. For him, Thami El Glaoui is a patriot deceived by the French authorities of the time.
Thami El Glaoui, pasha de Marrakech, rehabilitated by his/her son the lord of the gangsters Abdessadeq El Glaoui tries by the publication of its deliver-testimony, "the Rallying", to rehabilitate his/her father the pasha Thami El Glaoui. A book which recalls the last years of French Protectorate in Morocco. Return on the fabulous life of the pasha El Glaoui. Amale Samie ? Thami El Glaoui. The Glaoua country is a hard country, summer like winter, but the rains, and especially snow, are abundant there. Glaoua, Iglioua in amazigh, constitute an influential tribe which increased little by little with the detriment of its neighbors. They live close to the highest summits of the Western Atlas, it is a ground of mountain pastors and small farmers specialized in cereals of mountain. The most powerful chief, a Berber kind of kinglet, was to face his neighbors, pertaining to other such powerful tribes of the High Western Atlas, Mtougga and Goundafa, which will provide caïds almost as famous as those of Glaoua. Most known of the children of this tribe, it is Thami. He is the younger brother by Madani, allied and protected early from the French of 1907 to 1911, where he was relieved of his post of Large Vizier by the sultan Moulay Hafid. He will die in 1918. It was the first "félon" of the family, it had made a pact with colonial France before even as she does not invade Morocco and protectorate does not impose to him.
^^nice info, Doug. Of course these were the same Moorish types that invaded Spain.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Moorish coat of arms for the Christian pope Benedict XVI:
Caput Aethiopum. According to the website of his former Archdiocese:
"The shield, which is divided into three sections, displays the “Moor of Freising." The Moor’s head, facing left and typically crowned, appeared on the coat of arms of the old principality of Freising as early as 1316, during the reign of the Bishop of Freising, Prince Konrad III, and it remained almost unchanged until the “secularization” of the Church’s estates in that region in 1802-1803. Ever since that time the archbishops of Munich and Freising have included the Caput Aethiopum, the head of an Ethiopian, in their episcopal coat of arms."http://www.ewtn.com/pope/life/arms.asp
Yes, and here are the other coat of arms:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's old Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Speaking of which, where is Karwash anyway?
It seems that our little presentation of FACTS has scared him off.
I don't know what it is with these 'mixed-race' folks who come to this site with their notions of 'mixed-race' supremacy! LOL
Rasol is right, mixed-racism is just as bad as the original 'purist' racism!
Although he would never admit it, the guy is obvioulsy racist himself, especially for using Ugandan dictator Idi Amin as some exemplar of what 'pure' Sub-Saharans look like!
So I suppose Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is the exemplar of all Asians then!
Perhaps Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez should be used as the exemplar of how all South Americans look..
LMAO
What a nutcase!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
These "mixed race" are mostly of predominant (so much so that if no asked they would be taken for) European strain but many live in a casta society where strict attention is paid to origins of ancestors as far back as the fifth generation (1/32).
USA citizens with the mixed race bug are incensed because the USA, until the last decade, couldn't've cared in the least how much European strain they had if it wasn't 99.9% European. This was unlike the rest of the Americas where so much a percentage of European strain, or a lot of money, allowed one entrance into all the benefits of being European or European creole.
Consequently these mixed race folk take out all their frustrations on those who have no qualm proclaiming or identifying with their African antecedents. The mixed race folk attack the "blacks" as if the blacks made up the casta system or the one drop system.
Visit their forums, blogs, and websites and you'll see they nearly never castigize whites/Europeans whereas in the words of Elvis Costello they "blame it all upon the darkies."
In essence the mixed race folk have the same mentality of whites/Euros who think lowly of the blacks and Africans and echo the same sentiments denying dark folk their accomplishments and roles in past civilizations and cultures and ignorant or not wanting to know about or examine the achievements of dark folk today.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:It seems that our little presentation of FACTS has scared him off.
Which facts Djehuti? I have a hard time to keep answering so many pieces of bull that I can't answer it all. By the way, how is the "temple"?
quote: I don't know what it is with these 'mixed-race' folks who come to this site with their notions of 'mixed-race' supremacy!
Mixed race supremacy? I don't believe on that. I just believe that the Moors of Spain are a people we know, and that they were not subsaharian Africans. How "Black" they were is a business that I don't care very much. I care for culture, not skins.
quote: Rasol is right, mixed-racism is just as bad as the original 'purist' racism!
Racism? How can that exist? If you say "ethnocentrism" then things could be better explained.
quote: Although he would never admit it, the guy is obvioulsy racist himself, especially for using Ugandan dictator Idi Amin as some exemplar of what 'pure' Sub-Saharans look like!
Yes, most don't look like Idi Amin. It is just that people get so blind to mixtures in Subsaharian Africa that they take an attitude similar to the Nordicist in Sweeden
Yes, the guy above was a nuts.
So I suppose Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is the exemplar of all Asians then!
Yes, the guy above is also a nuts, with nuclear power.
[IMG] Perhaps Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez should be used as the exemplar of how all South Americans look.. [/IMG]
Well, a little bit exagerated like its personality. That guy is also a nuts.
Ugly nuts people is everywhere. And as you know, in "Black" Africa people don't look the same.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Curiously enough and LOL, Idi Amin's ethnic group was Nubian. Maybe his ancestral line includes Taharqa! LOL. In actual fact though Idi resembles those Nuba wrestlers than appear ever so often in National Geographic. The problem with Idi was that he remained practically illiterate though recruited by the British to join the "King's Africa Rifles" corp--not requiring more skills than of goat herder--which he was in his youth.
In any case he has a strong authoritarian face--much more than Kim or Chavez.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The Chilien poster is not Jaime. He is a Chiliean poster that regularly posts on a certain forum dedicated to racially mixed people. All of this is no relevant to me. He has not personally attacked anybody or made any racist remarks. He has remained civil in the debate.
Yes, Jaime is "YaguarSalsero" or "Salssasin". I am not Jaime. He does not agree with me in many topics, but in some we think similar.
And you are correct. I usually post in forums that try to change the history of Hispanics (and Native American) peoples. As the matter of fact, I have been banned several times because of my oppinions. Nordicist hate me because I recall them they are mixed too. And some Afrocentrists hate me because I recall them theirs lack of rigor. I hate Nazism and all racist ideologies.
I believe in the equalities of people but if given a choice I am with my people: the Iberians, the Latin Americans of any color, and particularly the Native Americans.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
That genetic distance table above from Cavalli Sforza(?) is problematic. It contradicts much of what haplotype analysis tells us. An obvious problem is that the compiler of such starst off with 2 countries--Egypt and Libya--then proceeds to offer anlysis of ethnic and regional groups. Just sloppy!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
A recent genetic study lists Mali/Niger/Nigeria "Tuareg" to have 12.5% H/HV*/U*/R* mtDNA in a population sample size of 24 individuals.
Other groups ranked as below for the above Hgs:
5.0% Hausa (20 from Niger/Nigeria) 3.3% Fulani (151 from Niger/Nigeria, Guinea Bisseau, Cameroun) 1.8% Bambara (57 from Mali, Senegal) 1.3% Mandenka (150 from Senegal, Guinea Bisseau) 0.8% Temne (121 from Sierra Leone)
A study from 5 years ago showed 26 "Tuareg" to have 7.7% (+/- 5.2%) "West Eurasian" mtDNA.
Both of these studies based their "Tuareg" figures on a 10 year old study, except for one "Tuareg" in Mali in the recent report.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: That genetic distance table above from Cavalli Sforza(?) is problematic. It contradicts much of what haplotype analysis tells us.
Why?
quote:An obvious problem is that the compiler of such starst off with 2 countries--Egypt and Libya--then proceeds to offer anlysis of ethnic and regional groups. Just sloppy!
Yes, I agree that comparisons between ethnic groups on the one hand and nationalities on the other is not the best methodology.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: A recent genetic study lists Mali/Niger/Nigeria "Tuareg" to have 12.5% H/HV*/U*/R* mtDNA in a population sample size of 24 individuals.
Other groups ranked as below for the above Hgs:
5.0% Hausa (20 from Niger/Nigeria) 3.3% Fulani (151 from Niger/Nigeria, Guinea Bisseau, Cameroun) 1.8% Bambara (57 from Mali, Senegal) 1.3% Mandenka (150 from Senegal, Guinea Bisseau) 0.8% Temne (121 from Sierra Leone)
A study from 5 years ago showed 26 "Tuareg" to have 7.7% (+/- 5.2%) "West Eurasian" mtDNA.
Both of these studies based their "Tuareg" figures on a 10 year old study, except for one "Tuareg" in Mali in the recent report.
I would add that most of the so called West Eurasian is often U6, which is most properly considered North African.
By one study, Kikuyu of Kenya have more U6 than Palestinian Arabs.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] These "mixed race" are mostly of predominant (so much so that if no asked they would be taken for) European strain but many live in a casta society where strict attention is paid to origins of ancestors as far back as the fifth generation (1/32).
What a weird conclusion, friend. I will speak for Latinos, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, forget it. "Mixed race" people belong to "mixed cultures" societies. Those people has an identity very clear that comes from the LAND they were born.
At least for Latinos, Europe, Asia and Africa are far away lands that have not much to do with our lands. In the past, perhaps, but not today.
quote: USA citizens with the mixed race bug are incensed because the USA, until the last decade, couldn't've cared in the least how much European strain they had if it wasn't 99.9% European. This was unlike the rest of the Americas where so much a percentage of European strain, or a lot of money, allowed one entrance into all the benefits of being European or European creole.
You are confussing "race" with class. And you still believe that the upper classes in Latin America belong to a different culture and circles than the poor ones. That's true in a few poor countries but in most the culture of all people is the same: Hispanic (or Portuguese) with syncretism of Native American and/or African traditions.
quote: Consequently these mixed race folk take out all their frustrations on those who have no qualm proclaiming or identifying with their African antecedents. The mixed race folk attack the "blacks" as if the blacks made up the casta system or the one drop system.
Attacks on Whites are common as well. I tell you.
quote: Visit their forums, blogs, and websites and you'll see they nearly never castigize whites/Europeans whereas in the words of Elvis Costello they "blame it all upon the darkies."
In essence the mixed race folk have the same mentality of whites/Euros who think lowly of the blacks and Africans and echo the same sentiments denying dark folk their accomplishments and roles in past civilizations and cultures and ignorant or not wanting to know about or examine the achievements of dark folk today.
That's not true. Bigots exist in all human groups. In all without exception. Most mixed people (the normals, of course) have a sense of universality that "pure" groups lack. After all we have 2 or more heritages, and many feel proud of all of them.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Just a question for all. The women above is African and Tuareg (Niger).
When I see her I have the sensation she is a darker skinned variety of the same "white" Berbers of other pictures, but I don't see her as "Black". Perhaps is a problem of perception.
I believe that is important to define before continuing the discussion.
Do you think the women above is "Black"? Or do you see her as distinctively "Berber" or "North African"?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The Chilien poster is not Jaime. He is a Chiliean poster that regularly posts on a certain forum dedicated to racially mixed people. All of this is no relevant to me. He has not personally attacked anybody or made any racist remarks. He has remained civil in the debate.
Yes, Jaime is "YaguarSalsero" or "Salssasin". I am not Jaime. He does not agree with me in many topics, but in some we think similar.
And you are correct. I usually post in forums that try to change the history of Hispanics (and Native American) peoples. As the matter of fact, I have been banned several times because of my oppinions. Nordicist hate me because I recall them they are mixed too. And some Afrocentrists hate me because I recall them theirs lack of rigor. I hate Nazism and all racist ideologies.
I believe in the equalities of people but if given a choice I am with my people: the Iberians, the Latin Americans of any color, and particularly the Native Americans.
KAWASHKAR
And from another post:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Mixed race supremacy? I don't believe on that. I just believe that the Moors of Spain are a people we know, and that they were not subsaharian Africans. How "Black" they were is a business that I don't care very much. I care for culture, not skins.
Kawash, you are confused.
FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF. BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN. Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs. The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans. Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people. Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you. What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world. THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important. Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today. Remember there WERE no latinos in America when the Moors ruled Spain. The SPANISH learned about America from stories told to them by Africans in West Africa.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In the recent study U5 and U6 subclades were listed separately from H/HV*/U*/R* figures that I counted as (West) Eurasian. U6 is African specific as are some U5 subclades. Unfortunately the recent report's team -- which included two Malien members -- deemed U6 to be of "west Eurasian provenance."
Also, it's been found that some H subclades are apparently African specific too. There are others, often considered "backflow" Hgs, that show up only in Africa. This is true of certain NRY Hgs as it is of some mtDNA Hgs.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Shown where?
Ps - I asked the question mainly with respect to getting the details on European mtDNA, though it is not inconceivable that Tuaregs and other West African groups exchanged DNA with coastal "Berber" groups, and hence, would share these lineages with them to some degree.
I don't have my pc with me right now, so it will take me time to find the info that was posted here about Tuareg lineages.
I do have the data table about Tuareg paternal lineages.
I was responding to your claim about maternal lineages, not paternal.
From what I can recall on, Tuareg matrilineages are predominantly west African, but I don't have reason to doubt that they carry some frequencies of East African lineages, and to an even lesser degree, some Eurasian markers obtained from genetic exchange with coastal "Berber" speakers. I would like to see the finer details of this, including the title of specific study(s) in question, which nobody has done here to date.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Re that picture of Idi, does anyone have a picture of Princess Elizabeth of TORO whom he imprisoned for a while. Idi was Nubian and the Princess is Acoli--a classic case of a Nilotic African from Uganda. Before the colonial era most Africans would not know how to distinguish Niltotics from other Africans because the traits that the Europeans considered important are found in random distibution from family to family.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawash, you are confused.
I don't think so.
quote: FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
Which discrimination? If you are thinking in class discrimination, then yes. They brough that from Europe but it also existed in the Americas in pre-contact times. If you are thinking in racial discrimination then you should now in the Americas racism is a lot less dramatic like in South Africa or the United States. There are people of all mixtures and races everywhere.
quote: SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
Forcing domination is correct. You should study "miscegenation" more and you'll find out most of it was by the own will of people.
In the topic of genocide I will tell you that most Native Americans survived in the lands under the Spanish rule. I advice you to study the topic deeper and left beside the books written by English speakers.
quote: THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
Yes, Indians were not Iberians. However, Native Americans were considered Spanish citizens during colonial times. Most natives assimilated to Spanish society. The Killing off natives was a British practise, not Spanish. Not even in the Caribbeans Natives dissapear but assimilated. Today, 50% of the Puerto Rican DNA is Native American and the same is true for Cuba and Dominican Republic. Today there are 80 million Native Americans (pure) in Hispanic America and 200 million mixed descendents in Latin America. Besides, no country in Latin America has less than 20% of average Native American DNA.
For instance, In Chile alone, 1 million people is Native American, and non natives have 25% of Native American mtDNA.
So, for genocide ask British. Spanish were brutes but not nazis like the Brits.
quote: FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF.
You are forgetting North Africans are a different people from Subsaharian Africans. No matter the colors of skins overlap somehow. Racism is believing people ARE skin colors. People are cultures not skin colors.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Nobody doubt Northern Africans have admixture. But outsiders very much know they are a different people.
quote: Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
Actually, the COASTAL Berbers are precesily the ones that Southern Europeans call "Moors". People knows Southern Europeans and Moors went from and to Europe continuosly.
quote: The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans.
People knows that. People also knows in prehistorical times waves of Middle Easterners entered Northern Africa as well.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
Well, I believe those people spread to Europe as well. Don't you see that Europeans somehow find them "familiar"?
quote: So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people.
Not true. You are the one that still believe in the good and bad guys of history.
quote: Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you.
The ones that have banned me are white nordicists. Not Hispanics or Native Americans.
quote: What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do. But who believes in pinnacles of humanities? I hope in the process of rewriting history don't replace some bias for new lies.
quote: THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important.
The problem with that is that there were not many "Blacks" in Spain. Africans yes, but they were Berbers.
quote: Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans ...
You are repeating the "Black Legend of Spain" like a parrot. Sorry to say so.
quote: and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today.
Spaniards brought Black to the Americas to aliveate the suffering of Native Americans. Most of African brought to the Spanish Americas were brought to the Portugueses, Dutchs or Brits, who, in turn brought them from the Black chiefs of Ghana and other African kingdoms, that sold humans to the Europeans in exchange of goods.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawash, you are confused.
I don't think so.
quote: FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
Which discrimination? If you are thinking in class discrimination, then yes. They brough that from Europe but it also existed in the Americas in pre-contact times. If you are thinking in racial discrimination then you should now in the Americas racism is a lot less dramatic like in South Africa or the United States. There are people of all mixtures and races everywhere.
quote: SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
Forcing domination is correct. You should study "miscegenation" more and you'll find out most of it was by the own will of people.
In the topic of genocide I will tell you that most Native Americans survived in the lands under the Spanish rule. I advice you to study the topic deeper and left beside the books written by English speakers.
quote: THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
Yes, Indians were not Iberians. However, Native Americans were considered Spanish citizens during colonial times. Most natives assimilated to Spanish society. The Killing off natives was a British practise, not Spanish. Not even in the Caribbeans Natives dissapear but assimilated. Today, 50% of the Puerto Rican DNA is Native American and the same is true for Cuba and Dominican Republic. Today there are 80 million Native Americans (pure) in Hispanic America and 200 million mixed descendents in Latin America. Besides, no country in Latin America has less than 20% of average Native American DNA.
For instance, In Chile alone, 1 million people is Native American, and non natives have 25% of Native American mtDNA.
So, for genocide ask British. Spanish were brutes but not nazis like the Brits.
quote: FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF.
You are forgetting North Africans are a different people from Subsaharian Africans. No matter the colors of skins overlap somehow. Racism is believing people ARE skin colors. People are cultures not skin colors.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Nobody doubt Northern Africans have admixture. But outsiders very much know they are a different people.
quote: Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
Actually, the COASTAL Berbers are precesily the ones that Southern Europeans call "Moors". People knows Southern Europeans and Moors went from and to Europe continuosly.
quote: The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans.
People knows that. People also knows in prehistorical times waves of Middle Easterners entered Northern Africa as well.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
Well, I believe those people spread to Europe as well. Don't you see that Europeans somehow find them "familiar"?
quote: So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people.
Not true. You are the one that still believe in the good and bad guys of history.
quote: Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you.
The ones that have banned me are white nordicists. Not Hispanics or Native Americans.
quote: What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do. But who believes in pinnacles of humanities? I hope in the process of rewriting history don't replace some bias for new lies.
quote: THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important.
The problem with that is that there were not many "Blacks" in Spain. Africans yes, but they were Berbers.
quote: Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans ...
You are repeating the "Black Legend of Spain" like a parrot. Sorry to say so.
quote: and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today.
Spaniards brought Black to the Americas to aliveate the suffering of Native Americans. Most of African brought to the Spanish Americas were bought to the Portugueses, Dutchs or Brits, who, in turn bought them from the Black chiefs of Ghana and other African kingdoms, that sold humans to the Europeans in exchange of goods.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: facts Djehuti? I have a hard time to keep answering so many pieces of bull that I can't answer it all. By the way, how is the "temple"?
Everything I cited from legitimate sources, yet YOU hasn't cited any evidence yet calls such info "bull"!
quote:Mixed race supremacy? I don't believe on that. I just believe that the Moors of Spain are a people we know, and that they were not subsaharian Africans. How "Black" they were is a business that I don't care very much. I care for culture, not skins.
Keep telling yourself that. All your other words sasy otherwise.
quote: Racism? How can that exist? If you say "ethnocentrism" then things could be better explained.
While 'race' does not exist as a true scientific concept, it still exist as a social one. And your actions have demonstrated that quite well.
quote:Yes, most don't look like Idi Amin. It is just that people get so blind to mixtures in Subsaharian Africa that they take an attitude similar to the Nordicist in Sweeden
Nope. Sorry, but I all your notions of "mixture" have been disproven several times already. Comparatively, there is more mixture in Europe than in Africa-- even Sweden as I have already shown with the genentic map of Europe.
quote:Yes, the guy above was a nuts.
And so are you! LOL
quote:Yes, the guy above is also a nuts, with nuclear power.
And again so are you, except you have no power, not even the ability to be educated.
quote:Well, a little bit exagerated like its personality. That guy is also a nuts.
Exaggerations and tall tales of entire populations is what you seem to be good at.
quote:Ugly nuts people is everywhere. And as you know, in "Black" Africa people don't look the same.
Yes, but it is not due to "admixture"! LMAO
quote:
Just a question for all. The women above is African and Tuareg (Niger).
When I see her I have the sensation she is a darker skinned variety of the same "white" Berbers of other pictures, but I don't see her as "Black". Perhaps is a problem of perception.
I believe that is important to define before continuing the discussion.
Do you think the women above is "Black"? Or do you see her as distinctively "Berber" or "North African"?
^Yes I believe that you ARE indeed suffering from a problem of perception most likely stemming from problems of self-perception and you are projecting that onto others, even whole populations whom you have no connection to.
How can that Tuareg girl be a darker skinned member of any "white" people??
Yes she is relatively light skinned compared to say.. Idi Amin, but she is obviously a melanoderm (high melanin content) and NOT a leucoderm. She actually fits perfectly well into the range of complexions found in Sub-Sahara being similar in complexion to golden brown Khoisan. Unless you are saying the Khoisan peoples are now a "darker variety of white people"! LOL
Again...
Skin color: Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Relethford JH. Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA. Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: These "mixed race" are mostly of predominant (so much so that if no asked they would be taken for) European strain but many live in a casta society where strict attention is paid to origins of ancestors as far back as the fifth generation (1/32).
USA citizens with the mixed race bug are incensed because the USA, until the last decade, couldn't've cared in the least how much European strain they had if it wasn't 99.9% European. This was unlike the rest of the Americas where so much a percentage of European strain, or a lot of money, allowed one entrance into all the benefits of being European or European creole.
Consequently these mixed race folk take out all their frustrations on those who have no qualm proclaiming or identifying with their African antecedents. The mixed race folk attack the "blacks" as if the blacks made up the casta system or the one drop system.
Visit their forums, blogs, and websites and you'll see they nearly never castigize whites/Europeans whereas in the words of Elvis Costello they "blame it all upon the darkies."
In essence the mixed race folk have the same mentality of whites/Euros who think lowly of the blacks and Africans and echo the same sentiments denying dark folk their accomplishments and roles in past civilizations and cultures and ignorant or not wanting to know about or examine the achievements of dark folk today.
I think you hit mark with this one Takruri, or should I say the nerve.
quote: A recent genetic study lists Mali/Niger/Nigeria "Tuareg" to have 12.5% H/HV*/U*/R* mtDNA in a population sample size of 24 individuals.
Other groups ranked as below for the above Hgs:
5.0% Hausa (20 from Niger/Nigeria) 3.3% Fulani (151 from Niger/Nigeria, Guinea Bisseau, Cameroun) 1.8% Bambara (57 from Mali, Senegal) 1.3% Mandenka (150 from Senegal, Guinea Bisseau) 0.8% Temne (121 from Sierra Leone)
A study from 5 years ago showed 26 "Tuareg" to have 7.7% (+/- 5.2%) "West Eurasian" mtDNA.
Both of these studies based their "Tuareg" figures on a 10 year old study, except for one "Tuareg" in Mali in the recent report.
In the recent study U5 and U6 subclades were listed separately from H/HV*/U*/R* figures that I counted as (West) Eurasian. U6 is African specific as are some U5 subclades. Unfortunately the recent report's team -- which included two Malien members -- deemed U6 to be of "west Eurasian provenance."
Also, it's been found that some H subclades are apparently African specific too. There are others, often considered "backflow" Hgs, that show up only in Africa. This is true of certain NRY Hgs as it is of some mtDNA Hgs.
Sorry Takruri, but I don't it matters how many genetic studies you throw at his face, you have already idenitified the socio-psychological ill that affects him and unfortunately many others like him who try to "mix-up" the world because they are of mixed-ancestry themselves.
Notice how he focuses on trying to mix-up Africa instead of Europe or Asia. And notice how he completely ignores all evidence we show him.
Sorry, but the only one that could help him now is probably a therapist.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:..Nope. Sorry, but I all your notions of "mixture" have been disproven several times already. Comparatively, there is more mixture in Europe than in Africa-- even Sweden as I have already shown with the genentic map of Europe.
..
So Africa is the "pure" race? Don't tell me bulls, please. Black people is nothing special. Admuxture exist in all the point of contacts of Africa with other continents. In the North, the North East and the East. Look for Malgaches in Madagascar, for example.
quote:..Yes I believe that you ARE indeed suffering from a problem of perception most likely stemming from problems of self-perception and you are projecting that onto others, even whole populations whom you have no connection to.
How can that Tuareg girl be a darker skinned member of any "white" people??[QUOTE]..
[QUOTE].. Yes she is relatively light skinned compared to say.. Idi Amin, but she is obviously a melanoderm (high melanin content) and NOT a leucoderm. She actually fits perfectly well into the range of complexions found in Sub-Sahara being similar in complexion to golden brown Khoisan. Unless you are saying the Khoisan peoples are now a "darker variety of white people"!
Again...
[b]Skin color:
Yes, I know that you are a melanine fanatic. No. Skin color is not the only difference in phenotype between peoples. If so, South Easts Indians and Nubians would look like siblings.
For me, the Tuareg woman above is MOOR, not European or Subsaharian African, but a people in between. They could be lighter or darker but all share about the same facial features.
So, let get the terminology clear before continue. If you insist in a melanine based division between people, I believe very little can be say about the people of North Africa.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:..Sorry Takruri, but I don't it matters how many genetic studies you throw at his face, you have already idenitified the socio-psychological ill that affects him and unfortunately many others like him who try to "mix-up" the world because they are of mixed-ancestry themselves.
Notice how he focuses on trying to mix-up Africa instead of Europe or Asia. And notice how he completely ignores all evidence we show him.
Sorry, but the only one that could help him now is probably a therapist...
Yes. Pretty simple analysis. Change history and wait for people to accept it without complains, otherwise call them racists or sent to the therapists. lol.
I focus in North Africa because that is the part which is related to the history of Spain. Aren't we talking about Moors? Well that part of history is important for me. All Spaniards have same ancestry from North Africa. They are part of Spain history. And I want the truth is seen. Simple.
Why one to be ashamed of being "mixed"? Race is just the hardware. The important part is the software and the results.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawash, you are confused.
I don't think so.
YES, you ARE and I will show you
quote: FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
Which discrimination? If you are thinking in class discrimination, then yes. They brough that from Europe but it also existed in the Americas in pre-contact times. If you are thinking in racial discrimination then you should now in the Americas racism is a lot less dramatic like in South Africa or the United States. There are people of all mixtures and races everywhere.
The discrimination that is based around those descended from WHITE Spanish invaders who CONQUERED indigenous groups in South America and make up the MAJORITY of the upper classes there now. They ALSO established a color system that PROMOTES division by identifying people by their SKIN color and the combination of mixtures between Africans, Indians and WHITE Spanish. But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
quote: SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
Forcing domination is correct. You should study "miscegenation" more and you'll find out most of it was by the own will of people.
In the topic of genocide I will tell you that most Native Americans survived in the lands under the Spanish rule. I advice you to study the topic deeper and left beside the books written by English speakers.
Will of WHAT people? YOU should study miscgenation and provide PROOF that natives wanted to have their LAND stolen, culture stolen and women abused by Spaniards as SEX toys.
quote: THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
Yes, Indians were not Iberians. However, Native Americans were considered Spanish citizens during colonial times. Most natives assimilated to Spanish society. The Killing off natives was a British practise, not Spanish. Not even in the Caribbeans Natives dissapear but assimilated. Today, 50% of the Puerto Rican DNA is Native American and the same is true for Cuba and Dominican Republic. Today there are 80 million Native Americans (pure) in Hispanic America and 200 million mixed descendents in Latin America. Besides, no country in Latin America has less than 20% of average Native American DNA.
For instance, In Chile alone, 1 million people is Native American, and non natives have 25% of Native American mtDNA.
So, for genocide ask British. Spanish were brutes but not nazis like the Brits.
So Cortez and the lot of Spanish conquistadors did not commit genocide against MANY indigenous groups? Sure they may not have killed ALL native groups, but that is not something POSITIVE. The POINT is that they killed enough in order to force the natives to submit to Spanish rule. And even though many Indian Americans are the MAJORITY of the populations in South, they still occupy the LOWEST rungs of the social ladder because of the HISTORY of domination by Spanish whites. What is taking place in South America today is a POPULAR uprising of support for LEFTIST politicians who are MORE supportive of policies in support of the MAJORITY of the populations you mentioned. This would not BE NECESSARY if everything was as GOOD as you make it out to be.
quote: FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF.
You are forgetting North Africans are a different people from Subsaharian Africans. No matter the colors of skins overlap somehow. Racism is believing people ARE skin colors. People are cultures not skin colors.
YOU are making statements that you cannot prove. North Africa is larger in size than ALL of North America. ALL North Africans do NOT look like WHITE Berbers. North Africans come in MANY colors and SOME are INDEED similar to "subsaharans". Likewise ALL subsaharans DONT LOOK THE SAME. Therefore MANY subsaharans look like North Africans because they are ALL Africans. Remember, people to the SOUTH of the Sahara ALSO are descended from the original Saharan populations that were there before the Sahara dried up. Therefore, you are REINFORCING a FAKE distinction. Are Nordic Europeans REALLY that different from Southern Europeans? NO. Same for the INDIGENOUS Saharan Africans who ARE NOT mixed with Arabs and Europeans. YOU are equating MIXED Arab and European "WHITE" north Africans with ALL people from NOrth Africa. The coastal regions where these "white" berbers live is less than 1% of the TOTAL North African landmass. It has been SHOWN to you over and over again that the ORIGINAL populations of North AFrica have been affected by European and Arab migrations over the last 1300 years, just as South American populations have been affected by European migrations. The reason these migrations have had MORE of an impact on the Saharan groups is because the DESERT is sparsely populated and MOST populations of North African countries live NEAR the shore. However, this does NOT mean that the current ethnic makeup of North Africa is the SAME as it was in ANCIENT times. Firstly the populations were distributed differently, the CITIES of ancient times mostly no longer exist and MODERN cities where MOST people live DID NOT exist then along with the MODERN countries we have now. 1300 years is a LONG time and more than enough time to have a substantial change in population density and settlement. Just think 1300 years ago the Aztec and Maya ruled South America and American Indians roamed the plains of North America. These groups are NO longer present in the same way they were back then.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Nobody doubt Northern Africans have admixture. But outsiders very much know they are a different people.
They are not ALL mixed in the same amount. SOME are MORE mixed than others. ALL North AFricans dont look the same
quote: Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
Actually, the COASTAL Berbers are precesily the ones that Southern Europeans call "Moors". People knows Southern Europeans and Moors went from and to Europe continuosly.
NO they are not. YOU are the one saying that. We have SHOWN you repeatedly that the word Moor in Europe refers to BLACK Africans (from ALL of Africa). What SOUTHERN Europeans define as MOOR is IRRELEVANT. MODERN Souther Europeans WERENT THERE 1300 years ago, so they CANNOT speak of a people they did not see or interact with DIRECTLY. I have ALSO shown you that the names Marakkesch and Morroco derive from the word "moro" or "mara" meaning BLACK. This is from people who SAW the Moors we are talking about. Mauretanea MEANS land of the BURNT or BLACK faces, from the root MAURE which is a DESCRIPTION of the PEOPLE THERE when it was FOUNDED. What MODERN south Europeans see in MODERN North AFricans as MOORISH is irrelevant because this is over 400 years AFTER the fact. I also already said that ALL Moors were not BLACK, so there is no need for you to keep REITERATING a FALSE STRAWMAN argument. Look up the origin of the word Marrakesch and Morroco and you will SEE that it derives from a description of BLACK Africans and was NOT originated by Spanish, so what THEY define it as meaning is IRRELEVANT.
quote: The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans.
People knows that. People also knows in prehistorical times waves of Middle Easterners entered Northern Africa as well.
Those prehistoric waves did not change the MAJORITY of populations INLAND from the coast. The MAJOR thrust of Arabs into Africa came with the Arab entry into Egypt and then the subsequent waves of Arabs across the Sahara. The make up of MANY North African populations is a result of RECENT Arab migrations.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
Well, I believe those people spread to Europe as well. Don't you see that Europeans somehow find them "familiar"?
WHO? Who are you talking about? ALL North Africans DO NOT LOOK LIKE Europeans! Only those who have a HISTORY of mixing with Europeans do....
quote: So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people.
Not true. You are the one that still believe in the good and bad guys of history.
Because that is a FACT of life.
quote: Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you.
The ones that have banned me are white nordicists. Not Hispanics or Native Americans.
quote: What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do. But who believes in pinnacles of humanities? I hope in the process of rewriting history don't replace some bias for new lies.
It is YOU who is attempting to distort and rewrite history with your OWN lies.
quote: THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important.
The problem with that is that there were not many "Blacks" in Spain. Africans yes, but they were Berbers.
And many Berbers ARE and WERE black. The Almoravids were BLACK Berbers from OUTSIDE Morocco and NOT white Kabyle or Rif berbers who tend to be WHITE. These BLACK berbers are the ones who established the city of Marrakesch. ALL Berbers DO NOT LOOK THE SAME.
quote: Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans ...
You are repeating the "Black Legend of Spain" like a parrot. Sorry to say so.
YOU are parroting that ALL berbers and North Africans are and have always been WHITE. Sorry to tell you NO as well.
quote: and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today.
Spaniards brought Black to the Americas to aliveate the suffering of Native Americans. Most of African brought to the Spanish Americas were brought to the Portugueses, Dutchs or Brits, who, in turn brought them from the Black chiefs of Ghana and other African kingdoms, that sold humans to the Europeans in exchange of goods.
KAWASHKAR
Spaniards were among the FIRST to enslave blacks even BEFORE the British. It was only AFTER the Spanish NAVY was defeated that the British began to control the seas and hence the slave trade. The Spanish navy was a THREAT to British Colonial interests. The Spanish were the FIRST to import African slaves to America.
quote: 1502
* 1502: Juan de Córdoba of Seville becomes the first merchant we can identify to send an African slave to the New World. Córdoba, like other merchants, is permitted by the Spanish authorities to send only one slave. Others send two or three.
1504
* 1504: a small group of Africans - probably slaves captured from a Portuguese vessel - are brought to the court of King James IV of Scotland.
1505
* 1505: first record of sugar cane being grown in the New World, in Santo Domingo (modern Dominican Republic).
1509
* 1509: Columbus's son, Diego Cólon, becomes governor of the new Spanish empire in the Carribean. He soon complains that Native American slaves do not work hard enough.
1510
* 22 January 1510: the start of the systematic transportation of African slaves to the New World: King Ferdinand of Spain authorises a shipment of 50 African slaves to be sent to Santo Domingo.
1513
* 2 April 1513: Juan Ponce de Leon becomes the first European to reach the coast of what is now the United States of America (modern Florida).
1516
* 1516: the governor of Cuba, Diego Velázquez, authorises slave-raiding expeditions to Central America. One group of slaves aboard a Spanish caravel rebel and kill the Spanish crew before sailing home - the first successful slave rebellion recorded in the New World. * 1516: in his book Utopia, Sir Thomas More argues that his ideal society would have slaves but they would not be 'non-combatant prisoners-of-war, slaves by birth, or purchases from foreign slave markets.' Rather, they would be local convicts or 'condemned criminals from other countries, who are acquired in large numbers, sometimes for a small payment, but usually for nothing.' (Trans. Paul Turner, Penguin, 1965)
1518
* 18 August 1518: in a significant escalation of the slave trade, Charles V grants his Flemish courtier Lorenzo de Gorrevod permission to import 4000 African slaves into New Spain. From this point onwards thousands of slaves are sent to the New World each year.
Almost all of us, at least those of us in "cosmopolita," are mixed. The thing is we're not mixed up (confused).
The problem with mixed race advocates is
they buy into the Euro concept of discrete biological race
they believe in pure and mixed races
they accede to supremacy of the so-called white race
they curse every bit of the so-called black race that may be in them, some deny it altogether, because one drop of so-called black blood causes their so-called white paternity figures to deny the mixed breeds entry to "Valhalla"
They hate blacks because the black in them mars whites accepting them, plain and simple. They don't hate the white in them because deep down inside that's what they aspire to be.
Proof? The mestizo/mulato/zambo masses of "Latin" America, even those undeniably Indio, identify with Hildago culture and Iberia to the neglect of pre-Columbia America and to the denial of Africa, not only geneaologically but even that anything of human value could even remotely possibly come from shameful Africa the darkie continent of nudity cannabalism godlessness and a whole host of other depracatory mental implants.
[*]
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The discrimination that is based around those descended from WHITE Spanish invaders who CONQUERED indigenous groups in South America and make up the MAJORITY of the upper classes there now.
Who says Spaniards are WHITE in the first place? Some are but many aren't. Not even the conquestadors were all WHITE. They were Europeans but not necessarily Nordics. I have show in pictures that some Native Americans are lighter than some Spaniards. lol. That's show how little you know about that topic.
quote: They ALSO established a color system that PROMOTES division by identifying people by their SKIN color and the combination of mixtures between Africans, Indians and WHITE Spanish.
First, Africans where really considerated inferior -that's true. The relation between Spaniards and frienly Indians was different.
quote: But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
There is not occupation anymore. We broke free from Spaniards fighting (nobody gave us independency for free, like it happens in other latitudeS). In second place, 99% of Latin Americans have some degree of Native Ancestry, so this is our HOME.
quote: Will of WHAT people? YOU should study miscgenation and provide PROOF that natives wanted to have their LAND stolen, culture stolen and women abused by Spaniards as SEX toys.
Really? Don't you realize Native women where sold like goods by many Native Americans? In many cases the Native women themselves abandoned their tribes to go to the Spanish towns. And, far from the "far west" ideology "gringos" have pushed into English Speaking education, the records of interacial marryiage exist, with names and races, since the 16th century.
quote: So Cortez and the lot of Spanish conquistadors did not commit genocide against MANY indigenous groups?
Do you know who Cortes (with "s") fought against? The Aztecs. A people that controlled the native tribes of Mexico by spreading terror by massive human sacrifices. You should know most of the troops of Cortes were Native American allies. Cortes have descendents with Malinche (Native American) and they become Spanish nobles.
quote: Sure they may not have killed ALL native groups, but that is not something POSITIVE. The POINT is that they killed enough in order to force the natives to submit to Spanish rule.
Spaniards were a fighting machine. The best soldiers of theirs time. They killed anyone that opposed them in Holland, North Africa or the Americas. They did not practise genocide, though. They killed people in battle.
quote: And even though many Indian Americans are the MAJORITY of the populations in South, they still occupy the LOWEST rungs of the social ladder because of the HISTORY of domination by Spanish whites.
That's true for ETHNIC INDIANS. Peoples that are outside Western Civilization, but things have being changing. Almost half Hispanic America was never conquered by the Spaniards, and in there Native Americans did not assimilate to society. Most of Natives that do assimilate reach the highest post. Many mixed and pure Native Americans have been presidents in Latin America. They are in all the possitions of life.
quote: What is taking place in South America today is a POPULAR uprising of support for LEFTIST politicians who are MORE supportive of policies in support of the MAJORITY of the populations you mentioned. This would not BE NECESSARY if everything was as GOOD as you make it out to be.
Latin America is complex. Poverty exist. Communism exist. But applying the racial ideology is just a simplification of things that distort reality.
quote: YOU are making statements that you cannot prove. North Africa is larger in size than ALL of North America. ALL North Africans do NOT look like WHITE Berbers. North Africans come in MANY colors and SOME are INDEED similar to "subsaharans". Likewise ALL subsaharans DONT LOOK THE SAME. Therefore MANY subsaharans look like North Africans because they are ALL Africans.
I did not say they are uniform. I only say that North Africans is a group in between Europeans and Southern Africans. Isn't that true?
quote: Remember, people to the SOUTH of the Sahara ALSO are descended from the original Saharan populations that were there before the Sahara dried up. Therefore, you are REINFORCING a FAKE distinction. Are Nordic Europeans REALLY that different from Southern Europeans? NO.
Really? Do you really believe Southern Europeans are Germans. Please NOOOOO!!!
quote: Same for the INDIGENOUS Saharan Africans who ARE NOT mixed with Arabs and Europeans. YOU are equating MIXED Arab and European "WHITE" north Africans with ALL people from NOrth Africa.
No. I am saying the Moors came from North Africa and a distintive people.
quote: Just think 1300 years ago the Aztec and Maya ruled South America and American Indians roamed the plains of North America.
Well, Aztecs and Maya never ruled South America. They lived in Mesoamerica, in the frontier between North and Central America. For South America think on Incas, Tiahuanaco and Moches.
quote: These groups are NO longer present in the same way they were back then.
Mayans are quite intact. They still speak Maya, and that helped the specialist to break the code of maya writing.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa.
What's wrong with thinking they are an intermediate group. It is obvious they are in between Southern Europeans and Southern Africans.
quote: Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Some of that is true. I agree that Eurocentrism was a fact. But I am looking for reality, not dogmas.
quote:They are not ALL mixed in the same amount. SOME are MORE mixed than others. ALL North AFricans dont look the same Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
It may be so. At least in Spain people has always now the Moors have some Black admixture. That's a characteristic of the Moors of any color.
quote: MODERN Souther Europeans WERENT THERE 1300 years ago, so they CANNOT speak of a people they did not see or interact with DIRECTLY. I have ALSO shown you that the names Marakkesch and Morroco derive from the word "moro" or "mara" meaning BLACK. This is from people who SAW the Moors we are talking about. What MODERN south Europeans see in MODERN North AFricans as MOORISH is irrelevant because this is over 400 years AFTER the fact. I also already said that ALL Moors were not BLACK, so there is no need for you to keep REITERATING a FALSE STRAWMAN argument. Look up the origin of the word Marrakesch and Morroco and you will SEE that it derives from a description of BLACK Africans and was NOT originated by Spanish, so what THEY define it as meaning is IRRELEVANT.
Pushing Moors into the "Black history" is as forced as pushed them into the "white history". Why you do not accept Moors have been part of Western History since ancient times, and Southern Europeans do know who is and who is not a moor?
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times.
Those are the people that Europeans believe are related. Don't you see it?
quote: WHO? Who are you talking about? ALL North Africans DO NOT LOOK LIKE Europeans! Only those who have a HISTORY of mixing with Europeans do....
Don't be silly, the influence is evident. It is even possible that Arabs and Europeans descend of Ethiopians as you may know.
Later. I got tired.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Almost all of us, at least those of us in "cosmopolita," are mixed. The thing is we're not mixed up (confused).
The problem with mixed race advocates is[list=1] [*]they buy into the Euro concept of discrete biological race [*]they believe in pure and mixed races [*]they accede to supremacy of the so-called white race [*]they curse every bit of the so-called black race
Actually, the white-black game is an U.S. obsession. Do you really believe a Latin American would consider a "gringo" to be superior? lol. That's dumb.
See how idiot is Bush, the archetypical "gringo".
quote: that may be in them, some deny it altogether, because one drop of so-called black blood causes their so-called white paternity figures to deny the mixed breeds entry to "Valhalla"
Blood is red, not Black or White.
quote: They hate blacks because the black in them mars whites accepting them, plain and simple. They don't hate the white in them because deep down inside that's what they aspire to be.
Don't hate the white? Which white? A white gang would have a hard time finding out how much Latinos love them. LOL.
quote: Proof? The mestizo/mulato/zambo masses of "Latin" America, even those undeniably Indio, identify with Hildago culture and Iberia to the neglect of pre-Columbia America
What kind of proof is this. Latinos of all "colors" love Pre-columbian America above all. See the Mexican, Argentinean, Peruvian and Chilean flags, to start with. We are proud of our Amerindian ancestors.
quote: and to the denial of Africa, not only geneaologically but even that anything of human value could even remotely possibly come from shameful Africa the darkie continent of nudity cannabalism godlessness and a whole host of other depracatory mental implants.
Africa? Which Africa? Yes, there were cannibals in Africa, like in America and the Pacific. Now, who is proud of Africa in Latin America? Go to see those countries where there are large African descendents, starting from Cuba, DR, Haiti and Brazil, and you will see that far from being ashamed people is proud of Africa.
Besides, Spaniards are proud of Al-Andalus, and you know some of those Moors have that admixture. lol.
Ask any white Uruguayan about Candomble and you will find out they are also proud of Africa.
Ask any white Brazilian about Samba, Candombe, Capoheira or any of many African traditions, and find out. Don't you know that whites play afro-Cuban rythms and are priest of Santeria?
Please, get more data. You need it.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Altakruri
quote:They hate blacks because the black in them mars whites accepting them, plain and simple. They don't hate the white in them because deep down inside that's what they aspire to be.
Do you blame them? the fact is everyone wants to be associated with the winners, and unfortunatly most people in africa, asia and south america are today the losers in comparison to the people of the western world, so if you are half black and half white or half apache indian and half white, you should be allowed to be proud of your white side more than your other side if thats what you feel and want to do, and no one should blame them for that, its their given right since thats their ancestry. The one drop rule in united states should not be exported outside its borders,because its a retard system. If your half white then your half white period, not full black as in U.S. And if you feel culturaly closer and identify with your white side of family then you are even more white. No one should question that.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Don't you know that whites play afro-Cuban rythms and are priest of Santeria?
And white skinheads played black Jamaican ska music.
So what?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What's this half white stuff?
Blacks in the USA embrace folk with as little black ancestry as one great great grandparent.
How many of your half whites River Dance down the avenue on St. Patricks day?
Guess what? It's USA blacks that's stopping them.
Ever heard a song with lyrics "the boys are back in town"? The guy that wrote it had an inner African father and an Irish mother and he was born and raised in Ireland. Cuchulain Mac Coo was his hero.
Guess what? His own dear sweet Irish mamma eulogized his soul a windward return back to Africa.
Like I said all of s of "cosmopolita" are mixed and unfortunately some are mixed up. One can't expect a society should embrave them as a member if they don't fit that society's membership norms.
Yonis if you wanna be white more power to you! Just don't hate blacks because of what ever black ancestry you may have. OK?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I think cannibalism is mostly a myth. Anthropologist tracking down "cannibal cultures" always find that one group is always blaming a neighbor group, such that both point the finger at the other while denying themselves to be partakers of the cuisine.
Your choice of places reveals your adoration of whites and deprecation of non-whites. Why else do you exclude Europe from your list?
quote:Yes, there were cannibals in Africa, like in America and the Pacific.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The discrimination that is based around those descended from WHITE Spanish invaders who CONQUERED indigenous groups in South America and make up the MAJORITY of the upper classes there now.
Who says Spaniards are WHITE in the first place? Some are but many aren't. Not even the conquestadors were all WHITE. They were Europeans but not necessarily Nordics. I have show in pictures that some Native Americans are lighter than some Spaniards. lol. That's show how little you know about that topic.
Shows how little left there is to your ARGUMENT that you introduce something that was NEVER part of the discussion. As I recall, we were NOT talking about the skin complexion of the Spaniards who invaded America
quote: They ALSO established a color system that PROMOTES division by identifying people by their SKIN color and the combination of mixtures between Africans, Indians and WHITE Spanish.
First, Africans where really considerated inferior -that's true. The relation between Spaniards and frienly Indians was different.
Most of North Africa IS INLAND. The Spanish only tolerated "friendly" Indians because they didnt have the manpower to defeat the Aztecs outright. Once the Aztecs were defeated, they conquered these "friendly" Indians.
quote: Through cunning and intrigue Cortés forged an alliance with the Totonacs at the coastal city-state Cempoala, then under Aztec dominion. The Spanish army was thus beefed up with more than a thousand native warriors plus 200 porters. With a small party left to hold the fort at Vera Cruz, Cortés commenced the hazardous journey towards the Aztec capital.
quote: But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
There is not occupation anymore. We broke free from Spaniards fighting (nobody gave us independency for free, like it happens in other latitudeS). In second place, 99% of Latin Americans have some degree of Native Ancestry, so this is our HOME.
It may not be occupation, but the fact is that those who have the economic and political POWER in South America are STILL largely descendants of WHITE Spaniards and Portuguese.
quote: Will of WHAT people? YOU should study miscgenation and provide PROOF that natives wanted to have their LAND stolen, culture stolen and women abused by Spaniards as SEX toys.
Really? Don't you realize Native women where sold like goods by many Native Americans? In many cases the Native women themselves abandoned their tribes to go to the Spanish towns. And, far from the "far west" ideology "gringos" have pushed into English Speaking education, the records of interacial marryiage exist, with names and races, since the 16th century.
SO WHAT? There are ALWAYS traitors in EVERY race. There were French women who slept with German soldiers in WWII, does that CHANGE what the Germans were doing to France?
quote: So Cortez and the lot of Spanish conquistadors did not commit genocide against MANY indigenous groups?
Do you know who Cortes (with "s") fought against? The Aztecs. A people that controlled the native tribes of Mexico by spreading terror by massive human sacrifices. You should know most of the troops of Cortes were Native American allies. Cortes have descendents with Malinche (Native American) and they become Spanish nobles.
YOU should know that subsequent WAVES of Spanish assisted Cortes in CONQUERING these tribes as well
quote: Sure they may not have killed ALL native groups, but that is not something POSITIVE. The POINT is that they killed enough in order to force the natives to submit to Spanish rule.
Spaniards were a fighting machine. The best soldiers of theirs time. They killed anyone that opposed them in Holland, North Africa or the Americas. They did not practise genocide, though. They killed people in battle.
They also commited atrocities and had a SCORCHED EARTH policy. The fact that they DIDNT kill off ALL Indians in South America DOES NOT make their actions POSITIVE in any sense. If someone just CHOPS off your arm without KILLING you, does THAT make them NOBLE? This is IRRELEVANT to the discussion about Africa.
quote: And even though many Indian Americans are the MAJORITY of the populations in South, they still occupy the LOWEST rungs of the social ladder because of the HISTORY of domination by Spanish whites.
That's true for ETHNIC INDIANS. Peoples that are outside Western Civilization, but things have being changing. Almost half Hispanic America was never conquered by the Spaniards, and in there Native Americans did not assimilate to society. Most of Natives that do assimilate reach the highest post. Many mixed and pure Native Americans have been presidents in Latin America. They are in all the possitions of life.
That is true. But MANY Native Americans are also rebels who have been FIGHTING against MIXED and relatively pure white Spanish descended rulers for a LONG time. Once again this is NOT a discussion about South American history this is a discussion about African Moors from BEFORE the Spanish invaded America. Anything about Spanish history in America is IRRELEVANT on the point about WHO the Moors were.
quote: What is taking place in South America today is a POPULAR uprising of support for LEFTIST politicians who are MORE supportive of policies in support of the MAJORITY of the populations you mentioned. This would not BE NECESSARY if everything was as GOOD as you make it out to be.
Latin America is complex. Poverty exist. Communism exist. But applying the racial ideology is just a simplification of things that distort reality.
Once again IRRELEVANT to the discussion of MOORS.
quote: YOU are making statements that you cannot prove. North Africa is larger in size than ALL of North America. ALL North Africans do NOT look like WHITE Berbers. North Africans come in MANY colors and SOME are INDEED similar to "subsaharans". Likewise ALL subsaharans DONT LOOK THE SAME. Therefore MANY subsaharans look like North Africans because they are ALL Africans.
I did not say they are uniform. I only say that North Africans is a group in between Europeans and Southern Africans. Isn't that true?
Why are you asking me? You should have YOUR OWN scientific evidence to back up YOUR OWN position. Anything else is an opinion and INVALID.
quote: Remember, people to the SOUTH of the Sahara ALSO are descended from the original Saharan populations that were there before the Sahara dried up. Therefore, you are REINFORCING a FAKE distinction. Are Nordic Europeans REALLY that different from Southern Europeans? NO.
Really? Do you really believe Southern Europeans are Germans. Please NOOOOO!!!
I never said that they were, but UNFORTUNATELY you dont understand that. But since you cannot COMPREHEND what I am saying, NOrdics and Southern Europeans ARE WHITE. Any distinction is based history, culture and ethnicity NOT SKIN COLOR. I thought you would understand that. The area of Europe from Spain to Germany could BOTH fit in North Africa. North Africa includes Mauretania, Niger, Chad and Sudan. Berbers exist in ALL of these countries to some degree. Therefore, just like you are against comparing all Europeans to Germans, we are against saying ALL North Africans are like Kabyle or Rif berbers. MORE SPECIFICALLY, while you keep PRONOUNCING that Spanish people identify with WHITE coastal berbers, the ALMORAVIDS were NOT white coastal berbers and included MANY muslims from other parts of North AFrica who were NOT WHITE.
quote: Same for the INDIGENOUS Saharan Africans who ARE NOT mixed with Arabs and Europeans. YOU are equating MIXED Arab and European "WHITE" north Africans with ALL people from NOrth Africa.
No. I am saying the Moors came from North Africa and a distintive people.
And I am saying that Mauretania is IN North Africa and many MOORS came from there and were NOT like WHITE Berbers on the COAST and were NOT mixed with anyone. They were BLACK Africans through and through. Not to mention the Moors in Niger as well as Senegal.
The IDEA the Moors are divided into WHITE Moors and BLACK Moors with BLACK Moors being slaves or subjects of WHITE Moors is a RECENT invetion by WHITE Supremacists of both ISLAMIC AND Christian denominations. Such CONCEPT S are PURELY related to the CURRENT attempts by WHITE ARABS to dominate ALL of North AFrica by EXTIRMINATING BLACK Aficans. The ORIGINAL Moors were BLACK. What YOU and OTHERS are preaching is RACISM in identifying MOORS with WHITE COASTAL BERBERS. I already showed you earlier how ARAB Beni Hilal tribes CONQUERED the Almoravids in Mauretania AFTER the Moors were expelled from Spain. The current RACIST policies of the Mauretanian government trace back to this period. The same goes for other Arab governments in North Africa. At some point the same will happen in Sudan when WHITE Arabs start migrating there to TAKE OVER from the BLACK Africans who call themselves ARAB now. White arabs are trying to establish a FAKE historical identity ALL OVER North AFrica, from Sudan to Egypt to Morrocco. THAT is why it is important to DENOUNCE the nonsense the people like you are talking about. This RACISM in ALL REALITY crosses national, religious and political boundaries and is another part of a program of WHITE supremacy being practiced by WHITES of ALL creeds and backgrounds.
quote: Just think 1300 years ago the Aztec and Maya ruled South America and American Indians roamed the plains of North America.
Well, Aztecs and Maya never ruled South America. They lived in Mesoamerica, in the frontier between North and Central America. For South America think on Incas, Tiahuanaco and Moches.
You are right about SOMETHING finally. That does not change the fact that Spanish conquistadors moved SOUTH to South America after CONQUERING the Aztecs.
quote: These groups are NO longer present in the same way they were back then.
Mayans are quite intact. They still speak Maya, and that helped the specialist to break the code of maya writing.
But they are NOT on top of economic and political power in Mexico
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa.
What's wrong with thinking they are an intermediate group. It is obvious they are in between Southern Europeans and Southern Africans.
Where is your proof? Are Mauretanians between Europeans and AFricans? As I said many MOORS CAME from Mauretania (land of the black faces) and were BLACK Africans.
quote: Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Some of that is true. I agree that Eurocentrism was a fact. But I am looking for reality, not dogmas.
I am GIVING you reality, you ignore it
quote:They are not ALL mixed in the same amount. SOME are MORE mixed than others. ALL North AFricans dont look the same Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
It may be so. At least in Spain people has always now the Moors have some Black admixture. That's a characteristic of the Moors of any color.
All Moors were not the same color. ALL Moors were NOT MIXED. Some were PURE BLACK AFRICANS.
quote: MODERN Souther Europeans WERENT THERE 1300 years ago, so they CANNOT speak of a people they did not see or interact with DIRECTLY. I have ALSO shown you that the names Marakkesch and Morroco derive from the word "moro" or "mara" meaning BLACK. This is from people who SAW the Moors we are talking about. What MODERN south Europeans see in MODERN North AFricans as MOORISH is irrelevant because this is over 400 years AFTER the fact. I also already said that ALL Moors were not BLACK, so there is no need for you to keep REITERATING a FALSE STRAWMAN argument. Look up the origin of the word Marrakesch and Morroco and you will SEE that it derives from a description of BLACK Africans and was NOT originated by Spanish, so what THEY define it as meaning is IRRELEVANT.
Pushing Moors into the "Black history" is as forced as pushed them into the "white history". Why you do not accept Moors have been part of Western History since ancient times, and Southern Europeans do know who is and who is not a moor?
Moors are part of African, Muslim, Spanish and Berber history. Moors are ALSO part of BLACK history because MANY Moors were BLACK. It is YOU who keep trying to FORCE Moors to be ONLY WHITE and make them part of WHITE AFRICAN history as if North Africans CANT BE BLACK.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times.
Those are the people that Europeans believe are related. Don't you see it?
Related to WHO? ALL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET DERIVE FROM BLACK AFRICANS!!!!! Europeans derive from BLACK EAST AFRICANS NOT COASTAL WHITE BERBERS!!!! MODERN coastal white Berbers derive from Europeans. You are GETTING IT BACKWARDS.
quote: WHO? Who are you talking about? ALL North Africans DO NOT LOOK LIKE Europeans! Only those who have a HISTORY of mixing with Europeans do....
Don't be silly, the influence is evident. It is even possible that Arabs and Europeans descend of Ethiopians as you may know.
The Ethiopians they descended from WERE BLACK.
Later. I got tired.
I am sure you are, because this NONSENSE is tiring.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I think cannibalism is mostly a myth. Anthropologist tracking down "cannibal cultures" always find that one group is always blaming a neighbor group, such that both point the finger at the other while denying themselves to be partakers of the cuisine.
Your choice of places reveals your adoration of whites and deprecation of non-whites. Why else do you exclude Europe from your list?
Sorry, but Canibalism IS NOT a myth. I don't have the antecedents for Africa so I won't argue about that. However, I know lots of evidence of both Canibalism and ritual sacrifices in both the Americas and the Polynesians (particularly in Easter Island, a island that is Chilean so I know the details). Canibalism was also a contemporary common practise in New Guinea up to some decades ago. Clandestine ritual sacrifices still exist in Bolivia once in a while. And the last Native American human sacrifice that happened in Chile was in 1960.
Not long ago revisionist historians doubt about the Aztec ritual sacrifices. However, not long ago the bodies of 500 men, women and children, captured by the Aztec to the Spaniard (some spaniards but most natives and mixed people of the Caribbean), were discover. They were sacrified and eaten by the Aztecs.
Now, this thing has nothing to do with whites and not-whites. It is well know that Celts and Germanic tribes practised human sacrifices up to the first centuries of the Christian age. And brutality was a common practise of the Norse. Do you know the sacrifice of the "angel"? And for cruelty Asian style, ask for the Mongols.
These are dark aspects of human nature that exist in peoples around the world and we should not be blind to them, just because they are not "politically correct".
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...Most of North Africa IS INLAND.
But most Moors that went to Europe came from the coast, at least during the Tarik's invasion
quote: The Spanish only tolerated "friendly" Indians because they didnt have the manpower to defeat the Aztecs outright. Once the Aztecs were defeated, they conquered these "friendly" Indians.
That's not precisely correct. Native Americans were classified in class systems. Most Aztec and other Mexican royalties mixed with Spaniards and formed the base of the Mexican upper class. The captain marry royalty and the foot soldier the poor Indians. That description is more real that the one you have seen comming from English-Speaking high school teachers.
quote: Through cunning and intrigue Cortés forged an alliance with the Totonacs at the coastal city-state Cempoala, then under Aztec dominion. The Spanish army was thus beefed up with more than a thousand native warriors plus 200 porters. With a small party left to hold the fort at Vera Cruz, Cortés commenced the hazardous journey towards the Aztec capital.
The Mexican conquest is easy to understand if one see it like a civil war on which Spaniars took one side.
quote: But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
I don't deny facts. I know how the events happens. I know of the cruelty of certain ignorant captains. I know the efforts of the crown to control its dogs. I know the good and evil of conquest. I know of war and love. And I know our people was born as the result of that struggle.
quote: It may not be occupation, but the fact is that those who have the economic and political POWER in South America are STILL largely descendants of WHITE Spaniards and Portuguese.[/b]
It is unbelievable how people repeat so many myths. Let me start it. After Independence our countries were in such bad shape that most of them open the gates to massive immigration of skilled people from Europe. Large numbers of Italians, Germans and Brits came to several countries of Latin America. Many of them enter right into the upper classes and mixed with old money.
The demographic changes were so abrupt that some countries changed completely. Before the flood, for instance, Argentine was a brown country like Mexico, today is more like a mixture between Italian and German. Brazil become whiter. etc.
Most of those upper white classes you see are not the result of Spanish colonization. They were the result of the politic of "whitening" of the independent republics, influences by the racist ideas that where contaminating the world at the middle of the 20th century.
quote: SO WHAT? There are ALWAYS traitors in EVERY race. There were French women who slept with German soldiers in WWII, does that CHANGE what the Germans were doing to France?
Traitors to what? Native Americans were loyal to theirs tribes and hardly to abstract nations. Many Natives accepted the presence of Spaniards without problems. Others rejected the Spaniards and where never conquered. The Natives of the Amazon and of Austral south america were NEVER conquered by the Spaniards. What are you talking about.
quote: YOU should know that subsequent WAVES of Spanish assisted Cortes in CONQUERING these tribes as well
You should know that many Native Americans also arose to higher positions in the Spanish Empire.
quote: They also commited atrocities and had a SCORCHED EARTH policy. The fact that they DIDNT kill off ALL Indians in South America DOES NOT make their actions POSITIVE in any sense. If someone just CHOPS off your arm without KILLING you, does THAT make them NOBLE? This is IRRELEVANT to the discussion about Africa.
Those tragical events are well known. But you are blind if you think Natives treated Spanish captives better.
quote: That is true. But MANY Native Americans are also rebels who have been FIGHTING against MIXED and relatively pure white Spanish descended rulers for a LONG time.
That's also true. And many of us are with Ethnic Natives in theirs struggle against the mainstream.
quote: I never said that they were, but UNFORTUNATELY you dont understand that. But since you cannot COMPREHEND what I am saying, NOrdics and Southern Europeans ARE WHITE.
No. Both are EUROPEANS. Whiteness is a "gringo" concept.
quote: Any distinction is based history, culture and ethnicity NOT SKIN COLOR.
Really? Don't you know Spaniards and Hispanics suffer racial discrimination in Germany and in other Nordic countries? Get informed about that.
quote: I thought you would understand that. The area of Europe from Spain to Germany could BOTH fit in North Africa. North Africa includes Mauretania, Niger, Chad and Sudan. Berbers exist in ALL of these countries to some degree. Therefore, just like you are against comparing all Europeans to Germans, we are against saying ALL North Africans are like Kabyle or Rif berbers.
I understand and I agree.
quote: MORE SPECIFICALLY, while you keep PRONOUNCING that Spanish people identify with WHITE coastal berbers, the ALMORAVIDS were NOT white coastal berbers and included MANY muslims from other parts of North AFrica who were NOT WHITE.
Yes, I know that. What you don't get is that most Moors where not percived like Blacks in Spain.
Well, later. Thanks for the conversation.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Here is a website DEVOTED to spreading NONSENSE about MOORS:
It has a BUNCH of linked CROSS RELIGIOUS, CROSS ethnic websites, which SHOW how this NONSENSE gets pushed among whites of ALL STRIPES.
quote: Moorish society is organized into successive ranks of tribes, clans, sub-clans, and family or "tent" units. There are four basic class divisions that are based on heritage, race, and occupation. The White Moor form the two upper classes, while the Black Moor make up the two lower classes. This division is based solely on parental descent, not on skin color. For example, if a father is considered white, his children, despite the darkness of their skin or the social condition of their mother, inherit the status of "White Moor."
A White Moor is ethnologically defined as "a nomad of Berber-Arab origin." They represent the two upper classes of Moorish society: the warriors and the religious leaders. The Black Moor make up the two lower classes. They live in a world of their own-usually one of slavery. There are two types of Black Moor: the 'abd-le-tilad (slaves who belong to the tents and are part of the family), and the 'abd-le-tarbiya (acquired slaves). Even though slavery is now against the law, it continues to be a fundamental part of the social and economic structure of the Moor.
However, this website FAILS to mention that these WHITE Moors are relatively RECENT arrivals from AFTER the Moors were expelled in Europe. These Arabs came in WAVES after the initial conquest of North Africa by a relative FEW Arabs. In MANY ways it is similar to the WAVES of Europeans who came to America after the initial exploits of Columbus.
Other links about this CROSS religous ARAB Imperialism:
quote: The phenomenon of the "islamochristian" deserves wider attention, and the word wider use. An “islamochristian” is a Christian Arab who identifies with and works to advance the Islamic agenda, out of fear or out of a belief that his "Arabness" requires loyalty to Islam. Islamization by the Arab Muslim conquerors of Mesopotamia, Syria, and North Africa was a vehicle for Arab imperialism. This imperialism, the most successful in human history, convinced those who accepted Islam to also forget their own pre-Islamic or non-Islamic pasts. It caused them, in many cases, to forget their own languages and to adopt Arabic -- and in using Arabic, and in adopting Arabic names, within a few generations they had convinced themselves that they were Arabs. ..... Hugh, there are historical reports of Arab tribes that settled in the conquered countries not only around the time of conquest but in a process that continued for centuries. Tribes that settled in Israel included the Jarrah and the Judham, and others, kindly confiscating estates and urban houses from Jews and Christians. There was a mass migration of the Arab Beni Hilal tribe across North Africa from Egypt to Algeria, destroying remnants of civilization on their way. The numbers reported for the Beni Hilal migration and a parallel migration of another tribe [maybe Beni Sulaym? - I forget the name] go up to one million. This was several hundred years after Muhammad. Ibn Khaldun by the way, is pretty frank about the destruction wrought by these migrating nomads. His comments can be found even in the Charles Issawi digest of Ibn Khaldun, called "An Arab Philosophy of History"
More about the Beni Hilal, (who hit North Africa AFTER Spain was conquered by the Moors) in Mauretania:
quote: This emigration took place 40 years before Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad in 610. The importance of the ecological implications of the emigration process were highlighted by the massive displacement of Arabs from their original homeland around the 11th century after another severe drought which hit the area. Prominent among the immigrating were the Beni Hilal tribes from Yemen, who had invaded North Africa three centuries before. From there, they reached northern Mauritania in the 14 century (Gerteiny, 1981). For more than 200 years, they plundered the region and warred with the Berbers who were roaming throughout the norther fringes of the Mali and Tekrur Empires.
The BERBERS they fought with were NOT WHITE, they were NATIVE BLACK African nomadic tribes LIKE THE TUAREG.
More on the spread of ARABS across North Africa:
quote: The Shaibanis originate in Taiz and their Libyan relatives still speak Arabic with a near-Yemeni accent! The Meharistes of the Sahara took their fast Mahri camels with them and many of the Polisario are believed to be of Mahri descent. The people of the mountainous region of Algeria known as "Kabylie" still look like Yemenis and ex-President Chadli (Shadhli!) would have been descended from the Masheikh of that name who are still to be found in several places in both the north and south of Yemen. Yaqub al Mansur, the notorious Wazir of Cordoba in the 11th century, who promoted himself by disposing of the Emir and his family, was born in Yemen.
Nearly all Yemeni tribes are of Himyari origin. The exceptions are mainly of Kindi stock, originating from an invasion from the north in the 6th century. Kinda are credited (if that is the right word) with the final destruction of Shabwa when they arrived, but they subsequently settled among and intermarried with the Himyaris. The incidence of straight rather than curly hair often denotes Kindi blood and some Kindi are bigger physically than most Himyaris. Tribes of Kindi descent are the Seiar, Al Doghar (in Wadi Hajr), the Ja’ada (in Wadi Amd) and one of the sections of the Deyyin (on the plateau south of Amd).
In other words, WHITE Northern Arabs invaded southern Arabia and Yemen and decimated the NATIVE BLACK African derived Arabians. They then proceeded across North Africa. This is why some claim the ORIGINAL prophets of Islam were BLACK.
It is also part of the reason why Islam took hold so quickly among so many Africans, whith their SPECIAL form of islam called Maraboutism:
quote: Marabouts (mâr'əbūts) [Arab.,=devotee hermit], members of a Muslim religious and military community, precursors of the Almoravids. They spread from NW Africa into Spain in the 11th and 12th cent. The Marabouts later became known as holy men and were greatly venerated as saints. They now live in monasteries or are attached to mosques. Their tombs, also called Marabouts, are often places of pilgrimage.
Marabouts are MOSTLY found in West Africa and USED to be in North Africa until the Almoravids (derived from a Marabout settlement) were DESTROYED.
quote: A marabout is a personal spiritual leader in the Islam faith as practiced in West Africa, and still to a limited extent in the Maghreb. The marabout is often a scholar of the Qur'an, and many make amulets for good luck, preside at various ceremonies, and in some cases actively guide the life of the follower.
In the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal, the marabouts are organized in elaborate hierarchies; the highest marabout of the Mourides, for example, has been elevated to the status of a ruler by the faithful.
Marabouts rely on donations to live. Often there is an obligation to support the marabout that has accumulated over generations within a family. Marabouts normally dress in traditional West African robes.
A marabout may also refer to a tomb of a person who is a marabout.
quote: The Mouride brotherhood (الطريقة المريدية, Aṭ-Ṭarīqat al-Murīdiyya or simply مريدية, Murīdiyya in Arabic) is a large Islamic Sufi order (ṭarīqa) most prominent in Senegal and The Gambia, with headquarters in the holy city of Touba, Senegal (Tuubaa in Wolof, طوبى, Ṭūbā in Arabic). Mourides sometimes call their order the Way of Imitation of the Prophet. The followers are called mourides (murid in Wolof), from the Arabic word murīd (literally "one who desires"), a term used generally in Sufism to designate a disciple of a spiritual guide (murshid). The Mourides have large mercantile communities in Paris, France and New York City, USA. Their beliefs and practices constitute Mouridism.
quote: The perfect opportunity to attack presented itself when al-Mu'tamid killed Ibn Shalib, the Jewish treasurer of Alfonso, sent to Ishbiliyah to collect the annual tribute. Alfonso quickly retaliated, invading the Aljarafe, burning the villages and enslaving the inhabitants. He besieged Ishbiliyah for three days and raided throughout al-Mu'tamid's territory. It was now obvious that the faction kings would never be able to bury their differences and unite against the invader. Al-Mu'tamid and the rulers of Badajoz and Granada agreed that the only way to prevent the Christian takeover of al-Andalus was to seek the help of the powerful Almoravid leader Yusuf ibn Tashufin and his army of veiled Sanhaja Berbers. These warrior monks belonged to a reform movement that began in Africa, on the Senegal River; their puritan ideals found wide acceptance among the Sanhaja of the Sahara, whom the Arab historians of al-Andalus referred to as the mulaththamun, "the veiled ones," from their habit of covering their mouth and nose with their head cloth, as do their modern descendants, the Tuareg.
The fall of Toledo in 1085 made immediate action imperative. The Almoravids crossed into Spain the following year and inflicted a terribte defeat on Alfonso VI at al-Zallaqah. Ishbiliyah no longer had to pay tribute to the Christians, and al-Mu'tamid's lands were now protected by Yusuf ibn Tashufin's superb warriors.
quote: A Berber tribe of southern Morocco who gave their name to Senegal, once their tribal home. They formed one of the tribes which, uniting under the leadership of Yusefbin Tashfin, crossed the Sahara and gave a dynasty to Morocco and Spain, namely, that of the Almoravides. The Zeirid dynasty which supplanted the Fatimites in the Maghrib and founded the city of Algiers was also of Zenaga origin. The Zenaga dialect of Berber is spoken in southern Morocco and on the banks of the lower Senegal, largely by the negro population.
A Berber tribe of southern Morocco who gave their name to Senegal, once their tribal home. They formed one of the tribes which, uniting under the leadership of Yusefbin Tashfin, crossed the Sahara and gave a dynasty to Morocco and Spain, namely, that of the Almoravides. The Zeirid dynasty which supplanted the Fatimites in the Maghrib and founded the city of Algiers was also of Zenaga origin. The Zenaga dialect of Berber is spoken in southern Morocco and on the banks of the lower Senegal, largely by the negro population.
The funny part is how much this reminds me of the Star Wars saga: Veiled HOLY Warriors with super sword skills studying undar one with the "force". Mad funny.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Kawasher writes: Bigots exist in all human groups.
ahem, yes..you've proven that. Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Kawasher writes: Bigots exist in all human groups.
ahem, yes..you've proven that.
Oh Yes! Old tactic. If somebody does not agree with you in certain point then it is a bigot.
Sorry, I don't buy that,
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I'm just agreeing with your point. But apparently that bothers you. Why is that?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:...The BERBERS they fought with were NOT WHITE, they were NATIVE BLACK African nomadic tribes LIKE THE TUAREG. ...
There is your big mistake. White Berbers are Native Africans. Besides, TUAREGS have never being considered Black Subsaharians, dark skinned included. Tuaregs are mixed people.
I believe that Black supremacy, and the myth of Black purity, is playing a role in here when you are denying some Africans are Native, just because they have lighter skins than the rest.
White-looking people has been found in the Maghreb since Phoenician times, Ancient Egypt and Ancient Ethiopia. You don't have the right to say they are less Africans than the rest, just because they don't fit your model of what Africa is.
By the way. A picture of Tuaregs:
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:You don't have the right to say they are less Africans than the rest
Nor were the Black-Moors who conquered spain, any less Black, simply because their blood still flows thru the veins of so-called 'white' Southern Europeans, some of whom will go to any lengths to deny it.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
There is your big mistake. White Berbers are Native Africans. Besides, TUAREGS have never being considered Black Subsaharians, dark skinned included.
Why not; i.e. based on what science?
quote:kawashkar:
Tuaregs are mixed people
Human societies in general are "mixed", but do proceed with telling us what you mean by "mixed" here, and how science supports your context of the term.
quote:kawashkar:
By the way. A picture of Tuaregs:
Yes; and...?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:...The BERBERS they fought with were NOT WHITE, they were NATIVE BLACK African nomadic tribes LIKE THE TUAREG. ...
There is your big mistake. White Berbers are Native Africans. Besides, TUAREGS have never being considered Black Subsaharians, dark skinned included. Tuaregs are mixed people.
There is YOUR big mistake. I NEVER said that Tuareg are subsaharans. I said Tuareg are BLACK SAHARANS. Where is your PROOF that Tuaregs are MIXED people? In fact MOST DNA analysis I have seen of Tuaregs say they are MOST CLOSELY affiliated with BLACK SUBSAHARANS. Seems you are just going TOO FAR with your ABSURDITY in trying TO FORCE African people into YOUR FANTASY NOTIONS of what constitutes a BLACK PERSON. What I am saying is that WHITE Berbers descended from BLACK Saharan populations as did the Tuareg, the ONLY difference being that these WHITE coastal berbers have MORE European admixture. It is YOU who keep trying to FORCE ALL Saharan Africans into the SAME CATEGORY as WHITE COASTAL BERBER. ALL Saharan Africans are NOT like COASTAL WHITE BERBERS. You KEEP confusing Africa with some MIXED RACE WHITE fantasyland. It isnt.
I believe that Black supremacy, and the myth of Black purity, is playing a role in here when you are denying some Africans are Native, just because they have lighter skins than the rest.
You are pulling straws out of your ass. Show me where I said that WHITE Africans are NOT Native Africans. YOU on the other hand REFUSE to admit that MANY North Africans WERE Black, ARE black and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN BLACK. THAT is YOUR problem, not mine and is a form of WHITE supremacy in trying to FORCE a WHITE identity on people WITH NO WHITE ANCESTRY.
White-looking people has been found in the Maghreb since Phoenician times, Ancient Egypt and Ancient Ethiopia. You don't have the right to say they are less Africans than the rest, just because they don't fit your model of what Africa is.
I NEVER said that COASTAL WHITE BERBERS were LESS African than BLACK African Berbers. YOU are the one making CLAIMS that ALL Berbers have WHITE ancestry. Berbers ORIGINATED in EAST Africa and were ORIGINALLY BLACK EAST Africans who MIGRATED ACROSS the Sahara, OCCUPIED the Sahara and then MIGRATED AGAIN, after the Sahara DRIED UP. Some went to the NOrthern coast and became what we call COASTAL WHITE BERBERS. SOME STAYED IN THE DESERT, like the Tuareg ancestors and OTHERS migrated South and West, like Fulani and Zenaga Berbers of Senegal. THE ORIGINAL tribes that CROSSED the Sahara from EAST Africa were NOT ARAB WHITES. THESE MIGRATIONS of WHITE ARABS came MUCH LATER and did indeed FIGHT AND THEN MIX with NATIVE BLACK SAHARANS. It was the COASTAL WHITE BERBERS were affected by EARLIER migrations of people from the Levant and Europe WHO STAYED ALONG THE COAST and didnt GO ALL THE WAY SOUTH DEEP into the Sahara, like the Phoenicians YOU MENTIONED. Those WHITE invaders that did go south DID NOT affect the NATIVE BLACK SAHARAN populations as MUCH as those on the coast. MY POINT is that WHITE BERBERS are INDEED AFRICANS. HOWEVER, ALL NORTH AFRICANS ARE NOT WHITE. North AFrican WHITE BERBERS descend from the ORIGINAL BLACK AFRICAN populations who MIGRATED from EAST Africa. There is NO PROOF that Saharan populations PRIOR to the Arab invasion DESCEND FROM WHITES.
By the way. A picture of Tuaregs:
AND? Are you confused or do you need help? Those are BLACK Africans. Who are YOU to try and say that their SKIN isnt DARK ENOUGH to be called BLACK. That is the PROBLEM with you MIXED RACIALISTS who ALWAYS try to DEFINE NEW MIXED RACE categories to IDENTIFY people. Black is a reference to BROWN SKINNED people who LIVE in and are DESCENDED from Africa. THAT is in the dictionary. Those Tuaregs QUALIFY as BLACK.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Nor were the Black-Moors who conquered spain, any less Black, simply because their blood still flows thru the veins of so-called 'white' Southern Europeans, some of whom will go to any lengths to deny it.
Yeap; even descriptions, as in the example provided by an "Arab" observer below [and elsewhere by Spanish observers], are suggestive of the effort on the part of the said authors, to paint a picture of what would have appeared relatively distinctive [from demographic, i.e. specifically ethnic standpoint] traits from those of both the authors and their target general audience; otherwise it makes no sense to describe a fellow in general terms, which relatively speaking, doesn't apparently stand out from the would-be description of the target audience of the author.
“And Yusuf ibn Tashfin, leader of the Almoravid forces, was "a brown man with wooly hair", according to the Arab chronicler Al-Fasi. (per DeCosta)
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
There is your big mistake. White Berbers are Native Africans. Besides, TUAREGS have never being considered Black Subsaharians, dark skinned included. Tuaregs are mixed people.
There is YOUR big mistake. I NEVER said that Tuareg are subsaharans. I said Tuareg are BLACK SAHARANS...
...and even if you did say they were "black"[which is a construct applicable to the default skin tones of virtually every indigenous African population on and south of the Sahara] Sub-Saharan Africans, it would have still been accurate to say so. Non-African folks like Kawashkar, who seem to know little in way of African concerns, could at least enhance their basic understanding of the continent, by simple reference to easily accessible easy-to-read/view maps, like this one:
So yes, Tuaregs are sub-Saharan west Africans!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
...Berbers ORIGINATED in EAST Africa and were ORIGINALLY BLACK EAST Africans who MIGRATED ACROSS the Sahara, OCCUPIED the Sahara and then MIGRATED AGAIN, after the Sahara DRIED UP. Some went to the NOrthern coast and became what we call COASTAL WHITE BERBERS. SOME STAYED IN THE DESERT, like the Tuareg ancestors and OTHERS migrated South and West, like Fulani and Zenaga Berbers of Senegal...
To put it rather simply, think of the "Berbers" this way:
These were male-biased Afrasan speaking immigrants from sub-Saharan East Africa, moving to Northeast Africa and westward in the Sahara and then to coastal Northwest Africa. These male-biased immigrants, it would appear, interbred with their nearest available females, in addition to whatever females they might have taken along with them from the point of their origins. This is why we see trends whereby the Siwa "Berbers" of Egypt predominantly carry East African specific matrilineages, the coastal west African "Berbers" predominantly carry West European matrilineages obtained from genetic exchanges with populations in the Iberian peninsula, west Saharan "Berbers" nearest to the coastal west African "Berbers" seem to be intermediate in terms of frequencies when compared against their northward “Berber” neighbours and their southward west African neighbours, while other west Saharan-Sahelian Berbers [including Tuaregs] predominantly carry west African matrilineages. But even in coastal west Africa, the mtDNA distribution pattern can be patchy at times, as we have seen in Tunisia via the Cherni et al. study, where there are "Berber" ethnic groups with notably high frequencies of sub-Saharan [East African and west African specific] matrilineages. This “Berber” phenomenon [pointed out just now] also explains, albeit indirectly, why "Berber" speakers show skin tone gradients from lightest in the coastal west African regions to dark in northeast Africa, and dark in the Saharan-Sahelian regions.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Doug:
Interesting information re the so-called Moors. I don't know where the idea of "white Moor" came from because I have seen large numbers for many years in Senegal and Gambia and in no way would I call them "white". For those who have not seen them think of the average inhabitant of the Dominican republic with a phenotypical range of very dark brown to caramel-tan. Ther hair is invariably tightly curled or curly/frizzy. Under no circumsatnces could a "white Moor"(called "Nah"--spelling?)be ever confused with an European.
I have been at the Casa Blanca Airport a few times in transit with Air Maroc and my observation of contemporary Moroccans over several hours is the same. Think of Dominican Republic and its phenotypical range.
I don't know what kind of education Kawashkar has been subjected to be he seems fixated on the naively racist Eurocentric concept of "sub-Saharan Africa". It's always the escape hatch he runs to when confronted with the obvious fact that distinctively phenotypical Africans were among the dominant groups that crossed over in to Iberia to hold hegemonic sway for several centuries.
In any case, re the phenotype of the Moors who sojourned in Spain for at least 500 years: they were eye-witnessed by King Afonso of Spain(13th century) who decribed them as having "black faces" yet Kawashkar displays the well known pyschological syndrome of "cognitive dissonance" by completely avoiding that evidence among others. It's true: the naked truth is often painful to behold.
It's only if one has a differential view of the different geographic peoples that make up humanity that the idea of African dominance over non-Africans is such a painful thing to accept and must be obsessively and pathologically rationalised away.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: ... I have been at the Casa Blanca Airport a few times in transit with Air Maroc and my observation of contemporary Moroccans over several hours is the same. Think of Dominican Republic and its phenotypical range.
That's what I said in the first place. Dominican Republic is a white-mulatto-white country, like the Maghreb. DR is not Haiti, simply because half its genenic pool is European and a quarter is Native American. They are not Africans, Europeans or Natives but a mixture of all those peoples. The Maghreb is also fusion, and people have to accept that. It is naive to claim it for one race only, be it white, arab or black.
In the Maghreb, the lighter are across the coast, and the deeper you go south to central Africa the darker the skins turn. What's mysterious about that?
quote: I don't know what kind of education Kawashkar has been subjected to be he seems fixated on the naively racist Eurocentric concept of "sub-Saharan Africa".
Well, I am not fixated to the naively racist Afrocentric concept that a single drop makes a Black. There are populations, not races. And the North African populations, particularly Berbers, in average, don't look like theirs brothers South of the Sahara. Many can "pass" as Europeans or Arabs, and others are clearly "in-between".
quote: It's always the escape hatch he runs to when confronted with the obvious fact that distinctively phenotypical Africans were among the dominant groups that crossed over in to Iberia to hold hegemonic sway for several centuries.
Because you have not read the history books well. Only manipulations of Afrocentric pseudo-scholars.
quote: In any case, re the phenotype of the Moors who sojourned in Spain for at least 500 years: they were eye-witnessed by King Afonso of Spain(13th century) who decribed them as having "black faces" yet Kawashkar displays the well known pyschological syndrome of "cognitive dissonance" by completely avoiding that evidence among others. It's true: the naked truth is often painful to behold.
You are not able to graps that King Alphonse description of the Black troops Almoravides sent to Spain during the 12th century was so strong because it was a new event. The Berbers and Arabs that conquered Spain FIVE CENTURIES BEFORE did not have those features. When Spain fell down Black Subsaharians simply were not Islamized as yet!
Now, the brief presence of Black Subsaharan troops in Spain (they did not colonize it) it was the beginning of the end of Muslim Spain. That feed up Christian kingdoms and the help of the rest of Europe came, but also feed up some Muslims as well who didn't like what was going on in West Africa, and from there on the Spaniards started the succesful reconquist of Spain.
quote: It's only if one has a differential view of the different geographic peoples that make up humanity that the idea of African dominance over non-Africans is such a painful thing to accept and must be obsessively and pathologically rationalised away.
What idea? That's nuts. Look at the Zulues. And look how they stopped the British army. No ambiguities in there. Why to pride in events fired by the Islam with peoples of all the races, when you have examples of courage in other peoples of Africa that the world knows? Why to pride in North Africa (a mixed peoples region, where ambiguity is the norm) and forget the regions deep inside Africa where civilizations like Eredo and Zimbabwe show the world what the Black people can do?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
I believe that Black supremacy, and the myth of Black purity, is playing a role in here when you are denying some Africans are Native, just because they have lighter skins than the rest.
KAWASHKAR [/QB]
most blacks are still unmixed. most blacks in africa are unmixed.now did some unmixed blacks mixed with other black unmixed ethnic groups?of course.mixed does not always mean racial mixture or some form of it.
a white person that is part french or german is mixed but they are still white,not mixed white.
a person could be part zulu or dinka ,so that person is mixed in the same racial group,but that is not racial mixture,that is ethnic mixture .
most people on earth are not mixed or (biracial).
not all folks in north africa are mixed or have some form of mixture,a few blacks from other parts of africa still go to north africa to live. alot of blacks in libya for an example come from the south.some blacks from certain areas in northern sudan go to egypt to live and some of them are unmixed and some come from southern sudan go to egypt to even today and they are unmixed.
EARLY comment that you made,you said some zulus have so-called white features or look white,i have not seen this and that comment is not true.
off-topic if anyone wants to still read about modern africa.i have not post anything new below inside but you could take alook.
Kawashkar (honestly, no disrespect intended), but you are a product of European & Asian imperialism in Africa. It takes one to know one and I have been "educated" in the same way as you have and I can see your intended point , however your point has already been disproved.
Face the unshakable facts, not 'convention', for convention is easily created by propaganda.
OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE... Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:
.. Are you confused or do you need help? Those are BLACK Africans. [QUOTE]
Arabs, Iberians nor Hispanics would consider those peoples Black Africans but Moors. Do you get it? Look at their noses and facial features. Those exists from Gibraltar to Persia!
[QUOTE] Who are YOU to try and say that their SKIN isnt DARK ENOUGH to be called BLACK.
Who cares about skin? Look at the facial features. And who are you to say WHO IS and WHO IS NOT BLACK?
quote: That is the PROBLEM with you MIXED RACIALISTS who ALWAYS try to DEFINE NEW MIXED RACE categories to IDENTIFY people.
Mixed peoples are not new races. Most of the ancient civilizations of the old world were built by mixed peoples. The people of the Mediterranean, for instance is the result of mixtures of lots of peoples from Europe, Asia and Africa. We know that and what!
quote: Black is a reference to BROWN SKINNED people who LIVE in and are DESCENDED from Africa. THAT is in the dictionary.
Well, depends on which dictionary. You should not use the term Black, though. You should go right into which ethnic group you are talking of. After all, Pigmeys and Zulues don't look quite the same, nor Khoisans and Mandingas.
quote: Those Tuaregs QUALIFY as BLACK
Qualify who and where? Is there a black admission test? Don't be silly. People is not white-black-chinese. People is that and all the mixtures in between.
The world is not the United States. lol.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by herukhuti: Kawashkar (honestly, no disrespect intended), but you are a product of European & Asian imperialism in Africa. It takes one to know one and I have been "educated" in the same way as you have and I can see your intended point , however your point has already been disproved.
Face the unshakable facts, not 'convention', for convention is easily created by propaganda.
OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE...
And what about Subsaharian and Black American imperialism in North Africa? I have heared some very nasty comments about that said by North Africans.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: ... I have been at the Casa Blanca Airport a few times in transit with Air Maroc and my observation of contemporary Moroccans over several hours is the same. Think of Dominican Republic and its phenotypical range.
That's what I said in the first place. Dominican Republic is a white-mulatto-white country, like the Maghreb. DR is not Haiti, simply because half its genenic pool is European and a quarter is Native American. They are not Africans, Europeans or Natives but a mixture of all those peoples. The Maghreb is also fusion, and people have to accept that. It is naive to claim it for one race only, be it white, arab or black. ----------------------------------------------- kenndo quote- wrong it is mostly a black country even if most do have some form of mixture. ------------------------------------------------- In the Maghreb, the lighter are across the coast, and the deeper you go south to central Africa the darker the skins turn. What's mysterious about that?
quote: I don't know what kind of education Kawashkar has been subjected to be he seems fixated on the naively racist Eurocentric concept of "sub-Saharan Africa".
Well, I am not fixated to the naively racist Afrocentric concept that a single drop makes a Black. There are populations, not races. And the North African populations, particularly Berbers, in average, don't look like theirs brothers South of the Sahara. Many can "pass" as Europeans or Arabs, and others are clearly "in-between" --------------------------------------------------
kenndo quote- and some still look black.
---------------------------------------------
quote: It's always the escape hatch he runs to when confronted with the obvious fact that distinctively phenotypical Africans were among the dominant groups that crossed over in to Iberia to hold hegemonic sway for several centuries.
Because you have not read the history books well. Only manipulations of Afrocentric pseudo-scholars.
quote: In any case, re the phenotype of the Moors who sojourned in Spain for at least 500 years: they were eye-witnessed by King Afonso of Spain(13th century) who decribed them as having "black faces" yet Kawashkar displays the well known pyschological syndrome of "cognitive dissonance" by completely avoiding that evidence among others. It's true: the naked truth is often painful to behold.
You are not able to graps that King Alphonse description of the Black troops Almoravides sent to Spain during the 12th century was so strong because it was a new event. The Berbers and Arabs that conquered Spain FIVE CENTURIES BEFORE did not have those features. When Spain fell down Black Subsaharians simply were not Islamized as yet! -------------------------------------------------
kenndo- quote- some blacks,not most however were muslims but were most blacks in africa arabized?no.but many of the blacks that went to spain at this time were muslims.some berber,some arab and alot of blacks who were moors and yes many look black.
---------------------------------------------------- Now, the brief presence of Black Subsaharan troops in Spain (they did not colonize it) it was the beginning of the end of Muslim Spain. ------------------------------------------------- kenndo- incorrect
quote: It's only if one has a differential view of the different geographic peoples that make up humanity that the idea of African dominance over non-Africans is such a painful thing to accept and must be obsessively and pathologically rationalised away.
What idea? That's nuts. Look at the Zulues. And look how they stopped the British army. No ambiguities in there. Why to pride in events fired by the Islam with peoples of all the races, when you have examples of courage in other peoples of Africa that the world knows? Why to pride in North Africa (a mixed peoples region, where ambiguity is the norm) and forget the regions deep inside Africa where civilizations like Eredo and Zimbabwe show the world what the Black people can do?
KAWASHKAR
not every person in north africa is mixed and the further you go back the less mixed race it becomes.
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by herukhuti: Kawashkar (honestly, no disrespect intended), but you are a product of European & Asian imperialism in Africa. It takes one to know one and I have been "educated" in the same way as you have and I can see your intended point , however your point has already been disproved.
Face the unshakable facts, not 'convention', for convention is easily created by propaganda.
OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE...
And what about Subsaharian and Black American imperialism in North Africa? I have heared some very nasty comments about that said by North Africans.
KAWASHKAR
^^^ buzzing "BLACK" people don't oppress anybody on the planet. IT IS NOT OUR WAY. We might take your women though...
The illegal concept of 'race' is what makes guys like Kawashkar able to argue pointlessly.
It's the age old divisive trick ==> One group claims Egypt is "white" and once (easily) disproved, the other group tries to prove Egypt is not "black" by (rightfully) debunking the idea of race. However, debunking the idea of race is only done in attempt to claim that Egypt is not a purely African civilisation. Both groups work as ONE.
Ofcourse Africans will never win this argument until we stop using the concept of 'race' and start ISOLATING the dodgy (non-African) groups (such as Persians & Arabs) who have caused so much problems in Africa.
Posted by MULLAH'S_REVENGE (Member # 11724) on :
quote:What idea? That's nuts. Look at the Zulues. And look how they stopped the British army. No ambiguities in there. Why to pride in events fired by the Islam with peoples of all the races, when you have examples of courage in other peoples of Africa that the world knows? Why to pride in North Africa (a mixed peoples region, where ambiguity is the norm) and forget the regions deep inside Africa where civilizations like Eredo and Zimbabwe show the world what the Black people can do?
KAWASHKAR
classic sad case of a person being out classed with information and now resorting to the old silly card
''evendo evidence points at an african origin of these civilizations please please please stay with Zimbabwe,songhai and mali
very sad case indeed!
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kawashkar: ...And what about Subsaharian and Black American imperialism in North Africa? I have heared some very nasty comments about that said by North Africans.
I also have heard North Africans talk bad about Subsaharan/darker-skinned Africans. In fact, even when they don't say anything, I can sense something isn't right in the relationships we have. However, that is just due to IGNORANCE.
The divisiveness of trying to cause a rift between North/Sub-saharan Africans doesn't work on me. Some Sub-saharan Africans talk bad about North Africans too but you guessed it... they're just IGNORANT too.
I look forward to the day when I can expect brotherhood with the majority of North Africans. Until thay day however, I say IGNORE the IGNORANCE and let's try to make things right.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote: "BLACK" people don't oppress anybody on the planet. IT IS NOT OUR WAY. We might take your women though...
No problem, given you allow us to take yours. lol
quote: The illegal concept of 'race' is what makes guys like Kawashkar able to argue pointlessly.
I agree. Race is a fuzzy concept. I am interested in the history of peoples. And peoples lives in territories. Any continent is so vast to be considered the land of a single people.
quote: It's the age old divisive trick ==> One group claims Egypt is "white" and once (easily) disproved, the other group tries to prove Egypt is not "black" by (rightfully) debunking the idea of race. However, debunking the idea of race is only done in attempt to claim that Egypt is not a purely African civilisation. Both groups work as ONE.
I agree as well. Mankind is a single entity. It cross continents and all boundaries are artificial. Identities are asociated with nations and tribes. Spain or German have an identity (with lots of regional fractures). thinking in a European identity, though, is a dream. Think, for instance, in the dream of Bolivar of one identity for the Americas. It sounds ridiculous, isn't?
quote: Ofcourse Africans will never win this argument until we stop using the concept of 'race' and start ISOLATING the dodgy (non-African) groups (such as Persians & Arabs) who have caused so much problems in Africa.
Agree as well.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
La Republica Dominicana is not and never has been white-mulato island. It was is and will remain mulato-negro. The niece of Juan Luis Guerra won Miss Universe some years ago and she is not European! punto e aparte!
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote: "BLACK" people don't oppress anybody on the planet. IT IS NOT OUR WAY. We might take your women though...
No problem, given you allow us to take yours. lol
quote: The illegal concept of 'race' is what makes guys like Kawashkar able to argue pointlessly.
I agree. Race is a fuzzy concept. I am interested in the history of peoples. And peoples lives in territories. Any continent is so vast to be considered the land of a single people.
quote: It's the age old divisive trick ==> One group claims Egypt is "white" and once (easily) disproved, the other group tries to prove Egypt is not "black" by (rightfully) debunking the idea of race. However, debunking the idea of race is only done in attempt to claim that Egypt is not a purely African civilisation. Both groups work as ONE.
I agree as well. Mankind is a single entity. It cross continents and all boundaries are artificial. Identities are asociated with nations and tribes. Spain or German have an identity (with lots of regional fractures). thinking in a European identity, though, is a dream. Think, for instance, in the dream of Bolivar of one identity for the Americas. It sounds ridiculous, isn't?
quote: Ofcourse Africans will never win this argument until we stop using the concept of 'race' and start ISOLATING the dodgy (non-African) groups (such as Persians & Arabs) who have caused so much problems in Africa.
Agree as well.
KAWASHKAR
^^^ Indeed. About the women, I should add 'as long as you don't take them forcefully' (as the Arabs are doing in Sudan). You see, we Black men never have to rape women or enslave them because they ALWAYS give it to us willingly.
Go on, ask a girl from anywhere (in an environment that allows freedom of speech of course ).
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by herukhuti: Indeed. About the women, I should add 'as long as you don't take them forcefully' (as the Arabs are doing in Sudan). You see, we Black men never have to rape women or enslave them because they ALWAYS give it to us willingly.
Go on, ask a girl from anywhere (in an environment that allows freedom of speech of course ).
Well, Latinos have a debility for well shaped women. And Africa has lots of women that look like top models.
In fact, in Latin America the admixture thing happened because mutual atraction. Rape existed once, but most of it was just love. And choices are personal. Latino males are self-confident enough to make any women (of any race) to fall in love for them, and many love Black women as well. If a woman is pretty, well, there we go
So, I better go to buy my tickets.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^This thread was silly enough as it is, please do not engage in even more silly ethnic hurls especially about women. Although Herukhuti is right about black women being taken forcefully as slaves. Then again, so were alot of women in history regardless of color. During Medieval times, Arab men had a fetish for blonde Slavic women and sence most slaves at that time were Slavs, you can see how the term "slave" was developed.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: ..
So Africa is the "pure" race? Don't tell me bulls, please. Black people is nothing special. Admuxture exist in all the point of contacts of Africa with other continents. In the North, the North East and the East. Look for Malgaches in Madagascar, for example.
I never said anything about Africans being "pure" let alone anything about 'race'. I merely said that admixture in Africa is very minimal compared to adjacent regions neighboring the continent. Unfortunately people like YOU tend to exaggerate the 'admixture' in Africa. I have even shown you maps of genetic lineages of Africa compared to its neighbors, yet you still reject the FACTS.
quote:Yes, I know that you are a melanine fanatic. No. Skin color is not the only difference in phenotype between peoples. If so, South Easts Indians and Nubians would look like siblings.
So I'm the melanin "fanatic" even though it was YOU who brought up the color of the Tuareg girl in the first place?! LOL I know that color is not the only phenotype, however you still fail to realize that indigenous [black] Africans vary in phenotype in general, not just color!
quote:For me, the Tuareg woman above is MOOR, not European or Subsaharian African, but a people in between. They could be lighter or darker but all share about the same facial features.
LOL Obviously the girl is not European, but you still try to seperate her (a Saharan) from "Sub-Saharan" Africa. When will your mind grasp the simple fact that there IS NO DIVISION between Sub-Sahara and Sahara or Supra-Sahara. The Sahara was not always a desert and black peoples inhabited *all* corners of the continent.
quote:So, let get the terminology clear before continue. If you insist in a melanine based division between people, I believe very little can be say about the people of North Africa.
Again, that was YOU who first tried to use melanin
quote:
Who cares about skin? Look at the facial features. And who are you to say WHO IS and WHO IS NOT BLACK?
It does not matter, because again such facial features are indigenous to Sub-Sahara also.
quote:Mixed peoples are not new races. Most of the ancient civilizations of the old world were built by mixed peoples. The people of the Mediterranean, for instance is the result of mixtures of lots of peoples from Europe, Asia and Africa. We know that and what![/qb]
Of course. We have evidence of that from Greece and the Levant, but unfortunately for you not from the ancient Egyptians who consisted of Africans only.
quote:Well, depends on which dictionary. You should not use the term Black, though. You should go right into which ethnic group you are talking of. After all, Pigmeys and Zulues don't look quite the same, nor Khoisans and Mandingas.
Of course, but then again Koreans and Cambodians don't look qute the same either yet no one argues that they aren't related. *All* indigenous Africans are closely related.
quote:Qualify who and where? Is there a black admission test? Don't be silly. People is not white-black-chinese. People is that and all the mixtures in between.
And you fail to realize that not all of these people have "mixture".
quote:The world is not the United States. lol.
The world is not Chile either! LMAO Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by herukhuti: Indeed. About the women, I should add 'as long as you don't take them forcefully' (as the Arabs are doing in Sudan). You see, we Black men never have to rape women or enslave them because they ALWAYS give it to us willingly.
Go on, ask a girl from anywhere (in an environment that allows freedom of speech of course ).
Well, Latinos have a debility for well shaped women. And Africa has lots of women that look like top models.
In fact, in Latin America the admixture thing happened because mutual atraction. Rape existed once, but most of it was just love. And choices are personal. Latino males are self-confident enough to make any women (of any race) to fall in love for them, and many love Black women as well. If a woman is pretty, well, there we go
So, I better go to buy my tickets.
KAWASHKAR
Dude, I'm sorry if you thought I said Latino men are sub-standard (in comparison to Black men). I don't think that AT ALL. I was just referring to certain groups of so-called "men" who lust after Black women and rape them.
As for latinos, hey! they're ONE BLOOD to me. I hold no resentments whatsoever. In fact, the Indians in America helped a lot of the Blacks who were taken to Amerikkka as slaves. We are forever indebted to those Indians!
Man, I even prefer Latino chicks to Black chicks sometimes (no homo), though, I often prefer the Latino chicks who are MIXED with Blacks. It must be those hip-hop videos... Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:..Dude, I'm sorry if you thought I said Latino men are sub-standard (in comparison to Black men). I don't think that AT ALL. I was just referring to certain groups of so-called "men" who lust after Black women and rape them.
..
Well, I am not thinking in sex tourists, but in normal men that love women for love, and that fall in love and assume responsabities. And who does not care a bit about society and prejudices.
quote:.. As for latinos, hey! they're ONE BLOOD to me. I hold no resentments whatsoever. In fact, the Indians in America helped a lot of the Blacks who were taken to Amerikkka as slaves. We are forever indebted to those Indians!
..
We are all in the same boat.
[/QUOTE] Man, I even prefer Latino chicks to Black chicks sometimes (no homo), though, I often prefer the Latino chicks who are MIXED with Blacks. It must be those hip-hop videos... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Let's say very clear. Cuban or Brazilian mulattas are some of the most attractive women on planet earth
KAWASHKAR
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
"Cuban or Brazilian mulattas are some of the most attractive women on planet earth"
I couldn't have said it better
ok maybe I can...
"Cuban or Brazilian mulattas ARE THE MOST ATTRACTIVE women on planet earth"
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
^^^ Interestingly, MANY of the Cuban & Brazillian Blacks are of Yoruba origin
Maybe, that's why I like them so much...
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Supercar:
quote:Human societies in general are "mixed", but do proceed with telling us what you mean by "mixed" here, and how science supports your context of the term.
I think he means that most Tuareg are diverse in their genotype than lets say Gambians or Tanzanians, you're right no one is pure but some people are less pure than others.
for instance its quite obvious to anyone that this Tuareg girl below is more mixed than the Senegalese girl. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Well, I am not thinking in sex tourists, but in normal men that love women for love, and that fall in love and assume responsabities. And who does not care a bit about society and prejudices.
Unfortunately there exists the practice of "marrying up" the hierarchy in Latin America.
quote: Let's say very clear. Cuban or Brazilian mulattas are some of the most attractive women on planet earth
And yet you of all people complain about other people being 'racial'.
Mind you that the Spanish word for 'Mulatto' is derived mule which is of course originally a derogatory.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: ...for instance its quite obvious to anyone that this Tuareg girl below is more mixed than the Senegalese girl.
^^It seems you have fallen into the same misconception (trap) that Washkar is buried in.
Exactly how is the Tuareg girl 'mixed'??
Is it because of her complexion? Because the Khoisan peoples of southern Africa have the same type of complexions yet they have no foreign (non-African) ancestry!
Is it because of her features? Because you as a Somali should know better that there are peoples in Sub-Sahara that do not have round faces, broad noses, or everted lips!
Since when did Senegalese become the example of how all 'pure' indigenous Africans should look like?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Supercar:
quote:Human societies in general are "mixed", but do proceed with telling us what you mean by "mixed" here, and how science supports your context of the term.
I think he means that most Tuareg are diverse in their genotype than lets say Gambians or Tanzanians, you're right no one is pure but some people are less pure than others.
for instance its quite obvious to anyone that this Tuareg girl below is more mixed than the Senegalese girl.
Yes. It is obvious that there is a phenotypical difference.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... Mind you that the Spanish word for 'Mulatto' is derived mule which is of course originally a derogatory.
And Mestizo comes from the mixing of horses. And the nick for Germans in Austral South America is "ottos", which means "ass-hole". So what?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Djehuti:
quote:Exactly how is the Tuareg girl 'mixed'??
Well isn't it a consensus here that everyone is mixed? So what makes this girl any different? i didnt say her admixture came from abroad but she obviously shows different phenotyp than other people in Niger like this other Tuareg girl its quite obvious that one of them is more mixed than the other, maybe the girl above is the mixed one with someone originally non-Tuareg, or maybe the other girl is the one mixed with someone originally non-Tuareg, in any case they don't look the same despite being Tuaregs and comming from the same country.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: ... I have been at the Casa Blanca Airport a few times in transit with Air Maroc and my observation of contemporary Moroccans over several hours is the same. Think of Dominican Republic and its phenotypical range.
That's what I said in the first place. Dominican Republic is a white-mulatto-white country, like the Maghreb. DR is not Haiti, simply because half its genenic pool is European and a quarter is Native American. They are not Africans, Europeans or Natives but a mixture of all those peoples. The Maghreb is also fusion, and people have to accept that. It is naive to claim it for one race only, be it white, arab or black.
In the Maghreb, the lighter are across the coast, and the deeper you go south to central Africa the darker the skins turn. What's mysterious about that?
What is mysterious is how you DENY that these DARK BLACK Africans could make it to Spain during the Moorish occupation
quote: I don't know what kind of education Kawashkar has been subjected to be he seems fixated on the naively racist Eurocentric concept of "sub-Saharan Africa".
Well, I am not fixated to the naively racist Afrocentric concept that a single drop makes a Black. There are populations, not races. And the North African populations, particularly Berbers, in average, don't look like theirs brothers South of the Sahara. Many can "pass" as Europeans or Arabs, and others are clearly "in-between".
But you ARE fixated on a ONE drop rule of WHITE blood makes one NON BLACK African. White and BLACK are SKIN COLORS, where WHITE means one who is at the lightest end of the spectrum. On the other hand, BLACK can come in a RANGE of shades from caramel tan to DARK BROWN. It is YOU with your ideas about MIXTURE based on skin complexion and features with NO UNDERSTANDING of the features of the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, that is a PROBLEM. Such NONSENSE is distortion in Africa because INDIGENOUS NONMIXED Africans come IN ALL SHADES of BROWN, with many features and are STILL BLACK AFRICANS and make up MOST populations in NORTH AFRICA. YOU are the one who ASSUMES that North Africans are AUTOMATICALLY MIXED, regardless of WHICH clan they are from or WHAT REGION. SOME Africans ARE MIXED, there is NO DOUBT, but just LOOKING at a PHOTO will NOT tell you if they are or not. THAT is the PROBLEM YOU keep having.
ALL BERBERS are and WERE NOT a MIXED RACE PEOPLE. ALL BERBERS are NOT like WHITE COASTAL BERBERS. BERBERS are NOT DERIVED from WHITE ARAB INVADERS. Berbers are DESCENDED from INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN BLACKS. SOME Berber tribes ARE MIXED, but even WHITE BERBERS are STILL descended from NATIVE BLACK AFRICAN Berbers of ANCIENT TIMES.
quote: It's always the escape hatch he runs to when confronted with the obvious fact that distinctively phenotypical Africans were among the dominant groups that crossed over in to Iberia to hold hegemonic sway for several centuries.
Because you have not read the history books well. Only manipulations of Afrocentric pseudo-scholars.
And you have been practicing pseudo scholarship with your OWN manipulations
quote: In any case, re the phenotype of the Moors who sojourned in Spain for at least 500 years: they were eye-witnessed by King Afonso of Spain(13th century) who decribed them as having "black faces" yet Kawashkar displays the well known pyschological syndrome of "cognitive dissonance" by completely avoiding that evidence among others. It's true: the naked truth is often painful to behold.
You are not able to graps that King Alphonse description of the Black troops Almoravides sent to Spain during the 12th century was so strong because it was a new event. The Berbers and Arabs that conquered Spain FIVE CENTURIES BEFORE did not have those features. When Spain fell down Black Subsaharians simply were not Islamized as yet!
Whether subsaharans were Islamicized has NOTHING to do with the FACT that MANY North AFrican SAHARAN BERBERS WERE AND ARE BLACK. North Africa is not a BARRIER against BLACK SKIN. Black people exist IN ALL PARTS OF AFRICA and ALWAYS HAVE. THAT is what YOU fail to comprehent.
Now, the brief presence of Black Subsaharan troops in Spain (they did not colonize it) it was the beginning of the end of Muslim Spain. That feed up Christian kingdoms and the help of the rest of Europe came, but also feed up some Muslims as well who didn't like what was going on in West Africa, and from there on the Spaniards started the succesful reconquist of Spain.
AFRICAN troops colonized Spain along with Arabs and BLACKS were THERE from the beginning
quote: It's only if one has a differential view of the different geographic peoples that make up humanity that the idea of African dominance over non-Africans is such a painful thing to accept and must be obsessively and pathologically rationalised away.
What idea? That's nuts. Look at the Zulues. And look how they stopped the British army. No ambiguities in there. Why to pride in events fired by the Islam with peoples of all the races, when you have examples of courage in other peoples of Africa that the world knows? Why to pride in North Africa (a mixed peoples region, where ambiguity is the norm) and forget the regions deep inside Africa where civilizations like Eredo and Zimbabwe show the world what the Black people can do?
MOST North Africans ARE NOT MIXED with WHITE ARABS or EUROPEANS. THAT is the FALSE dichotomy YOU keep FLOUNDERING under because of some NONSENSE you read somewhere. Just like YOU said, MOST INDIANS in AMERICA are NOT mixed, the SAME goes for NORTH AFRICANS. It is YOU who use CERTAIN groups who ARE mixed with Arabs and Europeans to represent ALL North Africans.
KAWASHKAR
Let me make this clear, North Africa extends from Tunisia in the north down past Chad, Niger and Sudan in the South. Many of these countries ARE facing a CRISIS based on the RECENT arrivals of Arabs who are attempting to push BLACK AFRICANS OUT of North Africa and establish a ARAB identity for ALL North Africa. HOWEVER, in the period PRIOR to 711, North Africa was made up of MOSTLY INDIGENOUS BLACK AFRICANS. It is only RECENTLY, that Arabs have come to DOMINATE North Africa. North Africa is NOT just the COAST, just like SOuth America is NOT just the coast. MOST African history in North Africa for the LAST 5,000 years is one of INDIGENOUS black African people and civilizations. ARABS only come into the picture RECENTLY.
On TOP of that, MODERN Berbers tend to be identified EXCLUSIVELY with WHITE Kabyle and Rif Berbers, with a mattering in the CENTRAL Sahara. HOWEVER, this is a DISTORTION, because when one talks of the Moors, all of a sudden Berbers include MANY populations that are NOT coastal populations and NOT associated with the definition of Berber. Therefore, Senegalese, Mauritanians, Malians and Nigerans are all listed as BERBER, in the Moorish period, yet in the MODERN context ONLY coastal white Berbers are identified as "Berber". YOU are confused by this because YOU dont understand that this is DISTORTION that creates a FAKE identity for MANY BLACK Africans as MIXED when they are NOT MIXED. The Almoravids were NOT MIXED BERBERS and were NOT from the coast. The Sanhaja were NOT MIXED BERBERS and NOT from the coast. The Sanhaja put up some of the FIERCEST resistance to Arab colonization, but eventually lost and were fragmented into various sub groups, who were either DESTROYED in subsequent Arab invasions or became ARABIZED, with SOME mixing with Arabs. Unfortunately for YOU, you keep INSISTING on a MIXED WHITE ARAB AFRICAN identity for ALL Berbers PRIOR to the Arab invasions. THAT is blatantly as absurd as making PRE Spanish INdians in America MIXED Mestizo Spanish.[/b]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
Yes. It is obvious that there is a phenotypical difference.
Of course. Just as there is a phenotypic difference between a Masai and Kikuyu, but that does not mean "admixture" in one or the other.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Well isn't it a consensus here that everyone is mixed? So what makes this girl any different? i didnt say her admixture came from abroad but she obviously shows different phenotyp than other people in Niger like this other Tuareg girl
its quite obvious that one of them is more mixed than the other, maybe the girl above is the mixed one with someone originally non-Tuareg, or maybe the other girl is the one mixed with someone originally non-Tuareg, in any case they don't look the same despite being Tuaregs and comming from the same country.
You are absolutely right Yonis. But I believe Karwash's premise really is "admixture" from abroad (non-African).
Obviously Washkar knows nothing about the natural diversity of indigenous Africans.
Of course this premise has been dealt with before many times on this forum and will no doubt be dealt with again sometime in the future. Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
^^^ that girl is hot!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
Well isn't it a consensus here that everyone is mixed? So what makes this girl any different? i didnt say her admixture came from abroad but she obviously shows different phenotyp than other people in Niger like this other Tuareg girl its quite obvious that one of them is more mixed than the other, maybe the girl above is the mixed one with someone originally non-Tuareg, or maybe the other girl is the one mixed with someone originally non-Tuareg, in any case they don't look the same despite being Tuaregs and comming from the same country.
Please clarify your context of what is "Tuareg" and what is "non-Tuareg"; importantly, does this have anything to do with genetics?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ... What is mysterious is how you DENY that these DARK BLACK Africans could make it to Spain during the Moorish occupation
Doug. How many times I have to repeat the same all history of the meaning and demographics of the Moors in Spain?
quote: But you ARE fixated on a ONE drop rule of WHITE blood makes one NON BLACK African.
Wrong. I have not say (I don't believe it either) that Berbers or Moors are not Africans. I am not saying they are not Blacks, whatever that means. I am saying that the Moors of Spain were not Subsaharan African peoples. I am saying that the culture of the Maghreb is different from the culture of Mali and other Subsaharian countries.
quote: White and BLACK are SKIN COLORS, where WHITE means one who is at the lightest end of the spectrum. On the other hand, BLACK can come in a RANGE of shades from caramel tan to DARK BROWN.
Yes, and the color change with sun tanning as well.
quote: It is YOU with your ideas about MIXTURE based on skin complexion and features with NO UNDERSTANDING of the features of the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, that is a PROBLEM.
I don't know why you reject something so obvious. In North Africa there is a mixture of different ethnic groups that have different physical features. It is so obvious.
quote: Such NONSENSE is distortion in Africa because INDIGENOUS NONMIXED Africans come IN ALL SHADES of BROWN, with many features and are STILL BLACK AFRICANS and make up MOST populations in NORTH AFRICA. YOU are the one who ASSUMES that North Africans are AUTOMATICALLY MIXED, regardless of WHICH clan they are from or WHAT REGION. SOME Africans ARE MIXED, there is NO DOUBT, but just LOOKING at a PHOTO will NOT tell you if they are or not. THAT is the PROBLEM YOU keep having.
Someone say some look DRs. Well, Dominicans are mixed. What's wrong with that?
quote: ALL BERBERS are and WERE NOT a MIXED RACE PEOPLE. ALL BERBERS are NOT like WHITE COASTAL BERBERS. BERBERS are NOT DERIVED from WHITE ARAB INVADERS. Berbers are DESCENDED from INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN BLACKS. SOME Berber tribes ARE MIXED, but even WHITE BERBERS are STILL descended from NATIVE BLACK AFRICAN Berbers of ANCIENT TIMES.
So, that makes them to be least mixed?
quote: Whether subsaharans were Islamicized has NOTHING to do with the FACT that MANY North AFrican SAHARAN BERBERS WERE AND ARE BLACK. North Africa is not a BARRIER against BLACK SKIN. Black people exist IN ALL PARTS OF AFRICA and ALWAYS HAVE. THAT is what YOU fail to comprehent.
Well, if you say coastal Berbers, I will say they look quite Europeans to me. That's logical. Tunez is quite close to Sicily, but it is very far away from Mali. Look at the map.
quote: AFRICAN troops colonized Spain along with Arabs and BLACKS were THERE from the beginning
You mean Berbers, don't you? Yes, they were in Spain.
quote: MOST North Africans ARE NOT MIXED with WHITE ARABS or EUROPEANS. THAT is the FALSE dichotomy YOU keep FLOUNDERING under because of some NONSENSE you read somewhere. Just like YOU said, MOST INDIANS in AMERICA are NOT mixed, the SAME goes for NORTH AFRICANS. It is YOU who use CERTAIN groups who ARE mixed with Arabs and Europeans to represent ALL North Africans.
With what they are mixed then? Because they look VERY DIFFERENT from Subsaharians, indeed.
quote: Let me make this clear, North Africa extends from Tunisia in the north down past Chad, Niger and Sudan in the South. Many of these countries ARE facing a CRISIS based on the RECENT arrivals of Arabs who are attempting to push BLACK AFRICANS OUT of North Africa and establish a ARAB identity for ALL North Africa.
Yes, that is North Africa but you forget the Sahara desert is in between North and South. Now, if they are the SAME people, how come North Africans can identify subsaharians so fast? We also know what North Africans think and feel for people South of the Sahara and, I tell you, the feeling of brotherhood is not mutual.
quote: HOWEVER, in the period PRIOR to 711, North Africa was made up of MOSTLY INDIGENOUS BLACK AFRICANS.
Do you forget Cartago? The population of the Maghred was highly Phoenician in Ancient times as well. North Africa was a Roman province as well, with Roman settlers.
quote: It is only RECENTLY, that Arabs have come to DOMINATE North Africa. North Africa is NOT just the COAST, just like SOuth America is NOT just the coast. MOST African history in North Africa for the LAST 5,000 years is one of INDIGENOUS black African people and civilizations. ARABS only come into the picture RECENTLY.
To tell the truth, I am not absulutely certain of that. At far as I know "foreigners" have been living in North Africa at least since 3.500 years ago, along with locals.
quote: On TOP of that, MODERN Berbers tend to be identified EXCLUSIVELY with WHITE Kabyle and Rif Berbers, with a mattering in the CENTRAL Sahara. HOWEVER, this is a DISTORTION, because when one talks of the Moors, all of a sudden Berbers include MANY populations that are NOT coastal populations and NOT associated with the definition of Berber. Therefore, Senegalese, Mauritanians, Malians and Nigerans are all listed as BERBER, in the Moorish period, yet in the MODERN context ONLY coastal white Berbers are identified as "Berber".
Curiosly enough, in Spain it is the coastal populations the ones that represent the stereotype of the Moor.
quote: YOU are confused by this because YOU dont understand that this is DISTORTION that creates a FAKE identity for MANY BLACK Africans as MIXED when they are NOT MIXED. The Almoravids were NOT MIXED BERBERS and were NOT from the coast. The Sanhaja were NOT MIXED BERBERS and NOT from the coast. The Sanhaja put up some of the FIERCEST resistance to Arab colonization, but eventually lost and were fragmented into various sub groups, who were either DESTROYED in subsequent Arab invasions or became ARABIZED, with SOME mixing with Arabs. Unfortunately for YOU, you keep INSISTING on a MIXED WHITE ARAB AFRICAN identity for ALL Berbers PRIOR to the Arab invasions. THAT is blatantly as absurd as making PRE Spanish INdians in America MIXED Mestizo Spanish.
Well, perhaps the term Mixed is not correct, as you say. But how do you explain then that you can interpolate peoples from France to Mali? I mean, if you drive that route, you'll notice that while the kilometers pass the "white" turns into "black" in a process similar to FX morphings? In the extremes you got Black and White, but one the way you find all the phenotypes in between. Why so?
It is casual that that cline exists then?
Well, I am just saying that Moors are in between.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Here is another Tuareg woman. Conclusions please
KAWASHKAR.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ... What is mysterious is how you DENY that these DARK BLACK Africans could make it to Spain during the Moorish occupation
Doug. How many times I have to repeat the same all history of the meaning and demographics of the Moors in Spain?
WHAT history? WHAT meaning? WHAT demographics? Where are your SOURCES? You have posted NOTHING but YOUR OPINIONS based on NONSENSE and NO FACTS
quote: But you ARE fixated on a ONE drop rule of WHITE blood makes one NON BLACK African.
Wrong. I have not say (I don't believe it either) that Berbers or Moors are not Africans. I am not saying they are not Blacks, whatever that means. I am saying that the Moors of Spain were not Subsaharan African peoples. I am saying that the culture of the Maghreb is different from the culture of Mali and other Subsaharian countries.
Again WHERE are your facts? You state things with NO PROOF as if that makes them FACT. Sorry, it doesnt WORK like that.
quote: White and BLACK are SKIN COLORS, where WHITE means one who is at the lightest end of the spectrum. On the other hand, BLACK can come in a RANGE of shades from caramel tan to DARK BROWN.
Yes, and the color change with sun tanning as well.
SHOW your sources that say the Moors were "tanned" Africans. YOU HAVE NO PROOF and only offer NOTHING to back up your statements
quote: It is YOU with your ideas about MIXTURE based on skin complexion and features with NO UNDERSTANDING of the features of the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, that is a PROBLEM.
I don't know why you reject something so obvious. In North Africa there is a mixture of different ethnic groups that have different physical features. It is so obvious.
And these features include people with BLACK or DARK BROWN Skin. That TOO is obvious
quote: Such NONSENSE is distortion in Africa because INDIGENOUS NONMIXED Africans come IN ALL SHADES of BROWN, with many features and are STILL BLACK AFRICANS and make up MOST populations in NORTH AFRICA. YOU are the one who ASSUMES that North Africans are AUTOMATICALLY MIXED, regardless of WHICH clan they are from or WHAT REGION. SOME Africans ARE MIXED, there is NO DOUBT, but just LOOKING at a PHOTO will NOT tell you if they are or not. THAT is the PROBLEM YOU keep having.
Someone say some look DRs. Well, Dominicans are mixed. What's wrong with that?
SOME is not ALL, there is nothing wrong with ANYTHING except YOU insisting that ALL North Africans are MIXED. THEY ARE NOT. The CRUCIAL issue that BLOWS your argument OUT of the water is that even if MANY modern North Africans ARE mixed, does that mean they were MIXED 1200 years ago? Were the Maya MIXED Mestizo and mullato 1200 years ago? Just because SOME modern North African groups ARE mixed, does NOT mean that they were MIXED 1200 years ago. ANYBODY can see that.
quote: ALL BERBERS are and WERE NOT a MIXED RACE PEOPLE. ALL BERBERS are NOT like WHITE COASTAL BERBERS. BERBERS are NOT DERIVED from WHITE ARAB INVADERS. Berbers are DESCENDED from INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN BLACKS. SOME Berber tribes ARE MIXED, but even WHITE BERBERS are STILL descended from NATIVE BLACK AFRICAN Berbers of ANCIENT TIMES.
So, that makes them to be least mixed?
Why are you asking me? YOU are the one insisting that ALL Berbers are mixed. Why dont YOU show what makes them mixed?
quote: Whether subsaharans were Islamicized has NOTHING to do with the FACT that MANY North AFrican SAHARAN BERBERS WERE AND ARE BLACK. North Africa is not a BARRIER against BLACK SKIN. Black people exist IN ALL PARTS OF AFRICA and ALWAYS HAVE. THAT is what YOU fail to comprehent.
Well, if you say coastal Berbers, I will say they look quite Europeans to me. That's logical. Tunez is quite close to Sicily, but it is very far away from Mali. Look at the map.
Mauretania is not near Sicily, look at the map as well.
quote: AFRICAN troops colonized Spain along with Arabs and BLACKS were THERE from the beginning
You mean Berbers, don't you? Yes, they were in Spain.
BERBERS ARE AFRICANS and some ARE black and were then as well.
quote: MOST North Africans ARE NOT MIXED with WHITE ARABS or EUROPEANS. THAT is the FALSE dichotomy YOU keep FLOUNDERING under because of some NONSENSE you read somewhere. Just like YOU said, MOST INDIANS in AMERICA are NOT mixed, the SAME goes for NORTH AFRICANS. It is YOU who use CERTAIN groups who ARE mixed with Arabs and Europeans to represent ALL North Africans.
With what they are mixed then? Because they look VERY DIFFERENT from Subsaharians, indeed.
Since YOU continue to INSIST that they ARE mixed, why dont YOU show WHO they are mixed with?
quote: Let me make this clear, North Africa extends from Tunisia in the north down past Chad, Niger and Sudan in the South. Many of these countries ARE facing a CRISIS based on the RECENT arrivals of Arabs who are attempting to push BLACK AFRICANS OUT of North Africa and establish a ARAB identity for ALL North Africa.
Yes, that is North Africa but you forget the Sahara desert is in between North and South. Now, if they are the SAME people, how come North Africans can identify subsaharians so fast? We also know what North Africans think and feel for people South of the Sahara and, I tell you, the feeling of brotherhood is not mutual.
This is not an issue of brotherhood. ALL people from ALL parts of the planet recognize differences in ethnicity and culture between each other. That is a LAME attempt to back up a LAME argument. So are you saying that BLACK Berbers dont qualify as TRUE Berbers and that WHITE Berbers dont accept them as such? Where is your proof that ALL Berbers only have ONE complexion and one set of features and DONT have features of those YOU call SUBSAHARANS?
quote: HOWEVER, in the period PRIOR to 711, North Africa was made up of MOSTLY INDIGENOUS BLACK AFRICANS.
Do you forget Cartago? The population of the Maghred was highly Phoenician in Ancient times as well. North Africa was a Roman province as well, with Roman settlers.
Provide some proof. Like YOU said, a few Spanish settlers in America DID NOT make the WHOLE population Spanish. The SAME applies here.
quote: It is only RECENTLY, that Arabs have come to DOMINATE North Africa. North Africa is NOT just the COAST, just like SOuth America is NOT just the coast. MOST African history in North Africa for the LAST 5,000 years is one of INDIGENOUS black African people and civilizations. ARABS only come into the picture RECENTLY.
To tell the truth, I am not absulutely certain of that. At far as I know "foreigners" have been living in North Africa at least since 3.500 years ago, along with locals.
Where and how many foreigners? Where is the genetic and archaeological evidence that these FOREIGNERS wiped out the LOCAL population and made them MIXED? On one hand you insist that America still is MOSTLY pure Indian, but on the OTHER hand you insist that a few foreigners make ALL North Africans mixed. A contradiction dont you think?
quote: On TOP of that, MODERN Berbers tend to be identified EXCLUSIVELY with WHITE Kabyle and Rif Berbers, with a mattering in the CENTRAL Sahara. HOWEVER, this is a DISTORTION, because when one talks of the Moors, all of a sudden Berbers include MANY populations that are NOT coastal populations and NOT associated with the definition of Berber. Therefore, Senegalese, Mauritanians, Malians and Nigerans are all listed as BERBER, in the Moorish period, yet in the MODERN context ONLY coastal white Berbers are identified as "Berber".
Curiosly enough, in Spain it is the coastal populations the ones that represent the stereotype of the Moor.
Said who? Care to provide some EVIDENCE for this
quote: YOU are confused by this because YOU dont understand that this is DISTORTION that creates a FAKE identity for MANY BLACK Africans as MIXED when they are NOT MIXED. The Almoravids were NOT MIXED BERBERS and were NOT from the coast. The Sanhaja were NOT MIXED BERBERS and NOT from the coast. The Sanhaja put up some of the FIERCEST resistance to Arab colonization, but eventually lost and were fragmented into various sub groups, who were either DESTROYED in subsequent Arab invasions or became ARABIZED, with SOME mixing with Arabs. Unfortunately for YOU, you keep INSISTING on a MIXED WHITE ARAB AFRICAN identity for ALL Berbers PRIOR to the Arab invasions. THAT is blatantly as absurd as making PRE Spanish INdians in America MIXED Mestizo Spanish.
Well, perhaps the term Mixed is not correct, as you say. But how do you explain then that you can interpolate peoples from France to Mali? I mean, if you drive that route, you'll notice that while the kilometers pass the "white" turns into "black" in a process similar to FX morphings? In the extremes you got Black and White, but one the way you find all the phenotypes in between. Why so?
It is casual that that cline exists then?
Well, I am just saying that Moors are in between.
KAWASHKAR [/QB]
Clines are NOT the result of RACE MIXING. Clines are the variations within LOCAL INDIGENOUS populations that vary over distance based on enviromental factors. YOU have said that the differences between NORTH Africans and SUBSAHARAN Africans are a result of MIXING. NOW you are attempting to CONFUSE yourself even more by talking about clines. MAKE UP YOUR MIND which it is. Is it mixing or is it cline or is it both. At this point I think you need to realize you ARE LOST. Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Doug why are you so interested about the Moors? y You are not a muslim therefor you shouldnt care what they were, the moors regardless of their skin color were servants and soldiers of Islam from west and north west africa and also from Arabia they gave their life for islam. If you don't consider yourself Muslim then you shouldn't be proud of the Moors or care about them, since they for sure wouldn't care about you if you didnt know the shahada.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Supercar:
quote:Please clarify your context of what is "Tuareg" and what is "non-Tuareg"; importantly, does this have anything to do with genetics?
A Tuareg is someone who practices the lifestyle of the majority of Tuaregs and also considers himself a part of that community, since the original Tuaregs have obviously mixed with different type of ethnicities i cant say that their is a non-Tuareg look in Africa anymore. And a non-Tuareg is someone who doesnt identify or live the Tuareg lifestyle. Before the diversity on Tuareg look that we see today due to mixture i think alot of Tuaregs had a homogeneous look.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
...
Posted by TK (Member # 10103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Doug why are you so interested about the Moors? y You are not a muslim therefor you shouldnt care what they were, the moors regardless of their skin color were servants and soldiers of Islam from west and north west africa and also from Arabia they gave their life for islam. If you don't consider yourself Muslim then you shouldn't be proud of the Moors or care about them, since they for sure wouldn't care about you if you didnt know the shahada.
So he has to be a Muslim in order to be educated or want to be educated on the Moors???
I'm not a Muslim, heck i'm atheist and I want to know more about the Moors.
I'm simply interested in obtaining as much knowledge as possible.
Posted by TK (Member # 10103) on :
I don't know how you guys have managed to continue on in this discussion. Kawashkar isn't going to get "it" because he doesn't want to.
It's best to just leave him be. Sometimes delusions are needed because reality is simply to hard for some to grasp.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
This is some Info on the Berbers The Berbers: North Africa was inhabited by several different communities, each known by a different name. When the Romans first conquered the region, they assigned all these groups the Latin name barbari, the equivalent of the English "barbarian." This name denoted the fact that the North Africans spoke neither Latin nor Greek, the only acceptable languages to the Romans. After 700 years of Roman rule, the Byzantine Empire succeeded Rome and continued to refer to the North Africans as one group. After conquering North Africa, the Arabs also kept the Roman name for the local inhabitants, modifying it to barbar, or Berber. As they began converting to Islam in the years following the Arab conquest, the Berbers acquired a distinct identity, with a cohesive existence as part of the Muslim community. Although distinctions remained between different Berber communities, the unity of the Berbers as a North African people increased. Today, the Berbers are still a diverse population, but the languages they speak are considered dialects of the same language, Berber. Berbers today make up 20 per cent of the population in Algeria, and 40 per cent in Morocco. They also exist in significant numbers throughout the Sahara Desert, and east into southern Tunisia and Libya. Using one term, Berber, to describe several ethnically diverse groups, compares to using the term "Indian" to describe the indigenous populations of North and South America. Neither term provides an accurate description of the people it represents; the moniker simply reflects the initial reaction of those who assigned the name. Berbers were also often called Moors throughout history, from the Greek Mauros, or "inhabitant of Mauritania," a region of North Africa http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/caliphate/berbers.html
Berber Language originates in east Africa. Berber is a Language family and not a ethnic label. Berbers are ethnically diverse. Their are "Black" Berbers and "White" Berbers. All berbers are E3b Africans. They like other Africans west, east, and south belong to the Pn2 clade. This clade unites Africans from all parts of Africa. The East African E-M81 is the dominant lineage in the Berbers. The Moors were based around senegal, and mauritania. The Moors that invaded Spain were mostly dark skinned people from these regions. Kawashkar seems to be stuck in this idea that Berbers are only white looking. This is wrong thinking. Kawashkar their has been provided in this very thread alone proof that the Moors and Berbers are African people. You need to change your ideas about these people they belong to Africa. Most "white" Berbers have recent genes from Arabs and European. The original berbers were black. Kawashkar I think you should read this:
Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of "race" (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khosianoids). But Y-Chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35 and PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across great geographical expanse. African peoples with a rang of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y Chromsomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar." http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html&filetype=pdf
Peace
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TK:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Doug why are you so interested about the Moors? y You are not a muslim therefor you shouldnt care what they were, the moors regardless of their skin color were servants and soldiers of Islam from west and north west africa and also from Arabia they gave their life for islam. If you don't consider yourself Muslim then you shouldn't be proud of the Moors or care about them, since they for sure wouldn't care about you if you didnt know the shahada.
So he has to be a Muslim in order to be educated or want to be educated on the Moors???
I'm not a Muslim, heck i'm atheist and I want to know more about the Moors.
I'm simply interested in obtaining as much knowledge as possible.
I meant by constantly focusing on the sources which deals with skin color, of course he should study them, but not study them just so to identify with them through skin colour and forget their ideology and complete faith in Allah, which was ultimatly what made Moors the Moors, without Islam they were nothing.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Please Read this,
"World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands."
I hope that is enough to wake you guys up from Afrocentric myths. The world is not enclosed in continents.
The article is below,
Kawashkar
BMC Genet. 2003; 4: 15. Published online 2003 October 16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-4-15.
Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography Nicole Maca-Meyer,1 Ana M González,1 José Pestano,2 Carlos Flores,1 José M Larruga,1 and Vicente M Cabrera1
1Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, SPAIN 2Laboratorio de Genética, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, SPAIN
Corresponding author.
Nicole Maca-Meyer: nmacame@ull.es; Ana M González: amglez@ull.es; José Pestano: jpestano@dbbf.ulpgc.es; Carlos Flores: cflores@ull.es; José M Larruga: jlarruga@ull.es; Vicente M Cabrera: vcabrera@ull.es
Received July 8, 2003; Accepted October 16, 2003.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Top Abstract Background Results Discussion Methods Supplementary material References Abstract
Background World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands.
Results Divergence times, geographic origin and expansions of the U6 mitochondrial DNA clade, have been deduced from the analysis of 14 complete U6 sequences, and 56 different haplotypes, characterized by hypervariable segment sequences and RFLPs.
Conclusions The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent.
Top Abstract Background Results Discussion Methods Supplementary material References Background Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times. From the archaeological record it has been proposed that, as early as 45,000 years ago (ya), anatomically modern humans, most probably expanded the Aterian stone industry from the Maghrib into most of the Sahara [1]. More evolved skeletal remains indicate that 20,000 years later the Iberomaurusian makers, replaced the Aterian culture in the coastal Maghrib. Several hypothesis have been forwarded concerning the Iberomaurusian origin. They can be resumed in those which propose an arrival, from the East, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa, and those which point to west Mediterranean Europe, either from the Iberian Peninsula, across the Gibraltar Strait, or from Italy, via Sicily, as their most probable homeland [2]. Between 10,000 and 6,000 ya the Neolithic Capsian industry flourished farther inland. The historic penetration in the area of classical Mediterranean cultures, ending with the Islamic domination, supposed a strong cultural influx. However, it seems that the demic impact was not strong enough to modify the prehistoric genetic pool.
Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa and that posterior developments of the Capsian Neolithic in the Maghrib might be related to the origin and dispersal of proto-Berber speaking people into the area [3]. Nowadays, the Berber speakers, scattered throughout Northwest Africa from the Atlantic to the Lybic desert and from the Mediterranean shores to the south of the Sahel, are considered the genuine descendants of those prehistoric colonizers. Some important issues are pending of resolution to clarify the past and present of the North African Caucasians: To which extent the Neolithic waves substituted the Paleolithic recipients? Which is the most probable origin of these prehistoric occupants? Did they come from Europe, East Africa, Southwest Asia or are they a result of an "in situ" evolution? Is there a correspondence between the Afroasiatic diversification and the spread of Caucasians?
Recently, molecular genetic research on North African populations has contributed new data to test the major issues proposed on archaeological, anthropological and linguistic grounds. The studies based on uniparental genetic markers have been particularly informative. Both, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences [4,5], and Y-chromosome binary markers [6,7] detected specific North African haplotypes that confirm an ancient human colonization for this area and a sharp discontinuity between Northwest Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. From a mtDNA point of view, the most informative of these genetic markers is the North African clade U6. On the basis of complete mtDNA sequences, it has been proposed that U6 lineages, mainly found in North Africa, are the signatures of a return to Africa around 39,000–52,000 ya [8]. This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa. Although in moderate frequencies, the geographic range of this clade extends from the Near East to the Canary Islands, along the Atlantic shores of Northwest Africa and from the Sahel belt, including Ethiopia, to the southern Mediterranean rim. Out of this area, U6 has only been spotted in the Iberian Peninsula [9-12], Sicily [13], in the north European Ashkenazic Jews [14], and in Ibero-America. The presence in the latter is, most probably, the result of the Spanish and Portuguese colonization [15,16].
In order to construct an unambiguous phylogeny for this clade and infer precise ages for the whole group and for its derivatives, we have fully sequenced eleven mitochondrial lineages representing the main branches of U6. Subsequently, we analyzed the geographic distribution range and relative diversity of these subclades, to deduce their most probable expansion origins based on sequence information of the first hypervariable segment (HVSI) of the mitochondrial control region and on new RFLPs, discovered to be diagnostic for them.
Top Abstract Background Results Discussion Methods Supplementary material References Results
A new sublineage for U6 Haplogroup U splits from R by mutations 11467, 12308 and 12372. Three branches sprout from this root: U5 (3197, 9477, 13617 and 16270), U6 (3348 and 16172) and the rest of the U clade defined by mutation 1811 [8,17,18]. For this reason, a representative of U5 was chosen as an outgroup. The phylogenetic tree based on complete mtDNA U6 sequences, confirms that this clade is defined by mutations 3348 and 16172 (Fig. 1). The former can be detected by RFLP analysis using MboI [15]. The existence of three subgroups is also evident. U6a was defined by the presence of HVSI mutations 16172, 16219 and 16278 [4] and now by 7805 and 14179 in the coding region, that can be tested by RFLPs -7802 MaeI and +14179 AccI, respectively. Subgroup U6b was characterized by HVSI mutations 16172, 16219 and 16311 [4], to which mutation 9438 (detectable by RFLP -9438 HaeIII) can now be added. The new clade U6c is defined by HVSI mutations 16169, 16172 and 16189 and at least by mutations 4965 and 5081, that can be tested by RFLPs +4963 Aci I and -5079 Tsp509 I, respectively. In addition, a subgroup, U6a1, has been detected within U6a characterized by the addition of HVSI mutation 16189 [4]. In the same way, HVSI mutation 16163 classifies subgroup U6b1, autochthonous of the Canary Islands [19]. Within the coding region, this subgroup can be further defined by RFLP + 2349 MboI.
From Fig. 1, an important question rises about the constant mutation rate in the coding region. The mean number of substitutions accumulated in U6b lineages (Table 1) is significantly smaller than those in U6a (P = 0.013) and is near significance in U6c (P = 0.058). These differences are mainly due to the number of mutations accumulated in the coding region. Following others [20], we used the likelihood-ratio test [21] to asses whether the mutations accumulated on the different branches were compatible or not with a uniform rate. The difference between the values obtained for the uniform clock model (L0 = -23060.25) and for the variable rate model (L1 = -23032.22), was statistically significant at the 5% level. So, the simpler clock-like tree was rejected. On the other hand, the substitution ratio between coding vs. HVSI region is double in U6a than in U6b or U6c (Table 1). Furthermore, taking into account the ratio of synonymous vs. non-synonymous substitutions in the coding region, again the U6a value doubles that of U6b or U6c, reaching a significant level (P = 0.0237, in a two-tailed Fisher exact test). Both selection and stochastic processes have to be invoked to satisfactorily explain these data. A bias in lineage sampling is the most probable cause of the different substitution ratios between D-loop and coding regions: the U6b and U6c lineages were chosen for their different geographic origin and, comparatively, large divergence in HVSI, whilst for U6a we chose central representatives of the different subclusters excepting that of the Canary Islands. In relation to the differences in synonymous vs. non-synonymous ratios, they could be attributed to the action of purifying selection, having a stronger effect on the older U6a lineages. From this, we deduced that both U6b and U6c spread more recently. Finally, the apparent differences in substitution rates between U6b and U6a or U6c could better be the result of genetic drift, so that the founder lineage that originated the U6b subgroup was less evolved than those that originated U6a and U6c. However, we have to point out that in a similar case, in which significant differences were found in the number of mutations accumulated on two clades of haplogroup L2, selection was suggested as the most probable cause [20].
Geographic distribution of U6 lineages Fig. 2 shows the reduced median network obtained from the 56 U6 haplotypes found for the HVSI region between positions 16086–16370. The basal motif for haplogroup U6 has varied as new data have been added. Algerian sequences [9] suggested that the ancestral sequence harbored mutations 16172 16189. Additional data [4] considered 16172 16219 as the most probable ancestral motif. However, the complete sequence of the individual with this motif relocates it in U6a, presenting a back mutation in HVSI position 16278. Our data points to 16172 as the only substitution present in the basal motif. Unfortunately, the high recurrence of this mutation makes it insufficient to diagnose this haplogroup. The highest frequencies for haplogroup U6 as a whole are found in Northwest Africa (Table 2), with a maximum of 29% in the Algerian Berbers [9]. Subgroup U6a and its derivative U6a1 present the widest geographic distribution, from the Canary Islands in the West, to Syria and Ethiopia in the East, and from the Iberian Peninsula in the North, to Kenya in the South. In contrast, U6b shows a more limited and patched distribution, restricted to western populations. In the Iberian Peninsula, U6b is more frequent in the North whilst U6a is prevalent in the South. In Africa, it has been sporadically found in Morocco and Algeria in the North, and Senegal and Nigeria in the South, pointing to a wider distribution in the past, or to gene flow from a geographic focus which has still not been sampled. Curiously, two Arab Bedouins [22] with the same haplotype (16111 16172 16219 16311 16362), are the only Eastern representatives classified as U6b. It would be very interesting to test the 9438 HaeIII restriction enzyme to confirm this classification. Furthermore, subgroup U6b1 characterized by mutation 16163, is restricted to the Canarian Archipelago and the Iberian Peninsula. The geographic distribution of the new subgroup U6c, characterized by the basic motif 16169 16172 16189, is even more localized. It has only been found in the Canary Islands and Morocco. It could also be present in Algeria, if the two individuals with haplotype 16172 16189 16234 16311 [9], classified as U* by RFLP analysis [5], belong to this subgroup. Like for U6b, an autochthonous U6c subcluster (characterized by mutation 16129) was also detected in the Canarian Archipelago.
Relationships between areas Linearized FST values distinguished three significantly differentiated geographical areas: Continental Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands (Table 3). Nucleotide diversities within areas (Table 3) ranged from 3.253 in the Iberian Peninsula to 2.059 in East Africa. At first sight, it is striking that diversities are larger in the Canary Islands and Iberia than in Africa. We think that demographic processes are responsible of this situation. In Africa, the geographic and social isolation of the different Berber groups [23], could have promoted a loss of diversity by genetic drift. On the contrary, the presence in the Canary Islands and Iberia of representatives of all, or nearly all, U6 subclades, some of them not detected nowadays in the Continent, strongly point to the existence of several migratory waves from Africa, possibly at different times, which have increased their variability. This explanation is reinforced when the number of segregating sites (S) are taken into account. This value is larger in West Africa (5.10 ± 1.5) than in the Canaries (2.60 ± 1.0) and the Iberian Peninsula (3.90 ± 1.4), but East Africa presents a lower value (3.2 ± 1.4). The fact that U6b and U6c have a restricted western distribution undoubtedly contributes to this Continental difference. However, the younger U6a1 branch contradicts this general trend. For this subclade, East and West Africa are statistically differentiated (P = 0.016), and the former presents a higher nucleotide diversity (1.55 ± 1.11) than the latter (0.98 ± 0.75). Geographic distributions and diversity values of U6 are congruent with a western origin and radiation for all subclades excepting U6a1 that, most probably, had an eastern origin.
Radiation ages Radiation ages for U6 and its subclades have been estimated on the basis of complete coding and HVSI sequences (Table 4). In general, ages obtained from HVSI are larger than those deduced from the coding region. Both approaches present inconveniences for the time estimates. It has been demonstrated that the coding region has evolved at a roughly constant rate [24]. However, as relatively few clades are fully sequenced, stochastic and/or intentional sampling may bias the representation of the chosen lineages. On the other hand, HVSI estimations are based on a large number of individuals minimizing sampling errors. However, we deal with a short sequence that has not evolved at a constant rate across all human lineages [24]. Furthermore, from the phylogeny of complete U6 sequences (Fig. 1), it has been deduced, once more, that empirical time estimations are not independent of the demographic history of the population sampled. Therefore, we have taken coalescence ages only as rough time frames into which lineage expansions could have occurred. Adopting a conservative position we have used ages based on the coding region whenever possible.
Top Abstract Background Results Discussion Methods Supplementary material References Discussion
African U6 origin and expansions Discarding the Canary Islands, because the most ancient human settlement seems to be no earlier than 2,500 ya [25], and the Iberian Peninsula, because there are no consistent traces of U6 lineages in Europe, Northwest Africa is left as the most probable place from where the African U6 subclades radiated. Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded, this hypothesis seems highly improbable even invoking strong bottlenecks in African populations. It is clear that the whole haplogroup U is an offshoot of macrohaplogroup N. This lineage, together with macrohaplogroup M, were the only ones that, belonging to the star radiation of L3 in Africa, left this continent to colonize Eurasia. Five mutations separate N from the root of the African L3 [8], and there are only late evolved N lineages in Africa, whereas representatives of the full N radiation are present in Eurasia. Thus, this continent would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya (Table 4). Its most probable route had to be through East Africa. So, the loss of variability in this area is puzzling, although posterior demic expansions affecting East Africa might be the cause. This date roughly corresponds to the Paleolithic occupation of the Maghrib by the Iberomaurusian culture and to the age of the evolved Homo sapiens sapiens skeletons found in this area. Only one of the three U6 subclades, U6a, experienced a great geographic radiation spreading west to the Atlantic shores and east, crossing Africa, to the Near East. A posterior offshoot of this clade, U6a1, has a similar distribution. The upper bound for these expansions are around 28,000 and 17,000 ya, respectively (Table 4). Genetic diversities are congruent with a west to east expansion for U6a and a more probable east to west expansion for U6a1. Furthermore, the absence of U6b and U6c lineages in the East suggests that the population from which the U6a colonizers originated also lacked these lineages or presented them in very low frequencies. The fact that 5 of the 8 U6a haplotypes detected in the Near East are unique of this area (Fig. 2), points to prehistoric demic movements as the most probable cause of the U6a Africa to Asia migration, although historic events cannot be completely ruled out. In frame with the estimated age of U6a are archaeological data supporting early migrations from Africa into the Near East [26]. The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages. There are different hypothesis to explain the Afroasiatic origin. For some, it would be the result of a Neolithic demic diffusion from the Near East to Africa [27,28]. For others, the Afroasiatic originated in Africa and had a posterior demic spread to West Asia [29,30]. A third possibility is that Afroasiatic languages spread mostly through cultural contacts either from Africa or from Asia [31]. Only demic diffusions could be correlated with U6 expansions detected here. Since an upper bound of 15,000 ya has been estimated for the proto-Afroasiatic origin, it seems that the coalescence age for U6a predates by far the origin of the Afroasiatic phylum. However, the recent spread of U6a1 is more in frame with the emergence of a proto-Afroasiatic language. This U6a1 expansion would favor an East African origin for the Afroasiatic and a posterior expansion to West Africa and West Asia. However, a Near Eastern origin, most probably predating the Neolithic expansion, cannot be ruled out.
Iberian U6 origin and expansions In Europe, U6 lineages have been consistently sampled only in the Iberian Peninsula. It has been mentioned that U6 nucleotide diversity is higher in Iberia than in Africa [12]. This has been confirmed here (Table 3). However, S is greater in West Africa. Considering the isolation of the different Berber groups we think that, in this case, the latter is a better diversity measure. The absence of U6 representatives in the rest of Europe, is also an argument against the hypothesis that these lineages could have migrated to North Africa from Europe. Naturally, this does not exclude that other mitochondrial lineages could have followed this route. Most probably, the presence of these African lineages in Iberia is the result of northward expansions from Africa. The time of this expansion has been predominantly attributed to either the Arab/Berber occupation that lasted seven centuries [10] or to prehistoric immigrations of North Africans to Iberia [12]. Both processes could have contributed to model the U6 landscape in Iberia. First, haplotype matches show that 10 of the 19 U6 lineages detected in Iberia are not present in Africa (Fig. 2), which points against only one recent immigration. Second, the geographic distribution of the U6 lineages in Iberia is puzzling. Whereas the U6b lineages, nowadays very scarce in Africa, are mainly detected in the Northwest, the U6 lineages found in highest frequencies in Africa are predominant in the south, where the Islamic rule lasted longer. At the light of these results we propose that U6b in Iberia is the signal of a prehistoric North African immigration that could have also brought some U6a lineages. Its actual northern range could be the result of a forced retreat due to the arrival of new southern incomers to Iberia. However, the U6a distribution is better explained as the result of more recent gene flow from North Africa. The age of U6b (approx. 10,000 ya) might be considered as an upper bound for the prehistoric wave. Curiously, around this time the Iberomaurusians began to be displaced by the incoming Capsian culture in the Maghrib. On archaeological grounds, it has been proposed that Iberomaurusians slowly retreated towards the Atlantic coast from where they sailed to the Canary Islands and southwards to the Malinese Sahara [2]. Coincidentally, these are the same places where the U6b lineages have been spotted (Fig. 2).
Canary Islands U6 origin and expansions At a genetic level, the Berber origin of the Guanches, the aboriginal population of the Canary Islands, and their survival after the Spanish occupation, has been inferred from the high frequency of U6 lineages in its modern population (Table 2), similar to that of North Africa [19,32]. This fact has been recently confirmed in a mtDNA sequence study on aboriginal remains [33]. It was found that in the Guanche maternal gene pool, U6b1 and U6a were present at frequencies of 8.22% and 1.37%, respectively. U6c was probably also present in the aboriginal pool as a haplotype (16129 16169 16172 16189), now known to belong to subhaplogroup U6c, was proposed as a probable Canarian founder type [19]. As in Northwest Iberia, U6b was the dominant U6 subclade carried by the North African settlers of the islands. All three subclades are present in the modern Canarian population at frequencies of 1.3%, 13.0% and 3.3% for U6a, U6b and U6c, respectively, which is indicative of a broad aboriginal component in the present maternal pool. Perhaps, the comparatively higher frequency of U6a lineages might be attributed to an additional Berber input as result of the slave trade after the Spanish conquest [34,35]. What remains enigmatic of the indubitable North African prehistoric colonization of the Archipelago is that it was carried out by people whose U6 lineages mainly belonged to the U6b subclade that has only been spotted in very low frequencies in the modern African populations of Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria (Table 2). Moreover, the U6b and U6c insular haplotypes belong to the autochthonous U6b1 and U6c1 branches differing by substitutions 16163 and 16129, respectively, from all their African counterparts. As the most probable arrival of the first prehistoric Canarian settlers was around 2,500 ya, it is highly improbable that these mutations occurred on the islands. Therefore, we expected to find these Canarian lineages in some place of Africa. However, after extensive sampling they have still not been detected. It is possible that they are present somewhere in low frequencies but, in any case, this phylogeographic distribution suggests that Northwest Africa suffered important demic displacements in the past. Besides U6, other genetic markers such as 110(-) haplotype of the CD4/Alu system [36], and the M81 Y-chromosome binary marker [6,7], point to an ancient and autochthonous human presence in Northwest Africa. An eastward decline in M81 frequencies has been detected, regrettably the lack of extensive intra-M81 microsatellite diversity studies in Africa precludes phylogeographic comparisons as those done with mtDNA. There are other coincidences between mtDNA data and other systems. For instance, using classical genetic markers, it was found that the Iberian Peninsula showed smaller genetic distances with East Africa than with West Africa [37]. The same pattern was observed for Y-chromosome studies [7], both in line with our results (Table 3). More studies with other genetic markers are necessary to corroborate, complement or even contradict the proposed U6 landscape.
In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic. The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading. This movement is in time frame with the Capsian culture. Based on archaeological and anthropological grounds, it has been speculated that these incomers slowly pushed away the aboriginal residents [2]. It could be in that time when U6b reached the south of the Iberian Peninsula from where it was displaced to the north where it persists today. The U6b and U6c diaspora also reached the Atlantic fringe from where they sailed to the Canary Islands. Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area.
Posted by TK (Member # 10103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:Originally posted by TK:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Doug why are you so interested about the Moors? y You are not a muslim therefor you shouldnt care what they were, the moors regardless of their skin color were servants and soldiers of Islam from west and north west africa and also from Arabia they gave their life for islam. If you don't consider yourself Muslim then you shouldn't be proud of the Moors or care about them, since they for sure wouldn't care about you if you didnt know the shahada.
So he has to be a Muslim in order to be educated or want to be educated on the Moors???
I'm not a Muslim, heck i'm atheist and I want to know more about the Moors.
I'm simply interested in obtaining as much knowledge as possible.
I meant by constantly focusing on the sources which deals with skin color, of course he should study them, but not study them just so to identify with them through skin colour and forget their ideology and complete faith in Allah, which was ultimatly what made Moors the Moors, without Islam they were nothing.
I'm black and that's one of the reason why I want to know more about them. There being Muslim doesn't change that. It was the their faith that drove them to conquer Spain but that doesn't change who some of them were, Black Africans.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Please Read this,
"World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands."
I hope that is enough to wake you guys up from Afrocentric myths. The world is not enclosed in continents.
The article is below,
Kawashkar
Thanks for the article Kawashkar. You must realize NOBODY here is disputing that SOME Northern Africans have U6 which is also related to some populations in Europe. But I think you keep missing my point: U6 is but ONE of the markers found among Northern African populations in the Sahara and Magrheb. You KEEP trying to make COASTAL communities of Africans REPRESENTATIVE of ALL Northern Africans and they are NOT. There ARE other lineages other than U6 in Northern Africa. ALSO, many of the Moors did not COME from the coast of North Africa, so the LINEAGES of those coastal Africans is IRRELEVANT to those who came from ELSEWHERE.
quote: U6 individuals, who broke of from haplogroup U while still in the Near East, are found PREDOMINANTLY in North Africa. While other members from haplogroup U were heading northward into Europe and Scandinavia, your ancestors headed west along the southern Mediterranean coast. Today, they are found primarily in northern Africa and constitute around ten percent of the people living there.
U6 is an important marker for SOME parts of Northern Africa. The MAIN reason it is important is because it seems to be an ISOLATED branch of older U lineages that migrated from EAST Africa. U6 is an AFRICAN lineage and originated in East Africa. The fact that it is relatively ISOLATED means that it does NOT represent a WIDESPREAD distribution of such features among ALL North African populations. Therefore, it is a MYTH to propose that those populations of North Africans, like the Kabylie Berber, who have HIGH U6 lineages are REPRESENTATIVE of ALL North Africans.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:NOBODY here is disputing that SOME Northern Africans have U6 which is also related to some populations in Europe.
U6 originates in North Africa 30 thousand years ago.
It is not native to Europe.
U6 is *not* the main Kabyle lineage.
The main Kabyle maternal lineage is H1, which *is* European.
Conversely where Europeans have U6, M1 or L1,L2 and L3, it represents African ancestry in Europeans.
Thus:
the presence of haplogroup U6 in Iberia may signal gene flow FROM NW Africa, and those of the subhaplogroup U6b1 recent gene flow from the Canary Islands. Haplogroup U6 is present at frequencies ranging from 0 to 7% in the various Iberian populations, with an average of 1.8%. Given that the frequency of U6 in NW Africa is 10%, the mtDNA contribution of NW Africa to Iberia can be estimated at 18%.
Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean S. Plaza1, F. Calafell1, A. Helal2, N. Bouzerna3, G. Lefranc4, J. Bertranpetit1 and D. Coma
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
ooohh ... that had to hurt ..! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: U6 originates in North Africa 30 thousand years ago.
It is not native to Europe.
U6 is *not* the main Kabyle lineage.
The main Kabyle maternal lineage is H1, which *is* European.
Conversely where Europeans have U6, M1 or L1,L2 and L3, it represents African ancestry in Europeans.
Thus:
the presence of haplogroup U6 in Iberia may signal gene flow FROM NW Africa, and those of the subhaplogroup U6b1 recent gene flow from the Canary Islands. Haplogroup U6 is present at frequencies ranging from 0 to 7% in the various Iberian populations, with an average of 1.8%. Given that the frequency of U6 in NW Africa is 10%, the mtDNA contribution of NW Africa to Iberia can be estimated at 18%.
Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean S. Plaza1, F. Calafell1, A. Helal2, N. Bouzerna3, G. Lefranc4, J. Bertranpetit1 and D. Coma
^^Well I hope the above more accurate info is enough to wake someone up from his 'mixed-up' myths! LOL Although I doubt it.
Good try anyway citing sources, Karwash.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: The world is not enclosed in continents.
It sure isn't! As proof of *ancient* African lineages in both Europe and Southwest Asia. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Doug why are you so interested about the Moors? y You are not a muslim therefor you shouldnt care what they were, the moors regardless of their skin color were servants and soldiers of Islam from west and north west africa and also from Arabia they gave their life for islam. If you don't consider yourself Muslim then you shouldn't be proud of the Moors or care about them, since they for sure wouldn't care about you if you didnt know the shahada.
Why are YOU interested in Ancient Egypt? Are you Egyptian dont you know the ancient Egyptians wouldnt care about if you didnt know Maat?
Honestly that is a STUPID question. People study history because it is IMPORTANT to know how we got where we are today. It is VERY important to be able to see how one thing leads to another from one area of the world to the next. It is VERY important to see how IMPORTANT the Islamic world AND Africa was in the development of European civilization, both in terms of Egypt AND Moorish civilization. It is NICE to know that MUCH of what we call SPANISH architecture and culture ACTUALLY came from MUSLIM Africans! Kinda makes the whole East versus West, Christian versus Muslim argument a MOOT point.
Africans need to be able to FREE themselves from FORIEGN imposed ideaologies and definition of self which are DESTRUCTIVE to their own interests and self preservation. As LONG as Africans subvert their own IDENTITY to foreign ideas and institutions, Africans will ALWAYS have a hard time progressing in the world. AFRICANS, especially Africans in America need to know that BEFORE Africans were taken as slaves to America, they had STUDIED in Universities and were LITERATE in MANY parts of West Africa. It is IMPORTANT that Africans know the ROLE they played in European history (even if it turned out NOT to be in their favor). Knowledge is important for everyone.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...Why are YOU interested in Ancient Egypt? Are you Egyptian dont you know the ancient Egyptians wouldnt care about if you didnt know Maat?
Actually, I am not really very much interested in Ancient Egypt, nor in the Maghred. I find Egypt is a nice culture, and that all mankind owns something to Egypt, but I don't think is unique, nor I do IDENTIFY with it.
quote: Honestly that is a STUPID question. People study history because it is IMPORTANT to know how we got where we are today. It is VERY important to be able to see how one thing leads to another from one area of the world to the next. It is VERY important to see how IMPORTANT the Islamic world AND Africa was in the development of European civilization,
Why is so much important? That's what I wonder.
quote: both in terms of Egypt AND Moorish civilization.
Well, I think that Tibetian history is important, but I don't think that my interest on that will change history. lol.
quote: It is NICE to know that MUCH of what we call SPANISH architecture and culture ACTUALLY came from MUSLIM Africans!
No. It comes from Arab architects. Sorry. The intelectuals of Al-Andalus were not usually West Africans, not even Berbers. The scholars came from the Muslim world (Bagdad, Egypt, Syria but specially Persia, because Persians where more educated that Arabs!). There were intellectuals from the Bizantine Empire, Christians and Jews as well.
Sorry. When we think in the culture of Al-Andalus, we think in Arab because IT WAS ARAB. Period.
quote: Kinda makes the whole East versus West, Christian versus Muslim argument a MOOT point. Africans need to be able to FREE themselves from FORIEGN imposed ideaologies and definition of self which are DESTRUCTIVE to their own interests and self preservation.
I understand that. But it is hard to find the glory in historical events that happen to be multinacional and multiracial.
quote: As LONG as Africans subvert their own IDENTITY to foreign ideas and institutions, Africans will ALWAYS have a hard time progressing in the world.
But why you got the idea that the past is more important than the future?
Look at us, Latinos, for example. We have ancestors comming from Spain and Amerindians (also Africans, East Asians, Arabs, Germans, etc., but I will not complicate the example). Well, from both branches we could claim dozens of diferent civilizations and hundred of very interesting cultures: Tarsis, Romans, Mayans, Incas, etc. We could claim them but WE DON'T CARE. We make fun of them, and we believe we'll do better.
We believe one build its own life and everyone has the duty to build its own future. In other terms it does not matter who was the grandfather. The important think is what are US.
quote: AFRICANS, especially Africans in America need to know that BEFORE Africans were taken as slaves to America, they had STUDIED in Universities and were LITERATE in MANY parts of West Africa. It is IMPORTANT that Africans know the ROLE they played in European history (even if it turned out NOT to be in their favor). Knowledge is important for everyone.
But why? I can't understand that.
There are thousand of people around the world that had modest cultures and that suffered quite a lot with the European brutality, but everyone knows they are as human as anyone else. Think on Inuits, Polynesians, Australian Aborigines, Samis, Beduins, Gypsies, etc. etc.
All of them are part of mankind and they are all as intelligent as anyone else.
Now think in Africa. Forget about North Africa and its ambiguity for a while. Think in the Africa South of the Sahara deep inside Africa.
In there you find a richness that you won't find in the zones closest to the external world. In there you will find ORIGINALITY. And in there there are wonderful archeological findings that people does not care about. Nobody seems to know about it.
If you ask me, I think in Africa seeing the "Guernica" of Picasso, admiring a Bronze of Ife. Seeing Zimbabwe, the ditches of Eredo, studying Candomble, Capoheira or those wonderful West African languages. I think in Africa and I remember the Zulu warriors and its strategies and its iron spears. I think in Africa when I remember the artisans of iron and the makers of hand pianos. I remember the speaking drums, the first practical way to transmit long distance message mankind knew.
I believe there is a treasure there down south, in that more innocent and undervalued Africa. Is a matter of looking for it and loving it.
Nobody needs glory, only loving ourselves. And for that one only needs to see with different eyes.
It is just my oppinion, anyways.
Best Regards,
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
...
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
We covered Maca-Meyers report and the provenance of U6 quite extensively on the old Nile Valley forum last year so its no new news nor an unknown entity to us as it obviously is to the one who just found it yesterday and wants to be an instant expert on a subject that's brand spanking new to him but has been discussed and debated by us here often enough.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Every non-African needs to understand that we who are African, at home and abroad, aren't going to be dictated to by outsiders who think they can school us as to what is the real original Africa.
quote: Tarzan has been kicked out of the jungle he found himself in plenty of trouble. He never learned how to be humble in the jungle.
- Hugh Masakela -
All you babs, backras, and red ears need to sit down and shut up so maybe you can learn from us who we are. Ask and we will tell you. You can't possibly tell us because you are not us.
To those who think they can run us around and be the boss of us you can just go fock off like the dumb pricks that you are. The era of slavery and colonialism is finished and all your sophisticated wild ass guesses along with it.
ALL OF AFRICA IS OURS, MEDITERRANEAN COASTAL AND INNER AFRICA IS OURS THROUGHOUT ALL PERIODS OF TIME. OUR NORTH COASTAL FAMILY MEMBERS ARE THE EARLIEST MISCEGENATED AND MOST MISCEGENATED ONES OF US BUT THEY WERE ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE PN2 L M1 AND U6 GENETIC AFRICANS.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
"Tuaregs" are an Arab invention. The Kel Tamasheq have multi origins, some from what's now Tunisia/ Tripolitanian Libya, some from what's now Morocco/ Western Sahara, and some from what's now Chad.
They never were a homogeneous phenotype. The vast Sahara never had a homogeneous phenotype.
Osteo remains don't support a homogeneous Saharan phenotype. Rock art doesn't support a homogeneous Saharan phenotype -- not even among its portrayals of people with the same skin colour, much less so between those of differing colour be it beige, red, or black.
Greco-Latin and Byzantine accounts don't support a homogeneous phenotype of those living just beyond the limes approaching the northern Sahara.
Arabic records don't support a homogeneous phenotype for Saharans.
Your idea of the true Tuareg phenotype is fed to you by outdated physical anthropology born and bred in the era of European expansion that made for itself a colour and feature hierarchy and as a last ditch effort birthed the Hamitic Hypothesis/ Myth making all Egyptians, "Nubians," Horn Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Saharans, and Fulanis out to be some kind of dark caucasians (read Europeans) or crossbreeds of European fathering on negro mothers.
Intensive investigation of the human genome has laid all that garbage to waste except for those who have an emotional need to go on living the lie that surely my kind of African is really the spawn of Europe or at least the Levant/Arabian peninsula but not related to those negroes elsewhere on the continent,
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Supercar:
quote:Please clarify your context of what is "Tuareg" and what is "non-Tuareg"; importantly, does this have anything to do with genetics?
A Tuareg is someone who practices the lifestyle of the majority of Tuaregs and also considers himself a part of that community, since the original Tuaregs have obviously mixed with different type of ethnicities i cant say that their is a non-Tuareg look in Africa anymore. And a non-Tuareg is someone who doesnt identify or live the Tuareg lifestyle. Before the diversity on Tuareg look that we see today due to mixture i think alot of Tuaregs had a homogeneous look.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Supercar:
quote:Please clarify your context of what is "Tuareg" and what is "non-Tuareg"; importantly, does this have anything to do with genetics?
A Tuareg is someone who practices the lifestyle of the majority of Tuaregs and also considers himself a part of that community, since the original Tuaregs have obviously mixed with different type of ethnicities i cant say that their is a non-Tuareg look in Africa anymore. And a non-Tuareg is someone who doesnt identify or live the Tuareg lifestyle. Before the diversity on Tuareg look that we see today due to mixture i think alot of Tuaregs had a homogeneous look.
Which would be...? Tuareg is a construct, that was applied at a time when such thing as "Tuaregs" had already acquired the diversity that Tuaregs are known for. Against this backdrop, it is a wonder why anyone would use the term "original" in association with the terms "Tuareg" and "non-Tuareg" in a comment the way you presented it earlier on, and now in the citation above.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Which would be...? Tuareg is a construct, that was applied at a time when such thing as "Tuaregs" had already acquired the diversity that Tuaregs are known for. Against this backdrop, it is a wonder why anyone would use the term "original" in association with the terms "Tuareg" and "non-Tuareg" in a comment the way you presented it earlier on, and now in the citation above.
^^Correct. Tuareg is an exonym or name applied by outsiders to describe these various Saharan people. In fact, the very name 'Tuareg' is derogatory and implies a "Godless" or pagan people.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: "Tuaregs" are an Arab invention. The Kel Tamasheq have multi origins, some from what's now Tunisia/ Tripolitanian Libya, some from what's now Morocco/ Western Sahara, and some from what's now Chad.
They never were a homogeneous phenotype. The vast Sahara never had a homogeneous phenotype.
Osteo remains don't support a homogeneous Saharan phenotype. Rock art doesn't support a homogeneous Saharan phenotype -- not even among its portrayals of people with the same skin colour, much less so between those of differing colour be it beige, red, or black.
Greco-Latin and Byzantine accounts don't support a homogeneous phenotype of those living just beyond the limes approaching the northern Sahara.
Arabic records don't support a homogeneous phenotype for Saharans.
Your idea of the true Tuareg phenotype is fed to you by outdated physical anthropology born and bred in the era of European expansion that made for itself a colour and feature hierarchy and as a last ditch effort birthed the Hamitic Hypothesis/ Myth making all Egyptians, "Nubians," Horn Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Saharans, and Fulanis out to be some kind of dark caucasians (read Europeans) or crossbreeds of European fathering on negro mothers.
Intensive investigation of the human genome has laid all that garbage to waste except for those who have an emotional need to go on living the lie that surely my kind of African is really the spawn of Europe or at least the Levant/Arabian peninsula but not related to those negroes elsewhere on the continent,
Yes, as always some folks seem to have a rather hard time grasping the simple fact that indigenous [black] Africans come in a diverstiy of looks and features---all of which native to the continent of Africa and not due to "admixture" from non-Africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: ...Now think in Africa. Forget about North Africa and its ambiguity for a while. Think in the Africa South of the Sahara deep inside Africa.
In there you find a richness that you won't find in the zones closest to the external world. In there you will find ORIGINALITY. And in there there are wonderful archeological findings that people does not care about. Nobody seems to know about it.
If you ask me, I think in Africa seeing the "Guernica" of Picasso, admiring a Bronze of Ife. Seeing Zimbabwe, the ditches of Eredo, studying Candomble, Capoheira or those wonderful West African languages. I think in Africa and I remember the Zulu warriors and its strategies and its iron spears. I think in Africa when I remember the artisans of iron and the makers of hand pianos. I remember the speaking drums, the first practical way to transmit long distance message mankind knew.
I believe there is a treasure there down south, in that more innocent and undervalued Africa. Is a matter of looking for it and loving it.
Nobody needs glory, only loving ourselves. And for that one only needs to see with different eyes.
It is just my oppinion, anyways.
Best Regards,
LOL There is nothing "ambiguous" about North Africa, especially not ancient North Africa. It is just as much a part of Africa and yes even 'black' Africa as any other part of the continent, and there should be no reason to "forget about it" anymore than to forget about Southern Africa or East Africa.
Your strawman arguments are typical. No one in here ever said anyting about depreciating or ignoring the rich cultural legacy and contributions of "Sub-Saharan" Africa, however there again lies your absurdity of confining blacks to that region when all evidence from skeletal remains, to genetics, to even rock paintings show that blacks were native to even coastal North Africa long before any foreigneres came to "mix" with them. Even common sense should tell you blacks were indigenous to *all* of the continent not just "Sub-Sahara".
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ALL OF AFRICA IS OURS, MEDITERRANEAN COASTAL AND INNER AFRICA IS OURS THROUGHOUT ALL PERIODS OF TIME. OUR NORTH COASTAL FAMILY MEMBERS ARE THE EARLIEST MISCEGENATED AND MOST MISCEGENATED ONES OF US BUT THEY WERE ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE PN2 L M1 AND U6 GENETIC AFRICANS.
Indeed, the old segregate blacks south of the Sahara is over. This is a realization that academics have recently and reluctantly begun to accept. This is especially true, considering the evidence showing expansions of indigenous Africans out of Africa and into Europe and the 'Near East'.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: ...Now think in Africa. Forget about North Africa and its ambiguity for a while. Think in the Africa South of the Sahara deep inside Africa.
In there you find a richness that you won't find in the zones closest to the external world. In there you will find ORIGINALITY. And in there there are wonderful archeological findings that people does not care about. Nobody seems to know about it.
If you ask me, I think in Africa seeing the "Guernica" of Picasso, admiring a Bronze of Ife. Seeing Zimbabwe, the ditches of Eredo, studying Candomble, Capoheira or those wonderful West African languages. I think in Africa and I remember the Zulu warriors and its strategies and its iron spears. I think in Africa when I remember the artisans of iron and the makers of hand pianos. I remember the speaking drums, the first practical way to transmit long distance message mankind knew.
I believe there is a treasure there down south, in that more innocent and undervalued Africa. Is a matter of looking for it and loving it.
Nobody needs glory, only loving ourselves. And for that one only needs to see with different eyes.
It is just my oppinion, anyways.
Best Regards,
LOL There is nothing "ambiguous" about North Africa, especially not ancient North Africa. It is just as much a part of Africa and yes even 'black' Africa as any other part of the continent, and there should be no reason to "forget about it" anymore than to forget about Southern Africa or East Africa.
Your strawman arguments are typical. No one in here ever said anyting about depreciating or ignoring the rich cultural legacy and contributions of "Sub-Saharan" Africa, however there again lies your absurdity of confining blacks to that region when all evidence from skeletal remains, to genetics, to even rock paintings show that blacks were native to even coastal North Africa long before any foreigneres came to "mix" with them. Even common sense should tell you blacks were indigenous to *all* of the continent not just "Sub-Sahara".
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ALL OF AFRICA IS OURS, MEDITERRANEAN COASTAL AND INNER AFRICA IS OURS THROUGHOUT ALL PERIODS OF TIME. OUR NORTH COASTAL FAMILY MEMBERS ARE THE EARLIEST MISCEGENATED AND MOST MISCEGENATED ONES OF US BUT THEY WERE ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE PN2 L M1 AND U6 GENETIC AFRICANS.
Indeed, the old segregate blacks south of the Sahara is over. This is a realization that academics have recently and reluctantly begun to accept. This is especially true, considering the evidence showing expansions of indigenous Africans out of Africa and into Europe and the 'Near East'.
It is funny how modern science wants us to believe that MODERN humans migrated out of Africa and AROUND the WHOLE PLANET, through ALL SORTS of environments, but couldnt go to the Sahara. AMAZING. Africans had to wait 50,000 years for migrants from OUTSIDE Africa to migrate into the Sahara...... Boy that is funny! Black Africans could ONLY made it to the North because WHITE Arabs or Europeans or some other sort of Leucoderm brought them there as slaves.
What is also funny how modern descendants of mixed populations in South America and elsewhere come here with FAKE ideas of self pride. What I mean is if you are of mixed heritage and can "claim" both, WHY would you ONLY focus on the side that HISTORICALLY destroyed INDIAN culture and civilization? Seems to me you would be mentioning that INDIAN civilization and culture was FAR MORE ADVANCED than Europeans BEFORE SPAIN even EMERGED from the BACKWATERS that were parted by the Moors. THAT is such ideas of PRIDE which are SOLELY focused on the "advances" of European culture and civilization seem so FAKE. But in reality it is a BYPRODUCT of the RACIST scholarsip and education that has BLINDED native people and SUBJUGATED them for the last 300 years.
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
^^^ Indeed.
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
Doug M, Could you explain to me why Europeans were so barbaric and "backwards"???(didn;t mea to generalize it)
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Mauretania is not near Sicily, look at the map as well.
Then, isn't it logical that most Moors of Europe came from the Maghreb, specially the coastal regions and not from Mauritania?
quote: BERBERS ARE AFRICANS and some ARE black and were then as well.
Nobody denies most people in Africa has Black Subsahrarian descendency. But still you can distinguish North Africans from Subsaharian with easy.
Think in Russians and in Siberians natives. Yes in the West most are European looking and in the East most are Mongolians. In the middle there are people that look "in between", Tartars and others. Well, the same happens with Europeans and Africans. People North of the Sahara looks in between, whether you like it or not.
Omar
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... Clines are NOT the result of RACE MIXING. Clines are the variations within LOCAL INDIGENOUS populations that vary over distance based on enviromental factors. YOU have said that the differences between NORTH Africans and SUBSAHARAN Africans are a result of MIXING. NOW you are attempting to CONFUSE yourself even more by talking about clines. MAKE UP YOUR MIND which it is. Is it mixing or is it cline or is it both. At this point I think you need to realize you ARE LOST. ...
I see, you still believe in purity of races. That is, in racialism. Anyone that analyzes the genetics of populations find out with easy there is no "pure" people in the planet. The ideals races is a concept comming from white racism.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: I see, you still believe in purity of races. That is, in racialism. Anyone that analyzes the genetics of populations find out with easy there is no "pure" people in the planet. The ideals races is a concept comming from white racism.
And where did Doug say anything about 'racial purity'?!! Again you make a silly non-sequitor. Doug has merely defined the term that YOU have been using-- "clines"!
A cline simply is a variation in relation to neighboring groups. No one in here said anything about 'race' except YOU! The point of the matter is that not all variations in features can be attributed to "admixture" which is exactly what you propose.
True there is no such thing as a 'pure' race since biological races don't really exist, but you don't expect us to believe everyone is ethnically mixed or of recent mixed ancestry. Are rural Pygmies mixed? Are rural Siberians mixed?
We all know your ideas (obsessions) stem from your own self-identity as a 'Mestiza'. Your quest to define everyone as "mixes" is just as bad as racialists defining everyone on who is 'pure'.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:.... What is also funny how modern descendants of mixed populations in South America and elsewhere come here with FAKE ideas of self pride. What I mean is if you are of mixed heritage and can "claim" both, WHY would you ONLY focus on the side that HISTORICALLY destroyed INDIAN culture and civilization? Seems to me you would be mentioning that INDIAN civilization and culture was FAR MORE ADVANCED than Europeans BEFORE SPAIN even EMERGED from the BACKWATERS that were parted by the Moors.
Your hate shows, like your ignorace. There were not one indian civilization but many. American indians civilizations were extraordinary and original with a lot of inventions, arts and achievements but, in technology they were far behind the Europeans. In human rights, too. With all the crimes the conquerors did, and that the enemies of Spain amplify, people forget the conquest was just two decades long. Afterwards, Spain behave a lot better than Britain or Portugal in its American colonies. A lot.
The Moors in Spain it was an invasion and a cancer that was extirpated. Spain did not need Muslims to bring glory. Spain (or Hispania) was the main province of Rome up to a couple of centuries before the barbarians invaded. when Spain woke up it was because of Rome, not some brute camel riders that have to use Persians, Jewish and Bizantine scholars.
The impact was smaller than people think. After all, we still speak a simplified form of Latin, called Spanish. And we are proud of that language and its literature.
Why would be ashamed of Spain? It was a better civilization that the U.S. appartheid society.
quote: THAT is such ideas of PRIDE which are SOLELY focused on the "advances" of European culture and civilization seem so FAKE. But in reality it is a BYPRODUCT of the RACIST scholarsip and education that has BLINDED native people and SUBJUGATED them for the last 300 years. [/QB]
Look at the most succesful people on the planet: East Asians. They know how to play the Music of Mozart and they know the Newton's and Einstein's physics. They don't need to blame everything on the west. They don't ENVY the west. They are learning from it to surpassing it. Who do you think are going to win in the long term? Those that revise the past or those that build the future with the best things available from the past? Even if the things were invented by the former "enemy"?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
Know ye, O man, that all of the future is an open book to him who can read. All effect shall bring forth its causes as all effects grew from the first cause. Know ye the future is not fixed or stable but varies as cause brings forth an effect. Look in the cause thou shalt bring into being, and surely thou shalt see that all is effect.
From Emerald Tablets of Thoth (I think).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Your hate shows, like your ignorace. There were not one indian civilization but many. American indians civilizations were extraordinary and original with a lot of inventions, arts and achievements but, in technology they were far behind the Europeans. In human rights, too. With all the crimes the conquerors did, and that the enemies of Spain amplify, people forget the conquest was just two decades long. Afterwards, Spain behave a lot better than Britain or Portugal in its American colonies. A lot.
Exactly what was so hateful about what Doug said? He praises Indian (Native American) civilization. Of course there was actually more than one civilization in the Americas, but he was speaking in collective terms. All Native Americans do share a commonality despite their diversity. The same with Asians and the same with Africans. Thus you have Asian civilization(s) and African civilization(s).
Also, were any of these Native Americans "mixed" too?
quote:The Moors in Spain it was an invasion and a cancer that was extirpated. Spain did not need Muslims to bring glory. Spain (or Hispania) was the main province of Rome up to a couple of centuries before the barbarians invaded. when Spain woke up it was because of Rome, not some brute camel riders that have to use Persians, Jewish and Bizantine scholars.
I agree that no one needs invaders or foreigners to bring about glory, but I can't help but notice the hyporcrisy oozing from your statements. You accuse Doug of being "hateful" yet you describe Moorish occupation as a "cancer"! You also say that Spaniards did not need foreigners to create glory, yet isn't this exactly what you say about civilizations in general, particularly those in North Africa-- that they are the result of immigrations and 'admixture' with people??!
quote:The impact was smaller than people think. After all, we still speak a simplified form of Latin, called Spanish. And we are proud of that language and its literature.
Yes and if you recall the Latin-based Spanish language was also a result of invasion-- from Rome!
Before the Romans, Spain was inhabited by Celts. And before them, it was inhabited by the Basques and their relatives as well as the Iberians.
quote:Why would be ashamed of Spain? It was a better civilization that the U.S. appartheid society.
Really? Spanish colonial policies on 'racial' groups may be different from those of the British in that it allowed 'mixing', but there still existed racism that was just as bad as the British. Why else do you still see the old hierarchy in Latin America with the whitest on top and the blacks on the bottom, and all the mullatos and mestizos in between?! Why do you see alot of folks in Latin American TV especially in Mexico who don't look anything like the common people?!
So don't give us that La cultura de Hispania es todo buena nonsense.
quote:Look at the most succesful people on the planet: East Asians. They know how to play the Music of Mozart and they know the Newton's and Einstein's physics. They don't need to blame everything on the west. They don't ENVY the west. They are learning from it to surpassing it. Who do you think are going to win in the long term? Those that revise the past or those that build the future with the best things available from the past? Even if the things were invented by the former "enemy"?
With this I agree. Although people like Doug who are of African descent may feel otherwise since Africans have been oppressed moreso by Europeans than Asians.
However when you look at it, not all of the advances of European culture can be attributed to Europeans themselves but foreign contributions.
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
Most people here come to learn about Egypt but there seems to be a lot of pointless arguments going on. Is there nothing more to Egpyt than race politics and archeological evidence (to support race politics)?
I wonder...
How about the AE women? Did they have some love making skills that are now lost to the world?
How about a thorough discussion on Egyptian spirituality and how it can be applied to our lives today (i.e. not just abstract concepts)?
WHO can prove that all the Egyptians were writing about in their hieroglyphs wasn't just mumbo jumbo science fiction loosely based on mathematics?
Were they just smoking too much pot? (i.e. explains all the deep abstract spiritual concepts, don't it?)
Did the enemies of Egypt succeed in destroying the greatest body of knowledge the earth ever knew? Is it actually possible to piece everything back again? Are we just going round in circles?
Was Jesus aware of "the great Egyptian mystery system" and did the dude actually exist?
I'm mentally frustrated. Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
kawa,
Muslin Spain was just one era (711-1492). There was Roman Spain, Visigothic Spain, Celtic Spain (north-Galicia/Northern Portugal, and Frankish Spain (Barcelona) and of course, pais vasco. You know Spain was never homogenous! It is the well behaved regions who get power over time than the rabble rousers!
How and why is the Guadalquivir river so named? The foreign names in countries reflect the origin of the founding fathers (those who have power and influence). Same applies to North and West Africa due to Islamic influence.
Do you know why the Umayyad dynasty fell? It was because they tried to impose Arab? might over the recently converted (mawali-Berbers and other tribals) so the Almoravid(es) ascent proved the strength of the non-Arabs over those aligned with Arab connections.
Persian were never better than Arab but their literature excelled in the use of Farsi over Arabic and at times they mixed (Arabic and Farsi) to form new found meanings in different cultures. That symbiotic relationship formed the background of many literary movements.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Wowwee!!! Just imagine CANCER that introduces public baths, paved streets, night lamps for those streets, libraries, colleges, common literacy, higher mathematics and geometry, maps with longitude and latitude, lanteen sails, globes, medicine in the place of magic cures, grand architecture ... ... ...
Kawashkar (Omar?) is just running his mouth, like this forum is a chat room, boxing wild broaching concepts then retracting them then reintroducing them then spinning them.
At least he's allowed us to thoroughly scour the subject citing ourselves with up to date source references while all he does is give his opinion of "I wish it was, I wish it was. Oh, how I wish it was just the way I wish it was."
BUT I' TAIN'T DAT WAY AT ALL!
quote:from Kawashkar: The Moors in Spain it was an invasion and a cancer that was extirpated.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:..Exactly what was so hateful about what Doug said?
Perhaps it was without intention. But you should realize that the feelings of people of mixed societies are diferent from those were the invader just ruled for a while and abandoned the country forever. In the case of Latinos, we descend from both sides. We are always in between two sides and we try to embrace both. We know about the good and evil of both peoples, and all what happened. However, we can't deny we have ancestors in those two sides as well. Is a hard sitiation that is dificult to transmit to people that have not lived it. So, somebody speak bad about Indians and we feel bad. Then somebody speak bad about Spaniards and we also feel bad. Because we recall the great-grandfather that migrated from Spain escaping from war and hunger. And we also recall the old great-grandmother that prepared the Indian foods and told us ancient stories. How we could hate one or the other if they are both us? And if we know they loved each other and did forget ancient sins?
quote: He praises Indian (Native American) civilization. Of course there was actually more than one civilization in the Americas, but he was speaking in collective terms. All Native Americans do share a commonality despite their diversity. The same with Asians and the same with Africans. Thus you have Asian civilization(s) and African civilization(s).
Also, were any of these Native Americans "mixed" too?
Actually yes, from the beginning. There was more than a phenotype in Native Americans. Some looked Asians, other more Europeans and other more Australoids. There were tall and small, ugly and pretty, peaceful and violent, human and inhuman, all a spectrum of mankind.
quote:...I agree that no one needs invaders or foreigners to bring about glory, but I can't help but notice the hyporcrisy oozing from your statements. You accuse Doug of being "hateful" yet you describe Moorish occupation as a "cancer"! You also say that Spaniards did not need foreigners to create glory, yet isn't this exactly what you say about civilizations in general, particularly those in North Africa-- that they are the result of immigrations and 'admixture' with people??!
...
You should not forget that we, Latin Americans got rid of the Spaniards as well. During the Independence wars everyone: Indians, Blacks, Mestizos, Mulatoes, White creoles (locals) and also foreigners, colaborated in the common cause of getting rid of the Spanish opression. So, why we should hate them anymore? We got rid of them.
quote:..Yes and if you recall the Latin-based Spanish language was also a result of invasion-- from Rome!
Before the Romans, Spain was inhabited by Celts. And before them, it was inhabited by the Basques and their relatives as well as the Iberians.
Yes, we know it. Spain was invaded lots of times, and only recently escaped to the cycle of violence.
quote:..Really? Spanish colonial policies on 'racial' groups may be different from those of the British in that it allowed 'mixing', but there still existed racism that was just as bad as the British.
..
Classism is the illness of Spain and all Latin and Latino countries. It still exist.
quote: Why else do you still see the old hierarchy in Latin America with the whitest on top and the blacks on the bottom, and all the mullatos and mestizos in between?! Why do you see alot of folks in Latin American TV especially in Mexico who don't look anything like the common people?!
Perhaps you would believe me or not, but most of the colorism you appreciate in Latin American societies happened after the waves of European immigrations of the 19th and 20th centuries. That changed the demography of Latin America, and put too many Europeans in power. If you pick the names of the main Latino executives in Latin America, about half of them don't even have Spanish last names but british, german or italian.
quote: With this I agree. Although people like Doug who are of African descent may feel otherwise since Africans have been oppressed moreso by Europeans than Asians.
Well, at least Asians and Africans still are the people that existed before the invasion. In our case we are a different group by now, still looking for an identity.
quote: However when you look at it, not all of the advances of European culture can be attributed to Europeans themselves but foreign contributions.
Civilization is a global achievement. Europe got the knowledge from ancient Greeks, from India, from the Muslims and the technology mainly from China. The West had a bust of knowledge creation during the last centuries and of technological developent, who is recent. That's a merit but does not mean they have invented everything. Far from the truth.
However, knowledge is not Western but international and anybody can make use of it. Chineses are building uppon western science and technology and Indians are following. Latin Americans know Western Civilization to the last detail as well. Africans should ride the same bout in theirs own benefit.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
The Human Being is a hopeless & doomed Being.
I wonder if "God" created other Beings as or more intelligent...
I need a spaceship...
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Well anyone with a Cartesian, logical, and dialectic mind can readily deduce that when one talks of mixed races then that misguided one defends the fallacy of discrete pure races. How else does one arrive at mixed races without pures races needed to produce the mix?
So in the quote below poor mixed and mixed up Kawashkar is accusing himself but lacks the ability to realize he's attacking his own major premise thus falsifying his entire argument.
It's you Kawashkar who believes in
biological discrete races
purity of races
mixed races
Hence it's you Kawashkar who's into
racialism
promoting the concepts of white racism
quote:I see, you still believe in purity of races. That is, in racialism. Anyone that analyzes the genetics of populations find out with easy there is no "pure" people in the planet. The ideals races is a concept comming from white racism.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Look at all this bigotry, prejudice, and bias from a descendant of Indias raped by Spaniards and probably with a dash of Bozale somewhere in the family tree. As if he could pass his Spaniards' rigid code of limpieza de sangre and he doesn't even speak the real Castellano. Hah! And isn't Omar (Umar) a "brute camel rider" name? Maybe there's a speck of Moor in Kawashkar too!! Haha!!!
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: when Spain woke up it was because of Rome, not some brute camel riders that have to use Persians, Jewish and Bizantine[sic] scholars.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ] Look at all this bigotry, prejudice, and bias from a descendant of Indias raped by Spaniards and probably with a dash of Bozale somewhere in the family tree. As if he could pass his Spaniards'
For the matter of "looks", I look Spaniard. Besides, there are many Spaniards that look less Spanish that I do. lol. So who cares?
For the matter of rapping? I don't know why you people are so obsessed with that topic. Yes, it is true there is a gender imbalance in the Latin melting pot: most Y chromosomes are European in origin, and most mtDNA is native American and African. But that does not necesarily means rapping.
Don't you know president Cardoso comment on that "all Brazilians descend from the kitchen"? That's closer to the true. Affairs more that raping as the origin is closer to the truth. Although intermarriage existed, free love was a lot more common. And it was also common in pre-contact Americas, too. The Americas it was a lot of fun, centuries ago. We descend of hippies. lol.
For the matter of "limpieza de sangre" that was a concept invented by the Spanish Jews, and used against them by the Christian bigots. Actually, Latinos don't believe on it. However, some believe it can be purified by the right marryages. lol.
And "Omar" is not in honor of a brute camel rider, either Bedouin or Tuareg. Is for Omar Khayyam, the Persian mathematician and poet. I come from a family that loves culture, and "Omar" is a common last name in Spanish culture.
And for the Moor blood. Why not? I would be very proud to have Moor or Jewish blood (hopefully not from a camel rider but from an intellectual). It is just that the camel riders had to be pushed out of Spain, that's all. So they and theirs camels received the kick on the butt.
Omar Vega, alias KAWASHKAR
quote: rigid code of limpieza de sangre and he doesn't even speak the real Castellano. Hah! And isn't Omar (Umar) a "brute camel rider" name? Maybe there's a speck of Moor in Kawashkar too!! Haha!!!
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Wowwee!!! Just imagine CANCER that introduces public baths, paved streets, night lamps for those streets, libraries, colleges, common literacy, higher mathematics and geometry, maps with longitude and latitude, lanteen sails, globes, medicine in the place of magic cures, grand architecture ... ... ...
Well, the Muslim war was not as fantastic as you show. Yes, it is truth Spain was suffering a period of decadence. It was invaded by Barbarian germanic tribes like the Vandalus (from where the name Al-Andalus comes from) and the Goths. But thinking that Spain of those times had never had culture and that Muslems introduced it is very far from the truth. Spain was Roman once, and they were the ones that introduced the public baths, paved streets, and things like that.
Muslims were the superpower of those times and they, indeed, introduced several advances in navigation, mathematics and medicine, and that was good and appreciated. However, that does not meann locals will be very happy living under the ocupation of a foreign power.
Christian fought for centuries to recover theirs land and power. In the process they changed from a peaceful people to a warrior and intolerant society that destroyed afterwars not only the Moors, but that affected many people around the planet. A lot of violence that the Moors wake up.
Since then Christians forgot Jesus, and Santiago (Saint James), the "moor-killer" Saint, the one that appeared in the battle fields to cut the heads of moors, and whose temple is in Santiago de Compostela, become the saint of Spain and symbol of a people.
KAWASHKAR
quote:
Kawashkar (Omar?) is just running his mouth, like this forum is a chat room, boxing wild broaching concepts then retracting them then reintroducing them then spinning them.
At least he's allowed us to thoroughly scour the subject citing ourselves with up to date source references while all he does is give his opinion of "I wish it was, I wish it was. Oh, how I wish it was just the way I wish it was."
BUT I' TAIN'T DAT WAY AT ALL!
quote:from Kawashkar: The Moors in Spain it was an invasion and a cancer that was extirpated.
[/QB]
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well anyone with a Cartesian, logical, and dialectic mind can readily deduce that when one talks of mixed races then that misguided one defends the fallacy of discrete pure races. How else does one arrive at mixed races without pures races needed to produce the mix?
So in the quote below poor mixed and mixed up Kawashkar is accusing himself but lacks the ability to realize he's attacking his own major premise thus falsifying his entire argument.
It's you Kawashkar who believes in
biological discrete races
purity of races
mixed races
Hence it's you Kawashkar who's into
racialism
promoting the concepts of white racism
quote:I see, you still believe in purity of races. That is, in racialism. Anyone that analyzes the genetics of populations find out with easy there is no "pure" people in the planet. The ideals races is a concept comming from white racism.
Hi,
In my defense I will make this clear. There are not races, only populations. What people perceive as races are the average frequencies of phenotypes of a giving population.
Now, I had used the term "mixed" with respect to the population of North Africa to denote the high phenotypical diversity of those peoples. If you don't agree with that I won't argue. I will just say they "look like" they are in between the Souther European populations and the Subsaharians, and that they "seems" to be related to both.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well anyone with a Cartesian, logical, and dialectic mind can readily deduce that when one talks of mixed races then that misguided one defends the fallacy of discrete pure races. How else does one arrive at mixed races without pures races needed to produce the mix?
So in the quote below poor mixed and mixed up Kawashkar is accusing himself but lacks the ability to realize he's attacking his own major premise thus falsifying his entire argument.
It's you Kawashkar who believes in
biological discrete races
purity of races
mixed races
Hence it's you Kawashkar who's into
racialism
promoting the concepts of white racism
Indeed. Washkar is caught within his own net of paradox.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Hi,
In my defense I will make this clear. There are not races, only populations. What people perceive as races are the average frequencies of phenotypes of a giving population.
Correct. However phenotype varies so much, that to try to certain phenotypic traits together would be subjective, fool-hardy, and just plain wrong.
quote:Now, I had used the term "mixed" with respect to the population of North Africa to denote the high phenotypical diversity of those peoples. If you don't agree with that I won't argue.
I agree. And such diversity does derive in part to recent immigrations and incursions.
quote:I will just say they "look like" they are in between the Souther European populations and the Subsaharians, and that they "seems" to be related to both.
LOL A generalization to say the least. As far as looking "in between" Southern Europeans and Sub-Saharans, that would depend on which group of people and from what part of North Africa. There are North Africans who look exactly like 'Sub-Saharans' and there are others who look more like Central or Northern Europeans than Southern Europeans.
As usual you contradict yourself.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:I agree. And such diversity does derive in part to recent immigrations and incursions.
Good. At least we agree in a point
[/QUOTE].. A generalization to say the least. As far as looking "in between" Southern Europeans and Sub-Saharans, that would depend on which group of people and from what part of North Africa. There are North Africans who look exactly like 'Sub-Saharans' and there are others who look more like Central or Northern Europeans than Southern Europeans.
As usual you contradict yourself. [/QUOTE]
I agree that there are North Africans groups that look plainly European and others that look Subsaharians, with not "shades" in between. However, you have to agree with me that many "seem" to have some degree of both origins, so much that in certain people is dificult to say if they are one or the other.
All I have tried to say is that is a particularity of North Africa, particularly north of the Sahara. And is the result of its particular history.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
What does aN UNMIXED Black person look like to You KAWASHKAR??
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
sorry, I can't use the term "mixed" anymore.
But if you insist, and you allow me to focus in Subsharan Africa, I will say you there is not a "Black people" but hundred of different peoples of different cultural and genetic patrimonies that are usually called "Black people". Diversity is the norm in Africa and in the world.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Kawashkar is so convoulted he longer can pull rabbits out of his ... er ... um hat
He hates "camel jocks" but his name is that of the first Muslim caliph and he's playing ignorant if claims not to realize the only way that name Umar entered Iberia was from the Arab invasion and Moorish occupation.
His unlearnedness shows itself again in his feigned ignorance that limpieza de sangre was used against the Sepharadiym not invented by them and this same Spaniard invented limpieza de sangre bars him from ever being a Spaniard because he's an S A Ladino.
At least he didn't try to worm his way out of the fact he doesn't know or speak Castelano as do Spaniards who have limieza de sangre and who will quickly put him in his place, well below that of a creole, no matter how much he and other mestizos/mulatos (even Zambos) wanna be "Spanish" but can only be so by adoption of the conquerers' culture and complete suppression of Indio culture -- them's fighin' words, calling a Latino an Indio of untouched or unvarnished indigenous Indio culture.
Thus his rabid attack on Africa and African people who aren't seeking to be part and parcel of any European invading colonizer.
Kawashkar is a perfect example of the triumph of colonization of the mind where the hybrid offspring of the colonizers seek to identify with their gallant -- in their mind -- raiding fathers rather than the subjugated people of their mothers.
Tsk tsk tsk. Kawashkar just goes on and on about Espana (sorry no tilde over the n ) and its glories and remains shamefully silent about the glories of his "South American Indio" heritage and is definately in complete denial as to his Bozale Africano ancestry totally buying in to white racist notions of African inferiority and absence of civilization.
Kawaskar, you're just a hater. You've never examined what's gone on or is going on in Africa. Don't you know the supercomputer was reinvented by a Nigerian mind that grew up in a refugee camp? Check it mi pana then holla back.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
You know, alTakruri, you are a though player, although you do it with style. Only because of that I'll answer you:)
quote: Kawashkar is so convoulted he longer can pull rabbits out of his ... er ... um hat
History is not simple, or do you still believe in the movies of John Wayne?
quote: He hates camel jocks but his name is that of the first Muslim caliphate and is too ignorant to realize the only way that name Umar entered Iberia was from the Arab invasion and Moorish occupation.
Omar!, not Umar, please! Yes, I know there was a saint male, called Omar between the Muslims. Not something that I care too much. There are lots of words and names of Arab origin in Spanish, including the word "ojala", which means "God help us" and that got the word "Allah" in between (oj-ala)
quote: His unlearnedness shows itself again in his ignorance of limpieza de sangre was used against the Sepharadiym not invented by them and it bars him from ever being a Spaniard because he's an S A Ladino.
Ha! Most Spaniards do have sephardic blood. Yes, most of us are Jews that repented of the sin Purity of blood was, in fact, invented by orthodox Jews, however that didn't stop people from intermarry freely for centuries. It was only after the triumph of the Christians that things got rough.
quote: At least he didn't try to worm his way out of the fact he doesn't know or speak Caselano as do Spaniards of limieza de sangre
Well, we speak better Castellano than Spaniards. lol. We have to translate that stupid way of pronounce they have so we can get it Don't you know that the best Spaniards came to Latin America and that the worst remain in Spain. lol. That's a joke Spaniards like very much.
quote: who will quickly put him in his place well below that of creole no matter how much he and other mestizos/mulatos/even Zambos wanna be "Spanish."
Do you believe that? Don't you know we received millions of hungry Spanish refugees in Latin America in the recent past? Yes, we feel related to those guys but we are not servile to them. Not at all.
We are NOT Spanish, but Latin Americans. However, the heritage of Spain is as much us as the one of those dumb Iberians that remain there because they were afraid of sailing to the paradise
quote: Thus his rabid attack on Africa and African people who aren't seeking to be part and parcel of any European invading colonizer.
I attacked Muslims invading troops, not African peoples. Don't change things. The Moors were controled by Arabs.
quote: Kawashkar is a perfect example of the triumph of colonization of the mind where the hybrid offspring of the colonizers seek to identify with their gallant -- in their mind -- raiding fathers rather than the subjugated people of their mothers.
What a pitty. And you pretend we cry for events that happened FIVE centuries ago? After all, we are Indians when we like and Spaniards when is convinient. Simple.
quote: Tsk tsk tsk. Kawashkar just goes on and on about Espana (sorry no tilde over the n ) and its glories and remains shamefully silent about the glories of his "South American Indio"
Just ask. If you need to know anything about the other branch of our ancestors, just ask. I don't want to bore you with 20.000 years of history
quote: heritage and is definately in complete denial as to his Bozale Africano ancestry totally buying in to white racist notions of African inferiority and absence of civilization.
I didn't say that. But if you keep focusing in North Africa you will not hear about our S. A. African heritage, because it did not came from North Africa but from Subsaharan Africa!! Yes, for Brazilians and Cuban is more important the Yoruba people than the Berbers or Tuaregs.
quote: Kawaskar, you're just a hater.
I don't like very much camel riders, airplane hijackers and other religious fanatics, if you ask.
quote: You've never examined what's gone on or is going on in Africa. Don't you know the supercomputer was reinvented by a Nigerian mind that grew up in a refugee camp? Check it mi pana hten holla back.
I know that, and I also know who invented the trafic lights and the gas mask. That's really interesting, indeed.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Limpieza de sangre is an invention of the Spain that was born from the Reconquista. It means ones ancestors are of Hispania without any being from Africa, the Levant, Iraq, or the Arabian peninsula.
As far back as the earliest Hebrew records of the Tanakh, `Am Yisra'el has admitted every people into its ranks and have married with every ethny, nationality, and physical type of humanity on this earth bar only isolates the Mbuti or Andamese (and even then if some Jewish guy ever stayed with them more than over one night you can bet it's likely he left his seed (fertilized or not) with at least one of their women.
And why are you going back to American inventions like the traffic signal (not the traffic light) and the gas mask. I was talking about a Nigerian and something you're using right now to communicate with me.
IF YOU REALLY KNOW THAT, WHAT'S THE GUY'S NAME UMAR?
Earlier you said Africa had no accomplishments ad contributed nothing to civilization or world culture. Spin Doctoring is not your forte, you're just mixed up and confused. Fear not mi pana. We here at ES AE&E have already worked a cure on you that you can't fight off no matter how badly you want to retain your mental malady.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Omar's limpieza de sangre mix up, and deliberate lies for the uninformed, ends here and now.
Al establecer su estatuto de limpieza de sangre, la Iglesia de Córdoba parece haber sido la primera en exponer el procedimiento a seguir para juzgar sobre la limpieza de sangre de un candidato. Arrodillado, con la mano derecha puesta sobre la imagen de un crucifijo contenido en un misal, el candidato debía jurar que no descendía ni de judío ni de moro. Luego debía señalar los apellidos de sus padres y abuelos, así como los lugares de su nacimiento. La investigación debía entonces ser emprendida por el ordinario, acompañado de dos delegados del cabildo, en la iglesia o en otro lugar público. Cuando fuera necesario llevar la investigación fuera de Córdoba, una persona, no necesariamente miembro del cabildo, sería nombrada para interrogar a los testigos designados por el propio candidato. Se indicaba también que el investigador recibiría una suma per diem según el rango de la persona, el trayecto recorrido y el tiempo empleado. Habiendo recogido todos los informes, el secretario o el notario debían leerlos al cabildo y un voto decidiría si el candidato podía entrar en posesión de su beneficio. Una simple mayoría afirmativa bastaba para admitirle, después de lo cual debía prometer guardar todos los estatutos y costumbres de la Iglesia, sobre todo en lo concerniente al honor del cabildo, y aún más particularmente a su estatuto de limpieza de sangre.
Los estatutos de Limpieza de Sangre. Albert A. Sicroff. Pag. 121.
Systran translation:
Procedure to prove the Purity of Blood
When establishing its statute of purity of blood, the Church of Cordova seems to have been first in exposing the procedure to follow to judge on the purity of blood of a candidate. Made to kneel, with the right hand placed on a crucifix contained in a misal, the candidate had to swear that he descended from neither Moor nor Jew. Soon he had to indicate the surnames of his parents and grandparents, as well as their places of birth. The investigation had then to be undertaken by the ordinate, accompanied by two delegates of the town hall, in the church or another public place. When necessary to take the investigation outside Cordova, a person, not necessarily member of the town hall, would be named to interrogate the witnesses designated by the candidate. It was also indicated that the investigator would receive a per diem sum according to his rank, traveled distance and his time. Having gathered all the information, the secretary or the notary had to read it to the town hall and a vote would decide if the candidate could attain this benefit. A simple affirmative majority was enough to admit to him, after which he had to promise to keep all the statutes and customs of the Church, mainly as for the honor of the town hall, and still more particularly to his statute of purity of blood.
The statutes of Cleaning of Blood. Albert A. Sicroff. P 121. Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Man, you are hard headed, don't you?
quote: Limpieza de sangre is an invention of the Spain that was born from the Reconquista. It means ones ancestors are of Hispania without any being from Africa, the Levant, Iraq, or the Arabian peninsula.
Yes, but that was a twist to an earlier concept.
quote: As far back as the earliest Hebrew records of the Tanakh, `Am Yisra'el has admitted every people into its ranks and have married with every ethny, nationality, and physical type of humanity on this earth bar only isolates the Mbuti or Andamese (and even then if some Jewish guy ever stayed with them more than over one night you can bet it's likely he left his seed (fertilized or not) with at least one of their women.
Read this:
"Concerning Levites and Israelites: (Ezra 9:1-2 NKJV) When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. {2} "For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass."
(Ezra 10:3 NKJV) "Now therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the advice of my master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law."
Yes, I do know that the Christian Spanish behave badly with that "purity of blood" staff. But from where do you think they got the idea? From the Bible itself.
quote: And why are you going back to American inventions like the traffic signal (not the traffic light) and the gas mask. I was talking about a Nigerian and something you're using right now to communicate with me.
IF YOU REALLY KNOW THAT, WHAT'S THE GUY'S NAME OMAR?
Philip Emeagwali - Celebrated Nigerian Inventor, Mathematician, Physicist, Computer Scient. Who does not know that?
quote: Earlier you said Africa had no accomplishments ad contributed nothing to civilization or world culture.
Where did I said that? Search for it. You are making that up.
quote: Spin Doctoring is not your forte, you're just mixed up and confused.
Well, I believe it is you that is angry And that you don't read with attention.
quote: Fear not mi pana. We here at ES AE&E have already worked a cure on you that you can't fight off no matter how badly you want to retain your mental malady.
The cure are good arguments. Do you have some?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Me and whole host of others have been whooping your ass with facts not mere bullish arguments. We all see how you're smarting under the pain.
Your quotes from Ezra prove nothing. There are many more instances throughout Tanakh (not the Christian Bible) of marriages with properly converted non-Israelites. Nothing like limpieza de sangre ever existed in Israel.
The most famous case of marriage between Israelite and non-born Jew is that of Ruth. Then there's ol' Moishe himself. Not to mention Shlomo haMelekh. And don't you the grand Sepharadi sage Moshe Maimon decreed from a then 1100 year old Talmudic law that since Nebuchadnezer's time gentle pedigree is meaningless and any wishing to join `Am Yisra'el can immediately do so by conversion.
The very fact of conversion which was always available -- note the ereb rab that left Missrayim with the fleeing Hebrews -- disproves your whole sorry "thesis" of Jewish origin of limpieza de sangre. The SPANISH of the Catholic Christian Church thought that one up particularly to use in stealing the wealth of the Sepharadiym, Moors, and Moriscos.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Atta Omar Vega? Oy Gevalt! Atta lo Anusi!! Yeled ra` min yesser hara`.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Here ya go straight from the horse's ...er ...um mouth.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar 09 September, 2006 10:21 PM: But there is not a single cultural achievement that can be traced to Subsaharian Africa. At least, nothing can be shown as yet.
KAWASHKAR
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Earlier you said Africa had no accomplishments ad contributed nothing to civilization or world culture.
Where did I said that? Search for it. You are making that up.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
I think you're being unfair altakruri, you are lifting the text out of its context, he was reffering to spain and the cultural contribution there during islamic occupation.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Me and whole host of others have been whooping your ass with facts not mere bullish arguments.
I see. It is you who seem mad, not the others, sorry. Yes, you can answer in a rational manner so you resort to insults. I could use insults back, but I use bad words I risk expulsion, but it seem you got license to insult.
quote: We all see how you're smarting under the pain.
Really, then why do you answer in the first place? lol.
quote: Your quotes from Ezra prove nothing. There are many more instances throughout Tanakh (not the Christian Bible) of marriages with properly converted non-Israelites. Nothing like limpieza de sangre ever existed in Israel.
Oh! Now the problem is Israel. Man, you got quite a special world model. Sorry fellow, but I don't believe in good and bad peoples. In fact, I believe all have done good actions and sins.
Good and bad people exist no matter where you look, in any "race" and in any ethniticity. The rest is old-fashioned idealism.
By the way, I am with the Jewish people in its struggle. After all, the Sephardic Jews are fellow Spaniards, and theirs expulsion from Spain was an injustice that should never happened.
quote: The most famous case of marriage between Israelite and non-born Jew is that of Ruth. Then there's ol' Moishe himself. Not to mention Shlomo haMelekh. And don't you the grand Sepharadi sage Moshe Maimon decreed from a then 1100 year old Talmudic law that since Nebuchadnezer's time gentle pedigree is meaningless and any wishing to join `Am Yisra'el can immediately do so by conversion.
The very fact of conversion which was always available -- note the ereb rab that left Missrayim with the fleeing Hebrews -- disproves your whole sorry "thesis" of Jewish origin of limpieza de sangre.
You can't deny that what I show you is written in the Bible, and that Moses is previous to that. You can't deny either that intermarriage was not encouraged by ancient jews.
[/QUOTE] The SPANISH of the Catholic Christian Church thought that one up particularly to use in stealing the wealth of the Sepharadiym, Moors, and Moriscos. [/QUOTE]
You can't imagine how many Moors and Sephardic Jews converted to Christianism. Some of them, together with Old Christians, where the ones that build and spread the inquisition.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What are you, his lawyer? Omar can speak for himself quite well, so let him.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Why are you guys wasting your energy? Ausar, don't you think something ought to be done here?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
How can anyone say conversion with resulting marriage was discouraged when the greatest of Jews married spouses who weren't born of `Am Yisra'el?
Ezra complaint was against unconverted spouses. Why else did he set up a family court to see which ones were legitimate post conversion marriages?
You present one limited case without refering to the commentators or Hokmei Yisra'el for understanding what the Anshei K*neseth haGedolah were going about doing.
You ignore case after case of born Israelites marrying born non-Israelites after they join the People of Israel via conversion.
You've obviously learned nothing about Hokmath Yisra'el despite the time you've spent on Jewish elists. Pseudo-anusim like you is what's made it hard for anousim who are sincere to return to recognized Jewish identity.
Trust me, Jews don't need distorters of Judaism like you as supporters.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Kawashkar,
Don't you know that the Jews put a curse on Spain for the expulsion of Jews. And every since then Spain has gone down hill. The Portuguese got the bigest part of South America i.e. Brazil. North America is dominated by English Speaking USA and Canada.
I don't know if the curse on Espanya (Jewish Ladino spelling) extends to modern Hispanics. I've wondered about that. Not sure.
Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York 10003, USA. ws204@nyu.edu
BACKGROUND: The ethnic heritage of northernmost New Spain, including present-day northern New Mexico and southernmost Colorado, USA, is intensely debated. Local Spanish-American folkways and anecdotal narratives led to claims that the region was colonized primarily by secret- or crypto-Jews. Despite ethnographic criticisms, the notion of substantial crypto-Jewish ancestry among Spanish-Americans persists. AIM: We tested the null hypothesis that Spanish-Americans of northern New Mexico carry essentially the same profile of paternally inherited DNA variation as the peoples of Iberia, and the relevant alternative hypothesis that the sampled Spanish-Americans possess inherited DNA variation that reflects Jewish ancestry significantly greater than that in present-day Iberia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We report frequencies of 19 Y-chromosome unique event polymorphism (UEP) biallelic markers for 139 men from across northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, USA, who self-identify as 'Spanish-American'. We used three different statistical tests of differentiation to compare frequencies of major UEP-defined clades or haplogroups with published data for Iberians, Jews, and other Mediterranean populations. We also report frequencies of derived UEP markers within each major haplogroup, compared with published data for relevant populations. RESULTS: All tests of differentiation showed that, for frequencies of the major UEP-defined clades, Spanish-Americans and Iberians are statistically indistinguishable. All other pairwise comparisons, including between Spanish-Americans and Jews, and Iberians and Jews, revealed highly significant differences in UEP frequencies.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that paternal genetic inheritance of Spanish-Americans is indistinguishable from that of Iberians and refute the popular and widely publicized scenario of significant crypto-Jewish ancestry of the Spanish-American population.
Summary Hispanics not Sephardic Jews
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Moreover,
Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church by Simon G. Southerton
Details: The Book of Mormon narrates voyages to the Americas by ancient Israelites. "2 Nephi 1:9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; [The Americas] and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves" The descendants of these ancient seafarers are said to be the tribes of Native Americans who were on hand to greet Columbus, the Spanish Conquistadors, and the Pilgrims. Israelites are also said to be the ancestors of the Polynesians. Enter DNA. With the advent of molecular genealogy, scientists now have a tool to test hypotheses about Indian origins, previously based on skull shapes, blood types, linguistics, and cultural studies. By means of DNA genealogy, Native Americans have been traced to an area surrounding Lake Baikal in Siberia before their migration to the New World over 14,000 years ago. The evidence is definitive and unequivocal.
What do Latter-day Saint scientists have to say about this? Is it possible that a few, not all, Native Americans could be of Israelite origin? Could Polynesians represent an admixture of Southeast Asian and Israelite heritage? Professors at Brigham Young University are proposing a radical new reinterpretation of the Book of Mormon to accommodate this new field of science.
Explaining the scientific and theological issues in this debate is Dr. Simon Southerton, a molecular geneticist from Australia. He particularly responds to the issues raised by the BYU professors such as the implications of the mysterious lineage X, absent in Mesoamerica, and supposed anomalies in the genetic picture such as Kennewick Man and even the genetic history of the lowly sweet potato. Having been raised Mormon, Southerton knows the theological side of the issue as intimately as he knows the science.
... read more
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What are you, his lawyer? Omar can speak for himself quite well, so let him.
I never said Africa has contributed nothing to the world. What I said is the Moors troops did not brought science+tech+knowledge to Spain. The invasion of Spain it was planned and done by the Muslims in an international Jihad. And they collected through all countries of theirs Middle Ages dominions the best architects, poets and scientists.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: How can anyone say conversion with resulting marriage was discouraged when the greatest of Jews married spouses who weren't born of `Am Yisra'el?
Ezra complaint was against unconverted spouses. Why else did he set up a family court to see which ones were legitimate post conversion marriages?
You present one limited case without refering to the commentators or Hokmei Yisra'el for understanding what the Anshei K*neseth haGedolah were going about doing.
You ignore case after case of born Israelites marrying born non-Israelites after they join the People of Israel via conversion.
I am not talking about today's Israel or today's Judaism, in the first place. I am talking about a people that have certain writings (the Jews), that where discriminated by other peoples that read the some writings (the Christians)
You have to realize Christians got theirs intolerancy from somewhere. Middle Ages Christians believed they were the real chosen people, and that we are talking about the times of the Crusades, so when they read Ezra's book they took it at face value.
Remember that the discriminations againts Spanish minorities was not based on race but in loyalty to Spain. Christianity was transformed in the national religion and any person that had other believes it was suspected of treason to the country. It was a matter of what today is called "national security".
"You've obviously learned nothing about Hokmath Yisra'el despite the time you've spent on Jewish elists. Pseudo-anusim like you is what's made it hard for anousim who are sincere to return to recognized Jewish identity."
Who say I am a Jew? I don't recall to have said that at all. I am a secular Hispanic that do knows to have hebrew ancestry, because all Spaniards do have hebrew ancestry. That's all.
quote: Trust me, Jews don't need distorters of Judaism like you as supporters.
I appreciate very much Judaism, although I don't believe in perfect systems. I know my ancestors didn't and I know why they thought in that way as well.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: Kawashkar,
Don't you know that the Jews put a curse on Spain for the expulsion of Jews. And every since then Spain has gone down hill. The Portuguese got the bigest part of South America i.e. Brazil. North America is dominated by English Speaking USA and Canada.
Who say it so? I don't believe in magic. It is true that Spain has suffered a decline in the last three centuries, but things are comming back. All people suffer ups and downs, and as far as I know, Spain is not in the third world and Latin America is in better shape that most of the third world.
quote: I don't know if the curse on Espanya (Jewish Ladino spelling) extends to modern Hispanics. I've wondered about that. Not sure.
Ladinos are just Spaniards of jewish religion. They still live with us. Besides, even Franco was Ladino. And both Spain and Latin America opened the door for the Jewish refugees during the WWII.
quote: Toward resolution of the debate regarding purported crypto-Jews in a Spanish-American population: evidence from the Y chromosome.
Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York 10003, USA. ws204@nyu.edu
BACKGROUND: The ethnic heritage of northernmost New Spain, including present-day northern New Mexico and southernmost Colorado, USA, is intensely debated. Local Spanish-American folkways and anecdotal narratives led to claims that the region was colonized primarily by secret- or crypto-Jews. Despite ethnographic criticisms, the notion of substantial crypto-Jewish ancestry among Spanish-Americans persists. AIM: We tested the null hypothesis that Spanish-Americans of northern New Mexico carry essentially the same profile of paternally inherited DNA variation as the peoples of Iberia, and the relevant alternative hypothesis that the sampled Spanish-Americans possess inherited DNA variation that reflects Jewish ancestry significantly greater than that in present-day Iberia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We report frequencies of 19 Y-chromosome unique event polymorphism (UEP) biallelic markers for 139 men from across northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, USA, who self-identify as 'Spanish-American'. We used three different statistical tests of differentiation to compare frequencies of major UEP-defined clades or haplogroups with published data for Iberians, Jews, and other Mediterranean populations. We also report frequencies of derived UEP markers within each major haplogroup, compared with published data for relevant populations. RESULTS: All tests of differentiation showed that, for frequencies of the major UEP-defined clades, Spanish-Americans and Iberians are statistically indistinguishable. All other pairwise comparisons, including between Spanish-Americans and Jews, and Iberians and Jews, revealed highly significant differences in UEP frequencies.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that paternal genetic inheritance of Spanish-Americans is indistinguishable from that of Iberians and refute the popular and widely publicized scenario of significant crypto-Jewish ancestry of the Spanish-American population.
Summary Hispanics not Sephardic Jews [/QB]
What that inform above don't say is that half the population of Sephardic Jews did assimilate to the Spanish population. And forgets that the Jewish population of Spain was identical to the Christian population before expulsion. All my Jewish friends agree on that.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:And forgets that the Jewish population of Spain was identical to the Christian population before expulsion.
Hence the expulsion.
At any rate, you can't refute a scientific study with and empty rhetorical claim to the contrary.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What are you, his lawyer? Omar can speak for himself quite well, so let him.
I never said Africa has contributed nothing to the world. What I said is the Moors troops did not brought science+tech+knowledge to Spain. The invasion of Spain it was planned and done by the Muslims in an international Jihad. And they collected through all countries of theirs Middle Ages dominions the best architects, poets and scientists.
KAWASHKAR
If so, then they brought this culture and science to Spain.
I really don't understand any of your posts.
They are simply a series of statements which either contradict documented facts, scientific evidence, or internally contradict themselves.
Perhaps it's partly the language barrier, but I somehow doubt you make any more sense in Spanish.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Some notes about the sahara:
quote: In spite of her vast geographical dimensions and natural extremes, the Sahara has never been a barrier which had completely isolated Black Africa from other civilisations, in the same sense as the Atlantic Ocean separated the New World from the Old. Yet it was not a long time ago when European historians were willing to explain that the apparent backwardness of African cultures was a consequence of their lack of contacts with the outside world. Contrary to this opinion was the more widespread tendency to claim that all progress in African past had been initiated by invasions of more advanced peoples arriving from the Mediterranean. This idea was propagated especially by colonial writers who were eager to find traces of Egyptian, Jewish, Phoenician, Roman and Arab cultural influence everywhere in Africa, including the southernmost tip of Cape Province. Today this arrogant attitude is often replaced by a more neutral concept of cultural diffusion, although the fundamental idea is still intact: the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa were not able to develope any innovations like metallurgy, urbanism, or state-formation themselves, but already since the distant past they have needed the help of foreign advisors.
However, the notion that Africans have always been nothing but passive objects in their encounter with other civilisations, "having no interests to explore the world outside their own home village," is both oversimplified and ahistorical. The establisment and success of regular trans-Saharan trade, for example, was not possible without the active participation of West Africans who understood perfectly well, how to utilize the new opportunities offered by the commercial contacts to the Islamic world. Yet, in the authorized African historiography, this point is usually passed over with few words only.
The trans-Saharan trade was not merely an economic phenomenon, but it connected Western Africa to the Mediterranean world on the intellectual level, too. Listening the tales of traders, the medieval Arab geographers learnt to know the sub-Saharan Africa which they called Bilad al-Sudan, "The Land of the Blacks", although their knowledge covered only the areas lying close to the desert edge, Sahil, (SAHEL) or "the shore". In Christian Europe, the gradual accumulation of rumours concerning the treasures of Western Africa encouraged the Portuguese to seek their way to the fabulous Guinea where gold was said to grow in earth like carrots. The Arab and European discovery of sub-Saharan Africa is documented and discussed in numerous works - much less attention has been paid on the West African discovery of the world behind the Sahara. A reason for this silence is certainly the lack of evidence: it is extremely difficult to reconstruct the West African idea of the world, contemporary to that of the medieval European and Arab, because those West Africans who crossed the Sahara left no documents, and all that is known about them is based on accounts written by others. Yet there are some pieces of information both in the contemporary and in the later Arabic and European sources which allow us to make speculations - or at least questions - concerning the West African knowledge of outside world during the age when the caravans of Sahara were the only link between the African, the Islamic, and the European cultures.
quote: The Bargawata were a Berber tribe on the Moroccan Atlantic coast.
After the conversion to Islam at the beginning of the 8th century and the Maysara uprising (739-742) the Bargawata Berbers, a branch of the Masmuda, formed their own state on the Atlantic coast between Safi and Sala. The founder was Salih ibn Tarif (749-795), who had taken part in the Maysara and set himself up as a prophet. He promulgated a religion with elements of orthodox, Shiite and Kharijite Islam, mixed with astrology and heathen traditions. Supposedly, he had his own 'Koran' in the Berber language.
Under his successors al-Yasa (795-842), Yunus (842-885) and Abu Ghufail (885-913) the tribal kingdom was consolidated, and missions sent to neighbouring tribes. After initially good relations with the Caliphate of Cordoba there was a break at the end of the 10th century with the ruling Umayyads. Two Umayyad incursions, as well as attacks by the Fatimids were fought off by the Bargawata. From the 11th century there was an intensive guerilla war with the Banu Ifran. Even though the Bargwata were subsequently much weakened, they were still able to fend off Almoravid attacks - the spiritual leader of the Almoravids, Ibn Yasin, fell in battle against them (1059). Only in 1149 were the Bargawata eliminated by the Almohads as a political and religious group.
quote: The Masmuda were one of the largest Berber tribal confederacies in the Maghreb, along with the Zanata and the Sanhaja.
History
The Masmuda setted large parts of Morocco, and were largely sedentary and practised agriculture. The residence of the Masmuda aristocracy was Agmat in the High Atlas. From the 10th century the Berber tribes of the Sanhaja and Zanata groups invaded the lands of the Masmuda, followed from the 12th century onwards by Arab Bedouins (see Banu Hilal).
Ibn Tumart united the Masmuda tribes at the beginning of the 12th century and founded the Almohad movement, which subsequently unified the whole of the Maghreb and Andalusia. After the downfall of the Almohads, however, the particularism of the Masmuda peoples prevailed once more, as a result of which they lost their political significance and became arabicised. Remnants of the Masmuda survive in form of the Hhaha of Algeria, and of the Shleuh in the High Atlas.
quote: The Rways tradition (poet-singers using the Amazigh language, tashelhit region) is one of the most outstanding traditions in the poetical and musical landscape of southern Morocco. Its defining feature is the co-existence of both poetry and music. Paulette Galand-Pernet describes this tradition as "the poems of professional singers. The trouveurs both compose and perform their works; they travel around the country, usually as part of a group, of which the younger members undergo a professional apprenticeship by working alongside more experienced performers, under the guidance of a leader."
Lhadj Belaid, a singer-poet and a troubadour, was one of the most remarkable writers of poetry and music in the whole of Morocco. Paulette Galand-Pernet used to say that he is greatly renowned. With his standing as a poet, he trained many trouveurs. He was born in Anu n Adu, near to Tiznit, but his date of birth is unknown (it can only have been during the second half of the 19th century; Alexis Chottin and Paulette Galant-Pernet, who were interested in Amazigh poetry, thought that he must have been sixty years old in 1933). He was born into a poor family and was orphaned whilst still young. He had to leave Koranic school and began to do all kinds of work: shepherd, leader of a troup of acrobats in Tazerwalt (a place known for its marabout: Sidi Ahmed U Mussa) etc. In Tazerwalt, he gave free rein to his love for poetry and music and began to learn the first rules of this art in a troupe of singer-troubadours before forming his own group, with Mohamed Boudraa, Ali Es Saouiri and M’barek Belahcen also becoming members. The forming of this troop allowed him to maintain close contact with tribal elders and Makhzenian representatives. He seems to have died around 1945. Paulette Galand-Pernet points out that the Rwayes that she asked about this could not give her the date of his death.
Audio of Tamazighs (by Belaid I think) Scroll to bottom of page: http://www.majdah.com/vb/showthread.php?t=28235 (It would be great to get a translation of his lyrics to hear the stories they tell about TRUE Berber history PRIOR to the Banu Hilal ARAB invasions.)
Masufa
The Masufa were an important group who became know n as the Almohades. These Berbers went on to take over from the Almoravids. They are also related to the Tuareg. Ibn Battuta speaks of the remnants of the Masufa in the great city of Timbuktu:
quote: "[The sultan] has a lofty pavilion, of which the door is inside his house, where he sits for most of the time. . . . There came forth from the gate of the palace about 300 slaves, some carrying in their hands bows and others having in their hands short lances and shields. . . Then two saddled and bridled horses are brought, with two rams which, they say, are effective against the evil eye. . . . Dugha, the interpreter, stands at the gate of the council-place wearing fine garments of silk brocade and other materials, and on his head a turban with fringes which they have a novel way of winding. . . . The troops, governors, young men, slaves, the Masufa, and others sit outside the council-place in a broad street where there are trees. . . . Inside the council-place beneath the arches a man is standing. Anyone who wishes to address the sultan addresses Dugha and Dugha addresses that man standing and that man standing addresses the sultan. If one of them addresses the sultan and the latter [the Sultan] replies he uncovers the clothes from his back and sprinkles dust on his head and back, like one washing himself with water. I used to marvel how their eyes did not become blinded."
Discussions on the history of the various groups in the Sahara and the Advance of Islam:
quote:And forgets that the Jewish population of Spain was identical to the Christian population before expulsion.
Hence the expulsion.
At any rate, you can't refute a scientific study with and empty rhetorical claim to the contrary.
Look. Do you know that Hispanics are discovering theirs Jewish roots daily? Do you know that Spanish literature was founded and developed in its beginning by Sephardic Jews? Do you know that both Sephardics and Spanish share not only traditions, tales, sayings, customs and languages, but that also have the same last names? Don't you know names like Spinoza (Espinoza), Peres (Perez), Calderon, etc. are Spanish?
Don't you know Jews in Spain were there BEFORE the Moors, and that their presency in there is from, at least, the first centure A.D.?
Do you really believe there is not relation between both groups? Jesus! I can read Ladino in both Latin and Hebrew characters without formal training!
Knowing that, it is obvious the relation exist, and educated scholars in Spain and Israel know that.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:...If so, then they brought this culture and science to Spain.
Why you conclude that!
quote:... I really don't understand any of your posts.
It is obvious. You are following a terminology that does not correspond to the realities of ancient Spain. Let me show you:
Moor: (a) In here: The stereotypical Moor is a warrior of Mauritania, particularly the Almoravide troops that were sent to Spain to control the Christian uprising during the 12th. Alphonse X the Wise, witnessed that and recorded those events.
(b) In Spain: Muslim. Particularly the Muslims of the expansion of Islam that in a fast series of campains starting from the Middle East conquered Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Spain and Subsaharian Africa. In Spain: The stereotype of the Moor is the Maghrebian Berber and the Middle East Arab. ----
Therefore when people and historians in Spain are talking about Moorish culture, they are meaning "Muslim impossed culture", Moor and Arab are synonims in Spain. Most of the science and technology of the Moors came from far away places, like Persia, Bagdad, Syria, Egypt, Palestina, India and China.
quote: They are simply a series of statements which either contradict documented facts, scientific evidence, or internally contradict themselves.
Perhaps it's partly the language barrier, but I somehow doubt you make any more sense in Spanish.
Which statements? Let's analize them one by one.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Someone has to tell mr K, that it was a Visigothic king who call the Moors for rescue against his Christian brothers in the north. The Moors were liberators for many people.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...The Rways tradition (poet-singers using the Amazigh language, tashelhit region) is one of the most outstanding traditions in the poetical and musical landscape of southern Morocco. Its defining feature is the co-existence of both poetry and music. Paulette Galand-Pernet describes this tradition as "the poems of professional singers. The trouveurs both compose and perform their works; they travel around the country, usually as part of a group, of which the younger members undergo a professional apprenticeship by working alongside more experienced performers, under the guidance of a leader."
Lhadj Belaid, a singer-poet and a troubadour, was one of the most remarkable writers of poetry and music in the whole of Morocco. Paulette Galand-Pernet used to say that he is greatly renowned. With his standing as a poet, he trained many trouveurs. He was born in Anu n Adu, near to Tiznit, but his date of birth is unknown (it can only have been during the second half of the 19th century; Alexis Chottin and Paulette Galant-Pernet, who were interested in Amazigh poetry, thought that he must have been sixty years old in 1933). He was born into a poor family and was orphaned whilst still young. He had to leave Koranic school and began to do all kinds of work: shepherd, leader of a troup of acrobats in Tazerwalt (a place known for its marabout: Sidi Ahmed U Mussa) etc. In Tazerwalt, he gave free rein to his love for poetry and music and began to learn the first rules of this art in a troupe of singer-troubadours before forming his own group, with Mohamed Boudraa, Ali Es Saouiri and M’barek Belahcen also becoming members. The forming of this troop allowed him to maintain close contact with tribal elders and Makhzenian representatives. He seems to have died around 1945. Paulette Galand-Pernet points out that the Rwayes that she asked about this could not give her the date of his death. ...
Hi Doug.
That insterested me VERY MUCH. In the field of Music it is well know the Islamic influence in the Music of Spain is fundamental. Spaniards know that many of their musical traditions, particularly Flamenco, has a North African or Arab root.
I would like to ask for your oppinion on this topic. What are, from your point of view, the influences that are easier to see of the Moorish rythms in Flamenco? Do they come from Arabia, the Magreb or from Mauritania?
What do you think?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Arwa: Someone has to tell mr K, that it was a Visigothic king who call the Moors for rescue against his Christian brothers in the north. The Moors were liberators for many people.
Other considered that German (Visigoth) a traitor to Spain. Besides, perhaps you don't know that most of the population of Al-Andalus it was local. The Mozarabs, or Christian Moors, where Spaniards living under the Muslim rulers. Besides the mass of the people was made of Spaniards converted to Islam (Muslims payed less taxes).
In fact, Spain was born as a nation in the struggle of getting rid of the invaders. The closest description of it is a long civil war with the intervention of foreign powers: the Moors from the South, France and Germany from the North.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Your excuses are unbelievable. Carry on
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Good. At least we agree in a point
Perhaps. Although I mean historical migrations.
quote:I agree that there are North Africans groups that look plainly European and others that look Subsaharians, with not "shades" in between. However, you have to agree with me that many "seem" to have some degree of both origins, so much that in certain people is dificult to say if they are one or the other.
All I have tried to say is that is a particularity of North Africa, particularly north of the Sahara. And is the result of its particular history.
Yes. Europeans from Iberia, Pheonicians from the Levant, and of course the great Islamic-Arab invasions all contributed to North Africa's ethnographic composition. But all of this happened in historical times and mainly during late dynastic to post dynastic Egypt. This still does not change the fact that in the time periods before, blacks were the aboriginal-indigenous peoples of Africa even North of the Sahara, and that there is evidence they expanded outside of Africa all around the Mediterranean and into both the Near East and Europe into Greece as well as Iberia-- all during prehistoric times. Which is why we have both anthropological and genetic evidence of African influence in these areas but not the converse which is what you are trying to say.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Why are you guys wasting your time with trolls(specifically 'a troll')? Ausar, isn't it time to clean house?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I really don't understand any of your posts.
They are simply a series of statements which either contradict documented facts, scientific evidence, or internally contradict themselves.
Perhaps it's partly the language barrier, but I somehow doubt you make any more sense in Spanish.
LOL Indeed. All the guy has brought to this forum are, as he stated himself, his opinions-- that is his own thoughts and feelings, all of which by the way do not agree with factual evidence presented.
quote:Arwa says to Washkar: Your excuses are unbelievable. Carry on
Excuses or baseless/false claims. One or the other.
quote:Israel asks: Why are you guys wasting your energy? Ausar, don't you think something ought to be done here?
Indeed. I decided to give Washkar another chance to defend his postion in this 'debate' (if you could call it that. Frankly it's more like a debacle), but instead he keeps throwing back the same old stuff that has been refuted before. I think his ship has sailed.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:And forgets that the Jewish population of Spain was identical to the Christian population before expulsion.
Hence the expulsion.
At any rate, you can't refute a scientific study with and empty rhetorical claim to the contrary.
Look. Do you know that Hispanics are discovering theirs Jewish roots daily? Do you know that Spanish literature was founded and developed in its beginning by Sephardic Jews? Do you know that both Sephardics and Spanish share not only traditions, tales, sayings, customs and languages, but that also have the same last names? Don't you know names like Spinoza (Espinoza), Peres (Perez), Calderon, etc. are Spanish?
Don't you know Jews in Spain were there BEFORE the Moors, and that their presency in there is from, at least, the first centure A.D.?
Do you really believe there is not relation between both groups? Jesus! I can read Ladino in both Latin and Hebrew characters without formal training!
Knowing that, it is obvious the relation exist, and educated scholars in Spain and Israel know that.
KAWASHKAR
I know all about the Jewish Presence in Spain. Moshe Ben Maimon [Maimonides] is considered by some to be the greatst Jew since the destruction of the Second Temple. Then there is Nachmanides and Averoes and a host of others. But, there is a genetic difference between Sephardic Jews and the average Spaniard. Some Spaniards adopted Judaism in Sepharad. But, most did not.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ..Yes. Europeans from Iberia, Pheonicians from the Levant, and of course the great Islamic-Arab invasions all contributed to North Africa's ethnographic composition. But all of this happened in historical times and mainly during late dynastic to post dynastic Egypt.
I agree on that.
quote: This still does not change the fact that in the time periods before, blacks were the aboriginal-indigenous peoples of Africa even North of the Sahara, and that there is evidence they expanded outside of Africa all around the Mediterranean and into both the Near East and Europe into Greece as well as Iberia-- all during prehistoric times.
I can agree on that as well. I am not sure there were not light skinned peoples in prehistorical times in North Africa, but certainly it is evident that Black peoples existed in the region and that expanded to Europe. I have always though that certain European features, like curly hair of many Southern Europeans, have an origin in Northern Africa or Ethiopia.
It is also know that the Barbarian (germanic) invasions started around 4.000 years ago and that those people produced a demographic change in Southern Europe.
So I agree.
quote: Which is why we have both anthropological and genetic evidence of African influence in these areas but not the converse which is what you are trying to say.
What I was trying to said is that the presence of light skinned on Northern Africa is older than Islam. It existed at least from the times of Tarsis and Cartago (Around 3.000 years ago). Before that you may be right.
So I agree, too.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I really don't understand any of your posts.
They are simply a series of statements which either contradict documented facts, scientific evidence, or internally contradict themselves.
Perhaps it's partly the language barrier, but I somehow doubt you make any more sense in Spanish.
LOL Indeed. All the guy has brought to this forum are, as he stated himself, his opinions-- that is his own thoughts and feelings, all of which by the way do not agree with factual evidence presented.
quote:Arwa says to Washkar: Your excuses are unbelievable. Carry on
Excuses or baseless/false claims. One or the other.
quote:Israel asks: Why are you guys wasting your energy? Ausar, don't you think something ought to be done here?
Indeed. I decided to give Washkar another chance to defend his postion in this 'debate' (if you could call it that. Frankly it's more like a debacle), but instead he keeps throwing back the same old stuff that has been refuted before. I think his ship has sailed.
Exactly. This is how trolls operate. Ya'll shouldn't waste your time. Ausar, it is time to delete the trash........... .
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: ...I know all about the Jewish Presence in Spain. Moshe Ben Maimon [Maimonides] is considered by some to be the greatst Jew since the destruction of the Second Temple. Then there is Nachmanides and Averoes and a host of others. But, there is a genetic difference between Sephardic Jews and the average Spaniard. Some Spaniards adopted Judaism in Sepharad. But, most did not.
OK. Let's stop talking and let's go to the studies. My questions are: (1) From the Jew population of Spain, how many leave Spain and how many assimilated? (2) The genetical studies about the diferences between Sephardic and average Spaniards (no Mexicans, please, because they have a lot more admixture, but plainly Spaniards)
I go to get there as well.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:...Exactly. This is how trolls operate. Ya'll shouldn't waste your time. Ausar, it is time to delete the trash........... . [/QB]
That sounds like Inquisition to me. Don't argue with the guy, just burn him. :cool
Do as you wish, but I am not trolling, just discussing things that are important for me. It does not matter that you guys don't think like me, but what is important is to know if you are willing to convince or being convinced of other points of wiews.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
kawa,
Many Jews were expelled. There were many more who, either became secret Christians, intermarried with the local populace or paid to have their Jewishness forgotten and all of the above. Se dice que even the Grand Inquisitor was a Jew! Many took their names from things associated with the religion though there are certain names which are thoughto be distinctly Jewish. Perez isn't although though it is common enough!
In Latin America, Jewish ancentry will only count in places like Argentina, Uruguay, etc because there is a higher European element when compared to Mexico, Central America, Bolivia, Peru though interestingly enough many of the former finance minister in Latin America generally were Jews. Now they are Lebanese!
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
I agree on that, absolutely. Do you know that some people believe not only that Columbus was Jew but the Catholic Kings have some Jewish ancestry? In fact, Cervantes (Don Quixote's author) is believed to descent of conversos.
Sometimes I wonder, particularly when I see old fashionated and very orthodox minded Roman Catholics (which are common in Spain and Latin America), and how they pray and practise religion, if what I see aren't Jewish rooted traditions. For example: the lighting of candles in certain secuency, the following of a strict calendar of rituals, the importancy of certain "pass rituals". etc. I have the impression that many of those came from the Judaic traditions of conversos.
Now Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and other countries have large Jewish communities of recent immigration, particularly before and after the holocaust. Most those recent populations are Ashkenazi comming from Central and East Europe.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In the particular case I mentioned neither was I. `Am Yisra'el is the name those you call Jews have always known themselves since their inception.
Nonetheless its a continuous civilization from the Hebrews of 2000BCE to the Jews of 2000CE, a culture which has endured 3300 years as a national identity with, then without, then again with the homeland they've always cherished and prayed for during the time there was no Israel nor Judea.
Israel is simply the correct word for the corruption word Israelite.
A citizen of the modern state of Israel is an Israeli and that word was never used in biblical, mishnaic, or other pre-modern eras.
Evidently, like in most else you've written about here you only have a superficial acquaintance with `Am Yisra'el, Hokmath Yisra'el, and Hokmei Yisra'el.
You are providing us a good exercise in countering unlearned misconceptions in many fields of study regarding Africa and the Levant.
If a newbie to this forum wanted a quick summary of outdated fallacies on the topics discussed and debated here they'd need only Google Kawashkar in a site limited search.
And its for that reason only that we -- Doug M's in particularly great job -- have entertained Omar with any undeserved level of seriousness at all.
Also, not to be overlooked or forgotten, Omar Kawashkar is just revelling in all the attention he's getting from us here at ES AE&E.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: I am not talking about today's Israel or today's Judaism,
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kawashkar: Let's stop talking and let's go to the studies. My questions are: (1) From the Jew population of Spain, how many leave Spain and how many assimilated? (2) The genetical studies about the diferences between Sephardic and average Spaniards (no Mexicans, please, because they have a lot more admixture, but plainly Spaniards)
Read this .pdf article evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf
Reality is almost all Latino men are R1b and Most Hispanics from Argentina to Mexico are descended from Native American or African women. Therefore, Mexican or Chilean or otherwise any Sephardic Ancestry should be found on Y chromosome. Mind you some Sephardics and Ashkenazics are R1b. There's a big debate on this issue.
from middle down: North America In the once Spanish-held Southwestern United States, many Hispanic Catholics have stated a belief that they are descended from crypto-Jews and have started practicing Judaism. They often cite as evidence memories of older relatives practicing Jewish traditions. Skeptics of the authenticity of the Jewish ancestry of Latinos of the Southwest argue that these remembered traditions could be those of Ashkenazi, not Sephardi, Jews and may possibly be constructed memories due to suggestion by proponents. It is also argued that the Jewish traditions practiced by older relatives were introduced by groups of Evangelical Protestant Christians who purposely acquired and employed Jewish traditions as part of their religious practices.[7]
Recent genetic research, however, has shown that many Latinos of the American Southwest are indeed descended from Anusim (Sephardic Jews who were forced to convert to Catholicism). Michael Hammer, a research professor at the University of Arizona and an expert on Jewish genetics, said that fewer than 1% of non-Jews possessed the male-specific "Cohanim marker" (which in itself is not necessarily endemic to all Jews, but is prevalent among Jews claiming descent from hereditary priests), and 30 of 78 Latinos tested in New Mexico were found to be carriers. DNA testing of Hispanic populations also revealed between 10% and 15% of men living in New Mexico, south Texas and northern Mexico have a Y chromosome that traces back to the Middle East. [2]
In northern Mexico, Monterrey, the capital city of the State of Nuevo León, that shares a border with Texas, is said to contain descendants of Crypto-Jews. Monterrey was founded by Luis Carvajal y de la Cueva who although had converted to Catholicism, in 1590 was accused by the Spanish Inquisition of heresy. It was officially found that members of his extended family had reverted to Judaism and he was exiled from the territory then known as New Spain. A large portion of his extended family, 121 people, was executed in Mexico City in 1596. They included most of the original settlers of Monterrey.
The State of Jalisco also has several cities with large numbers of Anusim, mainly Guadalajara, Ciudad Guzman, and Puerto Vallarta, although a steady influx of Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe during the late 1800's and early to mid-1900's into Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Veracruz is also widely known.
Today, there are between 150,000 and 180,000 Mexican Jews, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Researchers and historians say that number would rise considerably if Anusim (or Crypto-Jews) were included into those estimates.
[edit] Central, South America and Caribbean As in the American Southwest, in the department of Antioquia, Colombia, many families also hold traditions, handed down memories and oral accounts of Jewish descent. In this population, Y chromosome genetic analysis has shown an origin of founders predominantly from "southern Spain but also suggest that a fraction came from northern Iberia and that some possibly had a Sephardic origin". [3]
In addition to these communities, other now Catholic-professing communities descendants of Crypto-Jews are also said to exist in Cuba, Puerto Rico [4], and amidst the populations of various other Spanish-speaking countries of South America (Argentina, Venezuela, Chile and Ecuador). From these communities comes the proverb, "Catholic by faith, Jewish by blood".
All the above localities were former territories of either the Spanish or Portuguese Empires, where the Inquisition eventually followed and continued persecuting the Jews who had settled there, and where it endured for longer than it had in Spain itself.[5]
[edit] Famous Crypto-Jews Crypto-Jews are conversos who still practiced Judaism in secret. Most Marranos were secret followers of Judaism. The following is an example of some people who have been suspected of being crypto-jews:
Luis de Carvajal was the governor of the state of Nuevo Leon, a northern Mexico province in which the restriction against immigration from conversos was relaxed in order to encourage migration to the peril-fraught frontier. He was responsible for bringing a significant group of crypto-jewish conversos living in Portugal since the Expulsion of 1492. Rita Moreno, actress and Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, among others, "have acknowledged Marrano ancestry" [6]. Baruch Spinoza was the son of Iberian conversos, but grew up in the Jewish community in Amsterdam and was well versed in the teachings of Judaism. Miguel de Cervantes is suspected by some scholars of Judaic Studies to have been a crypto-jew.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
The Caribbean islands of Aruba, Curacao, Barbados had a Sefarad group who migrated to NE USA and merged with the Ashkenazis.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
RedCow,
Great references, and thanks you very much. Yes. That indeed is a tangible evidency of something we knew all along.
Thanks again.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
...
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Trolls are not humans, they act....... Anyway.....Can't reason with them. Why waste our value time. Ausar, delete this troll. Shukran.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Originally posted by Israel: ... Trolls are not humans, they act....... Anyway.....Can't reason with them. Why waste our value time. Ausar, delete this troll. Shukran.
Jesus! Who are you? The Inspector Gadget?
Let me say just one thing. Only people that follows dogmas don't stand other views.
Yes, someone could believe certain things you don't agree, but that does not mean he could be wrong. Perhaps the truth is just in the middle or in another place.
Realize it, no one is the owner of the truth.
Only fanatics believe they know it fully, and don't accept they could be wrong in certain points.
I could be wrong in some points. It is just a matter for you to convince me in what points and why.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Its not our job to convince anybody.
We don't deal in faith where conviction overrules intellectual pragmatism.
We deal with multi-disciplinary materials as they relate to Egyptology, Africana, etc.
Our documented presentations speak loudly for themselves.
Seekers after knowledge recognize them for what they are, up to date analyses.
Only dogmatists reject them in favour of the unsupported opinions of their agenda(s).
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
What about the National Geographics Genographic Project? Is that data good enough for you?
If so, let's analyze it, marker by marker, I you wish.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yeah, what about it? Have referenced it here innumerous times already as well as the other works of geneticist Spencer Wells.
Really, try Googling a keyword using the site restriction feature for hits from ES AE&E since the forum's internal search engine is currently disabled.
Wish away, pana. We do research here, not make wishes.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Yeah. I really believe you do research and not just wishful thinking. Good luck to you too, researcher. I hope you got the Nobel. lol.
Bye,
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Don't need luck. Skill is what's required here.
If your bye means what I think it does ... good riddance.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol: I really don't understand any of your posts.
quote:kawahskar: It is obvious. You are following a terminology that does not correspond to the realities of ancient Spain. Let me show you:
Moor: (a) In here: The stereotypical Moor is a warrior of Mauritania, particularly the Almoravide troops that were sent to Spain to control the Christian uprising during the 12th. Alphonse X the Wise, witnessed that and recorded those events.
(b) In Spain: Muslim.
Did the Moors originate in Spain?
No.
Did the culture they brought from Africa into Spain originate in Spain?
No.
Are your comments anything more than a desparate form of special pleading to hide from the truth of the African contribution to southern Europes history?
No.
Does the *word* Moor originate in Spain?
No.
Can you logically claim that Spain has a special meaning of the word Moor [in fact, they used it synonomously with negro, which *is* a word of spanish/portugese origin], which somehow changes the above stated facts?
No.
Have you convinced a single correspondant in more than one week of redundant beggerly replies?
No.
Have you shown everyone that you are utterly defeated and have nowhere to go with your bad arguments?
Yes you have.
Point very well taken. Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Ausar,
Were waiting for you to make a correction within this system. There is an era: please make the necessary changes...... . We don't need viruses in the database.....lol.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Al-takruri, Israel, Rasol, Adrienne... as always, you guys are on ponit.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Did the Moors originate in Spain?
No.
NO, of course. The word Moor was used to call the Muslims invaders in Spain because the first wave of invasors were people from the MAGHREB. And the Maghreb is in Africa, not in Japan.
Moor means Muslim in Spain. And if you ask YOU WERE THE MOOR, the answer is simple:
The moors were the Muslims that living in Spain during the Middle Ages.
Now, that the invasors came from Africa does not mean they were the so called Moors of Mali of the Almoravides' times.
The so call "Moors" of the invasion of Spain in the 8th century were Arabs and Berbers from the Maghred. The "civilization" impossed by force in Al-Andalus was Arab and Arab speaking.
It is hard to get. Isn't?
quote: Did the culture they brought from Africa into Spain originate in Spain?
No.
The Moors brought with them the culture of the Muslims, which DID NOT originated in Africa.
Spain was not a tribal society at the times of the invasion of the Moors, so it has a level of development higher than the one of West Africa before the rise of the Islam. Spain was not a backwater uncivilized nation at the times of the Moors. It was a former Roman Province that provided many Emperors to that Empire, besides intellectuals like Seneca. It could better described as a decadent nation invaded by foreigners, by the Goths and Germans and afterwards by the Moors.
By comparison, Coastal North Africa was a famous cave of pirates for most of its history, and it was Islamized only in very recent times before the invasion proceed.
Now, for the matter of the "culture introduced by the Muslims in Spain".
(1) Most of the scientific and technological advances the Muslims introduced into Spain came from five sources: (a) Classical civilizations, recovered and preserved by them; (b) Bizancio (a source of classical books and architectural skill); (c) India (arythmetic and astronomy); (d) Persia (the intellectual hub of the Muslims) and (e) the developments of the Muslim intellectuals in centers like Bagdad, Egypt, Syria and Al-Andalus itself.
From the popular culture, particularly music, in there you can find roots in North Africa indeed, besides other comming from the Middle East.
And for the matter of language, Arabic was quickly forgotten and its influence is only seen in the vocabulary.
In the matter of phylosophy, religion and ways of thinking, the Western mentality prove to be a lot more resistent and strong than the foreign influences.
quote: Are your comments anything more than a desparate form of special pleading to hide from the truth of the African contribution to southern Europes history?
No.
No. I just want to make clear that the frase: "African contribution to Southern Europe history" is fuzzy, and allows interpretations.
quote: Does the *word* Moor originate in Spain?
No.
The word game once again. The word Moor comes from Roman times, and it was used to denote the people of Africa. Africa means the Maghred in Ancient times. So Moor means a person from Maghreb.
[/QUOTE] Can you logically claim that Spain has a special meaning of the word Moor [in fact, they used it synonomously with negro, which *is* a word of spanish/portugese origin], which somehow changes the above stated facts?
No.
quote:
Moreno (Murish) in Spanish IS NOT A synonomous of Negro. Means light brown brunette. Sometimes people use it today with respect to Black Africans to avoid saying "Negro", but using the word "Moreno" in that way is sort of ironical and even offensive.
[QUOTE] Have you convinced a single correspondant in more than one week of redundant beggerly replies?
No.
People believes what they want to believe. There is no worst blind that the one does not want to see.
quote: Have you shown everyone that you are utterly defeated and have nowhere to go with your bad arguments?
Yes you have.
Who defeated whom?
(1) I have show you the term Moor does not have the same meaning for Spain that the one used by Afrocentric scholars. Moor means Muslim, and also Means Berber from the coastal zones of the Maghreb. Moor particularly means "Moroccan".
(2) I have show you people of the Magreb is not exactly the same, in genetic terms that people of Southern Sahara. People from Mali could be called Moors in Africa but in Spain would be called simply Blacks.
(3) I have show you the culture of the "Moors" is of Muslim, particularly Arab origin.
(4) I have show you Spain was not "civilized" by the Moors but only invaded.
(5) I have show you that "Muslim culture" was a recopilation the Muslims did throught the world and that their own sources of new knowledge where in the Middle East.
(6) I have show you the very frase: "The Moors introduced African civilization to Southern Europe history" is misleading and FALSE.
(7) I have show you that far from being loved, the Moors in Spain were hated and fueled the Christian reaction that ended with invasion of North Africa, the expelling of the Jews, the discovery of America.
I just want you people to realize you can't change history at your own will and accept it like it is.
quote: Point very well taken.
Yes. It is just a matter of reading well.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
^^^ relentless Posted by SEEKING (Member # 10105) on :
Kawashkar, you have been thoroughly schooled. So I have learned that you're in total denial of this fact.
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
He'as just mad becuase a good portion were Black. He wants them to be mixed/ambiguous which puts them closer to white.
Arab is NOT race. The same way Latino is NOT a race.
Muslim doesn't speak to race. You can be Black AND identify as Arab. You can be black....Oh **** never mind
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Who is talking about "RACE"?
Hey boys. Look at my post carefully please. I am talking of PEOPLES, regions and cultures, not about the old-fashionated racist concept of RACE.
The terms "White" and "Black" are so fuzzy they don't mean anything.
Facts:
Europeans are around 6% Non-European, including Asian and African genetics on them.
Africans vary in their genetic composition from many "Races" (Bantues, Nilotics, Ethiopians, Pigmeys, Tuaregs, Khoisans, Egyptians, Berbers, Hotentotes, Malgaches, etc. etc.), and some have admixture with foreigners as well. That is usually accepted for the people of North and North East Asia, but if you don't accept it just look at Madagascar where you find Indonesian-descendents.
"African" Americans are 25% non-African, mainly European. The Black of Brazil (not the mulatto peoples but the ones that really "look African") are 50% European.
I know that behind all this crazy discussion is certain desire of show that the "Black" race has done many outstanding thing in the past and that they are connected with worldwide history.
Please allow me to say it loud and clear:
NOBODY DOUBTS THAT. AND NOBODY DENIES THE INTELLIGENCE AND POTENTIAL OF THE BLACK AFRICAN PEOPLES.
In my case, I am interested in the heritage of Subsaharan Africa, because from there comes the African heritage in culture and music that some Latin American countries consider a treasure.
If you think in Cuba's african heritage you don't think in Moroccans or Egyptians, but in the Yoruba and other African peoples. The same for Brazil, Haiti, Colombia, Dominican Republic and other nations that consider the African root to be an important contribution to the national identity.
So, that's why I don't care too much about North Africa and the Moors, and I preffer to focus in the region where the people of the African Diaspora comes from.
Latino is not a race, indeed, but IT IS A PEOPLE that has a long culture and history, and that has incorporated to its family peoples from around the world, and we are proud of THEM ALL. Latino is not a race, indeed, is a feeling and an idea.
Latino is Don Quixote. That's our spirit and our more precise archaetype.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Kawashkar,
This is where you don't get it. The African Americans are derived from a different group of tribes than the Africanos in Latin America. African Americans are not Yoruba in the majority. But, are from the Mande, Fulani, Hausa, Tuareg, Akan, Ibo, various Chadic speakers, various Nilo-Saharan speakers, and Angolans. Many of these groups are included in the definition of Moor. The African maternal lineage of the Berbers is from these vary same tribes and Tuareg is Berber.
Do you not know that the African American music is partially derived from the same source as the Moorish music?
The ancestors of the African Americans include these type of people who'd be considered Moors in Espanya.
Today, African Americans are 90% Christian and the Black Caucus is the biggest supporter of the nation of Israel.
African Americans are not the same as the Black Latinos. That's why the music and culture of North America is different from Latin America.
There is an Angolan influence on North America. But, the style of slavery imposed by the British was more intense than the Spanish/Portuguese style which resulted in African Americans becoming the most Westenized Blacks and the least Africanized Blacks in the the whole world.
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
In Case Y'all are wondering why i am speanding so much time with Kawashkar, here's why:
I read Spanish periodicals, watch Hispanic TV and listen to Spanish radio. So, i have a good idea of what's it's about. The USA is becoming increasingly Hispanic and many think like Kawashkar. Moreover, they are having the most babies. Around me the new immigrants are popping out babies quicker the the long time African Americans. Within, twenty years or less.... figure it out.
There was recently a telenovela(soap opera) featured all over latin America called "El Clon" It was about a Black Brazilian woman giving birth to White son who was the clone of a White scientist and the main characters travel back and forth from Brazil to Morocco, where few Moroccan Blacks were shown.
Perhaps, Kawashkar and others got mixed up over this.
The Hispanic culture is some ways less racist and in some ways more racist than North American culture. They tend not to like showing very dark people in their media. You can be Black, but not too Black. They'd accept Alicia Keys and Beyonce. But, Bill Cosby and Missy Elliott could forget it.
They generally won't say, "I don't like you because you are Black." There racism is extremely subtle and sophisticated. If you didn't know, you wouldn't know. The latin enslavers had a hard time with the original slaves from Senegal who were Wolof and Mandingoes. Hence, they gave the English the tall, dark, hard for them to manage people and took the more well mannered shorter Yoruba and Efik from the Bight of Benin.
The term "negrito" is a common Spanish word. It would make since in North America with all the Mandingoes it received. Spanish TV will feature people in blackface makeup and Black maids who "have to" act stupid.
In the USA, if a Black baseball player hits a homerun, the White interviewer will interview the Black baseball player after the game. In Latin America, if a Black soccer player kicks a great goal, the Mestizo or blanco reporter will interview the lightest skinned player after the game.
Get it?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow:
This is where you don't get it. The African Americans are derived from a different group of tribes than the Africanos in Latin America. African Americans are not Yoruba in the majority. But, are from the Mande, Fulani, Hausa, Tuareg, Akan, Ibo, various Chadic speakers, various Nilo-Saharan speakers, and Angolans. Many of these groups are included in the definition of Moor.
My goodness! That's new for me! I never though that Moors were sent into slavery at all.
I realize now why there were so many "communication troubles"
quote: The African maternal lineage of the Berbers is from these vary same tribes and Tuareg is Berber.
Do you not know that the African American music is partially derived from the same source as the Moorish music?
No. I didn't. I believed it was derivated of Subsaharan Africa musical traditions, because those are the roots of Afro-Latin rythms.
I do know that Spanish Music, particularly Andalucia's and Flamenco, has a strong Moorish root that probably extend south of the Sahara.
Now, When I though in the African Diaspora I always thought in Subsaharan Africa, for the simple reason almost ALL Africans that were taken as slaves to Latin America came from Subsaharan Africa. There were people from Congo, Angola, Nigeria, and even Madagascar!
Portugueses and Spanish usually did not sent "Moors" into slavery because they were Muslims and were considered very dangerous subjects, and preffer to take "pagan" Africans, instead.
Yorubas, for example, were so common in Brazil and Cuba that there still are some people there that speaks the Yoruba language. Besides, Santeria and Candomble (like Voodoo) have its roots in Nigeria, and not in North Africa.
And I do tell you, in Latin America exist a sincere respect to the real cultural manifestations that we inherit become part of the fusion which is our folklore. But it really sounds funny to us that people of the North identify with the Moors, particularly when the Moors were so problematic. Our Spanish side always made a distance with Moors, lol.
Now I realize it. And it amazed me that a Tuareg, for example, could end up in slavery.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by RedCow: The Hispanic culture is some ways less racist and in some ways more racist than North American culture. They tend not to like showing very dark people in their media. You can be Black, but not too Black. They'd accept Alicia Keys and Beyonce. But, Bill Cosby and Missy Elliott could forget it.
Redcow,
You shouldn't forget to mention that the "racial" composition between countries of Latin America is diverse. Black people, in particular, is more numerous in the Caribbean and there are countries that don't have Black minorities. So racial attitudes can change quite a lot between countries.
Now, in the countries where Blacks and White and numerous (examples: Cuba, DR, Brazil), intermarryge is common. In every extended family you find people of all "races". And although there is some degree of colorism, it is easy to see that there are people of all races in all social possitions, and that being blond does not assures you to be rich at all.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
Red Cow could you break down American slavery as aopposed to carribean slavery.
I noticed that West Indians and Latinos see things differently interm of race than Blacks Americans. Some generally think they are better and call Black Americans "cotton pickers" and make reference to Blacks being physically bigger almost to say more "fit for slavery".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by herukhuti: [Washkar] ^^^ relentless
Indeed, and senseless as well, considering that the question of the identity of the Moors was answered a long time ago in several threads as well as the beginning of this one.
Some folks apparently have nothing to offer but baseless 'opinions'.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Are there any evidence that Tuareg were taken to the new world as slaves?
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
Antoinette Herrell miller traced her DNA to Tuareg and Housa(sp)
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... Some folks apparently have nothing to offer but baseless 'opinions'.
Dear Djehuti:
Don't be so naughty, please. Read this definition. If you agree with it that is it. A Moor is a Moroccan Berber, particularly the one of the coast. Also extended to Muslims in Spain of any origin.
That definition DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE FROM MALI, and only stretching it can include Tuaregs. That's the usage of the term in Middle Ages Spain! Those are the famous Moors of Spain: the Muslims and the North Moroccans (think in Kabyles and similar Berber groups)
quote: “Moor” - Encyclopædia Britannica
“Moor - in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of Spain, of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Berber origins, who created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries. By extension (corresponding to the Spanish moro), the term occasionally denotes any Muslim in general, as in the case of the Moors of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or of the Philippines.
Do you got it?
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Taureg and Hausa were late arrivals to the slave trade (Americas) and they were probably outside of their "territorial boundry", when captured. Meaning that Taureg capture took place in the Senegambia regions vs Tunisia/Morocco!
Latin/Caribbean slavery was different only due to the attitudional and behavioural imperatives in place. Slavery was still slavery! There was no freedom and liberty stuff for all in the Caribbean but it existed in North America, when people torked from both sides of their mouth. In N. America, freedom was for Europeans (explicit-laws saying non-whites were not accepted) whereas it was implicit in other areas meaning the laws were permeable while mulataje and mestizaje formed the backbone of many societies! Tango, salsa, samba, guaguanco, mozambique (mozambikay), etc all have the roots of Africa in her bosom and her hips.
meneate mujer, asi te quiero ver ......
Regarding why blacks from the Caribbean, South and Central America are preferred ober black Americans, it is hard to say.. I can only say some of us work cheaper (ah lie) or because of immigration status, we may not complain or all any answer that could apply!
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
There is evidence that many Hausa ended up in the Americas as captives then slaves. In the case of Brazil many captives were Muslim Hausa--called "Males"-- who were prone to revolt. One such revolt was so successful that the Portugese government in Brazil decided to ship them back to West Africa.
Consider the case of genome researcher Rick Kittles. He traced his maternal ancestry with MtDNA analysis back to Northern Nigeria--Hausaland.
And the historical case of Mahoma Baquaka--who later had the Portugese name Jao Da Costa imposed on him--(born circa 1830) from Djougou in Northern Nigeria is known to researchers--See Allan Austin, African Muslims in Ante-Bellum America.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Tee 85
You query just proves how mentally manipulated post 1492 African transplants have become. The people transported to the Americas were settled in any of 4 regions: South America, the Caribbean, the United States and Central America. Thus Yorubas, Mandinkas, Hausas, Wolofs, Fulahs, Ibos, Bakongos, etc. were taken to all 4 places.
So any differentiations made from the vantage points of any of the 4 regions derive from ignorance and enforced acculturations in the areas of captivity.
To acquire agency one must break out of the Western imposed linguistic box--as in the case of terms like "Latinos" and "West Indian". Clearly, people from Haiti and Jamaica are not from "the West of India" and certainly the African transplants in Brazil and Cuba are not "Latinos". Such terms just reflect the intellectual dominance of Europeans in cultural matters.
Finally, the idea that some of those African transplants see themselves as "better" just reflects ignorance--even stupidity--of a high degree.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Kawashkar:
You are just wrong about the non-African ancestry in African transplants to the Americas.
I have been to Brazil--Salvador, Bahia--specifically--and have seen many, many(the majority) West African phenotypes. The food is esentially West African and the syncretic religion there too--even embraced by whites. One reason is the African captives produced off-spring among themseleves and the fact that up to the 1880s Africans were still being smuggled over. Only recently the last African-born Brazilian died.
So you have to take case case by case instead of viewing matters by appealing to the obfucating notion of "averages".
The research on African Americans is well known now. They are not 25% non-African but 17-18% according to the extensive research of Kittles and Shriver. In fact Kittles did research on Y-chromosome transmission to get a more nuanced picture and he arrived at the conclusion that approximately 30% of African Americans had European male Y chromosomes. [Note parentically that Greeks carry 23% E3b African DNA]. Kittles numbers are confirmed by the fact that approximately 75%-80% of African Americans are of the E3b lineage. And contrary to previous beliefs the Native American share of the African Amercian genome is quite small.
In places like Haiti, the inhabitants are approximately 100% African DNA--a bit less so in the other Caribbean captive quarantine areas--Jamaica, Bahamas, etc.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Dear Djehuti:
Don't be so naughty, please. Read this definition. If you agree with it that is it. A Moor is a Moroccan Berber, particularly the one of the coast. Also extended to Muslims in Spain of any origin.
That definition DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE FROM MALI, and only stretching it can include Tuaregs. That's the usage of the term in Middle Ages Spain! Those are the famous Moors of Spain: the Muslims and the North Moroccans (think in Kabyles and similar Berber groups)
“Moor” - Encyclopædia Britannica
“Moor - in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of Spain, of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Berber origins, who created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries. By extension (corresponding to the Spanish moro), the term occasionally denotes any Muslim in general, as in the case of the Moors of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or of the Philippines. Do you got it?
KAWASHKAR
I already know what a Moor is. But that does not change the fact of what the original Morrocans looked like [black] which was why they were called Maure in the first place!
Don't be so dense.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
quote:Moor (in ancient times) native of Mauretania, (later) of north-west Africa XIV. ME. More — (O)F. More, (mod.) Maure — L. Maurus, medL. Mrus — Gr. Maûros. Hence Moorish XV (morys).
Source: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Ed. T. F. Hoad. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^Actually, the modern country of Mauritania is different from ancient Mauretania which consisted of modern day Algeria and Morocco. Either way, the root word in both is the same Maure-- very dark (black).
Posted by RedCow (Member # 10893) on :
Tee85 and Lamin,
Most African American men have Y chromosome E3a not E3b. Ironically, they've found AA men with almost every conceivable Y chromosome except E3b2. But, the exact percentages will never be known. Because, 1. Everyone won't take the test. 2. Many more are taking the test through different companies 3. Some families/individuals are bragging that they are R1b, R1a1, I, J2, etc While others who think there forefathers were European don't want to know what their Y chromosome would be.
Most African Americans can get an African mtDNA result. According to the maternal results, AA's are 60% West African(Senegambian, Ivory Coast, Ghana, etc) and 30% West Central African(i.e. Hausa, Kanuri,Tuareg, Cameroonian, etc) The British colonies shared slaves. So, the Blacks of the British West Indies are closest to African Americans. Think Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Biggie Smalls, and a whole bunch of others who have been grafted into the African American experience.
But, the English Carribean is not so West Central African. What do they say in JA(maica)? Dey big, Dey broad, they come from yard. Jah Rastafari! Selassie I.
New Orleans was originally part of the French colony of Louisiana which encompassed most of the MidWest. The Blacks there came out of Haiti. That's why they have Voodoo. It's the home of Jazz Music and is one of the most important cultural cities.
Haitian Voodoo comes from modern Benin[old Dahomey] land of the Fon people who fought against the Yoruba and shared some of their pantheon. It's the only part of Black America with a strong pagan influence.
Voodoo is part Bantu in the Petro Loa/Loi rites which the Hispanics call Palo Mayombe. Voodoo is part Yoruba in the Nago rites. Cuba is Yoruba in the Lucumi tradition. Trinidad is Yoruba in the Xango tradition.
African Americans are the real Christians. Thank You Jesus. Halleluyah! God is good all the time!
Just think. If things had gone differently, instead of praying to the One God during times of national stress like the Civil Rights Movement, there would have been no Rev. M.L. King and other clergy , African Americans would have been casting spells and sacrificing animals like the Cubans, Haitians, Brazilians, Colombians, Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans and others to the south. Instead, AAs have megachurches and follow the Bible.
Remember, the average ordinary African American does not know much about Africa now or years past. Most do not know what the names of these tribes are and or the tribal histories. African Americans are a mix of all these tribes since everybody intermarried and forgot where they came from or should I say the memories were forced out.
Nonetheless, there is no tribalism as in Africa. There is no Fulani fighting Hausa. No Oromo fighting Amhara. No Tuareg fighting Bambara. No Nubian fighting Egyptian. African Americans are united in Blackness.
Kawashkar,
What the other told you about the Moors was true.
Mira y Aprenda. Look and Learn.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I already know what a Moor is. But that does not change the fact of what the original Morrocans looked like [black] which was why they were called Maure in the first place!
Don't be so dense. [/QB]
Hi Djehuti:
You are right, no doubt about it. I am not arguing against the origin of the word but on the use on Spain.
Now consider this, even the "white" Berbers of today have Black Ancestry, which is obvious. The only point that I have tried to make is that almost all "Moors" they Spaniards knew from Al-Andalus where Coastal peoples like these ones. If you look carefully to them, it is obvious they have Black ancestry as well. The Spaniards use the world "Moor" to mean Amazigh.
This is the stereotype of the Mora (Moor's woman for Spaniards)
I am certain they do have African ancestry, although theirs "European" or "West Asian" looks.
Compare them with a Sevillan Flamenco Dancer:
That phenotype is common in Spain, and also in Latin American countries where Spanish-descendents are majoritary.
By the way, the Moorish woman is a "sex symbol" or ideal of beauty in Spain since the Middle Ages.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... Some folks apparently have nothing to offer but baseless 'opinions'.
Dear Djehuti:
Don't be so naughty, please. Read this definition. If you agree with it that is it. A Moor is a Moroccan Berber, particularly the one of the coast. Also extended to Muslims in Spain of any origin.
That definition DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE FROM MALI, and only stretching it can include Tuaregs. That's the usage of the term in Middle Ages Spain! Those are the famous Moors of Spain: the Muslims and the North Moroccans (think in Kabyles and similar Berber groups)
quote: “Moor” - Encyclopædia Britannica
“Moor - in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of Spain, of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Berber origins, who created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries. By extension (corresponding to the Spanish moro), the term occasionally denotes any Muslim in general, as in the case of the Moors of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or of the Philippines.
Do you got it?
KAWASHKAR
Actually you are WRONG again. The Almoravids came from SOUTHERN Morocco and the Sahara. The Almohades came from CENTRAL Southern Morocoo and the Sahara. BOTH of these groups CONQUERED the other Berbers living in the North around Fes and the Rif.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I already know what a Moor is. But that does not change the fact of what the original Morrocans looked like [black] which was why they were called Maure in the first place!
Don't be so dense.
Hi Djehuti:
You are right, no doubt about it. I am not arguing against the origin of the word but on the use on Spain.
Now consider this, even the "white" Berbers of today have Black Ancestry, which is obvious. The only point that I have tried to make is that almost all "Moors" they Spaniards knew from Al-Andalus where Coastal peoples like these ones. If you look carefully to them, it is obvious they have Black ancestry as well. The Spaniards use the world "Moor" to mean Amazigh.
This is the stereotype of the Mora (Moor's woman for Spaniards)
I am certain they do have African ancestry, although theirs "European" or "West Asian" looks.
Compare them with a Sevillan Flamenco Dancer:
That phenotype is common in Spain, and also in Latin American countries where Spanish-descendents are majoritary.
By the way, the Moorish woman is a "sex symbol" or ideal of beauty in Spain since the Middle Ages.
KAWASHKAR [/QB]
Kawashkar, how many ways can you say the SAME thing and be shown you are wrong? You KEEP saying that the Moors were MORE like coastal Berbers and that we dont understand your point. WE DO understand your point and what we are saying is that YOU ARE WRONG. YES, some Berbers are white. HOWEVER, Berber is a VAGUE term that has been applied to ALL people from the COAST of North Africa down into Chad, Mali, Mauretania and Senegal by various people at various times. ALL these people DO NOT look the same. The reason the COASTAL Berbers look like they do is because they have MORE European ancestry than other Berbers further South. Some of this NONSENSE about "white" Berbers being the ORIGINAL NOrth Africans is based on the historians of the colonial period trying to reinforce their OWN racist views. In their mind ALL Berbers in North Africa descended from WHITE people along the coast. OBVIOUSLY that is nonsense. The ORIGINAL occupants of North Africa and the Sahara were African blacks who migrated north, east and south after the Sahara dried up. The Saharans themselves descend from people in the East around Ethiopia. They were NOT White people. Genetics supports that, the history of the Berbers themselves support this, yet it is the Amazigh of the extreme coastal portions of Africa who want to establish a WHITE identity for all these North Africans and there are MANY whites who from OUTSIDE of Africa who support this NONSENSE.
As for the Moors, two of the MOST important dynasties came from the SOUTH of Morocco and the deserts to the East. Many of the Berber tribes that were included in the Islamic armies of Spain included the Sanhaja Berber who were from the EAST of what is now Morocco in the Central and Southern Sahara. The Amoravids originated in SUB SAHARAN Africa around Senegal. The Almohades originated in the CENTRAL Morocco and the Anti Atlas Mountains to the South. Therefore, whatever NONSENSE you keep trying to spread needs to cease.
The fact that MODERN Spanish want to identify MOOR as SOLELY being represented by Amazigh is just simply IRRELEVANT. The modern Spanish can identify the Moors with who they want, but there is NO DOUBTING the facts of history. READ the history of the Almoravids and the Almohades and you will SEE that they BOTH conquered the Berber tribes of the North. The Moorish period of history just like the Islamic period of African history it is a part of, is a period of WIDESPREAD disunity AMONG the various Berber groups as well as the Berbers versus the Arabs. NO serious scholar on North African history will try and deny the presence of BLACKS in the ORIGINAL populations of Morocco, the Sahara and the rest of North Africa. Much of the identification of North Africa with Arabs and Whites is a RECENT development that came about with the Arab expansion in the 13th century and European colonization in the 19th century.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
DougM:
quote:The ORIGINAL occupants of North Africa and the Sahara were African blacks who migrated north, east and south after the Sahara dried up.
Yes the original occupants were black, but the question is did the Moors look like the original ones or the modern Berbers who occupy the Marrocan coast? And when exactly did the Riffian and Kabyle Berbers of northern northwest Africa attain their current look, whas it before the invasion of Spain or after? If its before the 7th century then I dont see how relevant it is to this topic if the original berbers were black or white, since its about the Berbers who lived between the period of 7th-15th century.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Unfortunately, my post about Imazighen[Berber] groups that invaded the Iberian peninsula was ignored. Both the ancestors of the modern Kaybele[which means tribe in Arabic,btw],and Riffian fleed to the mountains to avoid Islamization by the Arabs. The Imazighen that remained and joined the Arabs were mostly nomadic groups with the exception of the Masmuda. Know the other problem arises when somebody tries to correlate modern Arabic names like Kaybele,Riffian,Tuareg or etc with names like Nafza, Masmuda, Luwata, Hawwara, Zanata, Sanhadja,or etc. Just which modern Imazighen tribe is the member of the any of these groups?
Some things to remeber:
1. People should remeber that not all Imazighen groups are uniform. When the Arabs invaded North-west Africa not all converted to Islam but many of the costal groups retreated to the mountains.
2. Some of the Imazghen groups converted to Islam and from these groups arose the Moorish soliders that invaded the Iberian peninsula. What was the name of these groups? Do they correspond to any of the modern Imazighen populations?
3. Since we are arguing over the phenotype of these Moorish soliders it should be noted that Arabs kept detailed descriptions of them.
Posted by TK (Member # 10103) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I already know what a Moor is. But that does not change the fact of what the original Morrocans looked like [black] which was why they were called Maure in the first place!
Don't be so dense.
Hi Djehuti:
You are right, no doubt about it. I am not arguing against the origin of the word but on the use on Spain.
Now consider this, even the "white" Berbers of today have Black Ancestry, which is obvious. The only point that I have tried to make is that almost all "Moors" they Spaniards knew from Al-Andalus where Coastal peoples like these ones. If you look carefully to them, it is obvious they have Black ancestry as well. The Spaniards use the world "Moor" to mean Amazigh.
This is the stereotype of the Mora (Moor's woman for Spaniards)
I am certain they do have African ancestry, although theirs "European" or "West Asian" looks.
Compare them with a Sevillan Flamenco Dancer:
That phenotype is common in Spain, and also in Latin American countries where Spanish-descendents are majoritary.
By the way, the Moorish woman is a "sex symbol" or ideal of beauty in Spain since the Middle Ages.
KAWASHKAR [/QB]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Spanish did consider those women to be a representation of what a Moor looked like considering that they tried to cover up Moorish colonization of Spain especially the black element.
They briefly touch on it in this video. I wish they would have dug deeper on the "black" element of the Moors but a little progress is still progress.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: DougM:
quote:The ORIGINAL occupants of North Africa and the Sahara were African blacks who migrated north, east and south after the Sahara dried up.
Yes the original occupants were black, but the question is did the Moors look like the original ones or the modern Berbers who occupy the Marrocan coast? And when exactly did the Riffian and Kabyle Berbers of northern northwest Africa attain their current look, whas it before the invasion of Spain or after? If its before the 7th century then I dont see how relevant it is to this topic if the original berbers were black or white, since its about the Berbers who lived between the period of 7th-15th century.
Actually the question is WHERE did the various Moorish dynasties originate. The ALMORAVIDS and ALMOHADS did NOT originate among the Rif and Kabyle berber regions of today. They originated to the SOUTH and EAST of those areas and were assisted by OTHER Berber tribes like Sanhaja, who were NOT on the coast of North Africa. The QUESTION is why people FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY on COASTAL Berber populations WHO DO NOT PROFESS ISLAM and IGNORE the MANY BLACK African populations to the South and East who DO profess Islam and have ALL the Islamic trappings and lore of the ancient Moors? The Blue People of the desert were NOT white Kabyle Berbers. The point is that some people want to CUT OUT the extreme northern part of Africa and make it part of some White, MIXED white arab, mulatto cultural zone that has NO BLACK African history. Almost ANYONE who studies Moorish history knows that the MOORS were some of the MOST fanatical muslims ANYWHERE in Islam, so HOW can you look at a people who are actively REFUTING Islam as being derived from Moors? What part of Amazigh Berber culture looks the LEAST bit Moorish or Islamic? What part? As opposed to the MANY BLACK African desert dwellers and Sahelian groups who have dress and style that is VERY Islamic and goes BACK to the historical period of the Moors? THAT is why FOCUSING on the Kabyle and other Amazigh as MOORS is PURELY ridiculous.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
What is especially funny, is how you and others talk about the WHITE Berbers, like the Kabylie, as part of the Moorish empire, yet it contradicts the fact that MANY of these Berbers DONT IDENTIFY WITH ISLAM. The Kabyle and other Amazhigh Berbers are seeking INDEPENDENCE from the Islamic states they live in and the culture that they promote is NON Islamic. Almost ALL references to Kabyle and other coastal Berbers are associated with INDEPENDENCE movements and promotion of BERBER, not Arab or Islamic culture. On the OTHER hand, there were MANY black Berber groups all over the Sahara, West Africa and Sahel who DID eventually adopt Islam and this is the BASIS for the Moors. THAT is why MOST Moors today are identified as being from Niger or Mauretania and Senegal, because THAT is where many of the original Moors came from and that FACT of African history is DENIED by many who want to associate Moorish history with white Berbers. Look at kings picture threads for Mauretania and Niger or Senegal and you will SEE the Moors. There are MANY MANY "Berbers" in these countries who are BLACK and ISLAMIC and have a HISTORY of being FIERCE warriors. Many of them are descended from the ORIGINAL populations of Berbers from the Sahara. Yet you IGNORE these people and talk about NON ISLAMIC "WHITE" Berbers as being MOORS...... FACTS: Senegal 95% Muslim, Niger 80% Muslim, not to mention Nigeria and other BLACK African Islamic countries. Therefore, if you are going to TALK about BLACK African Islamic people from the Moorish period and NOT look at the histories and cultures of the countries I just mentioned, then you are ABSOLUTELY missing the point.
Some of the MOST EXTREME Muslims who were converted were the BLACKS of the Sahara and the BLACKS of the Sahel and points south. THIS is why many of them became SO FANATICAL that they began to ARGUE among themselves about what was TRUE Islam. This same FANATICISM and MYSTICISM stems from the fact that these ORIGINAL African Berbers were partly descended from the Egyptian people who migrated west after Egypt fell. Early Islam ITSELF derives from the split between the Monophysites and the Dyophysites after the Greeks corrupted the ancient Egyptian mystery system. These mononphysite priests had a wide following in Egypt and southern Yemen, where Mohameddism, now called Islam was born. These traditions were initially mainly passed down by FORCED rememberence of certain passages, which were eventually collected into what is now called the Koran. The name Koran ITSELF means recital in many translations. Some legends have it that this is based on the fact that Mohammed remembered all that was revealed to him and passed it on verbally to his lieutenants, who then passed on what they remembered to their followers. This legend was then recreated by many heretic leaders of Islam who arose since the time of Mohammed and started teaching their OWN brand of Islam. THIS is because there WAS no centralized tenet of Islam that everyone followed and there were many LOCAL interperetations or variations of Islam. This is quite similar to, but not the same as the fragmentation of the Christian church. Heresy in the Christian church just results in a NEW offshoot in the Church. Heresy in Islam leads to death because offshoots are not generally tolerated.
quote: Within Arabic grammar, the word "qur'an" constitutes a masdar (verbal noun) of the Arabic verb قرأ qara'a ("to read" or "to recite"[2][3]. The word is used in the Qur'an itself as a term for the Qur'an, e.g. 12:2:
Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture [qur'ān] in Arabic, that ye may understand. (Pickthall's translation) We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom. (Yusuf Ali's translation)
It is also used within the Qur'an in its generic sense of "reading", "recital", as in 75:18 (with -a accusative suffix + -hu 3rd person masculine singular possessive suffix):
And when We read [qara'-] it, follow thou the reading [qur'ān-ahu] (Pickthall) But when We have promulgated [qara'-] it, follow thou its recital [qur'ān-ahu] (as promulgated) (Yusuf Ali)
However, there is some question as to whether this word was formed within Arabic from this root or borrowed separately from Syriac. The latter hypothesis was first proposed by the German Semitic scholar Theodore Nöldeke argued in his 1860 Geschichte des Qorâns (History of the Qur'an)[2] that the word qur'ān might be a borrowing from the Syriac noun ܩܪܝܢܐ qeryānâ (whose meanings include "reading" and "lection, lesson"), itself derived from the verb ܩܪܐ qrâ ("to read, recite; to study"[4]):
"Since a cultural word like "to read" can not be proto-Semitic, we may assume that it has entered Arabia, and probably from the North ... Since Syriac has, next to the verb קּרא, also the noun qeryānā, meaning both ἀνάγνωσις ("reading, reading out") and ἀνάγνωσμα ("lection, lecture"), and because of the above mentioned, the assumption of probability increases, that the term Qur'an is not an internal Arabic development from the infinitive with the same meaning, but a borrowing from the Syriac word that has been adapted according to the type fulʻān."[5]
More recent proponents of this view include Christoph Luxenberg[6] (who takes it as evidence that the Qur'an was itself originally a Syriac lectionary).
All of these religions are called "religions of the book", which means relevation through the "word" of God, which goes back to the cosmology of Ptah in Egypt as the metaphysical and theological root. As the Pope said recently, we all exist as thoughts dreams "in God's mind".
These ORIGINAL populations of the Sahara, who live on in the Tuaregs, are called Hamitic, Black Arabs and all other sorts of names to SEPARATE them from Africa. With the arrival of Islam, these ORIGINAL black Africans are called by all sorts of names including, Berber, black Arab, hamitic or other names that only serve to SEPARATE and DENY the BLACK Africans in the early muslim armies of Africa. It also denies that Islam spread QUICKLY to large parts of WEST Africa, which are also part of NORTH Africa. Senegal and Mauretania are both part of North AND West Africa. The MODERN term North Africa is more a POLITICAL identification for the ARAB states in the Northern tip of Africa but does NOT constitute the TRUE geographic expanse of NORTH Africa.
The CRUX of this WHOLE discussion as it fits into African history is that OVERALL historians and racists of the last 400 years have gone to GREAT lengths to take BLACKS out of prominent roles in history. This is NOT a simple issue of saying BLACKS were the only ones to do GREAT things in the past. HOWEVER, it IS a issue of saying that only WHITES did great things in the past. The issue for Africa is one where FOREIGNERS are allowed to minimize and degrade BLACK Africans as on the periphery of historical movements, when in reality they were VERY important players. All of this is a FUNDAMENTAL argument AGAINST the racist policies, science, history and religion that put BLACKS at the BOTTOM of the evolutionary ladder of human beings and only valued them for their LABOR. Therefore, when trying to UNDERSTAND and RECONSTRUCT Africa's past, it is impossible without removing the distortions and LIES that were propagaded over the CENTURIES by racists and other non Africans who have attempted to DISTORT the role of BLACKS.
Much of this REVISIONISM is also modern, in that the Moors are now becoming identified as WHITE, when historically they were identified as BLACKS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maure
REMEMBER, MANY ancient West African Empires descend from the ancient peoples of the Sahara and the Nile.
Mande:
quote: Descended from ancient Central Saharan people, akin to the Bafour or Imraguen of Mauritania, the Mandé are an identifiable people spread throughout the western Sahel. They are known as having been among the first on the continent to produce weaved textiles (by a process known as strip-weaving), and as the founders of the Ghana Empire and Mali Empire, as well as being responsible for the expansion of the Songhai Empire empire across West Africa. However, archaeological testimony also supports that they were among the first peoples on the continent, outside the Nile region, to produce stone settlement civilizations. These were built on the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata and Tagant cliffs of Mauritania where hundreds of stone masonry settlements, with clear street layouts, have been found. Some settlements had massive surrounding walls, while others were less fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively large-scale political organizations and, ultimately, military hierarchal aristocracies emerged. With a mixed farming economy—millet production combined with the rearing of livestock —this copper-based agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel. In the words of one archaeologist, these abandoned sites represent “a great wealth of rather spectacular prehistoric ruins” and “perhaps the most remarkable group of Neolithic settlements in the world” (Mauny 1971: 70).
Between 200 BC and 100 AD, the entire Sudan experienced significant dry episodes, which were part of the general drying trend that had been seriously underway since before 2000 BC. As the desert began to expand, the population headed South.
Hausa:
quote: Kano is considered the center of Hausa trade and culture. In terms of cultural relations to other peoples of West Africa, the Hausa are culturally and historically close to the Fulani, Songhay, Mandé and Tuareg as well as other Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan groups further East in Chad and Sudan. Islamic Shari’a law is loosely the law of the land and is understood by any full time practitioner of Islam, known as a Malam.
Between 500 CE and 700 CE Hausa people, who had been slowly moving west from Nubia and mixing in with the local Northern and Central Nigerian population, established a number of strong states in what is now Northern and Central Nigeria and Eastern Niger. With the decline of the Nok and Sokoto, who had previously controlled Central and Northern Nigeria between 800 BCE and 200 CE, the Hausa were able to emerge as the new power in the region. Closely linked with the Kanuri people of Kanem-Bornu (Lake Chad), the Hausa aristocracy adopted Islam in the 11th century CE. By the 12th century CE the Hausa began to become one of Africa's major powers. The architecture of the Hausa is perhaps one of the least known but most beautiful architecture of the medieval age. Many of their early mosques and palaces are bright and colourful and often include intricate ingraving or elaborate symbolizes designed into the facade. By 1500 CE the Hausa utilized the Arabic script to write their own language. This script, called the ajami script was largely used for centuries. The Hausa compiled several written histories, the most popular being the Kano Chronicles.
quote: Considerable evidence indicates that about 600,000 years ago, humans inhabited what has since become the desolate Sahara of northern Niger. Niger was an important economic crossroads, and the empires of Songhai, Mali, Gao, Kanem, and Bornu, as well as a number of Hausa states, claimed control over portions of the area.
During recent centuries, the nomadic Tuareg formed large confederations, pushed southward, and, siding with various Hausa states, clashed with the Fulani Empire of Sokoto, which had gained control of much of the Hausa territory in the late 18th century.
In the 19th century, contact with the West began when the first European explorers—notably Mungo Park (British) and Heinrich Barth (German)—explored the area, searching for the source of the Niger River. Although French efforts at pacification began before 1900, dissident ethnic groups, especially the desert Tuareg, were not subdued until 1922, when Niger became a French colony.
So, in summary, there were SIGINIFIGANT centers of civilization in the Sahara that featured stone cities that were built amongst the mountains. The Garamantes were an ancient civilization of Africans who used carts and are depicted on ancient rock art of the Sahara. These people also used underground aquifers to build irrigation canals for agriculture. SOME of these people moved south SOME moved west and some went East. THE IMPORTANT thing to remember is that MANY of the towns and cities of the EARLY Moorish empire had as much to do with the influence of ARABS as it had to do with the influence of LOCAL Africans including those descended from the ancient Saharan populations. Also remember that the later ARAB invasions DECIMATED many Saharan African groups,sometimes enslaving WHOLE TRIBES, like the Znaga berbers, who fought the Arabs ruthlessly for 30 years. Because of this, there has been MUCH confusion over the identity of the ORIGINAL Africans of the sahara, who have sometimes come to be identified as ARAB or BLACK Arab or slaves or descended from Arabs. Not to mention the aboriginal peoples called the Haratin who were subjugated as the Arabs moved into places like Morocco. Therefore, when you TALK about ancient Moors, you have to remember this period was PRIOR to the SECOND great wave of ARAB invasions into North Africa and therefore does NOT necessarily reflect people of ARAB ancestry.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Red Cow,
Thanks for the correction--E3a and E3b have been discussed ad nauseam on this site so it was a simple keystroke error on my part. But don't let individual details spoil the overall picture. Y chromosome DNA analysis now can point to approximate regional markers for individuals anywhere. The same for MtDNA analysis. Also routine statistical analysis allows scientific researchers to obtain fair samples then extrapolate to the whole population--as they do with elections etc.
You are right there is no sense of inter-ethnic diferentiation among AAs as one finds in Africa, Asia and parts of Europe--think of Walloons vs. Flemish in Belgium, Basque vs non-Basque in Spain and France, the pre-WWII ethnic and racial hierarchies of Nazi Germany and other parts of Europe. And the recent conflicts in the Balkans were both religious and ethnic in nature--Bosnian Serbs vs Bosnian Muslims vs Croatians, etc.
But consider the fact that AAs are still plagued by intra-racial phenotypical differentiations inculcated during their period of captivity by a dominant Eurocentric culture. This has led to some class differentiations and general "acceptability" by the dominant Eurocentric culture.
Consider too that although AAs are at least 85% of the persons designated "black" in the U.S. there has been some ethnic friction with new migrants from Haiti and parts of Africa.
Your point about Christianity and the Christ is puzzling. With due respect, are those statements meant to be taken seriously? I say this because "casting spells" and "sacrificing animals" is very much part of the Christian tradition. Daily--especially Sundays--attacks on "the Devil and his evil deeds" through prayer by Christian pastors and their followers is a form of "casting spells". And what of exorcism(legal in the U.S) and the casting spells-like pronouncements of charismatic pastors(called "preachers" by AAs)?
And of course, the designated birth of the Christ is celebrated with the massive sacrifice of farm animals--that are eventually consumed. The Christian American quasi-religious feast day of Thanksgiving--embraced by African Americans too--is anthropologically speaking a massive exercise in animal sacrifice--especially the domesticated turkey.
It is a fact that there's ethnic--the terms "tribes" and "tribal" are racist and pejorative and should not be used in sober discourse--conflict in Africa(there are a number of reasons for this)but one should not at the same time ignore the massive ethnic conflicts that have existed for centuries between the European ethnics(under the dominace of those of Anglo-Saxon-Germanic origins) collectively and the African ethnics collectively, and the Native Amercian ethnics collectively. The conflict was even enshrined in the law to afford the dominant Euro-ethnics social advantages.
You are right that African Americans know little about Africa--and also little about the sociologies of blacks in the different regions of the Western Hemisphere, but the same also holds for Africa. Most West Africans know very little about other parts of Africa and ironically meet persons from other parts of Africa only when they travel to Europe or North America.
But the African group that is really xenophobic against other Africans and quite ignorant of the rest of Africa are South African blacks. Apartheid and the dominance of European culture there are responsible for this.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
DougM
quote:THAT is why MOST Moors today are identified as being from Niger or Mauretania and Senegal,
Who identifies most Moors of coming from Niger Mauritanian or Senegal? As far is i know its a consensus that the vast majority of Moors came from Maghreb especially Marroco. Look your probably righ that todays Kabyle and Riff berbers are not fanatic muslims and try to keep distance from Islam, but you have to realize that alot of Marrocon muslims came from these groups and identify as Arab rather than Berber for the last millenia. So just because part of this group have keept their berber traditions intact, doesnt mean that alot of them were not among the invading Moors and who are still Muslim today.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: DougM
quote:THAT is why MOST Moors today are identified as being from Niger or Mauretania and Senegal,
Who identifies most Moors of coming from Niger Mauritanian or Senegal? As far is i know its a consensus that the vast majority of Moors came from Maghreb especially Marroco. Look your probably righ that todays Kabyle and Riff berbers are not fanatic muslims and try to keep distance from Islam, but you have to realize that alot of Marrocon muslims came from these groups and identify as Arab rather than Berber for the last millenia. So just because part of this group have keept their berber traditions intact, doesnt mean that alot of them were not among the invading Moors and who are still Muslim today.
Here is an example, which also shows the extent of ARAB conquest and Arabization of what WERE originally BLACK African Berber Groups:
People called Moors are identified in ALL of these countries. Look at Mauretania, Chad and Niger and ALL of these places have people who identify as MOORS. So when you TALK about Moors and ignore the fact that MANY people in West Africa IDENTIFY as Moors, you are missing the WHOLE point. The TERM MOROCCO originates from the word Marrakesch which is a term which means "land of the Kouch men" or land of the blacks, referring to the BLACK Africans who originated in the country Mauretania, which is NAMED after Maure or BLACK people. I dont see WHY I need to keep REHASHING the facts to have people IGNORE it. If Moor or Maure was synonomous with Rif or Kabylie they why isnt Morocco CALLED RIF land or Kabilland? I have posted MUCH information in this thread backing my points. If you have ANY questions, please refer to my prior posts. I hate repeating myself.
Key point here to note:
The TAWHID or Muslim concept of "oneness of God" is something that originated with an AFRICAN. Ibn Tumart leader of the Almohades is the one who came up with this concept:
quote: Arabic al-Muwahhidun (“those who affirm the unity of God”) Berber confederation that created an Islamic empire in North Africa and Spain (1130–1269), founded on the religious teachings of Ibn Tumart (died 1130).
A Berber state had arisen in Tinmel in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco about 1120, inspired by Ibn Tumart and his demands for puritanical moral reform and a strict concept of the unity of God (tawhid). In 1121 Ibn Tumart proclaimed himself the mahdi (a promised…
TinMal or TinMel is in CENTRAL Morocco. As I said, the origins of Islam date back to the split of the Dyophisites, god in dual nature, versus the MONOphysites, god in ONE nature (god in spirit, god in nature, god in all). The schisms between the Almohades and Almoravids was NOT just simply a minor schism between some "FRINGE" groups of Islamicists. This schism became a CENTRAL issue that birthed one of the CENTRAL tenets of Islam today.
quote: In 1121 Ibn Tumart began the more militant phase of his career when he proclaimed himself to be the long-awaited Mahdi--the infallible, divinely inspired guide who would lead erring mankind to righteousness and restore justice on earth. Righteousness was to be attained by belief in Ibn Tumart's doctrine of the absolute unity (Arabic, tawhid; from this doctrine the groups called the Muwahhidun, or Unifiers, and the Spanish Almohads developed) of God and adoption of the Koran and prophetic tradition (hadith) as the sole sources of Islamic law; justice was to be restored by fighting in Ibn Tumart's armies to overthrow the heretical Almoravid government.
quote: In Islam, the concept of oneness, mainly relating directly to God. The concept of tawhid is not mentioned in the Koran, it is a product of Muslim theology. Within the concept, also the nature of God may be dealt with, such as the complex question of a relation between the essence and the attributes of God. With many Sufi orientations, the concept of tawhid has taken a different direction, claiming that all essences are divine, in which all existence merges with that of God. Experiencing the unity with God can only be reached through religious rituals. The concept involves that God cannot be divided into parts, and it plays a certain role in Muslim polemics with Christians and the Christian concept of the Trinity and the concept of Jesus being God's son. By emphasizing tawhid, Muslims claim to prove the monotheistic nature of their religion, despite the fact that many Muslim characters have been lifted up to a semi-divine position, as is the case with Muhammad among Sunnis and Ali and the imams among Shi'is. Most Muslims today would consider disrespectful treatment of either of these as a blasphemous act.
Note that almost NOWHERE is the TAWHID or ALMOHADS (those who believe in ONENESS) mentioned as coming from African Muslims. As I have said before, Islam was powerful at this time because of the VARIOUS peoples who came under the umbrella, including those who were from more ANCIENT cultures in Africa, Asia and the Levant. Africa i s NO exception to this.
Also, there is a strain of Mysticism that runs through many of the early Muslim groups in Western Africa that traces back to PRE Islamic tradition, especially that of Egypt, the gradaddy of ALL the Abrahamic religions:
quote: The most widespread varieties of Muslim theology consider the Qur'an to be eternal and uncreated. Given that Muslims believe that Biblical figures such as Moses and Jesus all preached the same message as Islam, the doctrine of an unchanging, uncreated revelation implies that contradictions between the statements of the earlier divine revelations (the Torah and then the Bible), and the final revelation from God, the Qur'an, must be the result of human corruption of the earlier texts.
The earlier Prophets were sent to specific communities while Prophet Muhammad was sent to both mankind and jinnkind for all time to come, as claimed by the Muslims. If such a claim is true the very different nature - local versus global - can result in some changes between the scriptures. I am suggesting this so that further analysis along the lines of local versus global of the three scriptures could be performed. May be we make the mistake of insisting on identical concepts just because God knows everything there is to know and should not have to revise. Don't teachers tune their lessons to match the level of their audience?
Some Muslims have criticized the doctrine of an eternal Qur'an as diluting the doctrine of tawhid, or unity of God. Holding that the Qur'an is the eternal uncreated speech of Allah, speech that has always existed alongside Him, may be a step in the direction of a more plural concept of God's nature (which leads to what Muslims consider the sin of shirk, the association of something with God). This interpretation echos the Christian concept of God's eternal word or logos, some Muslims (e.g. Mu'tazilis and Shi'a) reject the notion of the Qur'an's eternality.
Some modern-day Muslim scholars touch on the doctrine of the eternal Qur'an when they question common conceptions of Islamic law. Reza Aslan has argued that such laws were created by God to meet the particular needs and circumstances of Muhammad's community. Likewise, Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid has claimed that the verses of the Qur'an that talk about Islamic law cannot be understood outside their historical context. However, other Muslim scholars assert that the Qur'an is eternal and is uncreated, while acknowledging that some verses in the Quran were revealed in response to specific historical circumstances. This view has been supported by notable Islamic scholars in the past, such as Ahmed ibn Hanbal.
Now if these Muslims were WHITE ARABS and not Africans or BLACK Africans, this concept would be WIDELY noted as coming from Tumart, but it isnt, except when you SPECIFICALLY look for his name associated with it.
Also remember that prior to 1924 the "Muslims" were only following a smaller set of Mohammedian scripts that they recited and also followed the various precepts of the Imam that they followed:
quote: It was not until the year 1918 when the Muslim scholars, gathered in Cairo, Egypt, and decided to write a standardized edition of the Quran that avoids all the obvious scribes' errors in different editions of the Quran floating in the world and to standardize the numbering f the suras and verses of the Quran. In 1924, they produced the edition of the Quran that later became the standard edition around the world. They depended mainly on the oral transmission of the Quran to correct all the contradiction seen in the different Rasm (Orthography) and numbering of different Qurans. Their choices, and decisions of how to write certain words, and to number the suras and verses, except for few human errors, proved to be God guided and "not on their own" effort although it may seem so to the outsiders. This becomes very clear when you study their choice of the standardized numbering of the suras and verses and the writing of certain Arabic letters like the Alif (Alef), the Taa, the Yaa and the subtle Yaa as we will explain later and as proved by the mathematical miracle of the Quran.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
This discussion is really nuts.
As far as I understand it, all comes out from the term "Moor" that it is not well defined. That many people called themselves "Moors" and what is call "Moor" in other countries, varies quite a lot.
The claim Spain is hiding the "Blackness of the Moors" is really ridiculous. Spain hated ALL MUSLIMS, regardless of color of Skin, and tried to send them all back to North Africa and the Middle East. In the populations of "Moors" that were deported after the Reconquest there were many European Muslims, some with Germanic and Slavic ancestry, too.
For Spaniards ALL MOORS have some Black Ancestry, INCLUDING the "white" Moors of the Coastal regions. That's something Europeans do know. So the point if the Moors are Africans or not African is ridiculous to say the least.
Next, the Moors of the invasion (8th Century. I repeat 8th Century). Where Arabs and coastal Berbers. Yes, Arabs where invading the Maghreb comming from Lybia and the Middle East at those times and they immediately after they invaded Spain. They invaded even before they turned south.
They have not controlled down south to Mauritania or Mali as yet. That will happened later.
Now, when in the 12th century the Almoravides controled Morocco and send troops to Spain, they were Tuareg and Black peoples, and at that moment they CAUSED a big surprise in Spain, because those people DID NOT LOOK like they Moors they were acustommed to see daily. Those "new Moors" were not like the pacific easy going Muslims they were accustumed to see in Al-Andalus, but fanatics with a new mentality. That make Christians to wake up to the danger in which they were living. And it was precisely that military intervention the beginning of the massive reaction of the Christians that decided to get rid of the Muslims once and for all. Remember that in general a MOOR was a Muslim. A little bit browner than the average European but not much.
So, why tried to force things and comming once again to the long speech of "DENIAL". The fact is the demographics of the Moors in Spain it was important, but the demographics of Black Africans was a lot minor. It all depends how one defines things, that's all.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
YOU are in denial. THAT's all.
The ONLY reason this discussion is NUTS is because of the FACTS that you desparately try to deny and deflect by USELESS pronouncements that are IRRELEVANT to the discussion. WHO CARES what Spanish people will or will not accept as Moor? The Moors CONTROLLED Spain and did not CARE what the Spanish thought. Like I said, show some facts to support your theories and stop making broad pronouncements that are ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.
The Spanish were fighting the Muslims SINCE THE BEGINNING and did not just START with the Amlmoravids. It was the INTERNAL conflict WITHIN Moorish society, because of religion, greed, the arab invasions and decadence that the Moors were defeated. The SPANISH had no SAY in who could and could not rule Al Andalus, as it was based on FORCE of arms. Once again, your OWN WORDS show the ANTI BLACK sentiments of the Spanish which is NOT a conspiracy it is a FACT that YOU YOURSELF have just ADMITTED, by saying the Spanish started rebelling BECAUSE of blacks, which is retarded.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: YOU are in denial. THAT's all.
YOU are pushing false things like if they were true. That's all.
quote: The ONLY reason this discussion is NUTS is because of the FACTS that you desparately try to deny and deflect by USELESS pronouncements that are IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
The ONLY reason this discussion is NUTS is because the DISTORTIONS that you people desesperately try to impose.
quote: WHO CARES what Spanish people will or will not accept as Moor?
Well, they CARE and they did not accepted Moors of Any color. And finally they won. At the end the Spaniards invaded the lands of the Moors.
quote: The Moors CONTROLLED Spain and did not CARE what the Spanish thought.
Yes. Arabs CONTROLLED Spain and did not CARE about the Moors either. lol.
quote: Like I said, show some facts to support your theories and stop making broad pronouncements that are ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.
What references are good enough for you?
quote: The Spanish were fighting the Muslims SINCE THE BEGINNING and did not just START with the Amlmoravids.
Yes, it is truth. But is not a coincidence that the Almoravids where sent to Spain. The fact is that Al-Andalus was being falling down already, and the Almoravis only retarded the fall for a while.
quote: It was the INTERNAL conflict WITHIN Moorish society, because of religion, greed, the arab invasions and decadence that the Moors were defeated.
Yes. The Moors is simple the Arab presency in Spain, with people of all nationalities.
quote: The SPANISH had no SAY in who could and could not rule Al Andalus, as it was based on FORCE of arms. Once again, your OWN WORDS show the ANTI BLACK sentiments of the Spanish which is NOT a conspiracy it is a FACT that YOU YOURSELF have just ADMITTED, by saying the Spanish started rebelling BECAUSE of blacks, which is retarded.
Why you believe so? People in here have cited the Cid and Alphonse X the wise, and in theirs books the racist citations are clear.
The Spaniards simply could not stand the Muslims anymore. They saw the fanatics comming from Mauritania and the fanatism of the Mongolian peoples (that will be the Turks) rising in the horizon. Those were not the kind of Muslims the Spanish kingdoms were acustumed to have friendly relations. And that was it.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Doug M: Once again, your OWN WORDS show the ANTI BLACK sentiments of the Spanish which is NOT a conspiracy it is a FACT that YOU YOURSELF have just ADMITTED, by saying the Spanish started rebelling BECAUSE of blacks, which is retarded.
the more he babbles the more he hangs himself with his own words, revealing nothing about history, and everything about the depths of his self loathing.
Posted by TK (Member # 10103) on :
I'll give it to Kawashkar. He'll never give up on his insanity. I'm pretty sure he hopes to wear everyone out by continuing on with his delusions.
It was entertaining in the beginning and it's just mind numbing at this point.
I wish you all the best that therapy can provide Kawashkar.
Take care of yourself.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Well, believe what you want.
My only point is that the word Moor mean different things for different people. And that when people attribute certain "glorious" things to the Moors, just remember that ambiguity.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
Why can't they just be Black??
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
How do you define who is Black and who is Not?
Where do you trace the limit?
We are talking of phenotypes in here, nothing else.
The only thing I have say once and once again is that the Moors of Spain were Muslims, and that the phenotype asociated to the Moors IN SPAIN is the one of the coastal Berbers, Palestineans and Arabs. The stereotype of Moor IN SPAIN is the "white" Berber, and not the people from Mali.
People in here just don't want to accept it.
Although I have show that even in the Spanish and English dictionaries THAT IS PRECISELY the definition of Moor. Either Muslim of Moroccian Berber.
Now, if you define all Berbers are Black, then they are blacks. Is up to you. It is just a matter of definition and of distinguishing phenotypes. Nothing else.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^
quote:Originally posted by TK: I'll give it to Kawashkar. He'll never give up on his insanity. I'm pretty sure he hopes to wear everyone out by continuing on with his delusions.
It was entertaining in the beginning and it's just mind numbing at this point.
I wish you all the best that therapy can provide Kawashkar.
Take care of yourself.
The only people he can wear out are those whose minds he's able to confuse.
But I for one am not being fooled. Rasol and Super and even Doug have exposed him for the pyschologically distraught individual that he is based on his mixed-Spanish ancestry.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: How do you define who is Black and who is Not?
Easy. 'Black' is in reference to skin color.
quote:Where do you trace the limit?
on darkness of skin.
quote:We are talking of phenotypes in here, nothing else.
Yeah, and the name 'Moor' is a description of phenotype.
quote:The only thing I have say once and once again is that the Moors of Spain were Muslims, and that the phenotype asociated to the Moors IN SPAIN is the one of the coastal Berbers, Palestineans and Arabs. The stereotype of Moor IN SPAIN is the "white" Berber, and not the people from Mali.
Incorrect. Moor was in reference to blacks. The term used for light-skinned Berbers, Palestinians and Arabs was Saracens. How Moors are viewed in modern Spain does not change the historical basis of how the name was originally used or applied to.
quote:People in here just don't want to accept it.
Because, 'it' (what you say) is false and has been proven so.
quote:Although I have show that even in the Spanish and English dictionaries THAT IS PRECISELY the definition of Moor. Either Muslim of Moroccian Berber.
And that Moroccan Berbers were originally black or dominated by a black elite.
quote:Now, if you define all Berbers are Black, then they are blacks. Is up to you. It is just a matter of definition and of distinguishing phenotypes. Nothing else.
No one said "all" Berbers were blacks.
And funny how you conveniently ignored all the evidence I presented of how Europeans portrayed Moors during the Middle Ages with Moorish coat of arms. Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Whatever,
Invent your own history. If you want to believe in the recently writen stories about the Blacks Subsaharan Moors conquering Spain and civilizing it, that has been developed to rise the spirit of some kids at school, is up to you, but those are false.
No accusation of denial can change facts.
In any case I declare OUR MOORS are not yours. Period.
If you want to believe they are Nubians or Bantues, is your choice, but they were not the people who was called "Moor" in Spain. A "Moor" in there is the "in-between" by definition. A Muslim is also considered a "in-between" no matter he comes from Morocco, Egypt, Iraq or Persia. All of them look "Moor" to us.
But if you want to know about who were the real Moros in Spain, ask Spaniards. They know.
The Moros of Spain are still in Spain. They are our ancestors too. So we know what we are talking about.
I AM A MOOR. No kidding.
OMAR VEGA- KAWASHKAR
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Whatever,...
^^is the answer we usually get from those who run out of answers. LOL
quote:Invent your own history. If you want to believe in the recently writen stories about the Blacks Subsaharan Moors conquering Spain and civilizing it, that has been developed to rise the spirit of some kids at school, is up to you, but those are false.
No need to invent a history that has already been made. The Moors were not Sub-Saharan but Saharan and Supra-Saharan and still black, and they did conquer Spain. While I disagree about the "civilizing" part as if to say that the peoples of Iberia were not civilized or were barbaric, it is clear that the Islamic Moors did advance the Spanish culture.
quote:No accusation of denial can change facts.
And neither can denial of the facts themselves.
quote:In any case I declare OUR MOORS are not yours. Period.
In anycase, it does not matter what you consider "your" Moors to be. By the way, what do you mean by "OUR"?
quote:If you want to believe they are Nubians or Bantues, is your choice, but they were not the people who was called "Moor" in Spain. A "Moor" in there is the "in-between" by definition. A Muslim is also considered a "in-between" no matter he comes from Morocco, Egypt, Iraq or Persia. All of them look "Moor" to us.
And if you want to create weak straw-man arguments, be my guest. But they won't and cannot help you. Mauros meant black.
quote:But if you want to know about who were the real Moros in Spain, ask Spaniards. They know.
Indeed, I forgot who said it, but I believe it was King Ferdinand or some great Spaniard who said something to the likes that "it did not take long to wash out the dark stain that was the Moors".
quote:The Moros of Spain are still in Spain. They are our ancestors too. So we know what we are talking about.
Yes, which is why you want to deny their black ancestry. Just like Pontikos and his ilk want to deny black ancestry in Greece.
quote:I AM A MOOR. No kidding.
OMAR VEGA- KAWASHKAR
LOL Perhaps so considering some information that I don't happen to have at the moment, but will be presented soon.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
No need to invent a history that has already been made. The Moors were not Sub-Saharan but they were indeed black, and they did conquer Spain. While I disagree about the "civilizing" part as if to say that the peoples of Iberia were not civilized or were barbaric, it is clear that the Islamic Moors did advance the Spanish culture.
Depends on what you mean by "Moors". For instance, to test the strength of your statement, you'd have to have answers to the following questions:
a)Do you consider the Almoravids "Moors"?
b)Were they from sub-Saharan Africa? If not, what would the basis for this be?
c)Did they rule Spain? If not, again what would be the basis?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
How come the only time anybody has difficulty in defining who's black is when it comes to high culture and civilization.
I've never, I mean never ever, seen or heard the corollary statement "how do you define who is white and who is not"
Why is that?
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: How do you define who is Black and who is Not?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: How come the only time anybody has difficulty in defining who's black is when it comes to high culture and civilization.
I've never, I mean never ever, seen or heard the corollary statement "how do you define who is white and who is not"
Why is that?
Because being 'white' has never been made or considered to be an "issue" like being black. And Washkar is a perfect example of that! Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ah hah. Uh huh.
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
@KW
So Nubians and Bantus are the only Blacks in Africa and the Moors were basically like....... let's say....... Mariah Carey with regards to admixture???(for lack of a better analogy)
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] How come the only time anybody has difficulty in defining who's black is when it comes to high culture and civilization.
I've never, I mean never ever, seen or heard the corollary statement "how do you define who is white and who is not"
If you ask for my personal opinion I believe White people are only the Germans, Poles, Saxons, Irish, Scandinavian and some Russian peoples. All the rest are not white but "in-between". And people forget that most people in the planet belong to one or another "in-between" cathegory.
The problem is people forget that most mankind, and most of the people that lives in Eurasia, are people that present diferent degreeds of admixture.
I don't believe "white" means European, because I have seen Europeans discriminated in racist countries where large number of germans exists.
Don't you know Germanic people consider dark haired people of any complexion to be "dark hairs", a racist insult.
I believe Germanics flexibilized the concept of "white" to capture for them the civilizations of Greece, Spain, Italy and the Middle East.
Otherwise the "white people" should accept they started very late in history, because they descend from the Barbarian tribes that destroyed the classical civilizations.
That's what I believe.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
In any case I declare OUR MOORS are not yours. Period.
Djehuti asked a good question when he asked you what you meant by "Our Moors"; certainly "our" here, cannot be the camp dealing with reality, right?...I mean, you cannot possibly be that far out there to suggest that "our" is your reference to "Spanish American" property of Afro-Spanish [i.e. for "Spain" in Europe] history, LOL, are you?
quote:kawashkar:
If you want to believe they are Nubians or Bantues, is your choice, but they were not the people who was called "Moor" in Spain. A "Moor" in there is the "in-between" by definition. A Muslim is also considered a "in-between" no matter he comes from Morocco, Egypt, Iraq or Persia. All of them look "Moor" to us.
Again, you don't mean by "to us", that you are referring to the "Middle Age" Spanish locals or elites...OR lumping "Middle Age" Spanish Europeans with you contemporary Spanish-speaking Americans?!
On another note:
Going back to the authentic meaning for the "Moors", which meant dark [in color]...i.e. at least from the Roman perspective, this meant generally darker than the Romans. Now, assuming that the Spanish used this term in the manner which you claim that it's been used, i.e. with respect to your ambiguous "in between" terminology, why on earth would they do that? You look at various coastal "Berber" speaking groups, and they are no darker than Spanish European locals next door, across the Mediterranean sea. What on earth would prompt these southern Europeans to claim that these "Berber" groups, are "in between"; would that be "in between" them, the European Spanish and the Sub-Saharan Africans...or "in between" them European Spanish and the southwest Asian Arabic speakers? Please do clarify! LOL.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: @KW
So Nubians and Bantus are the only Blacks in Africa and the Moors were basically like....... let's say....... Mariah Carey with regards to admixture???(for lack of a better analogy)
You bet, Mariah Carey,
And Jennifer Lopez
Are "Morenas" (Moor-looking girls).
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: What on earth would prompt these southern Europeans to claim that these "Berber" groups, are "in between"; would that be "in between" them, the European Spanish and the Sub-Saharan Africans...or "in between" them European Spanish and the southwest Asian Arabic speakers? Please do clarify! LOL. [/QB]
"In-between" Southern Europeans and Western Subsaharan Africans.
Lol. Spanish do know every one from Andalucia to Mali HAVE SOME DEGREE OF AFRICAN BLOOD. They also know that Most North Africa has WHITE (OR ARAB-LIGHT SKIN OR WHATEVER) BLOOD AS WELL.
So they see the Morocco like the transition between Europe and Africa. A slow change in genetic composition from Europe to West Subsaharan Africa. A slow change from "white" to "black" from north to south.
I am clear? I hope so.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: What on earth would prompt these southern Europeans to claim that these "Berber" groups, are "in between"; would that be "in between" them, the European Spanish and the Sub-Saharan Africans...or "in between" them European Spanish and the southwest Asian Arabic speakers? Please do clarify! LOL.
"In-between" Southern Europeans and Western Subsaharan Africans.
Lol. Spanish do know every one from Andalucia to Mali HAVE SOME DEGREE OF AFRICAN BLOOD. They also know that Most North Africa has WHITE (OR ARAB-LIGHT SKIN OR WHATEVER) BLOOD AS WELL.
So they see the Morocco like the transition between Europe and Africa. A slow change in genetic composition from Europe to West Subsaharan Africa. A slow change from "white" to "black" from north to south.
I am clear? I hope so.
KAWASHKAR
Nope; you are not clear, though I see that you've taken it upon yourself to be the Spanish-American delegate of Spanish-Europeans, i.e. more precisely, the "Middle Age" era Spanish-Europeans.
Again, for the part of my citation that you interestingly left out; that is, considering:
"You look at various coastal "Berber" speaking groups, and they are no darker than Spanish European locals next door, across the Mediterranean sea"...
So did the Spanish call themselves "Moors", before they met the African "Moors"?...because that would then implicate that they naturally considered themselves "Moors". I am sure a coherent answer to this, will be forthcoming.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^
quote:Originally posted by TK: I'll give it to Kawashkar. He'll never give up on his insanity. I'm pretty sure he hopes to wear everyone out by continuing on with his delusions.
It was entertaining in the beginning and it's just mind numbing at this point.
I wish you all the best that therapy can provide Kawashkar.
Take care of yourself.
The only people he can wear out are those whose minds he's able to confuse.
But I for one am not being fooled. Rasol and Super and even Doug have exposed him for the pyschologically distraught individual that he is based on his mixed-Spanish ancestry.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Wait a minute, am I hearing a pin drop...due to the long period of silence, after the last request. Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Doug M:
quote:Here is an example, which also shows the extent of ARAB conquest and Arabization of what WERE originally BLACK African Berber Groups:
People called Moors are identified in ALL of these countries.
Doug this was a very bad example, did you even read this Christian missionary crap before you posted it?? Here are some quotes from the link you posted:
"Moorish society is organized into successive ranks of tribes, clans, sub-clans, and family or "tent" units. There are four basic class divisions that are based on heritage, race, and occupation. The White Moor form the two upper classes, while the Black Moor make up the two lower classes "
"Most of the Moor living in Niger are a mixture of Arab-Berber-Negroid. They are very proud of the fact that their origin can be traced to the Arabs."
"A White Moor is ethnologically defined as "a nomad of Berber-Arab origin." They represent the two upper classes of Moorish society: the warriors and the religious leaders. The Black Moor make up the two lower classes. They live in a world of their own-usually one of slavery ."
"There are two types of Black Moor: the 'abd-le-tilad (slaves who belong to the tents and are part of the family), and the 'abd-le-tarbiya (acquired slaves). Even though slavery is now against the law, it continues to be a fundamental part of the social and economic structure of the Moor."
Whats wrong with you DougM did you have to post a site which tries to ideologicaly and mentaly conquer the proud Moors (as the Moors conquered them more than millenia ago) so to prove your point??
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: So did the Spanish call themselves "Moors", before they met the African "Moors"?...because that would then implicate that they naturally considered themselves "Moors". I am sure a coherent answer to this, will be forthcoming.
The precise term is "Moreno". Some Spaniards call themselves Moreno for obvious reasons, they look like the Moors inmediately accross Gibraltar.
Not all Spaniards look like Julio Iglesias. lol. (Who is Galician and, therefore, Celt)
Yes. For reasons of immigration, for example, same countries of Latin America are lighter than Spain! Believe it or not. White Brazilians, for example, are usually more "European-looking" than the average Andalucian.
Look at the people from Andalucia.
From Sevilla. These peoples are Moors!
A Sevillan child
Children
Compare it with Moroccan Berbers
And you can see easily that part of the population of Andalucia look IDENTICAL to the so called "white" Berbers.
They are the Moors our ancestors new, and that are part of the Hispanic culture and legend.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
WOW, No Blacks huh??? LMAO
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: So did the Spanish call themselves "Moors", before they met the African "Moors"?...because that would then implicate that they naturally considered themselves "Moors". I am sure a coherent answer to this, will be forthcoming.
The precise term is "Moreno". Some Spaniards call themselves Moreno for obvious reasons, they look like the Moors inmediately accross Gibraltar.
Don't change the context of the matter at hand, which concerns the term "Moors", not your "Moreno".
quote:kawashkar:
Not all Spaniards look like Julio Iglesias. lol. (Who is Galician and, therefore, Celt)
Yes. For reasons of immigration, for example, same countries of Latin America are lighter than Spain! Believe it or not. White Brazilians, for example, are usually more "European-looking" than the average Andalucian.
Well, believe it or not, this doesn't answer my request, which for the 3rd time now, was:
Considering that many coastal "Berber" populations are no darker than the Spanish-European populations, or even the Portuguese for that matter, why then would the Spanish of the "Middle Age" era call just the African "Berbers", of presumably the same skin tones as the Spanish themselves, as "MOORS"? Did they not realize that "Moors" meant "dark" in skin color? Why would they refer to some other people who were just as dark or as light as themselves, as "Moors", as if they didn't consider the same about themselves?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: WOW, No Blacks huh??? LMAO
Well, Those are the Moors. They don't look like Nubians, but nobody deny they have some "African" genetics. Look at the so called "white" Berbers and you will find out.
They are the MOORS!
Call them "light skinned Blacks" if you wish. We call them Moors.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Good, now back to some unfinished business, i.e. my request! Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: .... Considering that many coastal "Berber" populations are no darker than the Spanish-European populations, or even the Portuguese for that matter, why then would the Spanish of the "Middle Age" era call just the African "Berbers", of presumably the same skin tones as the Spanish themselves, as "MOORS"? Did they not realize that "Moors" meant "dark" in skin color? Why would they refer to some other people who were just as dark or as light as themselves, as "Moors", as if they didn't consider the same about themselves? [/QB]
Well, coastal Moroccans are in AVERAGE darker than Spanish, but only in average. You can find some Moroccans that are whiter than the average Spaniard and some Spaniards that are darker than the average Moroccan.
Now, from the Spanish point of view, Moro is also a place name, like French or German. French are people from France, German from Germany and Moro from the Maghreb, particularly from Morocco (MORO-CCO). So any Moroccan is a MORO (Moor)
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
Well, coastal Moroccans are in AVERAGE darker than Spanish, but only in average.
...says which scientific source?
In the meantime, let me slap you with some scientific material. Take your pick, whatever minor shortcomings any of the following skin color maps [below the hair color map] may exhibit with respect to one another and elsewhere, they all converge on the correlations between the skin tone representations in coastal North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula:
This map of head hair gradients shows that blondes are also native only to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas. With two minor exceptions, the genetic trait for blonde hair precisely matches that for fair complexion.
Even the black-haired and beige-skinned Saami of northern Lapland can be discerned in both maps. (The two minor exceptions are the fair-skinned but brown-haired people of Bordeaux and the blonde but swarthy descendants of the Volga Rus.) - P. Sweet…
And...
For more reality check on global skin tones, I suggest you take a peek here:
You can find some Moroccans that are whiter than the average Spaniard and some Spaniards that are darker than the average Moroccan.
I suggest you carefully reconsider this statement; it makes no sense whatsoever, at least in one, which would support your cause. LOL.
quote:kawashkar:
Now, from the Spanish point of view, Moro is also a place name, like French or German. French are people from France, German from Germany and Moro from the Maghreb, particularly from Morocco (MORO-CCO). So any Moroccan is a MORO (Moor)
KAWASHKAR
Is this from the Spanish-American point of view or the "Middle Age" era Spanish-European point of view? If the latter, what "Middle Age" primary Spanish-European or North African text is this based on, with respect to why the North Africans were considered "Moors", but not the Spanish-Europeans?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
You are really crazy, don't you? The picture I select of "Moor-looking" Spaniards were selected from many. The pictures of "white" Berbers were chosen at random.
Spaniards are lighter than Moroccan in average, in the same way that British are lighter than Spanish in average. You can find many blond blue eyed Spaniards and some quite tanned "pure" Brits.
Your skin colored chart is only an approximation to reality. You should not take it too seriously. Otherwise Inuits should be blond blue eyed people, and Panamenian Natives should be Black. But that is not the case.
The concept of Moor is the same in the Middle Ages Spain and in Today Spain and Latin America. Is carried by the language in terms like Moro and Moreno, that have all the meaning I have mentioned before.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Djehuti:
quote:Exactly how is the Tuareg girl 'mixed'??
Well isn't it a consensus here that everyone is mixed? So what makes this girl any different? i didnt say her admixture came from abroad but she obviously shows different phenotyp than other people in Niger like this other Tuareg girl its quite obvious that one of them is more mixed than the other, maybe the girl above is the mixed one with someone originally non-Tuareg, or maybe the other girl is the one mixed with someone originally non-Tuareg, in any case they don't look the same despite being Tuaregs and comming from the same country.
We live in the age of molecular genetics and still people insist on 17th century notions of phenotype isolate to adjudge this person as 'pure' and that one as ='mixed'.
In terms of skin color all peoples were originally Black.
Pigmentation was lost progressively as dark skinned peoples migrated into the Northern latitudes.
In logic therefore tawny - medium toned - people PRECEDED depigmented white peoples.
So you can't say that a medium skin toned person is necessarily more 'mixed' than a pale skinned person.
And you can't look at the black lady above and make a determination as to whether she is any more or less mixed than the white woman below.
Genetics has taught us that most of the variety found in Africa is native to Africa, and not the product of European admixture.
No matter what AFricans have been brainwashed into believing, European mixture is simply not the primary determinent of why people look the way they do.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:... Genetics has taught us that most of the variety found in Africa is native to Africa, and not the product of European admixture.
No matter what AFricans have been brainwashed into believing, European mixture is simply not the primary determinent of why people look the way they do.
There is evidence of people comming back to North Africa from West Asian in neolithical times. Also, I would not be surprised that the Rb1 immigration from central Asia to Spain shows a minor impact in the Maghreb since those same times. Come on, you can cross Gibraltar in a canoe, and also reach Africa from Sicily rowing. It is even more easy than crossing the Sahara.
You are right that most of the flux of people was from Africa outside, but I have seen in the genographic project lines pointing inside Africa, particularly from the Middle East into North Africa.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:There is evidence of people comming back to North Africa from West Asian in neolithical times.
West Asia is not Europe, and actually there is far greater evidence of and outflow of Africans INTO SouthWest Asia AND Europe in Neolithic times.
Europe *INHERITS* the neolithic from Africa and SouthWest Asia, before this time Europeans were few in number and lived as primative hunter-gatherers, and this why distinctively European lineages are so rare outside of Europe.
The picture is one of and isolated inbreeding European population, also receiving genetic inputs sfrom Africans and Asians. And this is part of the reason that Europeans show as a genetic mixture of Asians and Africans, according to European geneticist Cavelli Sforza. Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Djehuti: [QUOTE]Exactly how is the Tuareg girl 'mixed'??
Well isn't it a consensus here that everyone is mixed? So what makes this girl any different? i didnt say her admixture came from abroad but she obviously shows different phenotyp than other people in Niger like this other Tuareg girl its quite obvious that one of them is more mixed than the other, maybe the girl above is the mixed one with someone originally non-Tuareg, or maybe the other girl is the one mixed with someone originally non-Tuareg, in any case they don't look the same despite being Tuaregs and comming from the same country.
We live in the age of molecular genetics and still people insist on 17th century notions of phenotype isolate to adjudge this person as 'pure' and that one as ='mixed'.
In terms of skin color all peoples were originally Black.
Pigmentation was lost progressively as dark skinned peoples migrated into the Northern latitudes.
In logic therefore tawny - medium toned - people PRECEDED depigmented white peoples.
So you can't say that a medium skin toned person is necessarily more 'mixed' than a pale skinned person.
And you can't look at the black lady above and make a determination as to whether she is any more or less mixed than the white woman below.
Genetics has taught us that most of the variety found in Africa is native to Africa, and not the product of European admixture.
No matter what AFricans have been brainwashed into believing, European mixture is simply not the primary determinent of why people look the way they do.
quote:No matter what AFricans have been brainwashed into believing, European mixture is simply not the primary determinent of why people look the way they do .
Hey rasol, i never said that the Tuareg girl had European admixture, I however think that Tuaregs had a homogenous phenotype before they expanded as a group and absorbed other ethnicities and I still stand by that opinion. I don't know where you got "European mixture" from in my post,it seems Europeans occupy your mind too much, thats my personal opinion??
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: You are really crazy, don't you?
Nope; but evidently you are loco; you are retarded for thinking that your selective picture spams, substitutes for bio-anthropological studies. Where is your bio-anthropological studies in defense of your UFO claims about Africa. Favoritism of incoherent bickering by senseless rejection of "science", is well, the trademark of a crackpot, or a pseudo-scientist, if you prefer the latter.
quote:kawashkar:
The picture I select of "Moor-looking" Spaniards were selected from many. The pictures of "white" Berbers were chosen at random.
Intellectually-teethless picture spamming is not science, just so you know. They just waste valuable thread space, and distract, which is apparently your intent here.
quote:kawaskhar:
Spaniards are lighter than Moroccan in average, in the same way that British are lighter than Spanish in average. You can find many blond blue eyed Spaniards and some quite tanned "pure" Brits.
Your skin colored chart is only an approximation to reality.
Your unsupported claims are on the other hand, the exact approach of turning reality on its head, i.e. pseudo-science.
quote:kawashkar:
You should not take it too seriously.
You are joking, right? This is like a stormfront advocate telling me to not take FACTS seriously, but rather their hilariously retarded dogma.
quote:kawashkar:
The concept of Moor is the same in the Middle Ages Spain and in Today Spain and Latin America. Is carried by the language in terms like Moro and Moreno, that have all the meaning I have mentioned before.
Spanish-Europe is not Latin-America; the number one geographical illiteracy on your part. Secondly, you have not backed up your version of what the contextual use of the term "Moors" was in "Middle Age" era Spain, NOT your Latin-America, as I requested, or the idea that they even called themselves "Moors", both prior to and during African Moorish rule in Spain. I mean, where is the primary text I requested? LOL.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I don't know where you got "European mixture" from in my post,it seems Europeans occupy your mind too much.
Then perhaps you can be more forthright with what occupies your mind.
You made the claims about who was and was not obviously 'mixed'?
Thus far, you placed more effort into telling us what you "didn't say" than in actually saying anything.
So, don't be shy, tell us what you 'mean' and we won't have to guess. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
Hey rasol, i never said that the Tuareg girl had European admixture, I however think that Tuaregs had a homogenous phenotype before they expanded as a group and absorbed other ethnicities and I still stand by that opinion.
Even after you were shown that this line of thinking is an incoherent one; why?
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I don't know where you got "European mixture" from in my post,it seems Europeans occupy your mind too much.
Then perhaps you can be more forthright with what occupies your mind.
You made the claims about who was and was not obviously 'mixed'?
Thus far, you placed more effort into telling us what you "didn't say" than in actually saying anything.
So, don't be shy, tell us what you 'mean' and we won't have to guess.
I'm not in any way shy to show my opinion, I think that the original Tuareg looked closer to this Tuareg girl below, she shows pride, and confidence of her heritage as Tuareg, which displays security, she simply looks Tuareg and loyal to her lifestyle she's born with. Not much to explain! Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
I'm not in any way shy to show my opinion, I think that the original Tuareg looked closer to this Tuareg girl below, she shows pride, and confidence of her heritage as Tuareg, which displays security, she simply looks Tuareg and loyal to her lifestyle she's born with. Not much to explain..
Nor will fact-seekers shy away from stamping out incessant pseudo-science [which they always are by nature], even if it means re-exposing them tirelessly...
quote:Supercar:
Which would be...? Tuareg is a construct, that was applied at a time when such thing as "Tuaregs" had already acquired the diversity that Tuaregs are known for. Against this backdrop, it is a wonder why anyone would use the term "original" in association with the terms "Tuareg" and "non-Tuareg" in a comment the way you presented it earlier on, and now in the citation above.
And…
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
"Tuaregs" are an Arab invention. The Kel Tamasheq have multi origins, some from what's now Tunisia/ Tripolitanian Libya, some from what's now Morocco/ Western Sahara, and some from what's now Chad.
They never were a homogeneous phenotype. The vast Sahara never had a homogeneous phenotype.
Osteo remains don't support a homogeneous Saharan phenotype. Rock art doesn't support a homogeneous Saharan phenotype -- not even among its portrayals of people with the same skin colour, much less so between those of differing colour be it beige, red, or black.
Greco-Latin and Byzantine accounts don't support a homogeneous phenotype of those living just beyond the limes approaching the northern Sahara.
Arabic records don't support a homogeneous phenotype for Saharans.
Your idea of the true Tuareg phenotype is fed to you by outdated physical anthropology born and bred in the era of European expansion that made for itself a colour and feature hierarchy and as a last ditch effort birthed the Hamitic Hypothesis/ Myth making all Egyptians, "Nubians," Horn Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Saharans, and Fulanis out to be some kind of dark caucasians (read Europeans) or crossbreeds of European fathering on negro mothers.
Intensive investigation of the human genome has laid all that garbage to waste except for those who have an emotional need to go on living the lie that surely my kind of African is really the spawn of Europe or at least the Levant/Arabian peninsula but not related to those negroes elsewhere on the continent,
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:Supercar:
Please clarify your context of what is "Tuareg" and what is "non-Tuareg"; importantly, does this have anything to do with genetics?
A Tuareg is someone who practices the lifestyle of the majority of Tuaregs and also considers himself a part of that community, since the original Tuaregs have obviously mixed with different type of ethnicities i cant say that their is a non-Tuareg look in Africa anymore. And a non-Tuareg is someone who doesnt identify or live the Tuareg lifestyle. Before the diversity on Tuareg look that we see today due to mixture i think alot of Tuaregs had a homogeneous look.
^^Implication?...
Stamp out pseudo-science, from wherever it creeps! Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Your reliance on science is almost comical, you expect everything to be explained through research, without research you seem completly handicap as if people have always had such institutions for explanation,lol. The same institutions you rely on are still the same you claim to be racist and covering up real history, lol what a Joke, you don't even realize how much you contradict yourself. In any case i stand by my opinion that the original Tuaregs were not as diverse as the current people who claim to be Tuareg, since it's obvious to anyone who isn't biased that Tuaregs have mixed heavilly with other ethnicities they encountered due to their movement.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
Your reliance on science is almost comical
What is comical about science or facts?
quote:Yonis:
, you expect everything to be explained through research, without research you seem completly handicap as if people have always had such institutions for explanation,lol.
I certainly don't rely on lies and wishful thinking to assess reality, as you obviously do; I rely on objective and provable 'material' for substantiation. You should try it sometime; it'll prove healthy for you. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.
quote:Yonis:
The same institutions you rely on are still the same you claim to be racist and covering up real history, lol
what a Joke, you don't even realize how much you contradict yourself.
Which institutions would those be? Lay out the specifics of these "claims" of mine, and why they are not valid or how they contradict themselves, within the specific contexts that they were placed. Let us then assess who is the real joke around here, you or me. LOL.
quote:Yonis:
In any case i stand by my opinion that the original Tuaregs were not as diverse as the current people who claim to be Tuareg, since it's obvious to anyone who isn't biased that Tuaregs have mixed heavilly with other ethnicities they encountered due to their movement.
It is obvious to anyone that rationality is not what guides you; incoherency and pseudo-science has taken its place.
Case in point, you have no etymological/linguistic, archeological, or genetic support for your laughable notion of original "Tuareg", minus the diversity that "Tuaregs" are already known for; otherwise, we would have long had it, instead of this incoherent childish bickering of yours. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Kawashkar,
We have shown you many times over that MANY of the Moors were JET BLACK Africans. ALL of them werent jet black, but MANY of them were. Sure, there were people in ancient Spain and North Africa who you can call "mixed" black/white "in between" people. But just like today, ALL people in South America and Latin America are not MIXED in the same degree. Some are DARKER and look more African and some are LIGHTER and look more European. YOU just want to DENY the presence of BLACKS as anything more than slaves in ANY period of Moorish history. Therefore, WE have the facts to show that BLACK Africans DID INDEED rule Spain at various points in Spanish history AND that blacks in ancient times were the MAJORITY of the Berber tribes of the desert. THEREFORE, if you DISAGREE, then show the PROOF that BLACK Africans were NOT part of the invading force in Spain, were NOT the majority of ancient Berber populations in North Africa and were NOT a LARGE part of ancient Morocco.
ON TOP of that, IN MOORISH times, there WAS no latino. So I would like to know WHERE you get the idea that ancient Moors were LATINOS. Yes, there may have been some MIXED people of Spanish/Moorish descent. But MOST of the Moriscos were PURE BLOOD SPANISH, as YOU YOURSELF have pointed out. In addition, MOST of the rest of the Spanish were PURE "white" Spanish. And, as I said, many of the Moors were PURE BLACK, so WHAT on earth are you talking about?
And, last but not least, the COLOR CLASSIFICATION scale on which MORENA is a part did NOT exist at the time of MOORISH Spain:
quote: Racial Classifications in Latin America
In the history of Latin America over the last 500 years or so, the relationships among three races have been a key factor. In the beginning, there were the various indigenous groups. Then came the European colonizers, who later brought black slaves from Africa. The relationships among these racial groups have at times been tumultuous --- war, slaughter, subjugation, slavery, exploitation, miscegenation, ...
The administration of the vast colonies was placed in the hands of nationals of the European empires. These administrators were rewarded estates for their efforts, and naturally inheritance rights became a significant issue. As a male may have multiple children with multiple women, the rights of these apparent heirs have to be defined, particularly when some of the mothers were not pure Europeans. Under Spanish rule, the following detailed caste system was instituted in Mexico at one time.
1. Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother 2. Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother 3. Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father 4. Mulatto: Spanish and black African 5. Moor: Spanish and Mulatto 6. Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother 7. Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother 8. Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother 9. Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother 10. Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother 11. Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother 12. Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother 13. Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother 14. Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother 15. Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother 16. Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother
To us, this does seem to be a obsessive-compulsive behavior of an extreme sort. Today, the overt caste systems have been overturned by legislation, but that does not mean that social prejudices and economic exploitation are not present. Even though overt racial oppression is no longer permissible by law, people may still hold personal opinions about members of other races based upon preconceived notions.
Now much of this is premised upon one's ability to classify people into the appropriate racial categories based upon physical appearances. Unfortunately, this is difficult as there is not a clear-cut situation when any individual can be unambiguously classified into one (and only one) of a short list of racial classes. A simple classification scheme based upon color --- white, black, brown and yellow --- ignores the various shades.
One way to derive a classification system is through self-definition, which presumably applies to others too. In 1976, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) conducted a study to ask people to identify their own skin color. Here are the 134 terms, listed in alphabetical order:
1. Acastanhada (cashewlike tint; caramel colored) 2. Agalegada 3. Alva (pure white) 4. Alva-escura (dark or off-white) 5. Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water") 6. Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white) 7. Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights) 8. Alvinha (bleached; white-washed) 9. Amarela (yellow) 10. Amarelada (yellowish) 11. Amarela-quemada (burnt yellow or ochre) 12. Amarelosa (yellowed) 13. Amorenada (tannish) 14. Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin) 15. Azul (bluish) 16. Azul-marinho (deep bluish) 17. Baiano (ebony) 18. Bem-branca (very white) 19. Bem-clara (translucent) 20. Bem-morena (very dusky) 21. Branca (white) 22. Branca-avermelhada (peach white) 23. Branca-melada (honey toned) 24. Branca-morena (darkish white) 25. Branca-pálida (pallid) 26. Branca-queimada (sunburned white) 27. Branca-sardenta (white with brown spots) 28. Branca-suja (dirty white) 29. Branquiça (a white variation) 30. Branquinha (whitish) 31. Bronze (bronze) 32. Bronzeada (bronzed tan) 33. Bugrezinha-escura (Indian characteristics) 34. Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin) 35. Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian) 36. Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean) 37. Café (coffee) 38. Café-com-leite (coffee with milk) 39. Canela (cinnamon) 40. Canelada (tawny) 41. Castão (thistle colored) 42. Castanha (cashew) 43. Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike) 44. Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike) 45. Chocolate (chocolate brown) 46. Clara (light) 47. Clarinha (very light) 48. Cobre (copper hued) 49. Corado (ruddy) 50. Cor-de-café (tint of coffee) 51. Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon) 52. Cor-de-cuia (tea colored) 53. Cor-de-leite (milky) 54. Cor-de-oro (golden) 55. Cor-de-rosa (pink) 56. Cor-firma ("no doubt about it") 57. Crioula (little servant or slave; African) 58. Encerada (waxy) 59. Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced) 60. Esbranquecimento (mostly white) 61. Escura (dark) 62. Escurinha (semidark) 63. Fogoio (florid; flushed) 64. Galega (see agalegada above) 65. Galegada (see agalegada above) 66. Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange) 67. Laranja (orange) 68. Lilás (lily) 69. Loira (blond hair and white skin) 70. Loira-clara (pale blond) 71. Loura (blond) 72. Lourinha (flaxen) 73. Malaia (from Malabar) 74. Marinheira (dark greyish) 75. Marrom (brown) 76. Meio-amerela (mid-yellow) 77. Meio-branca (mid-white) 78. Meio-morena (mid-tan) 79. Meio-preta (mid-Negro) 80. Melada (honey colored) 81. Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian) 82. Miscigenação (mixed --- literally "miscegenated") 83. Mista (mixed) 84. Morena (tan) 85. Morena-bem-chegada (very tan) 86. Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan) 87. Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette) 88. Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan) 89. Morena clara (light tan) 90. Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette) 91. Morena-jambo (dark red) 92. Morenada (mocha) 93. Morena-escura (dark tan) 94. Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta) 95. Morenão (very dusky tan) 96. Morena-parda (brown-hued tan) 97. Morena-roxa (purplish-tan) 98. Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan) 99. Morena-trigueira (wheat colored) 100. Moreninha (toffeelike) 101. Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro) 102. Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro) 103. Negra (negro) 104. Negrota (Negro with a corpulent vody) 105. Pálida (pale) 106. Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood) 107. Parda (dark brown) 108. Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race) 109. Polaca (Polish features; prostitute) 110. Pouco-clara (not very clear) 111. Pouco-morena (dusky) 112. Preta (black) 113. Pretinha (black of a lighter hue) 114. Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta) 115. Quase-negra (almost Negro) 116. Queimada (burnt) 117. Queimada-de-praia (suntanned) 118. Queimada-de-sol (sunburned) 119. Regular (regular; nondescript) 120. Retinta ("layered" dark skin) 121. Rosa (roseate) 122. Rosada (high pink) 123. Rosa-queimada (burnished rose) 124. Roxa (purplish) 125. Ruiva (strawberry blond) 126. Russo (Russian; see also polaca) 127. Sapecada (burnished red) 128. Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose) 129. Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue) 130. Tostada (toasted) 131. Trigueira (wheat colored) 132. Turva (opaque) 133. Verde (greenish) 134. Vermelha (reddish)
This scheme is unusable for practical purposes, since it is highly subjective and contains far too many classes. We have printed this list precisely to demonstrate how absurd this is.
If we cannot let people classify themselves, then the alternative is to let others do it. The Los Medios y Mercados de Latinoamérica study is a pan-Latin American survey in which interviewers are sent to interview a representative sample of people in their homes. As part of the interviewing process, the interviewer is required to classify the respondents into one (and only one) of seven racial categories: white, black, indigenous, mulatto, mestizo, asian and "Don't know". Of course, this is not an exact science since there is no way to train people to classify 'correctly' (whatever that means) and/or 'reliably' (in the sense that different interviewers should come up with the same result). For example, the difference between 'Indigenous' and 'Indian' may be less of a genetic issue than one about dress code. That is to say, we freely admit that the results that we will present in the following are 'junk' science.
The following table shows the distributions of racial categories by geographical region in Latin America (the rows sum up to 100%)
So please, stop trying to come here and convince us that your DELUSIONS of mixed race people being a RACE unto themselves when they arent.
The Moorish empires of Spain were RULED by either ARABS or Berbers at different periods and MANY of the Berbers were JET BLACK Africans. NEITHER of these groups IN ANY WAY were ANYTHING like your MODERN idea of a LATINO. ARABS are NOT latinos. Now MANY of the SPANISH who DID INDEED adopt Moorish culture and behavior were EXILED from Spain to North Africa. THESE were people from the general population and there is no doubt that they may have looked like these people that you are posting pictures of. HOWEVER, that does NOT change the fact that the VARIOUS dynasties that ruled spain came from DIFFERENT areas and MOST were NOT coastal WHITE Berbers. I have SHOWN you this OVER AND OVER again. Almoravids were NOT coastal white berbers and NEITHER were the Almohads. Like YOU said, most people in Moorish Spain were SPANISH people. That does not change the fact that the RULERS were NOT Spanish.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Doug M:
quote:Here is an example, which also shows the extent of ARAB conquest and Arabization of what WERE originally BLACK African Berber Groups:
People called Moors are identified in ALL of these countries.
Doug this was a very bad example, did you even read this Christian missionary crap before you posted it?? Here are some quotes from the link you posted:
"Moorish society is organized into successive ranks of tribes, clans, sub-clans, and family or "tent" units. There are four basic class divisions that are based on heritage, race, and occupation. The White Moor form the two upper classes, while the Black Moor make up the two lower classes "
"Most of the Moor living in Niger are a mixture of Arab-Berber-Negroid. They are very proud of the fact that their origin can be traced to the Arabs."
"A White Moor is ethnologically defined as "a nomad of Berber-Arab origin." They represent the two upper classes of Moorish society: the warriors and the religious leaders. The Black Moor make up the two lower classes. They live in a world of their own-usually one of slavery ."
"There are two types of Black Moor: the 'abd-le-tilad (slaves who belong to the tents and are part of the family), and the 'abd-le-tarbiya (acquired slaves). Even though slavery is now against the law, it continues to be a fundamental part of the social and economic structure of the Moor."
Whats wrong with you DougM did you have to post a site which tries to ideologicaly and mentaly conquer the proud Moors (as the Moors conquered them more than millenia ago) so to prove your point??
Jeez, am I the only one here that does ANY research on their own or do crackpots just want to TEST my knowledge on the subject? The POINT is that the PEOPLES who ORIGINALLY made up the Berber tribes that the Arabs faced when they initially invaded North Africa were in a HUGE swath of land from Egypt all the way to Morocco. I am not going to sit here and list ALL the references I can provide. BERBERS do NOT ORIGINATE on the COAST of MOROCCO. If you KNOW the history of North Africa, you will KNOW that the SECOND wave of arab invasions sent, on some accounts, over 1 million arabs into the deserts of North Africa, where they FOUGHT with the INDIGENOUS BLACK Saharans and conquered/subjugated all that they came across. THIS is DOCUMENTED by Ibn Kaldun himself. The Char Bouba war was a 30 year war between AFRICANS and Arabs in the area of the Sahara around Mauretania. The result was that the Berbers were defeated and the Znaga Berbers became SLAVES of the Arab invaders. This was AFTER the Moors were EXPELLED from Spain. This WAVE of Arab nomads also went on to conquer Moroccan Berbers and enslave many NATIVE BLACK Moroccans there as well. Therefore, the IDEA of "white" Berbers, meaning WHITE Arab IS a reality in these places as a RESULT of the wave of arabization over the last 600 years. YOU should DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and stop being LAZY. The point is that these AREAS on the MAP are areas where the ORIGINAL Moors came from, even though NOW they are HEAVILY Arabized.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I don't know where you got "European mixture" from in my post,it seems Europeans occupy your mind too much.
Then perhaps you can be more forthright with what occupies your mind.
You made the claims about who was and was not obviously 'mixed'?
Thus far, you placed more effort into telling us what you "didn't say" than in actually saying anything.
So, don't be shy, tell us what you 'mean' and we won't have to guess.
I'm not in any way shy to show my opinion, I think that the original Tuareg looked closer to this Tuareg girl below, she shows pride, and confidence of her heritage as Tuareg, which displays security, she simply looks Tuareg and loyal to her lifestyle she's born with. Not much to explain!
The argument isnt one of PRIDE it is one of PROOF. How about some EVIDENCE that ancient Saharan peoples up to the time of the Moors were ALL the same complexion as this female? Neolithic Saharans were spread over an area the size of the continental US and were BLACK Africans. The girl in the PHOTO is a BLACK African. ALL Tuaregs are NOT the same complexion, yet is IDIOTS like yourself who want to be able to DEFINE what is a PURE African. WHAT is your knowledge of Tuareg history? Where did they come from? How long have they been there and when did they start calling themselves Tuareg? You can picture spam all you want, but I dont think you know the LEAST bit about Tuaregs. Therefore, either BACK up your claims with FACTS and REFERENCES or admid you dont have A CLUE what you are talking about.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawashkar,
We have shown you many times over that MANY of the Moors were JET BLACK Africans. ALL of them werent jet black, but MANY of them were. Sure, there were people in ancient Spain and North Africa who you can call "mixed" black/white "in between" people. But just like today, ALL people in South America and Latin America are not MIXED in the same degree. Some are DARKER and look more African and some are LIGHTER and look more European. YOU just want to DENY the presence of BLACKS as anything more than slaves in ANY period of Moorish history. Therefore, WE have the facts to show that BLACK Africans DID INDEED rule Spain at various points in Spanish history AND that blacks in ancient times were the MAJORITY of the Berber tribes of the desert. THEREFORE, if you DISAGREE, then show the PROOF that BLACK Africans were NOT part of the invading force in Spain, were NOT the majority of ancient Berber populations in North Africa and were NOT a LARGE part of ancient Morocco.
ON TOP of that, IN MOORISH times, there WAS no latino. So I would like to know WHERE you get the idea that ancient Moors were LATINOS. Yes, there may have been some MIXED people of Spanish/Moorish descent. But MOST of the Moriscos were PURE BLOOD SPANISH, as YOU YOURSELF have pointed out. In addition, MOST of the rest of the Spanish were PURE "white" Spanish. And, as I said, many of the Moors were PURE BLACK, so WHAT on earth are you talking about?...
While I think I know where you are heading with this, I also think that you are leaving yourself quite vulnerable to any opponent, by resorting to terms like "pure" this or that. I highly doubt that anyone will find any human being on this planet, that is 'pure' anything; it goes back to the biological perspective of 'race' in humans. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawashkar,
We have shown you many times over that MANY of the Moors were JET BLACK Africans. ALL of them werent jet black, but MANY of them were. Sure, there were people in ancient Spain and North Africa who you can call "mixed" black/white "in between" people. But just like today, ALL people in South America and Latin America are not MIXED in the same degree. Some are DARKER and look more African and some are LIGHTER and look more European. YOU just want to DENY the presence of BLACKS as anything more than slaves in ANY period of Moorish history. Therefore, WE have the facts to show that BLACK Africans DID INDEED rule Spain at various points in Spanish history AND that blacks in ancient times were the MAJORITY of the Berber tribes of the desert. THEREFORE, if you DISAGREE, then show the PROOF that BLACK Africans were NOT part of the invading force in Spain, were NOT the majority of ancient Berber populations in North Africa and were NOT a LARGE part of ancient Morocco.
ON TOP of that, IN MOORISH times, there WAS no latino. So I would like to know WHERE you get the idea that ancient Moors were LATINOS. Yes, there may have been some MIXED people of Spanish/Moorish descent. But MOST of the Moriscos were PURE BLOOD SPANISH, as YOU YOURSELF have pointed out. In addition, MOST of the rest of the Spanish were PURE "white" Spanish. And, as I said, many of the Moors were PURE BLACK, so WHAT on earth are you talking about?...
While I think I know where you are heading with this, I also think that you are leaving yourself quite vulnerable to any opponent, by resorting to terms like "pure" this or that. I highly doubt that anyone will find any human being on this planet, that is 'pure' anything; it goes back to the biological perspective of 'race' in humans. Just a suggestion.
Pure in a relative sense to his concept of MIXED white/black African/Arab ancestry. If you are going to ARGUE over the concept of MIXED race, then therefore there must exist one or more PURE races that must have existed or exist to provide the BASIS for mixing. You cannot have one without the other. If "pure" is not a valid concept then neither is mixed and therefore this WHOLE discussion is therefore invalid.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Pure in a relative sense to his concept of MIXED white/black African/Arab ancestry. If you are going to ARGUE over the concept of MIXED race, then therefore there must exist one or more PURE races that must have existed or exist to provide the BASIS for mixing. You cannot have one without the other. If "pure" is not a valid concept then neither is mixed and therefore this WHOLE discussion is therefore invalid.
You've hit the nail on its head with this last highlighted piece. My arguments herein have always taken into consideration the fallacious premises of "mixed" or "pure" races, in which case, I am certain that at least, the validity of my points hold firm.
Ps - Lack of "purity" here, as in the context mention, obviously doesn't preclude genetic heterogeneity or gene flow between populations. Should the latter be interpreted as "mixed" by some folks, then so be it. It is precisely the genetic heterogeneity of global human populations, and the overall relatively very close genetic closeness of human populations, that deems the notion of "races" and the corresponding racial "purity" scientifically unsound.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I'm not in any way shy to show my opinion, I think that the original Tuareg looked closer to this Tuareg girl below, she shows pride, and confidence of her heritage as Tuareg, which displays security, she simply looks Tuareg and loyal to her lifestyle she's born with. Not much to explain!
I agree. This woman "looks" Moor
This lady looks Black.
Both can be Tuareg but the original meaning of Moor is the women above. The rest is twisting things, I believe.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB]
quote:There is evidence of people comming back to North Africa from West Asian in neolithical times.
West Asia is not Europe,...
Well, but the West Asian region that was the source of those immigrants also provided to European. And you can't discard the crossing of Gibraltar.
Come on. What wrong with having a little bit of the so called "white" blood? After all, many "Black" people got tons of it.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ]Nope; but evidently you are loco; you are retarded for thinking that your selective picture spams, substitutes for bio-anthropological studies.
Yes, showing pictures is not science, but believing that by analizing "y" cromosomes and mtDNA out-of-context is "scientific" is even worst.
I have explained you once and once again what the term Moor mean in the HISPANIC culture we inherit from SPAIN (The land the Moors conquered after all):
Moro (Means) Moor, Moroccan, Muslim and BROWN.
Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
By the way, for Spaniards there isn't a difference in looks between a Persian, an Arab, a Palestinean or a Moroccan. They are all Moors. They all "look-the-same".
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yes, showing pictures is not science, but believing that by analizing "y" cromosomes and mtDNA out-of-context is "scientific" is even worst.
You do both.
quote:Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
So now you've decided that moor means brown? rotfl!
Still trying to change the meanings of words in order to hide from painful truth eh?
That's ok, we can keep repeating the truth, while you keep changing your story to hide from it.
Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
Too easy. Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ]Nope; but evidently you are loco; you are retarded for thinking that your selective picture spams, substitutes for bio-anthropological studies.
Yes, showing pictures is not science, but believing that by analizing "y" cromosomes and mtDNA out-of-context is "scientific" is even worst.
I have explained you once and once again what the term Moor mean in the HISPANIC culture we inherit from SPAIN (The land the Moors conquered after all):
Moro (Means) Moor, Moroccan, Muslim and BROWN.
Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
By the way, for Spaniards there isn't a difference in looks between a Persian, an Arab, a Palestinean or a Moroccan. They are all Moors. They all "look-the-same".
KAWASHKAR
What did Blacks contribute with Regards to Europe, and more specifically Spain??
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I'm not in any way shy to show my opinion, I think that the original Tuareg looked closer to this Tuareg girl below, she shows pride, and confidence of her heritage as Tuareg, which displays security, she simply looks Tuareg and loyal to her lifestyle she's born with. Not much to explain!
I agree. This woman "looks" Moor
This lady looks Black.
Both can be Tuareg but the original meaning of Moor is the women above.
Both women are Tuareg, both are Black, both are African, both could represent the Moors. Moor means Black.
Neither are Spanish, nor Europeans, nor white, nor were the orignal Moors.
And your idea that only lighter skin Taureg can be Moors but darker ones can not, is senseless, and based on wishful thinking.
The Moors shown below are even darker than the women, or most other Black Africans....
Do you really hate your own ancestry that much?
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: ...What did Blacks contribute with Regards to Europe, and more specifically Spain??
I believe you can find the mark in music. If you find subsaharian roots in the music of Morocco, well then you will find them in the music of Spain, particularly in Flamenco.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
So now you've decided that moor means brown? rotfl!
No. I haven't decided. Is codified in Spanish and in the Hispanic culture.
quote: Still trying to change the meanings of words in order to hide from painful truth eh?
No. Just trying to get back the real meaning in Spain, that can be different from the meaning in other places, of course.
quote: That's ok, we can keep repeating the truth, while you keep changing your story to hide from it.
Yes, we can repeat things forever. Over and over again.
quote: Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
Yes. You are right, "Moro" in Spain is used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs and Berbers). But almost never is used in Black Africans.
quote: Too easy.
You bet
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Both women are Tuareg, both are Black, both are African, both could represent the Moors.
No doubt both are Tuaregs, but the phenotype we call Moor in Spanish correspont to the "light" girl. No doubt both have "African" (whatever that means) on them.
Moors (for Spaniards) are Moroccans, Lybians, Algerians and Tunisians of Berber ancestry, and they are Africans.
Moors (for you people) are people of Mauritania.
Those are two concepts associated to the same word.
quote: Moor means Black.
Black means Black, Moor mean dark, and "white" Moors are also "dark". All Moors are darker than Europeans, so it is obvious where the name come from.
quote: Neither are Spanish, nor Europeans, nor white, nor were the orignal Moors.
I am talking of the Moors of Al-Andalus. Nothing else.
quote: And your idea that only lighter skin Taureg can be Moors but darker ones can not, is senseless, and based on wishful thinking.
I wish only to clarify the concept of Moor in Al-Andalus and Spain.
quote: The Moors shown below are even darker than the women, or most other Black Africans....
Don't you see, you are applying a definition of your choice. Not the one used in the Middle Ages.
quote: Do you really hate your own ancestry that much?
I love Moor culture very much,
(even knowing that Hispanic culture in general don't like it) and I wish I could visit the Maghreb one time. I know people there looks very much like I do. Amazigh, who were real Moors of Europe .
Hey, I could be in one of this pictures.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Ciprianni (Member # 11937) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kawashkar: [QB] Who is talking about "RACE"?
Hey boys. Look at my post carefully please. I am talking of PEOPLES, regions and cultures, not about the old-fashionated racist concept of RACE.
The terms "White" and "Black" are so fuzzy they don't mean anything.
Facts:
Europeans are around 6% Non-European, including Asian and African genetics on them.
Africans vary in their genetic composition from many "Races" (Bantues, Nilotics, Ethiopians, Pigmeys, Tuaregs, Khoisans, Egyptians, Berbers, Hotentotes, Malgaches, etc. etc.), and some have admixture with foreigners as well. That is usually accepted for the people of North and North East Asia, but if you don't accept it just look at Madagascar where you find Indonesian-descendents. _________________________________________ "African" Americans are 25% non-African, mainly European. The Black of Brazil (not the mulatto peoples but the ones that really "look African") are 50% European. ____________________________________
I know that behind all this crazy discussion is certain desire of show that the "Black" race has done many outstanding thing in the past and that they are connected with worldwide history.
Please allow me to say it loud and clear:
NOBODY DOUBTS THAT. AND NOBODY DENIES THE INTELLIGENCE AND POTENTIAL OF THE BLACK AFRICAN PEOPLES.
In my case, I am interested in the heritage of Subsaharan Africa, because from there comes the African heritage in culture and music that some Latin American countries consider a treasure.
If you think in Cuba's african heritage you don't think in Moroccans or Egyptians, but in the Yoruba and other African peoples. The same for Brazil, Haiti, Colombia, Dominican Republic and other nations that consider the African root to be an important contribution to the national identity.
So, that's why I don't care too much about North Africa and the Moors, and I preffer to focus in the region where the people of the African Diaspora comes from.
Latino is not a race, indeed, but IT IS A PEOPLE that has a long culture and history, and that has incorporated to its family peoples from around the world, and we are proud of THEM ALL. Latino is not a race, indeed, is a feeling and an idea.
Latino is Don Quixote. That's our spirit and our more precise archaetype.
Your Underlined statement is not completely true.African-Americans are about 20% non-negroid on Average.Some states are lower than 20% and some are higher,averaged out, some Native American.
Oprah Winfrey test showed:Shes 89% African 8% Native American and 3% East Asian.
Oprah said that she didn't believe that she had any European or Native American ancestors. Her admixture test showed her ancestry to be 89% sub-Saharan African, 8% Native American, 3% East Asian (researchers said that Native American ancestral traces show up here too.
Chris Tucker:83%African 10%Native American 7% European.
Chris Tucker: The comic's admixture test came back 83% sub-Saharan African, 10% Native American, and 7% European. He guessed that he was descended from a tribe in modern-day Ghana.
92% African 8%European. Whoopi Goldberg: Her admixture test revealed her ancestry to be 92% sub-Saharan African, 8% European, and 0% Native American.
Henry Louis Gates 50% sub-Saharan African, 50% European, and 0% Native American.
Mark Shriver who conducted the research, 86% European, 11% sub-Saharan African, and 3% Native American.
How can the people who really look African in brazil be 50% European,when someone like ronaldinho is probably 40% european like some Cape Verdeans, some of who are also of potuguese and African ancestry.More or less.
Brazilian model Adriana Lima says shes 1/4 African:
Moors, the invaders of Spain, not Berbers only, who many of them look European but also members of the Muslim kingdoms of West Africa who were pitch black and Arabian princes and elite who ruled Spain until 1492.
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ciprianni: [QUOTE]Originally posted by kawashkar: [QB] Who is talking about "RACE"?
Hey boys. Look at my post carefully please. I am talking of PEOPLES, regions and cultures, not about the old-fashionated racist concept of RACE.
The terms "White" and "Black" are so fuzzy they don't mean anything.
Facts:
Europeans are around 6% Non-European, including Asian and African genetics on them.
Africans vary in their genetic composition from many "Races" (Bantues, Nilotics, Ethiopians, Pigmeys, Tuaregs, Khoisans, Egyptians, Berbers, Hotentotes, Malgaches, etc. etc.), and some have admixture with foreigners as well. That is usually accepted for the people of North and North East Asia, but if you don't accept it just look at Madagascar where you find Indonesian-descendents. _________________________________________ "African" Americans are 25% non-African, mainly European. The Black of Brazil (not the mulatto peoples but the ones that really "look African") are 50% European. ____________________________________
I know that behind all this crazy discussion is certain desire of show that the "Black" race has done many outstanding thing in the past and that they are connected with worldwide history.
Please allow me to say it loud and clear:
NOBODY DOUBTS THAT. AND NOBODY DENIES THE INTELLIGENCE AND POTENTIAL OF THE BLACK AFRICAN PEOPLES.
In my case, I am interested in the heritage of Subsaharan Africa, because from there comes the African heritage in culture and music that some Latin American countries consider a treasure.
If you think in Cuba's african heritage you don't think in Moroccans or Egyptians, but in the Yoruba and other African peoples. The same for Brazil, Haiti, Colombia, Dominican Republic and other nations that consider the African root to be an important contribution to the national identity.
So, that's why I don't care too much about North Africa and the Moors, and I preffer to focus in the region where the people of the African Diaspora comes from.
Latino is not a race, indeed, but IT IS A PEOPLE that has a long culture and history, and that has incorporated to its family peoples from around the world, and we are proud of THEM ALL. Latino is not a race, indeed, is a feeling and an idea.
Latino is Don Quixote. That's our spirit and our more precise archaetype.
WOW, then I must be LIke 95% African. Im a LITTLE darker than Oprah and my hair is now where NEAR straight or even wavy. It's wavy at the roots though but towards the end it gets curly.
Anyway, thats some interesting info.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Tee:
Note that in the language of genetics there's no such thing as as 95% African. There are haplotype markers that predominate in some geographical clines and less so in other areas. Just like ABO blood types.
If you look at the world haplotype map for Y and MtDNA you will see perhaps the region that is most varied is Europe--Cavalli Sforza claims that Europeans are a 60% Asian and 40% African in their genetic makeup--, and Africa and Asia are not just one haplotype colour.
And there are anomalies here and there: think of the Cameroon area in Africa which has a very substantial, and some say puzzling, Euro-haplotype evidence.
So don't be misled by those who start off with the notion that there's some "pure" base race and anything less than 100% this or that signifies mixtures. If genetic tests are done on Africans in Africa one will see that very, very few persons would be 100% African--as your post intimates. Note in this regard that African populations are the most genetically diverse in the world--with all the markers found in Africa--also found elsewhere.
Note too--and this is puzzling--mainly African Americans are taking these tests. Whites and other non-blacks seem to avoid them.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tee85:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ]Nope; but evidently you are loco; you are retarded for thinking that your selective picture spams, substitutes for bio-anthropological studies.
Yes, showing pictures is not science, but believing that by analizing "y" cromosomes and mtDNA out-of-context is "scientific" is even worst.
I have explained you once and once again what the term Moor mean in the HISPANIC culture we inherit from SPAIN (The land the Moors conquered after all):
Moro (Means) Moor, Moroccan, Muslim and BROWN.
Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
By the way, for Spaniards there isn't a difference in looks between a Persian, an Arab, a Palestinean or a Moroccan. They are all Moors. They all "look-the-same".
KAWASHKAR
What did Blacks contribute with Regards to Europe, and more specifically Spain??
Part of the reason why this WHOLE discussion has gone on so long is the fact that when you are talking about Moorish Spain, you are talking about a COSMOPOLITAN society made up of MANY different people. In MY opinion, the term Moor comes from the fact that many of the ORIGINAL invaders under Tarik were indeed DARK skinned. However, this initial wave was under the command of the Umayyid Empire based in Syria, who controlled Spain for 200+ years. Many of these rulers had BLACK soldiers and guards in their retinue. In all reality, when you talk about BLACKS in Moorish society, aside from the idea of VAGUE references to black soldiers, you are talking about the LEADERS of the various dynasties. Therefore, you can talk about leaders of the Almoravids and Almohads who are almost always referred to as black. But LEADERS arent the population and the population of Spain was MOSTLY Spanish, with a LARGE community of people from ALL OVER the Islamic world. Therefore, it is hard to tell, outside a few NOTABLE scholars who are known to us, what the make up was SPECIFICALLY of the prolific artists, scientists, architects and engineers in Moorish Spain. Ziryad is one of the NOTABLE exceptions in that we have descriptions of him and his accomplishments ALONG with descriptions of his features.
Other than that you we can only make VAGUE statements as goes for ANY of the groups involved in the populace of Al-Andalus.
If you do decide to do detailed research on the various aspects of analusian culture: jewelry, art, architecture and the like, beware of a residue of distortion in your readings:
quote: The Berbers are believed to be the original inhabitants of North Africa, preceding Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans and Goths. The Arabs were the last of the great waves of invaders of the region; led by 'Uqba ibn Nafi', they crossed the whole width of the continent in 684, and reached the Atlantic. Succeeding waves followed, but as settlers rather than invaders, coming up out of Arabia with their herds and households. The Berbers converted to Islam at an early date, but they retained their language, customs and ethnic identity. Indo-Europeans, the Berbers are the only fair-skinned people native to Africa; many have red hair and light eyes. In the southern oases, they have intermarried with sub-Saharan Africans to produce the Berber-speaking Haratine.
Roughly speaking, the elegant city culture of North Africa is Arab. The Berbers are typically country people, excellent farmers and stockbreeders, and inhabit the Rif, the Atlas and the oases, as well as certain towns such as Meknes and Tangier. Arab dress is essentially cut and sewn; Berber dress, far more archaic, is draped, as in classical times, and held with brooches and a belt. All of this has influenced both Arab and Berber jewelry.
...
While Berber women, especially the Haratine, are often loaded with remarkable amounts of jewelry, men wear little, apart from rings—and in modern times, watches—in accordance with the example of the Prophet; the same is, by and large, true of townsmen. Traditionally, however, all of a man's personal possessions are beautifully made and decorated, in particular his dagger (3) and chain, which until recently was a standard part of the male wardrobe; his gun, often magnificently inlaid; his powder horn (4) or powder flask (9); and in some cases, his Qur'an case (17)—worn by the Tuareg, for example, bound to their turbans. Unlike the custom in many other parts of the world, both men's and women's belts—an essential element where clothing is draped—are almost invariably made of cloth rather than metal.
The section above, while it gives credit to the Berbers for styles and influence among the Arabs, is PURELY nonsense in saying that North Africans are INDO EUROPEAN. What part of North Africa? What populations? It is an OUTDATED point of view in terms of ALL populations of North Africa. Any INDO Europeans are the ancestors of SOME African coastal populations. However, they were NOT the original NORTH AFRICANS. The ORIGNAL North Africans were BLACKS from East Africa.
Another thing to note is than any serious scholarship on the cultures and ancient peoples of the sahara is expensive:
"Note too--and this is puzzling--mainly African Americans are taking these tests. Whites and other non-blacks seem to avoid them".
Actually, Mark Shriver the man who did the research tested all races,European Americans,African Americans and Native Americans. He says his mother wanted him to stop.
quote:Both women are Tuareg, both are Black, both are African, both could represent the Moors.
No doubt both are Tuaregs, but the phenotype we call Moor in Spanish correspont to the "light" girl. No doubt both have "African" (whatever that means) on them.
Moors (for Spaniards) are Moroccans, Lybians, Algerians and Tunisians of Berber ancestry, and they are Africans.
Moors (for you people) are people of Mauritania.
Those are two concepts associated to the same word.
quote: Moor means Black.
Black means Black, Moor mean dark, and "white" Moors are also "dark". All Moors are darker than Europeans, so it is obvious where the name come from.
NO. Moor in 15th - 17th century Europe meant BLACK or NEGRO. This has been shown to you time and time again yet you STILL keep denying it. If you READ the literature on the Moors from this time period, the population is invariably characterized as either Spaniard (the native Spanish), Moor (African) or Arab. In this sense, there was no doubt that the Moor was a BLACK man. All the ambiguities about Africans from Morocco being tan or like Kabylie or Rif Berbers is a MODERN concept. It is odd that in the 15th - 17th century, there was NO distinction between African Moors being BLACK or WHITE. Therefore, considering ALL the evidence, it must be taken for granted that BLACKS were a major component of the forces invading Spain, but not the ONLY component.
The usage of the term Moor historically and the facts of signifigant numbers of Coastal "white" berbers makes it OBVIOUS that ALL ancient African Moors were NOT black and the term can be considered ambigous depending on use. However, YOU keep insisting on going in circles and you KEEP contradicting yourself. On the ONE hand you say Moor means ANY Muslim in medeival Spain, without regard to ethnicity or "race". However, you THEN turn around and try and CONVINCE us that all the AFRICAN Moors were white or LIGHT tan. This assertion has been PROVEN WRONG time and time again yet you STILL keep trying to come up with a NEW angle on the SAME thing. No matter HOW you slice it, MANY, not all, of the African Moors in ancient Spain dark skinned, including MANY who were JET BLACK. And these JET BLACK Moors held positions at ALL ranks of Moorish society, not just as SLAVES or MERCENARIES.
quote: Neither are Spanish, nor Europeans, nor white, nor were the orignal Moors.
I am talking of the Moors of Al-Andalus. Nothing else.
So are we.
quote: And your idea that only lighter skin Taureg can be Moors but darker ones can not, is senseless, and based on wishful thinking.
I wish only to clarify the concept of Moor in Al-Andalus and Spain.
It has already been clarfied, you are being a TROLL.
quote: The Moors shown below are even darker than the women, or most other Black Africans....
Don't you see, you are applying a definition of your choice. Not the one used in the Middle Ages.
No we arent. We have SHOWN you the historical definition of the term Moor as it existed in English. YOU are the one trying to DENY that fact.
quote: Do you really hate your own ancestry that much?
I love Moor culture very much,
(even knowing that Hispanic culture in general don't like it) and I wish I could visit the Maghreb one time. I know people there looks very much like I do. Amazigh, who were real Moors of Europe .
Care to provide some PROOF that the Amazigh are the REAL Moors of Europe?
Hey, I could be in one of this pictures.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Part of the reason why this WHOLE discussion has gone on so long is the fact that when you are talking about Moorish Spain, you are talking about a COSMOPOLITAN society made up of MANY different people.
I agree
quote: In MY opinion, the term Moor comes from the fact that many of the ORIGINAL invaders under Tarik were indeed DARK skinned. However, this initial wave was under the command of the Umayyid Empire based in Syria, who controlled Spain for 200+ years. Many of these rulers had BLACK soldiers and guards in their retinue.
That's also true. All the armies of the Muslims where multinationals, and also heavily crowded by locals and mercenaries.
quote: In all reality, when you talk about BLACKS in Moorish society, aside from the idea of VAGUE references to black soldiers, you are talking about the LEADERS of the various dynasties. Therefore, you can talk about leaders of the Almoravids and Almohads who are almost always referred to as black.
I could also agree on that, although I don't have evidency that the Almorivids rulers on Spain have any particular phenotype.
quote: But LEADERS arent the population and the population of Spain was MOSTLY Spanish, with a LARGE community of people from ALL OVER the Islamic world.
Absolutely. Even Gypsies (so important for Spain's culture) came in those times, for example.
quote: Therefore, it is hard to tell, outside a few NOTABLE scholars who are known to us, what the make up was SPECIFICALLY of the prolific artists, scientists, architects and engineers in Moorish Spain. Ziryad is one of the NOTABLE exceptions in that we have descriptions of him and his accomplishments ALONG with descriptions of his features.
Yes. The phenotype of most Muslim achievers is not known. How does Al-Hazen or Al-Kwarismi looked like? I can only guess.
That's very interisting and amazing! I think it is worth all this crazy debate. Thanks! I am very interested in the origins of Music.
quote: Other than that you we can only make VAGUE statements as goes for ANY of the groups involved in the populace of Al-Andalus.
If you do decide to do detailed research on the various aspects of analusian culture: jewelry, art, architecture and the like, beware of a residue of distortion in your readings:
That's is also something that interest me very much. For religious and historical reasons, the Hispanic culture has put a cover on anything that has an Jewish or Moor origin, but we know those are also part of our roots. I discovered the link with Sephardites not long ago, and I wish to know more about the Moors outside Spain.
quote: The Berbers are believed to be the original inhabitants of North Africa, preceding Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans and Goths. The Arabs were the last of the great waves of invaders of the region; led by 'Uqba ibn Nafi', they crossed the whole width of the continent in 684, and reached the Atlantic. Succeeding waves followed, but as settlers rather than invaders, coming up out of Arabia with their herds and households. The Berbers converted to Islam at an early date, but they retained their language, customs and ethnic identity. Indo-Europeans, the Berbers are the only fair-skinned people native to Africa; many have red hair and light eyes. In the southern oases, they have intermarried with sub-Saharan Africans to produce the Berber-speaking Haratine.
Roughly speaking, the elegant city culture of North Africa is Arab. The Berbers are typically country people, excellent farmers and stockbreeders, and inhabit the Rif, the Atlas and the oases, as well as certain towns such as Meknes and Tangier. Arab dress is essentially cut and sewn; Berber dress, far more archaic, is draped, as in classical times, and held with brooches and a belt. All of this has influenced both Arab and Berber jewelry.
...
While Berber women, especially the Haratine, are often loaded with remarkable amounts of jewelry, men wear little, apart from rings—and in modern times, watches—in accordance with the example of the Prophet; the same is, by and large, true of townsmen. Traditionally, however, all of a man's personal possessions are beautifully made and decorated, in particular his dagger (3) and chain, which until recently was a standard part of the male wardrobe; his gun, often magnificently inlaid; his powder horn (4) or powder flask (9); and in some cases, his Qur'an case (17)—worn by the Tuareg, for example, bound to their turbans. Unlike the custom in many other parts of the world, both men's and women's belts—an essential element where clothing is draped—are almost invariably made of cloth rather than metal.
quote: The section above, while it gives credit to the Berbers for styles and influence among the Arabs, is PURELY nonsense in saying that North Africans are INDO EUROPEAN. What part of North Africa? What populations? It is an OUTDATED point of view in terms of ALL populations of North Africa. Any INDO Europeans are RECENT immigrants with the ORIGINAL inhabitants being BLACKS from East Africa.
The Genographic Proyect shows a strong influence from West Asia in neolithical times. I guess that could explain part of the puzzle. And also it does explain the peopling of the Canarians.
Indo-European is a linguistic colection of tribes, anyways. (People forget there are many "white" people, like Basques and Finns that are not "Indo-Europeans")
Yes. That happens because is a recent field of study.
Now, for the matter of history, in Spain there is evidence of contact with coastal Berbers since, at least 1500 B.C.
The "moors" were always an headache for Spain and Italy. When the Phoenicians got established in there they founded Cartago and destroyed Tarsis! Tarsis was the earliest Iberian civilization.
Afterwards they feed up the Romans so much they were invaded. Then they practised piracy for hundred of years (Algiers was famous for that, so much that during the Middle Ages they were even hated in Al-Andalus!) Then they invaded Spain. Afterwars they were allies of the Turks (a bigger headache).
And finally, during the Spanish Civil War, Franco brough Moor troops to kill Spanish republicans!
Now, how come we don't know the "Moors"? (or, at least, the people we call Moors) But you are absolutely right in your comments.
Thanks for the info on Ziryab, that's precisely what I was looking for. I love Spanish music so certainly I will love the story of this musician.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: No. I haven't decided. Is codified in Spanish and in the Hispanic culture.
The word isn't Spanish in origin, and neither are the Moors, so your 'coding' is irrelevant. I can say the word spanish came to mean hyenna-dung in Dinka [southern Sudanese often call whites - hyenna dung], but I can't claim the orignal meaning of Spanish is hyenna-dung on that basis.
Again the word Moor isn't Spanish, and since the Spanish used the term synonymously with 'negro', you aren't even being honest about the Spanish use of it.
Your entire argument is a lie, repeated ad nauseum.
quote: Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
quote:Yes. You are right,
I know I am. And you are wrong, so why do you keep arguing?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The Islamic society that inhabited Al-Andalus was not only cosmopolitan in its population but in its culture as well. While we call the culture of Al-Andalus Islamic, it is important to remember that MANY of the ideas and techniques USED in Al-Andalus were products of more ANCIENT cultures, including those of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Libya, Asia, Persia and elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that techniques of leatherworking, textiles and architecture are indeed ancient in Africa and that these ANCIENT traditions were present BEFORE the arrival of Arabs or Islam. There is also no doubt that these traditions influenced Islam and the Arabs as they swept through North Africa.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
[b]NO. Moor in 15th - 17th century Europe meant BLACK or NEGRO.
That's too late! By the 15th century very few Moors remained in Spain. They were being pushed out already.
Europe is not Spain. Who cares about European bigots that used the term Moor as synonim of Black?
quote: This has been shown to you time and time again yet you STILL keep denying it. If you READ the literature on the Moors from this time period, the population is invariably characterized as either Spaniard (the native Spanish), Moor (African) or Arab.
Moor mean African, of course. But you insist that all africans are "Negro" (you used that word, but actually that is the word which in Spanish is used with very dark skinned people)
quote: In this sense, there was no doubt that the Moor was a BLACK man.
Yes. It there is DOUBT. I have been trying to explain it all along. Moro, Moreno (Moorish) mean brown (or light Mulatto if you wish), no Black.
quote: All the ambiguities about Africans from Morocco being tan or like Kabylie or Rif Berbers is a MODERN concept.
No. The ambiguities are OLDER than the Arab invasion. Or do you believe that Hannibal was a subsaharan Black man?
quote: It is odd that in the 15th - 17th century, there was NO distinction between African Moors being BLACK or WHITE. Therefore, considering ALL the evidence, it must be taken for granted that BLACKS were a major component of the forces invading Spain, but not the ONLY component.
That's true in the Almoravide period, but I sincerely doubt it during the 8th century. Particularly when Subsaharan Africans where not conquered by the Muslims as yet. Yes there were Black people between the population known as the Moors (in the sense of Africans) but most of the Moors where not exactly like you think.
quote: The usage of the term Moor historically and the facts of signifigant numbers of Coastal "white" berbers makes it OBVIOUS that ALL ancient African Moors were NOT black and the term can be considered ambigous depending on use. However, YOU keep insisting on going in circles and you KEEP contradicting yourself. On the ONE hand you say Moor means ANY Muslim in medeival Spain, without regard to ethnicity or "race".
Muslim is the first meaning, which comes from a political and religious point of view: that is, all the Muslims are the same and all of them are Moors.
Moroccan (or the Maghreb) is the geografical location asociated with the Moors.
Moreno: brown, dark eyes, curly Greek style hair, is the phenotype associated with the Moor. In short, the Amazigh is the people that fit better the stereotype, not the Black Africans.
quote: However, you THEN turn around and try and CONVINCE us that all the AFRICAN Moors were white or LIGHT tan.
Sorry, but I never said "ALL", I said "Most". I say the "stereotypical" Moor is the one that "looks in-between". I did not say there were not Blacks counted between the Moors, and also that some blond and blue eyed people where also counted between them.
quote: This assertion has been PROVEN WRONG time and time again yet you STILL keep trying to come up with a NEW angle on the SAME thing. No matter HOW you slice it, MANY, not all, of the African Moors in ancient Spain dark skinned, including MANY who were JET BLACK. And these JET BLACK Moors held positions at ALL ranks of Moorish society, not just as SLAVES or MERCENARIES
I would say SOME, not all. But otherwise I agree.
quote: Neither are Spanish, nor Europeans, nor white, nor were the orignal Moors.
That shows you the flexibility of the concept. Same people say that Osama Bin Laden is a Moor, for example.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
Moor mean African, of course. But you insist that all africans are "Negro" (you used that word, but actually that is the word which in Spanish is used with very dark skinned people)
Whats a Negro???
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote: you aren't even being honest about the Spanish use of it.
Read it yourself. This is the definition used in Spain. It comes from the OFFICIAL dictionary of the Spanish language. So when you read documentation about the Moors of Spain from Spanish sources YOU HAVE TO USE THE SPANISH DEFINITION. PERIOD.
READ. I WON'T REPEAT IT.
moro, ra. (Del lat. Maurus). 1. adj. Natural del África septentrional frontera a España. U. t. c. s.
Natural from North Africa at the frontier with SPAIN.
2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte de África.
From that part of Africa (The frontier with Spain, no other).
3. adj. Que profesa la religión islámica. U. t. c. s.
Muslim.
4. adj. Se dice del musulmán que habitó en España desde el siglo VIII hasta el XV. U. t. c. s.
Muslim that lived from the 8th to the 15th century in Spain.
5. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a la España musulmana de aquel tiempo.
From Muslim Spain.
6. adj. Se dice del musulmán de Mindanao y de otras islas de Malasia. U. m. c. s.
Muslim from Malasya.
7. adj. Dicho de un caballo o de una yegua: De pelo negro con una estrella o mancha blanca en la frente y calzado de una o dos extremidades.
For horses. The one that has a with start at the forefront.
8. adj. coloq. Dicho del vino: Que no está aguado, en contraposición al bautizado o aguado.
For wine: pure, without water.
9. adj. coloq. Dicho de una persona, especialmente un niño: Que no ha sido bautizado.
For children: the one that has not beeing baptized.
10. adj. Cuba. Dicho de una persona mulata: De tez oscura, cabello negro lacio y facciones finas.
Of races (IN CUBA ONLY) of a Mulatto that has straight hair.
11. m. trigo moro.
A kind of wheat.
moro de paz. 1. m. moro marroquí que servía de intermediario para tratar con los demás moros en los presidios españoles de África.
Moroccan that served like a link with the other Moors (Moroccan) in the Spanish jails in Africa.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Negro originally designated a black thing. When dark skinned Africans were enslaved the word was applied to them.
The Portuguese banned using nego in regards to human being. A black person in that language is prieto.
Iberians first raided the coast of what's now southern Morocco, Western Sahara, and Mauritania for humans to enslave.
The Amazigh thusly enslaved offered Gnawa at a rate of from 3-to-1 to 7-to-1 in ransom exchange for their freedom.
That was how the direct shipment of enslaved humans was embarked by the Iberians. When they tried raiding below the river Senegal their ships were sunk by the canoe fleets upriver.
A symbiotic business was established where Gnawa themselves supplied the Iberians (and later other Europeans) with human cargo on business terms favoring the Africans, just as they had supplied the Imazighen, Arabized Imazighen, Egyptians, Arabs, and Persians in an already centuries old business venture.
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: Moor mean African, of course. But you insist that all africans are "Negro" (you used that word, but actually that is the word which in Spanish is used with very dark skinned people)
Whats a Negro???
Posted by ARROW99 (Member # 11614) on :
Moors are not generally considered to be negroid.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The issue of Haratin versus Berber versus slave versus ORIGINAL BLACK Saharan oasis dwellers:
quote: In Morocco, the word Haratin tends to be applied to the dark-skinned agriculturalists of the southern oases, stretching towards Western Sahara, who largely identify as Chleuh berbers, although some native Arabic speakers also exist. In some Moroccan oral history traditions, the Haratin of the south eastern oases were the 'original' inhabitants[1]. The term is used separately from that of Gnawa, which tends to refer to a clearly former sub-Saharan slaves and to a somewhat distinct cultural and religious movement composed of Sufi turuq (orders or brotherhoods) and music groups that has began to include different ethnicities. As Moroccan society has modernised and urbanised, the categories have broken down with inter-marriage and rural to urban migration.
What is a NATIVE arabic speaker? Why is the idea of BLACK Berbers treated as STRANGE? Why do BLACK Africans have to be BERBERIZED? ALL of it is a bunch of NONSENSE to exclude BLACK populations from being INDIGENOUS to the area. Berber ORIGINATES in Eastern Africa and is a substratum of Afro Asiatic. How the HELL do they jump across ALL the other people in the Sahara to identify the ORIGINS of Berber language and culture on the coast? That is absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Moors are not generally considered to be negroid.
It is NOT about the word. People can define words to mean what they WANT them to mean. The WORD Moor in Europe was ORIGINALLY intended to mean DARK SKINNED BLACK AFRICAN from the ROOT Maure which was a ROMAN term. Moor in reference to Al-Andalus Spain is a reference to the BLACK African component of the Islamic armies that invaded Spain. They were not the ONLY component, however, they were SIGNIFIGANT enough to be called Moors. You are RIGHT, however, in that MODERN usage of the word Moor reflects a better description of the VARIOUS Muslim people that occupied Spain. HOWEVER, that does not change the fact that MANY BLACK Africans were among the Muslim invaders.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Richard B. Moore The name "Negro": its origin and evil use New York: Afro-American Publishers, 1960
Lee Anne Durham Seminario The history of the Blacks, the Jews, and the Moors in Spain Madrid: Playor, 1975
Ivan Van Sertima (editor) The Golden Age of the Moor [Journal of African Civilizations, Vol. II, Fall 1991] New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992 Table of Contents (clickable link) A Mobt Themim, veiled Western Saharan similar to Sanhadja al~Muribitûn (Almoravide) dynasty Moors who ruled from the Senegal River to the Ebro River in late 11th-mid 12th century Spain.
Stanley Lane-Poole The Story of the Moors in Spain New York: GP Putnam's Sons, 1886 Table of Contents (clickable link) 19th century Orientalist painting of a Moorish Sheikh
Joseph McCabe The Splendour of Moorish Spain London: Watts & Co., 1935
For the aftermath facing Spanish Moors after the Reconquesta
Henry Charles Lea, LL.D. The Moriscos of Spain: their conversion and expulsion [Burt Frankin: Research & Source Works Series # 272] New York: Burt Franklin, 1901
Salma Khadra Jayyusi (editor) The Legacy of Muslim Spain (Handbook of Oriental Studies : the Near and Middle East, Vol. 12) Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994
The civilisation of medieval Muslim Spain is perhaps the most brilliant and prosperous of its age and has been essential to the direction which civilisation in medieval Europe took. This volume is the first ever in any language to deal in a really comprehensive manner with all major aspects of Islamic civilisation in medieval Spain.
quote:The editor notes in her foreword that no Arab or Muslim in modern times "has ever visited al-Andalus and viewed its great Islamic monuments without experiencing a mixture of pride and regret." But wistfulness extends to others too. Jews remember it as a golden age, as do more than a few Spaniards and other Catholics. Romantics, historians of science and philosophy, ethnomusicologists, and others all take special interest in Muslim Spain (a.d. 711-1492).
To commemorate the quincentennial of its demise, Jayyusi put together a conference in Granada, attended by King Juan Carlos, to survey every aspect of Andalusian life from political history to cuisine, from religious practices to gardening. The result is a two-volume compendium that contains all that a non-specialist might want to know on the subject. Of particular interest are the articles that, in the spirit of the book's title, point to Muslim Spain's historical impact. Abbas Hamdani spells out its unsung but vital contribution to the voyages of discovery, including such little-known events as the Portuguese drive to Mecca. Luce López-Baralt reveals Spain's long and deep reluctance to acknowledge its literary debt to Andalus, and yet how this has rapidly changed in recent years, to the point that one writer, Juan Goytisolo, symbolically finished his novel, Juan sin tierra, in the Arabic language.
the above review is by Daniel Pipes
Posted by ARROW99 (Member # 11614) on :
I'm sure there were black Africans in that group but I would not think it would have been a large percentage. I would not think the liftstyle of blacks in North Africa would have differed much at all from the various muslim peoples you spoke of.
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on :
I can't believe that this is even an issue for discussion...
The Moors were African Muslims...
Majority of the worlds Muslim population is Africans OR people of dark-skinned colours...
Peace!~
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Moors are not generally considered to be negroid.
Repetition of fact is apparently necessary for the learning disabled:
Moor is a term of Greco/Latin origin meaing dark or black.
Negro is a Spanish word that was originally used by the Spanish interchangably with Moor.
Now, let us know if you need this to be explained again in smaller words, because we will keep explaining it until you stop pretending to not understand it.
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
Movies and other depictions based on Shakespeare's "Ohtello" often depict Othello as Black and he is a "Moor".
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ The whole point of Othello is the marriage between the black Moor and the white woman Desdemona and the racially-tinged jealousy this engenders in Iago, a Venetian, who sets out to destroy their relationship so that he can have Desdomona for himself.
That's why Othello is either played by black actors or white actors in black-face .
If Othello isn't black then the story makes no sense.
Iago = Kawashkar? Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ From Othello:
Iago: "Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is tupping your white ewe"
tupping = well, you should be able to figure that out.
This is why Iago hated Othello, and it speaks in a way to why some Southern Europeans still resent Blacks.
Sharkespeare - a Freudian ahead of his time. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^
quote:Iago = Kawashkar?
ROTFL Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Nope; but evidently you are loco; you are retarded for thinking that your selective picture spams, substitutes for bio-anthropological studies.
Yes, showing pictures is not science
Exactly, which is why it is a wonder you have the nerve to call someone else crazy when you are confronted with scientific material, but reject that science in favor of pure pseudo-scientific [and nonetheless selective] propagation via worthless and pointless thread-wasting picture spams.
quote:kawashkar:
but believing that by analizing "y" cromosomes and mtDNA out-of-context is "scientific" is even worst.
Even more worst, is the act of outright lying, which is what you've clearly done here. Who mentioned anything about "y" chromosomes or mtDNA, with respect to "skin" color or your still outstanding [but yet to be delivered] obligation to fulfill the request for primary text from "Middle Age" era Spanish-European, Not "Latino", Spanish-"American", "Chicano" or what have you bunch from the Americas, on the contextual use of "Moors" in Spain, and on why it was used in that manner?
quote:kawashkar:
I have explained you once and once again what the term Moor mean in the HISPANIC culture we inherit from SPAIN (The land the Moors conquered after all)
Incessant lying, which is what you are really referring to here, is still pseudo-science, no matter how many times you repeat it.
quote:kawashkar:
Moro (Means) Moor, Moroccan, Muslim and BROWN.
Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
By the way, for Spaniards there isn't a difference in looks between a Persian, an Arab, a Palestinean or a Moroccan. They are all Moors. They all "look-the-same".
KAWASHKAR
Where can I get primary texts on etymology of this term "Moors", the meaning of which seems to shift every time you present it, whereby it was first "dark" [skin color], to "Muslim", to "in between", to reference to "Spanish-Americans", and now to "brown". Hence, produce the primary source which presents authentic/original etymology of "Moors" that claims that the term meant all these things as just outlined above. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
While we wait for Kawash to get back to us with his research, lets explore further the current confusion over the term BERBER and what it represents:
quote: Little is known of the origins of the indigenous population of the Maghrib, the Berbers, except that they have always been a composite people. After the 8th century ce, a process of Arabization affected the bulk of the Berbers, while the Arab-Islamic culture and population absorbed local elements as well. Under the unifying framework of Islam, on the one hand, and as a result of the Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib. In addition, Berber tribes sometimes claimed Arab descent in order to enhance their prestige. For example, the Berber nomadic tribe of the western Sahara, the Lamtuna, claimed descent from one of the South Arabian eponyms, Himyar. One of the chiefs of this Berber tribe, Lamtuna, is sometimes referred to as Saharawi, meaning “one of the nomads” or “one who comes from the Sahara” (Ibn al-Athir 1898, p. 462; Ibn Khallikan 1972, pp. 113, 128–129; Lewicki 1986). In Arabic sources, however, the name Saharawi is seldom used and does not seem to refer to a specific genealogical group. In light of these historical data, it is not surprising to find, among the Berbers and contemporary Saharawis of northern Africa, Y chromosomes that may have been introduced by recurrent waves of invaders from the Arabian Peninsula.
These documented historical events, together with the finding of a particular Eu10 haplotype in Yemenis, Palestinians, and NW Africans, are suggestive of a recent common origin of these chromosomes. Remarkably, the only non-Arabs in whom this haplotype has been observed to date are the Berbers (Bosch et al. 2001). It appears that the Eu10 chromosome pool in NW Africa is derived not only from early Neolithic dispersions but also from recent expansions from the Arabian peninsula.
This article is a perfect example of the FAKE history of North Africa that is now being promoted as "scientific". First off, how come they can say on ONE hand that they DONT know much about the Berbers, but on the OTHER hand say that they are a "composite"? Based on WHAT? On top of that, they DONT identify WHO the Berbers are and ethnic group, a language or a culture? ARABS are USING the term BERBER to give themselves a FAKE ancestry in Northern Africa and to SUPPRESS the indigenous people of the Sahara, the ORIGINAL population of BLACK Africans. Note how WHENEVER populations of the Sahara are mentioned, the BERBER are listed as SEPARATE from the Haratin. Now the Haratin are OFTEN identified as either the ORIGINAL population OR former slaves OR both. THEN the Berber are listed as some OTHER type of group NOT related to the INDIGENOUS population. HOW can that be? How can a group that is supposedly the ORIGINAL population be UNRELATED to the other people listed as the ORIGINAL population? It is NOT possible.
This WHOLE idea of BERBER as being representative of WHITE or MIXED WHITE, or ARAB and MIXED Arab ancient North AFricans is NONSENSE. The ORIGINAL people from the Sahara did NOT come from the COAST of North Africa. This FACT has been PROVEN time and time again. The ORIGINAL populations of the Sahara were BLACK people who migrated North, South, East and West after the drying up of the Sahara. These people were somewhat settled agriculturalists and nomads who MOVED to find new sources of water to grow crops. IN FACT, the ancient Egyptians, Kushites and "Nubians" all derived partly from the Migrations of Neolithic Saharan BLACK African. Ancient cities have been found in the Sahara and these people had established the ancient Saharan trade routes, PRIOR to the coming of Arabs. Aoudaghost is an ANCIENT city from about the 5th century B.C.E that lies at the SOUTHERN end of the Saharan trade routes.
Keep in mind that ALL the countries with IMPORTANT cities and cultures dating to the PRE B.C. or early AD period are NOW owned by ARAB countries. Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania AND Sudan are ALL arab leaning countries trying to put an ARAB identity on ANCIENT BLACK Cultures of North Africa. THIS is why people like Kawash come here and start talking about NOrth Africa as some ancient MIXED Mulatto Empire when it wasnt. Mauretania has the ancient cities of the Ghana empire as well as ancient cities of the Almoravids. Sudan has ancient cities of Kush and other cultures. ALL of these ancient cultures are being SEPARATED from the history of Africa and FORCED into a separate ZONE of INDO ARAB influence, where the HISTORIES of these areas will be GRAFTED into ARAB history.
This study therefore, contradicts itself. On one hand it says that the Arabs are RECENT arrivals to the scene, sometimes trying to establish an ANCIENT identity for so-called Berber clans (Sahrawi). ON the OTHER hand, the article makes the claim that the ancient Saharans WERE mixed populations of African/Arab/Mediterraneans. All of this in the context of GENETIC research which is based on LIVING populations, without corresponding data on the craniofacial features of ANCIENT and HISTORIC populations. It is all a farce:
quote: Cattle Period
By 6000 BCE predynastic Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BCE centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture: cattle, goats, pigs and sheep.[6] Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone.[6] Tanning animal skins, pottery and weaving are commonplace in this era also.[6] There are indications of seasonal or only temporary occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BCE, with food activities centering on fishing, hunting and food-gathering.[7] Stone arrowheads, knives and scrapers are common.[7] Burial items include pottery, jewelry, farming and hunting equipment, and assorted foods including dried meat and fruit.[6] The dead are buried facing due west.[6] [edit]
Berber Period
The Phoenicians created a confederation of kingdoms across the entire Sahara to Egypt, generally settling on the coasts but sometimes in the desert also.
By 2500 BC the Sahara was as dry as it is today and it became a largely impenetrable barrier to humans, with only scattered settlements around the oases, but little trade or commerce through the desert. The one major exception was the Nile Valley. The Nile, however, was impassable at several cataracts making trade and contact difficult.
Sometime between 633 and 530 BCE Hanno the Navigator either established or reinforced Phoenician colonies in the Western Sahara, but all ancient remains have vanished with virtually no trace. See History of Western Sahara.
So SUDDENLY the Sahara is unpopulated and the current inhabitants, the BERBERS and their ancient confederations are descended from the PHOENICIANS? Holy mother of nonsense. What about the people ALREADY THERE? What about the Neolitich Saharans who were there and living in the oases after the Sahara dried up? How on EARTH could the Phonecians REPLACE the WHOLE population of the Sahara, an area BIGGER than the continental U.S.? It simply IS NOT POSSIBLE. This is the NONSENSE that gets passed off as HISTORY. But yet and still, when one says that the Egyptians settled a colony in Greece or Europe and formed civilization and were the basis of the population there, it is RIDICULED. Yet somehow, the TINY country of Phonecia all of a sudden FORMS a whole SERIES of cities all over the Sahara, with NO direct access to them from the Sea? Only IDIOTS believe this nonsense.
quote: There is another reason for insisting on this point. Time and again the achievements of men in Africa -- men of Africa -- have been laid at the door of some mysterious but otherwise unexplained "people from outside Africa." It is not only "Hamites" who have given scope for the "inarticulate major premise" of an inherent African (or black) inferiority. Over the past fifty years or so, whenever anything remarkable or inexplicable has turned up in Mica, a whole galaxy of non-African (or at any rate non-black) peoples are dogged in to explain it. The Phoenicians are brought in to explain Zimbabwe in Rhodesia. The Egyptians are produced as the painters of the "white lady" of the Brandberg in southwest Africa. Greeks or Portuguese are paraded as the inspirers and teachers of those who worked in terra cotta and in bronze in medieval West Africa. Even the Hittites have had their day. Yet every one of these achievements and phenomena is now generally agreed to have had a purely African origin.
Basically Berber in North Africa today is the HAMITE of old, an attempt to SEPARATE the achievements of BLACK Africans civilizations of ancient times from BLACK Africans of today.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Sure wish somebody could produce Lotfi Cherni's genetic study on the Kesra, a northern Amazigh people with high hg L frequencies and who were unscathed by any physical Arabization.
They seem to be a match for the old beyond the limes Berbers of the Roman and Byzantine writers.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
What a confussion!
First, the fact that Shakespeare used the word Moor with respect to Iago is nothing strange. (Besides, he was a "gringo" ) However, if Iago was a Black African of the Congolese type or a dark skinned Arab looking fellow it does not make a difference. They both are darker than Europeans so they both will suffer racial discrimination.
Ludovico "el Moro", for example, very likely was Black. Period. And perhaps he was the model of Shakespeare's plays.
The problem with the term Moor is that means many different things in different places and times. And people should realize that.
Means: (1) Dark, particularly "darker than us". (2) Means Muslim. (3) Means brown, curly, dark eyes. (4) Means Berber (5) Means Black African as well, in other contexts.
Moor is a concept as flexible as "Asian". Not all Asian look the same, indeed. Moor is as flexible a concept like the idea of "White" (who is and who is not?).
Perhaps the terms "Hispanics" or "Latinos" could give you an idea of "flexible" ethnic concepts.
In Spain, Moor mean the Muslims and also the Maghreb Bereber, particularly Moroccan, and is associated to the light brown skinned complexion of the Amazigh. So, my only point is that reading on Spanish history from Spanish sources you have to realize that.
No doubt that Moor also mean Tuareg and even Black African, particularly in Mauritania, but that is another chapter of the same history.
And looking for the definition of the word "Moor" does not help very much.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Sure wish somebody could produce Lotfi Cherni's genetic study on the Kesra, a northern Amazigh people with high hg L frequencies and who were unscathed by any physical Arabization.
They seem to be a match for the old beyond the limes Berbers of the Roman and Byzantine writers.
I will provide some excerpts from it, in a new thread.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Thanks.
Watching THE SAHARA on the HISTORY channel at this moment. Same old distortions. Miss the old African docs A&E/TLC/DSC showed back in the mid-late 80s and early 90s. They were much more progressive than this drivel HIST's airing right now.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Cherni L, Loueslati BY, Pereira L, Ennafaa H, Amorim A, El Gaaied AB.
Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Immunology, and Biotechnology, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis, El Manar II 1060, Tunisia.
North African populations are considered genetically closer to Eurasians than to sub-Saharans. However, they display a considerably high mtDNA heterogeneity among them, namely in the frequencies of the U6, East African, and sub-Saharan haplogroups. In this study, we describe and compare the female gene pools of two neighboring Tunisian populations, Kesra (Berber) and Zriba (non-Berber), which have contrasting historical backgrounds. Both populations presented lower diversity values than those observed for other North African populations, and they were the only populations not showing significant negative Fu's F(S) values.
Kesra displayed a much higher proportion of typical sub-Saharan haplotypes (49%, including 4.2% of M1 haplogroup) than Zriba (8%). With respect to U6 sequences, frequencies were low (2% in Kesra and 8% in Zriba), and all belonged to the subhaplogroup U6a. An analysis of these data in the context of North Africa reveals that the emerging picture is complex, because Zriba would match the profile of a Berber Moroccan population, whereas Kesra, which shows twice the frequency of sub-Saharan lineages normally observed in northern coastal populations, would match a western Saharan population except for the low U6 frequency.
The North African patchy mtDNA landscape has no parallel in other regions of the world and increasing the number of sampled populations has not been accompanied by any substantial increase in our understanding of its phylogeography. Available data up to now rely on sampling small, scattered populations, although they are carefully characterized in terms of their ethnic, linguistic, and historical backgrounds.
It is therefore doubtful that this picture truly represents the complex historical demography of the region rather than being just the result of the type of samplings performed so far. Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
kawashkar:
Why do you keep seperating Tuareg people from the collective imazghen[plural of Amazigh]? Tuaregs are every bit as Berber[Imazghen] as Kaybele,Riffian,Chueluh,or any other group,but you seem to isolate them from the rest? Why? You don't seem well versed on either Neolithic North Western Africa;the Imazghen poeple; or the Medieval North Western Africa.
Most Berber groups in modern day Mauritania actually come from Libya and Morocco. Tuaregs trace their ancestry to Libya and Morocco both.
The term Amaizgh is only a word applied to Kaybeles but it has know became the common name that Berbers use for themselves throughout north-western Africa. Each so-called Berber groups has a different name they use for themselves.
Plus you showing darker Spainards from Seville is no big deal considering that lots of dark skinned gypsies have amalganted into the Iberian peninsula. The earliest gyspies before mixing were often reffered to in European literature as ''dark as Ethiopians''. The irony of this is the Berber you showed is actually lighter than those children from Seville.
Many Southern Europeans can get tans but how many have that natural color?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
The term Amaizgh is only a word applied to Kaybeles but it has know became the common name that Berbers use for themselves throughout north-western Africa. Each so-called Berber groups has a different name they use for themselves.
...which I suspect beats the term "Berber", considering that "Berber" is actually a pejorative. Same for the term "Tuareg" from what I've heard. The "Tuareg" groups in Algeria actually refer to themselves as "Isseqquamaren", while those in Niger, something along the lines of "Kel Nam" or Kel Tamasheq.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The word Amazigh never just applied to Kabyle. The root M-Z-GH appears in ancient Greek records of eastern "Libyans" living far to the west of the Lebu/Rebu, Tjemehu, or Tjehenu of AE records.
Amazigh are a people, not just speakers of a language set. Like all peoples they have an origin story. Theirs is that they spring from an eponymous ancestor, Mazigh. This Mazigh's grandson Berr is thought to be where the onomatopoeiac ethnonym "Berber" originates. The Imazighen classify themselves under two major Berr clans, Beranis or Butr.
Posted by AMR1 (Member # 7651) on :
Moors were all type of people, they were west africans , blonde berbers, and Arabs. Arab Moors were the rulers of Spain.
But some here tend to paste pictures of west african moors to claim that all Moors were black.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Moors were all type of people, they were west africans , blonde berbers, and Arabs. Arab Moors were the rulers of Spain.
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Even the term Spanish American is a bogus one becasue it refers to Spaniards born in USA territory. Most people use it to mean a Mexican American, a Bolivian American born is USA. Una mentira! A Mexican born in USA is not and can never be a Spanish America. Bogus psychology but it is oft repeated to deny heritage through self deception!
Posted by Ceelgabo_11 (Member # 8942) on :
THe Muslims of Spain were called Moors, because fast majority of Muslims in Spain including Arabs from Southern Arabia and Berbers were darker than average Spainard. The Muslims of Spain also had large number of newly African converts from Sahara and Africans who lived in Arabia for thousands of years in Arabia. Matter fact the general who lead muslim conquest of Egypt was said to be a black man.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^^Feel free to answer the outstanding questions meant for Kawashkar and Amr1, since those were never answered. Come on; let's have less blabbering, and more substantiation. Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: kawashkar:
Why do you keep seperating Tuareg people from the collective imazghen[plural of Amazigh]? Tuaregs are every bit as Berber[Imazghen] as Kaybele,Riffian,Chueluh,or any other group,but you seem to isolate them from the rest? Why? You don't seem well versed on either Neolithic North Western Africa;the Imazghen poeple; or the Medieval North Western Africa.
I am not separating them. I am just saying that imagining the Moor population of Spain during the Middle Ages was pure Tuareg does not match with historical records and with the descendents of Moors that still exist in Spain and the Americas. What we see is people that look "Kaybele".
quote: ... Plus you showing darker Spainards from Seville is no big deal considering that lots of dark skinned gypsies have amalganted into the Iberian peninsula. The earliest gyspies before mixing were often reffered to in European literature as ''dark as Ethiopians''.
Actually, that's curious but the Gypsies of Spain does not look like the Gypsies of the rest of Europe or the Americas. We have Gypsies in Chile and they are almost all blond and blue eyed people. The Gypsies of Spain "look Moor". I believe there is a reason for that.
quote: The irony of this is the Berber you showed is actually lighter than those children from Seville.
What irony? I tried to show the reality like it is. Those people exist in Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Greece, and they are also common between Arabs and Jewish peoples. And they are non recent immigrants, I tell you. I picked the pictures that show a non-European ascendency in locals.
quote: Many Southern Europeans can get tans but how many have that natural color?
Quite a bit, indeed. There are many dark skinned people with "European" facial features in Europe. People that are usually called "Morenos" or Moorish.
Look at the Kaybeles now, that some call "white" Moors, and you will find the same phenotypes between theirs population.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Moors were all type of people, they were west africans , blonde berbers, and Arabs. Arab Moors were the rulers of Spain.
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
The Arabs of Spain came from Arabia and Bagdad directly. The Arab population of Spain it was numerous, to the point Moor and Arab are synonims in Spanish. It is hard to tell how many of the foreigners that established in Spain came from where. It is known they came from North Africa, Egypt, the Middle East including Persia, and even Egypt and Ethiopia. People of those times moved quickly from country to country.
Now, it is also true that the local population was a lot larger than the one of the foreigners, and that Muslims have to resort to tolerancy just to keep the control of the situation.
From the 8th century up to the 12th century it was better to live under a Califa ruler than a Christian king and many appreciate the foreign dominion. However, after those times, Islam changed and become more intolerant. Otherwise, perhaps Al-Andalus could still exist.
In any case, the culture of the elites in Al-Andalus was international and Arab. The culture of the people continued to be basically Hispanic. As a proof of that is the fact that Jews produced many of its poetry in Spanish dialects, and not Arab.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Even the term Spanish American is a bogus one becasue it refers to Spaniards born in USA territory. Most people use it to mean a Mexican American, a Bolivian American born is USA. Una mentira! A Mexican born in USA is not and can never be a Spanish America. Bogus psychology but it is oft repeated to deny heritage through self deception!
Sorry fellow but you are confusing terms.
First, Hispanics don't have a convoluted psychology and inferiority complexes like others peoples in the Americas. We like to say things clearly and we are not ashamed of what we are, but proud of it.
Spanish (or Spaniard) is a person from Spain. Hispanic is a person from Hispanic America, which is the set of all the countries of the Americas that Speak Spanish. Hispanic is a geographical term and fixed the nationality of the people, not its genetics.
A Bolivian is an Hispanic American because Bolivia is considered a Hispanic country, and shares history, culture and background with all the rest of the countries founded by the Spaniards. The same for Mexicans.
That you people don't understand that is your problem, not ours. Latinos usually don't have unresolved problems of identity, hidden shames or inferiority complexes that limit us. We don't consider anyone to be better or worst than us. That's simple.
In particular, we don't consider Spaniards are better than us because they live in Europe. And less we would consider a "gringo" to be our superior. No way.
In any case, most Hispanic Americans do have Spanish ancestors, indeed. So the relation is not just casual of a matter of "passing".
After all we don't have to pass fom anyone, because we are proud of what we are and of what we are going to be... quite soon.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Moors were all type of people, they were west africans , blonde berbers, and Arabs. Arab Moors were the rulers of Spain.
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
The Arabs of Spain came from Arabia and Bagdad directly...
I see that you are not excited about answering outstanding questions specifically addressed to you, but overly enthusiastic about answering part of the questionaire posed to another distracter, namely Amr1. Well, in that case, how about answering the rest of the questionaire posed to Amr1, that is, this highlighted piece:
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
And then, how about one which was specifically addressed to you, and not another distracter:
Where can I get primary texts on etymology of this term "Moors", the meaning of which seems to shift every time you present it, whereby it was first "dark" [skin color], to "Muslim", to "in between", to reference to "Spanish-Americans", and now to "brown". Hence, produce the primary source which presents authentic/original etymology of "Moors" that claims that the term meant all these things as just outlined above.
There is no sense in being excited about answering questions meant for others, while evading the mounting number of questions specifically dedicated to you, now is there? Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Moors were all type of people, they were west africans , blonde berbers, and Arabs. Arab Moors were the rulers of Spain.
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
The Arabs of Spain came from Arabia and Bagdad directly...
I see that you are not excited about answering outstanding questions specifically addressed to you, but overly enthusiastic about answering part of the questionaire posed to another distracter, namely Amr1. Well, in that case, how about answering the rest of the questionaire posed to Amr1, that is, this highlighted piece:
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
And then, how about one which was specifically addressed to you, and not another distracter:
Where can I get primary texts on etymology of this term "Moors", the meaning of which seems to shift every time you present it, whereby it was first "dark" [skin color], to "Muslim", to "in between", to reference to "Spanish-Americans", and now to "brown". Hence, produce the primary source which presents authentic/original etymology of "Moors" that claims that the term meant all these things as just outlined above.
There is no sense in being excited about answering questions meant for others, while evading the mounting number of questions specifically dedicated to you, now is there?
Sorry for the "evasion". It was not my intention. Actually, as you as seen, I have just tried to "survive" de debate
I have more information in Spanish than in English, and also printed books, however I would recommed you read the following information to start with.
This information in Wikipedia (horror) does not contradict what I do know about the Moors at all. Notice that the original lands of the Moors are the Maghreb.
General information on the Moors can be found on here.
Notice that in the following page, the reference to the invasion is "invasiones árabes" (arabian invasions). Actually, it is know that Arabs from Damasco were also part of the first wave of invasions.
I will try to find precise information on demographics, but is quite dificult to find.
There are many books of the time that describe the Moors as well. The classic is "The Cid", written in the 12th Century, that describes the common Moors and the impact of the Almoravide invasion.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
Sorry for the "evasion". It was not my intention. Actually, as you as seen, I have just tried to "survive" de debate
I have more information in Spanish than in English, and also printed books, however I would recommed you read the following information to start with.
Well, you are "dying" from debate; not surviving it. I didn't ask for "Wikipedia"; I asked for primary ancient texts, which is implied, when you are talking about authentic "etymology" of the term "Moors". Where is the primary authentic text, i.e. "citation", where the "etymology" of "Moors" shows that it had simultaneous "Multi" meanings that you've attached to the term. I want a direct and relevant answer to the requests made of you; not "recommendation" on "wikipedia" and the like. You've attached meanings to the term; and now back them up with the request herein.
Take a hint from your "wikipedia" [which is not a primary ancient text] link, which states:
"Moor" comes from the Greek word "Mavros" (plural Mavroi), meaning black or very dark, which in Roman Latin became "Mauro" (plural "Mauri"). The Roman word for black was not "mauro" but "niger", or "Fusco" for “very dark”. In some but certainly not all, cases, Moors were described as “fuscus”.
So take that piece for example, which presents a Greek origin for the term in this instance, i.e "Mavro", and verify it in a primary Greek text, whereby it would mean "Muslim", "brown", "Spaniard", "Arabs" and so forth concurrently or contemporaneously, i.e. aside from the single meaning presented in the citation, which happens to be "black". Got it; I hope so. Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
KAWASHKAR wrote:
quote:I am not separating them. I am just saying that imagining the Moor population of Spain during the Middle Ages was pure Tuareg does not match with historical records and with the descendents of Moors that still exist in Spain and the Americas. What we see is people that look "Kaybele".
How do you know that Kaybeles were part of the invading forces into al Andalucia? Do you even know which Berber tribes were part of the invasion?
You seperated the Tuaregs from the general Berber population.
The Kaybele during the Arab invasion of north western Africa mostly fled into the mountains to evade the Arabs. I highly doubt such people were active with the Arabs in invading Spain.
During the period Arabs kept detail information of which Imazghen[Berber] groups became their soliders. They mention Nafza,Masmuda,Hawaara,Lawata and the Sanhaja. The Hawaara were a sub-group of the modern day Tuareg[Kel Tamelsheq] You should be aware that both Kaybele and Tuareg are names imposed by Arabs.
KAWASHKAR wrote
quote:Actually, that's curious but the Gypsies of Spain does not look like the Gypsies of the rest of Europe or the Americas. We have Gypsies in Chile and they are almost all blond and blue eyed people. The Gypsies of Spain "look Moor". I believe there is a reason for that.
The reason is the earliest Gypsy migrants into Spain were very dark skinned like the rest of the Gypsy migrants. Odds are this is where your swarthy people in Seville come from instead of Moors.
KAWASHKAR wrote
quote:What irony? I tried to show the reality like it is. Those people exist in Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Greece, and they are also common between Arabs and Jewish peoples. And they are non recent immigrants, I tell you. I picked the pictures that show a non-European ascendency in locals
The irony is you tried to correlate the apperance of the people of Seville to Berbers but the Berbers actually appear much lighter than the Spainards.you posted.
KAWASHKAR wrote
quote:Quite a bit, indeed. There are many dark skinned people with "European" facial features in Europe. People that are usually called "Morenos" or Moorish.
Look at the Kaybeles now, that some call "white" Moors, and you will find the same phenotypes between theirs population.
KAWASHKAR
Who calls Kaybele white Moors?
White Moors is a oxy-moron. Kaybeles and Riffians are the lightest of the Imazghen group. In general Kaybeles and Riffians are the lightest of all the Maghreb including Tunisia.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Although I disagree with kawashkar about the ethinicity of the Moors, he is actually correct about the ruling class in Al-Andalucia. The rulership came mostly from appointes of the Abbasid and Umayaad caliphs untill there were a civil unrest leading power to petty kings known as the Tarifas. Many of the govenors were Imazghen[berber] origin.
Many provinces in Spain were divided into Sultantes such as Cordoba;Toledo;Seville and etc.
What Kawashkar does not mention is that many of the so-called Arab leaders probably have Imazghen[Berber] and Western African mothers. ABD-er-RAHMAN had a Nafza Berber mother.
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Moors were all type of people, they were west africans , blonde berbers, and Arabs. Arab Moors were the rulers of Spain.
Would these "Arab" Moors be like the "Arab" Sudanese, who are getting a greater deal of the world attention at the moment? Or...
What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
the rulers of spain until 1492 was always from the koreish tribe of the arabian penuinseula, called umayad. he was called a moor. it is a fact in history.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ... which happens to be "black". Got it; I hope so. [/QB]
My sources in English are poor, so get ready to read Spanish.
Did you read my citation to the R.A.E. dictionary? If not. Read it please. Of course the word comes from "Mauros", the all Maghreb, and in reference at how dark the people was in relation with Europeans. However, words are flexible and that is not the only meaning in An-Andalus.
The R.A.E. (Royal Academy of the Language) is the organization that regulate Spanish in Spain and Hispanic America. So they know.
quote: moro, ra. (Del lat. Maurus). 1. adj. Natural del África septentrional frontera a España. U. t. c. s. 2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte de África. 3. adj. Que profesa la religión islámica. U. t. c. s. 4. adj. Se dice del musulmán que habitó en España desde el siglo VIII hasta el XV. U. t. c. s. 5. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a la España musulmana de aquel tiempo. 6. adj. Se dice del musulmán de Mindanao y de otras islas de Malasia. U. m. c. s. 7. adj. Dicho de un caballo o de una yegua: De pelo negro con una estrella o mancha blanca en la frente y calzado de una o dos extremidades. 8. adj. coloq. Dicho del vino: Que no está aguado, en contraposición al bautizado o aguado. 9. adj. coloq. Dicho de una persona, especialmente un niño: Que no ha sido bautizado. 10. adj. Cuba. Dicho de una persona mulata: De tez oscura, cabello negro lacio y facciones finas. 11. m. trigo moro. moro de paz. 1. m. moro marroquí que servía de intermediario para tratar con los demás moros en los presidios españoles de África. 2. m. Persona que tiene disposiciones pacíficas y de quien nada hay que temer o recelar.
moro de rey. 1. m. Soldado de a caballo del ejército regular del Imperio marroquí. moro mogataz. 1. m. Soldado indígena al servicio de España en los antiguos presidios de África. moros y cristianos. 1. m. pl. Fiesta pública que se ejecuta vistiéndose algunos con trajes de moros y fingiendo lid o batalla con los cristianos. a más moros, más ganancia. 1. expr. Era u. en las guerras españolas con los moros para despreciar los riesgos, afirmando que a mayor dificultad es mayor la gloria del triunfo. como moros sin señor. 1. loc. adv. U. para referirse a una reunión o junta de personas en que reina gran confusión y desorden. haber moros en la costa. 1. fr. coloq. U. para recomendar precaución y cautela. haber moros y cristianos. 1. fr. coloq. Haber gran pendencia, riña o discordia. moros van, moros vienen. 1. expr. coloq. U. para indicar que a alguien le falta poco para estar enteramente borracho. □ V. cangrejo moro caracol moro hierba mora lanzada a moro muerto raíz del moro reina mora
And Moreno
quote:
moreno, na. (De moro y -eno). 1. adj. Dicho de un color: Oscuro que tira a negro. 2. adj. Dicho de la piel: En la raza blanca, de color menos claro. 3. adj. Dicho del pelo: En la raza blanca, negro o castaño. 4. adj. Dicho de una cosa: Que tiene un tono más oscuro de lo normal. 5. adj. coloq. Dicho de una persona: negra. U. m. c. s. 6. adj. Cuba. mulato (ǁ nacido de negra y blanco, o al contrario). U. t. c. s. 7. m. morenillo. 8. f. Gresca, pendencia. 9. f. Hogaza o pan moreno. sobre eso, o sobre ello, morena. 1. exprs. coloqs. U. para declarar la resolución de sostener lo que se quiere, con todo empeño y a cualquier costa. □ V. azúcar moreno, na ganado moreno trigo moreno
I hope you could translate those and find by yourself what does "Moor" mean in Spanish. After all we are talking about the Moors in Spain.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Genetics of Spain.
I think this article about the genetics of Spain and the genetic flux between Spain and the Maghreb is important to the topic.
The conclusion is:
quote: The Islamic (Arab and Berber) occupation of the Iberian Peninsula, which began in A.D. 711 and, in the south, lasted until A.D. 1492, left a rich cultural heritage, from science and philosophy to agriculture and architecture. Islamic rule lasted longest, until 1492, in southern Iberia. Our results suggest that the demographic contribution linked to that occupation (and to movements in the opposite direction) must have been small but not at all negligible.
This study has demonstrated the unprecedented power of the use of Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms for the dissection of paternal lineages, which has allowed us to cut through the historic layers in the Iberian and NW African gene pools in much the same way as archaeologists excavate prehistoric layers at a site
kawa, I would like to correct some misconception that were stated. This same entymology can referet o other cultural/gengroaphic areas and even the uses of the term Arab/Persian/Turk/Islam/Muslim.
1. There is no such thing as Hispanic America. The word Hispanic is an North American attempt to categorize Spanish speaking people as one group within the taxonomy the cultural sphere. I would add that indigena people are often ignored while adding them as Spanish speaking since many do learn the basics at the primary school level through socialization.
2. The system of cultural socialization and assimilation has created a sense of Hispanidad (Dia de la Raza) meaning we are all one (que viva mi raza de bronce!) 'culturally' and inwardly accepting our roots of mestizaje and mulataje. The reality is that when we are face to face with the Anglo, we become Spanish Americans! just to appease those who look down on our African and Indian (indigena) ancestry so we try to fit into his definition of us.
3. I mention Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala for precisely that reason. They come form indigena roots but many do speak Spanish as part of the socialization. The more urban the more assimilationist meaning they become acculturated know how to dress and speak properly. Tribes are usually designated by the type of clothing they wear, its colours, etc but modernism goes a long way. The more rural, the more tied to the cultural base. Isolation creates security.
4. Arab culture is the same. In Algeria, in the Berber areas, many were re-dscovering their roots (60's-I think or so) and began to ask for of their language to be taught but the Arabists refused and strife resulted in masssacres. The Marsh Arabs in Iraq are another isolated group, Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Azeris in Iran, where the dominant culture want to assimilate by force, most times, others who refuse to give up their heritage. In most cases, it has worked well.
On your link, it was interesting to see that U6 was detected in 3/54 (Portugal-woould be interesting to know which part, N,S,E, or W), 2/96 in Galicia, although the Meseta Central of which Andalucia is part, U6 was not detected because this was the HQ of dynastic control! It would make sense that 21% of mtDNA of NW Africa was note dto be L1, L2 and L3. So it seems Arab/Berber area of control went far beyond the borders we traditionally think of! For the Moors to have been distinguishable for so long would have been interesting but I am sure after the 1st generation, their roots were Spanish anyway and it makes even more sense for those roots to be re-introduced (back migration) to NW Africa/Mali, Senegal, etc when the dynasties were defeated and their kinfolk kicked back to whence they came!
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: kawa, I would like to correct some misconception that were stated. This same entymology can referet o other cultural/gengroaphic areas and even the uses of the term Arab/Persian/Turk/Islam/Muslim.
1. There is no such thing as Hispanic America. The word Hispanic is an North American attempt to categorize Spanish speaking people as one group within the taxonomy the cultural sphere. I would add that indigena people are often ignored while adding them as Spanish speaking since many do learn the basics at the primary school level through socialization.
I agree with you in certain sense. However what exist is the concept of "Hispanidad", which is rooted in the religious crusade that was the conquest of the New World. And we should not forget that even today, the largest majorities of Latin America, no matter they look Native, Black or Mixed, they do have a blood link with Spain.
The term Hispanidad sometimes is confussed with the equivalent term "La raza", or the melting pot of Latin America, which is very old and part of the culture of the region.
quote: 2. The system of cultural socialization and assimilation has created a sense of Hispanidad (Dia de la Raza) meaning we are all one (que viva mi raza de bronce!) 'culturally' and inwardly accepting our roots of mestizaje and mulataje. The reality is that when we are face to face with the Anglo, we become Spanish Americans! just to appease those who look down on our African and Indian (indigena) ancestry so we try to fit into his definition of us.
I agree. Most Hispanics suffer a cultural shock when they migrate to the United States.
quote: 3. I mention Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala for precisely that reason. They come form indigena roots but many do speak Spanish as part of the socialization. The more urban the more assimilationist meaning they become acculturated know how to dress and speak properly. Tribes are usually designated by the type of clothing they wear, its colours, etc but modernism goes a long way. The more rural, the more tied to the cultural base. Isolation creates security.
Agree as well, there is an indigenous identity in conflict with the mestizo-european identity. However, you know as well as I do that the limits between the two groups are really fuzzy.
quote: 4. Arab culture is the same. In Algeria, in the Berber areas, many were re-dscovering their roots (60's-I think or so) and began to ask for of their language to be taught but the Arabists refused and strife resulted in masssacres. The Marsh Arabs in Iraq are another isolated group, Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Azeris in Iran, where the dominant culture want to assimilate by force, most times, others who refuse to give up their heritage. In most cases, it has worked well.
I agree.
quote: On your link, it was interesting to see that U6 was detected in 3/54 (Portugal-woould be interesting to know which part, N,S,E, or W), 2/96 in Galicia, although the Meseta Central of which Andalucia is part, U6 was not detected because this was the HQ of dynastic control! It would make sense that 21% of mtDNA of NW Africa was note dto be L1, L2 and L3. So it seems Arab/Berber area of control went far beyond the borders we traditionally think of! For the Moors to have been distinguishable for so long would have been interesting but I am sure after the 1st generation, their roots were Spanish anyway and it makes even more sense for those roots to be re-introduced (back migration) to NW Africa/Mali, Senegal, etc when the dynasties were defeated and their kinfolk kicked back to whence they came!
Well, the fact is only the Moors that did not assimilated where pushed away from Spain. Between those expelled lots of ethnic Spaniars were deported, but also many ethnic Berbers, Arabs and North Africans certainly accepted Christianity and did assimilate.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
ausar,
I saw your link to the Visigothic (German, Frank.??) who count adopted Islam and founded his own dynastic empire to consolidate his power so I am sure many less titled an d less well know adopted that Islamic path to stay in the game and hold territory. Other groups did the same as part of the conquest and survival!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Perhaps I can answer the question and save us more unnecessary trouble than we have now...
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
The answer is there is no such source. Simply because Arabs were *not* called Moors but Saracens by the Spanish.
Moor has always been reserved for black peoples of North Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The reason is the earliest Gypsy migrants into Spain were very dark skinned like the rest of the Gypsy migrants. Odds are this is where your swarthy people in Seville come from instead of Moors.
Likely because Gypsies originated from India mainly around the modern state of Gujarat.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Nope; but evidently you are loco; you are retarded for thinking that your selective picture spams, substitutes for bio-anthropological studies.
Yes, showing pictures is not science
Exactly, which is why it is a wonder you have the nerve to call someone else crazy when you are confronted with scientific material, but reject that science in favor of pure pseudo-scientific [and nonetheless selective] propagation via worthless and pointless thread-wasting picture spams.
quote:kawashkar:
but believing that by analizing "y" cromosomes and mtDNA out-of-context is "scientific" is even worst.
Even more worst, is the act of outright lying, which is what you've clearly done here. Who mentioned anything about "y" chromosomes or mtDNA, with respect to "skin" color or your still outstanding [but yet to be delivered] obligation to fulfill the request for primary text from "Middle Age" era Spanish-European, Not "Latino", Spanish-"American", "Chicano" or what have you bunch from the Americas, on the contextual use of "Moors" in Spain, and on why it was used in that manner?
quote:kawashkar:
I have explained you once and once again what the term Moor mean in the HISPANIC culture we inherit from SPAIN (The land the Moors conquered after all)
Incessant lying, which is what you are really referring to here, is still pseudo-science, no matter how many times you repeat it.
quote:kawashkar:
Moro (Means) Moor, Moroccan, Muslim and BROWN.
Moreno=Moorish=Brown.
By the way, for Spaniards there isn't a difference in looks between a Persian, an Arab, a Palestinean or a Moroccan. They are all Moors. They all "look-the-same".
KAWASHKAR
Where can I get primary texts on etymology of this term "Moors", the meaning of which seems to shift every time you present it, whereby it was first "dark" [skin color], to "Muslim", to "in between", to reference to "Spanish-Americans", and now to "brown". Hence, produce the primary source which presents authentic/original etymology of "Moors" that claims that the term meant all these things as just outlined above.
Good points Supercar. Listen, ya'll are wasting your time. Let's get Ausar to ban trolls and be done with it. Salaam
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ... which happens to be "black". Got it; I hope so.
My sources in English are poor, so get ready to read Spanish.
a)If you can speak and read Spanish, and write in English, then certainly, you should be able to "translate" your sources. The key here is to first provide the primary ancient sources on the etymology of the term "Moors", to show that this term concurrently had as many meanings as you keep propagating here without any basis, and then translate if necessary; start from ancient Greek, Roman to Umayyad, Almoravid, Almohad and Nasrid era sources, whereby the term "Moors" was used in primary **Iberian** [which I use, because your short attention span for some reason translates Spanish into the Latinos or Chicanos of the Americas, who are completely irrelevant to the Afro-Spanish European history] sources specifically show that the term "Moors" applied to the local Spanish folks, to the southwest Asian Umayyad officials, along with the already known Spanish-ruling African Moors of the Almoravids and the Almohads.
b) On top of this, show that according to the said "Middle Age" era Iberian primary sources, that the term "Moors" simply meant "Muslim" rather than a term used specifically for Africans, who happened to be Muslims in Spain.
c) Show that primary "Middle Age" era Iberian sources also thought of Southwest Asians in general as "Moors".
d) Show that primary "Middle Age" era Iberian sources thought that "Moors" means "in between", and what the "in between" meant here.
e)Show that primary "Middle Age" era Iberian sources specifically state that "Moors" means "brown".
Let's start with these requests, answered respectively and on point to the specifics raised in each and every question outlined above. It is vital to your credibility, considering the unsubstantiated claims you've been putting thus far here. No "recommendations", just the primary "Middle Age" era Iberian sources, not contemporary American Latino or Chicano perceptions of the term...and no European sources in the 16th century and onwards either; just the primary "Middle Age" era Iberian sources, during which the Umayyads to the Nasrids ruled Spain.
quote:kawashkar:
Did you read my citation to the R.A.E. dictionary? If not. Read it please.
Did you not read my request; primary ancient sources?...and you are talking of some dictionary. LOL.
quote:kawashkar:
Of course the word comes from "Mauros", the all Maghreb, and in reference at how dark the people was in relation with Europeans. However, words are flexible and that is not the only meaning in An-Andalus.
We will soon see just how flexible, and "the rule of the jungle" scenario applies to the term "Moors", once you deliver the requests I outlined above.
quote:kawashkar:
The R.A.E. (Royal Academy of the Language) is the organization that regulate Spanish in Spain and Hispanic America. So they know...
Are you for real? R.A.E is what you consider a primary ancient text from the Iberian, and European sources. Since when did American Latinos become part of the Afro-Iberian/Spanish-European history? When did that occur under our noses?
Since when did contemporary Iberian, much less American Latinos, become the primary ancient sources requested? In fact, since when did American Latinos of any era, become primary sources for the Islamic rule in Muslim Spain? Are you that desperate in mutilating the authentic meaning of "Moors"? Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps I can answer the question and save us more unnecessary trouble than we have now...
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
The answer is there is no such source. Simply because Arabs were *not* called Moors but Saracens by the Spanish.
Moor has always been reserved for black peoples of North Africa.
Correct.
Posted by What Box (Member # 10819) on :
quote: Djehiti quote: Arabs were *not* called Moors but Saracens by the Spanish.
Moor has always been reserved for black peoples of North Africa.
good point Djehuti
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
One thing that Washkar is desperate to deny is that there were (and still are) blacks living in the African Magrhreb. These blacks are indigenous to the area and obviously have been living there far longer than the light-skinned/'white' Berbers that he loves to post picture of.
Even Ausar said it himself that white Berber groups like the Kabyle were fleeing from the Islamists at the same time Iberia was being invaded, so how can the Muslim invaders be them?
Better yet, how can the very etymology of the word (Moor/Mauros-- black) mean them, considering that Greco-Roman sources distinguished 'white' Berbers as being Leuko-Aethiopes??
'Moor' definitely does not mean Arab since both Arabs whether Yemeni or Palestinian as well as even Iranians were collectively called Saracens.
It's all basic logic and common sense, yet Karwash performs all these futile acrobatics and maneuvers to get around it. All in vain.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Although I disagree with kawashkar about the ethinicity of the Moors, he is actually correct about the ruling class in Al-Andalucia. The rulership came mostly from appointes of the Abbasid and Umayaad caliphs untill there were a civil unrest leading power to petty kings known as the Tarifas. Many of the govenors were Imazghen[berber] origin.
Many provinces in Spain were divided into Sultantes such as Cordoba;Toledo;Seville and etc.
What Kawashkar does not mention is that many of the so-called Arab leaders probably have Imazghen[Berber] and Western African mothers. ABD-er-RAHMAN had a Nafza Berber mother.
And after the Tarifas came the Almoravids and Almohades.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^So much for 'non-black' Moors.
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps I can answer the question and save us more unnecessary trouble than we have now...
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [qb] What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
The answer is there is no such source. Simply because Arabs were *not* called Moors but Saracens by the Spanish.
That's absolutely false, Djehuti.
Muslims where called and ARE CALLED Moors indiscriminately. Yes, the originals Moors are the Moroccian Berbers, but when we talk about "Moorish Spain" we use it in the same sense that "Arabian Spain" or "Muslim Spain".
Moreover "Sarracenos" has a connotation of military bands that could be Berbers, Tuaregs or Beduins, or whatever that use turbants!
In your effort to prove Moors where Blacks you are reinventing history. But you could only convince innocent people, not the ones that know the real history because is a cultural tradition. lol.
quote: Moor has always been reserved for black peoples of North Africa.
Not in SPANISH, dear friend! In Spanish "Negro" (Which means Black in spanish and it is just the name of the color Black and not an insult) is used for Black peoples AND Moors for people of suspected mixed ancestry but closer to Europeans, like most Arabs and Berbers.
In the racial sense:
Moor has always mean DARKER.
It does not mean necesarily Subsahran African.
Moor mean DARKER THAT EUROPEANS.
In Spanish, an Arab, Berber, Persian, Egyptian that pray to Mohammed is a MOOR. And when the meaning is precise it always point to the Maghreb, particularly to Morocco.
Every dark fellow that wear a turbant, pray to the Mecca and rides Camels is a MOOR. But the stereotype of the Moor is the Berber.
Don't you get that Moor was an insult in Spanish? Like the "n" word in English? And it was applied again all Muslims that were presummed to be DARKER than Christians.
Jesus! You make me tell our "ethnic" secrets! LOL.
Yes. No matter how you argue with those "word-definition" games that fact is the Moors are not the people you believe they are.
Sorry.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
quote:Not in SPANISH, dear friend! In Spanish "Negro" (Which means Black in spanish and it is just the name of the color Black and not an insult) is used for Black peoples AND Moors for people of suspected mixed ancestry but closer to Europeans, like most Arabs and Berbers.
Couldn't there be "Black Arabs" and "Black Muslims"??
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
Yes,
Keep your definition of the "Greek Mauros".
The fact is all the story-telling of a Mauritanean kindom and Mauritanian science in Spain is FALSE. Events did not happens and were not exactly like Van Sertima and other history twisters have propossed. That produce ideas that, although with ground in historical facts, they finish being as false as the "Black Olmecs".
I going to look for precise sources and comming back. But for now I think I my points are quite clear with respect to the Moors in Spain:
(1) Muslim Spain was ruled by Arabs and the society has an Arab culture.
(2) Moorish science and tech is Muslim science and tech.
(3) Every Muslim in Spain was called a Moor.
(That's a point that I am going to prepare and prove once and for all to convince you. Not me, because I know it is true.)
(4) The foreign population of Spain it was small. Most Muslims where local people and not immigrants or colones.
(5) Black people did exist in Spain like in any other Muslim country in the Middle Ages. But Spain was not colonized in large scale or governed by Black people.
(6) The Almoravides that invaded Spain during the 12th Century were called by the Moors in Spain, and in fact, those troops WERE BLACK MEN OF SUBSAHARAN ORIGIN, not Moors.
(7) The genetical evidency show above by me shows clearly the major contact between Spain and Africa point to Berbers of the Maghreb, not Subharan African.
(8) Finally, the ruling classes of Arabs and the Arab-Berber troops that invaded Spain were the same that subjugated Subsaharan Africa. They were the ones that established a high scale worlwide slave trade on Subsaharan people. And they were the model the Europeans copied later.
So I believe both Spaniards and Subsaharan have more that a reason to reject the Moors.
So what else you got except the "definition of Moor in Greek". Lol
KAWASHKAR
Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: ..
Couldn't there be "Black Arabs" and "Black Muslims"?? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes, they did exist indeed. I have never said there was no Black Arabs or Black Berebers between the population of the Moors. What I have said is that the largest majorities of foreign Muslims in Spain were Arabs, Coastal Berbers and other foreigners.
I don't deny the presency of Blacks in Spain or in any other Muslim country of the time. I don't deny that indeed existed some Black generals in the Moors' armies that become famous, or that there were very sucessful Black troops in Spain during the Almoravides attacks of the 12th century.
What I deny is confussing the term "Moorish Spain" with the idea of an African subsaharan colonization and even civilizazing of Spain (Spain already had an advanced culture, although decadent).
Al-Andalus was a Spanish society dominated by a small foreign minority compossed mainly by Berbers and Arabs, and ruled by an Arab elite. That's the truth.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Kawashkar whines: keep your definition
Not my definition. It's THE ORIGIN of the word Moor.
Sorry....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
What I deny is confussing the term "Moorish Spain" with the idea of an African subsaharan colonization and even civilizazing of Spain (Spain already had an advanced culture, although decadent).
Exactly, you choose to be in denial of truth; you are not unaware of it. However, that this what historical sources are for; to refresh memory, particularly for those who choose to forget :
And Yusuf ibn Tashfin, leader of the Almoravid forces, was "a brown man with wooly hair", according to the Arab chronicler Al-Fasi. (per Miriam DeCosta [who utilizes the "Cantigas" scripts of Medieval Spain )
^^Not surprising, given that Almoravids were of Sub-Saharan extraction; Oh yeah, I remember; according to you, the Almoravids never ruled spain.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Kawashkar whines: keep your definition
Not my definition. It's THE ORIGIN of the word Moor.
Sorry....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
That citation itself is plentiful; nothing more needs to be said. Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar:
Jesus! You make me tell our "ethnic" secrets! LOL. KAWASHKAR
More like...
Jesus! You make me tell our "racist" secrets! LOL. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: One thing that Washkar is desperate to deny is that there were (and still are) blacks living in the African Magrhreb. These blacks are indigenous to the area and obviously have been living there far longer than the light-skinned/'white' Berbers that he loves to post picture of.
Even Ausar said it himself that white Berber groups like the Kabyle were fleeing from the Islamists at the same time Iberia was being invaded, so how can the Muslim invaders be them?
Better yet, how can the very etymology of the word (Moor/Mauros-- black) mean them, considering that Greco-Roman sources distinguished 'white' Berbers as being Leuko-Aethiopes??
'Moor' definitely does not mean Arab since both Arabs whether Yemeni or Palestinian as well as even Iranians were collectively called Saracens.
It's all basic logic and common sense, yet Karwash performs all these futile acrobatics and maneuvers to get around it. All in vain.
Actually, it is deeper than that and goes beyond Kawashkar himself. This WHOLE issue goes to the CORE of ISLAM and where it originates.
First off, the EARLY waves of Arab hordes invading Africa and the East were NOT really Islamic in the modern sense of the word. The initial rise of Islam was PURELY an act of Imperial expansion on behalf of the powerful chiefs who inherited the remains of the old Roman Empire (Byzantium). As Dr. Walter Williams puts foward in his book "The Historical Origins of Islam", the concepts behind Christianity and Islam go back to the split between the Monophysites and the Dyophysites. This THEOLOGICAL debate was based around the Roman Emperor wishing to CREATE a new religion using the OLDER forms of Ausar, Auset, Osiris, etc, which were embodied in the form of Serapis, the Greek prototype of Jesus Christ. The priesthood of the time were the remnants of the ancient order of priests of Egypt, some of whom had become priests of Serapis. These PRIESTHOODS became the basis of the early sects of Islam AND Christianity.
In MY opinion, the early Arabs were driven to move towards better lands partly in search of better land, but MORE because of the exhortions of their chiefs. Raiding and inter tribal warfare seems to have been an ancient tradition amongst the people of the Arabian peninsula over water and other scarce natural resources. It seems that this institution of tribal leadership became most enshrined in the instituion of the Caliphs.
The early Arab empire was based around the concept of Hadith (revelation of the prophet) and Salat (prayer/meditation). This EARLY form of belief is ACTUALLY more akin to paganism than what we call Islam today. The TRUE idea of Hadith stems from the idea that A PERSON can attain ONENESS with god and therefore become HIS MESSENGER. The MESSAGE is the TRUTH of God and being a MESSENGER is SACRED because you are engaging in the SPREADING of the TRUTH (of the word). ALL of this goes back to the ancient systems of belief that came out of Egypt and elsewhere and the monophysitic doctrines of the former priests of the ancient Egyptian mystery system. This concept of Hadith began to be corrupted and USED by the chieftans or "prophets" as a way of GALVANIZING their "holy" warriors into acts of "itjihad" against "nonbelievers", as "mahdi" melitiamen (army of the prophet) to force "submission" (Islam). Basically, this ORIGINAL version of what we called Islam allowed a person to form a following based on his/her interperetation of UNIVERSAL laws and principles (itjihad) and to defend that position using his holy warriors, with himself as the CHIEF holy warrior. (Definition of a Mahdi) http://www.answers.com/topic/mahdi (Definition of Itjihad) http://www.answers.com/topic/ijtihad
The contradictions and TRUE meaning of Hadith and the role of the Mahdi can be seen in the split between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or in the stories surrounding the rise and fall of the various muslim dynasties in Syria, North Africa and elsewhere. At the CORE of this was WHO had the right to be the CHIEF and being the chief (prophet) had the right to interperet and enforce the WAYS of the prophet within the community. Therefore, the CHIEF was the prophet and his HADITH was the basis of THE law. ALL of it is a big farce, because so many people have come along writing Hadiths justifying almost EVERY conceivable thing under the sun, making it IMPOSSIBLE to establish TRUTH. It is THIS that caused the original split between Sunni and Shia. Keep in mind that in MANY ways a Hadith is just a "wise saying", "saying" or "instruction". (Description of the Hadith) http://www.answers.com/topic/hadith (Way of the prophet: Sunnah) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah (Sunna the trodden path) http://lexicorient.com/e.o/sunna.htm
Suffice to say, much of the discussion so far has been on the various ways in which various Arab groups have been trying to use Islam as a basis for colonial control and exploitation of foreigners, by ensuring that ARABS would be in power. But we have yet to get to the CORE of the issue about how MUCH of the legacy of Islam is REALLY just ancient "pagan" culture and tradition warmed over.
Firstly, let us take note that in all reality the Almoravids, Almohads and Fatimids are in many ways the PUREST expression of early Islamic thought ANYWHERE in the Islamic world. If you do not know, it should be clear by now that if the basic fundamentals of early Islam as I discussed were SO fundamentally ARABIC, then WHY would they reach their PEAK of expression in Africa amongst AFRICANS? Why would the first movements to be spear headed by TRUE WARRIOR prophets, representing some of the MOST fundamental aspects of Islam be in AFRICA, fighting in the FIRST recorded Jihads ANYWHERE? WHY would the Almohades be pronouncing the MOST PROFOUND wisdom in the simplicity of the theology of Tawhid as expressed by Ibn Tumart as "the ONENESS of God" the CORE princple of al Islam? Why are some of the GREATEST theologians of Islam found in Spain and North Africa? MANY have said and continue to say that the MYTH of Mohammed and his followers is REALLY only a retelling of the events in North Africa and Spain during the Moorish period. Once again, WHY would some of the most FIERCE wars and armies of believers in the NAME of Islam EVER, be found in an area SO FAR AWAY from the "home" of the prophet? Also, why is there a MASSIVE crater or asteriod in Mauretania, with LARGE circles going around it? (remember the KABBA, the stone of worship that is circled?)
My fundamental belief is that MOST of what we call Islam is REALLY based on the theology and ideas of ANCIENT cultures, especially Africa. But as I have noted earlier, the USE of Islam as a tool of OPPRESSION and ARAB Colonialism is has CLOUDED the history of Islam. It has put the earliest teachingsin the hands of a few "Persian" philosophers and a Mythical saints at the earliest periods, while the REAL scholars and holy prophets of early Islam are relegated to a back burner. To see this MOST clearly, however, one must TRULY read the EARLIEST works of the philosophers from Andalus, Morocco and Mauretania as well as those from Baghdad and Syria. It is there you will see the expression of ANCIENT thought that would become ISLAM.
quote: WE have now anticipated one of the strangest and most characteristic figures and movements in the history of Islam. The preceding account, except as relates to Ibn Khaldun, has told of the triumphs of the Ash‘arites in the East only. In the West the movement was slower, and to it we must now turn. The Maghrib--the Occident, as the Arabs called all North Africa beyond Egypt--had been slow from the first to take on the Muslim impress. The invading army had fought its way painfully through, but the Berber tribes remained only half subdued and one-tenth Islamized. Egypt was conquered in A.H. 20, and Samarqand had been reached in 56; but it was not till 74 that the Muslims were at Carthage. And even then and for long after there arose insurrection after insurrection, and the national spirit of the Berbers remained unbroken. Broadly, but correctly, Islam in North Africa for more than three centuries was a failure. The tribal constitutions of the Berbers were unaffected by the conception of the Khalifate and their primitive religious aspirations by the Faith of Muhammad. Not till the possibility came to them to construct Muslim states out of their own tribes
p. 244
did their opposition begin to weaken. And then it w as rather political Islam that had weakened. When the Fatimids conquered Egypt in 356 and moved the seat of their empire from al-Mahdiya to the newly founded Cairo, Islam assumed a new meaning for North Africa. The Fatimid empire there quickly melted away, and in its place arose several independent states, Berber in blood though claiming Arab descent and bearing Arab names. Islam no longer meant foreign oppression, and it began at last to make its way. Again, in the preceding period of insurrection the Berber leaders had frequently appeared in the guise and with the claim of prophets, men miraculously gifted and with a message from God. These wild tribesmen, with all their fanaticism for their own tribal liberties, have always been peculiarly accessible to the genius which claims its mission from heaven. So they had taken up the Fatimid cause and worshipped Ubayd Allah the Mahdi. And so they continued thereafter, and still continue to be swayed by saints, darwishes, and prophets of all degrees of insanity and cunning. The latest case in point is that of the Shaykh as-Sanusi, with whom we have already dealt. As time went on, there came a change in these prophet-led risings and saint-founded states. They gradually slipped over from being frankly anti-Muhammadan, if also close imitations of Muhammad's life and methods, to being equally frankly Muslim. The theology of Islam easily afforded them the necessary point of connection. All that the prophet of the day need do was to claim the position of the Mahdi, that
p. 245
[paragraph continues] Guided One, who according to the traditions of Muhammad was to come before the last day, when the earth shall be filled with violence, and to fill it again with righteousness. It was easy for each new Mahdi to select from the vast and contradictory mass of traditions in Muslim eschatology those which best fitted his person and his time. To the story and the doctrine of one of these we now come.
At the beginning of the sixth century a certain Berber student of theology, Ibn Tumart by name, travelled in the East in search of knowledge. An early and persistent western tradition asserts that he was a favorite pupil of al-Ghazzali's, and was marked out by him as showing the signs of a future founder of empire. This may be taken for what it is worth. What is certain is that Ibn Tumart went back to the Maghrib and there brought about the triumph of a doctrine which was derived, if modified, from that of the Ash‘arites. Previously all kalam had been under a cloud in the West. Theological studies had been closely limited to fiqh, or canon law, and that of the narrowed school of Malik ibn Anas. Even the Qur’an and the collections of traditions had come to be neglected in favor of systematized law-books. The revolt of Ibn Hazm against this had apparently accomplished little. It had been too one-sided and negative, and had lacked the weight of personality behind it. Ibn Hazm had assailed the views of others with a wealth of vituperative language. But he had been a controversialist only. There is a story, tolerably well authenticated, that the books of al-Ghazzali were solemnly condemned by the Qadis
p. 246
of Cordova, and burnt in public. Yet, against that is to be set that all the Spanish theologians did not approve of this violence.
Ibn Tumart started in life as a reformer of the corruptions of his day, and seems to have slipped from that into the belief that he had been appointed by God as the great reformer for all time. As happens with reformers, from exhortation it came to force; from preaching at the abuses of the government to rebellion against the government. That government, the Murabit, went down before Ibn Tumart and his successors, and the pontifical rule of the Muwahhids, the asserters of God's tawhid or unity, rose in its place. The doctrine which he preached bears evident marks of the influence of al-Ghazzali and of Ibn Hazm. Tawhid, for him, meant a complete spiritualizing of the conception of God. Opposed to tawhid, he set tajsim, the assigning to God of a jism or body having bulk. Thus, when the theologians of the West took the anthropomorphic passages of the Qur’an literally, he applied to them the method of ta’wil, or interpretation, which he had learned in the East, and explained away these stumbling-blocks. Ibn Hazm, it will be remembered, resorted to grammatical and lexicographical devices to attain the same end, and had regarded ta’wil with abhorrence. To Ibn Tumart, then, this tajsim was flat unbelief and, as Mahdi, it was his duty to oppose it by force of arms, to lead a jihad against its maintainers. Further, with Ibn Hazm, he agreed in rejecting taqlid. There was only one truth, and it was man's duty to find it for himself by going to the original sources.
p. 247
This is the genuine Zahirite doctrine which utterly rejects all comity with the four other legal rites; but Ibn Tumart, as Mahdi, added another element. It is based on a very simple Imamite philosophy of history. There has always been an Imam in the world, a divinely appointed leader, guarded by isma, protection against error. The first four Khalifas were of such divine appointment; thereafter came usurpers and oppressors. Theirs was the reign of wickedness and lies in the earth. Now he, the Mahdi, was come of the blood of the Prophet and bearing plainly all the necessary, accrediting signs to overcome these tyrants and anti-Christs. He thus was an Imamite, but stood quite apart from the welter of conflicting Shi‘ite sects the Seveners, Twelvers, Zaydites and the rest--as far as do the present Sharifs of Morocco with their Alid-Sunnite position. The Mahdi, it is to be remembered, is awaited by Sunnites as by Shi‘ites, and is guarded against error as much as an Imam, since he partakes of the general isma which in divine things belongs to prophets. Such a leader, then, could claim from the people absolute obedience and credence. His word must be for them the source of truth. There was, therefore, no longer any need of analogy (qiyas) as a source, and we accordingly find that Ibn Tumart rejected it in all but legal matters and there surrounded it with restrictions. Analogical argument in things theological was forbidden.
But where he absolutely parted company from the Ash‘arites was with regard to the qualities of God. In that, too, he followed the view of Ibn
p. 248
[paragraph continues] Hazm sketched above. We must take the Qur’anic expressions as names and not as indicating attributes to us. It is true that his creed shows signs of a philosophical width lacking in Ibn Hazm. Like the Mu‘tazilites, e.g. Abu Hudhayl, he defines largely by negations. God is not this; is not affected by that. It is even phrased so as to be capable of a pantheistic explanation, and we find that Ibn Rushd wrote a commentary on it. But it may be doubted whether Ibn Tumart was himself a pantheist. All phases of Islam, as we have seen, ran toward that; and here there is only a little indiscretion in the wording. But it may easily have been that he had besides, like the Fatimids, a secret teaching or exposition of those simpler declarations which were intended for the mass of the people. Among his successors distinct traces of such a thing appear; both Aristotelian philosophers and advanced Sufis are connected with the Muwahhid movement. That, however, belongs to the sequel.
But you must remember that the HISTORY of early Islam is corrupted and bound up in code words. The early Arab invasion of Africa and the Levant was just that an Arab invasion, nothing more and nothing less. The MOVEMENT of the Arabs did not become bound up in the religion that we call "Islam" until they reached western Africa and the Moors. THIS is historical fact. The early writings of scholars and mystics of what became Islam are DATED to this period and MOST of that came out of Al-Andalus along with North and West Africa. The early philosophers were NOT talking about MOHAMMED when they talked about the WAY of the prophet. They were talking about AN INDIVIDUAL in pursuit of PERFECTION or one who had ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT. These early works do NOT mention Mohammed or any of the other followers by name. This is stuff that was ADDED LATER by Islamic theologians. The ORIGINAL philosophy was that of Greece and Egypt or Persia, pure and simple. Dont take my word for it, look up the works of Ghazzali, Bin Arabi and the others and you WONT see a reference to Mohammed ANYWHERE. It is in THIS way that you see the SIGNIFIGANCE of these movements in Africa and how they become the BASIS of Islam. Modern Islam is purely about the SUBMISSION of one to this or that AUTHORIZED messenger of the messenger, which can be in the form of ANY act that constitutes SUBMISSION. It is in THIS way that Islam is now a tool of OPRESSION, through ENFORCEMENT of Sharia in the name of SOME messenger and has NOTHING to do with the attainment of ONENESS with God. Slavery is an act of submission......
quote: (All known things were borne by the First Intellect)
Know that the bearer of all known things, celestial and terrestial, is the Intellect which takes from Allah without intermediary. None of the knowledge of higher and lower being is hidden from it. The self's gnosis of things comes from His giving and generosity, and from His manifestation to it, His light and His purest overflowing. The Intellect learns from Allah and teaches the self. The self learns from the Intellect and action comes from it. This applies to all that knowledge of the Intellect connects to things below it. We are limited by "what is below it" in respect of the learning we mentioned. Be careful when you ponder, remembering that Allah said, "until We know" (47:31). He is the All-Knower, so recognise the proper ascriptions!
(..except the Bewildered World)
Know that the Bewildered World does not learn anything from the First Intellect and the First Intellect has no power over those who are bewildered by love. They and it are on the same rank, like individuals among us who are outside of the jurisdiction of the Pole (Qutb), even though the Pole is one of the individuals. But the Intellect was selected to inform as the Pole is selected for appointment among the individuals.
(...and except the science of the isolation (tajrid) of tawhid)
The principle of the Intellect teaching those below it is transpires in all that the knowledge of the Intellect is connected to - except for 'the isolation of tawhid'. The science of the isolation of tawhid is different from all known things in all aspects since there is no relationship at all between Allah and His creation, even if the 'relationship' is applied to it on a certain day as was done by Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali in his books, and other people. That is a sort of mannerism and very far from the realities. What relationship is there between the in-time and the timeless? Or how can a likeness be made of the One Who does not accept a likeness with someone who does accept a likeness? This is impossible as Abu'l-'Abbas ibn al-'Arif as-Sanhaji said in Mahasin al-Majalis, "There is no relationship between Allah and the slaves except concern. There is no cause except judgement and no time except pre-Time. Whatever else is blindness and deceptive ambiguity." One variant has "knowledge" in place of "blindness". See how excellent these words are and how complete this gnosis of Allah is and how pure this contemplation (mushahada)! May Allah give us the benefit of what he said!
quote: The essential insight and consistent point of view of Islam is tawhid: the fundamental Oneness underlying all of existence. From the perspective of tawhid, everything is emerging from God, being sustained by God, and ultimately returning to God. This has profound significance for all of our experience within this existence. All areas of human knowledge are related to this fundamental, unifying Truth.
THIS is the concept that Tumart and the Almohads were persuing, not some BLIND abstract fanatical concept that many modern writers describe. Once again WHY did such a CENTRAL theme of Islam burn so bright in AFRICA?
Remember, the FIRST and most important phrase in Islam, "there is No God but God". THAT was the core around Islam is built and that is th MONOPHYSITIC tradition that is TRUE Islam. The REST of the nonsense about LAW and WHO is the MAHDI contradicts ALL OF THAT, since ULTIMATELY the true believer is trying to gain ONENESS with the Godhead.
quote: Mu'tazilis believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God, and to become knowledgeable of His attributes. One must wonder about the whole existence, that is, about why something exists rather than nothing. If one comes to know that there is a being who caused this universe to exist, not reliant on anything else and absolutely free from any type of need, then one realizes that this being is all-wise and morally perfect. If this being is all-wise, then his very act of creation cannot be haphazard or in vain. One must then be motivated to ascertain what this being wants from humans, for one may harm oneself by simply ignoring the whole mystery of existence and, consequently, the plan of the Creator. This paradigm is known in Islamic theology as wujub al-nazar, i.e., the obligation to use one's speculative reasoning to attain ontological truths. About the "first duty," 'Abd al-Jabbar said (Martin et al., 1997): [It is] speculative reasoning (al-nazar) which leads to knowledge of God, because He is not known by the way of necessity (daruratan) nor by the senses (bi l-mushahada). Thus, He must be known by reflection and speculation.
The difference between Mu'tazilis and other Muslim theologians is that Mu'tazilis consider al-nazar an obligation even if one does not encounter a fellow human being claiming to be a messenger from the Creator, or even if one does not have access to any alleged God-inspired or God-revealed scripture. On the other hand, the obligation of nazar to other Muslim theologians materializes upon encountering prophets or scripture.
As I said, all Islamic theology stems from the ORIGINAL concept of the path to attainment of enlightenment (oneness with all) through revealed wisdom: through the "word", through the "prophet" or through the "self". ALL are considered valid ways of enlightenment and MANY of the derivations and arguments come about as a result of ARGUMENTS about HOW the three are to be considered TRUE expressions of DIVINE expression.
quote: The life of Muhammad or sira which generated both the Qur'an (revelation) and hadith (his daily utterances and discourses on social and legal matters), during which philosophy was defined by acceptance or rejection of his message. Together the sira and hadith constitute the sunnah and are validated by isnad ("backing") to determine the likely truth of the report of any given saying of Muhammad. Key figures are Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa'i. Each sifted through literally millions of hadith to accept a list of under 10,000. This work, which was not completed until the 10th century, began shortly after The Farewell Sermon in 631, after which Muhammad could not mediate disputes. After his death Abu Bakr began to collect all fragments of his sayings. In this period, Muhammad was simply authority and philosophy distinguished from his personal style only by the revelation. [edit]
Dominance of Kalam
With kalam, in which questions about the sira and hadith, as well as science and law, began to be investigated beyond the scope of Muhammad's beliefs. This period is characterized by emergence of ijtihad and the first fiqh. As the Sunnah became published and accepted, philosophy separate from Muslim theology was discouraged due to a lack of participants. During this period, traditions similar to Socratic method began to evolve, but philosophy remained subordinate to religion. [edit]
Mutazilite school
The rise of the Mutazilites, which built on Greek philosophy to challenge the kalam, integrate Plato and Aristotle in particular, and expand the use of ijtihad ("independent thought") to open questions of science and society, and what we today call modern philosophy. During this period the procedural traditions of Islam were highly developed. Ijtihad had strong influences on the development of the modern scientific method, while isnad is indistinguishable in form from modern scientific citation. With these tools, the Mutazilites were able to revive Greek views, and correct them. Early Muslim medicine and Early Muslim sociology in particular benefited from the Mutazilite approach, but it led to very strong reaction. [edit]
Rise of the Asharite school
The Asharites put an end to philosophy as such in the Muslim world, but permitted these methods to continue to be applied to science and technology. This marked the 12th-to-14th century peak of innovation in Muslim civilization, after which lack of improvements in the basic processes and confusion with theology and law had degraded methods. During this period many remarkable achievements of engineering and social organization were made, and the ulama began to generate a fiqh based on taqlid ("emulation") rather than on the old ijtihad. An influential 12th-century work, "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", by Al-Ghazali, laid the groundwork to "shut the door of ijtihad" later on in the 15th-century, with the assistance of the new Ottoman Empire.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ...And Yusuf ibn Tashfin, leader of the Almoravid forces, was "a brown man with wooly hair", according to the Arab chronicler Al-Fasi. (per Miriam DeCosta [who utilizes the "Cantigas" scripts of Medieval Spain )
And what? Yusuf was not representative of the "Moors" of Spain. Tarik conquered Spain under the orders of the Arabs, not Yusuf! Yusuf is TOO LATE in the history of Spain. He just managed to retard the reconquist of Spain a little.
quote: ^^Not surprising, given that Almoravids were of Sub-Saharan extraction; Oh yeah, I remember; according to you, the Almoravids never ruled spain.
So, all the famous "Black (Moor) empire of Spain", according to you, is the Yusuf staff? Well, that reduces the "African" influence in Spain to a minimum.
I am talking about the Moors of Spain, not of a particular event directed by Yusuf. LOL.
Yes. Keep going on with the "Greek definition".
But historias are better informed:
quote:"History named these Muslim conquerors of Spain "Moors", probably because they arrived by way of Morocco. The Moors themselves never used them. They were Arabs, from Damascus and Medina, leading armies of North Africans Berber converts".
When the Moors Ruled Spain Thomas J. Abercrombie [ National Geographics July 1988
Therefore: Moor=Moroccan, North African Berber.
Look at the path of the conquest of North Africa and you will find they followed a coastal path.
Black Africa it was not conquered as yet by the Muslims. By they time they started the conquest of the south, they were already being pushed out of Spain!
KAWASHKAR
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
this is real funny! we tork about black Africa but we rarely say white Europe or yellow Asia. It only alerts me to a type of social engineering trying to pass itself off as science in the greater scheme (in the true sense of deception and skullduggery).
It would have worked!
Posted by herukhuti (Member # 11484) on :
^^^ What are you saying Posted by kawashkar (Member # 11828) on :
"Black Africa" is a historical term, no matter than in recent years it has been targeted as "politically incorrect".
"Black Africa" has two meanings: the land of the Black people, that is, the place where the Black people predominates. But also it got the meaning of the "unknown continent" (for the Europeans, of course), because it was the last continent to be explored.
Today, because of that fashion of changing labels, people don't talk about "Black Africa" anymore, but of "Subsaharan Africa". However, a campain is going on to eliminate that last label as well.
KAWASHKAR
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
unlocked & bumped
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
As has been discussed before.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
So you think whites are aboriginal to Africa?! LMFOH Now I know you are deluded!![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
), ya'll are holding it down with the science!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)