Moors were Black
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22762
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 13:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Moors were Black
Posted By: Siemowit
Subject: Moors were Black
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 09:40
|
When I read about Moors it is always stated that they were of Berberic origin. But when I read any historical description of moors, they are described as black, or even "black as ink". Is there any proof that they were really Berberic and not Negro ?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 09:55
|
Cześc Siemowit
From what I know Berbers are white. I even saw a documentary about them in Polish TV today. Zidane has Berber origin, Edith Piaff and st. Augustine as well.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 09:56
|
I forgot to notice that Moors are not the same what Berbers. I think Spanish called Arabs Moors when Berbers are native tribes of Sahara. |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 10:08
|
Cześć But were those people who invaded Spain really Berbers ? Or were they blacks ? Is there any proof that they were not black ?
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 10:56
|
People that invaded Spain were Arabs but I assume there were also other Muslim including Black people there. |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 11:49
|
Yes, but how do you know they were Arabs, when they were described as being "black as melted pitch" ??
Is there any proof that they were really Arabs ?
|
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 11:52
|
revelation, if was told they were as white as snow with ginger hair it would come as a shock ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 12:00
|
"A 2006 Mitochondrial DNA study of 12th-13th century Islamic remains from Priego de Cordoba, Spain, indicate a higher proportion of sub-Saharan African lineages attributed at least partially to Moorish occupation, in addition to more ancient migrations to Europe" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 12:24
There weren't black, fellow. "Moro" in Spanish doesn't mean "Black"
------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 12:24
Except for speaking Arab, having Arab names and calling themselves Arab? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 12:27
That's bull fellow.
The North Africans have those DNA lineages, but they didn't look like Idi Amin Dada at all.
Look at Amazigh and Kabyles. Those were the Moor troops.
With the exception of the invasion of the 12th century, of course. Where real Subsaharan troops where brought to Spain.
But the culture, most of the people and the dominant class is not Subsaharan African at all, no matter how hard Afrocentrists try.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 12:41
|
Yes, just look at the artwork. No way were they black, lol. The Spanish Caliphate was formed by the Ummayads who fled from the Middle East.
------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 13:06
|
Afrocentrists claim that in 7th century black Moors were conquered by Arabs and that black Moors accepted Arabic language as their own. And then they were sent by Arabic ruler to conquer Spain. And after some time they went out of Arabic control and they became independent. This might be a good reason for having Arabic names and speaking Arabic language.
Is there any straight, concrete proof that they were not black ? Maybe some DNA study or some paintings from eight century ?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 13:48
|
That's funny. Proof that they weren't Black? So much are you convinced that they were? Better put in this way: Moors were Maghrebians and not Nigerians.
Some proofs:
(1) Arabs and Beduins conquered the Maghreb.
(2) Immediately after they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and conquered Spain.
(3) South Saharan Africa (Mali, Shonghai) were conquered by the Moors AFTER they conquered Spain. The Moors WERE NOT the same people than Black Africans.
(4) There is only one record of Subsharan troops in Spain and it was in the 12th century, not in the 8th. The reaction of Spaniards to those strange people, both from Muslims and Christians alike, was noticeable, and that fired the beginning of the end of the Reconquist. Three centuries later Muslims were gone from Spain.
These are the Moors. They call themselves Amazigh and the main representatives are the Kabyles.
       Now, that makes sense. You can see that the Maghreb is closed to Europe rather than South Saharan Africa.
A moor of Spain would like about like him
 ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 14:01
|
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22743 -
There is a similar thread on Medieval about it:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22743
|
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 14:20
| Are there any pictures of the moors from Spain ?? There must be some |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 14:34
|
Some "Moors" of ancient times.
Hannibal, Carthagian.
  From The Tale of Bayad and Riyad, Muslim Spain.
  ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:04
The very premise of your questions is faulty. Afrocentrists, Eurocentrists etc. are called so because they are not taken seriously, because they distort history to fit their own ethnic/cultural agenda. You need to approach this differently, first by picking up some books on the subject written by serious, non-centrist scholars. You can start with the works of R. A. Fletcher and Hugh Kennedy, who both specialise in early Islamic civlisation and have written about the history of Al-Andalus.
Is there any straight, concrete proof that the Franks were not black? Maybe, but that's not the point; there is no reason to believe they were black in the first place. The Moors were a group of Berbers led by Arabs, from North Africa, and neither the Berbers, Arabs or French for that matter are black today. It's very likely the Arabs brought with them Negroid slaves, as they did everywhere, but how many there were of these is hard to estimate, and it is unreasonable to assume they were a dominant or major element. Negroes were generally not held in very high regard by the Arabs. The famous 14th century sociologist Ibn Khaldun, an Arab from an upper class Andalusian family, writes of the Negroes: "The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state [in Spain]." Ibn Khaldun as quoted in Bernard Lewis' book "Race and Colour in Islam". ------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:04
|
Not many manuscripts survived as I read on google. Some idiotic, dumb Catholic priest burned almost all of them. |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:06
|
Another question appears - are those manuscripts which survived depicting Moors, or Spanish enslaved people ? It may be also created by Spanish people.
The picture may also depict Arabs, not moors. I found that scientists are not sure was it made by Moors or brought from Arabic land.
Are there any paintings from later period ?
|
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:51
|
Morien, for example, is the adventure of a heroic Moorish knight supposed to have lived during the days of King Arthur. Morien is described as "all black: his head, his body, and his hands were all black."
William Shakespeare used the word Moor as a synonym for African. Christopher Marlowe used African and Moor interchangeably. Arab writers further buttress the Black identity of the Moors. The powerful Moorish emperor Yusuf ben-Tachfin is described by an Arab chronicler as "a brown man with wooly hair.
I found it in some article. Does anybody know which Arab writers wrote about "black Moors" ?? And which cronicles described them as being black ?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:54
Shakespeare ignored the realities of Muslim Spain.
Bad source.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:55
That's false. Lot's of things of Muslim Spain (the right name) remains.
------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:58
|
The powerful Moorish emperor Yusuf ben-Tachfin is described by an Arab chronicler as "a brown man with wooly hair.
I've read that in Moroccans wooly hair is very rare
This description is a description of rather black person.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:00
|
Fellow, what are you looking for? What is the answer you need?
------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:01
|
I need a proof that they were not black. I'm writing work about Black Africa, and I must know exacly were they black or were they not.
If they were black I will include them in my work
Maybe there was a painting of some Moorish leader or something like that ?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:11
Moors were Africans. If you are doing a work about Africans you can include them. However, if you are doing a work that excluded people of non-negroid stock, I warn you that most Moors are not really Negroid but Caucasoids.
North Africans since the beginning have been a people related genetically with Europe. There is some level of admixture with Subsaharan Africans, but they are a different people since the times of the Ancient Egyptians!
Moreover, historically, Black Africa is the region of Africa South of the Sahara. If you follow that definitions, Moors are not your people.
There are mixed peoples, like the Tuareg, that are mixed between Moor and Black African, but they don't really represent what the Moor of Spain or the historical Moor was. The Tuareg, though played a very important role in the development of the Kingdoms of South Saharan Africa: Mali, Shonghai, Tombuctu.
------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:13
|
But is there any evidence, that those Moors who invaded Spain were really not black ??
I've seen a lot of evidence that they were Negro
|
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:14
|
http://www.white-history.com/moors/problem25.jpg - http://www.white-history.com/moors/problem25.jpg look on this
For me they were completly Negroidal
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:15
They weren't
Otherwise people of Spain wouldn't be like they are today. Many people in Spain resemble the Moors, but you won't find Blacks among them, except some recent immigrant.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:17
Have you seen the other 99 plates of that book?
 Please, don't be funny. ------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:20
|
http://www.white-history.com/moors.htm - http://www.white-history.com/moors.htm
But on the other hand there are also manuscripts depicting them as being white skinned.
So I think it is possible that many of them were Negro.
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:21
Shakespeare never wrote about Muslim Spain. In Othello, Othello (the moor) is describes as having the emotional characteristics of Berbers. Specifically Shakespeare puts these words into Iago's mouth while describing Othello and Desdemona's marriage: "...have your daughter covered with a Barbary horse." (Othello I.I) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:25
Muslim Spain, Al Andalus was founded by an Arab.
The language they spoke was Arab.
Most of the people in Muslim Spain were native Spaniards.
There were people comming from all over the Muslim world in Spain, including Arabs, Persians, Palestineans, North Africans among them.
Some of the most common immigrants were Syrians.
There were some Blacks in Spain, but they represented not even the 1% of the population, and none in higher posts.
What else do you want to know?
The obsesion of Afrocentrism with Moors is understandable, but it is false history that not match reality.
------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:34
|
The mixed racial make-up of the Moors is confirmed by their own writing: the Moorish historian Ali ibn Abd Allah, writing in the 1300s, (recall that the Moors were only finally expelled from Spain in 1452) said that a Moorish Sultan of the time , Mohammed ben Idriss is described as “blond” while Abou el-Hassan el Said had as mother “a Nubian slave . . . dark and of mixed blood,”
Abu Hassan Au, “The Black Sultan” whose mother was a Negro slave, had as his favorite wife, Shams-ed-Douha (The Morning Sun), a beautiful white captive. (Scott-O’Connor, V. C. Vision of Morocco, pp. 99-100. 1923).
|
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:40
|
http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/Spain_-_Moors.gif - http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/Spain_-_Moors.gif
Does anybody know when was it created and who did it ?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:46
You are confussing dates and times. The Almoravide invasion of the 1200 certury in fact included BLACKS. Even some rulers were Blacks.
But those fellows where not the MOORS. They were a mixture of Moors + Tuaregs and problably Black people from Southern Sahara incorporated to Islam recently.
Now, those fellow have nothing to do with the Muslim culture in Spain. In fact Al-Andalus continued to speak Arab.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 18:50
Twelve century once again. The Almoravide invasion. You can notice that only 1 black African was in the boat full of Moors
 You better do a homework about the Almoravides. That's the most Black you will get.
If you write about Moorish Spain, though, you won't find what you are looking for, because Moorish Spain was not a Subsaharan Disneyland but a Islamic Nation, strongly influenced by Middle Eastern culture, and whose race has nothing to do with SS Africa. ------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 19:31
|
Ok now I believe that they were not black :-) But I would also like to see other evidence, so if someone knows something, please write it down here. Any other manuscripts, paintings, or quotes from chronicles ??
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 21:32
|
Hello to you all
I have something to say about this subject. The overwhelming majority of muslim imigrants to Spain were Berber not Arabs. Arabs were a small minority while the Berbers were large. Arabs preferred the old Visigoth nobility over the Berbers and most of the Taifa kings were descendents from the old nobility while the rule was with the Arabs. However, during the time of Al-Mansur ibn Abi Amir he brought a lot of the tuareg berber (mostly negroid) to Al-Andalus and because of extreme political differences the revolted burning down Cordoba, Al-Zaherah and Al-Zahra and looting them. The rebellion was destroyed and a republic was proclaimed in Cordoba while the rest of the muslim held parts were divided inot the taifa. Al-Moravids were led by berbers but their elite forces were the Black cavalry which was responsible for Az-Zallaqah and other victories. Yousif ibn Tashfin himself is Black or had very dark skin based on his discriptions that maybe one of the reasons for thinking that most moors were black while they were not. There was little immigration to Al-Andalus starting with Al-Moravids, the immigration was the other way around.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 22:55
|
Indeeed. The arrival of the Tuaregs marked the beginning of the end of Muslim Spain. After that, Christians never stopped winning territory after territory, and didn't stop before they get rid of Muslims in Spain. But they also invaded North Africa to stop new waves of fanatics from comming. The glorious period of Al-Andalus, from the 8th century up to the Almoravides invasion in the 12th, was ruled by Arabs.
------------- |
Posted By: ConradWeiser
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:21
|
Hmm. The answer to this is that the term 'Moors' is a name given to muslim people by Europeans in Spain. The only unifiers here are religion and geography, it has no real reference to ethnic background, race, or original origin.
So, what did the Moors look like?
        These are pictures of Berbers, Arabs, Spanish, and Portuguese. Sure, the initial invasion was by Arabs and Berbers, but do you think the entire pre-invasion population ran northward? Of course not. The Moors were a multi-racial population...just like Mexicans, Iranis, Chinese, Sudanese, etc.
Race and terms associated, like Negroid, Caucasian, and Mongoloid, are no longer scientific terms. No wonder. ^^^
 ------------- Another year! Another deadly blow! Another mighty empire overthrown! And we are left, or shall be left, alone. -William Wordsworth |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:36
|
Indeed. As it happened and I have insisted in here, the term "Moreno" means all your pictures above, except ONE Come on. How can English speakers know better of who where the Moors IN SPAIN? I wonder.
------------- |
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:42
|
<<Race and terms associated, like Negroid, Caucasian, and Mongoloid,
are no longer scientific terms. No wonder.>>
That doesnt even make sense nor is it factual. Race and terms like Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid are in fact still used and are real. Mongoloid is instead given "Asian", and "Negroid" has been changed to Black or the silly "African-American", and Caucasian and White hasnt been altered . Go fill out a US census paper and while your at, read a science book. Today, we have to deal political correctness , where somehow "Africa", and Negro/Black became synonymous with eachother...when the reality is Africa, is home to indigenous Caucasoid peoples(one example Berbers), and has been for over 30,000 years. Also if races doesn't exist, then why are you using, "Multi-racial"?! Halle Berry is part Negro and part White, yet she is referred to as "Black-American", so another part has to do with social terms. She is in fact an example of a, "Multi-racial", not Ms Cruz. It also seems your using selected photos of people to suit your agenda. Penelope Cruz doesn't look "Berber", nor is hypothetical Berber admixture a reason to account for her
phenotype/looks. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:44
Indeed. Congrats with the most clarifying post in the thread.
Well now, initially the Tuaregs were the saviours of Muslim Spain, and temporarily turned the tide against the Christians. The reconquista was a long process and its success cannot be attributed the Tuareg invasion. The Moors started losing land to the Christians as soon as their conquest was complete, then it swayed back and forth until such Christian victories as Toledo in 1085 and Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 tipped the balance in favour of the Christians. Possibly the religious fervour of the Tuaregs helped instill an even more defiant spirit in the Christians, but that's as far as the blame goes. As for fanatics from North Africa, well, the Spanish too were known for overzealousness in this period (if one could be too zealous), it's not like they represented the forces of rationality and secularism. And Siemowit, I don't know what kind of book or article you are working on, but judging from your questions here I must say I'm sceptical. Have you studied history at college or university? Your lack of historical method, especially source criticism, is quite glaring. A history work today must meet the minimum requirements of proper historical method, else it is academically worthless. If you are aware of this and I'm simply misjudging you based on the few lines you have written here, then I am sorry, but the fact that you actually tried to examine the ethnic origin of the Moors based on Shakespeare and a White Supremacist website leads me to grave doubt. Unless you have a history degree of some kind I can just advise you to be extremely careful with sources and apply good sense. If I were you I'd stay away from wiki and dubious websites and pick up some books on the subject instead, written by contemporary and acknowledged scholars. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:56
|
I agree with the above post. However, Penolope Cruz could be Kabyle, part of the authentic Amazigh (or Moors) The term Berber includes certain mixed mulatto peoples like the Tuareg and peoples that live in Ghana and even in Nigeria. However, the main groups of Berbers are Caucasoids. Those brown haired and brown eyed Caucasoid peoples of North Africa are, in fact, the historical Moors.
Pictures of Berbers (Amazigh)
       In other terms, Hally Barry could easily be considered a Tuareg, but she would never be considered Kabyle.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 00:13
Agreed. The resistence was from the very beginning. And the atrocities of the first wave of invasion was not forgotten by the Christians either.
However, the Tuareg exhibition of power in spain was the last drop...
In fact, the climate of tolerancy that the Umayyads once impossed in Al-Andalus was gone with the arrival of these other people. The persecution on Mozarabs (Christians) of Cordoba is just an example of that change of attitute. And with that Christian find out they couldn't tolerate Muslims on its land anymore.
Spaniards learn the lesson of fanaticism from theirs invaders. They were good pupils.
------------- |
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 00:38
-------------
|
Posted By: ConradWeiser
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 00:43
Well, this is of course debateable.
Race, generally skin-color, is largely determined by the ammount of Melanin someone has. Melanin is generally produced to protect the body from UV rays. This is why people closer to the equator generally have darker skin. The dark skin of some people who live far from the equator, such as that of the inuit, is attributed to the consumption of certain proteins from which melenin is created.
So, melenin determines race. Melenin is a pigment. Separating people on the basis of melanin is like separating people on the basis of their white blood cell count.
Here are some articles.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/7/1049.pdf - http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/7/1049.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism
http://shininglight.us/archives/2007/11/there_is_no_scientific_basis_to_race.php - http://shininglight.us/archives/2007/11/there_is_no_scientific_basis_to_race.php
Why did I use multi-racial? Habit, perhaps. Lack of a better word, maybe. This is the same dillema that the Census Bureau has. We feel a need to group people together to get a sense of diversity, yet have no qualifiers to determine that diversity.
Ethnicity might be a better term, an ethnic group being a people who share a similar culture/language/history. Latino/Hispanic is an example, but ethnic groups are hard to identify and lable in such countries as the United States, while easier in tribal-centered countries like Afghanistan.
Hmm. Penelope is spanish, is she not? I never attributed her to being Berber...at least not directly. The people in these pictures are Spanish, Portuguese, Berbers, and Arabs. The point being, the original population in Spain (spanish/iberian/visigoths) largely converted to Islam with the invasion. That would make them Moors. (Sure, Penelope isn't muslim, but I was using her spanish heritage as an example of what some moors probably looked like)
Anyway, I appreciate the response. ------------- Another year! Another deadly blow! Another mighty empire overthrown! And we are left, or shall be left, alone. -William Wordsworth |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 00:46
| Do you know where to find any medieval manuscripts and some paintings from former times ? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 00:57
|
Some rulers of Al-Andalus:
Abd ar-Rahman I. Abd ar-Rahman I Arabic: (عبد الرحمن الداخل), (known as the "Falcon of Andalus" or "The Falcon of the Quraish") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_ar-Rahman_I#_note-0 - [1] (born http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/731 - 731 ; ruled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/756 - 756 through his death circa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/788 - 788 ) was the founder of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim - Muslim dynasty that ruled the greater part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula - Iberia for nearly three centuries.
Modern reproductions:
  Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad, (In arab: عبد الرحمن بن محمد), better known as Abderramán III or Abd al-Rahman III (Córdoba, January 7, 891 - Medina Azahara, October 15, 961),
 Almanzor, Tutor of Hisham III. 938-1002
 Al-Hakam II
 ------------- |
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 14:13
|
Who created those pictures of Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad and Almanzor ? And when were they created ?
And who created that sculpture (and when) ?
|
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 14:25
|
Dear http://www.allempires.net/member_profile.asp?PF=1213&FID=5 - Reginmund I am an amateur, I completely agree with you that I lack historical knowledge and method. I write this work for website which will be soon created. I didn't treat Shakespear as a source about medieval times, but as a source of "how people understand and undestanded the word Moor" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 14:32
The problem, fellow is that Islamic Spain or Moor's Spain has nothing to do with what Shakespear's definition of Moor in Otello. In other words, a "Moor" of Spain would probably be of the same aspect, or "race", than Desdemona. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 14:41
Good question. Actually there are very few pictures of the Moor rulers of the time because it is known Muslims avoid portraits.
However, there exist some pictures that show moors. This is the Moorish ambassador to Queen Elizabeth, for instance:
 As you can see, the physical type is well known and defined.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 14:48
|
LOL, thjis thread is very circular and repetitive. I am going to turn it around here: The vast majority of Moors over the centuries were NOT black, least of all their rulers. Given their origins this should be obvious, even to an amateur. Now what evidence do you have to the contrary? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 14:54
Co-sign.
What's the evidence? ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 15:20
|
Hello to you all
Well I thought the discussion died with me but it seems that youu went too far ahead. The best source written about Al-Andalus was Al-Maqarri's "Nafh Al-Teeb". The main sources for his book came from the Andalusian refugees that came from Spain immediatly after the fall of Granada or after. You should understand that the Andalusians are a seperate ethnic group in Morocco and Algeria that lives to this day. It is estimated that theyy are about 15% of the total population of both countries. They are more educated than average and easil distinguisable from the rest by their quasi-European features. Blond or brunette is not uncommon and have much fairer skin than the rest of the population. They concentrations today are on the atlantic coast cities and nearby inland cities.
Also another interesting note is that after the fall of the Caliphate, the moors became more and more Spaniardized. Remember that muslims always were in the minority and the largest they were was not more than 40% of the total population and that was during the Nasrids the last muslim dynasty. Spanish was common and the popular songs had lots of spanish words or even lines. People ceased to wear Islamic clothes and wearing turbans was actually a sign of vulgarity in some communities. The only difference was in religion and language.
By the way Abdurrahman III was blond with blue eyes, his mother if I was not wrong was either a slav concubine or a descendent of old Vesigoth nobility, I will check later.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 17:49
I agree with you.
The fact that the Moors brought with them sub-saharan africans as mercenaries or slaves doens't make the entire nation black.
Some Moorish kings could have had sub-saharan blood just as some members of the European nobility, but I couldn't care less because what is important is that they created a flowering civilization.
If you are curious to know what the ancient Berbers looked like, a good source would be the Roman Mosaics in Tunisia and Lybia.
I haven't bothered looking for them on the internet, but I'm sure if you type in "mosaic, tunisia" you'd come up with plenty of them.
The Roman emperors Septimus Severus, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus were also or Moorish origin; just look up for a statue of them in Wikipedia, and you'll see what they looked like.
The Berbers had inhabitted North Africa since pre-Roman times, and many of them "Latinized" or "Semeticised" under Roman and Carthaginian colonization, just as later under Arab colonization.
I doubt that the "look" of North Africans had changed that much over the last 1000 years.
While there is no evidence that the Iberian Moors were not black, there is also no evidence that the ancient Chinese didn't have blue skin and red eyes.
All this black-white debate is an attempt to impose the U.S. mentality of race (which is crap) onto the rest of the world over different ages.
|
Posted By: Siemowit
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:08
|
There is much evidence, showing that Moors were black. Many chronicles describe them as being completely black.
Where did you find that ambassador ? :-) Are there any other pictures ? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:12
Show your evidence that the Moors were a Black subsaharan people, please.
I bet you know better. ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:14
Greeks were called black in Sweden 50 years ago... |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:26
|
OK I have lost my patience here. I think that the goal of Siemowit and his ilk is to somehow attribute the magnificence of Cordoba Khalifa to sub-saharan Africa. Simple reasoning will determine that if this was the case there would be some sort of sub saharan prelude to Cordoba, however there is not - the prelude is completely Middle eastern and would never have happened if the Ummayad Khalifa was never ousted by the Abassid. i can show you plenty of architecture in the middle east from the same period or before that is clearly related to that of Cordoba. Now go and write your fantasy website: simply oozing nonsense that there is plenty of evidence to suggest they were completely black without presenting any reveals your real intention here. The title of the thread is also very nonacademic and deliberately provocative. What was your point in coming here and creating this thread int he first place if you already have the answer you want? You're a simple troll. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:48
|
Co-sign, What I find more pathetic in the strenght with which some Black Americans claims ancestry to the Moors is the following: They have no idea of what the Moors did to West Africa south of the Sahara. The history goes like follows: (1) Arabs and beduins invaded the Maghreb, impossing Islam and a life style upon locals. International slavery was introduced in Western South Saharan Africa by the Moors!!! Even today, in places like Mauritania, the so called "white Moors", descendents of the ancient Caucasian Moors, keep alive the institution of slavery in that country. So, what we are talking about? ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:58
|
I wonder if people realise that a great many "Moors" are decendents of
Germanic tribesmen who crossed over the straights of Gibraltar in the
5th century AD. The whole of the West Roman Empire underwent an influx
of Germanic migration, the Maghreb was no exception. Though certainly
not a majority, there is still a substantial number of people in the
Maghreb with light eye, hair and skin colour. I've said it before, I'll say it again: the Med. Sea was the main conduit for migration into the Maghreb, not the Sahara Desert. Because of that, prior to the modern period most migration to the Maghreb came from the Mediterranean. The two main cultural and political influences in the area were either Semitic (Carthage, the Arabs) or Latin (Romans), with the Germans (100 years) and Greeks playing a much smaller role (limited presence of Classical Greek city states, 150 years of limited Byzantine overlordship). ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:58
|
Good points, pinguin & CXI.
------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 19:54
First attain historical knowledge and method, then create the website, unless you want it to turn out like Zagros says. I don't expect you to go berserk with books on historical method, as they're quite dry and tedious to read, but at the very least always back up controversial claims by reference to specific sources (don't write stuff like "many chronicles say this and that", because if you don't state the specific chronicles in question then you might as well not make the claim at all). And use secondary sources (that is, books written by modern scholars) and not primary sources (the written works of the period in question), as a person without a history degree is rarely equipped to handle them. When I started studying history at university level we were advised to rely on secondary sources to begin with, as there are too many pitfalls for a layman when using primary sources; it takes a developed sense of source criticism, historical method and profound knowledge of the period in question. Make sure you put a link to this site once it's up and running. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 20:01
|
Finally, before this thread is closed (I am afraid), I would like to say something with respect to the following fallacy: The idea that Spain was a primitive place at the time of the Muslim invasion in the 8th century, and that all Spanish achivement were imported. Nothing farther from the true! Spain was nothing less than a favorite province of the Roman Empire. Not only Spain had threel Roman Emperors of that origin, Trajano, Adriano and Teodosio, but such important figures like Seneca were born there. Yes, it is true that during the Visighotic period the peninsulae was in a state of decadecy, but who wasn't in that state in Western Europe. However, Romanic architecture and schollastic did exist in Spain at the time. That's clearly seen when we find out that pretty soon after the Muslim conquest, Spain was compiting in creativity with places like Bagdad, Egypt and Persia! So, it is not right to say the Muslim brought civilization to Spain, because that was already in place. What they did was to get it to new heights, and that's something nobody denies. Just I have to say so.
------------- |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 20:46
| i am from Libya orginally and no moors were not blacks, berbars are not black. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2008 at 09:24
|
The use of the word Moor in english does not specifically mean Maghibis. Now most people will use it this way, but it is not a usage that is historically correct. Shakespeare uses two different types of Moor, and distinguishes between the two. A "Tawney Moor", and a "Black Moor" (like Othello), we have both Maghribi (possibly any Arab) and sub-Saharan Moors. Don't get confused between the two, 'Moor' is a very loose term and does not apply to any specific group of people - other than foreign people who live south of spain. ------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2008 at 12:54
|
I have proof the Abyssinians were Chinese.
no...really... ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2008 at 14:52
I wouldn't pay too much attention to theories that Shakespeare's use of the word 'black' implies sub-Saharan, any more than it does Autralian aboriginal.
It's unlikely the object of Shakespeare's attraction was from south of the Sahara. She presumably however did have 'black' hair and eyes from an English point of view.
As for 'Moor' while Omar is right it meant south of Spain and Italy, there's little doubt it also implied Muslim. What it should have meant philologically (coming from Mauretania) is another thing.
------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2008 at 22:31
|
Okay, the Songhai Emperors were Chinese.
You see, it all began with the Song Dynasty. When the invaders were finally invading the royal palace, the Song Royal Family got on a ship and sailed East with Zong He. After discovering North America in 1421, they sailed around South America and left a group of Asian guys there who taught the MesoAmericans all about civilization; creating the Inka and Aztec respectively.
Then they sailed around S America, to the West of Africa. The ship crashed on land, and the natives were flabbergasted by the new comers. They made them Kings.
And thats why its called the Songhai Empire. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 00:16
| The name "moors" covered different groups of people in the history!The "original"moors were the inhabitants of the roman province"Mauritania",in today`s Morocco!?!.The spanish"moors" were a mix of different islamic groups(berber,arab,etc) maybe few negroes were also part of the mix.but if,not many.The today "moors",inhabitants of Mauritania,are classified in "white" and"black" moors.Hannibal was no "moor".He was a cathaginian,a fenician .Fenician were caucasian.Moor comes from the latin maurus(the blck one". |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 02:54
|
Moors in Iberia and Southern Europe only means "Muslims". Most of the Muslim invaders of Spain were Berbers from the Maghred, but also Arabs, Syrians, Libanese and even Persians.
In Spanish, at least, Moor is used as synonim of Muslim people, but also as synonim of Arab or people that looks like Arabs. That is, caucasian people of brown eyes and hair and slightly tanned skins. In Spanish it is usually said that the Moors in Spain were part of the Arab Civilization; which although not fully precise, makes a lot more sense that the wild and ridiculous idea that such a civilization came from a subsaharan land
------------- |
Posted By: Aurorum
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 06:05
Like everyone else in the world, the Muslims owned slaves; slaves acquired from Africa; slaves sold by opposing, victorious tribes to greedy and intelligent outsiders. It's a universal point of agreement: Naked has always been in style.  |
Posted By: Aurorum
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 06:07
   |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 11:57
How could you possibly know that? Just because you're Libyan you know what moors looked like hundreds of years ago? You're clearly racist and have problem with moors or berbers being identified as dark skinned. The word moor comes comes the Greek "Mauros," meaning black. The berbers are not Caucasian. There is no evidence that they came from the Caucus Mountains. In fact, their langauge and culture suggests that they are native Africans. |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 12:31
African is African. Sub-saharan is a racist European creation. The saharan desert is roughly 6,000 years old. The previous 50,000 - 100,000 years was one of complete communication. When the Sahara dried up, some people migrated North, South, East, and West, while some stayed. The Sahara did not stop links, it just slowed the process. No one can know what the people who invaded Spain looked like. Just because most were from North Africa does not mean that they looked a certain way. Caucasian denotes people who came from the Caucus Mountains. Any attempt to describe the people of North Africa (prior to Arab conquest) or North-East Africa as Caucasoid is racist, as it was meant to be in the 19th century. Unless you can prove that they came into Africa from somewhere else, they are African. Moorish Spain was not an Arab civilization. Moors were, and are, African, and the culture of Moorish Spain was a mixture of African, Arab, Spanish Christians and Jews, and possibly Persian. It was cosmopolitan. |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 12:33
 |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 12:36
| And by the way Moors were Berbers and Arabs and Syrian Muslims thus white, though not as white as Iberians and Visigoths which called them Moors for their darker skin |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 13:23
Oh goodie, an old race thread revived. This will be fun.
No, it is a geographical term. It denotes Africans from the south of Sahara. 
Yes, and considerably so. It separates northern Africa from southern Africa like the Mediterranean separates North Africa from southern Europe. Neither make up an insurmountable obstacle, but they have both divided their northern and southern peoples culturally as well as ethnically.
Yeah, it does. It means they looked like *gasp* North Africans.
African is a continental term, it has nothing to do with ethnicity. British and Dutch descendants in South Africa are also African. Caucasoid on the other hand, despite being based on a silly theory is still a a workable umbrella term to roughly denote the human phenotype that is predominant in Europe as well as parts of the Middle East and North Africa, as opposed to the Mongoloid type of Asia or the Negroid type of Sub-Saharan Africa.
You claim "Sub-Saharan" is a racist term invented by Europeans, while you have no problem operating with the term "Moor"? "Moor" was a term invented by the Europeans to lump the Arabs and Berbers who invaded Spain together based on skin colour, it's far more "racist" than "Sub-Saharan" ever was. The civilisation of Moorish Spain was mainly that of the Arab Caliphate, which in turn built on Roman and Persian traditions. The contribution of the Berbers and the Europeans were by and large in the form of military support and lower tier administration. The Jews were a minority, although their intellectual contributions were disproportionally large. And that's basically it for Al-Andalus, if you're looking for Sub-Saharan civilisation in Moorish Spain you won't find it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 14:25
Yes, and Asians are Asians and Americans are Americans. So?
 That's only geography.
False. Since ancient times people have noticed a slight difference is aspect between the caucasian north Africans and the people of Black Africa, or the country of Blacks as once was called. A single Africa was an invention of Kaddafi, after he was refuse the direction of the Arab leage
Yes. Caucasians migrated north and Negroids migrated south. Quite curious.
False. Spaniards and Hispanics know how the people that invaded Spain looked like. The first wave of invaders in the 8th century weren't Black Africans. The reason is simple to know. At that time Black Africa wasn't invaded and enslaved by Arabs and Berbers as yet.
Nope. Just describes the fact North Africans are a lot more similar to Southern Europeans than to Black Africans. That's something a Kabyle and a Spaniard may agree. Both see Black Africans as part of another group.
Ignorance, once again. The subsaharan African influence in Spain is irrelevant. SS Africa at that time was barbarious and primitive in comparison to Spain. The civilization was carried by the Arabs, the Jews and also by the Romanized Christian of Spain, not by Black Africans.
Please, ask an ignorant as Sertima to stop saying lies.
------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:58
Nobody mentioned my cool pic in the 4th page yet Anyway seems like the necromancer fled. |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 00:20
No, it's a racist term created by racist Europeans. We can go back and forth with this if you like.
Wrong. Berbers are culturally and ethnically related to other Western, Northern, and Eastern Africans. Their language and cultures are similar to Chadic groups in West Africa, Nilotic groups in the Sudan, along with Somalians and Ethiopians in East Africa.
I agree. They looked like Africans.
No they are not. They are European; their culture is European, not African. They happen to live in Africa.
It's a workable umbrella term for racists. If it doesn't refer to ethnicity, culture, or homeland, then what is it referring to? Some biological difference created by racist Europeans? Please...
Wrong. Ancient Greeks and Romans created the term. I used it to raise a question. If Moors originated in Africa, and the term originally meant "black," why would anyone assume that they looked Caucasian wothout providing proof?
You keep referring to Sub-Saharan civilization. Moorish Spain was a mixture of African, European, and Asian cultural influences. The Arabs came straight from being desert nomads. What makes the architecture, engineering, science, etc. Arabic? It's Moorish. |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 00:56
That's funny. You're gonna need a lot of sources for all that crap you just mention. Country of the Blacks.  Kaddafi. The Ancient Greeks descried many of the peoples of northern Africa, specifically the people of the Nile (Egyptians/ Ethiopians). And we both know how they were described.
Again. You are talking crap. Why the hell would Caucasians be in the Sahara? And why would you assume they would all go North, or that they were the only ones that went North. Again, you'll need a lot of sources.
WTF!? I thought this was a serious discussion forum. When did Spaniards mention what their invaders look like? As i recall, they were illiterate when the invasion occured. If there was literacy, it was from the Church, which focused on religious matters. What the hell does slavery have to do with anything? And what the hell is a Black Africa. Is there a white Europe? or a Brown or Yellow Asia? Racist Europeans created the term.
Okay.
I agree also. Today's North Africans are very different from the rest of Africa. Doesn't affect the reality 1,300 years ago.
WTF!? Who mentioned Sub-Saharan Africa? I can see that the poison of racism has infected your vision my friend.
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 02:47
If it makes you feel better we can call it "Africa south of Sahara", although the meaning is exactly the same.
That's too unspecific. African is not an ethnicity, Africa is one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the world. North Africans look radically different from Africans south of the Sahara, and they looked just as different 1300 years ago. Evolution takes much, much longer than that.
All Africans happen to live in Africa, that's the definition of African. Get it through your head that's it a continental term and has nothing to do with ethnicity, culture or language.
Created? Even a mentally handicapped person can tell the difference between a Negroid and a so-called Caucasoid, there isn't any need to create anything
It never meant "black", it meant "dark", and still does in modern Spanish. "Moreno" means a darkhaired person, as opposed to "rubio", a lighthaired person. "Black" is "Negro" in modern Spanish, "niger" in Latin.
I see you know nothing about the Arabs of the 7th and 8th centuries. Some were bedouins, that is desert nomads, but these were limited to auxiliary cavalry units. The core of the army as well as the leaders were drawn from sedentary Arab tribes, particularly from the Hejaz and the clans of Mecca. These were highly civilised men who had inherited the architecture, engineering, science etc. from the Graeco-Roman and Persian civilisations and it was this learning the intellectuals of the Caliphates (including Al-Andalus) built on. It was not "Moorish", it was Greek, Roman, Persian and Arab, in that order. You deliberately falsify history so that "Africans from the south of Sahara" can take credit for the civilisation of Al-Andalus. It is a truly sad case of the inferiority complex where one feels that the achievements of a certain people are so small one has to steal the achievements of others. Think about what a grave insult this is to the civilisations of "Africa south of the Sahara". ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 03:22
Friend, the Nile is a little bit off from Morocco. If you see a map you will notice that the Maghreb is pretty close to Italy, France and Iberia. In fact, a lot closer that Egypt or the Sahara. As far as I know, Ethiopians are as far away as Indonesians for this story. You better ask Phoenicians rather than Greeks, though, because they knew better; Phoenicians settled the Western Mediterranean both in the European side and the Maghreb.
No. It is you who talks crap based on crapped sources.
That's enough! You are a very ignorant man, I am afraid. How come you believe Spaniards were analphabets by Muslim invasion!!! Never hear of Seneca! Never heared about Hispania, the jewel of the Roman Empire? Spain was never analphabet at the Middle Ages, sir! Even Visigoths knew how to write and quite well. The analphabets were the Malians!
With that lack of knowledge is impossible to discuss seriously anything.
1.300 years ago, Maghrebians looked the same! Genetics and arts show that clearly.
No one denies the influence of the Maghreb in Spain. However, even in Muslim times, the influence of Arabia, Syria and even Persia was a lot stronger in Spain than the Moroccan.
With respect to SS Africa, just remember that the operational base of Muslims was the Maghreb and they expanded both ways, to Europe and to SS Africa. That's way some people confuse Moors with Blacks. In any case, for Spaniards, Moor is synonim of Moroccan, of Muslim, of Maghrebian and of brown skinned caucasoid.
Even more, in our culture, when we say Moreno or Moro, we mean a person that looks like Kaddafi or Zidane. And it has always been that way, for centuries.
If Maghrebians Berbers, are the Africans you mean, that fine. Otherwise you are twisting history.
These are the moors, no others:
 Those are the girls we call Morenas in Spanish! Moor girls.
 When we speak about the beauty of moor women we mean that.
http://www-tc.pbs.org/hopes/morocco/images/moroccoessay.jpg -
 Moroccan women
  Clear?
------------- |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 04:30
And sub-saharan is not too unspecific? The Dinka do not look like the Xhosa; the Wolof do not look like San people; the Yoruba do not look like Somalis; etc. Why separate North Africa from the rest? Is European or Caucasian an ethnic group; Slavs and Germanic Europeans are considered Caucasian, but different ethnicities.
I'm tired going back and forth with this. Show me proof of what they looked like 1,300 years ago. Throughout the planet, there is no place where people look radically different from their neighbors. There is a continuous sweep of changing features throughout Africa, Europe, and Asia. The people on the south-eastern border of Russia do not look radically different from the people of northern China. Go to Africa today, you will not see radical differences.
It has everything to do with language, culture, and ethnicity. The Ancient peoples of Africa forged their cultures and languages inside of Africa. Berber is an Afro-Asiatic language, along with Nilotic, Chadic, Coptic, Somali, etc. These people are related by culture, language, and ethnicity. Why do Europeans feel a need to claim people who have never been to Europe, or the Caucus Mountains for that matter. These are Africans.
Really?  What the hell is a Negroid? You're bringing up these racist classification from the 19th century, which are defunct today. The terms "Caucasian" and "Negroid" were created by the racist German anthropologist Johann Freidrich Blumenbach at the height of European racism in the early 19th century. You can continue using the term to describe people who have always been in Africa if you like, but it has no basis in science. Race is a social phenomenon.
Moor comes from the Greek Mauros, i.e. "black." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moor - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moor
I don't care about Al-Andalus; it's not an African civilization, although Africans contributed. Al-Andalus can be classified as Moorish, Muslim, or cosmopolitan (whatever). My concern is the attempt to Europeanize or Arabize ancient northern Africans. People claim that Berbers who fought with the Arabs to conquer Spain were not African; that is rediculous.
Read Ancient Greek accounts of the peoples of northern Africa; look at their depictions of northern Africans. Some were light; some were dark; all were African, unless they came from elsewhere like the Carthaginians. Skin color is virtually meaningless when trying to describe a people. Europeans have an aversion to dark skin for some reason. What is so wrong with the people of northern Africa having dark skin? Whether their skin was dark or light, they were Africans, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically. They are not Caucasian. You people have Greece and Rome; celebrate that.
I claim all African peoples and civilizations for Africa. Africans have created greatness throughout the entire continent. Civilization was developing in Africa before the Sahara desert existed. Cultural links were created that did not exist for the Africans who left the continent tens of thousands of years before (i.e. Europeans and Asians). The peoples of western Africa, the Sahara, northern Africa, and north-eastern Africa congregated around the rivers and lakes that existed in the Sahara until it dried up about 4,000 b.c. The ones who remained in the Sahara were called the Garamantes, ancestors of modern berbers. |
Posted By: AksumVanguard
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 05:21
|
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ancient_Libya The Moors were not black.That link above shows an Egyptian hieroglyph of what ancient libyans looked like. The only blacks in Northern Africa are Haritans,and their the descendants of slaves.Hell, technically their never really was any Moor empire, the moors would't of even called themselves that because thats what Misonomer used by their enemies. The only place where they use Moor is in Maurantinia,but I assure you the only Moors were African not black.If they were why don't why here of any West African Wars with the Kabyle and Tuareg. The Mali and Songhai were vassal kingdoms thats why,thats why you never here of large scale wars unti colonial arrival.By that time it was too late. |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 05:37
You claimed North Africans were special in regard to the rest of Africa. Well, the ancient Egyptians were North Africans. The same degree of distinctions traversed the entire continent. My argument is that there is no need to use sub-saharan as a descriptive term.
The Greeks settled in Spain and Libya. I can't ask the Phoenicians because there are no records. We do have Greek accounts though.
Everyone is ignorant of something. I'm not willingly ignorant though. If you have information, then show me. There's no need for the name calling.
This was centuries prior to the invasion. The Visigoths took over Spain, and they were illiterate. I said at the time of the invasion the Spaniards were illiterate.
These are minor points. The major point is that they never described the invaders. If the Visigoths could write, good for them. You said that they said that the invaders were not dark-skinned. Prove it.
If you're referring to the Mali Empire, they definitely were not analphabet. They wrote in Arabic, and had some the the most famous scholars and universities in the Muslim world. Now the Soninke of the Ghana Empire were analphabet.
Where? Because the ancient Greeks described people of varying complexions (from Ethiopian dark, to Scythian light). Still, this is not my point. My point is that regardless of their skin color, they are African, culturally, linguistically, and ethnically. Skin color is your issue; you can't accept that there were dark-skinned peoples in northern Africa.
Okay, but there was some African influences.
I am not talking about SS Africa. You are. 1,300 years ago the term didn't exist, and there was no need for it to. Today, North Africa is an extension of Asia; it's the Middle East. So I understand the need for the term today, even though I still don't fully accept it.
How do you know that Moors were not dark-skinned, or that certain tribes were not dark-skinned? How do you know that they confused anything? I say that these views must come from a racist background because you can't know these things.
That's exactly what I mean.  These are berbers from Morocco, Algeria, and Western Sahara, and they vary in appearance:           |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 05:53
How can you show me a picture of a Libyan, then say moors were not black, and then think you made a point. Libyans were a berber tribe; there were many berber tribes. I suppose that these were the ones closest to the Egyptians, but berbers existed throughout northern Africa, western Africa, and the Sahara.
I'm not even going to reply to that.
What's your point? From what I know they called themselves Imazighen (free people). The Greeks labeled them Mauros, meaning "black."
You can assure me all you want. Hell, if you were a berber yourself, you could assure me. But it don't mean nothing unless you prove it.
WTF!? The emperors of Mali and Songhai were known throughout the Muslim world, and some were known in Europe (Mansa Musa for one). They were not vassals to anyone. These were the most powerful empires in western Africa in their time, and the wealth of the emperors was legendary. Both empires constantly subjugated and fought off attacks by berbers, including Tuaregs. I don't know if you're making stuff up or were miseducated about African history (I think the latter). |
Posted By: AksumVanguard
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 06:28
|
Bro,I gave you the Egyptian Picture so you can get it from an ancient and solid African source yourself. I suppose that these were the ones closest to the Egyptians, but berbers existed throughout northern Africa, western Africa, and the Sahara. You just said it yourself ,would say the Egyptians aren't black they Libyans the hue color in the hieroglyphs are way different from the hue ancient Egyptians paint themselves. What's your point? From what I know they called themselves Imazighen (free people). The Greeks labeled them Mauros, meaning "black." So hold ,you mean to tell you guys were an Empire who let the Greeks coin you a name. What is the Moor name in Moorish? LOL WTF!? The emperors of Mali and Songhai were known throughout the Muslim world, and some were known in Europe (Mansa Musa for one). They were not vassals to anyone. These were the most powerful empires in western Africa in their time, and the wealth of the emperors was legendary. Both empires constantly subjugated and fought off attacks by berbers, including Tuaregs. I don't know if you're making stuff up or were miseducated about African history (I think the latter). Are you lacking brain cells,If a foreigner comes into my country ,sets up his own mosques,indoctrinates me with his reilgion, and takes slaves its a weak So Called Empire period.Thats were they went wrong.Your telling me they picked up Islam out of the thin air. You can assure me all you want. Hell, if you were a berber yourself, you could assure me. But it don't mean nothing unless you prove it. Check this out bro,give me the exact historical name of this so called Moorish Empire or give me the name for this Empire of the Moors that your so sure of. And please don't come with any Fabricated Noble Drew Ali semantics either. |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 07:02
 ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: AksumVanguard
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 07:11
Yea there only two things that can survive after mass verbal destruction One bites the cheese The other scatter with his buddies when the lights come on. |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 07:17
I don't care about color or hues. My point is that prior to the Arab invasion, berbers and other northern Africans, were Africans of varying complexions. But they were Africans, and not Caucasians.
I'm not a moor. I'm African American, and the moors never called anything about them Moorish (that I know of). There are many different tribal names, but I believe they all call themselves collectively "the free people." Similarly, Ancient Egyptians never called themselves Egyptians; Ethiopians never called themselves Ethiopians; etc. It just so happened that western civilization came to dominate the world, and their (Greek) interpretation took dominance.
You don't know what you're talking about. No country allows foreigners to raid their citizenry for slaves. Neither Ghana, Mali, or Songhai did that either. Muslims didn't set anything up without the permission of the king or emperor. They had their own section within the cities.
Personally, I think Islam was adopted by the elites for commercial and political reasons (Muslims had access to desirable goods, and those tribes or kingdoms that were Muslims had easier negotiations). Also, a king or emperor, like Constantine the Great of Rome, may adopt a monotheistic religion in order to unify the empire. Nevertheless, no one completely adopted Islam. Even today, Africans (including berbers) tend to mix the foreign religions with their traditional beliefs and customs.
I'm not a follower of Noble Drew Ali, and I don't believe that stuff. I don't know of any Moorish Empires, except those in Spain (Almohads and Almoravids). There were berber kingdoms or civilizations that existed during the Roman Empire. To name a few: the Garamantes civilization, the Kingdom of Numidia, and the Kingdom of Mauretania. Mostly, though, berbers are tribal people who guard their independence (thus they call themselves "the free people"). |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 07:31
Sub Saharan Africa is a valid term, so is the horn of africa, southern africa, eastern europe, scandanvia, southern asia etc
wrong we have a good idea, and if they come from North Africa logic would suggest they look like North Africans. read a bit of Berber Ibn Battuta writings and tell me he doesnt talk of his african brothers in Mali as different from himself.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 07:56
Yeah, those Romans, I bet they were black too. Mate, if the small amount of Arab blood made any difference, it would've made them darker
For that matter, Africans south of the Sahara look pretty different to one another too. An Ethiopian and a South Sudanese look hugely more different than a Frenchman & Algerian. ------------- |
Posted By: jfsndvs
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 08:10
No, I don't. I'm not talking black vs white. You people are.
This is trivial. I addressed this earlier. People were arguing that people from northern Africa were racially distinct from "Sub-Saharan Africa." I said that they were not; race is a social creation, and separating Africans racially is racist.
Okay. I agree.
They probably were different. Africans are very diverse.
I'm not trying to make them into anything; you guys are. Regardless of their physical appearance, they were Africans. Ethiopians are Semetic, and they are different from people from the Congo. The Dinka are Nilotic; the Hausa are Chadic; etc. All berbers do not look the same, some are dark and some are light. Those in the north have mixed with Europeans and Asians for over a thousand years, and many look indistiguishable from Arabs or Europeans. Those in the south are darker. Describing people by how they look is fruitless. Culture and language are better determinants. In northern Africa, berbers are indistinguishable if they wear traditional dress or jewelry. But northern Africa has been heavily Arabized throughout the centuries.
African culture is a culture that is based in Africa. Arab is Asian based.
No. Would a Slavic speaker recognize elements of Portuguese that a bantu wouldn't for instance? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 10:53
Well, yes, separating anybody from anybody racially is racist. Separating Japanese from Australian aborigines racially is racist.
Saying that all Africans are racially related is racist. You're making racist arguments, and being countered by racist arguments.
Of course you are - the whole thread is racist.
The point however is that 'African' is a geographical term, not a racist one. Anybody who comes from Africa is African. Wood carvings from Africa are African. Music from Africa is African. But a carving in a Yoruba village and a carving in an English church are not differentiated by race, any more than Japanese music is racially distinct from jazz.
The Mediterranean (not a racist term, by the way, but a geographical one, just like 'Africa') like the North Sea is not a barrier but the centre of a civilisation that grew up around it - with a great deal of migration around it and interbreeding of peoples. Which is why the peoples of its littoral are so similar in culture, and, prior to the coming of Islam, religion. (Actually they are still similar in religion, since Islam and Christianity are so closely related.)
You cannot talk about 'African culture', only of African cultures. Just like you cannot talk of 'Asian culture' but have to talk of 'Asian cultures'.
I've contributed enough about the silly idea that 'Moor' ever meant 'black' earlier in the thread. I'd just be repeating myself if I said much more. ------------- |