Question about the Moors who ruled Iberia.

 

Now, to this little observation:

"Certainly true. Although one wonders exactly what 'black' means. I mean, the Tuareg can be pretty dark."

 

The "Blue" people of the Sahara certainly had a tradition of dying their skin long before Islam but the fact that today there is actually a Black component to the culture as a result of centuries of contact does not make them culturally Black. In addition, the Tuareg are the last of the Berber tribes to fully convert to Islam and did not do so until the 15th century! The Tuareg (or the Road People in the Arabic misinterpretation of the Berber Targa) remained animists far longer than any North African grouping and Arab chroniclers of the 11th through 14th centuries display marked hostility towards the tribe. Therein another factor weakening the erroneous contentions entertained on this thread. The jalis (the keepers of the oral traditions) of the present day Mande still preserve the narratives on the conversion experience in the Sahel and leave no doubt that both the Soninke and the Sosso did not identify with Islam. Likewise, Timbuktu was originally a Tuareg entrepot, that fell first to the Mande, was reoccupied by the Tuareg, and later retaken by the Songhai.   

 

 

 

Now as to a lot of words that apparently do not say anything, such is a measure of the response given. The Tuaregs are not Blacks no matter how hard you wish to imply so and certainly in terms of their contact with the Sonink� who were. Likewise, the notion that "the people of iberia could be said to shared more with the people of Ghana in the 9th century" is utter nonsense. Nor is there any way to confuse the 11th century narrative of Al-Bakri who clearly distinguishes the original Soninke establishment (al-Ghala or Kumbi in Sonink�) from the commercial entrepot. Current archaeology pretty well establishes the actual development of the site prior to Islam and the contacts between the Sanhaja Berbers and the original Mande inhabitants. The fact that the founding Mande component. along with its archives, was utterly destroyed in 1076 certainly makes mush of the claim of a "divided" Kumbi Saleh in the 12th century. Further, the expansion of the Nghana against the Berber entrepot of Audaghost in 1050 signals the break between the Sonink� and the Islamic commercial network. The struggle between the Almoravids and the Sonink� signalled the decline of the latter who by the close of the 12th century were under Sosso rule and shortly thereafter the city disappears from history. 

 

 

Now as to Black culture and the perils of political correctness. Yes, the Sonink� were a Black culture group (think anthropology and not contemporary sociological guff) and in this instance quite distinct from the mores, beliefs and traditions that characterized the Berbers, Arab society, and the commonality that is the circum-Mediterranean as well. In fact, even Islam had to adapt itself (or was adapted) to the cultural prerogatives and customs of the trans-Niger peoples [in fact even today the volatile question of shari'a within a sub-Saharan context is a cultural conflict in terms of the imposition of a Wahhabi perspective upon the older accomodative Islam that took root].

 

Now, I would quibble with your use of civilization but then you should expect that given my perspective that Islam is a part of the "Western" cultural tradition [and in a way the Arab empire a prolongation of the old Roman polity (OK another intricate word, sorry)]. Not that I too given a choice of residence between Cordova or Aachen in the 9th century, would choose the former! Nevertheless, throwing Kumbi-Saleh into the equation is a bit of the old apples-and-oranges dilemma since both Kumbi and Aachen would be most unpleasant.  

 

That's a generization. First, let's see what we meant by "civilization". We talk about a civilization when we analize a society that has a widespread culture that is based on cities. Now, a civilization has features such as: is ruled by a bureocracy, it usually has a set of knowledge transmitted by education in fields that go from science and technology to arts, crafts, sports and religion. In short, we talk about a Roman or a Chinese civilization, or specifically in this case about an "Islamic" civilization, but not about a syrian, ghanese or andalucian civilization.

 

In second place, puting Ghana and Andalucia in the same plane rest realism to the historical facts. Andalusia was in Iberia, a region that was "civilazed" during thousand of years. Iberia was part of Phoenician-Carthago civilization, then it was colonized by Greeks and also was a main province in the Roman Empire and a modest "germanic-ruled" region during the earliest Middle Ages. It didn't started from scratch at all. Muslim rule was just the cherry on top of the pie!

 

In the case of Ghana the reality was totally different. Muslims changed a tribal people in a modest and starting civilization modelated upon the Islamic practises on top of the local culture. It was a huge advance for West Africa but relative modest if one compares with the achievements of the Ancient and Middle Ages worlds.

 

By the way, the people of the lands that today is Germany were, even at the 9th century, a lot more advanced in culture and technology than Ghana. For instance, the use of hidraulic power and technological advances unknown outside Eurasia. Even in "savage" territories of Europe, like the lands of the Norse, you can find quite "modern" technologies, that were thousand of years ahead of anything known in Subsaharan Africa.

 

It is a pitty the tendency of rewriting and democritizing history, specially when truth is sacrified in the process.