Dispelling Afrocentrist myths, North africans

  Original page here

PHOENICIANS AND MOORS

Like Egyptians, the Phoenician seafarers and Islamic Moors are also frequently claimed by Afrocentrists, because both groups established colonies in North Africa and presumably intermarried with the indigenous populations. However, they were originally of Semitic origin, coming from the Middle East, and their forays into Africa seem not to have altered their racial character.

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Anthropology

PHOENICIANS

"The physical type of the Phoenicians is well known from the skeletal remains found in tombs at Carthage. A series of 117 skulls, of which 68 are male, belong for the most part to one characteristic type; dolicho- to mesocephalic, with the cranial index at 75; fairly long vaulted, and hence moderately broad; with a very low vault, a moderately broad forehead, a short face, high orbits, and a narrow, projecting nose which often springs directly from the frontal bone with little or no nasion depression. These skulls are in many ways similar to the [Western European] Megalithic or Long Barrow type of the preceding millennium; but, as is to be expected in view of their late eastern Mediterranean origin, show modifications toward a shortening and widening of the vault, and a beaking of the nose."
(Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe)


* * *

MOORS

"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."
(John Baker, Race)

* * *

"The racial character of the richer, city-dwelling Moors of Andalusia, before the time of their expulsion, may be suggested by a study of the almost wholly unmixed descendants of these emigres in Morocco. In the city of Sheshawen the old, aristocratic families are descended from the former aristocrats of Granada, and have lived endogamously since 1492. A little Riffian blood has crept in, but aside from that the Sheshawen families remain an island of Andalusian Moors on Moroccan soil.

"A small, homogeneous sample of these people shows a much closer relationship with Spain than with Morocco. They are a little longer-headed (194.5 mm.), a little more dolichocephalic (C.I. = 76.5) and a little longer-faced (123 mm.) than the Christian Andalusians; the bigonial diameter of 103 mm., although wide for Spain as a whole, is of Andalusian size. The Sheshawen Moors have predominantly dark brown hair and dark brown eyes, with brunet-white skin color. In facial morphology, they are fully Andalusian. The implication is that the Moors in Spain took more from the population of the peninsula, in a racial sense, than they gave."(Coon, The Races of Europe)

------------------------------------------------------------ -----

Racial Types

Carthaginian general Hannibal and his father Hamilcar Barca, depicted in statuary and coinage of the time:


* * *

Illustrations from the Tale of Bayad and Riyad, Islamic Spain, early 13th century:

 

Doesnt change the fact that these people were not related to the aboriginal sub-Saharan "negroid" Africans, whom today lay claim on these hitorical figures and civilizations for pure political reasons, and often backed by ignorant ultra liberals who think they have an open mind because of it. Just look how close Hollywood came to using a black man to play Hannibal, what kind of evidence is there that he was even remotely black? None, his busts and coinage show the complete opposite, it showed a man relatively caucasiod middle eastern in appearence.

Im not trying to be racist or hateful against blacks. Personally, I dont see how anything that has happened so long ago can have such a big effect on the people and nations of today outside of making your nations history class a bit longer....

But this crime needs to end, and entities like Hollywood need to stop buying into it for their "unity" and "equality" purposes. It is complete and utter falsification of history...

Finally, think that Hollywood wants to be an equal opportunity employer, so they get black people working in films about Rome. But having Nordics acting as Italians or Greeks, or even as Egyptians, is equally contradictory, don't you think? Humankind isn't just divided in the clasical three "races" but shows a much greater scope of diversity... and you can't ask Hollywood to be reaslistic... they are just a fabric of dreams.

Yes but in those occasions I would say it's rather different. Many of those times it is based on good looks. Its still wrong, Ill agree with you there. But Hannibal being black was entirely based on the (what I call) "Ignorant knowledge" of Hollywood and their need to be PC in everyway possible. They were actually discussing the idea that Hannibal could have been black-African in appearence.

Afrocentrists also claim Elamites as blacks  

Maju: How can caucasoids possibly be derived from a mix between Africans and Asians (do you mean East Asians?). 

Dark skin on caucasoids is NOT due to sub-saharan admixture

This is probably because they spoke a Dravidic tongue and modern Dravidic speakers of Soutehrn India look quite darker than most other Eurasians (but they are not Africans genetically, at least not anymore than any European - we all came from Africa at some point).

Baluchistan was also known as Land of Blacks but again they should be referring to Austro-Dravidic populations, not African Blacks. Color of skin is so irrelevant!

Read Cavalli-Sforza's Genes, Peoples and Tongues. The theory is based in the following facts:

1) Using the most commong method for genetic distance classification, he gets a tree with two main branches: African and Asian (or Eurasian, if you wish), obviously meaning that one group migrated to Asia and another remined in Africa in early Human prehistory (100,000 years ago?). Thes two branches then divide in several other branches till we reach some rather easily recognizable modern ethnic, racial and linguistic groups.

This is the tree:

2) But, using the method of minimal derivation (or something like that), he gets another tree (whose image I don't have stored), simmilar in many aspects but with an strikingly short branch for European and other Caucasian populations. This can mean two things: a very large demographic density in Europe-Near East during Paleoloithic, what would have prevented genetic derivation but what we know is not the case... or rather a intense and early admixture between peoples of the African and Asian branches, what seems much more likely. Cavalli-Sforza concludes that the apportion is 2/3 Asian an 1/3 African more or less, so the Caucasian branch of Humankind is still in the Asian group but separated and closer to the African.

Not in most cases, I agree. Color of skin can evolve too easily to be any relevant genetic marker.

 You certainly can't compare todays egyptians with ancient egyptians. The arab invasion of egypt came much later. But still many Egyptian do have negroid features even nowadays the coptic look pretty much like ethiopians.  The original egyptian would very likely be very similar to the nubians, however, there was a gradual influx of asians into egypt. Usually the pharaohs would married middle eastern princess, so gradually the noble would look more and more like middle easterners. Then there was alexender and then the romans. You can actually see the trends by looking at the artifacts , the earlier civilisation was actually not very different from the ethiopians yet not quite nubians (nubians are usually ebony black, ethiopians are usually dark brown), while one of the last cleopatra would have been almost white.  But the egytian in it's essence is very much an african civilisation, origination somewhere near nubia, and gradually following the nile.

I was reading Newsweek magazine and there was a picture of the young Pharaoh Tutankhamen as how he would really look like, they used modern Radiologic equipment, CT scans, Xrays, to construct his skull, as well as have modern forensic teams unmask what he really looked like.  In the end, its safe to say....he didnt look like Eddie Murphy.

Heres a link about it on National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleri es/tut_mummy/

You are right on this one, they look like they've come from greece. But i doubt they are related to the earliest egyptians.

 Check this out. It is call nubian tribute. You could clearly notice the nubians and the egyptians in the drawing. Look at the clear cut facial differences btw nubians and early egyptians. You'll notice that

1. Egyptians has a clear notion of the racial diffrences btw nubians and egyptians.

2. Nubians are protrayed darker but also less dark, just as the egyptians. So you could have egyptians as dark as nubians.

 Compare a sudanese to an ethiopian,  it looks that you can do the same drawing by substituting the  egyptian with the ethiopians and the  nubians with the sudanese

 Then there is this early drawing of xenophobic egypt, there was a decapitated nubian head, an asiatic one, and some other race that the pharaoh was holding. None ressembles the pharaoh. THe nubian was darker, the asiatic much lighter with also distinct facial differences (the drawing was that accurate, they could portray racial sterotype). For me it is easy to conclude the earliest egyptians were in fact very african but distinct from the nubians rather similar to ethiopians if not darker gradually becoming whiter with invasions. And their were more invasion coming from the north than the south. usually Southern egypt would be more military oriented restoring order and Egyptian rule in period of anarchy.

 However, many pictures of the egyptian that we know came after alexander and romans invasion of egypt, it is possible that the elite has become white gradually. But this doesn't change the fact the original egyptian has nothing to do with arabs, romans or greek.