History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedMoors were Black

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1415161718 26>
Author
jfsndvs View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 00:55
There is entirely too much use of outdated racist termonology.  I'm posting a very interesting talk from biologist/anthropologist Shomarka Kieta at Cambridge University.  He is by no means an Afro-centrist.  He basically says that most evidence points to an African origin for northern Africans, and that the populations are virtually reflective of past times.  He dismisses terms like "sub-saharan african," "black african," "negro," etc.  He believes that culture, language, and history are more important determinants of who a people are.

This talks is about Afro-Asiatics and Egypt:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3yFCoIdXc
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaK2CmKyUfk&feature=channel_page
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhImWZiXG4k&feature=channel_page
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHeZKNmrBVQ&feature=channel_page
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qErhFiCvyKE&feature=channel_page
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c__JhIjz9g&feature=channel_page

Here are some remarks by him on specific controversial issues:
1. Origins and Misconceptions of Egypt and Nile Valley inhabitants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoeELytDAFo&feature=channel_page

2. Ancient Egypt, Its Neolithic History and its Sudanese & Saharan Connections
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woi5H3jHJNg&feature=channel_page

3. Limb Proportions, and Living population example of the Egyptian mummy skeletal type
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a79_WyK79A&feature=channel_page

4. Afrocentrism, Eurocentrism, The Reinforcement of African Diversity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwMvxir1n7Q&feature=channel_page






Edited by jfsndvs - 13-Mar-2009 at 00:56
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 02:13

The author seems to be serious and really a profesional schollar that knows his business. He express concent well and balanced... except in a point that I know he is wrong.

No matter nobody could deny the influences from the Horn and Nubia in upper Egypt, he seems to forget purposedly that the lower Egypt was just besides Palestine! and that Egypth and Mesopotamia made a continuous region known like the Fertile Crescent.
 
He forgets purposedly that the civilization is OLDER in Mesopotamia than in Egypt and that SOME influences from there came to Egypt as well.
 
Such bad memory produce a loss of credibility, no matter the person knows what he is talking about.
 
Anyways, this thread is on Moors, not Egyptians...
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Goocheslamb View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 02:37
if your really wana know what moors looked like you have to look at the morrocan people of today. Morrocans are not black at all
Back to Top
goldenstar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2009
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 03:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Well, Afrocentrists are wrong. The Conquistador was only the boss, and they were, of course, Spaniards. What is true is that Conquistadors brought some Black slaves to help them to carry bags and other minor works. I wouldn't call them "conquistadors" at all 
 
LOL


To carry bags... LOLLOLLOL

Quote Yes, Afrocentrists are wrong, as you are thinking Averroes is not a Spaniard Wink... He was, as much as Seneca was Spanish too! (no matter people think he was Roman) Al-Andalus is the heritage of Spain; not matter it was conquered and founded by foreign armies. Just see the flag of Andalucia (Al-Andalus) and you will see it is green!! Big smile


The flag of Saudi Arabia is green too... LOL

I am joking Wink


Great Spanish Al Andalus Clap

Of course, it is first the heritage of locals, Spaniards. Also one tends to forget it included today Portugal too, the whole of it.






Perhaps it is often forgotten that Portugese were a part of it too is because they achived independence before the reunification of what is now Spain after the 1492 defeat of the last Muslim state of Iberia.


See Portugal on the following map in the North in 1157 A.D:






 
Quote Now, seriusly, some biggots particularly in Spain, mainly extreme catholics and extreme right wingers, don't want to accept the heritage of Muslim Spain. In the case of Hispanic Americans we are more liberals, and we think the Arabs and Moors are related to us as much as Christian Spaniards.


I had crossed Spain 2 times when I was a child and I wanted to go back there, which I did in last November. The Spaniards I know seem to be happy of this heritage, even if they are proud Christians they don't reject their country's Islamic past.

It is also visible on official Spanish websites, for tourism for instance.

Arab countries used to be Christian, the ancestors of the Muslim Arabs in Egypt and the Levant were even the earliest Christians, and there is no shame in it, it is a part of their history.

Saint Augustine, eminent theologian of the Western Church, greatest of the Latin Fathers, was an Algerian from my family's region...

But pssst, he'll be labeled as a Black man soon... LOL


Edited by goldenstar - 13-Mar-2009 at 03:35
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 04:35

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


You are confused, can you quote me telling all Blacks claim other ethnicities' cultures?


Here we go,just in case you forgot.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Then I wonder why some Afrocentrists from the Southernmost part of Africa, who are about 10.000 km from Egypt, claim the heritage of its so-called ancient "Black" inhabitants. It is also strange that such various people in the huge African continent, who speak thousands of different languages and are of thousands of different ethnicities unlike the Arabs, claim the heritage of all Black entities as their own.


The blacks of Southern Africa have a great history,Including Zimbabwe and Mutapwe culture. There is no need for them to steal becuase they already have their own history,I do have a stance an some Extremist disperpetuating African culture becuase they dilute the history.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Of course yourself have a lot in common with Afrocentrists, you see Blacks everywhere especially in sites that have a great history.




What do yo mean by "you see blacks everywhere "

You would know that from previous post on why people should not dilute history. I have not taken away your Moorish culture.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


By the way, did you say exactly what ethnicity and nationality you belonged to?



If you must know I'm of Afro descent with a grandparent who was East Indian and mixed with other ethnicities,and another Grandparent with prominent east african ancestry. So to say I like to claim other peoples history just because I have I interact or am related to it is bnonsense I identify with were I am accepted,I am related to and most of all have a history with,you don't see me trying to boast and brag about Chandragupta


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


And who are you to say Egyptians and Maghrebis are Sub-Saharan Africans who mutated?


Techinically we all mutated why do you think there are so many different races and thats including most africans west east south and wherever.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Mauritanians claim themselves that they are Arab, they don't identify with the Black ethnicities of the South. By the way, you are the one who said they were Sub-Saharan, so check facts before to assume things.


Arab is broad term and is very vague especially when you have Nigerian Fulani that claim to be Arab too,but that really doesn't matter.its like Afro -Centrist saying an Aborigenne is black just becuase he is dark skin you are using the same idea,that is too broad of term especially when they are many arabs who fight each other who don't get along.




Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Egyptian people, who I know very well too (having met thousands of them) identify with the Arabs and their North-African counterparts. What you fail to understand is it is their common identity, noone is trying to identify with other people's cultures, which is different from some Africans including yourself trying to identify with people who do not want them as a part of their people because they are just not the same people.


Zahi Hawass a very repected Egyptolgist,of course we know Egyptians don't identfy with black but but according to him they don't identfy with Arab either.
 

Heres what he had to say.Sleepy

"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency

Also it is not your place to say what a culture can or can't claim if you don't belong to them

Quote Also,for your other statement they are Christians in West Africa and muslims in the Southern Part of Africa I don’t know why a immature boy chooses to use these uninclined points to make a case.I have west African friend who are muslim who do like the company of all Africans,



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


You are making a word play again, I was talking about Muslim countries of West Africa, there are Muslims in France too, and Christians in Egypt, more puns?


You really don't know how all West Africans view other Southern Africans nor can you  define them,are you sayin muslims in West Africa don't have problems with africans whether christian or not  at least 3000 miles aways.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


I doubt Muslims in Senegeal identify with the Christians of Southern Africa, they may think they have a common ancestry and share the tragedy of slavery or colonialism but they wouldn't claim the same history as them, religion is very dividing.


It doesn't matter what you doubt,you said it youself you want no part of Sub -Sahran culture "so I doubt"Wink your in tune with that culture.I have Senegalese,Nigerians who are all not prejudice despite relgion or culture.

Quote also they are many prosperous countries in Africa.



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


South-Africa is relatively industrialised, largely due to White colonisation and the European elite, but the natives do not enjoy any benefits and their life level is not much higher.


Again we have the term white which is a very empty meaning,you obviously have an affection for using politcal incorrect term.


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


How am I an extremist? I only defended the fact medieval or ancient Moors were not Black people.


You use the raciall slur like white and black time and time again showing how linear you are to ethnic designation


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


If stopping your mad project of making Egyptians a part of your Sub-Saharan nation is extremism, irony is also a part of your personality.


Quote First off you have no proof of me advocating any extremist rhetoric or administering any radical annuociations,wheres the proof.  







Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Show me proof they had contacts with each other. Most Sub-Saharans had no technology and didn't even know the wheel for human transport, how could they have crossed thousands of miles to meet each other in the way civilised nations like your beloved Aksum for instance, had contacts with other people?


The abudance of gold was found in Africa along since Africa was only in possession of it,not to mention the contacts with the land of Punt and otherabundant resources we know they had contact.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


LOL, and you say you are not an Afrocentrist, you're now claiming North-Africa was Black and became lighter! LOL

North-Africans are Blacks who became White, is that ever logical? LOL LOL

Stop being irrational, the perfect way to solve your problem of viewing reality with so many word plays dancing in your mind to convince yourself about your dreams, would be to remember that all human ethnicities came from Africa anyway, a few hundreds of thousands of years ago scientists assume.


You said it right,what do you think I mean,since most geneaology scientist agree that black e3b is moreverly african and that is what most Northern Berbers possess then they are African who's phenotype did indeed just adapt black skin. You said yourself most scientist agree that they came from east africa.

By the Way Eurasia is  part East Africa, and yes  e3b is  in east Africa,and no I'm not saying that east africans should stake a claim to berber culture or are connected Im saying get you need to study about genetics a little more,and understand basic realities.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Oh and, don't play the cultured scientist who owns all knowledge, phenotype is enough to say whether an ethnicity is preodominantly Black or not, besides of course for blind (or idiotic/desperate) people of course... LOL


This proves your ignorance.Big smile

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Whether you dream about it or not North-Africans are not Black Wink


I never said they were either I said they were race of people who gene wise altered very distant from most africans but still have carry e3b which is indisticnly African.And no they were not genetically muated in recent years to say that Moors were black or Numdians were black please don't try to say I did either.

Finally, of course North-Africans are Africans, Africans being originally people from North-West Africa, that would be Sub-Saharans who are not originally Africans, they became African in the Middle-Ages when their current name was applied to them by their colonisers.

Oh and, the own website you are using tells:

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Eurasian Origins of the Berbers.

Lactose tolerance gene supports a Eurasian origin of Berber populations

A new study lends further support in the Eurasian origin of the Berbers. This further explains their Caucasoid racial character and argues against some theories of Afrocentrist scholars that Berbers are simply adapted supra-Saharan Africans. We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations.

Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin withE uropeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans.

The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic.The Mauritanians and West-Saharans, in contrast, bear substantial though not dominant mtDNAaffinity with sub-Saharans.


http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/04/lactose-tolerance-gene-supports.html



Eurasian is African Clown ,and  we now alot of the mtDNA E3b is found,along with other Eurasian halpogroups HV,HVO,J, like but most would agree e3b shows a significant presence

Quote These are North African sample and show2.39% of population whereas the Egyptians have 40-45% frequency and have 4% to 5% sub saharan halpogroup in their genome,and they are not found in Europeans  at least no higher then 1%  of the populace give me more sufficent evidence.



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:



You didn't read the article, it is the proof Europeans carry similar rates of Black African genes, even Scandinavians do have Black genes.


send me the article again because it really said nothing.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


When you say 40-45%, do you mean Egyptians are 40-45% Black? You mean 40-45% of them have a common gene or group of few genes with Blacks, wich is extremely different.


Ding Ding Ding,Lets see what you get for the grand prize.Thumbs Up


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Maghreb and Europe did not bring as many slaves as Egyptians in their lands that's a fact.


They should 5 NW africans with the gene and I never said the Khosian Hg was relevant in that populace.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


 What is the average proportion of Sub-Saharan genes in the Egyptian population? Of course it is a very minor contribution, that is not very far from that found in Southern Europeans such as Greeks, Iberians, and Italians. Your number by the way are an average, it doesn't mean all Egyptians carry those few Black genes.


Alright I think you forgot what you said.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


 You mean 40-45% of them have a common gene or group of few genes with Blacks, wich is extremely different.



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


If you want to conclude all people who have 1% of genes that are specific to Sub-Saharans, are Blacks, even if most of their genome is not Black, then that's your choice, but noone is really understanding this strange and irrational logic.


It means since its more than 1% and is actually 4% to 5%  sequences there is reasonable amount of sub saharan genes in the population which means there was once a presence






Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


That's TOTALLY wrong, Muslims had plenty of Black wives of slavish origins, and ancient Egyptians married Blacks as well. I think you're not very informed about this topic. Plus there were plenty of Blacks in ancient Egypt or Greece.




Could it of made a really big significance it that period of time,abd we know ancient egyptians married blacks why do you think Kush kingdom itermarried with the dynastic pahroahs alot of times during th e18th dunasties and other times.


Read this study:

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506?dopt=Abstract

I guess Greeks are Blacks too, and they then became White! LOL
Are you now going to claim the heritage of ancient Greece simply because a few of their genes are only found in Sub-Saharan Africa and in no other ethnic group in the Mediterranean?

All people are Black? LOL

Wow, if this is Black science then I am happy science didn't develop a lot in Sub-Saharan Africa...


Where your logic and your gettin  really desperate now.




Indeed, and North-Africans were not forced to adopt Arabic or Islam, they're happy to be Muslim and Arab.


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


How was Berber not used? I didn't get it, Berber was always the major language of North-Africa and became a minority only following the arrival of Muslim Middle-Easterners.


This is really becoming tiresome why didn't you use Berber language if you ruled over you Maghreb empire.

There was not Visigoths in North-Africa, you are wrong again, it was the Vandalic kingdom, and its cultural influence was very minor and left almost nothing, no Vandalic language spoken there.

No I said "I guess the Vandals and Visigoths got boring But all the while Arabic is not consdiered indigenous to North Africa by scholars."

so after difussion of North Africa you were very likely to adapt to something new.



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Yes, no matter how many times you contradict facts, scholars consider Maghrebi Arabic to be the indigenous language of North-West African Arabs, like French is indigenous to France, even if its exact origin is central Italy. If we took your logic then Africans would not be indigenous to Sub-Saharan African, as original Africans are Mediterraneans. LOL


Confused I'm talkin culture wise,why hasn't berber language become promienet if you had that affect.






Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Land, continent? None of those concepts existed in ancient times, try again. If we took your Afrocentrist logic it would be more acceptable for Egyptians from the African side of the Suez Canal to adopt distant Zimbabwe's culture than the culture of their own fellow Egyptian people from the Asian side of the Suez Canal, a few metres away in the Sinai Peninsula... LOLLOLLOL

Ridiculous, you can also make such comparisons with Iberia and distant Yemen, I guess they are probably closer to each other than Iberia and Maghreb (14 km away) are because Maghreb is Africa while both of Yemen and Iberia are the Eurasian continent, not to mention Japan and China... Big smile

People from Ireland and Britain are less close to French people than they are to Blacks from Cap Verde because both live in the Atlantic Ocean... LOLLOLLOL

Your lack of productive arguments is terrible, and you have no authority or credibility to say which foreign culture other people can adher to, most people would base their logic on geographical proximity and ethnic-cultural relatedness, while illogical Afrocentrists like yourself prefer the concept of living in a common ocean or landmass as it serves their agenda. Ouch


Your using your opinions to make a psuedo classifciational standard of history,Maghreb and Arab were not the same at one point and is not Native to North Afrca.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


And? It proves nothing, perhaps the ancestors of Sabaeans created Aksum and then their descendents used those coins, that may have been introduced by Arabs as well.



Lets have some references becuase you are making whole lot of arguments up that are really useless.
[quote]And it never was conquered by Arabians get it your facts straight

there is no record of Sabea making Aksum a vassaL



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


This is your opinion but some historians think Arabian kingdoms controlled the other side of Red Sea, see this map for instance, the kingdom of Sheba controlling lands near D'm't:

http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_500bc.jpg


That's your opinion, but many historians still think the creation of D'mt was not totally indigenous and was heavily influenced by Arabs.



Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Give me some authors and Refrences to prove this ,because your just plaing around

That's exactly what I said, Kush controled the land of later Dm't and Aksum, and Kush was created after the introduction of
North-African civilisation following the Egyptian conquest...

Thanks for making my point... LOL


Do we have to make up stu ff,now do we I said Kush and Damot and Punt were are all in relations but do you have proof of them starting.Sleepy

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Ge'ez may be not a variety of Sabean Arabic it still doesn't mean Semitic was not introduced there by Arabs. All hypothesises exist.


Isn't strange that D'mt used Arabian scripts to write and didn't have its own alphabet while all Semitic speakers did? At least, it means Aarbs taught the locals how to write apparently.

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


Do you have a source for this statement? Since there were state structures and organisations that allowed Numidian kings to invade distant states such as Egypt, it is most likely that it was not as primitive as the lands of the future Dm't before the Egyptians allowed the creation of the civilisation of Kush.

Anyway, few nations had cities and knew urbanisation in the 2nd millenium B.C, a creation of the ancestors of the Mesopotamian Arabs, and almost all Sub-Saharans still had none until a recent period.


The fact is there was no Numdian city vefore Phoenecian conatct and the Carthage only lied on the coast of North Africa.
Sleepy
Sleepy
Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:



And you are wrong again, the Numidians never invaded Egypt it was the Libu.
You are probably reffering to the immense progress and benefits that enjoyed Sub-Saharan populations through Western colonisation, which pulled Sub-Saharans out of their endless isolation and brought modernity to them.

Of course I don't deny the massacres that were committed, and the fact European colonisers did this to serve their own agenda, but the fact is if it wasn't for their presence in Black Africa there would be nothing but stone age structures today.

So when you say North-Africans were happy about the Phoenician presence, the difference is they had a choice, unlike people of Kush and later D'mt, who were conquered by North-Africans with the sword.

If Numidian kings were primitive at this time how could they have the ability to negociate and allow foreigners to settle in their lands?

You also have a problem with the word colony, and with all words generally speaking as you read them literally speaking with no discernment, which causes you to make tons of historical anachronisms.

A colony in ancient times is not the same as an invading colony of the past decades, it simply meant a community of a few immigrants living in a foreign land, and that of Didon was only a small piece of land to build a city, not a whole country colonised by invaders.



You have no proof of Kush invading damot also,you seem to know get the facts of Queen Dido and Iadras they're actually really is now confirmation of the Numdian king and Tyre queen making a deal.

You speak as if queen Didon created the large Carthaginian empire, while she died long before this small city evolved into a big state. By the way, do you have sources for all those delirious statements? LOL


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


You are repeating yourself, no historian would agree that the people of Carthage were Phoenician colonisers, it is a fact they were native Berbers who had adopted the Punic culture and mixed it with their own customs.

his number is said to not be credible by modern historians, it is only the exaggeration of ancient authors.

1) You mention an army, which had to be mobilised for exceptional purposes, while Phoenicians were not fighters but travellers.

2) You cannot compare the immense Persian empire with a small community such as the Phoenicians. Cyrus controlled huge lands including today Iran...





... while Phoenicians were a small nation and their weak demography would have never allowed them to displace hundreds of thousands of people from their original homeland. Even if they were a lot of people, they couldn't have done it by sea, the way they travelled, the transport techniques of this epoch didn't allow to mass move so many people by sea thousands of miles away...






I invite you to check a map of the Mediterranean to see how far Carthage is from Tyr, in today Lebanon, it is in distant Asia.





Finally, the descendents of Phoenicians, Levantine Arabs, belong to the same ethnic group as Maghrebi Arabs, so if you're jealous of the Carthaginian heritage of Maghreb it is your problem not ours...


You are no better than afro-centrist now ,becuase now you try to use your Maghreb culture being arab and the Lebaonon culture being arab to fit your historyBowing

Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:

Really, where? LOL

"This region around the first cataract, called Nubia, had been conquered and colonized by Egypt in the fourth millenium BC."


It says it was conquered and colonised by people of the modern Arab World in the 4th millenium B.C, not that the kingdom of Kush existed since 4000 B.C

By the way, 3000 B.C is the 4th millenium B.C, while 4000 B.C is the 5th millenium B.C...

... do you have some difficulties to calculate?

 I know what it means but this seem like a fluke eassy written by some college boy look at the link.
Well you have no case,some confused archealogist and scholars decide say that Kerma Nubian came 3000bc or 3 millenia bc as you put it but there is no record of Egypt ruling at the 1st or 2nd catarct,and more so was theKerma or Kush able to be conqured,when there is no people there.

Pre Egyptians are thought to have orginated at Napta,look at the archeoastronomical Megalith older than the Stone Henge so how are they Primitive.Not to mention their findings of their old cult of Hathor.


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:


There is no word play, you're the specialist of this game. Ancient Nubians are the ancestors of Arab Nubians, it is their heritage not yours.

Most Sudanese call themselves Arab people, whether they are mixed or racially Black they always see themselevs as part of the Arab world, and I also met many. You can mention the minority of Blacks who live in the South, but they have nothing to do with the creation of Kush.


Originally posted by goldenstar goldenstar wrote:



That is for the sudanese to decide you are deposition to determine what the sudanese are, they are arab becuase of their relgion and language,but they do love their culture.


* Maghrebi Arabic gave thousands of words to European and Sub-Saharan African languages. Malta, a country of European Union, speaks Maltese, a variety of Maghrebi Arabic. God in Maltese is said Alla.

    * Maghreb conquered a large part of Sub-Saharan Africa and spread its influence and religion there, which remains Islamic to this day.

    * All historians including Western historians assume that by spreading its knowledges and technology in Europe, as well as Greek books that Muslims had preserved, translated, commented and improved, Maghreb has contributed to help the West reach its current level in technology and its prominent place of leading power in the world.

    * Today the West helps the whole world develop and progress thanks to its technology and achivements in science, Maghreb contributed to that in the past.

    * The influence of Maghreb also spread the Arabic numerals. Maghreb created its own number system inspired from Middle-Eastern Arab numerals (based on the system of the Indus valley civilisation) and spread them into Europe, which then spread them into the whole World.

    * Italian scientist Leonardo Fibonacci was educated in Algeria with Maghrebi methods, and then came back to Europe and spread his new knowledge./quote]

Now I'm gonna make the term Nord-Afro-Centrist becuase you are an Afro-Nut.

The stuff you mention are menial,the architecture is of Arabic orgin and we do not see it with roman Numdian Structure,


And basically your maghreb scholars I must say I do adore,but most are just courriers for greek books when they were also books brought back from the crusades.Influencing foods of the mediternean well we most people don't eat it,and Languages is not significant becuase Arabic is not your language,Maghrebs did not conquer large parts of the Sub Sahraha thats not true, they were influential and but did not conquer-Major parts of the Sub Sahara.


Anyway with After THE Queen Yodit  topples the Aksumite Empire  a prince escapes slaughter and his descendants The Mara Takle Haymanot found  the Zagwewhich is succesion of the Aksumite kings in Abbsynia. The king Labeila makes the famous churches of Labeila called 8th wondesr of the world look it up  and Yemerehanna Kristos built on a lake,with the steales being the biggest oblisk in the world of the orginal aksumite kingdom.



Edited by AksumVanguard - 13-Mar-2009 at 11:51
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 11:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Indeed. Afrocentrism is a invention of Black Americans, that many Subsaharans don't share. In fact, Afrocentrists are not usually interested in Zimbabwe or the archaeology of Nigeria. They are not interested in tribal Africa or in the courage of Zulues.
 
 


Exactly,just as the Maghrebs have a rich culture .Many people do adore the other great civilzations of all cultures and know not to confuse a peoples history with another.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 12:17
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:



The blacks of Southern Africa have a great history,Including Zimbabwe and Mutapwe culture. There is no need for them to steal becuase they already have their own history,I do have a stance an some Extremist disperpetuating African culture becuase they dilute the history.

Well, if that history is so great, why people with that heritage don't claim theirs ancestry, instead of resorting to grab other peoples past?

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:



Techinically we all mutated why do you think there are so many different races and thats including most africans west east south and wherever.
 
We all mutated from chimps time ago, and we all come from Khoisan people, but the time scales are ten of millions (first case) and hundred of thousand of years (second case). Changes don't happened in seconds. So the idea that humans mutate like the Ninja Turtles is wrong.

 
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


It doesn't matter what you doubt,you said it youself you want no part of Sub -Sahran culture "so I doubt"Wink your in tune with that culture.I have Senegalese,Nigerians who are all not prejudice despite relgion or culture.
 
I have Eastern Island friends; but I don't know what it has to do with the topic Confused

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


You said it right,what do you think I mean,since most geneaology scientist agree that black e3b is moreverly african and that is what most Northern Berbers possess then they are African who's phenotype did indeed just adapt black skin. You said yourself most scientist agree that they came from east africa.

By the Way Eurasia is  part East Africa, and yes  e3b is  in east Africa,and no I'm not saying that east africans should stake a claim to berber culture or are connected Im saying get you need to study about genetics a little more,and understand basic realities.
 
So, when the split happened? Or you still are applying Ninja Turtle's reasoning.
It is very well known mankind appeared in East Africa and we all descend from Khoi-Sans like people, Ethiopians including. However, that Ethiopiancentrism based in e3b and other markers is just pseudoscience. Moors are not mutant ethiopians. They are other people with theirs own past that deserve to be recognized by that.
 
Period.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 13-Mar-2009 at 12:21
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 12:54

If we go far enough back, then we're all the same. East Africans are more closely related to Arabs than West Africans are, but they may be more closely related to West African than they are to Arabs. North Africans are perhaps more closely related to East Africans than they are to West Africans, which means that they haven't had much influence from West Africans, especially if we go far back.

It is possible to argue some different scenarios - one scenario has the peopling of North Africa from the East, originate outside of Africa, another scenario has the peopling happen directly from East Africa.

Of course, East Africans today aren't just one people, but several very different peoples anyway.

 

Never the less, the OP made a claim in the title of this thread, and if the premise is that there is no SSA, and there is no Black or White, then the OP's statement is still wrong, no matter how you look at it. The Moors were quite simply not a West African people in general.
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, if that history is so great, why people with that heritage don't claim theirs ancestry, instead of resorting to grab other peoples past?


Like I said I do not grab other peoples history you have not see me grab other peoples or try to claim it as mines.neither do any of the people with afro descent I know of.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Techinically we all mutated why do you think there are so many different races and thats including most africans west east south and wherever.




Well I think you got the picture,like you said it takes time to mutate and every human' s  genome on the planet has Khosian based markers so it numerous generations of chromosome recombanating and  mutating will our genetic make up different henceforth the gene while not  show up excessively ,so for the Khosian marker to show up at 4% sequences means they were very well  have thier parantage just recentlly.





Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


It doesn't matter what you doubt,you said it youself you want no part of Sub -Sahran culture "so I doubt"Wink your in tune with that culture.I have Senegalese,Nigerians who are all not prejudice despite relgion or culture.
 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I have Eastern Island friends; but I don't know what it has to do with the topic Confused




Originally posted by goldenstar


I doubt Muslims in Senegeal identify with the Christians of Southern Africa, they may think they have a common ancestry and share the tragedy of slavery or colonialism but they wouldn't claim the same history as them, religion is very dividing.
 




I agree you should ask him why he said that.And I don't know what Eastren Island has to do with anything



Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


So, when the split happened? Or you still are applying Ninja Turtle's reasoning.
It is very well known mankind appeared in East Africa and we all descend from Khoi-Sans like people, Ethiopians including. However, that Ethiopiancentrism based in e3b and other markers is just pseudoscience. Moors are not mutant ethiopians. They are other people with theirs own past that deserve to be recognized by that.
 

Thats wrong most humans do not have genetic sequences split from Ethiopian genetic markers.In fact the Ethiopian halpogroup is thought to 20,000 years, while most West Africans halpogroup have come came 30000 years go called e3a.And Khosians are not located in Ethiopia contrary to popular belief,they're in Tanzininia,and Bostwana,and south eastern africa region,no one is saying that  humans are genetic markers are based on most Ethiopians.
And I never said Moors were mutant Ethiopians are Afrcans with a very unique phenotypeClap

http://africaonwheels.pbwiki.com/Khoisan



Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

So, when the split happened? Or you still are applying Ninja Turtle's reasoning.
 

I don't know exactly when different ethnicties have different points and time,but you shold check it out.Wink
Period.
 
 


Edited by AksumVanguard - 13-Mar-2009 at 13:06
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:37
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

If we go far enough back, then we're all the same. East Africans are more closely related to Arabs than West Africans are, but they may be more closely related to West African than they are to Arabs. North Africans are perhaps more closely related to East Africans than they are to West Africans, which means that they haven't had much influence from West Africans, especially if we go far back.

It is possible to argue some different scenarios - one scenario has the peopling of North Africa from the East, originate outside of Africa, another scenario has the peopling happen directly from East Africa.

Of course, East Africans today aren't just one people, but several very different peoples anyway.

 

Never the less, the OP made a claim in the title of this thread, and if the premise is that there is no SSA, and there is no Black or White, then the OP's statement is still wrong, no matter how you look at it. The Moors were quite simply not a West African people in general.


Thumbs Up And that quite well sums it up.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:43
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

...I don't know exactly when different ethnicties have different points and time,but you shold check it out.Wink
Period.
 
 
I know as well. And I also know some Asians returned to Africa... Confused
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 14:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I know as well. And I also know some Asians returned to Africa... Confused
 


 What are you trying to get at?And what do you mean?Ermm
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 14:27

Nothing!

I just want people stop fooling around with Moors and recognize they are the people of the Maghreb, and that theirs CULTURE is theirs, and only theirs.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 14:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nothing!

I just want people stop fooling around with Moors and recognize they are the people of the Maghreb, and that theirs CULTURE is theirs, and only theirs.


I agree I've told the Moorish Science,and other strange quasi urban groups to stop fooling their history and get the exact facts straight of the culture.They are seen as jokes within  with Afro culture alike.

I wasn't understanding how the Maghreb ruled France, when Charles the Hammer halted them at the Battle Of Tours,thus The Frankish king saved Christianity. I didn't know that slavery existed with the Berbers too.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 14:48

The Maghreb didn't rule France. Muslims tried to invade it, but were stopped by Martel. The Maghreb didn't rule Spain either. Most of the time it was under Arab control, and only after the Moravides and Mohaves, Al-Andalus become really dependent on Morroco.

Arabs and Maghrebis expanded to the south, and not only helped to build the "African" states, but started large scale slavery as well. The European simply followed the example of the Moors.
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 15:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Maghreb didn't rule France. Muslims tried to invade it, but were stopped by Martel. The Maghreb didn't rule Spain either. Most of the time it was under Arab control, and only after the Moravides and Mohaves, Al-Andalus become really dependent on Morroco.

Arabs and Maghrebis expanded to the south, and not only helped to build the "African" states, but started large scale slavery as well. The European simply followed the example of the Moors.
 


As I thought its one thing to invade and occupy and another to have rulereship and authority over the citizens.

I know the Almoravids were reinforcements for Islamic cities such as Cordobo and were displeased with some of the Islamic tradition their.

How were the Berbers taken captives thou and sold in slavery,also the Sonninke people of Ghana had their beginings in the 4th century and where known to have blacksmith and Mason,and other crafts already had a civilization there in their own right.




Edited by AksumVanguard - 13-Mar-2009 at 15:14
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 15:17
Slavery was a common practise in the Islamic world. In the Middle Age West, by contrast, the most common explotation were servants under feudal rule.
 
Muslims used to get slaves from all over Europe and from Subsaharan Africa. That trade started in the Western Mediterranean after Arabs and Moors invaded subsaharan Africa, of course.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Slavery was a common practise in the Islamic world. In the Middle Age West, by contrast, the most common explotation were servants under feudal rule.
 
Muslims used to get slaves from all over Europe and from Subsaharan Africa. That trade started in the Western Mediterranean after Arabs and Moors invaded subsaharan Africa, of course.


In which regions were they shippied to meaning where in the Mediterenaean and where which Islamic Fatmids and emirates where needed their labors needed.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 00:11
Find out. For that there are history books.
 
Perhaps you could take a look at this:
 
 
Slave routes
 
About the nature of slavery in North Africa:
 

Segal notes "The high death rate and low birth rate among black slaves in the Middle East and the astonishingly low birth rate amongst black slave women" in North Africa and the Middle East.  "Islamic civilisation.lagged increasingly behind the West in protecting public health.  The arithmetic of the Islamic black slave trade must also not ignore the lives of those men, women and children taken or lost during the procurement, storage and transport.the sale of a single captive for slavery might represent a loss of ten in the population  from defenders killed in attacks on villages, the deaths of women and children from related famine and the loss of children, the old and the sick, unable to keep up with their captors or killed along the way in hostile encounters, or dying of sheer misery."

Slave Market

How you can see, history doesn't confirm the idea of an "African unity".
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
goldenstar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2009
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 05:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Maghreb didn't rule France. Muslims tried to invade it, but were stopped by Martel.
It is not correct, Muslims did not only try to invade today France, they successfully maintained there for many years.

France invaded Egypt in 1798 and was expelled in 1801, 3 years of occupation is still not called an invasion attempt, but an invasion, even if there were permanent battles and resistance in the same period.

Muslims invaded today France several years before Charles Martel defeated them, they were defeated and stopped in 721 in Toulouse for example, 11 years before their 732 defeat in Poitiers (or Tours), they reached Lyon and Autun in Northern France in 725.

There were both defeats and victories, like the Muslim capture of Bordeaux in 731, and it didn't stop military advances.




The region of Narbonne was controlled for about 1 century, and later Maghrebi pirates captured a piece of Provence that they ruled until they were expelled in 973.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=L8E4fXzp1WAC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=guillaume+provence+973&source=bl&ots=TySIRGhV9d&sig=m5v_Lo4bsebJlpZVlIa2oh661DU&hl=fr&ei=yFe7SfakN-DDjAfyl82NCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result



Having been born and raised in France, I always heard about this topic.
Quote The Maghreb didn't rule Spain either. Most of the time it was under Arab control
It is like saying Spaniards didn't make the Reconquista, but rather Castillans and Aragonese people... it is an oxymoron because Maghreb is Arabic. Also, at this time the Arab Maghreb included not only today Maghreb but also Al Andalus, Arab Maghreb means Western Arab World in Arabic, in contrast with the Middle-East.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580310/maghreb.html

Quote and only after the Moravides and Mohaves, Al-Andalus become really dependent on Morroco.
It is not entirely correct either, after the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate  of Cordoba, Al Andalus begun to fracture into small, independent Taifa emirates, and several of them were led by ethnic Maghrebi sovereigns, sych as the Zirids of Grenada.

The Zirids of Granada


By Andrew Handler,
University of Miami Press, 1974

In the eleventh century, Muslim Spain, otherwise known as al-Andalus, was divided politically into dozens of small states.  Known as the Taifa Kingdoms, these mini-states fought with each other and with Christian kingdoms to the north.  One of the most important of these Taifa states was Granada, ruled by a branch of the Zirids, a Berber tribe from North Africa.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/handler.htm

Moreover, the Maghrebi dynasty of the Almoravids ruled there starting in the 1000's, the end of Muslim rule was the year 1492 after the fall of Granada. The reason why the Maghrebi dynasty of the Almoravids conquered Al Andalus, is the local Muslim monarchs called them to save them from the threat of the Northern Christian kingdoms, which had begun the Reconquista.

What you mean is Al Andalus was not first ruled by dynasties that were based in the modern territory of Maghreb, but the fact is Al Andalus was controled by Maghrebi troops and today Maghreb's states with the Caliphate of Cordoba were not separated but one single Arab civilisation.
Quote Arabs and Maghrebis
It is like telling Castillans and Spaniards made the Reconquista... it is an oxymoron.

At the time of Al Andalus, Maghrebis had begun a part of the Arab World for a while.
Quote expanded to the south, and not only helped to build the "African" states, but started large scale slavery as well. The European simply followed the example of the Moors.


Muslim mass slavery is a reality... but Europeans practised slavery as-well since ancient times, they were just too far from Sub-Saharan Africa to use it as a reservoir as Arabs did Wink

Slavic people owe their name to their slavish ancestors, who were mass enslaved by Christian Europeans including Charlemagne's empire as they were Pagan ennemies, and sold to Muslim merchants by the way, until their conversion to Christianity.


slave (n.) Look up slave at Dictionary.com
c.1290, "person who is the property of another," from O.Fr. esclave, from M.L. Sclavus "slave" (cf. It. schiavo, Fr. esclave, Sp. esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav), so called because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slave


Edited by goldenstar - 14-Mar-2009 at 07:21
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1415161718 26>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.160 seconds.